House of Commons Hansard #31 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was ukrainian.

Topics

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Business of the HouseGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Mills Conservative Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, obviously I think there are many areas where we could work together.

Let us look at Toronto where 400 trucks a day go down the highway to Wisconsin. That has to end. It makes no sense from a trucking standpoint, a safety standpoint or an environmental standpoint. There is no argument for that. I do not understand why that happens and why we would not change that.

My frustration with this whole issue has been this. When I first came here, I went to Environment Canada. I asked officials what we could do to change the way we dealt with garbage. They told me that as a member of Parliament I could not talk about that because that was a provincial issue. They told me to go and see the province.

I talked to officials in a number of the provinces. They told me not to talk to them about garbage, or research or ask questions. They told me I should go to the municipalities.

I went to the municipalities and they said that they did not have the money to do any kind of research or development on that. They said that it would be too costly, and referred me back to the provinces.

That is the problem. The technology is there. The federal government's job is to show people the technology and show them the vision. Show them where we want to go, how we want to treat garbage and provide them with that background. Who does not have a problem with garbage?

The difference is we have to think of garbage as a resource, not a waste. We have to do some educating. We could cooperatively do that with the provinces because everyone has a problem. I am meeting with two mayors this weekend from small towns. On January 1, they will not have a place to put their garbage, and they do not know what to do. Europe dealt with that situation 35 or 40 years ago by containerizing it and sending it to major incinerators. As the member has said, the new incinerators are perfectly clean.

Yes, we would cooperate on that and, yes, we should work on that immediately.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will not be taking any honeymoon advice from him. My fiancé would not have any of it.

To get back to the bill with respect to the parks, while it is perhaps a housekeeping bill and a technical bill, there were some problems we had to fix along the way. I am also curious about the member's opinion that ecological integrity is spoken to a number of times in terms of protecting parks and their ecological integrity. With respect to historic sites, the government talks about committing $40 million. The former minister of the environment stated publicly that the minimum requirement would $218 million.

Within the bill, the government promises to protect ecological integrity and these national monuments. In making announcements today and feeling very self-congratulatory, the commitment of $40 million does not put us anywhere near the position in which we need to be. The answer then becomes, it will sell them for coffee shops, that it will sell them to the private sector. That is how the government will deal with its responsibility to protect these national monuments rather than funding them properly, and not to the tune of $40 million, but to the tune of $218 million, which has been declared by previous ministers as the minimum.

How much trust can we have in the government moving this housekeeping bill forward and in its statements on ecological integrity and protection of national sites?

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Mills Conservative Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, obviously I identified the $500 million round figure for the shortfall in infrastructure. We are in this situation because of the underfunding for many years, probably since the sixties. That is 40 some years that parks have been underfunded. Obviously we have to look at that.

As well, we have to make the point that humans are part of the equation in parks. It scares some people a little when we talk about ecological integrity. Some people would define that as meaning no humans in those areas. We have to clarify that because we need the public on side. To get the public on side to support this, any government needs to say that humans are part of the equation. Yes, there are protected area and fragile areas, but that can be controlled. However, we must always let the public know that those parks are for them and for future generations.

I think we will get full cooperation and thus support for the funding. I do not know whether it is $200 million or $500 million that is necessary, but I would say that the environment department, which now will be responsible for parks, should very quickly analyze that, come back to our committee and let us take a look at those numbers. Then we can make a recommendation to the minister.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Yukon Yukon

Liberal

Larry Bagnell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, does the member believe that moving the agency to Environment Canada might help in its work in protecting endangered species? Many parks have a good function under certain circumstances. Would he like to say anything on that or on endangered species in general?

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Mills Conservative Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, it fits in environment much better and there is a much greater chance that the environment department will understand the whole ecological picture of endangered species. We went through the endangered species legislation, debated it 11 days in the House, and spent many hundreds of hours working on it, with over 300 amendments, et cetera.

