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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is customary for members to stand and say it gives them great pleasure to enter into this debate and so on, but in fact it does not give me great pleasure to enter into this debate. I am quite disappointed with the ultimate outcome of this legislation. I had hoped that with the co-operation of the opposition parties at second reading that the bill could have moved to committee where we could have done some business, but the government chose to take its usual bullheaded approach that it is right and everybody else is wrong. The consequence was that there was no movement by the government on anything, whether it was on the size of the park, or trying to make Queen's Park happier, or for the literally thousands of petitioners and all of the various environmental groups, and even some of the farmers, who are worried about where all of this may end up.

It is without any pleasure at all that I rise to talk about this legislation on behalf of the Liberal Party. In the event that we are fortunate enough to form government, we will fix this because it is in need of a serious fix. This was and is a wonderful opportunity to do something right, but the government in its “wisdom” decided that its way is the only way to do things right.

I largely agree with Pauline Browes, a former minister in the Mulroney government, and her detailing of how various levels of government have come together over time, both Conservative and Liberal, to get us to the point we are at today.

It is ultimately a good idea to turn these lands into a federal park, but regrettably the whole thing has derailed. What caused this derailment? Was it Queen's Park? It said that unless the government fixes the bill, Queen's Park is not going to contribute its lands to the park. Those lands constitute some 44% of the park. Instead of what has been advertised as a 58-square kilometre park, it would be 44% less than that.

However, it is actually worse than that. It is not as if we can chop the whole thing in half, make a nice clean line, and end up with half of a park. This would actually be a Swiss cheese park. The lands are owned in bits and pieces by various entities, one of which is the TRCA, which is controlled by the Ontario government. Those lands run largely along rivers and stream valleys. Other lands are owned by the town of Markham, which will make its own decisions. Then there are the federal lands. The whole thing is going to be a mess. There are conflicting jurisdictions, right from Lake Ontario all the way up to the Oak Ridges Moraine. It is a lot of land.

The fifty-eight square kilometres is quite a bit less than the 100-square kilometres that the environmentalists wished to protect. Lands to the east of the park itself are entirely controlled by the federal government and largely set aside for the Pickering airport, much of which is surplus to any airport. That land could have been contributed by the federal government toward enlarging the park, but for whatever reason the government chose not to do that. The 600-metre corridor which would have connected the Oak Ridges Moraine and the bulk of the park itself could have been included in the lands in the first place, but it was not done, for whatever reason.

The Conservatives seem to be fond of setting aside land, but are not quite so fond of ecological integrity and habitat protection. The animals that are in the park would have to stop at some artificial line between the Oak Ridges Moraine and the end of the park; otherwise, I guess they would be fair game.

In the actual bill itself there are three squiggly little pieces of land in Markham. Therefore, we are not getting 58 square kilometres, 100 square kilometres, or any of the lands that the federal government could have contributed from the lands east of the park itself. Instead, we are getting three little squiggly pieces of land in Markham, and that is the content of the bill. However, as the government has argued, we should trust it.

How did this derail? Was it the Queen's Park decision? That certainly did not contribute. Was it the committee process? We would think that a bill of this significance would have had more than three hearings at committee, one of which was the minister and her officials arguing for the bill. Essentially, we had a total of four hours at committee to review the bill and to hear the concerns of people. This park has been 30 years in the making, and it boiled down to four hours at committee. Many of the witnesses were pre-selected for their views, which were favourable to the those of the government's.

The previous speakers alluded to the multiple amendments, many of which centred on the one issue of the creation of some ecological standard. We can argue as to whether there should be ecological integrity or ecological health, but there should be something. Right now, it is ecological nothing. There are so many priorities set out in section 6 that there are actually no priorities. Therefore, for a minister, possibly such as this one, who is predisposed to making it up as he or she goes along, that leaves everybody quite vulnerable. On the other hand, a subsequent minister might be very interested in one aspect, whether it is some sort of development aspect, farming aspect, or some ecological integrity part of the park. We could assume anything. The way that this legislation is written, the minister has almost fiat-like powers to direct the park, and from time to time that will bump up against the best interests of ecologists, farmers, residents, or other levels of government. We have the opportunity here to get it right, to set forward values and priorities, and what we hear is “Trust us.”

