Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, what I am about to say exactly matches the last remarks of the previous speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
Before becoming a member of parliament I worked in parks and recreation at the municipal level. I was a recreationist. I had studied in this field. Over the course of many years I visited a number of national parks in Canada.
For example, this summer I visited Fundy National Park. One can say that there are really incredible and beautiful natural attractions there. I do not wish, like my colleague, to say that the employees of Parks Canada are not doing their work properly and that they are not taking the time to do it right, but the fact is they do not have the resources they need.
I would like to quote from the 1996 report of the auditor general. In chapter 31, on the management of national parks by Parks Canada, the auditor general makes the following statement after studying a sample:
In the six national parks we reviewed, Parks Canada's biophysical information was out-of-date or incomplete except for La Mauricie.
It seems that everything is fine in La Mauricie Park. Curiously, it is in the Prime Minister's riding. It seems that there was considerable effort and investment in this riding by the federal government; sometimes the investments are made in businesses, sometimes, invoices are missing, but I will not go into that.
It is a beautiful park. It appears that, with the exception of this park, there are problems. According to the report:
Monitoring the ecological condition of the ecosystems in national parks is a high priority, according to Parks Canada policies and guidelines. However, in many national parks, the ecological conditions are not monitored on a regular, continuing basis.
It also states that management plans for 18 national parks were an average of 12 years old, even though they ought to be reviewed every five years.
The report goes on:
The park management plans provide strategic direction for the protection of park ecosystems.
The auditor general added:
Delays in preparing management plans and ecosystem conservation plans reduce Parks Canada's ability to preserve the ecological integrity of national parks.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to create a new structure because Parks Canada proposes a new structure, the marine conservation areas, which will duplicate the Fisheries and Oceans Canada marine protection areas and the Environment Canada protected marine areas.
I can claim some knowledge in this area, even a considerable amount of knowledge about parks. I studied that field at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières. Parks were part of the curriculum and we had access to data. I have retained my interest in this area and have continued to meet with experts in the field.
People may wonder what the differences are between “marine conservation areas”, “Fisheries and Oceans marine protection areas”, and “protected marine areas”.
Judging by what we heard from public servants, the Fisheries and Oceans people were getting their terminology all mixed up.
Now that there finally was some kind of consensus with regard to fisheries management plans, these people are not too happy about this new structure that could create duplication within the federal government. We in the Bloc Quebecois have often said that the federal government should be careful not to duplicate structures that already exist in Quebec, that it should work in partnership with us instead, as in the case of the Saguenay park. In that case, it was done through special legislation that dealt specifically with that park. It is a good example that should be followed more often. It is a good example of governments working together.
Instead of that, there is infighting in federal government. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. Three departments are involved. I do not know if this bodes ill or well for the future of fish in Canada.
I thought the Department of Canadian Heritage was mainly responsible for culture and history. I understand there is such a thing as a natural heritage, but structures, like those at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, already exist within the federal government to deal with the protection of wildlife. It goes without saying that protecting the fisheries and all marine species means protecting the sea floor. We must protect the shores and the flora of the St. Lawrence River as well as those of Canada's oceans.
However, when committee members and public servants themselves voice concern, we too should be concerned. These days, with the 300% increase in the surplus announced by the Minister of Finance, some bills just reappear, like Bill C-8, formerly known as Bill C-48. We have heard about it for many years and now, here it is again. It suddenly becomes important to invest money or to promise to invest money before the election. In the end, they are unable to clean things up within the federal government and between the various departments. What a waste. What a bad example the federal government is giving the provinces.
When the government cannot respect jurisdictions and creates duplication, confusion or dissatisfaction, it is going against the principles of good business management. What would big business do? Some businesses merge and amalgamate to prevent duplication and unnecessary spending. Some experts even say they go too fast in some cases. The federal government is establishing three structures that will in essence deal with the same thing, plant and animal life. Now it is trying to add a heritage dimension on top of all that. I hope that it does not want to turn the fish into objects to be put in a bowl once they are dead. I hope this is not what they want to do.
I know the people well, but I do not want to make jokes about a serious matter. Environmental and wildlife protection is a very serious matter. My colleague from Jonquière keeps bringing up this issue in caucus meetings. Each time she rises to speak—we sometimes find it annoying, but we must give her credit for her strong commitment—she tries to drive the point across that this issue must be given priority. I agree with her. Members will understand that, as a former director of parks and recreation, I am very much interested in that issue.
Since my time is almost up, I will conclude by saying that before investing in new structures, setting up new programs, doing new things and spending new moneys, the federal government should streamline and clean up its own act. It should develop better conservation plans.
It should do what the auditor general said it should do in 1996. Four years have passed already, and it has not acted on it yet. People in the environment community, public servants, volunteer organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited Canada, and every environmental group in Canada, all those people are concerned.
We are more concerned about Quebec, but we think the government should work in closer co-operation with provincial governments, particularly that of Quebec. That government too has jurisdiction over that area, as well as programs and structures.
I hope the Liberal government will pay attention to what we are saying.