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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay, our time is up.

Thank you, Mr. Carrie.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

Thanks to our committee members as we are moving forward on our study of Bill C-40. I appreciate your input.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Mike Whittamore]

I didn't spend a lot of time on Bill C-40. Where I spent my time was in that draft management plan, and I compared it to what Jim and other people would like added, which is the 1994 plan and the 2001 plan. What I see in this new draft management plan is an equal weighting of agriculture, culture, and nature that did not exist in the other documents for the last 20 years. Agriculture in the other documents was an afterthought, and I watched it south of Steeles Avenue. I had a neighbour, Bert Patterson. He gave up his lease. That farm was supposed to go to a young farmer, somebody who wanted to start out. That farm was reforested in two years, just like that.

[Mike Whittamore, Whittamore's Farm]

Members of the committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you today about the importance of agriculture in the Rouge national urban park.

“The farmers in the Rouge operate industrial factory farms intensively producing monoculture corn and they pollute the Rouge River with runoff containing pesticides and phosphorus.” There is absolutely no validity behind these statements. They do, however, characterize the adjectives, thoughts, and ideas about agriculture in the Rouge park that were exchanged in this Parliament during debate at second reading of Bill C-40.

I read all the transcripts. The agricultural community, my agricultural community, is disgusted, angry, but mostly sad that some people think so little of us.

This has been 20 years in the making. It started after the creation of the park in 1994. Through all the consultation over 20 years, the thoughts and the concerns of the agriculture community were ignored. We were told that we were just tenants with a conflict of interest. This characterization of agriculture took on a life of its own and some environmentalists fanned the flames.

There have been countless reports and editorials in the Toronto media over the last 20 years using the same adjectives, thoughts, and ideas. This was done to justify the reforestation of large tracts of productive agricultural land to create a sustainable Carolinian and mixed forest habitat which links Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine.

Jim Robb, executive director of Friends of the Rouge Watershed, confirmed at a meeting in September with the provincial minister of infrastructure that it would take another 1,700 acres of class 1 farmland to be reforested to meet the goals and objectives of the Rouge north management plan. This is in addition to the thousand acres of prime farmland that have already been reforested in the past several years.

That's twenty-seven hundred acres, enough land to feed over 75,000 people in perpetuity, and this is just the beginning. Planting trees on productive agricultural land is wrong. It uses up a scarce resource that helps to provide the food, fibre, and security, particularly food security, for the seven million people that live within one hour of the park.

Reaching the ecosystem health objectives of the Rouge national urban park can be achieved in many ways, not just by planting trees. Agriculture can and should be part of the integrated solution to reaching that goal.

I produce fruits and vegetables on my farm. In the 30 years that I've been farming, we have adopted many new and innovative methods for producing crops while reducing our ecological footprint. These management tools include drip irrigation, minimum tillage, integrated pest management, no till planting, plant zone fertilization, and many others. We also continue to use management tools that have existed over the millennia, including tile drainage, windbreaks, and extensive crop rotation.

Today's agriculture not only provides the food and fibre for a growing urban population, it also provides a host of other benefits. Some examples are carbon sequestering, improved hydrologic function, improved air quality, pollinator species habitat, and finally, food and habitat for many forms of wildlife.

Bill C-40 and the Rouge national urban park draft management plan clearly acknowledge the importance of agriculture in the Rouge. This plan demonstrates that agriculture, culture, and nature are all equally important contributors to a vibrant education-centric urban park. Agriculture can and will play an important role in reaching the goals and objectives of the Rouge national urban park.

The farmers in the Rouge operate family farms and efficiently produce food and fibre using best management practices that protect and enhance the Rouge ecosystem.

These statements are the truth about who we are, what we do, and what we have done for generations. We are proud of our industry and we ask that all members of Parliament seek the truth and stop depending on others to formulate their opinions about agriculture in the Rouge national urban park.

I leave you with this closing thought: whether you build a house, pave a parking lot, or plant a tree, the results will be the same on class 1 agricultural land.

Thank you.

[Caroline Schultz, Executive Director, Ontario Nature]

Good afternoon, members of the committee. I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to share with you our recommendations on Bill C-40.

