Debates of Oct. 8th, 2014

Rouge National Urban Park Act

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member opposite for supporting the bill at second reading. That is a good thing. I am happy to hear the Liberal Party will support it.

I want to make a third comparison between the legislation in front of us and the provincial parks legislation. I have already made two earlier comparisons between the two pieces of legislation in respect of hunting and logging, so I want to make a third comparison.

The Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006, states this about mining, “new aggregate pits may be established in areas of Algonquin Park”. The federal legislation in front of us today states, in paragraph 18(2)(g), “it is prohibited to...explore for minerals, oil or gas, or conduct an extractive activity, including mining, in the Park”.

The legislation in front of us today is stronger than the legislation that protects provincial parks. Rouge national urban park would be better protected under this legislation than provincial parks that are protected under provincial legislation, such as Algonquin Park and Killarney Park.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend has been listing a series of comparisons with respect to this bill against provincial parks legislation. Each particular park has its own unique features. In many cases, a lot of these issues were grandfathered in as part of the parks system when they were established.

The key point here is this. What will we do when we are establishing a new national park? What standard do we want to achieve? Are we going to compare that against an existing provincial standard or do we want to get this right the first time when establishing this new national urban park?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few years, I have enjoyed some wonderful visits to Toronto. This great city has many lakes, islands and scenic views. It is a place that everyone should visit.

When they were in power, the Liberals had plenty of opportunities to invest in Canada's national park system, but instead, they helped to create a $2.8 billion backlog. That is why I am surprised by what they are saying.

They could have done this work and even more. The leader of the NDP, who was once the Quebec environment minister, knows what should be done with the national parks.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, ultimately we are attempting to strengthen a particular bill and we are counting on the honourable intentions of all the members to work collectively together to get the best legislation we can moved forward. Let us not dwell on the past.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to follow this debate, to keep an open mind and get a best feel for it. My colleague talked about bona fides and past Liberal governments. I am very fortunate to represent an area that benefited from a Liberal government that was very committed to environmental stewardship. It put $280 million toward the cleanup of the worst toxic site in our country, the Sydney tar ponds. This is the first year people have come and enjoyed the place.

I will give my colleague an opportunity to expand further on how he feels confident in our party's approach to all environmental issues.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to stress that the best of intentions exist on all sides of the House to get the best kind of legislation forward with respect to Bill C-40. We have faced a number of environmental challenges over many years. Regardless of which government we have dealt with, we have tried to bring forth solutions that ultimately are in the national interest.

That is the nature of our critique today with respect to the bill. We are simply trying to get a better bill forward, just like we tried to deal with the tar ponds issue in the past.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that as the member for Parkdale—High Park, I may well be the only member in the House who has the word “park” twice in the name of my riding, so I am very happy to stand to speak about parks.

Specifically today we are debating Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park. Coming from an urban riding in downtown Toronto where the city is growing in its urban density, we are seeing increasing numbers of condos, high rises and growing stratification of people of different economic means. Some are doing extremely well by the economy, some are staying fairly stable, but then some are falling further and further behind. A University of Toronto professor from my riding, David Hulchanski, has talked about this idea of three cities, where we have three distinct populations living as one. I see that even within the area I represent.

Some people in our community are very well off, professionals, people who buy homes that are not just worth one million dollars, but multi-million dollars. They have a lot of choices about where they go and how they participate in recreational activities. They can choose to belong to a private club in the city. There is a waterfront club right in my riding. They can take a vacation in northern Ontario or anywhere else in the world. Then a growing number of people, and I see in my community, do not get to go anywhere. They stay in the city. They have never been to Muskoka or out on a boat. Their options are rather limited.

In our riding of Parkdale—High Park, we have High Park, which until now has been the largest park in the city. Through the visionary action of John and Jemima Howard many years ago, this park was bequeathed to the city with the understanding that it would always remain free and open for access to all. On a summer day, families, not just from the surrounding communities but from all over, come to the park. They have picnics, play sports and conduct a variety of activities in the park. It is a really wonderful thing to see. In fact, people from around the world come to see the cherry blossoms when they are in bloom, a gift from the Japanese government. It is a source of great enjoyment.

My kids played soccer there. There is skating and many activities, but it is also an area where there has been a great deal of work to protect the natural environment. There are old oak forests that are unique to the area and a great deal of work goes into protecting and preserving the natural ecology of that area. It is a great treasure of which we are all very proud.

