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

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work on the Rouge Valley issue.

The member briefly mentioned that he was at the original visioning exercise for the creation of the Rouge national park. I was also there. The biggest vision at this exercise was to ensure that the park would be the people's park.

When the opposition put forward a simple amendment that would have dedicated this park to the people of Canada, why did the Conservatives vote against it? Why did the Conservatives vote against dedicating this park to the people of Canada?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her support virtually from day one when we met in the early days of planning for the park.

This park would fulfill the dreams that Ontarians have held for decades now.

To the point of the member's question, it is sometimes possible to over-think the legislative process. The Parks Canada leadership has been magnificent over the past couple of years as we have moved forward through the various stages of consultation and planning. It goes without saying that the Rouge national urban park would be a people's park, and it will be unique in that it will be available by public transit to fully 20% of the Canadian population. It will provide a wonderful opportunity for those newer Canadians who might not have had a chance to experience our traditional parks as a springboard to more traditional protected areas.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all of the parties voted to send the bill to committee in anticipation that there might be some discussion and possibly even some amendments to the bill to satisfy some of the concerns that were out there prior to the vote. As it turns out, the government was not interested in any of the amendments presented, and in fact trashed a number of the witnesses who had slightly different views.

The hon. member spent a lot of time talking about ecological integrity and then ecological health. He says, arguably for good reasons, that this bill could not adhere to the ecological integrity standard of a park that we would expect in Canada. Fine, we will buy that argument. The replacement standard is ecological health, which is referenced in clauses 4 and 6. That is fine. We should find a definition of what ecological health means. Presumably it is a downgraded standard from ecological integrity.

I ask my hon. colleague, can he point to any definition of what ecological health is for this park, or is it really anything the minister says it is?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, deep down I know that my hon. colleague does have the best interests at heart for this wonderful new protected space that is very close to his constituency.

As I mentioned in my remarks, fully 75% of the lands that will be enshrined and protected in this unique new national urban park in some cases have been seriously affected by civilization. There is an old garbage landfill in the area, which is part of the history of the area. There are wonderful archeological deposits in different parts of the park. There is an old auto wreckers shop where the land has been significantly polluted, which will have to be seen to in the course of time.

When it comes to the definition of ecological integrity, as applied and respected by Parks Canada in our more traditional parks where there is space and where natural fires and floods are allowed to take place to renew and revitalize those parks, it would simply be inappropriate to apply it in this particular setting.

As for the definition of ecological health, I come back to the point of my previous hon. colleague's question. There is a tendency sometimes in committee to overwrite legislation, to be specific with things that really should go without saying. The fact that Parks Canada has accepted stewardship of this new urban protected space, this unique space, and the fact that the national park plan, which every park must have, is already in draft form and available for reference by my colleague and others will more than reassure those who may be in doubt as to the definition of ecological health.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Liberals, shamefully, have a history of playing politics with the Rouge. It dates back to the Trudeau Liberals of the 1970s, and, unfortunately, most recently Liberal minister Brad Duguid of Ontario, who made it clear in a letter to the Minister of the Environment on September 3 that he was insisting on the concept of ecological integrity in the legislation, and that without amendments he would not recommend transferring the provincial lands over to the federal government. Here we are at third reading with no amendments brought forward.

We have seen the unbelievable hypocrisy. The Liberal government does not even bring the park up to its own standards it professes to have. Should Ontario bring these lands up to the standards it professes to have before any lands are transferred and accepted by the federal government in this park?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not wish to quibble with my hon. colleague, but he said that no amendments were brought forward. He and I were there when 18 amendments were brought forward. I would think, as a point of order and a point of information, that he would want to correct himself with respect to that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

That clearly is not a point of order. It is a debating issue.

The hon. member for Thornhill.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must say, in response to my hon. colleague, that I personally have been disappointed by the behaviour of the Ontario government, and not just in recent months but over the course of years.

In my previous incarnation, ministers of the Ontario government tried to ransom the transfer of the lands under their authority that will become part of the national Rouge urban park. They have been very unhelpful in recent days in trying to imply somehow that their conservation standards, their protection standards, are higher than Parks Canada's.

In fact, loopholes in Ontario's Greenbelt Act and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act grandfather environmentally destructive practices, which allows exemptions if endangered species are killed in the interest of the government of the day if a net benefit is provided. There is a very loose system of permitting. This suggests that the Ontario government, in fact, would perhaps be better focused on raising the lands under their current authority to the standards that will be required and overseen by Parks Canada.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to get a question in to my colleague from Thornhill, but I guess we ran out of time. He started off his speech accusing the NDP of legislative vandalism, so I am going to start off my speech by talking about legislative vandalism.