As mentioned, I'm speaking on behalf of Ontario Nature and Environmental Defence. My name is Caroline Schultz and I'm the executive director of Ontario Nature.

Ontario Nature is a charitable organization that works to protect wild species and wild spaces through conservation, education, and public engagement. We represent over 30,000 members and supporters, and 154 member groups across the province of Ontario.

Since our organization was founded as the Federation of Ontario Naturalists in 1931, Ontario Nature has been the voice for nature throughout the province, protecting and restoring natural habitats while connecting thousands of individuals and communities with nature. Over our 84-year history, Ontario Nature has played an instrumental role in establishing most of the province's protected areas.

Ontario Nature and Environmental Defence supports the creation of Rouge national urban park. The park has great potential to protect biodiversity while protecting healthy local food production and connecting urban dwellers in the most heavily populated region of Canada to the national park system.

However, if Rouge national urban park is to realize its full potential, we believe that Bill C-40 must be amended to clearly prioritize ecological integrity.

Here are specific recommendations:

First, we are asking that there be a requirement that ecological integrity be the first priority of the minister in park management. Bill C-40 affords significantly weaker protection to the natural environment than either the Canada National Parks Act or Ontario's Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act. In both of these statutes, ecological integrity must be the first priority of the minister in making management decisions about the park.

In contrast, Bill C-40 omits any mention of ecological integrity, a concept that is integral to the very purpose of the other two laws, nor does it require the park to be managed to protect wildlife and natural ecosystems. Rather, it leaves this critical element of park management up to the discretion of the minister. In other words, the minister need only take protection of natural ecosystems into consideration in managing the park.

Clause 6 should be amended to require and ensure that the protection of the natural environment is prioritized in park management.

On a second point, we believe that the schedule needs to be revised to include in the park approximately 48 square kilometres of publicly owned lands that are under federal jurisdiction. The Rouge Valley connects Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine. The lands described in the schedule, however, will not protect this important ecological corridor. There is a wall of urban development around the town of Stouffville that effectively cuts off the Oak Ridges Moraine from Lake Ontario.

The schedule excludes about 48 kilometres of publicly owned federal lands that are currently available immediately adjacent to the proposed park. By including these adjacent lands in the park, the critically important ecological corridor between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine would be secured once provincial lands are transferred. The park would almost double in size, making it far more likely that biodiversity and ecosystem services will be conserved.

On a third point, we believe that the management plan requirements need to be strengthened by explicitly including details about ecological objectives, indicators, monitoring, and reporting. Clause 9 of Bill C-40 sets out details about what must be included in a park management plan, but it lacks in particulars regarding ecological elements to be included. We recommend that subclause 9(1) be amended to require that the management plan include ecological integrity objectives and indicators, provisions for ecological monitoring and reporting, and performance evaluation.

With respect to evaluation, we also recommend that a state of the park report be tabled in the House of Parliament every five years.

From a science perspective, size and landscape connectivity are vital considerations in designing protected areas. We therefore recommend that these adjacent federal lands be included in the schedule.

As point four, we recommend that there be provisions added to ensure that potential adverse ecological impacts are duly considered when decisions are made regarding infrastructure installation or maintenance.

Clause 12 sets out the powers of the park superintendent regarding clearing of land for infrastructure installation or maintenance, and clause 16 sets out the right to dispose of lands within the park for the purpose of installing or maintaining infrastructure. Such activities have the potential to adversely affect wildlife, ecosystems, and ecological integrity. To ensure that these issues are adequately considered and addressed, we propose that each of these clauses be revised to include requirements to consider reasonable alternatives and to minimize and where possible avoid environmental impacts.

Also, please note that we support the 200 hectare limit for transfers, as currently stated in the bill.

Our point number five is to strengthen the preamble. We recommend amending the preamble of the bill so that it first of all, explicitly includes the restoration of natural heritage, and second, avoids the vague and undefined term “diverse landscapes”. We believe that Rouge urban national park offers an exceptional opportunity to protect and celebrate nature and our agricultural heritage. Both nature and farming are specifically mentioned in clause 4, and “diverse landscapes” detracts from this clarity of purpose.