We believe we need to preserve endangered species. The problem we had with that legislation, and a majority of the committee had a problem with many aspects of it, was who would made the decisions in classifying. If we take a piece of private land out of production, there should be a definite means spelled out in the bill for compensation, and not just in the regulations because that is not in them. There should be a mens rea clause, as opposed to a due diligence clause, where a person needs to show intent for the destruction of that endangered species.

The biggest problem with the issue has been this. Alberta has had a great many fisheries officers show up all of a sudden. Those fisheries officers carry guns and wear flak jackets. Why are they there? We did not all of a sudden have a fisheries. Therefore, it is one of two things. They ran out of fish in the oceans, so they had to come somewhere or they were there for some other reason, maybe to enforce legislation that had just become law.

In talking to the Canadian Wildlife Service, it has a very few answers to how officers are actually going to administer this--

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite Patrie.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-7.

This is a bill we have had an opportunity to examine in committee. It is administrative in nature, in principle at least, but has also afforded us an opportunity to do some serious thinking about the role parks should play in Canada.

This bill was introduced on October 8 by the Minister of the Environment. Hon. members will recall that the hon. member for Victoria, who was with us this afternoon but has unfortunately has had to leave, was the one behind this bill, the purpose of which is to transfer responsibility, control and supervision of the parks agency to Canadian Heritage from Environment.

We need to keep in mind the reason we are examining this bill today. We are doing so because the government decided on December 12, 2003, to enact an order in council in order to transfer these responsibilities, as I have said, from Canadian Heritage to Environment. What is more, on July 20, 2004, a further order in council came into effect relating to the responsibilities for built heritage. It was required in order to clarify the earlier order in council. The basic purpose of the bill is to provide legislative support to the orders in council of December 12, 2003, and July 20, 2004.

What is more natural than to have our parks come under the responsibility of the Department of the Environment? What this bill reflects is the aspect of ecotourism. We cannot take steps to protect areas, to implement a policy intended to protect ecosystems and to apply notions of ecological integrity as is the mission of Parks Canada, in part, when the agency is connected to Canadian Heritage, with its totally different vocation.

It is somewhat natural, if I may use that expression, to see this responsibility being transferred to the Department of the Environment. To us it is obvious and significant. We must remember the whims of the previous Minister of Canadian Heritage; every time she touched a tourism product or opportunity, no matter what it was, all she saw was an opportunity to make political hay.

Despite the past whims of the former Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, now the Minister of the Environment, we hope that ecological integrity is at the heart of this administrative change we are now looking at in legislative form.

Of course, this is a technical change. On this side of the House we have determined that this change will not have administrative impacts that would damage or distort the working environment. That is important. In recent months we have seen the conflicts at Parks Canada and seen how the agency's employees have been treated. On this side of the House we saw this legislative change. We have, by talking to the unions, ascertained that this administrative change will not have an impact on the way the work is done. That is what the union leaders have told us and that is the guarantee the government has given us.

Therefore, there is nothing in this bill that could change the way work is organized and thus change the employee's job descriptions. What we hope is that the government has learned from the recent dispute at Parks Canada that it should provide the necessary conditions so employees can do their work properly.

When I met with representatives of the Public Service Alliance of Canada on this issue, they described the conditions in which some employees work every day. There are mitigation measures in Forillon Park, for example. With a choice between preventing or reducing the impact of erosion on a hill and constructing a wharf, the wharf was chosen. In a context where ecological integrity should have been protected, the choice was made to improve tourism infrastructure.

It is not incompatible, and I do understand that. Ecology and tourism can go together, except that management, and of course the employees who work on Parks Canada infrastructure, do not have enough resources. When ecological integrity—and those whose responsibility it is to protect it—is shortchanged in terms of resources, it is always the ecosystem that suffers in the end.

We cannot talk about ecosystems without talking about habitat, which, in turn, brings us back to the issue of species at risk and endangered species. These species will never be adequately protected, if there is no real protection of their habitat.

