Debates of May 5th, 2000

Government Response To Petitions

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the standing orders I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 25 petitions.

Petitions

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present on behalf of my constituents.

Both petitions urge parliament to withdraw Bill C-23, to affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and to ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my fellow citizens of Rimouski—Mitis, I would like to table a petition by over 1,500 people.

The petitioners really want the government to do something to lower the price of petroleum products, which is outrageous and seriously restricts tourism in our region. This is one way for many people to earn a living between May and September.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 98 constituents of my riding who ask that parliament withdraw Bill C-23 from its agenda as it fails to emphasize that marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition bearing 5,043 signatures. These people are asking the government to require the mandatory labelling of all GMOs.

This petition comes from my riding of Louis-Hébert, and I am very proud to present it.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 containing tens of thousands of names. The petitioners come from the communities of Kamloops, Chase, Logan Lake, Clearwater, Barrière, Blue River, Westwold, Savona, Deadman's Creek, Little Fort, Red Lake, Paul Lake, Monte Creek, Monte Lake, Falkland, Vavenby, Birch Island and many more.

It is a very long petition. Basically the petitioners are calling upon the government to consider a major overhaul of our taxation system; not the sort of tinkering and fiddling that we have seen, but a complete overhaul based on the principles of the Carter commission of a number of years ago.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on an unrelated issue I have another petition from residents primarily of the Kamloops region.

The petitioners ask the federal government to consider introducing a national highway program so that the national highway system of Canada could be improved. They indicate that if the transportation infrastructure were to be improved it would increase productivity, trade opportunities, job creation and tourism.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 45 will be answered today. .[Text]

Question No. 45—

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

For the fiscal years from 1995-96 to 1998-99, can the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, indicate whether one or more employees of the House of Commons or the Senate of Canada and/or federal member(s) of parliament, cabinet minister(s) or senator(s) received money from CSIS, and if so, can CSIS produce the documentation and the names of the individuals in question?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Based on precedents of the House of Commons followed for many years and noted at paragraph 446 in Beauchesne's, when responding to inquiries or parliamentary returns, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, does not comment on operational activities nor release specific details of its budget and expenditures for reasons of national security. This practice is consistent with the policy set out in section 19 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act that requires that the service not disclose information obtained in the performance of its duties and functions under this act.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-27, an act respecting the National Parks of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada National Parks Act

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted by oral question period, I was referring to the Panel on Ecological Integrity report—and had reached the third statement:

The Panel concurs with the conclusions in the State of Parks 1997 Report. Ecological integrity in our national parks is in peril.

On the following page, the Commission continues as follows:

Parks Canada currently lacks the necessary capacity in both the natural and social sciences to effectively manage for, and inform society about, ecological integrity in national parks. With notable individual exceptions, all levels of Parks Canada lack a well-established culture for conducting, using and appreciating science as part of park management, interpretation and regional integration.

This eloquently and clearly demonstrates that Bill C-27, which we have before us, ought to clearly give priority to the mission of protecting the integrity of the natural environment instead of to visitor enjoyment, as clause 4 states very directly. This is yet another clause in the bill which shows a certain lack of concern for ecological issues. I refer to clause 8(2), which states:

8(2) Maintenance of ecological integrity through the protection of natural resources shall be the first priority of the Minister in the consideration of park zoning and visitor use.

We believe that, in the French version of the bill, the phrase “s'efforcer avant tout” is not strong enough to ensure the ecological integrity of the national parks. This phrase is a joke when we know that currently the national parks system receives 14 million visitors a year and that, with a 4.5% expected growth rate, the number could double in the next 15 years.

This is why the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks is suggesting Parks Canada radically modify its corporate culture. The following are some of its recommendations:

That Parks Canada transform itself and change its training, staffing, decision-making and accountability structures to reflect the central importance of ecological integrity throughout Canada's national parks and make ecological integrity the core of every Parks Canada employee's job; that Parks Canada upgrade its social and natural science, planning and interpretation capacity to be able to manage national parks according to the principles of ecological integrity and better educate the public, and that Parks Canada cease the product marketing of national parks and concentrate instead on marketing in keeping with parks values and focused marketing when necessary.