I'd like to thank you for your time and the opportunity to share Ontario Nature's and Environmental Defence Canada's recommendations with you. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[Kim Empringham, York Region Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank you on behalf of the York Region Federation of Agriculture for giving me the opportunity to speak to you on behalf of its 700 farmer members in the region, including those farming in the proposed Rouge national urban park. We represent the farmers in the region on issues affecting their farms, as well as decisions that will affect them in the future.

The York Region Federation of Agriculture supports Parks Canada's consultation process that engaged over 150 stakeholder groups and thousands of individuals to create the Rouge national urban park. We support the integrated approach balancing natural heritage, sustainable farming, cultural heritage, and visitor experience found in both Bill C-40 and the draft management plan. We have confidence that Parks Canada will improve the ecological health of the park while maintaining the farmland in production.

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.

The draft management plan states:

The protection, conservation, and restoration of the park's natural, cultural and agricultural resources are integral to all decision-making related to park management.

The farmland in the Rouge national urban park, approximately 7,500 acres, is class 1 agricultural land, meaning it's the best land for agricultural production. Less than 1% of Canada's farmland is class 1. The farmers in the park have already given up 1,000 acres of productive farmland in the park to reforestation projects, completed by the previous Rouge Park.

With the world population expected to increase from seven billion to nine billion by 2050, there will continue to be a growing need to protect farmland resources and support production to meet local and global food needs.

Farmland should be protected for its highest and best use: for agriculture and food production. Any tree planting and habitat restoration should be encouraged in areas where farming is not feasible, such as slopes, riparian areas, wet areas, etc., or hedgerows between the fields. Farmers support the protection of natural areas, but it is important that natural heritage restoration doesn't unnecessarily encroach on productive farmlands.

The farmers in the park use environmental farm plans incorporating best-management practices as part of their ongoing stewardship of the farmland they have been taking care of for generations.

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

Whether we are talking about the 51,000 farms across the province of Ontario, the 800 farms in York region, or the 40 farmers in the Rouge national urban park, we're talking about farm families, not industrial corporations. Some 98% of the farms in Canada are family owned and operated. They're handed down from generation to generation, but we must remember, these farm families are agricultural businesses.

The agrifood sector is the second biggest economic driver in the province. We have an important job to do, feeding our neighbours, whether they are in Markham or Toronto, across the province, or around the world. Our business is agriculture, but our heart lies with our family and our land.

For the farms to be environmentally and economically sustainable in the park, it will be important to ensure that farmers will not have unnecessary regulations or restrictions placed on them. They cannot be put at a competitive disadvantage compared with other farms across the province.

The farming community in the Rouge national urban park are the same farm families who have been caring for the land and growing food for the people of Ontario for the past 200 years.

The future of the farms in the park has been in limbo since the farms were expropriated in the 1970s. The farmers who decided to stay on their family farms after they were expropriated had to farm with one-year leases and no certainty in their future or the ability to make capital improvements on farms which they could be evicted from at any time.

Farmers in the park are not getting rich on the backs of Ontarians. They are paying $20 to $30 more an acre to lease farmland compared to farmers outside of the park on private land.

The infrastructure on the farms in the park has had no substantial improvement made to it over the past 40 years because of the one-year leases and uncertain future. The long-term leases outlined in the draft management plan will allow farmers to invest in their farms for the future in the park.

Farmers in the Rouge national urban park produce 46 different crops. Some of these crops are sold fresh to the consumer while others require some sort of processing before being consumed.

There have been some who question the value of growing corn on public lands, believing that it is not local food and that there's lots of corn being grown across the province. Of the 280 million bushels of corn produced in Ontario this year, 190 million bushels go to human and animal feed, and 135 million bushels go to ethanol production to fulfill the government requirement to substitute 10% ethanol into gasoline. There will be a 62% net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions on a per-litre basis when ethanol is used in gasoline instead of the equivalent petroleum products, but we don't produce enough corn to fulfill our needs. We have to import corn in 2014 and 2015 to supply this important environmental initiative.

I would like to reiterate that the farmland in the park needs to be preserved so that future generations of farmers can produce food, fibre, and fuel for their surrounding neighbours.

I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today.

[Éric Hébert-Daly, National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society]

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to share with the committee our recommendations and thoughts on Bill C-40, an act respecting the Rouge national urban park.