My concern is that the conditions facing those who manage our parks and the employees who devote their time to parks are less than ideal in terms of work organization as well as resource protection. In the coming years, we will have to not only implement administrative changes such as the ones we are considering today, but also to strengthen our network of parks in Canada.

Let us be clear however. I did not say extend the network of Parks Canada. We are basically facing choices. What are these choices that this Parliament might have to make? What decisions might Parliament, and the Minister of Finance in particular, have to make in the coming years? We have two choices. One choice would be to consolidate the network of parks in Canada. At present, everyone agrees that the current network is in an advanced state of deterioration. Even the Auditor General said so in 1996. The other choice would be to increase the number of parks in Canada.

Choices have to be made. We cannot have it both ways. Either we consolidate the existing network by providing quality services while ensuring proper environmental integrity, or we increase funding and dole out money here and there to develop protected areas all over the place, without necessarily ensuring habitat protection.

We have to think about these things. There are consequences for Quebec. I will remind the hon. members that one of the key elements in past negotiations between the federal government and the provinces was this transition from land belonging to the provinces, naturally, to land under federal jurisdiction. Increasing the number of parks and the area designated as protected increases at the same time the number of crown lands, which means that they will be under federal jurisdiction.

Very often, federal jurisdiction is difficult to enforce on these lands, whether we are talking about the Species at Risk Act or the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Quite often, these acts, which were adopted here in Parliament, are not even implemented on lands that are under federal jurisdiction.

This is why I am asking today that our existing parks be consolidated, in cooperation with the provinces and park networks.

Let us not forget that we have wildlife preserves in Quebec. We have parks that are under the responsibility of Parcs Québec. It is possible to consolidate the existing federal network while also consolidating the existing provincial network. The idea is not to increase the number of parks in Quebec merely for the sake of it.

We must care about protecting and implementing the concept of ecological integrity, which is based on the protection of our ecosystems. There is a lot of work to do in this regard, because, as I said, resources are limited and needs are constantly growing.

The report tabled by the Auditor General in 1996 is a case in point. This report was released over eight years ago. However, it was mentioned that even though Canada adopted the concept of ecosystem-based management, even though Parks Canada defines ecological integrity as a condition where the structure and function of an ecosystem are unimpaired by stresses induced by human activity and are likely to persist, the planning process does not always provide a clear link between ecological integrity objectives and initiatives. That was the conclusion of the Auditor General of Canada.

That means there is a flaw in the Parks Canada mission, in the concepts it adheres to and also in its practice.

We can only hope that this administrative change will result in concrete changes in practice. We have to make sure that the Parks Canada goal to maintain ecological integrity is put into practice.

That is why we sincerely hope that these administrative changes, which will transfer this agency from Canadian Heritage to Environment Canada, will help us move in that direction and reach the mission objectives.

I congratulate my hon. colleague from the NDP opposite as well as his party for presenting this motion, which was adopted by this Parliament a few days ago. It leaves no room for prevarication by the government. My colleague opposite took measures that have been adopted by this Parliament to ensure this responsibility truly falls to the Minister of the Environment.

Of course there are administrative changes made by order in council and there is this bill. However, in this Parliament we made sure this responsibility will truly belong to the Minister of the Environment. I think this is another way to consolidate and to make sure that ecological integrity will be maintained.

I was saying earlier that the federal government is in no position to preach in its jurisdiction. I was saying that many parks in Canada are in poor shape and their ecological integrity is not being protected. There is also the example of Gatineau Park.

Believe it or not, but Gatineau Park, which is not far from here—a few kilometres or a few minutes from Parliament Hill—does not have legal status under Canadian law. This park is the responsibility of the National Capital Commission, whose primary interest is urban development such as developing Sparks Street here in Ottawa. It is quite incredible. This park is federal responsibility, it is not part of Parks Canada's network, but rather the National Capital Commission, which in the past, has often been lax when it came time to apply the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

This land, which is under federal jurisdiction, is not protected by the same guarantees as those confirmed by Parks Canada in its mission. The park comes under the responsibility of a commission that looks after such urban planning matters as certain streets in this city, Ottawa. There is something unacceptable about that.

