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]

That's a lie.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood says it is a lie. It is remarkable that he says it is a lie because there are all kinds of press releases. I would encourage him to read the article so he can see that his colleague from Markham—Unionville was there for the presentation of a $2 million cheque when farmers were evicted from their lands in what is now called the Bob Hunter Memorial Park in this area.

Prime farmland in 2007 was taken out of production with a smile by the same minister who was at the time parliamentary secretary to the minister of municipal affairs and housing, the provincial member of Parliament for Markham—Unionville, the federal member of Parliament for Markham—Unionville, all happy about what was about to happen with the removal of these farmers from their lands, with a $2 million cheque.

The Bob Hunter Memorial Park still is not open to the public. That is the type of park management the Liberals across the way and their friends in the provincial government are supporting. That is what farmers are afraid of, because they know what happens when they entrust their futures to other people. What happens is they suffer, as Mr. Whittamore has said, the death of 1,000 cuts.

The members opposite have talked about ecological integrity. Among the witnesses who appeared at committee, who have actually been managing the resources in that area, was Ian Buchanan of York region. He said that it was impossible, that we could not bring ecological integrity to this park not only because of Highway 401, not only because there was a landfill in the area and the Metro Zoo, but for many other reasons. Mr. Buchanan of York region government talked about the successes and stated:

In addition, I have 15 years of environmental enforcement background at three different levels of government, and what was sadly lacking among all of the framework of legislation in the past was that there was no one window for environmental protection. There were multiple layers and people didn't know who to turn to about what activities were taking place. The one window is a blessing for the Rouge Park.

Larry Noonan, as was referenced by the member for Thornhill, who is with a ratepayer group, supports the legislation that we have brought forward. It recognizes that the goal of environmental integrity is impossible to attain in this area. It also supports the continuation of farming in the area.

Many of the members opposite have referenced Friends of the Rouge Watershed, Ontario Nature and a number of other organizations. A representative of Ontario Nature appeared in committee, Caroline Schultz. We often hear members opposite say not to worry about farming, that it will be protected, that it is all okay. When Ms. Schultz was asked about a corridor, she said that she supported a 600-metre ecological corridor that would take 2,000 acres of class 1 farmland out of production, but said that we should not worry because farmers could still farm.

However, depending on the type of agricultural production that is taking place, she said there were certain types of farming that would not be compatible. Already they are making plans to eliminate farmers from the area.

On the Rouge park management plan, a number of the members opposite have submitted petitions and have talked about their support for organizations like Ontario Nature, the David Suzuki Foundation and Friends of the Rouge Watershed and how important it is.

The member for Scarborough Southwest, when speaking about the Friends of the Rouge Watershed, said, “Nothing will ever be accomplished in Rouge Park without buy-in from the Friends of the Rouge Watershed.” Who disagrees with that? The 700 farmers who actually farm in the area, and the ratepayers who actually lives in the area. The Cedar Grove ratepayers association disagrees with it. People who actually live, work, invest or play in the Rouge disagree with everything the opposition has said with respect to the Rouge and preservation.

Why are farmers so worried about what the environmental groups have put forward? It is because in the Rouge park management plan, this is a section they support. This is from the plan:

Part of protecting cultural heritage values in the park involves the continuation of active farming. Since all activities must dwell within the framework of park goal and objectives, with the highest priority being the protection and restoration of the park's natural heritage, some reduction of farm land base is recommended to permit natural restoration goals to be met.

These are the people and the policies that the members opposite are telling farmers they have to swallow yet again.

Let us talk about the 600 metre ecological corridor. I thought it was 1,700 acres of class 1 farmland that would be taken out of production. I was wrong. It is actually 2,000 acres of class 1 farmland that would need to be taken out of production to meet what the environmental groups have suggested has to happen in the Rouge Park. Let us take that into consideration.

When asked by Ms. Empringham and Mr. Whittamore what that would mean, Mr. Whittamore said it was “death by a thousand cuts”. Ms. Empringham, on behalf of farmers, suggested that people who believed that did not understand farming. The equipment is bigger and it is more intense than it was before. This would almost certainly lead to fewer people farming in the Rouge Park.