Clearly, the concept of ecological integrity must be made the priority of the bill. Moreover, we must see to it that ministerial statements are translated into action in the field.

While calls for a change in the corporate culture of Parks Canada are coming from everywhere, year after year we see a steady decline in the financial resources Canadian Heritage is allocating its national parks system.

Before the Liberals took office, Parks Canada had a $410 million budget. Today, its budget is $350 million. Its staff has been reduced from 4,000 to 3,000.

Parks Canada paid dearly for budget cuts, as Kevin McNamee, of the Canadian Nature Federation, stated in evidence before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, during the study of the bill creating the Parks Canada Agency. He said:

I think it's important to recognize that there has already been a tremendous loss of experience in corporate knowledge from Parks Canada across this country. Three rounds of budget cuts, the Mazankowski budget cuts, the loss of Green Plan funding programs I and II, the reorganization of Parks Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage—all have had a toll on the agency.

I could continue quoting Mr. McNamee, but I will move on.

Furthermore, it is worth reminding the House that some people saw in national parks an opportunity to play petty politics. For instance, the November 22, 1972 edition of the Montréal Matin reported that, on November 19, the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the current Prime Minister, speaking about the Mauricie park, had stated, on CTV, and I quote:

I used this park to break the Quebec government's back. And I tell you I am proud of this.

That is a quotation from the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and present Prime Minister. It was not me who said that.

Such attitudes are revolting. If we want to protect the integrity of the environment, we must do what it takes.

The proposed legislation also provides for the designation of historic sites. However, it provides nothing about consulting the provinces, and that is very disturbing. That is unacceptable. Clause 42 of the bill provides that the Governor in Council may set apart any land, the title to which is vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada, as a national historic site of Canada.

While generally it is only natural to do as we please on our own turf, certain initiatives must be taken in consultation with local people and their local and provincial elected representatives and in accordance with existing acts and regulations.

Recently, the transport department ignored the Quebec moratorium on road advertising and allowed one of its agencies to take out a lucrative contract for the installation of two dozen billboards along well-travelled roads in Montreal, thereby jeopardizing the safety of Montrealers and visitors.

The Bloc Quebecois will call for an amendment to that provision of the bill in order to ensure the conformity of federal actions with those of other levels of government.

In conclusion, I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-27 in principle. But before principles can be turned into reality, there are often practical considerations that have to be taken into account, the first one being the respect of interested populations and their local governments. That is why the Bloc Quebecois will listen to the representations that they will make.

First and foremost, this bill cannot and must not perpetuate the overuse of national parks resources for recreational purposes. On the contrary, it seems to us in the Bloc that the preservation of the ecological integrity of these parks should be the priority in this bill.

The weather is nice and warm today. I encourage Canadians to visit their national parks; a word of caution however: respect the environment.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-27.

I would like to start my remarks by reading section 4.(1) of the bill, which seeks to amend the National Parks Act. It states:

4.(1) The national parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and the parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

I do not think there is a person in Canada who would argue with those sentiments regarding what we consider to be one of our national treasures, which is our national parks system.

In fact, throughout the notes and the newspaper clippings regarding Bill C-27 people use the term national treasure. The word treasure seems to come up very freely in people's minds when they think of Canada's parks. It is probably very Canadian that our greatest national treasure, our parks system, has no monetary value. It is a very Canadian thing. Perhaps it is ironic that we cannot put a price on our national parks. Nor should they ever be commercialized in any way.

This is the sentiment that most Canadians have brought forward to the committee that is dealing with Bill C-27. If we stopped most Canadians on the street, I think they would emphasize over and over again that the last thing they want to see is the over-commercialization of what we consider to be our heritage and our national treasure, which is our national parks system.