Legislative vandalism? How about the fact that we have had time allocation in this House, cutting off debate, effectively limiting democracy, 82 times? He wants to talk about legislative vandalism? How about the fact that the Conservatives use in camera proceedings for any kind of real debate or discussion that happens at committee? The member wants to talk about legislative vandalism? How about the fact that the chair ruled Chief Allan Adam, of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, out of order because he wanted to talk about the downstream effects, the impact, of the oil sands on his people? The chair said that Chief Allan should actually wrap it up, because they were there to talk about the benefits of the oil sands.

If Conservatives want to talk about legislative vandalism, how about the fact that we are at third reading on this bill and we have yet to hear from the minister herself, not one word. Where is she?

That is legislative vandalism.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask to be given a bit of a warning towards the end of my time, because I have a lot to say about this bill, and I want to make sure I can get in my key points.

When this idea of Rouge Park becoming Rouge national urban park was floated, we saw it in the throne speech. I am not generally happy with throne speeches, but I was really excited to see that. I love the idea of Rouge national urban park. The NDP is a great supporter of this idea of national urban parks to begin with. However, the fact that Rouge Park could be the first is exciting stuff.

Let us imagine if we could have urban parks across Canada, where people could take public transit to actually go see nature, be in nature, and understand the cultural and ecological significance of the space. It is a great idea.

We were so excited about it that the NDP was actually successful at committee. We were doing a study on urban conservation, and we were successful in getting a couple of days of study on Rouge Park so we could get an update. We heard from Parks Canada, the David Suzuki Foundation, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. We really wanted an update on how things were going since the throne speech, what we needed to know, what areas needed to be worked around or figured out, and where we needed to be creative.

In fact, we are so supportive of this idea of a national urban park at Rouge Valley that my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, is a patron of the Friends of the Rouge Watershed. It is her personal commitment as a member of Parliament to say that she is engaged with the process and that it is something she supports and wants to see come to fruition.

We were all really excited when we saw this in the throne speech. What happened? I will note that we have been very supportive of the work on the ground that has been done around Rouge Park. Local, provincial, and national groups have worked for decades to make this happen. The idea of turning this into a national park, with all the national park status and national park protections that come with it, is something they have been working on for decades.

Imagine how excited they were to see this in the throne speech. They were actually at a point where they could see everything they had worked on coming to fruition. It was really happening. However, I am holding in my hand a news release that all these groups worked on together and sent to all members of Parliament. I am going to read from it. We are so excited about this park, but listen to the news release:

Dear members of Parliament:

As organizations with a long-standing interest in establishing Rouge National Urban Park, we are writing to convey our grave concerns with Bill C-40. We urge you to oppose this bill at third reading. A more robust legislative framework is needed to ensure Canada’s first national urban park will adequately protect the Rouge—an amazing natural treasure—for Canadians today and into the future. We attempted to work constructively through the Parliamentary process, supporting amendments to address major flaws in the bill when it was before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in late October and early November. Unfortunately, the Committee rejected all proposed amendments.

There is a piece in here about the problems with the bill, but I will get to that in my speech. I want to skip to the last paragraph. It is emotional, and it lays out the situation for these groups:

The Province of Ontario has already informed Canada that it will not transfer its Rouge Park lands unless the bill governing the creation of the national urban park is amended to "meet or exceed" the environmental policies of existing Greenbelt and Rouge Park Plans. Bill C-40 fails to meet this test. If Parliament proceeds with this flawed bill, the province's substantial Rouge Park lands (25+ km²) may not be transferred to Parks Canada. The resultant Rouge National Urban Park will be less than half the park's announced size and will not include the heartlands of the park, the beautiful Rouge Valley system. It will be a park in name only.

Please oppose Bill C-40 at third reading and recommend that stronger legislation be drafted and brought back to the House.

It was signed by the executive directors of Nature Canada, Environmental Defence, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the David Suzuki Foundation, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, Ontario Nature, and the STORM Coalition. It is incredible to think that these groups would want us to vote against this bill, but that is the reality.

My colleague, the member for Beaches—East York, and I, after committee, were faced with a decision when none of the 19 amendments brought forward by the NDP were adopted. We were faced with a decision on what to do and what to recommend to our colleagues in voting on this bill. A lot of these groups, including Friends of the Rouge Watershed, Land Over Landings, and Ontario Nature, said to come to the park, and they would take us on a tour of the park and talk about what needs to happen. The two of us did that last Monday, and it was incredible.

