Bill C-40 (Historical)

Rouge National Urban Park Act

An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park

This enactment establishes the Rouge National Urban Park, a new type of federal protected area, and provides for the protection and presentation of its natural and cultural resources and the encouragement of sustainable farming practices within the Park. The enactment confers a broad range of regulatory powers for the management and administration of the Park. It also makes consequential amendments to the Canada Lands Surveys Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Environmental Violations Administrative Monetary Penalties Act.

Rouge National Urban Park Act

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his initiative in planting trees. I, too, have had the privilege of planting well over 1,700 trees on my property, and I think it is one example that every Canadian could follow. We could each do our little part. We do not have to have government do everything.

As we listened to the witnesses on Bill C-40, the predecessor of the bill before us, it was clear from farmers and experts, and from the CEO of Parks Canada, Alan Latourelle, who clearly said in testimony that we cannot include the concept of ecological integrity in the bill.

Is my colleague suggesting that we cannot trust our Parks Canada experts and officials when they make a very clear, unequivocal recommendation to the committee, or is he simply acknowledging that this is paying back the political loan to the Ontario Liberals?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, before the last election, I had the privilege to serve on environment committee as chair. At that time, we heard from many witnesses throughout the course of several meetings on Bill C-40, an act respecting the Rouge National Park. When I found out that the Liberal government was returning to this legislation, I was surprised. Bill C-40 was great legislation. Our previous Conservative government did so much for Rouge National Park which was supported by experts and members of many different environmental organizations.

In the 2011 Speech from the Throne, our Conservative government committed $143.7 million, over 10 years, to the creation of Rouge National Park. It appears to me that Bill C-18 is simply political cover by the federal Liberals for the Ontario Liberal government for not transferring the provincial portion of the lands before the 2015 election.

Bill C-18 does not include the transfer of parklands that were expropriated by the federal Liberals in the early 1970s for an airport, which has yet to be built, or the additional $26.8 million over six years and $3 million annually thereafter in funding that our Conservative government announced in 2015. The Liberals have not yet followed through with this commitment.

Provincial infrastructure Minister Chiarelli secretly demanded a $100 million payment for the land transfer, which was rejected on principle by our government. Following this, provincial Minister Duguid wrote a letter as political cover stating that the Ontario government would not transfer lands until Rouge National Urban Park was amended to ensure that the first priority of park management was ecological integrity. Parks Canada disagreed with the ecological integrity designation as it was unrealistic for an urban park.

The true environmentalist's definition of ecological integrity would include letting forests burn, letting floods run their course, and wildlife survival without human intervention. The Rouge sits alongside residential neighbourhoods, has highways, power lines, and a pipeline across various parts of it, with working farmland, a former landfill dump site, and an old auto wrecker yard within its borders. For these reasons, any attempt in Bill C-18 to define our actions as ecological integrity would be nice sounding words only.

Allow me to quote from one of the witnesses we heard from when we were studying Bill C-40 in the last Parliament. This quote is from Larry Noonan, chair of the Altona Forest Stewardship Committee. He said:

Some people have asked why the term ecological integrity is not in the act. The Canada National Parks Act states that “ecological integrity” includes “supporting processes”. As a further clarification of part of this definition, Parks Canada defines “ecosystem processes” as “the engines that make ecosystems work; e.g. fire, flooding...

Ecological integrity cannot be applied to an urban national park. We simply cannot allow fires and flooding in the Toronto, Markham, and Pickering urban environment. The Rouge National Urban Park Act cannot have this term included or there would have to be a list of exceptions to the definition which could serve to lessen its impact in the Canada National Parks Act. Instead, Bill C-40 refers to the maintenance of its native wildlife and of the health of those ecosystems.

The Rouge National Urban Park and the management plan lay out strategies for attaining the highest possible level of health for the park's ecosystems.

Furthermore, setting ecological integrity as the first priority of park management would be an opening to the interference or even the removal of farmers from the park. The former environment minister, the Hon. Leona Aglukkaq, shared with our committee that “Applying in the legislation the concept of ecological integrity as we do in national parks would make it impossible to permit the type of sustainable farming that has been taking place in the Rouge for centuries.”

Speaking more about farmers, Alan Latourelle, the former Parks Canada CEO for 13 years, also shared with our committee that “in the Rouge national urban park, a significant component is the land that we've agreed on and are working productively with the farmers. That, for example, would not be able to achieve the ecological integrity objective within that context”.

It would be a shame if we, through Bill C-18, ended the rich history of sustainable farming in Rouge Park.

Another witness we heard from in our committee meeting was Mr. Jay Reesor, a farmer in the GTA who farms within the Rouge area. Let me quote part of his testimony:

The creation of the Rouge national urban park is something very important to me, as my wife and I have lived and worked in the federal portion of the land designated to become park since 1985. In fact, my Reesor family has lived and farmed in the current park area since 1804, when they emigrated from Pennsylvania in search of good farmland and good government and settled in the Rouge area.

He goes on to say:

Productive food-producing land is a valuable natural resource, just as a Carolinian forest or wetland is a valuable natural resource. The founders of the former Rouge Park had a vision for a property, a park, that protected nature and gave no real protection or encouragement to food-producing land, but they ran into obstacles. Unable to fulfill the dream for various reasons, they came to Parks Canada as the logical next step to help them implement their vision.

I am very pleased that our park system, in their draft management plan, has shown their intention and commitment to sustainable food production in this exciting new type of park. If the federal park system doesn't intentionally protect the natural resource of productive food-producing land, who will?

The agricultural community and our farmers are some of the best environmentalists. Let me quote a few more witnesses from our committee who spoke about farming and agriculture in the Rouge.

Mr. Alan Wells, chair of the Rouge Park Alliance said:

Parks Canada has continued to recognize agriculture as an important part of the park. The work has gained the confidence of the farming community both in the park and through regional farm organizations. Parks Canada has proposed plans that reflect the need to improve the trail system in the park. Draft trail plans included in the draft management plan build on the planning work recently done by the Rouge Park Alliance. The number of volunteer hike leaders has increased significantly over the last two years to 50 in total, and there is strong support for recreational users.

Over the last 20 years, cultural heritage through the preservation of historic buildings has been neglected due to a lack of funding and commitment. Parks Canada has the mandate, experience, and resources to address this issue and has included cultural heritage in Bill C-40.

Mr. Ian Buchanan, manager, Natural Heritage and Forestry, Environmental Promotion and Protection, Regional Municipality of York, stated:

It is encouraging that Bill C-40 presents clear direction in key areas, specifically clauses 4 and 6 dealing with the park's establishment and management; recognizes the unique setting; and reflects a multi-purpose focus, including natural and cultural heritage, farming, and an emphasis on healthy ecosystems, which we feel is the right balance. Parks Canada, municipalities, and partners have demonstrated a commitment to protecting and restoring the natural environment. York Region has recently invested $6.5 million in the park, creating wetlands, grasslands, forests, and trails connecting people with nature.

From Mr. Larry Noonan, chair of the Altona Forest Stewardship Committee:

Some of these families have been there for over 150 years. Some arrived in Conestoga covered wagons. The purpose of these interviews is to preserve their stories as part of the cultural heritage and farming tradition of the Rouge watershed and the new national urban park. I am very happy to see that both the cultural heritage and the farming communities of the new park are encouraged and supported by Bill C-40.

Finally, from Mr. Ian Buchanan:

Through you, Mr. Chair, they are part of the solution. If we don't acknowledge that the farming community is the front line of environmental protection, we're missing the point. We've worked with farmers for many years, as well as many of the conservation organizations like Ontario Nature, Ducks Unlimited, and had some very significant wins, as York Region has had, through our greening strategy. Thanks for mentioning that. We've had some great successes there. We both learn and the environment wins. That is going to be an integral part of Rouge Park moving forward.

I want to highlight that first part of the quote: “If we don't acknowledge that the farming community is the front line of environmental protection, we're missing the point”.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, farmers are some of our best environmentalists. As I drive through my riding, I can attest to this fact as I look at the cover crops that have been planted where normally at this time of year we would simply have bare land with some stubble. Today when we drive through the area, we see green cover crops. These cover crops are essential to reduce erosion, help with carbon sequestration, and water retention in the soil, which leads to better soil quality by improving and increasing organic matter in the soil.