The notion of creating the first national urban park is quite exciting. I see the same potential for communities to participate, to have a variety of activities or access to nature in a way that, frankly, a lot of people growing up in downtown Toronto in towers, whether condos or rentals, would otherwise not have the ability to do.

It is in fact a real treasure. It is something that one generation can pass on to the next for the enjoyment of people in the future. It is something that has to be done well. It has to be done right. The fact that this park would be created is something that we are very pleased about. As New Democrats, we will be supporting it. I do, however, want to raise some legitimate concerns about the creation of the park.

One thing I have come to really understand, with the creation of High Park and the legacy of John and Jemima Howard, is that they got it right when they bequeathed this park to the city. They got it absolutely right. In downtown Toronto, if this land were made available for development today, I cannot imagine how much money these acres of waterfront property in the centre of the city would be worth. However, this parkland has been protected for the present and future generations.

How this new Rouge Park is structured will be very important. The Rouge Valley is home to over 1,000 species of plants and animals, including a number of species at risk. It is made up of Carolinian and mixed wood forests. They are very rare forest areas. It is certainly an area worth preserving and protecting.

The fact that the federal government would create this national park was laid out in the first throne speech of the Conservative government. We applaud that. This would be the first urban national park in the country and one of the largest in the entire North American continent. The funding was laid out for this in the economic action plan of 2012. The 2012 budget said that there would be $143 million over 10 years for the development and interim operations of the park, and $7.6 million a year for continuing operations.

The main issue is the framework for the creation of this park and the protection of the environment within it. The park is currently protected under a whole range of existing action plans that were developed for this area. There has been incredible community engagement in the creation of this park. There have been management plans, greenbelt plans, watershed plans, heritage action plans, a variety of plans into which the community has poured a great deal of consultation, expertise and hope to get this right for the future.

Unfortunately, Bill C-40 does not embrace the strong foundation of conservation policy that is provided in the plans that I just mentioned, in addition to the laws that have been passed already. The concern is that the bill, if it passes unchanged, will undermine the ecological integrity and the health of the Rouge Valley.

Again, I would like to say that if we do not get it right from the beginning and if we do not set out the proper framework, the after-effects will be felt by generations.

We want to see a Rouge national urban park that incorporates the same legal protections as other national parks. That would really make sense. This is an idea that has broad support from environmental organizations, local community groups and residents. While we believe that the bill is a step in the right direction, we have concerns that, with the way it is drafted, it will undermine the ecological conservation of this land for the future.

New Democrats think that the legislation and management plan should adopt the long-standing Rouge Park vision, with its goals and objectives. We think the bill should strengthen and implement the existing environmental protection policy framework. We believe that more of the park should be dedicated to nature and public enjoyment and that we should be setting as a priority the ecological health and conservation of the Carolinian and mixed woodland plain forest.

There are a number of other points that others have raised. Again, I want to give the government credit for moving on this. I talked about High Park in my riding and another feature of my riding is the western boundary, which is Humber River. The Humber River is the only national urban heritage river in the country. It is the only heritage river that can be reached by subway. It is a very wonderful, historic place in the city.

There was great concern when, in one of the Conservative omnibus budget bills, the protection for this river was removed, except for the mouth of the river. Therefore, I thank my colleague from York South—Weston, who introduced a bill to once again resume the protection of the Humber River, because it is of tremendous heritage and environmental importance to our community, and we believe, as it is designated, to the country as well.

In closing, I want to urge my colleagues to really think through the content of the bill. Again, we salute its existence, but the detail of it, the specific measures of it, can and should be improved upon and we hope that all parties can work together in the House to make that happen.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for supporting the bill at second reading. I thought she gave some very thoughtful comments on it. Maybe I can give her some further assurances about the legislation in front of us in respect of the protection of the ecology of the park.

While clause 6 says, “The Minister must...take into consideration the protection of its natural ecosystems”, section 4 of the bill says, “Rouge National Urban Park...is established for the purposes of protecting and presenting...the natural and cultural heritage of the Park”. That is quite categorical.

Further on, subclause 9(2) says:

The management plan must set out a management approach, by area, that includes the following: (a) the protection and presentation of natural and cultural heritage....