This is why we have representations from members of a not-for-profit organization inquiring whether this jewel of biodiversity, which is there to protect the habitat, could come under Parks Canada. I have no problem with that, provided things are done correctly, that Parliament is duly informed, and that we can guarantee the ecological integrity of the area.

We are aware that, when it comes to parks, and without saying that the law of the jungle prevails at present, there is a lot to be done. There is legal protection in place, yes, but very often no resources available. What is more, in the past, the responsibility lay with Canadian Heritage.

I greet the hon. member for Victoria, who has just joined us. I have had many opportunities to join with him in battles for the preservation of ecological integrity. It is rare to see a member of a political party as courageous as he has been in recent weeks and months. He has dared to continue to defend the moratorium on oil exploration in his region. This does him proud, and I mean that.

The government needs to understand that what is fundamental to any decision making, if we want to end up with a true strategy for sustainable development, is to put strategic environmental assessment into application, that is to say make plans, programs and policies focus on sustainable development.

This administrative change we are considering today must therefore be not just that, but have an impact on actual Parks Canada practices as well.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Marcel Gagnon Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively to the speech by my hon. colleague who is very familiar with environmental issues and speaks passionately about them. He is right to do so because it is certainly time for us to talk seriously about the environment.

I believe my hon. colleague said that he hoped the new law would not necessarily just increase the quantity of parks and the quantity of facilities, but that there would be some consolidation. He fears that the opposite will happen. I have trouble believing that things will be improved simply by changing the law.

Since this new parliament began, we have passed many bills to split up departments, add new ones, or add new structures. But all these changes will not necessarily improve things.

The hon. member mentioned certain parks, including Gatineau Park. Some parks are being neglected and more money should be allocated to improving facilities and infrastructure.

It makes me think of La Mauricie National Park. My predecessor in the riding of Saint-Maurice, Jean Chrétien, was Prime Minister for a long time. We all knew him. He defended La Mauricie National Park. I remember all the debates we had back home because we thought that the Mauricie region, in the heart of Quebec, perhaps was not the place for a federal national park.

The park was created nevertheless and it was done in good taste. I have been there very often to camp and cross-country ski.

As I listened to my colleague, I was thinking that this park, which is loved by the local people and very near to the city, seems to be neglected these days. Why is it that when something is working well, we leave it to fall apart? We are acting like children who abandon one toy and reach for another. I would also like to talk about Lac-Saint-Pierre, but I will stop here because I want to give my colleague time to answer.

I would ask him if he thinks the new legislation will make it possible to improve things in La Mauricie National Park.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to go to Mauricie park many times. I often go camping there with my family. I am an ecotourism enthusiast and I often go with my family to Mauricie park, which is very beautiful and should represent the spirit of a national park.

It has an infrastructure, a field and a protected area that has the very touristic purpose of welcoming visitors. We have noticed that the number of visitors to our parks in Canada has increased considerably because people, young and old, want to be in touch with nature.

I think we should be able to combine the concept of ecology and tourism, but we have to improve the current infrastructure, the poor state of which I have seen for myself. We have to maintain ecological integrity, especially in Mauricie park, because our parks in Canada are often used as an indicator of the ecological health of our species. Loons and the state of the loon population in Canada—in Gatineau park—is an indicator of the health of loons in Canada.

Not only are these parks a place to welcome visitors, but they are also used as ecological health indicators. Thus, we have to apply the concept of ecotourism and make sure that these protected areas are used as ecological health indicators.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, as always, I have listened to the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie with interest. I found his speech very interesting and his presentation on the law went into considerable detail.