It has perhaps derailed with the belittling of the witnesses and the exaggeration of the differences between the farmers and the others. Jane Philpott, one of our candidates for that area, and I, made a special effort to spend an entire day with the farmers. I enjoyed that day. I thought they were reasonable people. Their expectations were quite reasonable. I thought that these were people with whom we could do business. Therefore, my anticipation, largely fostered by the government's members, of some sort of hostility on the part of the farmers, was completely and utterly dissipated. I saw them as some of our foremost ecological stewards. They care about their lands. I was reminded of my father who had a farm not far from that site, and his land was his capital. The current situation leaves the farmers in a difficult position because they cannot enhance or develop their capital, whether with various farming techniques, drainage, or things of that nature. They are in a vulnerable situation. I am reminded of the worst words that a citizen of Canada will ever hear, which are, “I'm from the Government of Canada, and I'm here to help you.” I would tell my farmer friends to beware of the bill. They might think it helps them, but a proper definition of ecological health would help them a great deal more.

I have to say that I was disappointed by the treatment of the witnesses who came before us and whose views did not line up with the government's preconceived views. We have to be worried about a bill that is not supported by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, CPAWS, the leading organization in Canada recognized internationally, which is basically saying that we should go back to the drawing board and try to get this right because it will serve as a precedent for other bills.

Ontario Nature does not support it, the STORM Coalition does not support it, Nature Canada does not support it, Environmental Defence does not support it, and literally thousands of petitioners do not support it. They are not all foreign radicals. They are not all there to derail development and all of the rest of the ways in which environmental groups are demonized. They actually had quite reasonable, thoughtful and, I would respectfully suggest, modest suggestions as to how to get over the hump of the concerns of the Queen's Park government with the bill as presented by this particular government. Again, everyone else was wrong, the government was right, and there was absolutely no point at which we could arrive at any kind of compromise.

We have had some discussion about this rejection of the concept of ecological integrity. That is actually a difficult thing, and I could be persuaded that we cannot simply layer over the Parks Canada bill onto an urban setting. It seems like a reasonable proposition, but what is the alternative? We are driven to the other alternatives in clauses 4 and 6. When we ask a very simple question, which is what is ecological health, we either get a dozen answers, resounding silence, or tap dancing away from the question, because there is not a person in this chamber, not a person listening to this debate, who actually knows what ecological health is. It is thrown out there with the assumption that people will buy that idea and somehow or another it will work out in time.

The former minister, in his lead-off speech, said that some things go without saying. If we think about that, we are legislators and we put bills forward. To say it “goes without saying” is not something we could put in a bill because it “goes without saying“. If in fact there is a very concerned community about what those definitions should be, “goes without saying” is not an adequate response to their concerns.

We put definitions in a bill for good reasons. We put them in a bill to circumscribe the discretion of a minister. Ministers come and ministers go. Some are persuaded this way, some are persuaded that way, and with this government there is quite a turnover. In the course of eight or nine years of the government, it has gone through six ministers, one twice, and it has gone through either five or six deputy ministers in the same period of time. It is like two merry-go-rounds going in different directions simultaneously. It hardly creates a level of confidence that there is some direction going through Environment Canada or the deputy minister. It is perfectly natural, because the concept in the government is that everything is run from one place and one place only, so a minister and, for that matter, a deputy minister are substituted from time to time if we want to change the name or face of the organization.

It we put that in the context of this particular bill, in the course of the five, six, and possibly seven ministers we have had, each one would have a different idea of what ecological health might mean. Absent a definition, it goes without saying we cannot live with that. This is why this becomes the hill to die on.

Right now it is the ecological community that is unhappy with the bill. The hon. member for Halifax who spoke earlier listed all of the people who are unhappy with the bill. This time next year it might actually be the farming community that is unhappy with the bill, because this is a blank slate for any minister to do anything. Had we spent some useful time trying to circumscribe the arbitrariness of the bill, we might have come to a point where the entire House could support the bill and it could go forward. For the government's purposes, mysterious as they might be, that is not going to happen.

The other clause that gave some pause for concern was clause 8, the appointment of an advisory committee. It says that the minister “may” appoint an advisory committee. That also means that the minister may not appoint an advisory committee. If we take the arbitrariness of clause 6, which is that all priorities are priorities and therefore that we do not actually have a priority, and add to that the fact that the minister may or may not create an advisory committee, the consequence is that we would have the potential of a minister who may well be very arbitrary. That arbitrariness may go against a variety of any one of the communities that spoke, whether the environmentalist community, the farm community, or whatever. It leaves everyone exposed.