In addition to cover crops, we see that many of the farmers in my area are no longer doing deep tillage. They are not ploughing, discing, cultivating, and harrowing. Rather, they are going to a no-till application, which simply inserts the seed into the ground. The ground maintains better soil integrity, better water retention, and improved soil quality. In addition to that, because the farmers are not now passing over the land multiple times with their tractors, they are reducing their fuel consumption. This increases our ability to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and also reduce fuel costs.

Along the streams and rivers in my riding, in almost every one, members will see a buffer zone where previously cattle or other wildlife and livestock might have had access to the streams and rivers. These buffer zones now create an area where, first of all, water runoff is filtered by the grass next to the stream. Trees are growing in the buffered area, and so the streams are being protected by the trees. The shade of those trees reduces the temperature of the water. We are seeing fish come back into these streams and an improved water quality, which not only benefits the stream and river right there but, as those of us in the Great Lakes area know, makes a great contribution to preserving our environment and improving the water quality in our Great Lakes.

I could also speak about wetland conservation, and we see that wetlands are great filters for water. They act as sponges during flood time, as they absorb that water. Carbon sequestration is a big part of not only preserving the wetlands but in many cases restoring wetlands that had previously been drained and were in crop production. They are now being returned to wetland production.

In addition to driving through my riding and seeing these great examples of good environmentalism on the part of our farmers, just recently, in October, I hosted a round table in my riding with farmers and agroforestry people to get an idea of the kinds of initiatives the farmers are taking to improve our environment. This speaks to the fact that, in addition to the work that we are doing in the Rouge Park, we know that our farmers will be co-labourers in our work of protecting our environment. If I have time at the end of my comments, I would like to read a few comments from that round table.

I would like to inform Canadians as to what Bill C-40, the previous rendition of the Rouge Park act, actually included. I think when we listen to some of the things that were included in Bill C-40, Rouge National Urban Park Act, Canadians will understand the great work that was done in producing this act, which will protect the Rouge National Urban Park.

Whereas the Rouge Valley contains some of the last remnants of the Carolinian forest in Canada, significant geological features and a combination of diverse habitats linking Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine;

Whereas the foresight, dedication and engagement of community visionaries and various levels of government have laid the foundation for the creation of a park in the Rouge Valley, an area that is rich in natural and cultural resources and is readily accessible to the population of Canada’s largest metropolitan area;

I will stop for a moment on that area, just to point out that right at the doorstep of the GTA is an urban national park. Children who would not ordinarily have the option of perhaps visiting one of our national parks that are further afield will have the option to see, learn, touch, and feel these things that are in the national park, which would not ordinarily be accessible to them.

It goes on:

Whereas there is a unique opportunity to connect Canadians with the natural and cultural heritage of the Rouge Valley and with history of its early Aboriginal inhabitants and others who shaped its landscape; and whereas Parliament wishes to protect natural ecosystems and maintain natural wildlife in the Rouge Valley, to provide meaningful opportunities for Canadians to experience and enjoy the diverse landscapes of the Rouge Valley, to engage local communities and businesses, Aboriginal organizations and youth as well as other Canadians, to become stewards and ambassadors of the park.

We cannot overstate that part, seeing the co-operation that we have been able to achieve with the aboriginal organizations, youth, the local communities, and businesses to become stewards and ambassadors of the park, not just using the park but actually being able to promote the use of this park and its preservation. It goes on:

...to provide a wide range of recreational, interpretive, volunteer and learning activities to attract a diverse urban population to the park, to enable youth and other visitors to connect with nature in an urban setting, to protect the natural and cultural landscapes of the park and identify its heritage values to facilitate an understanding and appreciation of the history of the region, to encourage sustainable farming practices, to support the preservation of agricultural lands in the park and celebrate the agricultural heritage of the region, and to promote the park as a place of discovery, enjoyment and learning, and as a gateway to all of Canada's national protected heritage areas.

It continues in section 4 on the establishment of the park:

Rouge National Urban Park, which is described in the schedule, has established for the purposes of protecting and presenting for current and future generations, the natural and cultural heritage of the park and its diverse landscapes, promoting a vibrant farming community and encouraging Canadians to discover and connect with their national protected heritage areas.

I think members will see so many of the examples that I have read from many of the witnesses who appeared before our committee. I could go on and read from my report on the round table that we conducted, but I do not think my time will allow me to do that. I just wanted to point out the above from Bill C-40, the bill our Conservative government enacted.

I had the privilege of sitting on the environment committee as chair, listening to these witnesses, seeing the hard work that was done, including by the former Parks Canada CEO, Alan Latourelle, and his clear recommendation not to include ecological integrity within the bill.

These are solid principles on which the Rouge Park was established. The current protections provided to Rouge National Urban Park far exceed the protections provided by the Province of Ontario, specifically in prohibiting mining, logging, hunting, and in application of the Species at Risk Act and year-round dedicated enforcement officers.

The Liberals are continuing to play games with the park, which is why Bill C-18 is nothing more than an assortment of unrelated items with the intention of appeasing Kathleen Wynne and the Ontario Liberals in providing political cover for their pre-election political attack that has used Rouge National Urban Park as a political bargaining chip.

Ecological integrity as a primary guiding principle for the park is an unrealistic measure for an urban park, which was established to introduce Canadians to nature, local culture, and agriculture, a first of its kind in Canada.

In closing, the Conservative Party stands proud about the creation of Rouge National Park, described best by Alan Latourelle as:

Presenting a unique opportunity to connect residents of the GTA to nature, while demonstrating global conservation leadership under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Urban Protected Areas program, and showing respect to first nations and farmers who have cared for this land for countless generations, connecting resident of the GTA to the future.

It is a beautiful, breathtaking park, a sight to behold, and I hope all members will have the opportunity to visit it.

While we will be supporting this legislation going to committee, we hope the Liberal government will listen to stakeholders such as Wayne Emmerson, chairman and CEO of York region; Glen De Baeremaeker, deputy mayor, City of Toronto, and the mayors from Markham, Richmond Hill and Pickering; the York Region Federation of Agriculture; and individual farmers like Jay Reesor; and the Toronto Zoo and others.

As the committee looks at the bill, I am hoping it will amend Bill C-18 by removing the ecological integrity portion of this legislation.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not understand why is it so hard for the Conservatives to understand that all Canadians, all environmentalists, and even some farmers support this bill.

When they were in office, the Conservatives tried to divide farmers and pit them against environmentalists. That did not make any sense. Conservative Bill C-40, which was passed in the previous Parliament, was so weak that even the Government of Ontario refused to turn over the 9,000 acres of parkland because it did not think that the land would be protected properly.

How then can my colleague oppose a conservation bill? It is beyond me. This bill helps fight climate change, protect the environment, and leave future generations a healthy planet.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed hearing the previous speaker. It is always great to hear people, who have never taken any courses in the science of ecology, talking about the science of ecology. It showed.

I am very proud to rise in this House today to speak on Bill C-18, an act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act, and the Canada National Parks Act.

Canadians recognize that it was the previous Conservative government that created Rouge National Urban Park by passing Bill C-40 on May 15, 2015. I was proud to be part of that government.

In the 2011 Speech from the Throne, our previous government also committed $143.7 million over 10 years to the creation of the Rouge National Urban Park. We understood the importance of this park and did not play politics with it.

However, the Ontario Liberal government thought it could play politics with the creation of this park. After Liberal provincial infrastructure minister Chiarelli secretly demanded a $100 billion payment for the land transfer, which was rejected on principle by our Conservative government, Liberal provincial minister Duguid wrote a letter as political cover, stating that the Ontario government would not transfer lands until the Rouge National Urban Park Act was amended to ensure that the first priority of park management was ecological integrity.

If we go back to what our act said, in that section, we see it said:

The Minister must, in the management of the Park, take into consideration the protection of its natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes and the maintenance of its native wildlife and of the health of those ecosystems.