He spoke a great deal about ecosystems and protecting areas. I share his conviction that more needs to be done as far as the environment is concerned.

I come from BC, a province where the NDP government set a ten-year objective for parks and wildlife sanctuaries of 12% of the provinces's total area. It managed to accomplish that within the ten years and was the first in North America to put in place these resources for the public.

Does the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite Patrie believe it would be a good idea to follow the NDP's example in BC and to have a target figure of 12% of the Canadian territory in order to protect our Canadian species as well as protecting our land?

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I do believe this is a goal we should pursue and which is in keeping with international conventions on protected areas. I can think of wetlands, among others, which are rich in biodiversity and which very often generate oxygen for our lakes and rivers. We must ensure that these ecosystems and areas are protected.

In Quebec, we have to recognize that we have lagged behind in the past. But I must say—and I am pleased to do so—that in recent months, in pursuing the goal the hon. member referred to, Quebec has implemented a very aggressive strategy and policy to significantly increase the number of protected areas within its jurisdiction. We must indeed pursue that. It is not always easy, but we have to develop partnerships with certain sectors.

It is clear that, to pursue greater biodiversity protection, we need to develop a strategy, building on what we have achieved in Quebec through Stratégies Saint-Laurent and priority intervention zone committees, or ZIP committees. These are organizations comprised of volunteers who want to protect the existing shores and ecosystems.

As I said, we will never succeed in adequately protecting our ecosystems in Quebec and Canada unless a strategic environmental assessment is prescribed in cabinet directions as well as legislation. Plans, policies and programs all have to go in that direction. The day this legal obligation is provided in legislation, as it is in some countries, departments, and Environment Canada in particular, will be required to comply and work toward sustainable development.

I think that this will be achieved through our protected areas and an increase in their size, in Quebec as well as in Canada.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-7. While it has been referred to in a number of different ways by various members in the House as a technical move and a piece of housekeeping, it also affords us the opportunity to refocus our attention on the importance that we place on national parks and heritage sites.

The importance that we have been placing on this in a lot of respects has been mere words and nice intentions. Some questions have been put to the government asking what its intentions are with respect to the budget, moneys, and the serious intent that will follow this so-called housekeeping procedure.

We support the move of Parks Canada to the Department of the Environment. This makes perfect sense with respect to protecting the ecological integrity and administration. That is where it started out and that is where it should go back.

I am a new member and the process that we went through in terms of addressing this bill, taking a look at it thoroughly in committee, making some changes to it, and how those changes came about, was very informative to me in terms of how the House could possibly function. There is a certain measure of cultural experience going on for certain political staffers within the government as to how the House may or may not function in the future.

In the past there may have been some tendency to steamroll things, to push things through committee, heaven forbid, or to use non-elected representatives to push a certain political agenda. We bumped into a bit of that in the process of this bill coming forward. It was very interesting to watch how the House functioned as a whole, how we were able to get support from the other opposition parties, talk to members within the government who also found some agreement toward the changes that we were looking for, and receive enough support to have proper and good amendments come forward.

We started with a good bill. It was potentially a housekeeping bill and we made it better. That is the idea of this place, not to simply accept what comes forward but to make changes that we feel represent the views of our constituents across this country. That is the work of the committee and the House.

Herein lies an opportunity for us in this minority government to address other more significant pieces of legislation. I am thinking of Kyoto, water and air quality across this country, and other aspects of the environment, which other members have spoken about today, that need addressing and need the influence of all members of the House in terms of drafting legislation. I am encouraging the government and its political machine to consider conferring with the other parties prior to tabling bills.

There was a suggestion put forward last night in a small committee about green papers, the reintroduction of discussion papers from the government, allowing them to approach other members to have discussion points rather than presenting take it or leave it bills, and going through the arduous process of making serious amendments. There seemed to be a great receptivity among those who were involved in the committee work last night toward a move where the government would come forward with a series of questions and proposals which members in the House could toss around back and forth, and then legislation could derive from that.