People have worked so hard to protect this land over the years in the hope that one day, it could become a national urban park. After this incredible tour of farmland, wetlands, beach, and the valley we all gathered in an environmental education centre for young people, and the members of the groups spelled it out. They said, “We want you to vote against this bill.”

How did we get here? How is it that these groups are pushing us to vote against it? It is not that we do not understand compromise. We cannot let perfect be the enemy of the good; that is the saying.

We had a similar situation with Sable Island National Park. If members remember that debate here in the House, Sable Island National Park is in my riding of Halifax. We had similar issues with the bill. It was not quite what we needed it to be.

We engaged with the legislative process. We brought forward amendments. Those amendments were rejected, which is kind of to be expected with the Conservatives these days, but we still did it in good faith. At the end of the day, I realized that the legislation for Sable Island National Park would carve out a protected area in the middle of a gas field. This is a natural gas field. It is a unique situation. It would carve out a protected area, and I knew that one day, on the Monday, there could be drilling in that national park, but if we passed that legislation on the Tuesday, there would no longer be the right to drill in that park, so it was worth it. Even though the bill was not perfect, even though we brought forward amendments and they were rejected, we still supported it.

I am incredibly proud of that work, and we will continue to work to make the legislation and the park management plan robust and strong and to put in the proper protections for that park.

However, Rouge national urban park is different, because this legislation crosses a line. It obviously is a precedent-setting bill. The park is the first national urban park in an urban setting. It can be accessed by public transit. It creates a new model for protecting areas in an urban setting, because we have to take into consideration the presence of highways. There is the 407.

I was overlooking the Rouge Valley the other day and I could hear the roar of Highway 401, even though I was looking at this beautiful nature valley. It was incredible. There are roads, highways, railway lines and farming, so it has to be different. A precedent will be set.

However, there is a negative precedent, and that is around ecological integrity. We heard the member for Thornhill talk about ecological integrity. He said that we could not protect ecological integrity in an urban park. I disagree. If we look at the Parks Canada Agency Act, it talks about the first priority being the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, which is the improvement of ecological integrity.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature has a definition of a protected area, which says, “A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed...to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.” They are different words, but the same idea. They talk about the conservation of nature. The prioritization of ecological health or ecological integrity is all conservation.

What do we have here? We have something totally different in this bill. I will read it verbatim, and members will be shocked, because the bill states:

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.

We go from prioritization, improving and maintaining to we should probably think about it, and that is not acceptable in the least.

I heard the speech of my colleague from Thornhill and all of the arguments at committee at second reading. The Conservatives said that a burn off of a forest could not be done when a highway went through it and there were houses, that farms would not be ripped up so trees could be planted to restore the natural ecosystem. No one asked for that.

At committee, we had incredible testimony from environmental groups, local organizations and farming groups. The Conservatives would have us believe that it is this environmentalist and farmer fight, and never the two shall meet. That is not the case. Everybody was perfectly reasonable at committee. Everybody said that they wanted to protect farms. Farmers said that they want to protect their livelihoods, but they wanted to have a park. Environmental groups said that they wanted to protect farms and have a park. Everybody was reasonable.

There was a way to figure this out and come to a compromise in protecting farmland and ensuring there were no silly rules that said that Highway 407 had to be set fire every 10 years to stimulate new growth. We are smart people. We are legislators. We have Parks Canada and legal drafters. I know them and they are smart people. We can figure out a way around this.

The NDP proposed many things, because there are a number of flaws with the bill, around the issue of prioritization of ecosystem health or ecological prioritization. We proposed to replace clause 6 and say that the minister must, in the management of the park, prioritize improvement of the health of the park's ecosystem. We are talking about prioritization. We are not saying that we have to do outrageous things that do not make any sense. We just want to prioritize the improvement of the health of the park's ecosystem.

Then we put forward a subclause (2) that for greater certainty, the minister must recognize and take into consideration the ongoing presence of agriculture in the park. That is important. I hear the Conservatives ask what is going to be done with the farmers. Let us spell it out. We are going to take into consideration the ongoing presence of farms in the park. We are not saying ongoing farms, but secretly this is a conspiracy to rip up all the farms and plant trees. We are talking about protecting the agriculture in the park.

I will read a couple of quotes from committee because they are so simple and straightforward.

Faisal Moola is from the David Suzuki Foundation. He said:

—we do not believe that maximizing ecological health and support for agriculture are mutually exclusive objectives in the park. The David Suzuki Foundation supports sustainable farming in the park.