That pretty much covers it all. Clearly, this ecological integrity ploy by the Ontario government was nothing but a ploy.

We now see, of course, that the federal Liberals are thanking their provincial cousins for their political assistance and are moving forward with the ecological integrity designation. It is important to note that the former CEO of Parks Canada, Alan Latourelle, disagreed very strongly with the ecological integrity designation, as it was an unrealistic approach to an urban park, which it is.

Mr. Latourelle was the CEO when Rouge National Urban Park was created. He says:

....all lands to be included in the Rouge National Urban Park Act will legally preclude all of the inappropriate uses—

He is referring to Ontario parks.

—mentioned above and will ensure that the vision of linking Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine becomes a reality....

Any organization that implies that the Rouge National Urban Park Act does not meet current provincial legislation is misleading the public. There is simply no act that has been passed by the Ontario legislature that places ecological integrity as the first priority on Rouge lands owned by Ontario.

He went on to note:

In developing its management and legislative approach for Rouge National Urban Park, Parks Canada was guided by the IUCN’s Urban Protected Areas: Profiles and best practice guidelines. It is important to underline the fact that Rouge National Urban Park very clearly meets or exceeds all 30 of the IUCN’s urban protected area guidelines. In fact, based on the Agency’s review, the Rouge National Urban Park Act is the strongest legislation governing IUCN urban parks in the world.

It is clear that the way our government had set the park up was world class.

I will be supporting the legislation in principle, but it will need to be amended at committee for that support to continue. Let me explain why.

It is my strong belief that our national parks are about people. They are for people. They are about allowing people to have access to and explore nature. As well, national parks protect certain ecosystems and the biological, chemical, hydrological, and physical processes that are required by healthy ecosystems.

At the time of the park's creation, our government determined that the integrated approach was the most appropriate for the Rouge Park. There were three very clear interconnected priorities when it comes to protection: nature, culture, and agriculture.

This model is what Canadians and the Rouge Park Alliance, the former provincially appointed managing authority of Rouge Park, had asked for. This would allow the Rouge's natural, cultural, and agricultural resources to receive the highest level of protection now and far into the future.

Ecological integrity as the first priority of park management could be an opening to the interference with or even the removal of farmers from the park, which would be a real travesty.

The purpose of the Rouge Park, at least when we created it, is not to force farmers off the land, but these amendments could have that effect. Furthermore, the term “ecological integrity” implies a “leave it alone” approach to park management.

The leave it alone approach to managing lands is usually advocated by people who do not spend any time in nature. Farmers, ranchers, trappers or hunters know there is no such thing as leaving nature alone.

I will again go back to the previous act, which states, “The Minister must...take into consideration the protection of its natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes and the maintenance of its native wildlife and of the health of those ecosystems.”

It is important to also recognize the need to manage nature to achieve desired outcomes and to protect cultural landscapes. This is in direct opposition to the leave it alone approach advocated by many activists, most of whom have spent no time in nature at all.

Cultural landscapes in the Rouge National Urban Park refer to the agricultural operations that are currently operating within the park. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a static environment. Nature is changing all the time. There are droughts, floods, fires, invading species, plant successions, and so on. There are times when humans must “step in and actively manage nature”.

Back home in western Manitoba, we have been enduring years of high rainfall and floods. The ecosystem has changed dramatically, as have the wildlife species. Therefore, we are building drains and trying to manage water. Again, there are times when human beings must step in to manage nature.

A few years ago I purchased whose title intrigued me, and I have referred to it a number of times. It is called The God Species and is authored by environmental Mark Lynas. It is about how the planet can survive the age of humans.

Lynas states that human beings have become such a planetary force that we must step in when things are going wrong, and we have an obligation to step in to manage lands to deliver ecosystem health.

He says:

[Working] at a planetary level is essential if creation is not to be irreparably damaged or even destroyed by humans unwittingly deploying our new-found powers in disastrous ways. At this late stage, false humility is a more urgent danger than hubris....we must help it regain the stability it needs to function as a self-regulating, highly dynamic and complex system.

He goes on to note:

Most importantly, environmentalists need to remind themselves that humans are not all bad. We evolved within this living biosphere, and we have as much right to be here as any other species...The Age of Humans does not have to be an era of hardship and misery for other species; we can nurture and protect as well as dominate and conquer. But in any case, the first responsability of a conquering army is always to govern.

As a person who owns a farm and spends a lot of time in nature, what Lynas is talking about is stewardship. Stewardship is a very good, benign, and positive word when it comes to what human beings do with the environment.

The idea of pristine nature is largely a myth. William Denevan, from the University of Wisconsin, wrote a paper called, “The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492”. In it he noted this with respect to the Latin American forest:

Large expanses of Latin American forests are humanized forests in which the kinds, numbers, and distributions of useful species are managed by human populations.

Aboriginal people lit prairie fires on a regular basis to keep the woody species down and ensure lots of grass for the bison herds that they depended on. One of the management strategies for wetlands is to draw wetlands down periodically and allow the soil to dry out and improve the health of wetlands.

On my farm, because I liked having wildlife around, I have created openings in the forests, and I am able to improve wildlife populations.

The recreational fisheries community, working with fishery biologists, create new fish spawning areas. The Miramichi Salmon Association, through our recreational fisheries conservation program, creates cold water refugia for Atlantic salmon so they can survive warm water temperatures. Therefore, active management of landscapes and the environment is more common than not.

Europe, for example, is one completely managed landscape, designed to deliver certain ecosystem services to people, from agriculture to forestry to wildlife. Therefore, rural Europe is one big managed garden.

Again, only in North America can we have this peculiar conceit about pristine landscapes. We are the only place in the world that talks this way. The rest of the world has to actively manage landscapes to deliver certain ecological outcomes. However, we are actually getting pretty good at this now, although it has taken many years. Our knowledge is growing all the time and we are making better decisions all the time.

Getting back to Rouge National Urban Park, it is a highly impacted park. It is surrounded by development. The term “ecological integrity” very much implies a leave it alone and hope things work out approach. We will have invasive species in there. We will perhaps have the hydrological cycle disrupted because of the way the highway patterns are. A whole bunch of things are going to happen in there. Will the government do anything about it? The traditional Parks Canada approach is to leave it alone.

Interestingly enough, there are many instances where human beings have touched the earth very lightly and created conditions that are better ecologically than otherwise would have been. Let us take Grasslands National Park in Saskatchewan, for example. I have had the honour of visiting it a few times.

Grasslands National Park was created by ranchers. If it were not for the ranchers grazing, and the way they grazed, that national park would not have the attributes it has now, and it would not have had the attributes that would have made it a desirable place to create one of Canada's most unique and important national parks, which creates unique, rare, and important plant and animal communities. It is all because of what the ranchers did.

Parks Canada's initial view when the park was being created was that the ranchers had to go. However, it quickly realized that it was grazing that kept the park's ecosystem intact. I check recently and cattle ranching has continued to be part of the management of Grasslands National Park.

As I said earlier, I have the honour of owning a farm, 480 acres, with 320 acres under a permanent conservation easement with the nature conservancy. Therefore, I have my own mini-Rouge Park with a bit of agriculture in it, forest, wetlands, and wildlife. From personal experience, there are ways to touch the land very lightly and deliver the things people want.

My riding also happens to encompass Riding Mountain National Park. I live very close to that park. In fact, it is one of the reasons I moved there.

Although Riding Mountain National Park is a rural park, it has some characteristics similar to Rouge National Urban Park. It is about 1,000 square kilometres, or maybe bigger, but it is a large park surrounded by a sea of agriculture. The park is very important, and it is one of the few aspen parks. It protects the very rare rough fescue prairie. The bird diversity is extremely rich in summer. There is a high populations of elk, moose, deer, plus wolves and black bears. It is an absolutely wonderful place.

It started off as a Dominion forest reserve in the late 1800s as a source of wood for the settlers, and then it became a park. Forestry was allowed up until I think the 1960s and early 1970s, and then was eliminated, just like that. The people who cut wood on a sustainable basis were told to leave. As a result of that, the forest kept getting older and older. Keep in mind, there is no fire suppression in Riding Mountain National Park. Therefore, is this a natural ecosystem?