My name is Éric Hébert-Daly. I'm the national executive director of CPAWS. Since our creation about 50 years ago, CPAWS has played a key role in the establishment of about two-thirds of Canada’s protected areas. We have 13 regional chapters across the country in nearly every province and territory, including the CPAWS wildlands league chapter in Toronto, as well as a national office here in Ottawa. We have over 60,000 supporters across the country, and we work collaboratively with governments, industry, first nations, and others to conserve Canada’s natural heritage.

Over the last five years we've welcomed the arrival of new federal park initiatives, including the sixfold expansion of Nahanni National Park Reserve in 2009, and the creation of Gwaii Haanas national marine conservation area in B.C., in 2010.

We're here to discuss a different kind of park, the creation of Canada’s first national urban park in the greater Toronto area. CPAWS has been quite excited about and has supported this idea from its very inception. We see it as a remarkable opportunity for us to protect a very special natural valley in Canada’s biggest urban area, and at the same time to engage and connect people with nature.

Let me also be clear that CPAWS has recognized from the very beginning that farming is and will continue to be an important aspect of this park. We believe that farming can contribute to nature conservation at the same time that nature conservation can contribute to farming. We as conservationists actually share a very common interest with farmers, that of keeping urban development and urban sprawl from these lands. We often remark that the opportunity to create this national urban park is in part due to the farmers who themselves have kept urban development at bay, and the local grassroots groups who have been championing the Rouge for decades. In fact, we make no suggested changes to the aspects of agriculture within the bill.

In recent weeks we have listened with great interest to the debates about the appropriate management framework for the Rouge: should it be ecological integrity or ecosystem health? While we think there are valid arguments being made for both, CPAWS believes there is a more fundamental issue that needs to be addressed in the legislation, which is that nature conservation be clearly identified as the overarching priority for managing the park. This gets to the very essence of what a park is. Without it, we don't really have a park; we may have something else. We may have a multi-use zone or we may have other types of reserves.

However, prioritizing nature conservation is both consistent with international standards for protected areas and with existing federal and Ontario provincial legislation for parks and protected areas. It should, and it can, be reflected in the Rouge legislation as well, yet it is absent from the current bill, which only requires that the minister take into consideration nature and wildlife in managing the park.

For several years, Parks Canada has expressed a preference for managing the Rouge national urban park under an ecosystem health framework, rather than an ecological integrity framework, to distinguish national urban parks from other national parks. In the spirit of being solutions oriented, we have developed constructive recommendations over that period of time that focus on maximizing ecosystem health.

We are recommending that the legislation be amended to clearly identify maximizing ecosystem health to the greatest degree possible, which is a very important condition as part of the the overarching management goal for the Rouge. We also recommend that a robust definition for maximizing ecosystem health be embedded in the legislation.

Our recommendations would mean that language in the bill would meet international and Canadian standards for protected areas. They would provide park managers with stronger tools to protect the park’s existing natural values and improve the health of its ecosystems as much as possible, particularly given its urban and agricultural context. It would make Parks Canada accountable for improving the health of the ecosystem over time, while not giving the impression that they must achieve an end point of full ecological integrity.

Moreover, our recommendation would provide a clear mandate and incentive for Parks Canada to work collaboratively with farmers to identify strategies that would be good for nature and for farmers in the long run.

We have also identified a few areas where the legislation needs strengthening. On the management planning side, we see requirements for setting ecological objectives and indicators, as well as provisions for ecological monitoring and reporting that are needed in clause 9.

A state of the parks report should be required to be presented to Parliament every five years, as is the case with other national parks, so parliamentarians and the public can track how well Parks Canada is meeting its objectives over time.

Related to public infrastructure, clauses 12 and 16 need to be bolstered with stringent criteria to guide decision-making prior to the clearing of land or disposal of land in the park for infrastructure purposes. For example, we suggest that decision-makers be required to consider reasonable alternatives and to ensure that lowest cost is not the sole justification for infrastructure proposals that might harm the park.

Finally, I'd like to acknowledge parts of the bill that we support and would like to see remain in an amended bill. We support the list of prohibitions currently in the bill. We support the fixed limit of a maximum of 200 hectares that can be removed from the park for infrastructure. This is critically important to avoid the park being nibbled away at over time.

