Evidence of meeting #33 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rouge.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Andrew Campbell  Vice-President, External Relations and Visitor Experience, Parks Canada
Alan Latourelle  Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada
Pam Veinotte  Field Unit Superintendent, Parks Canada

4 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Whether or not park politics apply, and I'm sure they apply on both sides of this equation, the hard-core factual reality is that today what you're presenting is half of what you started with when you tabled the bill. I'm wondering whether you should hit the pause button and see whether there's some arrangement that could be made with the Province of Ontario. People in my constituency are certainly keenly concerned about the southern end of the park, and they're not going to get that.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Mr. Latourelle.

4 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada

Alan Latourelle

First, Mr. Chair, I think it's important for the committee to understand that this is not a precedent. Even within the national park establishment, several parks, when initially established, were at less than 50%, less than half. Grasslands National Park is a good prime example, as is Bruce Peninsula National Park, where we have added to the park. This legislation allows for the growth of the park area through an OIC, and again—

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

It's perfectly understandable. It's right in the legislation that it allows for growth. I understand that, but it's being presented as something more than it actually will end up being if the province doesn't change its mind.

The key to changing the province's mind, as you know, is around this definition of ecological integrity versus the definition of ecological health. In the Parks Act there's a clear definition of ecological integrity, and it's clearly understood. In fact, I believe—and Mr. Latourelle could correct me—there's actually litigation as to what this means. You have not, however, put forward a definition of ecological health either in this bill or in an amendment to the Parks Act. Absent a definition of ecological health and what that might mean, is there any reason that you could not define “ecological health” if in fact that's what you're hanging your hat on?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Nunavut, NU

I think I mentioned this earlier already. The concept of ecological integrity as it applies in national parks is simply unachievable in an urban centre.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

I buy that.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Nunavut, NU

You're asking us to amend the National Parks Act to change the definition or incorporate that.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

No, I'm suggesting that either in this bill or in the Parks Act you have a separate definition of ecological health.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Mr. Latourelle.

4:05 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada

Alan Latourelle

Mr. Chair, there has been a lot of discussion on the concept of ecological health, but I would refer the committee to clause 6 of the bill:

The Minister must, in the management of the Park, take into consideration—

—not only ecological health, but—

—the protection of its natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes and the maintenance of its native wildlife and of the health of those ecosystems.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

I understand that, and in fact I've highlighted it, but “taking into consideration” is not a plan or a definition. It is something else.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Mr. McKay, your time is well over. We're going to move to another questioner.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, go ahead for five minutes, please.

October 27th, 2014 / 4:05 p.m.

NDP

Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Thank you, Madam Minister, for being here.

I want to start with a continuation of Mr. Carrie's question about the land assembly. He spoke of the provincial lands, and I'd like to speak about the federal lands that could be included in the study area for the park.

We know that thousands of Canadians have asked the federal government to significantly expand the park study area, which includes the adjacent Transport Canada lands that are in the greenbelt of north Pickering. These publicly owned lands are within the provincial greenbelt's natural heritage system and they are necessary to provide a true ecological and trail link between Rouge Park and the Oak Ridges Moraine, going all the way from the lake to the moraine. More than 22 square kilometres of additional lands are held by Transport Canada, and these exist beyond the greenbelt lands. For comparison with respect to airport size if that Pickering airport is to continue, the Pearson airport is approximately 16 square kilometres and the Toronto Island airport is about one square kilometre.

My question for you, Madam Minister, is whether you will work with your colleague at Transport Canada to add the federal government's greenbelt lands in north Pickering to the Rouge national urban park study area to thereby provide enough parkland to sustain nature, park visitor use, and farm uses along that corridor in the long term.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Nunavut, NU

I'll point first to clause 14 of the current bill, which allows future lands to be added to this area. In terms of the Transport Canada land, TC is supportive of future parks, as illustrated by their commitment to transfer approximately 5,000 acres of their land west of the York-Durham area to Parks Canada, but at this time, the lands east of the York-Durham lines are not being considered for possible transfer.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Madam Minister, do you know why those lands are not being considered for the study area right now, while we're creating this monumental park?

