Evidence of meeting #34 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 farmers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
We're just at the seven-minute point, so thank you, Mr. Harris.
We'll move now to Mr. Calandra, for seven minutes.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Ms. Schultz, if I'm correct, then you agree that farming should be retained over the entire length of the Rouge Park, where it is right now, unobstructed in any way, shape, or form.
5 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Nature
We believe that farming should exist in the park—
5 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
So in its entirety, where it's currently being farmed, all of the farm leases that are currently there, those farmers, 100% of the land that is being farmed should continue to be farmed. Yes or no?
5 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Nature
We would need to make sure the farming that is occurring in the park is compatible with the natural systems, and we believe that can be accommodated.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
You don't want to answer yes or no. That's fine.
You recognize this letter, because you co-signed it, right?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
In that letter you reference the 1994 management plan, right? It says that right here. In that 1994 management plan—and I'll read it for you again—it says:
...the highest priority being the protection and restoration of the park's natural heritage, some reduction of farm land base is recommended to permit natural restoration goals to be met.
Do you agree with that statement?
5 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Nature
I'd agree with it. In terms of the specifics of where that would occur, that would need to come out through management planning.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Do you also agree that there should be an ecological corridor?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Now, an ecological corridor.... Jim Robb himself, with whom you co-signed this letter, has estimated 1,700 acres of class 1 farmland would be taken out of production. Parks Canada estimates that about 2,000 acres of class 1 farmland would be taken out of production. How do you consider that farmers would not have to be evicted from the land if you're basically kicking them off half of their land?
5 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Nature
We believe that agricultural production can be part of an ecological corridor, depending on the type of agricultural production that's taking place. There are certain types of farming that would not be compatible.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
You've hit the nail on the head. What you're saying is that it's certain types of farming, farming that you believe to be the right type of farming for them.
5 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Nature
From an ecological integrity perspective there are certain types of farming that are compatible.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Mr. Whittamore, Ms. Schultz doesn't want to evict you, but she wants to tell you how to farm on your land.
If I'm getting this straight, they want to create an ecological corridor which would take 2,000 acres of land out of production. They want to follow the 1994 guidelines and tell you how to farm, where you should farm, and how you should do it. How many farmers do you think would stay on the land and how profitable do you think that would be?
5 p.m.
Whittamore's Farm
Before I answer the question, I want to be clear that Caroline agreed that the ecological corridor should be created.
5:05 p.m.
Whittamore's Farm
Everybody understands it's 600 metres. There's no agriculture inside that corridor. It was developed to support interior dwelling species, birds. That's where that came from. It's a 600 metre corridor; it's going to use up to 2,000 acres of land.
In the draft management plan, and we've already been working with the Parks Canada people and talking about how agriculture will work, I'm against the corridor. I don't believe that we need to have that. There are other ways to reach the ecosystem's health.
Your question, Mr. Calandra, is how many farmers would want to stay. If the corridor is gone and if we have people like Jim Robb and other people dictating how we will farm, it will be death by a thousand cuts. I say that because Jim has already said publicly that the next thing he will go after is pesticides and fertilizers in the park.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Let me stop you there, because in a statement that Jim Robb made, which is quoted in InsideToronto.com, he said you're “a political constituency that's being catered to”, one that takes up 70% of the parkland in Markham and uses pesticides and genetically modified crops that can harm the environment.
How true is that statement?
5:05 p.m.
Whittamore's Farm
Over the years, Jim has said a lot of things, that farmers pollute the rivers. I've asked him repeatedly, “Jim, if we are polluting the rivers, please provide the evidence. Please tell us where the point source emission is.”
We were accused of polluting the river with E. coli. TRCA, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, did a study. It was the Canada geese.
Time and time again we get these false accusations, and that's what my talk was about. The farmers didn't do a good job of talking about who we are and what we did, and shame on us for that, but these accusations are false. If there are problems, we want to know because we want to change our management styles. There has been no evidence whatsoever, so when we hear this repeatedly in the media and in public places, it angers us.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
My good friend from Scarborough Southwest said the following. He's talking about me:
The member incorrectly stated that most of the land in the Pickering airport lands is being farmed right now. I would recommend that he take a drive around the area again, because most of the land is lying fallow.
To the best of your knowledge, is most of the Pickering lands lying fallow right now and just growing weeds?
5:05 p.m.
Whittamore's Farm
No. The land in Pickering...and you know we've had successive governments with short-term leases. There's lots of land out there that's being farmed. Yes, there is land that's sitting idle, but it's sitting idle because of the short-term lease issue.
As I said earlier, if there are long-term leases, you'll see the farmers invest in tile drainage that will pick up the water out of the wet spots. You're mostly talking about the wet spots in this land, where it comes to the point where you simply can't farm it. Without these long-term leases, farmers are not going to invest the money into the infrastructure.
5:05 p.m.
Whittamore's Farm
It's good farmland, by the way. It's very good farmland, but it has had 40 years of neglect.