The original National Parks Act was passed in 1930. The most recent changes were as long ago as 1988. The National Parks Act sets out legislative mechanisms for preserving our national parks system. It exists solely to preserve our national parks, and we must keep that in mind.

Some of the comments made earlier today by members of other parties frankly worried me in that both the tone and the content of those remarks would lead people to believe that maybe there should be a movement afoot to expand the commercialization or even to expand access to the national parks, which would put into jeopardy their greatest quality, the wilderness aspect and the truly pristine nature of the parks, which is a tourist attraction not just to Canadians, but to people all around the world.

On his radio program not long ago Peter Gzowski said that every year he goes to our newest national park in the high Arctic, a remote, inaccessible, fly-in type of wilderness reserve. He has done this annually since the park was a created a number of years ago. He was saying that he has yet to run into another Canadian tourist there. The people who visit the park are the Japanese, the Germans, the Swiss, the British—people from densely populated areas of the world who value and cherish the pristine nature of the true wilderness of the Canadian north and the Canadian parks system. That sort of struck me. I think maybe we do not appreciate what we have here. I think we undervalue the true resources we have in ecotourism.

It would be like killing the goose that laid the golden egg to allow an advanced level of commercialism into a park. It would deter from the ecotourism opportunities that should exist for generations and generations. Those opportunities would become more valuable as the settings became more rare and more threatened by expansion.

There are parts of the world, and I have travelled to many of them, where human beings have soiled their nest to the point they can no longer lie in it. These people want the peace and serenity that comes with communing with nature to a degree that we can only do in our national parks system.

We are very pleased that Bill C-27 will amend the National Parks Act to streamline the process of establishing new parks. We feel this is very important. We feel that the current system of establishing new parks has been cumbersome and lengthy. We believe that the system could benefit greatly if the early stages of the research necessary to establish a new park could be done by order in council instead of parliament. Ultimately, the final choice has to be made by parliament, but the intermediate steps could be done by order in council. This would streamline the process for creating new national parks.

We in the NDP are very pleased that Bill C-27 will control the commercial development within park communities. There are seven communities within our national parks. All communities, by their very nature, wish to grow, prosper and develop. However, we have to treat these seven communities very differently. There has to be a different set of rules because of the very sensitive surroundings they find themselves in. They are unique in Canada. We have to allow these communities to prosper and flourish as a community without the normal type of expansion that we see.

Steps have been taken to limit the population in Banff National Park for that very reason. The town of Banff has to be curtailed because of its immense international popularity. People naturally crave and seek to live in those types of beautiful surroundings. This has to be dealt with by government. We are glad to see that Bill C-27 will expand and enhance the ability of the government to regulate that sort of thing.

The amendments in Bill C-27 will increase the protection of wildlife and other park resources. I know the hon. parliamentary secretary used some examples of the horrific impact of poaching, whether it is for trophies for hunters or whether it is for the trafficking of animal parts for medicinal purposes and so on.

The hon. member used the example of Dall sheep. I am well aware that the value of a Dall sheep trophy head is upwards of $150,000. There is an enormous temptation for those who are leaning that way to abuse the system and poach these animals. Sheep Mountain is within Kluane National Park, where I used to work, where Dall sheep are very famous. They are hunted legitimately by hunters with permits, but they are also poached. I am very glad to hear that Bill C-27 will take steps to further punish those who would threaten our wildlife resources through poaching.

We in the NDP believe that Bill C-27 is a Liberal reaction to what has been allowed to become an absolute mess. I spent the first few minutes of my speech pointing out the things that we appreciate about Bill C-27, but I would be remiss not to point out the fact that devastating Liberal budget cuts year after year have decimated the ranks of our Parks Canada staff.

The cuts have decimated the parks in the sense that staff no longer have the ability to control the traffic through our parks or the number of people using our parks. Our national parks in Canada are in desperate need of repair.