I believe this legislation is stronger for a number of the points that have been raised by other opposition members and by members of the government. This piece of legislation firmly affixes where the control and responsibility lies. Who, in a sense, holds the bag for parks in Canada? It is with the Minister of the Environment. The minister is in the best position to understand the importance of ecological integrity and is put in cabinet to protect those aspects that have been talked about so much in the House and in committee, namely, how important parks are to our national identity.

I believe the member for Red Deer was referring to how important parks are for people just to refer to places. There are certain parks that people can bring forward in their minds. Clearly, it is a part of our makeup in this country. Oftentimes Canadians fall back and forth trying to find some point of identity. How do we distinguish ourselves on the world stage? Clearly, we have some perception of ourselves as protectors of the environment. We have some perception of ourselves as having great open spaces that we take care of and manage on behalf of future generations and on behalf of the globe, quite frankly.

Are we properly funding these things? Absolutely not. We have been hearing this from former environment ministers. We are hearing it from the parliamentary secretary. While the words and the platitudes are nice, that these parks are important, that species are important, that we care about future generations and these historic sites, we seem to lose the will along the way, when we head to the budget process, to actually find the dollars identified by the Auditor General and the minister's own staff that are needed to protect both the ecological integrity and the historic sites within this country.

I want to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary in terms of the reconstruction, redesign and rebuilding of many of our monuments and sites. When I look around this particular site here with the asbestos in the walls, the terrible footprint that this place leaves in terms of its actual harmony with the environment, the buildings that we stand in and work in are not healthy buildings. They are not healthy for the people who work here. They are not healthy for the environment as a whole because they leak so much energy.

I would certainly encourage the government, as we are looking to make some real investments in the future, to think of the ecological footprint of all these buildings we are hoping to restore. I hear the Prime Minister is having some problems with some drafts in his residence. We would be more than open to the suggestion of actually fixing the environmental catastrophe that the Prime Minister's residence has become.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

An hon. member

For free.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

For free. Indeed, yes. He does not have to actually carry that bill, unlike many Canadians who are looking to do the right thing.

I spoke earlier to the notion that any further shifts in responsibility for parks must come back to the House. Initially, this met with some derision and some opposition from members in the government. They felt that it was something that could be taken care of by the Privy Council or cabinet. As a new member I am greatly encouraged that we are able to actually stop that because if parks are this important, if our heritage sites are this important to Canadians, then why would we not return to the House if we were going to make any significant direction changes as to who has control and who has direction over those sites and parks.

It only makes sense to go through the unfortunate arduous process of this democracy and return to the House to consider a serious and significant change in the administration of parks in Canada. It should not happen behind closed doors. I was surprised that there were only a few members from the government side who thanked us for our scrutiny of the bill to ensure that they themselves would have some voice because the backbenchers, and many members on the government side, are actually gaining in influence and power.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

An hon. member

Thank you.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

You are welcome.

I am now hearing thanks, Mr. Speaker. That is quite encouraging.

We must instruct those people who assist government, people in the Privy Council and in the Prime Minister's Office, that they in fact may not be steering the ship entirely. They may have to talk to their own party members, and heaven forbid, they may even have to speak to some of the opposition members to gain support for a piece of legislation that Canadians clearly think is important.

It has been suggested in committee that every time we do this move it costs approximately $25 million, For a drastically underfunded department, like Parks Canada, the cost of $25 million and the staffing time it takes to move this thing over every other time, we now have a somewhat arduous process in order to do it again. Clearly, there is not enough money to go around in the parks system as it exists right now. Why would we spend our time switching all the letterhead, signs, aides, firing and hiring, and going through that entire process every five or six years?

I am glad that it is going to be difficult and that we will have to come back here, and seriously consider whether we want to do that or not, and not strip away more badly needed funds to the parks. This is a distraction from the parks mandate. It is not meant to be moving offices, changing signs and looking at new letterhead every five to six years. It is meant to be protecting our cultural and ecological heritage.

