Core 1..172 Hansard (PRISM::Advent3b2 7.00)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 140 Ï NUMBER 028 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 38th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, November 19, 2004 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 1585 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, November 19, 2004 The House met at 10 a.m. The amendments address one anomaly in the bill, which is that the responsibility for the decision making around Parks Canada is not Prayers directly and specifically appointed to any particular minister. It allows for some flexibility as to who the individual will be who will make the final decisions on the issues within that department as it affects Parks Canada. GOVERNMENT ORDERS It was the opinion of our party that was a flaw and continues to be DEPARTMENT OF CANADIAN HERITAGE ACT a flaw in the legislation. We are proposing these amendments, which, The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-7, an act to as I say, flow one into the other, that the Minister of the Environment amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks will be the person designated to make these decisions. The first Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other acts, amendment asks that he or she be named specifically and that occurs as reported (without amendment) from the committee. in clause 3 on page 2, line 6, so that the minister would be the Minister of the Environment. Ï (1000) [English] The second amendment would delete clause 4. That clause, as is in the bill now, would provide that the Governor in Council, cabinet in SPEAKER'S RULING effect, may designate a member of the Queen's Privy Council for The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx): There are three Canada to be the minister for the purposes of this act. It is not motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report specific at all. It would allow any minister, who may have little or no stage of Bill C-7. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and knowledge of the requirements of our parks and the issues affecting voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. our parks, to be designated. Ï (1005) We have not had any logical explanation from the government as [Translation] to why it is simply not appointing the Minister of the Environment and leaving open options that would allow the government of the I shall now put Motion Nos. 1 through 3 to the House. day to appoint someone else. It just does not appear to be logical, [English] which is why we have moved that amendment. MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT The third amendment is to clause 28, which leaves open the Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP) moved: possibility that some other minister would be named. Clause 28, as is, reads: Motion No. 1 That Bill C-7, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 6 on page 2 with the The Minister of the Environment is the Minister for the purposes of the Parks following: Canada Agency Act until another member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada is designated under section 2.1 of that Act, as enacted by section 4 of this Act. “replaced by the following: “Minister” means the Minister of the Environment.” The first amendment asks that the minister be named. The second Motion No. 2 amendment asks that the clause, which gives cabinet the ability to That Bill C-7 be amended by deleting Clause 4. name somebody else, be deleted. The third amendment, with regard Motion No. 3 to the Parks Canada Agency Act, asks for the same thing, that clause That Bill C-7 be amended by deleting Clause 28. 28 be deleted. He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendments are consistent, one with the With regard to the thrust of this, we know that the parks system is other, and are all directed to the same issue. Bill C-7 would transfer under severe pressure. In the next riding over from mine is the the responsibility for our national parks from the heritage ministry to smallest national park in the country. At the rate it is deteriorating, it the environment ministry. As an aside I have to say that I never could may almost totally disappear because of lack of remedial action on quite figure out why it went the other way a number of years ago. the part of the government to protect it. It could disappear some time However it is back and the parks are where they should be, with the in the next 50 to 100 years. That is just one example. It may be one Department of the Environment. of the more extremes. 1586 COMMONS DEBATES November 19, 2004 Government Orders Of all of the parks in Canada, Point Pelee National Park is at the Heritage of former minister Sheila Copps, which was responsible for greatest risk of disappearing over the next century, but there are any managing our parks. number of other parks that are under great stress. These are heritage properties that we as a government have a responsibility to protect, I feel that the introduction of this bill, which makes official an enhance and make available to the greatest degree possible, without order-in-council that dates back several months, was a step in the damaging them, to the Canadian citizenry and visitors from foreign right direction. I do feel, however, that the motions presented by my lands for that matter. colleague over the way have clarified the role Environment Canada will need to play if it is to respect the ecology and our ecosystems. Ï (1010) We have a long history of doing just that, but under this As far back as 1996, an Auditor General's report had some pretty government, particularly in the last 10 years, our parks in fact have sharp criticicisms of Canadian Heritage's behaviour as far as our deteriorated. Our concern, then, with regard to these amendments is parks are concerned. if we do not have the minister who is and should be the most knowledgeable, and I will repeat that, the most knowledgeable about I will quote just one excerpt from the Auditor General's report, the importance of the role the parks play in the protection of our page 7. This is recommendation 31.46: ecosystem generally as well as specifically in those geographic areas. Parks Canada should develop an effective system for monitoring the ecological If that person is not the one responsible for making decisions to fight conditions in all national parks for the parks and for funding for the parks, to advocate for the preservation of these parks, if the key minister is not doing that, I And so there were serious shortcomings. What we hope, here on think it is quite clear what will happen: a continued deterioration of this side of the House, is that the bill and the amendments proposed our parks. by my colleague will ensure that the law is perfectly clear with regard to ministerial responsibility. It is no coincidence, I believe, that the parks deteriorated when they were outside the Department of the Environment and under the In fact, as my hon. colleague said, the governor in council gave heritage department. The thrust of the Department of Canadian itself broad power to designate a minister responsible rather than the Heritage was in other directions and Parks Canada was all too often a minister of the environment, at any time. So some limits have been secondary consideration. As a result, we have seen in some cases set on this. destruction of parts of parks and in others a rapid deterioration. If the House sees fit to accept these amendments, it will be in a I must speak, furthermore, to the sorry state of Canada's parks. I position where the minister, who is a key determinant of how well say that because there are two conflicting visions of the way and how extensively we are going to protect parks, will in fact be in Canada's parks will be managed. the driver's seat, if I can use that colloquialism. The person who will The first vision involves a desire to increase the number of areas be making the decisions will be the one who is and should be most under Parks Canada responsibility, so as to increase the number of concerned about protecting them. crown lands, in Quebec among other places, of course. There is [Translation] another vision under which, in view of the sorry state of our park Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. infrastructure, existing parks would be consolidated. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in today's debate on the amendments by my colleague, a former fellow member of the I have met many Parks Canada employees. As recently as Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Develop- yesterday, they were in my office telling me many things about our ment, in connection with Bill C-7. Canadian parks system. One of their points was that our Parks Canada employees do not have the resources to do their jobs I will start by saying that we will be voting in favour of the three adequately. amendments proposed by my colleague over the way. Ï (1015) Why? Because we need to make sure to avoid what has happened in the past with respect to the supervision, monitoring and They also reminded me about the sorry state of Parks Canada administration of parks.