This is a whole series of reasons as to why the bill is derailed, when it could have been kept on the rails with a bit of reason and compromise.

There was also this whole argument about connecting the Oak Ridges Moraine with the bulk of the park in order to protect the animal populations that would go back and forth. This point actually exists in some form, although not very coherently, and would require some result where lands would be acquired. Obviously, lands could also be compensated at the same time. Again, I go back to the way the bill is quite arbitrary. Some minister might well say “Too bad for you, Mr. or Mrs Farmer. You're off your lands.” That, frankly, would be quite regrettable. The connection from the mouth of the Rouge all the way up to the Oak Ridges Moraine was something that would actually protect the ecological position of the park.

In summary, the bill is badly derailed. It could have been saved and still could be saved if the government were open to any amendments. Unfortunately, however, we are going to be in the position of it is their way or the highway. Regrettably, we could have achieved a consensus but did not. I dare say that it is quite typical of the government's attitude toward any opposition, no matter how mild or how reasoned.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my hon. colleague. He is an excellent lawyer and he has great experience in the House.

Parks Canada held extensive consultation with stakeholders. The great majority agreed with the methods applied by Parks Canada. We have seen the Parks Canada 2014 draft Rouge national urban park management plan strengthened in support of reaching goals, including an ecological link between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine and the protection of prime agricultural areas.

The draft management plan reinforces the province's Oak Ridges Moraine conservation plan by protecting prime agricultural areas and by conserving and connecting natural heritage uses and hydrological functions and land for future use.

My question is for my hon. colleague. I know he is talking about legislation. I am an engineer and I know mathematics. Development in mathematics cannot be done without postulates. Here we are, making a proposal for an urban national park, the first in Canada.

This is my question for the hon. member: does he trust Parks Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can trust Park Canada; it is the government I cannot trust. That is the issue.

There is no trust when we cannot even get a simple minor amendment to this legislation. The Conservatives have blown it. That is the issue. It was a simple fix, but the government rejected all of the amendments put forward by the opposition and rejected any suggestion, however mild, by the opposition, essentially saying, “It is my way or the highway.”

The member talks about the ecological link. Well, the Conservatives rejected that as well, so we do not have connection between the mouth of the Rouge and Oak Ridges Moraine. We do not have the 58 square kilometres as advertised. We do not even have 30 square kilometres, as the reality now is that it is bits and pieces, here and there. It is going to look like Swiss cheese. It is a bit of a mess.

I would love to trust the government, but we cannot.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. We listen to the speeches and then write down ideas for questions, and the last sentence of his speech answered my question, so I guess this is more of a comment.

In the last sentence of the member's speech, he said that we could have found a solution, that we could have come up with something, that we could have found a solution. That is the thing that is most important to me: that we actually did try to find solutions.

First I need to say the legislation should not and does not speak to a change of land use. The legislation does not talk about tearing up farms.

However, if we go back to the international standard required for a park, to the definition of a “protected area” according to international standards, we find that conservation is to be identified as the first priority. What are we creating here? By the international standard, we are actually not creating a park.

We have had similar situations. This is not the first park. Yes, it is unique because it is urban, but it is not the only national park to compete with urbanization or infrastructure needs. Let us look at Banff National Park. There is a highway running through Banff. The CP railway runs through Banff. We figured it out.

I was going to ask the member whether he thinks we can find solutions to this as legislators, as drafters. I assume his answer is “yes”. That was a great speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. This is not rocket science. Where there is a will, there is a way.

These are rather minor changes. Clause 6 could have had something in there about ecological health being the first priority among the other priorities. It could have included a definition of what constitutes ecological health. The member is right to point out that it has been done elsewhere.

We have to come to the conclusion that the government, for whatever reason, thinks being arbitrary has some sort of political advantage. The political advantage, frankly, escapes me. I am assuming it has to do with farm friendliness. We are all farm friendly; we cannot eat without them.

The real question here is this: why would the government pit this set of citizens against that set of citizens, when in fact both sets of citizens have way more in common than they do in differences?

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood made a superb case that was well stated and well researched. He is right on target.