Before I blow its horn or sound its virtues too loudly, Bill C-27 is the bare minimum that the Liberal government could be doing to address what we consider to be an abrogation of responsibility. Some cuts just do not heal, and the cuts made to national parks personnel have really threatened and jeopardized the integrity of our national parks system.

The bill formally establishes seven national parks, most of them with names that I cannot say, as they are in a language I do not speak. Three of them are in Nunavut, I am pleased to say. One is in the Northwest Territories. One is in my home province of Manitoba, on the shores of Hudson's Bay, and is called Wapusk. Wapusk in the Cree language means white bear.

This area on the shore of Hudson's Bay, in the federal riding of Churchill, is one of the very well known breeding grounds and calving grounds for the polar bear population. I am very pleased to see this area recognized and protected within the parameters of a national park.

There will be a new park called Grasslands in the province of Saskatchewan, which will preserve some of the native prairie of the great prairie region that I come from. There will also be a new park in Newfoundland called Gros Morne. I should point out as well that in British Columbia the Pacific Rim National Park will occupy the area currently occupied by the West Coast Trail, a very popular tourist destination. This area has such a degree of traffic and such an interest for international travellers that it is only fitting it should be preserved and enshrined as a heritage area and designated as one of our national parks.

There has been a great deal of interest in the bill. I have various newspaper clippings in which journalists have commented on the action that will be taken by Bill C-27. One interesting comment which was made in an Ontario newspaper pointed out that under the current legislation, unbelievably, there are no legislative controls on commercial development in park communities.

People took it for granted that our parks were being cared for better than that, that successive governments would have been seized of the issue adequately enough to make sure that there were some legislative controls on commercial development within our parks, but this article points out that all that exists is a provision whereby the boundaries of Banff and Jasper may be fixed by adding them to a schedule of the act. That is a pretty modest intervention; not really enough to be satisfied that our national parks are being cared for or that commercial expansion is not threatening the integrity of our parks.

We are pleased that within the proposed legislation community plans based on legislated principles will be proposed for each park community and that those community plans will be tabled in parliament.

The legislation would control commercial development in the park communities by providing the authority to entrench in a schedule of the National Parks Act the boundaries of each park community, the boundaries of the commercial zones and the maximum commercial floor space allowed. We are really getting quite specific. We are defining how big we will allow these communities to get within our national parks.

No one wants to see the beauty of our national parks trivialized by turning them into a Disneyland. We do not want Dolly Parton setting up some kind of a theme park within one of our national parks. In my opinion, that would cheapen those parks for all future use.

As I said earlier, there are seven communities within the national parks. Everyone is aware of the towns of Banff and Jasper, and the visitor centres of Lake Louise, Field and Waterman Lakes, but not many people know that Wasagaming and Waskiseu are also within national parks. All of these communities experience to varying degrees internal pressures to develop. As I said, it is only natural for a community and for the town councillors to want to promote and expand their community. We have to caution them that they have the great privilege of living within one of our national parks, among the scenery, the beauty and the serenity of our national parks, and that they have a unique obligation to maintain their community, perhaps even to a higher set of standards than we hold for people outside the national parks.

That will be in the legislation. It will no longer be an option. It will be deemed to be law.

The community plans will have to be tabled in the House of Commons. Most Canadians agree that a community plan for a community within a national park has to be consistent with the management plan for the park, first and foremost. A town or community will have its own objectives and goals. Those goals will have to be harmonized with the long term interests of the park.

In the aboriginal community there is a saying that no decisions should be made until we consider seven generations back and seven generations forward. I think that would be a good motto or theme for people who are considering the future of our national parks. We have to consider with any changes we make what they will do for at least seven generations forward. That would be our obligation. If every generation adopted that, we would move forward with some cohesive plan.

I have already talked about the poaching penalties. I am pleased to see in another newspaper article that the penalties range from a $10,000 fine on summary conviction to a $150,000 fine and/or imprisonment of up to six months on indictment. I approve of that wholeheartedly.