In polling at times, Canadians have consistently identified parks as one of the strongest national symbols that we have, above the anthem and the flag. Why, under such a strong significance and such a strong identification, does this House find it impossible to properly fund it? When flags are distributed and we ensure that the anthem is known to all school children, we understand that it has something to do with keeping the national identity across such a vast and varied land.

Why, when we look to our parks system, do we simply assume that it will take care of itself and we can consistently underfund it and in fact create a deficit year in and year out?

The topics have been wide ranging whenever we raise the environment as a topic and members feel a certain privilege to address many environmental issues. That is not my prerogative today. I do not have a great deal of interest in talking about many other environmental aspects, but I will talk about the Kyoto protocol for a moment, something that we have signed on to and ratified. With the recent ratification by Russia, we have certain obligations.

I think that in some small way the process that we went through on this technical bill could in a sense offer some leadership and guidance to the government because the bill is starting to talk about some of the interjurisdictional problems that we are going to face in a serious way if we are going to address climate change in any significance.

Right now, we have done little to next to nothing. I believe the minister is in Iceland hearing about how accelerated the process is around climate change and that we do not necessarily need further studies. We are hearing about it. I represent a northern riding and we are hearing from people who have lived on the land for thousands of years that they have never seen anything like this.

We are seeing forest fires that we have never seen before. We are seeing incidents of weather and climatic change we simply have never seen before.

The science is in on climate change. To continue to stick our heads in the sand over this issue is wrong. We need to collaborate to make sure that the old debate on environment versus jobs goes somewhere else. It does a disservice and shows disrespect to future generations to constantly pit jobs against the environment.

The university in Peterborough, Ontario which I attended had a strong program in retrofitting houses which created all sorts of jobs around that small community. By simply looking at the issue of energy leakage in houses and identifying where the problems were in a sense created a whole new industry. It was profitable to the economy and good for the environment. It was a simple and small measure.

We must start to tackle the issues in connection with Kyoto, because like it or not, it is here. We have to do something about this. The lack of leadership and vision from the government has been rather disappointing to many Canadians. We have not seen enough strength, will or coordination of effort.

Here it is a minority government, however long it may or may not last. This is an opportunity to work together to address these issues. This is an opportunity to work collaboratively with the provinces. The parliamentary secretary took great satisfaction in the government's ability to do that with respect to heritage sites.

Imagine the implications if we were able to get the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, the provinces and territories and the federal government working in conjunction with each other. This would avoid any serious shocks to our economic system and would start addressing the effects of climate change on our economy and on future generations.

As a new member I found the process last night to be uplifting and encouraging. Not only were we as a party able to put forward a health bill that will address future generations and the health of Canadians, but we were also able to amend a government bill to the satisfaction of the opposition parties. Although government members may have voted in different directions, they may have obtained some satisfaction as well.

Canadians have consistently said that they want to see this place work better. That is only going to happen when we establish common interests and common goals by pushing the government and holding it to account. We need to find pieces of legislation that we can put forward in the House that will address the concerns and needs of Canadians, that will do things right by the economy and by the environment and health. Those are the foundations of this country and they will be the foundations for future generations.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

Lee Richardson Conservative Calgary South Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley mentioned cooperation in this minority Parliament. I do not think there is any better example of that than on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in which the hon. member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley plays an important role.

This bill came before our committee. I think it received unanimous consent by the time we made those amendments that we thought were required. It is a technical bill that just transfers Parks Canada Agency from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to Environment Canada. We think that is where it belongs.

As one who lives in the shadow of Banff National Park, I can tell members that my constituents and those who enjoy the parks are much happier to have them back in the hands of the Department of Environment than under the auspices of Sheila Copps.

I did want to say that there were some things we might have expected in the first environment bill that the government brought to this session of Parliament.