That is perfect.

Kim Empringham is with the York Region Federation of Agriculture. She was wonderful at committee. She understood compromise and coming together to try to reach consensus. She said:

Two of the guiding principles for the Rouge national urban park are to maintain and improve ecological health and scientific integrity, and to respect and support sustainable agriculture and other compatible land uses.

We have a woman who testified on behalf of farmers and a man who has testified on behalf of environmental groups, and they are saying the same thing. What I do not understand is why we have this fake fight and this pretend argument that we cannot do this. We can do it. We came up with a solution. In my opinion, that one amendment would solve all the problems that we are having.

What do we do? I would like to talk a bit about the political process. We worked really hard within this process to create the best bill possible. If members remember, at second reading, the NDP was not combative on this. It said yes, that we wanted to get this to third reading. I think that we actually fast-tracked it a bit and said that we would only put up a certain number of speakers because we were eager to roll up our sleeves, get to work at committee and deal with this.

In our speeches, the New Democrats said that we wanted to come up with a solution, that we could do this and figure this out. We had quite supportive yet tempered speeches in the House. They were really interesting. We heard from MPs, mostly in the Toronto area because they know the park so well. They really wanted to say something about this park and be a part of navigating the path forward. The speeches were excellent.

We then worked with different groups. Sometimes it is back and forth. We are on the phone a lot. Someone says “what about this word?” and we are the go-between. You know this, Mr. Speaker, from your background in law. We negotiated that, but we did it, and we came up with this good amendment and really good language for clause 6.

What we had to do was talk to the grassroots organizations that wanted to protect farming in the park and yet recognize farms as another unique aspect of this park. I think we did it. What is left here?

The NDP brought forward 19 amendments at committee. It was a pleasure working with my NDP colleagues on this, because they really took it to heart. They really did want to ensure that the bill was better. Kudos to the MP for Scarborough Southwest and the MP for Scarborough—Rouge River for the work they did. We lost that fight, so we will take the advice of these groups that are on the ground that want to see this urban national park more than anything, but not at the expense of creating a bad precedent for urban parks from here on out. We will take their advice and we will vote against the bill.

However, we support this park, so what do we do? We have started that work already. My colleagues and I, particularly the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, have been sitting down with this amendment to clause 6, for example, and other amendments, and we will put together a private member's bill that will lay out what the NDP will do when it is in government, how it will change this bill to actually protect ecological integrity, yet ensure the ongoing presence of agriculture in the park. We will bring forward this bill, and I will be so proud to do that. I hope I get to second the bill.

We can do this. We can have an incredible urban national park. We can make it the jewel in the national park crown and set a positive precedent for urban parks to come. That is what we are working on. I look forward to the introduction of that bill. We really will lay out how we can make this happen, protecting all of the interests that need to be protected, including the health of this ecosystem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will take the member at her word. She talks about the environmentalists. Let us look at what they said.

When asked about farming, Caroline Schultz of Ontario Nature said that yes it wanted farming in the park, but “There are certain types of farming that would not be compatible.” If someone is a farmer, then it is adios.

Jim Robb spoke about the 600-metre ecological corridor and said that it would take 1700 acres of class 1 farmland out of production.

Parks Canada estimates that 2,000 acres of class 1 farmland will be out of production.

The member spoke against ecological integrity in the park because she recognized it could not happen in this park.

However, they cannot have it both ways. The members cannot say that they support farmers in the park, but then turn around and tell them what to farm, where to farm and how to farm in the park.

These people have suffered for 40 years, when their land was first expropriated by the Trudeau Liberal government. They deserve certainty. They deserve to be allowed to farm what they want, how they want, using best farm practices on the lands that were expropriated from many of them. That is the reality in this area.

Does my colleague not recognize the fact that the people she mentioned, who support the amendments brought forward by the NDP, do not actually live or work in the park?

Kim Empringham, a farmer, supports our legislation. If people are ratepayers, they support our legislation. They actually sent letters to us in support of the legislation. If they live, work or play in the Rouge, they support it. If it is an outside agency, which has no business telling the people in this area what to do and how to do it, it wants these amendments, which have only one purpose, and that is to kill farming. They cannot have it both ways.

Would the member just be honest and admit to the fact that the vast majority of the amendments brought forward, which spoke of ecological integrity, would do one thing, and that is eliminate farming from the Rouge?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has the best interests of the park at heart and I know he has worked hard on this. However, I disagree with him. It is not adios, to use his word, to farming. We are talking about sustainable agriculture.