Having lived in the north and having seen poachers in action even within the boundaries of our national parks, our party supports thoroughly the idea that penalties should be increased to be commensurate with the crime. As our natural wildlife resources are depleted and get more and more scarce, that crime is becoming more and more severe than it ever was before. It should be viewed that way.

Bill C-27 could be considered to be the Liberal response to a series of damning reports on Canada's national parks. It is no secret to the general community what 10 years of negligence has done to the national parks. It has been well documented and well recorded in a variety of reports, not the least of which is the 1996 Banff-Bow Valley task force report and Parks Canada's own 1994 and 1997 state of the parks reports. Another very damning and condemning report was the landmark report of the Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada's National Parks.

The term ecological integrity comes up often. I noticed the minister borrowed this language when she first announced Bill C-27. In her statement of March 16, 1999 when she tabled this legislation and spoke to it on introduction, she said, and this is one comment with which I agree, “Our national parks are treasures that we must protect for all Canadians and for all future generations”. Nobody can argue with that kind of lofty principle.

She went on to say, “The tabling of the bill fulfils my June 26, 1998 commitment to take further steps to preserve the ecological integrity of the country's national parks”. That is where we have to blow the whistle. It is really stretching things to say that the tabling of Bill C-27 fulfils her June 26 commitment to take further steps to preserve ecological integrity. I cannot agree with that and I am surprised the minister had the nerve to say that Bill C-27 achieves that.

As I said, the term ecological integrity sums up the prevailing wisdom of environmentalists in regard to development within parks. It is common language usage and it has a very specific meaning to those who are experts in the field. It is not just two words thrown together. People recognize the term as meaning a certain thing. I do not believe the minister can convince anybody that Bill C-27 is going to have the effect of actually preserving the ecological integrity of our parks.

The person who currently chairs the environment committee, and I am unable to remember which riding he represents, but when he was a member of the opposition in 1988 he was also a member of the environment committee. He proposed an amendment to the Canada Parks Act.

[An hon. member]

Davenport.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, he is the member for Davenport. I thank the member who has just helped me with the riding name of the chair of the environment committee.

The member put forward an amendment to the Canada Parks Act that would have given some satisfaction to the concept of ecological integrity but his own party voted it down because the language was too strong. I guess the Liberal Party was frightened by the language. He did not even get the support of his own caucus.

The language of the amendment he put forward in partnership with the leader of the NDP was that “the ecological integrity and the protection of natural resources shall be the first priority when considering the uses and activities of and in our national parks”. Had that language succeeded in 1988, the national parks of Canada would be in a far different state than they are today. It would have been binding in the truest sense of the word. This would have regulated and would have been the enabling language where the enforcement officers could have acted in the first interests of the national parks and not in the first interests of commercialization, expansion, development, real estate, and all the other competing interests for our treasured national parks. Had the Liberal party supported its own member on the environment committee with that amendment, it could have carried the day and we would have been facing a different situation today.

I am here to say on behalf of our caucus and on behalf of our national parks critic that the New Democratic Party believes Bill C-27 is a good start. We in the NDP are happy to say that we believe the basic tools for saving Canada's national parks are found in Bill C-27. However, like most Liberal legislation, we believe that Bill C-27 stops short of doing all that is really necessary to protect the ecological integrity of Canada's national parks system.

We will be fighting for amendments to the act. There is a long list of them here, but the first and only one I have time to express is that we want a definition of ecological integrity built into the act so that people fully understand the impact those words really have and what they mean to the environmental community.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, my question deals specifically with two of our most notable national parks, namely Banff and Jasper. Most Canadians would agree that those are the two that stand out in most people's minds.

It is quite valid for beautiful places like those to be accessible not only to Canadians of wealth, but ordinary Canadians as well. They should be accessible to those who come here from other parts of the world simply because they want to enjoy and admire the grandeur of God's creation in this part of the world. It is highly desirable that these places be accessible to people.