The opposition also talks at length about Mr. Robb. Why do farmers fear Jim Robb? Why do they fear the environmental groups that have signed onto this? What has Mr. Robb called our farmers?

He called our farmers industrial cash cropping farmers who planted products that harmed the environment. This was at a committee in front the city of Markham. He went on to say that he was willing to share the Rouge Park with the heritage farm community.

When we had Mr. Robb in front of our committee and asked him to describe what a heritage farmer was, he suggested that a heritage farmer was somebody who was there when the lands were expropriated.

What he was saying in front of the city of Markham was that he would share the park with the heritage farmers, but the farmers who were farming class 1 farmland in the area who did not own the land when it was seized from them did not have a right to be on that land producing.

He was on a committee with a gentleman by the name of Reesor. The Reesor family is one of the original families that actually settled that area. Mr. Reesor actually started farming in that area in 1985. He would not be considered a heritage farmer. He would be evicted, presumably, under Mr. Robb's definition, which is supported by the opposition, from those lands that he has been farming since 1985 and that his family has been farming for over 200 years.

We heard from witnesses. I have met with a number of farm groups. I met with countless constituents of mine. They all say the same thing; that we have to protect the farmers in the northern part of the Rouge.

At the same time, we have to do our best to protect the southern part of the Rouge, which is in the hands of the provincial government. At first, all the provincial government wanted was a hundred million bucks. It said, “Give us $100 million and we'll turn our backs on the Rouge. You can do whatever you want with it, just give us that $100 million.”

Alan Wells, former chair of the Rouge Park Alliance, said that had never been done before. When we called them on it, they then changed their mind and said, “Okay, maybe $100 million is asking too much.” Part of that deal was also saying that ecological integrity was important to them. However, no, it was “Give us $100 million. We'll turn our backs. Congratulations. Move forward with your park.”

We said no; that was not our priority. Our priority was to amass these lands on behalf of all Canadians and to create something special in the Rouge. That is what we are moving forward with.

Let us look at what has happened. People have been calling upon the federal government to take leadership in the Rouge for decades, and we came forward with that protection. We came forward with a plan that engaged Parks Canada.

I have not ever heard anyone in this House who would suggest that Parks Canada is not among the most professional organizations and one of the best stewards of our parkland. In fact, it is world renowned for what it has done in creating national parks and in protecting our natural heritage around this country.

Parks Canada sat down with farmers and actually changed the relationship that government had with its farmers in the area. It changed that relationship to make it more co-operative. They worked together and got the buy-in of farmers to participate in the Rouge national park.

The federal government then set aside over $140 million to create this park, to make it a reality, so that millions of people in the GTA could have access to a national park. We incorporated visitor centres so that people could understand what is important about the area. We established a farming centre to the north of the Rouge Park, so people could understand the 400-year tradition of farming in the area. To the south, there are going to be trails so people can enjoy the Rouge park. They will be able to enjoy their visitor experience. There was going to be upgrading to the environment, upgrading that the provincial government has never done.

The provincial government has put forward a set of circumstances to transfer lands, and it wants us to do what it has never done. By the way, that does not include its infrastructure demands. The provincial Liberal government said, “You need ecological integrity, but, just a second, we need a whole swath of that exempted because we might have future infrastructure demands over the area. You can forget about that portion, but for everything else you should have ecological integrity.”

Forget the fact that the provincial government has never done it. Forget the fact that this legislation would increase the protection of the environment to the highest level it has ever had in this area. Forget the fact that the people who live, work, and play in this area, and have done so for decades, do not agree with what the provincial government is doing. They agree with the approach we are taking, and actually appeared before committee to support this government, to support the Parks Canada initiatives. We are supposed to throw all of that out and pay attention to groups that have no vested interest in the park unless they are getting paid. That is the reality here, and to suggest anything else is wrong.

When they talk about the amendments they brought forward, page after page of amendments, what are the vast majority of these amendments about? They are about ecological integrity. Did we vote against them? Darned right, we voted against them. To vote in favour of them would mean we would be evicting farmers. We cannot have it both ways.