In the name of ecological integrity, grazing was eliminated in the park. There were a number of ranchers who were allowed to graze their cattle in the park, but I think it was in the mid-1970s that they were all summarily told to leave, at great cost to individual farmers, and with no compensation whatsoever.

In the 1970s, the Liberal government kicked the farmers out of the Riding Mountain National Park, with no compensation. There was some great cost to wildlife as well. What haying and grazing did in that park was maintain the grasslands. Elk especially are a grassland species, so elk populations suffered because of this.

Adapting ecological integrity in the Rouge could see many Rouge farmers evicted from working farms that have been in production since as early as 1799.

If the Liberals say that they support both farming and ecological integrity, as it is legally defined by the Canada National Parks Act, they are at best naive, or misinformed or, at worst, misleading the farming community. These farmers, who have been responsible stewards of the economy for generations, must be allowed to remain in the park.

Interestingly, wildlife is always an attribute in national parks. People like seeing deer, for example, apart from the fact that they run in front of our cars. The point is that high deer populations are, by and large, well liked. People very much enjoy seeing Canada geese and waterfowl flying around.

What the farming in Rouge Park does, especially if the farmers are growing corn, soybeans and grains, is provide very important food for wildlife species. Some might say it is just artificial. It is not, because farming is part of the ecosystem of that park.

What Rouge Park has the potential to be a very diverse and wonderful place where ecological services and cultural amenities are conserved and protected.

During the committee hearings on Bill C-40 in the previous Parliament, we heard from Mr. Larry Noonan from the Altona Forest Community Stewardship Committee. He said:

Some people have asked why the term ecological integrity is not in the act. The Canada National Parks Act states that “ecological integrity” includes “supporting processes”. As a further clarification of part of this definition, Parks Canada defines “ecosystem processes” as “the engines that make ecosystems work; e.g. fire, flooding...

It is very important. Ecological integrity talks about letting it all happen, fires and floods.

It is clear, as Mr. Noonan continued that “Ecological integrity cannot be applied to an urban national park”. He was very clear, and he has the moral authority to stand by these words. Furthermore, he stated:

We cannot allow fires and flooding in the Toronto, Markham, and Pickering urban environment. The Rouge national urban park act cannot have this term included, or there would have to be a list of exceptions to the definition which could serve to lessen its impact in the Canada National Parks Act.

Only two of the 11 committee witnesses supported or espoused ecological integrity during the previous Parliament. Eighty-one per cent of the witnesses present did not ask for ecological integrity to be included, yet the Liberals chose to use it in the legislation before us.

The true definition of “ecological integrity” would imply letting forest fires burn, floods to run their course and wildlife to survive without human intervention. A number of species of wildlife are problematic, such as racoons and skunks that carry rabies. Will this park be a reservoir for those species? Perhaps it is now.

The Rouge sits alongside residential neighbourhoods, has highways, power lines, a pipeline across various parts of it, working farmland, a former landfill dump site and an old auto wreckers yard. For these reasons, any attempt at calling our actions “ecological integrity” would be in words only.

Ecological integrity, as the primary guiding principle for the park, is an unrealistic measure for an urban park that was established to introduce Canadians to nature, local culture and agricultural, the first of its kind in Canada.

In real terms, if the government were to apply the concept of ecological integrity to the Rouge National Urban Park the consequences on local communities and municipalities could be dire. The creation of Rouge National Urban Park was a great accomplishment for which I am very proud of our former Conservative government. I would urge the Liberals to reconsider their adamant and unwarranted support for the inclusion of ecological integrity as the first priority of park management.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is both a delight and a disappointment to join this debate on Bill C-18 today. It is a delight because it offers a wonderful opportunity to celebrate again the magnificent accomplishments of Parks Canada and the agency's pioneering protection and innovative conservation of precious Canadian spaces for the past 125 years. It is a disappointment because the amending legislation before us contains a sad and unacceptable compromise of Parks Canada's conservation principles and practices, a compromise clearly intended by the Liberal government to provide federal political cover for the petty partisan obstructionism of the Ontario Liberal government in its refusal to transfer provincial lands to our Conservative government to complete the magnificent new Rouge National Urban Park.

I will speak first to my delight. It was an honour to serve in a government that, in barely 10 years, increased Canada's protected areas by almost 60%, with new national parks, new national park reserves, and marine protected areas. Many of these additions involved remote wilderness areas, such as Nahanni, Nááts’ihch’oh, and Sable Island, similar to Canada's original wilderness mountain park, Banff National Park.

Then, building on a decades-old dream of a broad range of passionate and dedicated conservation-minded citizens, community groups, and far-sighted local, provincial, and federal politicians, came Canada's first urban national park, not quite in the centre but certainly surrounded by the Canadian metropolis, the greater Toronto area.

In the 2011 Speech from the Throne and the 2012 budget, our Conservative government announced a commitment to work for the creation of a new national park in the Rouge Valley, and $143.7 million were assigned to a ten-year plan to create the park, with a provision for $7.6 million per year thereafter for continuing operations. Parks Canada's unparalleled expertise and creative talents were brought to bear to meet the challenge of developing and delivering this entirely new concept. The challenges were considerable, unlike anything in Parks Canada's history.

The Rouge Valley, from the shores of Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges moraine more than 20 kilometres to the north, is a once pristine natural area that has witnessed more than a century of intense human activity. There are ancient first nations sites but also a former landfill site and an auto wrecker's yard. Surrounded by residential communities and businesses, the Rouge is criss-crossed by hydro transmission lines, railway lines, highways and secondary roads, and waste-water sewers. In the north, there are 7,500 acres of class 1 farmland worked by 700 farmers, who were uncertain of their future for decades, on lands expropriated more than 40 years ago by a Liberal government for an airport that was never built.

Despite all these realities, so unlike Canada's traditional wilderness parks, the Rouge is still home to marvellous biodiversity: rivers and streams, marshes, a Carolinian ecosystem, and evidence of some of this country's oldest indigenous sites, human history dating back more than 10,000 years.

When the Rouge National Urban Park is completed, it will provide exceptional protection for all of the Rouge's approximately 1,700 species of plants, animals, and marine life. This includes full, uncompromised protection for all of the valley's threatened and endangered species. Unlike past well-intended but unfulfilled plans for the Rouge, species recovery plans will be mandatory and non-negotiable and under the strongest protection of Canada's Species at Risk Act.

Rouge National Urban Park will provide, for the first time in its history, year-round, dedicated law enforcement through Parks Canada's storied park wardens. As with other of our national parks, they will have full powers to enforce a single set of park rules and regulations.

The uncertainty experienced for so long by farmers in the Rouge created by short-term one-year land leases will be eliminated. Farmers will have access to long leases. With that predictability, they will be able to invest in repairs to farm infrastructure. They will be able to apply best farming practices and continue to both contribute to the local economy and provide an enduring and productive farming presence in this rich portion of the Rouge for visitors from far and near to see.

That brings me to the delightful importance of the Rouge National Urban Park's accessibility. It is located amidst fully 20% of Canada's population. While it takes many hours and many of thousands of dollars to reach some of our traditional national parks, the wonders of the Rouge are easily and inexpensively accessible by road, rail, and public transit. Visitor information centres, guided hikes, and kayak touring are available to schoolchildren and to Canadians, old and new.

Parks Canada's carefully developed plan for Canada's first urban park is exactly what conservationists and the Rouge Park alliance, the former provincially appointed managing authority of the lands, have requested for decades. That plan was the result of consultations with 150 stakeholder groups and 11,000 Canadians, and had the endorsement of all the municipal and regional governments that have committed lands to the Rouge National Urban Park.

