Mr. Speaker, I also want to speak briefly to Bill C-236, which was put forward by my hon. colleague from Davenport.
I believe everyone knows that our national park network, as it now stands, is appreciated by all Canadians. However, it is not quite completed, and this is what I want to discuss.
Before 1970, we did not really have a network. It was a network in name only because at the time locations were selected somewhat haphazardly. We then embarked upon a very elaborate process to develop a master plan to set up a national park network. It was determined that Canada had 39 unique and natural ecosystems that deserved to be included in the Canadian national park network.
So far, we have been able to include in our network 25 of these 39 distinct and unique ecosystems in order to preserve them for future generations. There are 14 other regions where we have yet to create a national park that would include quite a substantial sample of the ecosystems and natural areas we want to protect.
The question then is the following: Does the hon. member's bill cover one of the 14 geographical regions that need to be preserved and protected? Unfortunately, the answer is no, because there are already two national parks near the location where the hon. member wants to establish another park.
From what I gathered from the comments made earlier by the hon. member for Davenport, he essentially hopes that we are guided by the long term.
“That we are guided by the long term” were our colleague's closing words when he introduced his bill. I would like to believe, as we established in 1970 a plan that would protect 39 of the ecological zones in Canada which were distinct and had to be protected—and we have achieved 25, with 14 remaining—that we have been guided by the long term.
Again, I say to the member that the area that he is proposing be included in the national parks network already benefits from two national parks in that very area.
If we are to be guided by the long term, as he suggests, and I agree, as does the government, then perhaps our efforts should be concentrated in finding and establishing national parks to represent the 14 ecological zones or regions that are not yet protected within our network of national parks.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the British Columbia government has moved to protect some of the land mass that our colleague would like to see protected within a national park. I am advised that three of the areas which are mentioned in the proposed bill are under some protection from the Government of British Columbia.
All this is to say that, indeed, we are being guided by an established plan, which everybody buys into, to protect for the benefit of future generations 39 ecological zones, 39 zones of natural geography and climate, that are representative of the majestic geography of Canada. We should finish achieving that objective in the 14 geographic regions that are not yet in that network. Therefore, it is not within the priorities of the government to proceed with the establishment of the park suggested by our colleague in his private member's bill.