CPAWS urges committee members to work together to strengthen the bill to ensure that the Rouge national urban park effectively protects this natural treasure in the long term, while also supporting a healthy and vibrant farming community and encouraging people to connect with nature.

We've prepared several specific amendments that we will provide to all members of the committee in the upcoming days.

I thank you for the opportunity to share our recommendations. I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'd like to call our meeting to order.

This is meeting 34 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We are continuing today with our study of Bill C-40, an act respecting the Rouge national urban park.

We are pleased to have witnesses from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust Corporation, and the York Region Federation of Agriculture.

Mr. Éric Hébert-Daly, national executive director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, will speak first for seven minutes, and then we'll follow with Pauline Browes and Kim Empringham.

With the number of witnesses we have today, we'll try to leave some time for questions and answers.

We will proceed with Mr. Hébert-Daly, for the first seven minutes.

[Alan Latourelle]

Mr. Chair, the current regional Rouge Park was created in 1995. From 1995 to 2012 it was managed by the Rouge Park Alliance, and the chair was appointed by the Government of Ontario. ln 2010 the alliance commissioned and released a landmark governance report for Rouge Park. I think it's important to understand some of the history.

The alliance by way of its governance report unanimously recommended that Rouge Park become a federally administered park, cared for and managed under the leadership of Parks Canada.

As the minister mentioned, extensive public consultations have taken place since we first became involved in 2011, and we've met with and received feedback from over 150 different stakeholder groups and close to 11,000 Canadians.

ln short, the legislation and the draft management plan that we are consulting on now are the products of the most proactive and broad engagement of Canadians, communities, stakeholders, and different levels of government in the history of our agency, not only of this park.

For the remaining time, Mr. Chair, I wish to address three specific subjects: first, the agreement we negotiated with Ontario, what it is and what it isn't; second, the link between this bill and our proposed policy for the proposed park; third, the subject of conservation.

Recently in the media there has been a debate about obligations contained in the federal-provincial agreement signed between the Province of Ontario and the federal government in 2013 regarding land assembly for Rouge national urban park.

To ensure clarity on this matter, I would like to read a section of that agreement with respect to obligations required from both Ontario and Canada.

Paragraph a) of section 2.09 reads as follows:

a) Parks Canada will work with Ontario to develop written policies in respect of the creation, management, and administration of the Park that meet or exceed provincial policies regarding the Transferred Lands, including the policies set out in the Greenbelt Plan 2005, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006 and the Big Move.

Not once is there any mention of legislation in that commitment. The four documents mentioned are all provincial policies. I can assure you that Parks Canada is absolutely fulfilling the Government of Canada's commitment to meet and exceed in areas of protection of nature. Indeed, we have reviewed and incorporated the key elements of these policies into our management plan framework.

First, in our negotiations with the Province of Ontario, the province's lone stated legislative requirement for the Rouge national urban park bill was to include a provision that would allow lands to be returned to the province or other levels of government to help meet the expected future infrastructure and transportation needs of Canada's largest metropolitan area.

Second, as we plan to establish, operate, and manage Rouge national urban park, there are two interrelated but separate components that will provide us with a framework to manage the national urban park: the bill before you and our policy. The legislation provides us with the legal framework required to manage the park. The policy direction is found in the draft management plan and provides us with the long-term direction for the management and operation under the legislative framework.

lt is paramount that individuals not confuse these separate components. You will probably hear from groups during the committee process that will attempt to lump legislation and policy together, and it's important not to be confused or misled by this approach.

Finally, in terms of conservation, you should note that the term “ecological integrity” is not mentioned in the Ontario agreement at all.

Bill C-40 provides a strong legal framework under which to manage and operate the park and give the strongest protection in the Rouge's history.

First, the legislation will be applicable to the entirety of the future Rouge national urban park. This will be the first time the Rouge will have one piece of strong legislation governing the whole area as opposed to a patchwork of bylaws and policies that govern the current area.

I would now like to address the question of ecological integrity in Rouge national urban park. Again, this is an issue that has been raised in the media lately, and I wish to set the record straight and fully explain our approach.

The Rouge is truly an incredible place, but it does not exist in a landscape where Parks Canada's internationally acclaimed high standards for ecological integrity are unachievable. Seven million people live in the greater Toronto area, and the Rouge is fragmented by highways, roads, railways, hydro lines, private lands, homes, communities, malls, and infrastructure.