To sum up, to those who suggest that they cannot support this bill, look at it this way. If the provincial government said that it is not transferring its lands, what would we be doing? We would be creating a 5,000-acre park. What are we doing there? We are taking 5,000 acres of class 1 farmland out of a proposed international airport. We are setting it aside for farmers and preserving it so that they can farm forever.

By voting against this, the opposition would not be voting against a greater Rouge park; they would be voting in favour of holding this land for an international airport. They can separate the two issues. If they support farmers and they support the environment, then they will support this bill, at the very least because it would take 5,000 acres of federal land out of a potential international airport and preserve and protect it forever.

At the very least they can support that, and we could all work on the framework and final management plan that would support all of the goals of farmers and environmentalists.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, an NDP government would protect a lot more than what this government is prepared to protect. With respect to the proposed Pickering airport, which was a travesty when it was first introduced, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have never taken the action to correct that terrible mistake.

The proposed bill would include part of some land, but a lot of the land that would be there is missing.

I want to touch specifically on one of the comments that the member made. We should be looking to have a fantastic park that keeps farmland producing food locally and that also maintains or exceeds current standards.

The parliamentary secretary was upset that the province asked them to do what the province has never done, but is that not the definition of maintaining or exceeding current standards?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously we are angry that the province never elevated its protection of the Rouge Park. That is why we brought forward a plan that would do that in the context of an urban setting, where highways, landfills, and zoos actually exist.

That is why we brought forward a plan that would have 12 additional protections that do not exist in the park right now.

That is why we have done what Ian Buchanan, of York region, said we should do, which is to bring it under one management window so that people know what they can and cannot expect in the park.

That is why there will be 24 hours, 7 days a week, 365 days a year protection and enforcement in the park, which does not exist now.

That is why there will be no mining in the park, and before they say that there are no mines, there are. There are aggregate mines in the park. That would stop under our plan.

That is why we would provide $140 million to upgrade the protection of the natural heritage of the area, which does not exist currently.

That is why we would remove 5,000 acres from a potential airport and put it under the protection of Parks Canada.

We are going to do all of these things. The only thing we are not doing is listening to the opposition that suggests we need to evict farmers at the same time. We will not do that. We will protect the environment. We will protect the farmers. We will protect the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity that are present in the area. We are going to do it, despite the fact that the Ontario Liberal government will not help us with that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has given a classic demonstration of why there is no consensus on the bill, even though consensus could easily have been achieved.

When he says, “We will not listen to the opposition, or anyone else for that matter. We will not take any lessons from the opposition, or anyone else for that matter”, he is absolutely right. He is right, and everyone else is wrong.

It does not matter that quotes are out of context. It does not matter that there is a perverse rendition of history. It does not matter that successive Liberal and Conservative governments, both at the provincial and the federal level, have set aside lands and have worked toward the park. It does not matter that a number of NGOs have worked to create this park. Without that work over the last 30 years, we would not even be having this debate because the whole thing would be paved over.

Therefore, I say to those who support the hon. member: With friends like this, they do not need enemies.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us look back and see what the hon. member has accomplished in his time in government with respect to the Rouge. He has accomplished nothing.

However, he comes in to the House and pretends that he supports farmers. He used to be a farmer himself, so he supports them. However, how does he do that? It is by suggesting that taking 2,000 acres of prime farmland out of production is good for farmers. It is by telling them what they should farm, how they should farm, and where they should farm, that it is good for farmers, not to worry. He does it by presenting petitions in the House that call for the elimination of 2,000 acres. He is suggesting that it is great for farmers.

Let us look at what the Liberals have accomplished. They have accomplished nothing. It was Brian Mulroney and a Conservative government that initially set aside the $10 million. The Liberals had 13 years in office to bring forward a Rouge national park bill. Did they? No, they needed that extra year. It is like everything that the Liberals do.

Now, what are they doing? They are playing the worst kind of politics. They are stopping the protection of the Rouge for completely political reasons, despite the fact that the community wants it and farmers want it, and despite the fact that there is money set aside to accomplish it. They are playing silly, stupid political games, and the people of Ontario will not be fooled by this, just as they are no longer fooled by the provincial Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made many references to the agricultural community that currently exists within the Rouge park, and he spoke about two different sectors. I am still trying to learn more about this project, and I have not had the opportunity to visit Rouge park.