The member has indicated there should be no privatization in these parks. Is the hon. member proposing that the government should operate hotels, lodging places and places which supply meals for visitors? Should the government do it instead of private enterprise or is he simply proposing that we put up big fences and just keep people out altogether?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thought I had made myself quite clear that we were against the expansion of commercialization of the national parks beyond what would be found within a community plan. The community plan would be limited and regulated by parliament or by the department, certainly by government. At no time was I saying that all private interests should be kept out of our national parks. We are not advocating the nationalization of motels.

I remind the hon. member that he opened his remarks by saying that these places should be accessible. I agree that they should be accessible within reasonable limits. He talked about people having the right to enjoy the beauty of God's creation. I remind him that God's creation is a very fragile place. The very ecosystems we seek to preserve so we can show our children a little bit about God's creation are very fragile. Once lost, they are lost forever. Accessibility is one thing.

Even revenue generating is not an evil thing. If tourists wish to come here from other parts of the world and they have the wherewithal and the means, charging them a fee to get into our parks is not untoward. Accessibility is a dual-edged sword. We should not be pricing people out of enjoying the grandeur of our national parks.

To answer the twofold question of the hon. member, we cannot have unfettered access to the parks. The hon. member used the example of an airstrip or future additional airstrips within the parks. I disagree wholeheartedly.

The other side of the question was commercialization. We are against the unfettered expansion of communities within the parks and the commercialization of retail stores, et cetera within the parks, if it exceeds the community plan that was put in place by the national parks act and the regulatory bodies.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I suppose we could just step outside and have a conversation but we are doing it publicly here.

The member said specifically that he was against the presence of the small grass airstrips which are there. It is not possible for large aircraft to land there. The small aircraft strips are designed mainly for emergency and some recreational use by people who own small planes.

If a small plane in the area is in trouble, would the member rather have the pilot put his airplane into the side of a mountain or to have an accessible airstrip? That is one question. The second one is very short. I would like him to respond to the present method of providing for the enlargement of a resort location. Presently it requires a change in the act by parliament. According to Bill C-27, it is going to be put entirely into the hands of the minister. Is the member pleased with that?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, to answer the question about a small grass airstrip within the park, I used to be a land use manager officer within the parks system in the Yukon. Every national park or provincial park has airstrips, means of egress, and an emergency measures operation manual for getting people in and out if there is an accident, an emergency, a forest fire or any number of things. Those provisions already exist.

I understood the member to mean a sports and leisure access for hobbyists, for small plane owners to buzz around the national parks. I can say that the ultralight craze was very disruptive to the porcupine caribou herd that used to go through the Yukon. Wealthy sports enthusiasts would buzz around the porcupine caribou herd so that they could get closer pictures of them. I do not think we want to encourage that at all but I am satisfied that we have to have access into the park and a means of egress for emergencies, forest fires or whatever.

In terms of allowing the expansion of parks or the creation of new parks to be determined by order in council, I do not see that as negative at all. I do not see it as taking away the authority of parliament.

It is clearly stated in Bill C-27 that only the initial stages of the expansion of a park or the creation of a new park can be done by order in council. The ultimate choice and decision would still be made by elected officials in the House of Commons. We are not threatened by that. We do not think that is a devolution of powers to the bureaucracy or to the ruling party alone. We think that will expedite and fasttrack the creation of new parks. Our party is very much in favour of that.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, with some trepidation, it is a pleasure that I rise today as we begin the important process of examining Bill C-27, the Canada national parks act.

I recognize that changes are necessary if we are to protect and enhance Canada's national parks system. Yet I am concerned, among other things, that Bill C-27 will lead to the reduced role of Canada's parliamentarians in the creation of future national parks and national historic sites. Furthermore, I believe the bill will seriously restrict the ability of local residents living in our national parks to have any meaningful input into the future of their communities. For instance, clause 9 of the bill reads:

Powers in relation to land use, community planning and development in park communities may not be exercised by a local government body, except as provided in the agreement referred to in section 35.