We heard reference in the throne speech to additional protected areas, to substantive measures to address issues of ecological integrity in Canada. Those were things we thought might be included in a motion for a bill such as this one. The hon. member and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie mentioned some of these areas.

We hoped that the government would be forthcoming with amendments to current acts in the legislation with regard to protected areas and also ecological integrity.

I noticed, in researching our thoughts on this bill, that Canada was recently criticized by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in its performance review in that our current share of total nationally protected areas is less than the OECD average and certainly less than Canada's current target of 12%. I am sure that hon. members on the environment committee particularly would join me in encouraging the government to bring forth legislation in that regard to improve our protected areas.

In addition, our interest is in having more substantive measures to address the issue of ecological integrity in Canada's national parks. This was also promised in the October Speech from the Throne.

We would support this bill.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

There is not a question there but the hon. member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley in reply.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, the only comment I would make with respect to the increasing of the parks within Canada is a point that was raised earlier. If we do not resource these things properly, then it will be done poorly. Simply hitting a target may be fine and good, but we have heard stories in the past where ministers would look out of a plane's window and decide that there would be a park in a certain area. This caused a number of Canadians, particularly in the rural areas, because those are generally the areas we are talking about, to have some real negative feelings toward the creation of any parks.

I come from a rural area, a resource based area. There is still a cultural shift going on to recognize the potential economic benefits or the overall impacts of parks being created.

The only thing I would mention is that during the recent PSAC strike, members on the committee noted the number of communities that came forward and said, “Fix this strike because it is hurting us economically. When these heritage sites and parks are shut down, it really hurts our local economy”. It was striking to me just how important these parks had become to our local economies.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Lui Temelkovski Liberal Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, I represent the riding of Oak Ridges--Markham, about half of which is the Oak Ridges moraine.

The Oak Ridges moraine is a very significant landform. The moraine gets its name from its rolling hills, rivers and valleys extending over 160 kilometres from the Niagara Escarpment to Rice Lake. It was formed about 12,000 years ago. The moraine contains the headwaters of 65 river systems, 35 in the GTA, the greater Toronto area. It has a wide diversity of streams, woodlands, wetlands, kettle lakes, kettle bogs, and significant flora and fauna. It is one of the last remaining continuous green corridors in southern Ontario.

That is why I am standing to speak in support of the bill. The Oak Ridges moraine has been enhanced recently, although it is not a national park.

Regrettably I have to say in the House that I have not gone to a national park. I have camped in provincial parks for the last 20 years but have yet to camp in a national park.

The Oak Ridges moraine is not a national park but it does provide general beauty in the area. Recently the Ontario government made its announcement on the greenbelt legislation which protects a lot more land in the GTA which will beautify the Ontario region in years to come.

I just wanted to make those comments and mention that the ecological beauty the Oak Ridges moraine provides in the Ontario region is of significance to our area and in my riding especially.

A member from the opposite side mentioned earlier that there are not enough resources. I would repeat that and add that not only are there not enough resources but there are not enough natural resources. We must continue to be very vigilant and work with natural resources initiatives in Canada.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much of a reply other than to note the obvious pride which the hon. member has for the natural areas around his riding, and the importance of that place to his constituents. The importance of creating sustainable, new and well resourced protected areas and parks in our country clearly is going to be a benefit to Canadians in future generations.

Department of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed very much the presentation of the hon. member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley.

The issue has come up of the example that was set by the British Columbia New Democratic Party government to set aside 12% of the land mass over 10 years, which is unequalled in North America. While unfortunately that great environmental policy is now under attack by the provincial government in British Columbia, it is still a shining example for the rest of the country.

I want the member to comment on the issue of the British Columbia NDP government and the establishment of a parks network. I also would like his comment on the issue of underfunding of our national parks. We have a bill before us today that will move us toward putting the kind of infrastructure in place to address these issues. Obviously the parks system has suffered from chronic underfunding by the Liberal government. I would like his comment on that.