I was there at the committee meeting reviewing the 18 amendments that the Green Party put forward, supported by the Liberals and the NDP. The hon. member was there and observed the absolutely unbelievable behaviour of all of the Conservative members at that session. Particularly dreadful was the performance by the member for Oak Ridges—Markham, who did not even pay attention to the amendments. Members were playing with their BlackBerrys, mindlessly voting no to everything, and declaring things inadmissible that were clearly relevant.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on the behaviour that he saw and whether that is appropriate behaviour for parliamentarians in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really would not want to comment. The hon. member for Oak Ridges—Markham has to face his electors, and I will leave him to face them. “Good luck” is all I say.

What is regrettable in the whole exercise was the waste of the work that all of the opposition parties put in to try to make this bill workable so that we could all stand unanimously and support this bill going forward. It would not have been difficult to make that happen.

Ultimately, fiddling with a BlackBerry, ridiculing witnesses, or dismissing amendments out of hand is, frankly, no way to conduct a committee, but for the last number of years, that is not news.

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard in some of the speeches earlier today that there is a disconnect between the provincial Government of Ontario and the federal government, and I am curious as to whether or not you are aware of any attempts to get the two governments together. Perhaps the Premier has written to the Prime Minister and is looking to meet, or maybe ministers are having those connections.

If there is a disconnect between these two levels of government, what steps are you aware of that have been taken by the government to try to bring the sides together to reach consensus on this important issue?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The Speaker is not aware of any of those conversations, but perhaps the member for Scarborough—Guildwood is.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say that in the initial thrust for this bill, there was a lot of support. At an official and, frankly, a political level, there was a great deal of consensus that this bill was going to go forward.

However, when the drafting of the legislation came forward, people actually read it, and it was kind of like a blind agreement. The Queen's Park government had trusted the federal government to meet or exceed the ecological standards that it had in its own memorandum, its own legislation, and its own regulations. Then the bill came forward, and it was, “Here it is. Take it or leave it.” That was the choice that was faced by the Queen's Park government.

I am sure that the officials then bounced it up to the ministerial level. I would not be optimistic that the Minister of the Environment would take a call from the relevant minister at Queen's Park. I am not privy to any of those particular conversations, but when I talked to the folks at Queen's Park, they were pretty disappointed, frankly, that they could not support this legislation. They had expected more, and they got a lot less.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to this most worthy bill.

Rouge national urban park will be a place that protects not only natural but also cultural and agricultural resources. It will be a place that provides access to landscapes and experiences that help to define us as Canadians. Bill C-40 would help make this vision a reality.

Rouge national urban park, a Canadian first, would see the creation of one of the largest and most diverse urban parks in the world. There are currently no other places that can compare to it.

This proposed national urban park is so big that it will house 79 working farms with views of Toronto's downtown core. That is something many urbanites rarely get to see, let alone experience, in our 21st century world.

The park would give urban children and youth a chance to learn about their region's heritage, from first nations' presence beginning at least 10,000 years ago to the more recent farming heritage dating back to the late 1700s. It would give them a chance to discover where the food they eat comes from. This would educate young Canadians and enable them to become tomorrow's informed stewards of agriculture and our precious natural and cultural resources. Indeed, this is perhaps one of the strongest selling points for the bold new legislation before us.

Among its benefits, thousands of acres of prime category one agricultural lands in York region would be added to the current regional Rouge Park as a result of this expanded mandate. Sixty-two per cent of the land set aside for Rouge national urban park would be agricultural, and it is not just any farmland. With the creation of Rouge national urban park, the Government of Canada would protect and keep in production some of the country's rarest and most rich and fertile soil. This is important, because farms in and around the greater Toronto area are fast becoming an endangered species.

Given that only 1% of all farmland in Canada is rated as category one, protection of these lands is vital, particularly since over two million acres of farmland have been lost in southern Ontario over the past 30 years due to urbanization and land zoning changes. Without the highest level of legislative protection afforded under Bill C-40, millions of Torontonians, Ontarians, and Canadians would lose access to this valuable farmland. Official park designation means we could preserve land that produces food for surrounding urban neighbours while also achieving amazing results in conserving native plants and animals and providing visitors with innovative farm, recreational, and visitor experiences.

In the lead-up to the tabling of the bill, Parks Canada consulted with thousands of Canadians and hundreds of community groups, organizations, and different levels of government.