The bill is so protective of the park that it will be illegal to pick a flower in the park. It will be illegal to pick a flower because subclause 18(2) says:

...it is prohibited to... (c) remove a wild animal, a plant, a part of a plant or any other naturally occurring object or product of natural phenomena from the Park....

It will be prohibited in this law to pick a flower in the park. That is how strong the protection will be of the park in the legislation.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to encourage people to try to capture deer or racoons or any other wildlife in the park, although, I dare say, I am sure that in spite of that, the odd flower may get picked in some cases.

I appreciate the member's comments on this and thank him for his work on it, but there are people who have been engaged in the development of the plans—and he may be as well, yes—but let me quote the general manager of Friends of the Rouge Watershed, Mr. Jim Robb, who said:

I have participated in almost all of these processes. The current Rouge Park concept deviates significantly from the existing plans. For example, in the new vision of the Rouge national park concept, there's no mention of the words “ecology” or “ecosystem”. That's the primary vision of the existing Rouge Park, which has been approved multiple times over two decades. Another thing is the 600-metre wooded corridor. That's enshrined in provincial legislation through the green belt. It's in Rouge Park plans consistently. There's no mention of that 600-metre wooded ecological corridor within the Rouge Park concept. I could give you more examples.

These are people who have been involved in this for some time and I express their concerns.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would care to comment on the proposal that is often put in front of the Toronto City Council vis-à-vis the Toronto Zoo, which is one of the major pieces of property contained within this park.

The proposal comes from people who are not seeking to conserve, and I would use the word “conserve” as in conservative. There are members of council who are not in support of conserving this piece of public property in the hands of city government but rather want to privatize it and send it out the door. In other words, they want to sell the Toronto Zoo, sell a piece of this park, because they do not believe it should be under public ownership or public operation.

Perhaps this is one of the concerns the province also has about the agricultural lands. If we do not protect the agricultural lands from being sold out from the park and do not protect them as part of the park, these too so-called conservatives will not conserve the park and in fact will simply transact it to private sector partners for development.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a Torontonian who has frequently visited the Toronto Zoo, and over the years my kids have come to love it along with generations of kids, it is something we want to protect in the public sphere.

In my comments, I spoke about kids and families who do not have cottages and do not get to travel or get out of the city. The zoo may be their only chance to see even domestic animals up close.

There was a tremendous campaign that our local community in Parkdale—High Park led to protect the zoo in High Park. The goal was to keep it public, accessible and open, and we were successful in that. I believe the City of Toronto will also be successful in keeping the Toronto Zoo open for all to have access to and not turn it over to private hands.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks. I have to say that they fit in quite significantly and appropriately with some work that I have been doing regarding the urban forest.

As members will know, my leader was an environment minister who worked with great integrity in order to protect the Mont-Orford provincial park. He has encouraged me with my urban forest program because, first of all, I come from the Forest City, and second, the urban forest is an incredibly important asset, as will be the proposed asset that we are hearing of in terms of the Rouge Valley trees, which protect the environment, create a canopy, cool us down, prevent flooding, provide storm protection and have great health benefits.

My question is in regard to the concerns around the 600-metre wooded corridor. In light of the importance of an urban forest, could my colleague please comment on the significance and importance of that corridor?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for London—Fanshawe for that important question.

A question that is very pressing in urban centres is this. How do we protect not just green space but the green canopy?

There are many Toronto city councillors, including ours in Parkdale—High Park, who have been very vocal and adamant about the need to increase the tree canopy in our area and in the city of Toronto generally. The last thing we want to have is a concrete or asphalt wasteland. We want to have all of the health, environmental and ecological benefits that the tree canopy brings.

I thank my colleague for London—Fanshawe for her work on this issue. It really speaks to the importance of this corridor and to preserving access to this wooded area and the tree canopy, not just for now but for generations to come.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask the question again. I have asked it so many times it is actually frustrating.

The member cites the Rouge Park plan. First, the bill we brought forward actually goes further than the former Rouge Park Alliance's plans for the park. The protection the bill offers goes further than the 2001 protocol that was put in place by the Rouge Park Alliance.

The plan members opposite are citing is the 1994 Rouge Park plan that calls for a 600-metre corridor, a 1994 plan, a plan that is 20 years old. That is not the basis by which the Rouge Park was moving forward.