Let us look at the fact that right now these farms only have a one year lease. If farmers only have a one year lease, how much improvement will they make on their farm to make it more sustainable, even something as easy as tiling for draining? If they make that investment, it then will take a number of years to recoup that investment. We need to look at the fact that they have one-year leases and they have been unable to implement some of the sustainable farming practices that we would come to expect.

I would not think that Friends of the Rouge Watershed would be considered to be an outside agency. These groups have worked really hard. At committee, every one of them said that they were not talking about getting rid of the farms. The amendment I talked about at length says, “also the ongoing presence of agriculture”.

When he says that it cannot happen, that we cannot protect ecological integrity, it can. All we need to do is be creative, look at an amendment like what the NDP has brought forward, and we can solve these problems, not just throw up our hands and walk away from them.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech was thoughtful and she drew out the issues quite well.

I would like her to focus on clause 6, which says that the minister must take into consideration, and she emphasized the point “take into consideration”. What does that actually mean? Four things are supposed to be taken into consideration: protection of natural ecosystems, cultural landscapes, native wildlife and health of ecosystems, none of which is defined in the legislation.

It is a case of everything is a priority. If everything is a priority, then really nothing is a priority and the consequence of that is the people who the legislation purports to protect. The hon. member previously said that he was very concerned about the farmers. We are all very concerned about the farmers. However, the farmers are actually as vulnerable as anyone else in the park. If everything is a priority and therefore nothing is a priority and if we have a minister who is hawkish and has no fettering of his or his discretion, then the farmers could be more vulnerable than they think they are.

She rightly sets up this false food fight between the ecologists and the farmers. The crazy part of the whole thing is that it leaves the farmers as vulnerable as it leaves everyone else. That is why she is right to emphasize the point that definitions matter. We are legislators. We work on definitions.

Is the hon. member, like I, disappointed in how this has turned out over these last few weeks and months?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and the work he did at committee on questioning witnesses. He is a neighbouring MP as well, and there are a number of neighbouring MPs to this park. We all want to see this park established, but how do we get there?

The member pointed out something that I will admit I had not thought about.

On the definition piece, certainly the NDP brought forward amendments to define ecological health and ecological integrity. We are legislators, and we need to have those definitions. We need to talk about what we want to do and to spell it out. Sometimes a definition of ecological health or ecological integrity would specifically exclude something. For example, we could exclude the Highway 407.

The member brought up a good point about the definitions of the six things that the minister is supposed to be doing now, which could potentially put the farmers at risk. It makes me think about some of the discussions we had—and I do not remember if it was at committee or here in the House—about the park management plan. The Conservatives were saying “Just trust us; everything will be in the park management plan, and you will be really happy.”

Well, the management plan is not legislation. The management plan is policy. There is a big difference between policy and legislation. It could be the whim of a minister to say that they are not into the management plan anymore, and they then might do x or y.

Where are the protections for farmers? Why is that not legislated, as in the NDP amendment that we brought forward? Why is ecological health not defined?

The definitions matter, and they are our job as legislators.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Halifax for her excellent speech on this topic. It clearly goes to show how vested she is in protecting this beautiful park, which is in my backyard. A large part of the current park is in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge River.

The current Rouge Park is protected under a patchwork system of over 10 different plans. For example, there is the Rouge Park management plan of 1994, the Rouge Park north management plan, the provincial Greenbelt plan, the Toronto Lake Ontario area of concern remedial action plan, and the Rouge River watershed plan. There is a patchwork of plans protecting the Rouge Valley, the larger ecosystem, and the parklands.

In committee, we heard the minister and many other people say that this is a patchwork system but that the bill would be better at protecting the lands and the park. In January 2013, the federal government signed a memorandum agreeing to meet or exceed Ontario's existing policies of protecting the greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine conservation plans.

However, we are now seeing in the media release and letter sent to all members of Parliament from seven different organizations on the ground, in the community as well as national organizations, that the bill is not good: the bill would not protect the park more than what already exists.

My question for my hon. colleague is on whether there is anything else that we could have done to make sure that this park is actually protected by federal legislation.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She did drill down to the issue of the existing protections that are stronger than what would happen with this national park if the lands are transferred. The proposed legislation would not meet or exceed the existing protections that are in place.

What else could we have done?

I think we did everything we could, but we have to think about what comes next. Therefore, I am excited about our solution, to bring forward a private member's bill that would spell out what the NDP would do for the park when we form government, how we would bring it up to a standard that is acceptable and protect ecological integrity while also protecting the other activities in the park.