However, there was one notable foot-dragging exception. That was the Liberal Government of Ontario. That government, through successive infrastructure ministers—not parks ministers—refused to allow conservation experts at the Ontario Parks agency to evaluate and respond to the Parks Canada plan. At one point, one infrastructure minister even demanded of me what was effectively a ransom. These were lands, incidentally, that the province had been neglecting and trying to get rid of for years. He said they would transfer the provincial lands for the payment of $100 million. Of course, our government refused to pay, considered the demand a bit of temporary madness by a cash-short, badly managed government. Then as our federal legislation to create the Rouge National Urban Park, Bill C-40, approached passage into law, a successor Ontario infrastructure minister took another tack. The provincial Liberals claimed Parks Canada's carefully crafted plan and legislation was inadequate. It was not good enough for Ontario.

I will get to that fabricated untruth in a moment. First, allow me to transition from my delight in participating in this debate to my disappointment with the legislation before us in Bill C-18.

Bill C-18 would amend legislation containing the sort of agency housekeeping that Parks Canada performs every year or so. Two of the amendments, as we have already heard today, are fairly routine. They would mean a slight change in the boundaries of Wood Buffalo National Park and changes in the Parks Canada Agency Act regarding property considerations and compensation in protected areas. However, the main amendment is an insult to Parks Canada's well-deserved international reputation. As I said at the outset, it is a sad and unacceptable compromise of Parks Canada's conservation principles and practices.

The Liberal government would add to the Rouge National Urban Park Act the condition that it be enforced under the principle of ecological integrity. Ecological integrity does not have a universal definition, but Parks Canada has long considered it applicable only to our wilderness parks, largely untouched by civilization. For example, in Banff National Park, where barely 4% of its territory has been disrupted by the Trans-Canada Highway, town sites, and ski hills, ecological integrity means that forest fires or floods are allowed to occur naturally, except where communities or human life may be threatened. A succession of conservationists spoke to this term during House and Senate committee consideration of Bill C-40. A strong majority rejected ecological integrity as an appropriate guiding principle for the Rouge National Urban Park.

For example, Mr. Larry Noonan, from the Altona Forest Stewardship Committee, said:

Some people have asked why the term ecological integrity is not in the act. The Canada National Parks Act states that “ecological integrity” includes “supporting processes”. As a further clarification of part of this definition, Parks Canada defines “ecosystem processes” as “the engines that make ecosystems work; e.g. fire, flooding...”.

Mr. Noonan continued, saying, “Ecological integrity cannot be applied to an urban national park.” He picked his words carefully, and with his usual calm authority said:

We cannot allow fires and flooding in the Toronto, Markham, and Pickering urban environment. The Rouge national urban park act cannot have this term included, or there would have to be a list of exceptions to the definition, which could serve to lessen its impact in the Canada National Parks Act.

I will turn now to the thoughts of Alan Latourelle, Parks Canada's CEO for 13 years, from 2002 until his retirement just last August after 32 years of distinguished service to Canadians. Alan was responsible for the Rouge-enabling legislation. He wrote a powerful farewell message last August that was originally posted on the Environment Canada website. It has since been removed. I wonder why. However, I think this House might reflect on a few of his thoughts in that letter, because I believe it clearly defends the original Rouge National Urban Park legislation and says that the consideration of ecological integrity is inappropriate and unacceptable.

Mr. Latourelle said:

...I feel compelled to set the record straight with respect to this important initiative.

As you may be aware, some environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) have made several negative and incorrect statements concerning Parks Canada and our commitments under the federal provincial agreement to establish Rouge National Urban Park.

Alan continued, referring to the then and still now conditions in the provincially controlled lands. He stated:

There is currently no...specific provincial legislation governing the day-to-day management of the regional park. As a result, aggregate mineral extraction, destruction of species at risk habitat and limitless reduction of park lands for transportation purposes are not currently legally prohibited, and there is no law that ensures that the land mass connecting Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine is protected for future generations.

He continued:

In contrast, all lands to be included in the Rouge National Urban Park...will legally preclude all of the inappropriate uses mentioned above and will ensure that the vision of linking Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine becomes a reality.

Furthermore, Parks Canada's budget to protect and present this exceptional place is 75 times greater than the operational investment made by the Province [of Ontario] over the past decade and includes a significant conservation budget in the areas of science, dedicated law enforcement and restoration. As a result, for the first time in its history, citizens of the GTA are assured that the Rouge will be protected for future generations and that its trail and visitor facilities will also be brought to a higher standard.

Then Mr. Latourelle drove home a powerful truth when he said:

Any organization that implies that the Rouge National Urban Park Act does not meet current provincial legislation is misleading the public. There is simply no act...passed by the Ontario legislature that places ecological integrity as the first priority on Rouge lands owned by Ontario.

Therefore, while Parks Canada wardens, scientists, and support staff have been working for more than a year and a half on federal lands transfer to Rouge National Urban Park, the provincial Liberal government, by its petty partisan obstructionism of withholding the transfer of provincial lands under false pretenses, has left those provincial lands neglected, unpoliced, unprotected, and subject to speeding, to poaching, and to garbage-dumping.

The federal Liberals, by providing political cover for their provincial cousins, are not only attempting to inappropriately apply ecological integrity but are planting a possible poison seed in the Rouge National Urban Park Act with this term. Recognizing this glaring contradiction in Bill C-18, the government offers an assurance in the bill that ecological integrity would not prevent the carrying out of agricultural activities as provided for in the act.

However, the long-abused farmers are not sure. They are worried. The York Region Federation of Agriculture joins the majority of conservationists, taxpayers, mayors, deputy mayors, and counsellors across the GTA who strongly oppose this amendment, fearing it may one day open the door to improper retrograde changes to the park.

Rouge National Urban Park will eventually be a truly national treasure. It will be at least 13 times the size of Vancouver's Stanley Park, 16 times larger than New York's Central Park, and 33 times larger than London's Hyde Park.

Too much time has been wasted on petty political partisanship, and I urge the minister and her government to reconsider. I urge the minister to remove this regrettable amendment. I urge the minister to encourage the provincial Liberal government to simply transfer the land once and for all, and to complete the Rouge National Urban Park.

I would just like to say as a post script to my remarks on Bill C-18 that, in July a year ago, former prime minister Harper made a visit to the park and made a commitment to enlarge federal lands already committed to the park, which are recognized again today in this amendment. He made a commitment to add even more of the Pickering expropriated lands, 21 square kilometres, which I hope the government will follow through on eventually, after its consultation-cum-procrastination. I would hope that the Liberal government will follow through on former prime minister Harper's commitment to add 21 square kilometres of expropriated land on the Durham side of the York Durham Line, which once completed and added, would increase Rouge National Urban Park by 36% to 79.5 square kilometres.

At the same time, the former prime minister announced the addition of another almost $27 million to rehabilitate, manage, and convert these additional farmlands in the Pickering appropriated area to add to the park, to protect this category one farmland in perpetuity. This is in addition to the almost $144 million committed by our former government to establish the Rouge National Urban Park over 10 years and almost $7 million for operational costs afterward. It would be made accessible to the farmers to grow crops of their choice to contribute to the local economy and local food consumption. However at the same time it was to make those properties available to urban visitors, many of whom would have never set foot on a farm. As Canada's farmland rapidly diminishes, particularly around the greater Toronto area, these farmers, recognizing the benefit that they would receive in a continuing predictable existence on their farms that have been farmed for many years, would make their lands available. They would allow and encourage visitors to experience the joys and amazement of visits to their various types of farms.

I will leave it there, but I will once again reiterate my closing remarks. I urge the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and her government to reconsider and remove the regrettable amendment imposing ecological integrity on the Rouge National Urban Park; and to encourage the provincial Liberals to simply transfer their lands and, once and for all, complete the Rouge National Urban Park.

[Alan Latourelle]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The new act that we're responsible for and now operating under, the Rouge National Urban Park Act, affords broader and stronger conservation than any legislation we've seen in Ontario up to this point. We're still waiting, from a process perspective, to get comments from Ontario but we have started operating in terms of Transport Canada lands being transferred to us, a significant amount of land, and there is some land that was in the legislation also.

I think the challenge we are facing is that some of the requests that were put forward as part of the process were, I think, beyond the agreement that we signed with Ontario. For example, the vision that was signed onto by both governments in the agreement, they then proposed amendments that went beyond that and they proposed amendments that go well beyond anything we've seen internationally. For example, in obligating the minister to establish a science advisory body. That doesn't exist in law anywhere internationally, that we've seen.