The 1994 plan would see 1,700-acres of class one farmland removed from production. The Liberals have said they support that. Some New Democrats have said they support that as well. The Liberals have said they want to see farming in the area progress to small-scale farming.

Again I ask, how do we create a 1,700 acre ecological corridor, remove 1,700 acres of class one farmland from this area, and not evict the farmer? It is impossible to do. How do we do that without evicting farmers? Why is the member citing a report that not even the Rouge Park Alliance accepts as the plan with which they would move forward?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks I listed a number of reports and plans. The member is right that there are plans going back to 1994. However, the quote I just gave from the general manager of the Friends of the Rouge Watershed, Jim Robb, was from 2012.

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

Citing a 1994 report.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

There was a comment he made in 2012.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I think this is my time to speak and not a debate, so I would ask the member to hold his comments while I have the floor.

The importance of creating parkland is that there can be multiple uses. There could be an area for an ecological preserve, where we can preserve a purely natural environment. There could be walking paths. There could be other activities in the park. There could be a zoo. There could be many uses.

To say that by preserving the ecology of the park or insisting on woodlands in the park, somehow that would have to cover every square foot is simply not correct.

However, I do trust the people who have been active on this issue for 20 years or more who are saying they have concerns about the bill and that their work is not being listened to.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay out a bit of the timeline around the bill and some of the key issues.

Before I get into that, I do want to take a moment in this House to thank my colleagues, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River and the member for Scarborough Southwest. They have been really helpful. It has been great to work closely with them as MPs in the NDP who are right there where this park is. It has been great to get their advice from the ground to hear what is going on.

I also want to take a minute to thank some of the environmental organizations and local organizations that have been very helpful with our analysis of the bill. They include the Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, and the Friends of the Rouge Watershed. When we are here on the Hill, we try to do an analysis of legislation as it is presented, but it is hard to know exactly how it will play out in local communities. They have been very helpful to us.

There was a study at the environment committee on urban conservation. The NDP was successful in getting two days set aside to specifically look at Rouge Park. I think this was last year. That was incredibly helpful. We got an update from Parks Canada officials and we did hear witnesses. We heard about the incredible consultation that has been happening, over 25 years of consultation, and the work around this park. We heard about the great work that Parks Canada staff have been doing to try to ensure everybody is at the table and to deal with creating a piece of legislation that would create a park. That is very difficult.

This is an urban national park. Even the concept of it is challenging, because there is a highway in this park. There are farms in this park. It is an incredible gift to think that we could have a park that we could access by subway. However, with those gifts come great challenges.

Often when bills are presented in the House, we will hear from government; usually the minister will speak to the bill. Then we will usually hear first from the opposition critics to lay out a party's position and see where we are going.

I am actually speaking at the end of this debate. I have been listening to it since the beginning, with a small break for committee duty. It has been really interesting. I am not saying that the way a politician says, “This has been interesting”. It has been really interesting. There has been actual debate in this House.

My colleague, the member for Beaches—East York, sits behind me and I turned to him in the last of debate and asked, “Are you listening to this? People are talking about ideas. There's a little give, a little take.” I learned from each and every speech, regardless of whether it was a government member giving the speech, a Liberal member, or an NDP member. Why is that? I think the people who are speaking in the House to the bill have a vested interest in it. They are MPs from the area predominantly. They are MPs with expertise. They are MPs who have been engaged in this issue and engaged in the creation of the park for years.

In that debate, that honest debate that has been happening here in the House, I would say that most members have put aside their talking points and have talked about some of the real issues. I find that to be incredibly refreshing.

I think everybody who has spoken to this bill really does want to ensure that we get this legislation right, but they also want to ensure that we create this park. That is priority number one.

I will say that I will be supporting the bill, and I know that my caucus is behind that recommendation. As members know, critics make recommendations to their caucuses on different pieces of legislation. We are united and we do believe this is a good project, the creation of this park. We strongly support protecting land through creation of national parks writ large, as long as those national parks are backed with strong environmental legislation.

We also support this legislation, the creation of Rouge Park, Canada's first urban national park. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that I will come to this debate with an open mind, an open heart, and put down my talking points as well, to try to present some ideas, try to present some proposals, because I do see problems with the bill, and I am not alone on that. However, I think there are solutions, and I do believe that we as parliamentarians could work on those solutions together, alongside the community, and actually come up with a stronger bill.

