Environment Committee on Oct. 27th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We will reconvene.

We have with us, from Parks Canada, Mr. Alan Latourelle, Mr. Andrew Campbell, and Ms. Pam Veinotte.

We're going to proceed with an opening statement by Mr. Latourelle.

Welcome.

[Alan Latourelle]

Mr. Chair, the current regional Rouge Park was created in 1995. From 1995 to 2012 it was managed by the Rouge Park Alliance, and the chair was appointed by the Government of Ontario. ln 2010 the alliance commissioned and released a landmark governance report for Rouge Park. I think it's important to understand some of the history.

The alliance by way of its governance report unanimously recommended that Rouge Park become a federally administered park, cared for and managed under the leadership of Parks Canada.

As the minister mentioned, extensive public consultations have taken place since we first became involved in 2011, and we've met with and received feedback from over 150 different stakeholder groups and close to 11,000 Canadians.

ln short, the legislation and the draft management plan that we are consulting on now are the products of the most proactive and broad engagement of Canadians, communities, stakeholders, and different levels of government in the history of our agency, not only of this park.

For the remaining time, Mr. Chair, I wish to address three specific subjects: first, the agreement we negotiated with Ontario, what it is and what it isn't; second, the link between this bill and our proposed policy for the proposed park; third, the subject of conservation.

Recently in the media there has been a debate about obligations contained in the federal-provincial agreement signed between the Province of Ontario and the federal government in 2013 regarding land assembly for Rouge national urban park.

To ensure clarity on this matter, I would like to read a section of that agreement with respect to obligations required from both Ontario and Canada.

Paragraph a) of section 2.09 reads as follows:

a) Parks Canada will work with Ontario to develop written policies in respect of the creation, management, and administration of the Park that meet or exceed provincial policies regarding the Transferred Lands, including the policies set out in the Greenbelt Plan 2005, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006 and the Big Move.

Not once is there any mention of legislation in that commitment. The four documents mentioned are all provincial policies. I can assure you that Parks Canada is absolutely fulfilling the Government of Canada's commitment to meet and exceed in areas of protection of nature. Indeed, we have reviewed and incorporated the key elements of these policies into our management plan framework.

First, in our negotiations with the Province of Ontario, the province's lone stated legislative requirement for the Rouge national urban park bill was to include a provision that would allow lands to be returned to the province or other levels of government to help meet the expected future infrastructure and transportation needs of Canada's largest metropolitan area.

Second, as we plan to establish, operate, and manage Rouge national urban park, there are two interrelated but separate components that will provide us with a framework to manage the national urban park: the bill before you and our policy. The legislation provides us with the legal framework required to manage the park. The policy direction is found in the draft management plan and provides us with the long-term direction for the management and operation under the legislative framework.

lt is paramount that individuals not confuse these separate components. You will probably hear from groups during the committee process that will attempt to lump legislation and policy together, and it's important not to be confused or misled by this approach.

Finally, in terms of conservation, you should note that the term “ecological integrity” is not mentioned in the Ontario agreement at all.

Bill C-40 provides a strong legal framework under which to manage and operate the park and give the strongest protection in the Rouge's history.

First, the legislation will be applicable to the entirety of the future Rouge national urban park. This will be the first time the Rouge will have one piece of strong legislation governing the whole area as opposed to a patchwork of bylaws and policies that govern the current area.

I would now like to address the question of ecological integrity in Rouge national urban park. Again, this is an issue that has been raised in the media lately, and I wish to set the record straight and fully explain our approach.

The Rouge is truly an incredible place, but it does not exist in a landscape where Parks Canada's internationally acclaimed high standards for ecological integrity are unachievable. Seven million people live in the greater Toronto area, and the Rouge is fragmented by highways, roads, railways, hydro lines, private lands, homes, communities, malls, and infrastructure.

Our own Parks Canada experts have determined that approximately 72% of the current Rouge Park is disturbed, as opposed to an amount of about 2% for Banff National Park, for example, where we also have highways, so to have the same conservation standard between these two parks is unrealistic. However, this does not mean that we are settling for a second-class protected area by applying an ecosystem health approach across the Rouge's natural, cultural, and agricultural landscape. We will achieve the highest conservation and protection standards possible, while being realistic about the Rouge landscape. Our team is committed to maintaining or improving the health of that ecosystem.

We will apply the concept of ecosystem health across the entire park landscape in a way that not only conserves and restores natural and cultural heritage, but also promotes a vibrant farming community. We will end the cycle of one-year leases to provide farmers long-term leases and greater stability. The farmers in turn will commit to improving environmental protection and contributing to the visitor experience, and the cultural experience of the park.

The establishment of the Rouge national urban park is truly a unique opportunity for new, young, and urban Canadians to connect with Canada's incredible network of protected areas, and to be inspired to become stewards of this crown jewel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Latourelle.

We'll move to the first round of questions. Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you all for coming.

Mr. Latourelle, I want to go back a little bit. I believe it was in a letter of June 24, 2012, where Ontario Minister Bob Chiarelli, who was the infrastructure minister, and I'm quoting from an article in the Toronto Star, said:

Queen’s Park is demanding “adequate compensation” for provincial land it would transfer to federal hands for the development of Rouge National Urban Park.

Somewhere in the $100-million mark is what the Ontario government was demanding before transfer of land was done. To the best of your knowledge, was there a condition of that potential sale that had any indication anywhere of ecological integrity at that time?

[Alan Latourelle]

No, not from my recollection.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you.

I want to fast-forward to September 3. That's when the next letter came through. I just want to confirm, did you know about this letter in advance, or did you know about it the same way I did, by reading the Toronto Star that day?

[Alan Latourelle]

I personally learned through the Toronto Star.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Through the Toronto Star. Thank you.