Citizen Consultation Preceding Natural Resource Development

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to have the opportunity to speak in support of Motion No. 533. As the urban affairs critic for the NDP caucus, I take a special interest in the motion, and I especially applaud the member for putting forward a motion for the inclusion of urban areas that are affected by the establishment of a natural resource development.

Too often, we are presented with false dichotomies by the government and the false choices that flow from them. That people see remote rural life as distinct and separate and unconnected to urban life has a partial explanation in the phenomenology of those lives. They are very different. They are very different experiences. People see very different things on a day-to-day basis.

People say I am talking about an urban agenda for Canada, but what about rural and remote Canada? This is not to deny that there are issues distinct to rural Canada and distinct to remote Canada, nor is to deny that there are distinctly urban issues and considerations. In fact, our party has urged consideration of the peculiarly urban issues in the cities of Canada by the government, and as the critic for urban affairs, I developed and released an urban agenda for Canada for all Canadians to read and consider.

However, the urban agenda and our views on cities and urban life in this country are very much mindful of, and informed by, the fact that urban Canada, our cities, sit in a broader context. They are part of a broader ecosystem. Our water comes usually from somewhere other than our cities. The preponderance of our food usually comes from somewhere other than our cities. It is captured in that common phrase that we see on the bumper stickers: farmers feed cities.

Therefore, cities are shaped by the broader landscape in which they are embedded, and the converse is true as well. Cities shape the broader landscape in which they are situated, and this is true of all cities. It was true in a city in Saskatchewan that I visited. It was in the context of a booming extractive economy there that the chamber of commerce told me it is not just about environmental assessments but that they also need to have community impact assessments for resource development happening outside the boundaries of the city. The suggestion was that before the next big project goes in, there needs to be an assessment of whether that city can handle the traffic that flows from that project, handle the housing required by the influx of workers for that project, and so on.

In another city in Saskatchewan, a large community service agency told me that it was only when the rural and remote extractive economy started to boom that the extent of the true challenges of homelessness in that city actually emerged. As with any ecosystem, the system flows one way or another.

I would like to tell a story about a natural resource development project close to Toronto. It was the Melancthon Township megaquarry.

Melancthon Township sits about 80 kilometres north of Toronto. It is class 1 farmland and provides about half the potatoes eaten by the citizens of Toronto annually. The land is called the headwaters because it sits atop a number of watersheds that provide fresh water to about one million people in cities in Ontario.

Thousands of acres of the headwaters and of class 1 farmland were purchased a few years back by what was then considered to be the tenth-largest financial hedge fund in the world. The plan was to build a megaquarry where that farmland existed. It was to cover 2,300 acres and go down 200 feet for the purpose of getting aggregate rock to ship into our cities to continue to build out the sprawl of Toronto and the surrounding municipalities.

Now, 2,300 acres is actually about half the size of my riding of Beaches—East York, so it was obviously worthwhile to share with people a vision of what this thing would like. It would be half my riding, going down about 20 stories. One of the interesting things was that being the headwaters, the water table sat just below the surface, about 20 feet down, requiring the pumping of water in perpetuity for the mining of this aggregate.

Efforts were made repeatedly to engage the environmental assessment process on this, but that process has been so ravaged and degraded that there were really no hooks.

What was understood by thousands upon thousands of residents in Toronto was that this issue was their issue, that the building of a megaquarry on class one farmland, 80 kilometres outside of Toronto, was in fact an urban issue.

At one point, thousands of Torontonians went north one weekend and clambered across fields and through the woods for a local food cook-off put on by professional chefs. On another occasion I organized a bus tour for constituents of mine and other NDP MPs in Toronto to go north to meet the farmers who were holding out on the hedge fund and hanging onto their farmland.

Finally, there was a soup day to support the fight against the megaquarry. It was held in my riding in a park, and 40,000 Torontonians came out to my park to buy soup, but most importantly, to support the concerns of those farmers and other residents living in and around Melancthon Township about the development of this megaquarry.

Similar activities have taken place outside of Toronto and have engaged the citizens of Toronto. Not all of these have been about natural resource development. Some have been quite the opposite. In fact, on the federal lands in Durham region, the government and previous governments, going back to the 1970s, have proposed taking class one farmland and building an airport, just paving it over, for the continuing development of the city.

However, like the megaquarry, the citizens of Toronto understand that issue and that project to be an urban issue. Those farmlands outside the city are important for local food security for our city so that we have, close to urban life, easy access to fresh food.

As with the megaquarry, it was easy to fill a bus of constituents and head out to tour those lands in support of farmers who are living lease by lease on those lands.

It is clear that where there is an ecosystem, where our cities are embedded in a broader landscape, there is also a social ecosystem, and we are connected. The first nations both within our city and outside our city, whose lands these are, the farmers whose lands these are, and urban residents, as well, understand that we are connected this way.

This was and remains my attraction to the opportunity Bill C-40 presented to us. Unfortunately, it was an opportunity spoiled. It was an opportunity for Canada's first national urban park so that we could begin to at least aspire to the notion that urban Canada and the concept of ecological integrity in our cities, being more energy sufficient and more food sufficient and secure in our own cities, is possible. We can begin to build and shape our cities so that urban life can exist in this landscape.

Let me conclude by applauding the motion in its entirety. More specifically, let me applaud the inclusion of urban communities in the motion and by extension the kind of collaborative and inclusive decision-making processes that will rise up from the passage of this motion.

Rouge National Urban Park Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-40.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from December 12, 2014, consideration of the motion that Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, be read the third time and passed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, December 4, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House, Bill C-40.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, be read the third time and passed.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-40. I was not expecting to speak to it because it concerns the urban area in Toronto. However, as my colleague mentioned, we do have some urban parks, although not as connected as what is intended for this park, and we see the importance of having an urban green space available to citizens.

The more things change, the more things stay the same. For example, the Conservatives now want us to think that they have all of a sudden become environmentally conscientious and conservationists overnight. They introduced Bill C-40, which is ironically called “an act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park”, and I will touch on the irony of that a little later. However, the Conservative government continuously wants us to accept these sort of broad-stroke grand ideas and overlook the poison pill aspect of them.

Before I continue, I would like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with my dear colleague, the member for Newton—North Delta.

The Conservatives consistently want to say in so many cases, like in this case, that NDP members do not support the building of a park. They say that we do not support many things, and that we did not vote for this or that. However, they leave out the very important fact that all of these sometimes reasonable and even good things that the government may propose are wrapped up in blankets of harmful and sometimes mean-spirited bills. They are tied up in 500-page documents, and we have to vote once to change over 200 environmental protection laws.

Quite honestly, the Conservative government cannot be trusted with our parks. It is clear that the Conservatives do not believe in conservation or scientific monitoring, which jeopardizes the ecological integrity of our national parks.

As some of my colleagues alluded to earlier, in 2012, the Conservatives cut $29 million to Parks Canada, which meant a reduction of over 600 positions. Parks Canada was decreased by one-third of its capacity in scientific research.

I heard my hon. colleague across the way say that $120 some-odd million was not a drop in the bucket. Yes, it is a lot of money, but is it enough? There was a $29 million cut that meant the loss of 600 positions and one-third of Parks Canada's capacity for scientific and ecological exploration, which is harmful. There are 600 less people to help and guide Canadians through our parks. The parks are opening later and closing earlier as a result, which limits access for Canadians to these parks. The lessened ability for scientific research means that we are put in a position where we are reacting to ecological threats and potential diseases in our parks as opposed to being proactive with these issues. This is concerning to us.

Bill C-40, an act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, is not even accepted by the Ontario government. The Ontario government is refusing to release the lands to the federal government to create this park because the bill would diminish some 11 existing laws that currently protect this territory, namely the Ontario Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act.

This act is to:

...permanently protect a system of provincial parks and conservation reserves that includes ecosystems that are representative of all of Ontario’s natural regions, protects provincially significant elements of Ontario’s natural and cultural heritage, maintains biodiversity and provides opportunities for compatible, ecologically sustainable recreation.