A lot has happened with this bill. It was introduced in June, and frankly, I think some politics were involved in that. I think it was hastily introduced in this House, but we had some byelections happening in the Scarborough area so it is good for the government to say, “Look. We are going to hold up this bill.” That is just my assumption, but I do think it was tabled pretty hastily. There continue to be politics when we see what the Ontario government has been doing and saying via the media.

This park will be 58 square kilometres. The Province of Ontario owns two-thirds of that. The federal government owns about one-third, with some small parcels owned by Markham and Toronto. In order to create this park, we need a transfer of lands. Some 5,400 acres of parkland would be transferred from the Ontario government to the federal government. At least that was the theory we were working with in June. It is not so much the theory now.

In early September, we heard that the Ontario government was thinking about not transferring the land because of the issue of ecological integrity. I will get to the ecological integrity piece in a minute. About a week later, we saw that the Minister of the Environment said that the federal government would move ahead with this park anyway. I have a concern that we would be creating a park that we do not actually know what it will look like. We do not actually have the full parcel of land. I will admit I would rather create a very small park than no park at all, but we are in a situation where we are not 100% sure what land is going to be involved.

What is the issue with ecological integrity? This is important. The National Parks Act specifically states, “Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of parks”. The first priority is maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity.

This bill says that the minister must take into consideration ecological integrity. That is a big sticking point for a lot of people.

Community groups have come out and said that this is not acceptable, that it is a lower standard of environmental protection. I understand what they are saying and I believe what they are saying.

There was actually a pretty good release put out by a number of groups, including Environmental Defence and Ontario Nature, for example. They said:

We call on the federal government to uphold its commitment to the Memorandum of Agreement. As it stands now, the draft federal legislation threatens to undermine 25 years of consultation, scientific study and provincial policy development that made ecological integrity the main purpose of the park and the top priority for park management.

That is their concern. I share their concern, but I think we can figure this out.

Listening to the debate here in the House, I have heard my colleagues, in particular the members for Wellington—Halton Hills and Oak Ridges—Markham, talk about the fact that this is an urban park and it is complicated because there are farms and there is a highway. How do we have this standard of protecting ecological integrity when Highway 401 is going through it? That says to me that maybe we legitimately need a different standard, not a lower standard but a different standard, for urban parks. I buy that. That is something worth exploring.

The problem I have right now, though, is that I have trust issues with this government.

[An hon. member]

How come?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Well, I am the environment critic.

I do not trust that this is just a different standard. It says to me that this bill is opening the door a crack, and other parks legislation will also have a different and perhaps lower environmental standard, so it is hard to trust that this is what the issue is.

However, if we are looking at a new consideration of ecological integrity or a new consideration of urban parks, then I think we need to have that conversation. I think it needs consultation. I think we need to hear from witnesses at committee.

I think we need to, as I said, put the talking points down and have an open and honest conversation about what we do with urban parks. I think there is a solution. I am not sure what it is yet, but I think we can get there together.

I often think about the fact that there is a concept that the environment is a precious, pristine thing that is unsullied and is separate from us. It is not. The environment is us. It is the people. It is our buildings, roads, and farms. We are part of the environment.

There has been a lot of work and thinking on that concept of the environment, so I know that the work is there that can help us get to a solution here. I do not know if it is an amendment to the Parks Act. I understand if the government does not want to reopen the Parks Act, but maybe we need to. Maybe it needs to be a definition for urban parks.

We need to come together. I think we can do it, both opposition MPs and government MPs and communities.

One might think I am naive in thinking we could actually work together to get this done, but I live in eternal hope. I actually have some good experience. There is precedence here in this House, even in this current majority government.

I am really proud of the work we, all of us, were able to do on the Sable Island National Park to bring that bill forward, to raise concerns about some problems with the bill, and to actually get assurances and commitments from government, whether it was via the park management plan or reporting, that dealt with some of the problem areas and with our concerns.

As a result, there was near unanimous support, with the exception of one. Everyone wins in that case. Everyone feels good and confident, and we know we have a good piece of legislation before us. I hope we can do the same with this bill.

I challenge all of us to maybe come up with a definition for ecological integrity, or maybe to come up with a different standard for urban parks, something we can all agree on. I do not believe that anyone in this House, or any party, wants weaker environmental protection. I take the government at its word on this.