The agreement in question is for the town of Banff, but what about the town of Jasper? In the May 2 Gazette there was a story about the residents of Jasper who were very upset about a Parks Canada plan to more than double and even quadruple the annual rates residents and businesses paid for their land.

We are talking about a figure of $2.2 million being suddenly increased to $5.2 million. I would call that a very significant increase.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage will likely point to the fact that living within one of Canada's national parks is a privilege. To live within one of Canada's most beautiful scenic areas in the world is probably a wonderful privilege, a privilege which I am sure the residents truly appreciate. However, let us not forget that for many of these residents, this national park has been their home for many years. They grew up there, as did their parents before them. They have a vested interest in wanting to help preserve the natural beauty of the area.

Mr. Dick Ireland, a chairman of the town committee that has some limited input into the way Parks Canada manages Jasper, bemoaned the lack of municipally elected officials by declaring that the existing system is basically a system by which the residents pay taxes without the benefit of representation.

Instead of improving the situation, I am convinced that this bill will only make things even more difficult. Where will these people turn to? Who will be their advocate? Will the heritage minister be able to meet their needs?

The same problem exists in other national parks where people live on a permanent basis. I have received letters from some of those residents who want to express their displeasure with this bill. They are not satisfied with the way they are represented, even if they pay taxes. They see no solution in this bill.

As it stands now, these residents feel like they are paying taxes without any representation.

I expressed concern about the lack of input being afforded parliamentarians in the creation of a new national park. I can appreciate why the Liberal government would want to reduce the lengthy process involved with designating an area as a new national park.

As we recently witnessed with the creation of Tuktut Nogait National Park in the Northwest Territories, it can take virtually years before we can finally arrive at a satisfactory agreement.

Nevertheless, I think it would be a mistake for us to shirk our responsibility simply in the name of expediency. Creating new national parks by an order in council will rob Canadians of an opportunity to witness some healthy debate. It reduces the role of parliament by transferring more power to cabinet.

To remove any lands from a national park would require an act of parliament. If an act of parliament is required to remove lands, then perhaps it should also require an act of parliament to create new or expand existing national parks.

Perhaps my fears should be lessened by clause 7.1 of the act which states that any amendments to our national parks will be tabled in each House of parliament and then referred to the standing committee that considers matters relating to parks, which in this case would be the Canadian Heritage committee.

I would welcome such a move since it would give our committee an opportunity to closely examine the proposed changes while also providing interested stakeholders another chance to voice their opinions on the amendments. The government of the day would do well to heed the advice of committee members.

The fact that Canada's national parks are in decline comes as no surprise. Successive studies conducted in 1990, 1994, 1997, and most recently the report released by the panel on ecological integrity of Canada's national parks, have all called for immediate action to help protect the ecological integrity of our national parks.

As a member of the Canadian Heritage committee, I take these calls for help very seriously. As I am sure all members of parliament know, the Progressive Conservative Party has a long history of wanting to protect our fragile ecosystem through the creation of national parks.

Our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, recognized the intrinsic beauty of Canada's natural environment. He also recognized, or perhaps he could foresee, the deep-rooted affection Canadians would have toward their environment, which is why he created Canada's first national park in 1885.

I think it would be very interesting to witness the reaction of our first prime minister if he could come back and see the changes that have occurred in the town of Banff since he designated those 26 square kilometres around the hot mineral springs. He likely never envisioned the tremendous expansion that has occurred in this little area when he was contemplating Canada's first national park over 115 years ago.

The town of Banff in particular, but also Lake Louise and Jasper, have grown tremendously over the years. The natural beauty of the area has attracted tourists from all over the world. These three areas are primarily responsible for the over four million visitors the park welcome every year.

This national park has provided a tremendous boost over the years to Alberta's economy. The increase in tourism has brought about an increase in development within our national parks. Hotels, lodges, golf courses and ski trails have all contributed to the tremendous growth in the area.

However, we now recognize that this growth has not come without a price. The physical landscape has been affected and the wildlife has felt the ill-effects of the countless intrusions by humans.