Bill C-40 would not do this. It does not embrace the strong foundation of conservation policy provided under the existing legislation. In fact, as written, Bill C-40 threatens the ecological integrity and health of the Rouge River.

It seems that our job here is to do things right, and that does not seem to be happening with the current government. There seems to be a consistent desire to rush headlong into creating bills with catchy titles and catchy sound bites rather than bills of substance. When the Ontario government, which the federal government is supposed to be collaborating with, says this bill does not work, the Conservative government needs to listen.

There has been a lack of listening by the government on many other issues, including in the courts, where attempts to establish minimum mandatory sentences have repeatedly been overturned. In this case, the government has created a bill that is supposed to protect a park, but in fact the bill threatens the very area that it claims to want to protect.

If the government wants to create a space for Canadians to enjoy and for future generations to visit and if it wants to protect the thousands of species of wildlife and fauna that currently call Rouge River home, then why not abandon this window-dressing bill and support the ideas and thoughts of the New Democrats and the bill that we will be presenting shortly to the House, which would work with the province in order to create an environment that Canadians and the community are looking for? As I said, New Democrats will be introducing a bill that would answer that question. The bill before us does not go far enough and, as I have said before, would actually diminish what already exists.

The role that we take on as legislators is to draft laws that are meaningful and move our society forward. It is a shame that the government constantly squanders its opportunities to create bills of substance, instead creating bills that pander and have little substance other than catchy sound bites.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his speech.

Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, is truly innovative because this is the first time an urban park has been proposed in Canada. I would like my colleague to reassure me because some parts of the bill seem to give the minister some fairly discretionary power with respect to preserving the integrity of the park. I would like him to talk about that. The official opposition is wondering whether decisions about the integrity and conservation of the Rouge national urban park would be made by the minister. The member also talked about agriculture. Would that really help to preserve the integrity of this national park? Is the minister perhaps being given too much discretionary power over the Rouge national urban park?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to support the establishment of the Rouge national urban park. Indeed, the creation of Rouge national urban park is a proud and historic achievement for all residents of the greater Toronto area, Ontarians, and Canadians, from coast to coast to coast. Its creation is a major element of our government's national conservation plan, which aims to conserve and restore nature in ways that provide meaningful opportunities for Canadians to connect with our country's vast natural heritage. This Canadian first is the latest example of pioneering conservation work undertaken for over a century by Parks Canada under a vision that was first established by Sir John A. Macdonald.

In 1911, Canada became the first country in the world to create a dedicated national park service, then known as the Dominion Parks Branch. It was the very first of nearly 100 dedicated national park services that are found today all over the world. Canada is recognized as having one of the world's most extensive and best national systems in the world. Moreover, Canada protects more acres of land and federally managed protected heritage areas than any other country in the world.

Recently, our government has worked to add two important jewels to Canada's rich family of national parks: Sable Island National Park Reserve, in Nova Scotia, established in 2013; and Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve, in the Northwest Territories, now before Parliament as Bill S-5.

These initiatives provide important protection for rare sand dune ecosystems in the Atlantic, and several endangered species in the north, such as woodland caribou and grizzly bears.

In 2009, in partnership with local first nations, our government also made the single largest act of conservation in this country in a generation, by expanding Nahanni National Park Reserve to six times its original size, making it roughly the same size as Switzerland. Today our government once again reaffirms our long-standing commitment to protecting Canada's heritage, with Bill C-40. With the creation of Rouge national urban park, our government is building on a legacy of the many passionate and dedicated community groups and citizens who have given their time and worked diligently to conserve the area. We now honour this legacy by bringing Parks Canada's expertise to bear in the Rouge to create a new type of protected area, one which is tailored to the Rouge's urban setting and which is intended to set a new standard for urban protected areas around the world.

I would say to all members of the House that the designation afforded to the Rouge sets a new and different standard than exists in our national parks. Our bold and innovative approach elevates the level of protection to new heights, by protecting not only the park's natural resources but its cultural and agricultural resources as well.

The opposition brought forward motions to amend Bill C-40, many of which were based on the mistaken notion that the national park concept of ecological integrity should or could apply to the Rouge. Testimony was brought forward at committee that the concept of ecological integrity is inappropriate for the Rouge national urban park. Not only is 75% of the parklands in a disturbed or altered state, but the park's close proximity to a large urban centre makes the application of this concept impossible to apply. Some of the amendments proposed by the opposition would have been problematic for the farmers, first nations, and cultural elements within the park. If we were to manage the Rouge as we do in the national parks, it could mean evicting farmers who have been responsible stewards of the land for over a century. It appears that the opposition do not understand the practical realities of this new urban park, nor how a new and different approach would provide the strongest protection possible.

Let me make clear for all members and all Canadians how strong our protections would be. The Rouge national urban park act would provide exceptional protection for a multitude of plant and animal species. This exceptional protection also extends to the Rouge's endangered and threatened species, which for the first time would be under the strong protection of Canada's Species at Risk Act. All threatened and endangered terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals would be protected. In addition, killing, harming, harassing, or possessing threatened and endangered species would be strictly prohibited, along with the destruction of their habitat.

Parks Canada would draw on its internationally celebrated expertise to conserve, monitor, and, wherever possible, restore the diverse habitats within the park upon which the park's 1,700 species, plants, and animals depend. Actions taken would sustain, and in many cases increase the diversity of native species in the park.

Information gathered through ecosystem monitoring would be used to both report on the condition of ecosystems and their components, and to make the very best management decisions to improve the health of ecosystems in the park across its diverse natural, cultural, and agricultural landscapes.

Key management objectives for the Rouge national urban park would be to enhance, buffer, and connect habitats for a wide range of species. A better connected landscape will also increase the resilience of wildlife populations, allowing them to move freely across the landscape. Parks Canada would also explore rigorous and innovative scientific approaches to control and eliminate non-native invasive species.

Our government's proposed protections for the Rouge go much further. Drawing on years of expertise, Parks Canada is working with public landholders, local stakeholders, and governments to enhance habitat quality and connectivity. Current efforts are simply not addressing these issues.

While the Rouge national urban park has yet to be formally established, our government has already realized several important environmental and ecological gains for it, including work with the Toronto Zoo to release ten endangered baby Blanding's turtles into the Rouge in June. We also recently worked with the City of Toronto to construct a safe road crossing for the rare frogs, toads, and salamanders in the park. We have been working with park farmers to rehabilitate park streams and enhance park wetlands.

As other levels of government improve roadways, Parks Canada will work with them on improving connectivity for wildlife by improving and adding culverts, and, in the future, by finding other innovative ways to improve wildlife movement to allow a multitude of species to move more freely on the landscape.

Rouge national urban park will provide, for the first time in the Rouge's history, year-round dedicated law enforcement, through Parks Canada's highly esteemed park wardens. These wardens will have full powers to enforce one set of clear park rules and regulations. With this unprecedented level of protection for the park's natural, cultural, and agricultural resources, and with provisions clearly articulated in Bill C-40, Parks Canada will have the legal tools and resources to impose stiff fines and penalties for long-standing issues in the Rouge. This includes pollution, dumping, poaching, and harassing of wildlife, and the unlawful removal of plants, fossils, and artifacts.

Our government's protection of the Rouge's natural heritage and enhancement of ecosystem health meets and exceeds current protections that are in place. However, it is very important to note that our government's legislative and policy protections would also extend beyond national heritage to the park's rich cultural and agricultural heritage. Our government would provide protection for the Rouge's agricultural lands, which encompass approximately 62% of the Rouge national urban park study area.

The York Federation of Agriculture represents 700 farmer members in the region. Kim Empringham, director of the federation, recently testified at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. She said that the farming community in the Rouge national urban park comprises the same farming families that have been caring for the land and growing food for the people of Ontario for the past 200 years. She also said that farmers in the park use environmental farm plans, incorporating the best management practices as part of their ongoing stewardship of the farmland that they have been taking care of for generations.