Our own Parks Canada experts have determined that approximately 72% of the current Rouge Park is disturbed, as opposed to an amount of about 2% for Banff National Park, for example, where we also have highways, so to have the same conservation standard between these two parks is unrealistic. However, this does not mean that we are settling for a second-class protected area by applying an ecosystem health approach across the Rouge's natural, cultural, and agricultural landscape. We will achieve the highest conservation and protection standards possible, while being realistic about the Rouge landscape. Our team is committed to maintaining or improving the health of that ecosystem.

We will apply the concept of ecosystem health across the entire park landscape in a way that not only conserves and restores natural and cultural heritage, but also promotes a vibrant farming community. We will end the cycle of one-year leases to provide farmers long-term leases and greater stability. The farmers in turn will commit to improving environmental protection and contributing to the visitor experience, and the cultural experience of the park.

The establishment of the Rouge national urban park is truly a unique opportunity for new, young, and urban Canadians to connect with Canada's incredible network of protected areas, and to be inspired to become stewards of this crown jewel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Minister, for being with us today and for bringing us up to date on the proposals for Bill C-40.

Our first hour is over. I'm going to call a three-minute recess. Our officials from Parks Canada will remain with us.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

On infrastructure, to meet with provincial and municipal landholder requirements, Bill C-40 provides the legislative framework needed in an urban setting. At the same time, the 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 itself sets a strict limit of 200 hectares as the amount of land that can be disposed of for these purposes and for only these three purposes that I've identified. As well, under the Rouge national urban park act, the Government of Canada cannot dispose of or sell any of the lands for private development.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting 33 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

We are meeting today to consider Bill C-40, an act respecting the Rouge national urban park.

We are honoured to have with us today Minister Aglukkaq, Minister of the Environment, from the Department of the Environment.

We also have guests who will be speaking later in the day, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Latourelle, and Pam Veinotte. Thank you all for joining us here today.

We are going to begin with Minister Aglukkaq who will give her opening statement, followed by questions from members. The first hour is with Minister Aglukkaq.

Welcome, Minister.

Rouge National Urban Park Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to join the debate on Bill C-40, an act respecting the Rouge national urban park.

This legislation would create the first national urban park in Canada, which is a positive step forward for our national park system. Having an area of pristine wildlife so close to 20% of Canada's population will offer a great value to the entire nation.

While the proposed Rouge national urban park is not within my riding of Scarborough--Agincourt, I grew up only a few short kilometres away, and I can tell the House that the Rouge lands are truly a national treasure. I remember attending my first day camp near the metropolitan zoo in Toronto when I was about 8 or 9 years old, and in many ways this was my first exposure to the splendours of the Rouge Valley system. Because I came from an immigrant family without significant means, this was in many ways my first exposure to the outdoors.

More recently, over the past number of years I have had the pleasure of going back to the Rouge Valley as a cub pack leader and as a scout troop leader, participating in programs such as the 10,000 trees for the Rouge program and planting trees in the Rouge park to add to the wonderful biodiversity found there.

My family has taken significant advantage of the Glen Rouge campground that is run by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

It is a fabulous opportunity. We have heard from colleagues on all sides of the House about the tremendous accessibility that this potential national urban park would afford to many residents within the greater Golden Horseshoe. It represents one of the last great unspoiled wildernesses and also happens to be coupled with some of the most outstanding farmland in the country. For example, my family has also had the privilege of going on a number of occasions to Whittamore's Farm. Those were opportunities to expose my family to farming culture, particularly as we enter into the fall harvest season.

Let me simply join my colleagues on all sides of the House in expressing my excitement at the potential opportunity that the creation of this new national urban park would afford to our community and to all residents within Toronto.

I am also particularly pleased to see that the government is building upon the tremendous work that has been done by the provincial government with the establishment of the Greenbelt in 2005. The Greenbelt is one of the largest and most successful areas of preserved green space in the world and serves as a showcase for what an urban green space can offer on a large and significant scale. I had the privilege of being in the legislature as a staffer at the time, and I watched this wonderful legacy unfold.

