Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I believe him to be a sincere member of Parliament. I believe that what he was stating was what he feels is accurate and true.
I appreciate that he is speaking on behalf of the minister, but he said that he knew we had a lot of questions about this bill but trust him, they will act in the best interests of Canadians. We could count on them reflecting the views of Canadians.
These are the same folks who were against NAFTA, for example. These are the same folks who were against the GST. When they got into government they became GST enthusiasts, NAFTA enthusiasts and now they are MAI enthusiasts. They even thought the GST was so good they would apply it in a blended sales tax throughout all of Atlantic Canada, knowing full well the people did not like that.
When a government says trust it, I become very suspicious. It is not a reflection on my hon. friend. When any government says trust it, it will act in our best interests, there is sufficient evidence to say that we ought to then panic. We then ought to say we know we are being conned, we know there is a snow job coming upon us.
Members can probably tell I do not support Bill C-29 at this point. I know today we are debating the principle of the bill and one ought to be generous when talking about the principle of the bill.
The bill says we should change the name of Parks Canada to the Canadian parks agency.
What is behind all of this? Why would he want to change the name Parks Canada? I suspect that if a global poll was done and citizens from Bangladesh, Dubai, Equador or wherever were asked: when you hear the name Canada what do you think about, what image comes to mind, it would probably be a toss up between a Mountie and some natural scenes, some park like settings, some pristine environment.
I think that is Canada. We are a geographic country, a country that is proud of our geographic heritage, the second largest country in the world. Canada is probably the most untouched pristine environment to be found anywhere on the globe. Our national parks system epitomizes that. Our national parks are sort of a Canadian icon that we leave for future generations.
I am pleased to say that we have expanded a number of national parks over the last number of years in some very crucial areas. I am proud to say that I am from British Columbia, a province that has established more parks than any political jurisdiction in the world, and for good reason. It is a tremendously and wonderfully beautiful province. Vast parts of it will now be preserved for generations and generations to come.
The theory of Parks Canada, or what is soon going to be called the Canadian Parks Agency, I think tells a great deal about Canada.
Is this act intended to improve the situation? From the government's point of view, I suspect it must think it is otherwise it probably would not introduce the act. Remember, these are the same folks who think the GST is a good idea and that the MAI is a good idea at this point, but I suspect they are going to change their minds on that eventually.
Although the government thinks it is a good idea let us be clear. Does it necessarily mean it is a good idea? The fact that we gave the Bronfmans a $500 million tax break does not necessarily mean that was a good decision taken by the government. Just the fact that it is a government sponsored bill does not necessarily say that this is in the best interest of Canadians.
Let us also acknowledge that this bill involves a great deal of Canada, 31 national parks, 786 historical sites, a number of historical canal systems, 661 sites that are managed by third parties that are ecologically or environmentally significant, 165 heritage railroad stations, 31 heritage river systems and others.
Mr. Speaker, I suspect you and I would agree that the things that distinguish our country from virtually any other country is what we are talking about today, the natural geographic and historical significant parts of our country.
We take this very seriously. As New Democrats we have studied Bill C-29. I want to say the hon. member for Churchill has spent hours and hours speaking with people who are involved in the parks system, speaking with people involved in Heritage Canada, knowledgeable people on the ground as well as in the park theory field. On balance, he tells us as caucus colleagues that he is concerned about this bill, that the kind of impression that he gleans from these extensive consultations is one of concern and worry.
As a matter of fact, not many people think this is a good idea. I suspect that we would save a great deal of trouble by just cancelling Bill C-29 when we come to the vote but I am not so neophyte to think that is likely to happen.
The background papers on Bill C-29 say that this is a contribution toward simplicity, toward administrative efficiency, toward human resource flexibility, toward improved financial procedures. These are euphemisms. These are words that George Orwell would have liked because when it says here human resource flexibility, what it means is that we want to lower wages and salaries of the people who work with Parks Canada, we want to pay people less.
Why do I have this idea? Why do I have this perhaps questionable or cynical approach to this human resource flexibility? It is because this is what is going on now with the Department of National Defence, that all the hundreds and thousands of civilian employees who work now on bases, who are paid a decent wage because of the collective agreements that have been negotiated year after year, are now being told they are all gone. We are going to privatize and rather than pay $15 an hour, employees are now going to collect a minimum wage of probably $5.50 depending on their provincial jurisdiction. That is the reality. That is what is taking place today.
If that is what the Department of National Defence is doing, why would we not think that is what this Canadian Parks Agency is going to do? That is what the government is doing, so we assume that what they do in national defence they will do now with the national parks agency.
Therefore, when the government talks about human resource flexibility, let us be clear that is what it means. We are going to have fewer people working in our parks, pay them less and have less dedicated personnel.
As someone who has used our national park system from coast to coast, both national and provincial, spending a good deal of the summer hiking, camping, canoeing and riding in these pristine environmental areas, if there is a group of men and women who epitomize the best of Canada it is those people who work in our park system. They are dedicated to the environment and to the work that they do.
However, when we pay someone the minimum wage as opposed to a decent salary now in Parks Canada, what is the signal we are sending? The signal is that we do not think much of this job. We are saying it is a low end job, a minimum wage job and a job that anybody can do. We are saying it is a job we attach little significance to. That is what we are telling them.