Farmland produces food, carbon sequestration, climate regulation, improved air quality, wildlife habitat, hydrological functions, groundwater recharge, and buffering protection to natural heritage features.

Our government fully intends to collaborate with the farming community, academic institutions, and other experts to realize that all conservation gains are possible, and to work with the farming community to develop the best agricultural practices for the park in ways that support and enhance biodiversity in the Rouge. Our government's integrated approach to conserving biodiversity in a way that supports a vibrant local farming community would further allow us to provide the strongest level of protection for agriculture and nature in the Rouge's history.

Ian Buchanan, the manager of forestry at the Regional Municipality of York, also testified at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. He said that farmers are indeed a part of the solution of maintaining a healthy environment. Ian Buchanan stated:

If we don't acknowledge that the farming community is the front line of environmental protection, we're missing the point.

Mike Whittamore's farm is a large 220-acre fruit and vegetable farm nestled beside the Rouge River valley in Markham. He testified at the committee that Bill C-40 and the Rouge national urban park draft management plan clearly acknowledge the importance of agriculture in the Rouge

The plan demonstrates that agriculture, culture, and nature are all equally important contributors to a vibrant urban park, and agriculture can and will play a role in the future, to reach those goals and objectives of the Rouge national urban park.

With respect to cultural heritage, our government's conservation approach will see us identify cultural heritage values and opportunities throughout the Rouge and set conservation priorities. We will also seek opportunities to respectfully repurpose, rejuvenate, and conserve some of the Rouge's neglected built heritage, including old farmhouses and barns.

Parks Canada will continue to work with first nations and local communities to ensure important landmarks and built heritage are commemorated, protected, and celebrated. We will also commit to providing strong protection for Bead Hill National Historic Site and the Carrying Place National Historic Event.

Our government's holistic approach and commitment to the conservation interpretation of the Rouge's cultural heritage and living history will allow us to provide the strongest level of protection for cultural heritage in the Rouge's history.

Let me also make it very clear what will not be allowed to take place in the Rouge national urban park. In stark contrast to some past and current regional land uses, Rouge national urban park will directly prohibit hunting, mining, logging, and mineral aggregate removal, thereby providing stronger and much clearer protections than those currently in place. There will be stiff fines and a full complement of park wardens to enforce any such unlawful and damaging park activities.

Under the Rouge national urban park act, the Government of Canada cannot dispose or sell land for private development. To meet current and future provincial and municipal requirements, Bill C-40 will provide the legislative framework needed in an urban setting. This framework will allow Parks Canada to effectively manage and protect the park, while allowing for future public infrastructure needs, such as utilities or transportation corridors.

The bill sets a strict limit of 200 hectares on the amount of land that can be removed and provided to former public landholders, and no other disposals are allowed, period.

Our government, through the trusted stewardship of Parks Canada, will manage the Rouge's natural, cultural, and agricultural resources in an integrated fashion, in a way that protects the park's natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes, maintains its native wildlife and the health of those ecosystems, while—and let me make myself very clear—providing a level of protection for the park that has previously not been achieved under current laws, policies, or practices.

With the creation of the Rouge national urban park, Rouge lands will be protected in perpetuity with this strong cohesive bill, now and for many future generations of Canadians to enjoy.

It is for these most compelling reasons that I urge all members of this House to provide their full support for Bill C-40 at third reading.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of all citizens of Prince George—Peace River to wish you a merry Christmas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this morning on a very important subject, which is the creation of the Rouge national urban park. We are at third reading of Bill C-40, and I have to say that I am very saddened today that my colleagues and I will not be supporting this bill. While we believe that it is extremely important that we create this first national urban park, we are very distressed at how the Conservatives are doing it. We believe that they have fallen far short of what is expected and needed in the creation of this park.

Let me say that I am very proud to have in my riding of Parkdale—High Park the largest existing park in the city of Toronto, High Park. It was created by the very visionary John and Jemima Howard, who set out clear boundaries and responsibilities for this park. They were absolutely adamant that this park should exist for all time for the free use of the public and that the integrity, ecology, and environment of the park needed to be protected while recognizing that it would be an urban park and a multi-use park.

I want to publicly thank the Friends of High Park Nature Centre for its stewardship of this magnificent jewel on the waterfront of Toronto. All seasons of the year, this park is warmly treasured by people from Toronto and those who come from abroad, whether it is for the cherry trees blossoming in the spring or for skating on Grenadier Pond in the winter or other sports activities. It is a wonderful urban space.

I also want to recognize that the Humber River is the western border of the riding of Parkdale—High Park. It is the only federal urban heritage river. It is an important historic and ecological major waterway. The watershed of the Humber River stretches from the highlands far north of the city of Toronto. It is a very important waterway. Sadly, the federal government has undermined the protection of this river by changes it has made to environmental protection. Specifically, it has removed all of the Humber River, except the mouth of the river, from the Navigation Protection Act and federal environmental protection, which is very troubling.

I would like to thank my colleague from York South—Weston. He and I are working to have this river reinstated in the Navigation Protection Act because of its importance. We believe it is very shortsighted to remove the protections from the Humber River. We are working hard to try to get that reinstated.

I come from a perspective of someone who understands that when one is living in a city and has these treasures, one recognizes that they are a bit different from very remote parks and heritage areas because of their settings. People can get to the Humber River and High Park by subway in downtown Toronto, so they are very different from other protected areas.

The Rouge national urban park would certainly be the largest park in the city. It would be one of the largest parks in North America and the only national park that can be accessed by public transit. It is a unique situation. The government is still trying to assemble the land, but it is land that is already in use. There is farming. There are hydro rights-of-way. There are roads. There already are activities in this area.

Like High Park, in my neighbourhood, no one is expecting that this will be absolutely 100% pristine wilderness. It will not be. It will be special, because it will be an urban park.

We are strongly in favour of creating more parks, but we are most strongly in favour of protecting the ecological health of these national parks. We have to get this right. To do this, we need strong environmental legislation that recognizes that this is a multi-use urban park and that makes its ecology an absolute first priority.

The Rouge national urban park would be very rich. It has a diversity of ecosystems, including a rare Carolinian forest, numerous species at risk, and many agricultural and cultural heritage resources, including a national historic site and some of Canada's oldest known aboriginal historic sites and villages. It is a very special place.

This bill, because we are dealing with the first national urban park, would create a precedent. It would be a model for protecting other areas in urban settings. We need to get this right. This is a stand-alone bill that has been created just for this park. We have the opportunity, unlike with the grab bag of legislation that is thrown into omnibus bills, to study this bill in detail.

The result of Bill C-40, I am sad to say, would be to create weaker protections for Rouge Park than exist for all other national parks in Canada. They are weaker protections, in fact, than the provincial legislative framework that exists already for the park. Yes, it is an urban setting, but there is already a provincial framework that exists that should be improved rather than undermined.

In fact, the Ontario provincial government is refusing to transfer land to the federal government for the creation of this park. Why? It believes that the land would be jeopardized. To be included in the park, it wants to have stronger protections, not weaker protections, and it believes that the protection the province is offering will be stronger. That is why it is saying it is not going to transfer this land if it is going to undermine its ecological integrity.

I want to point out a key point here. The Canada National Parks Act already says:

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.

That exists in the existing parks legislation.

This bill would undermine it by saying that it must only “take into consideration” the ecosystems. There is nothing that gives it priority, that gives it precedence, over anything else.

We have tried to amend the bill. We proposed a number of changes. There was one key proposal that would have recognized that yes, there is farming, and yes, that farming would continue, but the ecological integrity would have to be respected. The Conservatives rejected all of this. We are very sad about this.

Because all of our amendments were rejected, we have been forced to create our own private member's bill that calls for the creation of a Rouge national park. It would incorporate the same national protections other parks have. It has broad support from environmental organizations, local community groups, and residents. I want to salute them, because they have worked and fought so hard to get this park created. They are heartbroken at what they see is this bill undermining the ecological integrity of this very prized piece of land.

We had to create our own bill that says that we support the Rouge Park vision, goals, and objectives and that we want to preserve the ecological integrity of this plan.

Sadly, my time is up, but I would be happy to answer questions.