I think we all recognize that something has to be done. Even the local residents who make Banff, Lake Louise and Jasper their home would agree that some changes are in order to help protect and preserve their environment.

Let us face it, local businesses are there to stay. Therefore, it is imperative that we find some kind of workable balance that will respond to the needs of the local community while also managing to address the need to maintain ecological integrity.

I went to Alberta three times to visit our national parks. After discussions with the local people, I am convinced that they want to work with the federal government to find a solution that would meet their needs. They want to be part of the solution, not of the problem.

The federal government will have to work with these people to find a solution. Unfortunately, the minister seems more interested in imposing her solutions than in negotiating to find a reasonable agreement.

Following the introduction of this proposed legislation, the premier of Alberta responded angrily, accusing the federal government of failing to consult with them prior to formulating the bill. With such critical decisions required to limit the further expansion of commercial interests within our national parks, it might have been better or more conducive to achieving agreements had the government entertained full public hearings in this matter.

It has been the history of this minister to approach a situation in a very confrontational manner. Rather than working together to find a solution to a problem, she is often quick to impose her own ill-conceived solutions that in the end satisfy no one.

Under the proposed legislation, a community plan for a park must be consistent with the management plan for the park according to the guidelines set forth by the minister. The community is effectively being dictated to as to how its community is to be run in the future.

The minister seems to want to assume responsibility for all decisions affecting our national parks despite the fact that some of these decisions might fall within town jurisdiction.

Canadians have often complained that they are being regulated to death by government. When I look at some of the regulations contained in clause 16(1) of the bill, I ask myself whether all those regulations are really in the best interests of Canadians.

It says that regulations could be made respecting the protection of air quality and cultural, historical and archaeological resources. First, the federal Minister of the Environment failed to live up to the Kyoto agreement so please do not blame me for being a little skeptical about the Department of Canadian Heritage somehow being more successful in protecting our air quality.

I am pleased to see the minister wanting to manage and regulate the fishery in our national parks. Let me tell the members that she cannot do any worse than her colleague, the fisheries minister, who has yet to find a solution to the Atlantic fisheries crisis.

As for respecting culture, I can see where placing a life size photo of Wayne Gretzky and Lucy Maud Montgomery in downtown Banff will really improve the cultural or cultural component of the town. Is it not somewhat ironic when one thinks of it? One of the problems identified in the state of the parks report is the overabundance of tourist traffic in our parks, yet we would have the minister introduce these life-sized figurines in Banff to attract tourists.

There are many positive elements to be found in this proposed piece of legislation. The legislation, although flawed in a number of areas, should provide Parks Canada personnel with a set of rules that will provide them with the support they have been asking for to ensure the long term protection of Canada's national parks.

I am personally encouraged by the government's commitment to conservation and protection of wildlife and other park resources. It was imperative that any new national parks act contains stiff penalties for poaching. Each year we lose an unacceptable number of our wildlife and this must stop if we really are concerned with ecological integrity.

Our wildlife must be protected against offenders if we want to ensure that we maintain a representative assortment of wildlife. It is important that the fines associated with illegal poaching activity be significant enough that they will serve as a strong deterrent. I believe the minister has taken this into consideration as demonstrated by the huge fines and the threat of a prison term incorporated into the legislation.

We should identify boundaries for all communities found within our national parks. However these boundaries have to be developed in partnership with all stakeholders. By this, I include local environmentalists, Parks Canada officials, the federal, provincial and local politicians, as well as existing commercial interests.

I have many concerns about this proposed piece of legislation. However, I and my party support sending this legislation to committee where witnesses from across the country have already expressed interest in appearing before the committee to share their views on the future of Canada's national parks.

After listening to the witnesses and studying the many interventions I suspect we will receive, we can then draft appropriate amendments that will allow us to get on with the task at hand of creating new parks across the country while protecting the ecological integrity of Canada's existing national parks.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.