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.
3:55 p.m.
National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Anything else in terms of...?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
That's certainly the key one that we're referring to. We go back to the fact that there's been quite a bit of discussion about ecological integrity as one of the key pieces within the provincial parks act, and of course, there is no provincial park in this particular landscape. That does in fact refer to provincial legislation.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Would you agree with me, though, that there's nothing in this memorandum of agreement that requires the Government of Canada to comply with the Ontario provincial parks act?
3:55 p.m.
National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
The Ontario provincial parks act? No, absolutely not.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
In fact, the memorandum of agreement is very specific that it only requires that the Government of Canada comply with policies in the Greenbelt Plan 2005, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006, and the Big Move. Other provincial policies have nothing to do with it. Is that correct?
3:55 p.m.
National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
That's correct.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
All right.
This memorandum of agreement also says it's the Parks Canada written policies regarding the creation, management, and administration of the park that must meet or exceed provincial policies in those four or five items that I've mentioned. Is that correct?
3:55 p.m.
National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
That is our understanding.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
The Parks Canada policies are contained in this management plan. Am I right about that?
3:55 p.m.
National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
That has not yet been adopted; that's correct.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
It's under discussion and public consultation.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I guess we can't say that Parks Canada has any written policies at all yet, which might contravene the provincial ones. Is that right?
3:55 p.m.
National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
We're speaking only of the legislation at this point.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Okay, but would you agree with me that the memorandum of understanding is directed toward the written policies of Parks Canada for the creation, management, and administration of the park and it doesn't address the legislation?
3:55 p.m.
National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
That's correct, although obviously our comments are related to the legislation as proposed.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Correct, and I don't quarrel with that. What I do have some difficulty with is saying that somehow the Government of Canada has not honoured the memorandum of agreement. In point of fact, if I were to ask you, even in these draft policies, are there any of these draft policies that contravene anything in those five land-use management plans that are referenced in the agreement, could you tell me which one you'd point me to?
3:55 p.m.
National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
I'll ask Alison to respond.
3:55 p.m.
Alison Woodley National Director, Parks Program, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
We were looking at the overarching framework for the park and whether or not it met the test of, for example, the definition of a protected area under the international standard, and that requires that conservation be identified as the first priority or as prioritized. In reviewing both the management plan, which we have done closely, and also the legislation, neither in our view makes that point clear, and the Rouge management plan vision makes it very clear that there is a priority on conservation. Those are the comparisons.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Regrettably, what you've told people is that the Government of Canada has violated its memorandum of agreement with the province, when in fact the written policies to which that memorandum of agreement applies are still only in draft form, and at least up until this point, you haven't told me of any of these policies that violate any provincial policy in those five land-use plans that the memorandum of agreement refers to.
All the rest is fine and dandy, but I want to understand if there is some evidence that somehow there is a written policy of Parks Canada that does not meet or exceed the policies in these five items. By the way, I've looked at these five items and nowhere is there a policy about ecological integrity. There are only objectives and visions for ecological integrity with specific policies to implement them.
4 p.m.
National Director, Parks Program, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
The greenbelt plan clearly references that the management of the area in which Rouge park is going to be established south of Steeles should be guided by the Rouge management plan and the area north of Steeles should be guided by the Rouge north management plan. That is embedded in the greenbelt plan and incorporated by reference. When we look at the Rouge management plan, that is the document that we see on the Ontario policy front that applies directly to these lands.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Thank you, Mr. Woodworth. Sorry, but we're out of time.
We move to Ms. Leslie, for seven minutes.
October 29th, 2014 / 4 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Thank you all not only for appearing here today but for the years and years of work you've put into this. It's not an easy bill, and it's not an easy park to create, so I applaud the work you've been doing behind the scenes for years. Hopefully, we'll get a good piece of legislation out of this and a fantastic urban park.
I know you've all followed the speeches that were made in the House, so you know where everybody stands and you know what the major concerns are.
Ms. Empringham, I want to ask CPAWS a question, but then come back to you for comment. It's around this idea of farmland.
Mr. Calandra has rightly brought up the example of Bob Hunter Memorial Park, where the restoration was seen as renaturalization. There is a fear about what restoration is. I can believe that it doesn't include renaturalization, but just because I believe it...it's not spelled out in the legislation.
Mr. Hébert-Daly, you said something about having a clearer mandate in the legislation to work with the farmers. I've been thinking a lot about how we could spell that piece out. I've written down some ideas saying something along the lines of acknowledging to the greatest degree possible the park's agricultural and urban context, or where possible acknowledging that you need to work with farmers and acknowledging that there is a highway and there are farms.
I want to pass it to CPAWS first, and then get a response about where we can go with that. I like this idea.
I'll hand it over to you.