Unfortunately, at that time the Ontario Conservatives wanted to allow continued development on this precious piece of land, as we may hear from certain members in this House, so it is heartening to see support from the government in the House today and to recognize that it is indeed time to establish a national urban park. I do want to recognize the tremendous work that has been done on all sides of the House and by many stakeholders over the last 20 years, work that has led to where things sit today.

The Rouge national park would provide important connectivity with, for example, the sensitive Oak Ridges Moraine leading to the shoreline of Lake Ontario. Earlier the member for York South—Weston highlighted the importance of creating linkages and connectivities between these various important spaces.

We support this particular bill, and it appears that essentially all parties across this House will likely be supporting the bill as it moves forward at second reading. However, like most things that the government does, its efforts to create this new national urban park, at least from our perspective, fall short in some key aspects.

This park is to be created using lands currently held by the Government of Ontario. In fact, lands being held by the Government of Ontario would represent approximately two-thirds of the total park lands if and when they were transferred to federal control. However, despite the fact that intergovernmental talks have been going on for a number of years and should be a shining example of intergovernmental co-operation, sadly, we have sometimes seen strife taking place between the two orders of government.

For example, when the government was supposed to have engaged in a positive announcement last summer when it was signing the memorandum of agreement to create this national park, it unfortunately turned out to be a bit of a public relations nightmare.

I do not necessarily want to diminish the long-standing efforts of the many people who have been the driving force behind this park or on the long consultative process that has occurred, but if the government was truly committed to building a first-class national urban park, we have to ask why so many environmental groups are applauding the recent actions of the Ontario government.

In this debate I have heard the accusation that the Government of Ontario is playing politics with the formation of the Rouge national park, but the question is who is playing politics with whom. For example, it was this government that blindsided the provincial government when the announcement was made last year about the ongoing development of the Pickering airport at the same press conference, and the Government of Ontario was not given a heads-up that it would be happening.

Let us be frank: it is not as though the government has a reputation for sound environmental bona fides. Members could just read, for example, the Commissioner of the Environment's report that was issued yesterday, which was damning in its conclusion that we would not meet the Copenhagen greenhouse gas emission targets by 2020.

This is the same government that has also seen substantial reductions in Parks Canada staff, despite the fact, as I will acknowledge, that the government has set aside a significant amount of funds, in the order of over $140 million, for the creation of this new national urban park.

It is no wonder that the Government of Ontario and leading environmental groups just do not trust the government when it comes to acting in the best interests of the environment.

After a decade of environmental management of the Greenbelt, which the Rouge park will become an integral part of, the Government of Ontario requested some assurances from the federal government that it would continue to protect this land, as was befitting a national park.

Sadly, this is where the bill fails the people of Scarborough, the people of Toronto, and, frankly, all the people of Canada. In our view, this bill is missing some key details. For example, it is missing details about how endangered species will be protected, plans showing how heritage areas will be treated, details about how the park will be zoned for different uses, such as farming, hiking, and protection of natural habitats.

I stand with the provincial government in asking the government to honour the memorandum of agreement that it signed with the Province of Ontario. I do so because it is important that in establishing a first national urban park, we ultimately get it right.

Despite the fact that the Liberal Party will be supporting this piece of legislation on second reading, we strongly urge the members on the government side, particularly when it goes to committee, to support efforts on this side of the House. These efforts will be undertaken by the member for Halifax and the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, our party's environmental critic, who will attempt to work with members on the other side to fix this particular bill and strengthen the legislation that is required when it returns to this House on third reading.

While the Liberal Party supports the creation of this park and especially the significant expansion of a park system that the residents in this particular area already enjoy, it is critical that we get this right the first time. I ask the government to continue to work with the Province of Ontario and with key stakeholders to build the best possible legislation before this House. I ask the Conservatives to honour the agreement that they signed and to work with the requests that have been advanced by key environmental groups. I also ask them to simply be open to changes in order to build a bill that will have a lasting legacy for all of our children.

A national urban park in a major urban centre like Toronto can ignite the imagination of Canadians and bring joy and knowledge about the importance of the outdoors, just as it did for me when I was a young lad. However, it can only be done if we get it right, and it can only be done if we make the necessary changes to this bill.

Let me conclude by asking the members opposite to work with all sides of the House so that we can fix this bill.