I think we can figure this out, and then maybe if we can figure this out, we could actually apply that solution to something like Gatineau Park, for example. Members may remember that the NDP has brought forward legislation several times, I think it is three times, to clearly establish boundaries and to clearly establish roles when it comes to Gatineau Park. This is a park that exists without a plan or real boundaries or definition. I will say that most recently, legislation was brought forward, in the form of Bill C-565, by my colleague, the member for Hull—Aylmer. We think this is another opportunity for an urban park with strong environmental legislation.

Unfortunately, the government voted against that bill—

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

That is a shame.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

It is a shame, Mr. Speaker. It was a good piece of legislation. Maybe we can stake out a bit of ground on what we do with urban parks. I am not anticipating thousands of them or a flood of urban parks, but it is a real issue, and we need to wrap our heads around it.

If we can establish what urban park protection would look like, then maybe we can apply it to Gatineau Park and have another win in this House.

I will go back to ecological integrity just for a minute, because members may think I am giving up too much here, that just because this is an urban park, we would not have strong environmental protections and we would not strive for ecological integrity. I want to be very clear and let the House know that this is not what I am saying.

I believe that a park next to or in Canada's biggest city should continue to strive for ecological integrity.

Ecological integrity is the goal of environmental protection within Rouge Park, Greenbelt, and Rouge watershed plans as well as in provincial and national park legislation and policies. I know that the government agreed to meet or exceed existing provincial policies. I have heard debate in the House saying that this legislation exceeds them, but I hear from the community that it does not meet them, so we need to figure this out.

Ecological integrity must continue to be the priority for the scientifically planned and zoned national habit systems of Rouge national urban park. We could look at different standards, such as net gain and ecosystem and watershed health, perhaps. It could be utilized for areas zoned for agriculture, infrastructure, hamlets, campgrounds, et cetera. I am not sure, but it is something we can talk about. If we think about it, lots of our provincial and national parks have highways, towns, railways, and other infrastructure within them, yet they still manage to prioritize that goal of ecological integrity.

We really want to see the creation of this park. We really want to work together to try to come up with a solution that addresses these concerns about ecological integrity. I look forward to hearing the witnesses at committee. I look forward to hearing speeches in the House afterward to see where we are, and I look forward to some questions.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for supporting Bill C-40 at second reading. I appreciate her feedback and comments on the bill.

I just want to emphasize that while provincial legislation does include the words “ecological integrity”, that same provincial piece of legislation allows for natural resource extraction, logging, and hunting in Algonquin Provincial Park. While the legislation in front of us today does not contain the words “ecological integrity”, when we look at the totality of the bill, in its prohibitions to protect the environment and the flora and fauna of the park, it is far stronger than the provincial legislation currently in force in the province of Ontario. Therefore, if we look at the bill in its totality, it will effect a better outcome for Rouge national urban park than what we have in the provincial parks in the provincial park system.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what my colleague for Wellington—Halton Hills is saying, but it is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. We can say “no” to hunting yet still not protect ecological integrity. They are different beasts.

We all have to acknowledge that there are people who have serious concerns about this specific issue of ecological integrity. What do we have to do as legislators? We have to address that head on. Instead of saying that we are going to ban hunting and picking flowers, we need to confront the issue of ecological integrity and figure out a solution. Organizations like Environmental Defence have a problem with this, and I trust the work they do. They do incredible work. They do incredible analyses. Therefore, let us deal with the issue of ecological integrity, not whether or not a flower is going to be picked. It is a different issue.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech very carefully and heard her several times suggest skepticism in trusting the government to protect the natural state of this park.

As I mentioned in my earlier question, I was a member of city council. It spent $17 million to add a substantial amount of land to this park. Is she aware that some of the most prominent Conservatives on that city council, people with the last names of Ford, Holyday, who went on to represent the Conservatives in the provincial legislature, Denzil Minnan-Wong, and David Shiner, another Conservative candidate, all voted not only to refuse to protect the land from being converted from a naturalized state into something else but also actually refused to acquire this piece of property to add to the park?

Is that perhaps one of the reasons she is skeptical of the Conservatives, whose members, when they have a chance to add land, to protect the naturalized state, actually vote against the interests of the park, the interests of Scarborough, and the interests of the city of Toronto on this? Is that one of the reasons the member might have some skepticism about the authenticity of the Conservative position?