Beyond public consultation, the bill before the House today was referred to an all-party committee process, which examined each and every aspect of the bill before carrying it forward in its present form. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development heard from 11 different public witnesses and experts, including senior Parks Canada officials; a former chair and members of the former Rouge Park Alliance, the now-disbanded provincially appointed group that helped to manage the Rouge for nearly 20 years; farmers; and environmental groups. Of these witnesses, the vast majority supported the bill as is, including representatives from the Rouge agricultural community.

Some have tried to suggest that the government was playing politics by not accepting any of the proposed amendments of the bill. This is just not true. The truth is the majority of the amendments proposed by the official opposition and the Green Party called for ecological integrity to be included as a leading priority in the bill, despite the fact that only two out of the committee's 11 witnesses supported or espoused ecological integrity. To be clear, 81% of the witnesses present did not ask for ecological integrity to be included.

Moreover, two of the environmental groups presenting supported Parks Canada's concept of ecological health over the concept of ecological integrity. This makes it incredibly difficult to understand why the official opposition and the Green Party would put forward so many amendments that included ecological integrity. I wonder why these members chose to listen to only two of the witnesses. Even more concerning is why these parties chose to ignore the vast majority of the witnesses.

Many have asked why the government does not support the application of ecological integrity in Rouge national urban park. For those who are familiar with the subject matter, according to the Canada National Parks Act, which is the law governing national parks in Canada, “...“ecological integrity” means...a condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region and likely to persist...” and evolve without interference.

In plain language, ecosystems have integrity when they have their native components intact, including ecosystem processes such as free-flowing rivers and streams, and when there is continuation of natural processes such as fire, flooding, pest outbreaks, and predation. For ecological integrity to persist, the ecological footprint of humans in and around a park would need to be minimized.

While ecological integrity is a noble concept and one that works well in national parks such as Banff, of which 96% is still wilderness, the principle of ecological integrity as applied by Parks Canada in Canada's national parks is not appropriate for Rouge's urban setting, its infrastructure realities, and the future infrastructure needs of the Province of Ontario and adjacent municipalities. Nearly 80% of the park area is considered disturbed or severely altered from its natural state, and this calls for a very different conservation approach.

Given this incredibly unique urban context, Parks Canada has developed a more suitable concept of ecosystem health and will apply this concept to achieve the highest level of conservation and protection in the Rouge's history by integrating the conservation of natural heritage values with human health and well-being, including air, soil, and water quality enhancement; food production; and recreational and educational opportunities.

Quite simply, ecological integrity, as it applies to Canada's national parks, does not work in a landscape that is fragmented by Canada's busiest highways, roads, rail lines, hydro corridors, parcels of private lands, homes, working farms, communities, and provincial and municipal infrastructure. This unique urban context makes Rouge unlike any other national park in the country, and that is why the Government of Canada decided to create a new category of protected area: a national urban park.

In practical terms, if the government were to apply the concept of ecological integrity to Rouge national urban park, the consequences on local communities, municipalities, residents, farmers, and other businesses would be harsh and severe. Applying ecological integrity would mean that most types of new infrastructure, including those for any potential future above- and below-ground needs of the Province and local municipalities, would not be allowed.

Ecological integrity would also mean that in-stream control structures that prevent flooding would most likely need to be removed. Natural stream channels would also need to be restored, regardless of their path through the landscape, and floods and the movement and evolution of rivers and creeks would be required to proceed naturally. Ecological integrity would prevent the use of environmentally friendly farming techniques, such as agricultural tile drainage.

Even more concerning, adapting ecological integrity in the Rouge would see many Rouge farmers evicted from working farms that have been in production since as early as 1799. There are reasons we do not see farming in places like Banff National Park or Gros Morne National Park. It is because active farming in itself is considered incompatible with ecological integrity as it is currently defined in the Canada National Parks Act. That is why anyone who says that he or she supports both farming and ecological integrity as it is legally defined by the Canada National Parks Act is at best naive or misinformed or at worst simply trying—without success, I might add—to appease the farming community.

Additional proposed amendments to the bill would have seen natural heritage conservation prioritized over cultural and agricultural heritage, and I would like to take a few moments to address this idea.