Part of that is Mr. Duguid said, “We will not in any way jeopardize the future of this property. We need to protect the environmental integrity and the ecology of the Rouge Valley.” Duguid told reporters that. That's his quote. Yet you outline no less than 12 ways in which this legislation actually exceeds the current level of protection that the provincial government has always extended. Am I right on that, that this legislation actually goes further than the Ontario government currently does, or has ever gone, in trying to protect these lands?

[Alan Latourelle]

I would say in general terms yes, but I think we need to recognize that the contribution of land comes from different organizations. There's the provincial lands, the federal lands. I think the other part of it is that on the bill that's before you, people have been focusing on one clause, which is clause 6 clearly, but there are several other clauses that ensure that the conservation objectives that we have and the level of maintenance of the ecosystem health and improvement to it will be achieved.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Back in 1997, Mr. Duguid was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in the Province of Ontario. This was at a time when the Province of Ontario seized 600 acres of class 1 farmland in the area, provided $2 million, evicted farmers from the class 1 farmland, and actually evicted some of those who lived in that area and had lived there for 40 years. The Ontario government evicted them, reforested that 600 acres of land, and called it the Bob Hunter Park, which to this day is still closed. That's what that very same government did in 1997.

Now, in speech after speech in the House of Commons, we are hearing from both opposition parties about this ecological corridor concept that has been advanced by a gentleman by the name of Jim Robb, who, whether or not people would agree, has an extraordinarily poor relationship with farmers in this particular area.

This 1997 seizing of the lands of course builds on what happened 40 years earlier, when the Liberals actually expropriated this land and put them on one-year leases.

Would you agree that the farmers—and I know you've been working closely with them—have reason to be concerned when they hear the name of Jim Robb being associated with a provincial minister who in his press release cites Mr. Robb regarding an ecological corridor from a 1994 report that is no longer accepted by even the Rouge Park Alliance, to which some of the members of the opposition belonged? Nobody accepts that report. Would you agree that the farmers have reason to be concerned that a minimum of 1,700 acres of their land would have to be taken out of production? These are Mr. Robb's own words—and you can't actually do that without evicting farmers. Would you agree that's one reason that the farmers are so worried about this provincial government's lack of desire to transfer the lands?

[Alan Latourelle]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to say first that we've had an exceptional relationship with the farmers. I must say we've significantly turned a corner, so kudos to Andrew and Pam and several of our team members for that.

I think the farmers are clearly very concerned about any changes we would be bringing about, and that's why I think the management plan and the bill as presented to create the corridor would be a significant challenge. You'll hear their perspective on that from them directly. I do agree it would require close to 2,000 acres being taken out of production.

I want to be clear that that's not in the bill before you today.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Absolutely.

Perhaps I could ask you one last question, depending on my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have two minutes.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Perfect.

The member for Scarborough—Guildwood suggested that we should actually stop this process right now because the province is not willing to come forward. You indicate that the bill does allow for additional lands to come in. What this also does, quite clearly, is remove thousands of acres of land that had been set aside for any future potential airport for the last 40 years. This bill would actually remove those, remove the hold on thousands of acres of land once this bill is passed, give the farmers a long-term lease, and provide an unprecedented level of protection that these lands have never had. That alone, despite the politics the provincial government is playing, is one reason all the parties around this table should be supporting this legislation.

[Alan Latourelle]

Mr. Chair, the bill establishes the legal framework for us to manage the park, which I think is one of the crown jewels of our country. We are looking forward to doing that and to working with all of our partners. I think the bill adds a specific piece of land at this point, but it allows for two OICs for additional lands to be included. The 5,000 square kilometres of Transport Canada lands are a significant contribution to this.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I just want to reiterate that I am right that in 2012 there was no mention of ecological integrity when they asked for $100 million for the land. Am I correct on that to the best of your knowledge?

[Alan Latourelle]

That's my recollection. I would need to reconfirm the letter, but that's my recollection.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

In the lead-up, in the MOU that was signed, there was no mention of ecological integrity. As they campaigned for re-election in the province of Ontario, citing that they were creating a Rouge national park, at no point, to the best of your knowledge.... I've reviewed it and have heard no mention of their demanding ecological integrity. In fact, they told me that the only reason they didn't sign was that an election had been called and they couldn't actually move forward.

On September 3, all of a sudden, for the first time, ecological integrity came up. Am I right on that to the best of your knowledge?

[Alan Latourelle]

Yes, I can confirm that to the best of my knowledge, in fact, as I've mentioned, in the MOU with Ontario there is no mention of ecological integrity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

We're going to move to Mr. Bevington and Ms. Leslie, who are sharing their time.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the presenters today for giving me a good understanding of Rouge national urban park. I'm sure you're in constant contact with the stakeholders that are engaged in that.

My question actually comes from people who are trying to establish the Thaidene Nene national park reserve. Parks Canada is in this process to establish new parks in many parts of Canada.

My question has to do with the importance of keeping the stakeholders engaged in what you're doing and how you're moving ahead. It comes from the Lutsel K'e Dene people. They're looking for an update on the status of the national park. The fact that they've asked me for it today suggests to me that they've been having trouble getting that update.

Do you have any comments about what the status is and where you're going with this?

[Alan Latourelle]

Mr. Chair, as a result of the devolution to the Northwest Territories, the lands have moved from federal ownership of the lands in the specific area to the territories, so we are working with them. As we do elsewhere where there are provincial governments that have ownership of the land, we work through them first before we move with the public consultation with stakeholders and partners. At this point we are working with the Government of NWT.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Are you familiar with the agreement that's being initialled between the government, NWT, and the Lutsel K'e Dene?

[Alan Latourelle]

I've heard of it, yes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

What would your next step be after that?