I do not think this is the way it should be in our society but in our society, which is a money based, capital based society, we measure people's value by what they are paid. Hockey players who are paid $3 million are the superstars or rock stars. Others, I think it is fair to say, who are paid minimum wage are not normally those people who we hold in high esteem as a society. I think it should be the reverse but that is the reality.
We talk about improved financial procedures. That is scary language. If there is any language that should get us totally upset in this House it is when the government starts talking about improved financial procedures because everyone knows what that means. It means less money. It means it is going to put less money into Parks Canada and it is going to make the people who use our parks pay for them in user fees.
If someone is a wealthy person or from a high income family and somebody tells them that in order to use the parks they will have to pay $10 to canoe down the river, $20 per night for firewood and $50 to park a tent for a day or two, it is no big deal. However, for increasing numbers of Canadians who see their disposable incomes going down and down, and for many people to zero and below, if we pass this legislation we are going to put access to Canada's national parks out of the reach of many, many Canadians.
An increasing number of Canadians who fall into the poor and low income category will not have the benefit of using our national parks because they will not be able to afford them.
How many of us as members of Parliament already hear regularly from our constituents complaining about the costs of accessing parks? A family with four and five kids who want to go camping for two weeks in a national park will not be able to afford it. With this legislation, we are now going to make it even more difficult.
Section 24 of the act deals with the fees. It states that “the minister must consult with any member who he or she considers to be interested”. That is the consultation. Who is that? Maybe she is going to consult with the hon. House leader for the government. Maybe it is going to be the CEO of the Royal Bank. We do not know.
If we look at the track record, we can only assume that this does not mean good news. This does not mean that fees are going to go down. It means I suppose how quickly they are going to increase. Is that the kind of country we have become? Is that the kind of place Canada has become? Are people going to have to pay to go canoeing or to walk down the paths in our parks? Yes it is and this legislation will simply make it worse.
This legislation is scary. I suspect that the government wants to get this through the House really quickly before anybody figures out what it is all about. I assume that my friends in the Reform Party, in the Bloc and in the Conservative Party will vote against it, and at least enough Liberals who are concerned about the environment and the future of Parks Canada will vote against. However, we will have to wait and see.
The government says that Bill C-29 is not about privatization. That is simply not true. It is not called privatization, it is called commercialization. It is a new word. Privatization is now considered by an increasing number of people to be bad news, not a good word, so it decided to change the word and call it something else. We will call it a commercialization. Fair enough. That is what it means. That is what it is.
It simply means that increasingly we will be turning the parks into some kind of a quasi-business operation. That is not what Canada is all about.
I want to close my remarks by saying let me look at this government. This year we are going to see cuts to Parks Canada's budget. This is at a time when the government proudly tells us that we are in a balanced budget situation.
As a matter of fact, we have some billions of dollars in surplus. There is so much money rolling in these days that the government is not quite sure what the surplus is. It is not positive. Next year, it looks like it will be at some unimaginable level.
If that is the problem the government has, if it does not know how much money it is collecting, why would it continue to cut services in Canada's national parks? Why would it continue to lay off park employees? Why would it continue to make life difficult for people who are trying to run our heritage sites if that is the situation? They tell us it is.
I suspect at the Liberal convention in the next few hours, we will see most Liberals with their arms in slings come Monday because they will be slapping themselves on the back for days on end, twisting themselves out of shape to say what a great job they have done balancing the budget. Still they want to impose this kind of damage on our park system. There are some serious inconsistencies here.
I could go on but I think I have probably said enough at this introductory stage. To repeat, I think the beginning of the massive change game, if there was another symbol other than the national parks, is the RCMP.
There is no other police force in the world any better than the RCMP. It represents the best of Canada, both past and present. I suspect it will also represent the best in the future.
What did the government decide to do? It decided to sell the rights of making money off the RCMP to Walt Disney. Disney now has the right to market Mounties around the world. There are little Mountie dolls, Mountie hats, Mountie statues in China, in Taiwan and it is all done by the great corporation of Disney.
If there is anything that is kind of embarrassing, I will bet the House leader for the government that there is not a single Canadian, other than himself, who thinks this is a good deal, who would actually stand up and say that one of the best things we have done as a Liberal government was to hand over the RCMP selling rights to Disney.
The government endorsed it. It liked this idea. I can imagine the members getting all excited and having a party that night when that happened. That is where we are. “We sold out the image Mountie to Walt Disney. Okay, we have done that”. There goes a little Canadian heritage out the window. “Why not privatize the national parks? We will call it commercialization or we will call it a special agency”.
I think I will leave it at that and simply end by saying that as New Democrats—thanks to our critic, the hon. member for Churchill—we have looked at this bill. We have talked about it in caucus at some length.
I can honestly say that we cannot find a single good point in this legislation. I will watch because, as I sit down, I suspect we will get to the vote. I will watch my friends in the Reform Party. They are sensitive people in certain areas.
I have not found any yet, but somewhere down there there is a sensibility or a sensitivity. We will watch them because this is the chance. How do we vote in terms of the future of Parks Canada?
Do we turn it into the Canadian parks agency, a private corporation to make money now out of our national parks system, or do we continue in the great tradition of Parks Canada to preserve our natural environment for generations and generations to come?
This is the question. We will decide it on this vote.