From the onset of this great project, the government has clearly stated the need for an integrated approach to conserving the Rouge's rich and diverse landscape and uses. The Government of Canada and Parks Canada have always made it clear that Rouge national urban park would prioritize equally the protection and celebration of nature, culture, and agriculture and the goal of connecting Canadians to this heritage. Again a majority of the witnesses called to committee supported our integrated approach, one that protects natural heritage but also extends these protections to the Rouge's cultural and agricultural heritage.

Despite this, the official opposition and the Green Party put forward amendments that would see one component of the park, natural heritage conservation, take precedence over another element of the park. Did the official opposition and the Green Party mean to suggest that somehow 10,000 years of rich cultural and first nations history and heritage, as well as hundreds of years of agricultural heritage, should be second class? Are they suggesting that these other park components are somehow less important or deserve second-rate treatment?

Again, why did these members of Parliament ignore the majority of committee witnesses and opt instead to propose untenable and divisive amendments? Perhaps these members failed to read the Province of Ontario's very own and much vaunted Greenbelt plan, which does not place agriculture as a lower or second priority to nature.

It is clear that in putting forth these amendments, there was actually little regard for the public interest. Rather, it was an example of listening and catering to a narrow segment of the population. This is what leads to cynical public attitudes towards our political process.

The legislation before the House today is strong and will provide the Rouge with its highest legislative protection in its history. For some to suggest that this bill would somehow weaken the protection currently in place is simply wrong.

Should we be expected to believe that loopholes in Ontario's Greenbelt Act and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, loopholes such as grandfathering environmentally destructive practices, allowing exemptions so that endangered species can be killed if a net benefit is provided, loose permitting systems, and incredibly, self-monitoring of development projects, suggest the highest standards in law and policy that Parks Canada should adopt or strive for in the Rouge? These loopholes allow for significant commercial and industrial development, the dumping of toxic fill, and the killing of species at risk. These very same practices have been severely criticized by the very same organizations that are suggesting that somehow the bill before us today presents a step backwards in the protection of the Rouge.

Just this week, a tribunal in Pontypool, Ontario, listened to claims from concerned members of the public that industrial development on the supposedly provincially protected Oak Ridges Moraine will cause “serious and irreversible harm to plants, animals and the environment, particularly the Oak Ridges Moraine”.

These are serious allegations and concerns being levelled against the same provincial legislation the opposition parties are upholding as examples of the best protection.

The bottom line is that Parks Canada would provide protections that would safeguard for perpetuity the Rouge's plants and animals, waters, cultural landscapes, and farmlands and would not cause them irreversible harm.

I emphatically suggest to members that the bill before the House today would meet and exceed any current or past protections in place for the Rouge, and it is shameful, given the strength of this bill and Parks Canada's international renown in conservation and ecological restoration, that anyone would begin to suggest otherwise.

In the Rouge Park of today, if one steals a fossil, kills an animal, vandalizes a national historic site, pollutes the waters, or dumps garbage and toxins in the forest, there are no law enforcement officers with a direct presence in the park to apply the law and safeguard this most incredible of resources. Rouge national urban park would have a full complement of year-round, dedicated law enforcement wardens in the park to enforce one strong and clear set of park laws and regulations and would have the ability to impose stringent fines and penalties to effectively enforce the law.

Apart from not knowing where the food on their plates comes from, many Canadians likely are unaware that farmland can play a role in preserving and restoring wetlands, forests, and grasslands that protect a wide array of species. Progressively managed farms support native biodiversity through good cropping practices, maintenance, and restoration of hedgerows, fallow fields, and woodlots by creating vital habitat that supports nesting and migratory birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.

Farmland in the Rouge contains important natural heritage and hydrologic features, and the stewardship of these farms can help facilitate both environmental and agricultural protection. Farms in Rouge national urban park would therefore be integral to the long-term sustainability and health of the park.

It is for precisely reasons like these that Rouge national urban park would include and protect agricultural lands. The Rouge would require and promote sustainable farming practices to support the continuation and viability of farming and would contribute to natural and cultural resource protection, healthy ecosystems, and a quality visitor experience.

This Canadian-first approach would embrace working farms as a unique feature of the park and would integrate agriculture into the park's vision. These objectives would be confirmed in the legislation.

Parks Canada would continue to work with the farming community, academic institutions, and other stakeholders to define how this long-term farming presence could best be accomplished. For the first time in decades, farmers would be given long-term leases contingent on meeting the highest standards of sustainable farming practices. As long-time stewards of the land, the agricultural community has made evident its commitment to achieving the vision for the national urban park.