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Mr. Latourelle.

4:10 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada

Alan Latourelle

Those lands are the responsibility of Transport Canada at this point. They would be better prepared to answer that question.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

All right.

I'll stay in the same vein of lands. Most of the current Rouge Park in Toronto is in my constituency. A lot of my residents are concerned that some of the land included in the current Rouge Park is not included in the study area for the future national urban park, including the valley lands and even the Morningside tributary. All of that is not included. My residents are concerned that these lands are not included. Can you please tell me why they are not included?

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Nunavut, NU

I think we're down in the south of the map now.

My understanding is that the landowners put forth their proposals for consideration. If the landowners don't put forward those proposals, the areas are not considered. We had to work with municipalities, as an example, and with different counties and farmers. It's a whole group of people. If they don't put forward a plan to include their land in the park, then it's not on the table.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

As far as I understand it, because I was at an information meeting which the City of Toronto put forth, they said that they were willing to transfer all of the lands owned by the City of Toronto, except, of course, the zoo. The zoo is a separate entity and the zoo lands are not being included, but the valley lands that are not owned by the zoo are not being included. Neither is the Morningside tributary.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

A short answer, please.

Mr. Campbell.

4:10 p.m.

Vice-President, External Relations and Visitor Experience, Parks Canada

Andrew Campbell

All the lands in the study area that Toronto has have in fact been included in what we have as the transfer agreement. Anything that was outside of the study area—and the study area was put forward by the different landholders—is not included. Toronto would in fact be technically correct that they have put in everything in the study area, because they removed certain lands out of the study area prior to our going out for consultation.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Your time is up.

We're going to move to Mr. Woodworth, please, for five minutes.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Thank you, Madam Minister, for attending with your officials here today. It's always a pleasure to hear you speak and to listen to the answers you give.

I want to preface my questions with the comment that this is truly a historic occasion. It is truly the first urban park in our country. I think that anybody who is well informed about environmental issues has to recognize that it's as a result of the commitment of this government to conservation and to connecting Canadians with the environment that we are taking this historic first step. I think also that anyone who is familiar with these issues has to recognize that it will be a work in progress and that the act itself does allow for future expansion, for further land to be devoted to it, and for the management plan yet to be developed and all of those details to be filled in.

For goodness' sake, after so many years of discussion, the suggestion of the Ontario government that at the last minute they should throw a spanner in the works, put a spoke in the wheel, and stop even the framework of this legislation from being enacted is almost beyond belief, quite frankly. It is time to move forward in creating Canada's first national urban park. In fact, I understand that it's one of the largest urban parks in the world, and I think the government can be rightly proud of that.

I understand that one of the issues we face is the fact that there are farmers in this area. I'm sure my colleague Mr. McKay will remember that under the Trudeau Liberals in the 1970s there was in fact a plan to evict farmers from their lands. They were given short-term, one-year leases to farm what I understand is class 1 farmland.

The Liberals endorsed a plan for the Rouge Valley that would completely evict farmers from this class 1 farmland, some of which has been farmed, I'm told, for over 400 years. I would like to hear from you, Minister, about how this bill will support the hard-working farmers that are in this area and how the bill reconciles their interests with that of the first national urban park.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Nunavut, NU

The bill will provide the highest level of protection for the Rouge Valley while at the same time promote sustainable farming and farming communities. Farming is an integral part of the Rouge national urban park. Earlier this year, I met with some of the farmers, and they are very pleased with the discussion on the draft management plan and our leasing strategy.

We are going to provide farmers with long-term leases to help them plan and to be sustainable long into the future. A sustainable and viable farming community in the Rouge will be built on community relationships, economic viability, diversification, and environmental stewardship. A set of best management practices is also being developed for agriculture, and these practices will be aligned with the province and municipalities to avoid duplication or undue burden on our farmers.

The Government of Canada recognizes that the future potential and viability of farms in the Rouge national urban park is tied to protection of natural and cultural heritage, visitor connection, and the evolving needs of nearby communities. The farming community is very pleased with the approach we have taken in protecting their farmland.