Equally important is that as older farmers retire there will be opportunities for a new generation of farmers. New and young farmers would join existing farmers, and all would have a chance to apply leading, innovative techniques that improve land stewardship and protect prime farmland for optimal use while maintaining time-tested traditions that make farming such an important part of our heritage. In the future, this will lead to increased diversity in farm types and sizes and in the crops grown in the park.

Beyond the direct interests of farmers and food production, agricultural themes would be woven into the visitor experience. For example, visitors to the park could become involved in farm tours, workshops, and other programming. They could also take advantage of fresh food sold at farmers' markets or take part in agricultural fairs.

This would present a win for everyone. The legislation would facilitate ways for people to continue to live and work in the park, enhance their livelihoods, and work collaboratively in achieving the overall vision of the park. It would encourage sustainability and beneficial land management practices, ensuring the long-term health and well-being of the land protected by the park.

Rouge national urban park is a project that should be uniting Canadians, not dividing us. It is a park that has truly been developed by Canadians for Canadians. This is cause for celebration, not just in the greater Toronto area but from coast to coast to coast, as all Canadians would be able to access this one-of-a-kind national urban park.

Canadians strongly support our approach, which safeguards and promotes healthy ecosystems, respects local farmers, and creates unprecedented opportunities for new and urban Canadians to experience the richness and beauty of Canada's treasured federal heritage areas. Let us all work together in the interest of all Canadians and create a lasting legacy for our children's great-grandchildren.

It is with utmost humility and sincerity that I call on all parliamentarians to demonstrate their full support for this landmark legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about the importance of heritage and cultural experiences for the people around the park. My question for my hon. colleague is with respect to the creation of an aboriginal education centre, considering the fact that the traditional lands of the Mississauga, Huron-Wendat, and Seneca first nations people are within Rouge Park. They include a sacred burial site as well as an ancient village site.

There have been many activists on the ground. David Grey Eagle is one of the leading indigenous people who has been fighting to protect these lands to ensure that there is no development and that the sacred burial ground as well as the village site is protected. To ensure that the public would have the opportunity to learn the history, experience the cultural heritage, and be more educated about the land and the indigenous people's historical and cultural background in the area, he proposed creating an aboriginal education centre within Rouge Park.

That was one proposal I brought forward as an amendment at committee. If culture, heritage, and experience are so important, why did his colleagues in the Conservative Party vote against that amendment?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was active in several consultations held by Parks Canada. Parks Canada, in its stakeholder reports and management plan, outlined very well the importance of aboriginals in this area and their history of more than 10,000 years in this area.

I do not know what my colleague's concern is, but I can assure her that under the management of Parks Canada, a reputable institution that is over 100 years old, the heritage of our native people would be amply recognized and shown to our generation of people who live in this area.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue of consensus and trying to emerge not only with an all-party agreement but with an agreement with the provincial government has been raised several times in debate today. The question that remains is this: Why does consensus require us to do what the government says as opposed to bringing the stakeholders around the table to come up with a common way forward?

Why is the provincial Government of Ontario being left at the side of the park? Why are the issues that have just been raised around the first nations and aboriginal communities not included in the plan? Why is something that has never been proposed by anyone, the eviction of farmers, suddenly seen as the one thing that has been achieved in this set of negotiations? No one has asked them to leave. No one has proposed evicting them. No one has ever suggested that they are not part of the park, yet the reason we are being told to support the legislation is that there is a consensus that they should leave. The one thing there is consensus on is that they should stay.

However, where other things are required, such as environmental standards and recognition of the first nations community, there is no consensus support around the government bill, yet we are being told to support it, because there is consensus.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not part of the provincial government. I am now part of the Canadian government. However, I can say one thing. There were negotiations between the various entities. They had a memorandum of understanding. There were no objections or anything. Suddenly, Minister Duguid was against Bill C-40.

We have seen that both of our governments want the same thing in the Rouge: the strongest legislated protection so that rich biodiversity, ecological protection, and food production are protected now and into the future.

I do not understand his position. I know that it contradicts the rules of memoranda of understanding. I hope that he will come to his senses. The fact is that if we spent a day in the park, we would see an absolute disaster. Trails are broken and not maintained. I do not know where the money from the province is.