Given that the land he spoke about is used for farming, I would like to know whether the farmers are currently taking measures to preserve the waterways, meaning the Rouge watershed and other waterways.

I would like to know whether the farmers currently have buffer strips or whether they are using practices to control erosion. Does he know whether the farmers there are currently using such practices?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member has not had a chance to visit the area, but she is right; there are two very different zones. There is the southern part of the park, which contains most of the natural heritage and the beauty that we would expect in a national park. In the northern part of the park, which is the federal lands, it is all class 1 farmland. It is probably the most productive farmland in all of Canada.

The farmers are willing to participate in protecting and preserving the environment in this area. It is in their best interests to do so, but they want to be on equal footing with the environmentalists in the area. They do not want to see what has happened in the Bob Hunter Memorial Park happen to them.

Are they willing to reforest along certain areas? Yes. Are they willing to look at those lands that they cannot farm and provide reforestation in those areas? Absolutely. Are they willing to take half of the land that they currently farm and reforest it? No, they are not. If they do that and accept the standards that the opposition is talking about, they have said it is a death by a thousand cuts.

We have seen this. In the southern part, where this has been done, there are virtually no farmers left in that area. That would be completely disastrous to the economy in my riding. It would lose thousands of jobs for young people and for farmers, and it would take billions of dollars of economic activity out of my riding. I would never support that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary partially answered my question.

This is what I wanted to know. Farming practices protect farmland from erosion and waterways from rising phosphorous and nitrogen levels.

I asked the member whether the farmers there, especially in the northern part, have buffer strips. Are the farmers ensuring that the phosphorous and nitrogen from their farmlands along the waterways do not find their way into the water? Is that kind of practice already in place? The member also seemed to say that they were prepared to do more.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question because it is very important. I am sorry that I did not completely answer it.

Because these farmers have been on one-year leases, they have not been able to make any of the investments that the member is talking about. There are a lot of investments that they would like to make in this area, but they are not certain whether they will be farming next year. They have been forced into a type of farming that they do not want to do. They want to provide drainage ditches and reforestation in certain areas where it makes sense. They want to be part of a long-term goal to improve the environment and the climate of the area.

Bearing this in mind, it has been farmed for over 400 years and it is still the most productive farmland in all of Canada. It is still considered class 1 farmland, and that is basically under the stewardship of these very same farmers. They are willing to be a part of this, but they do not want to be told what to do, where to do it, and how to do it. They want to be there for a long time and have their tenancies guaranteed. This bill would allow them to do that.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

New Democrats want to make sure that we get this park right. That means ensuring that ecological integrity and conservation are our top priorities for the Rouge urban park. However, this does not mean that we want to kick out farmers and it does not mean that we do not want to ensure that we are producing as much food locally for the greater Toronto area as possible, because that both makes common sense and is good for the environment.

We just heard the parliamentary secretary talking about how farmers have not been able to make investments over time to ensure they are following best practices for their own ecological integrity. Of course, we would support measures that would help farmers make those investments and give them the opportunity to improve their land. We want to see protection of the park and the entire region expanded and improved to ensure that the Rouge park and its farmers are there for many generations to come, for the benefit of both the city of Toronto and the greater Toronto area as well as for everyone who eventually goes to the park and enjoys it.

We recognize the decades of hard work and dedication from all community members who have worked tirelessly to protect the existing parklands and conceptualize the national park, and the NDP supports the creation of a Rouge national urban park, but not if it means compromising the protection of our environment. It is too risky a precedent to set for any potential future national urban parks that might be created, because this park is going to be the template on which any future potential parks will be based. That is why we are opposing Bill C-40 at third reading.

At the same time, we will be proposing a new bill that would fix the rollbacks of parks protection that the Conservatives have brought forward. It will build on the positive direction in which Bill C-40 started and would strengthen it based on the feedback and testimony that we heard from witnesses during the committee stage so that we can seek a consensus on the creation of this national urban park. We believe that such an approach would help to break the logjam with the province and the local stakeholders in this process, and ensure that the park is created in the best possible way.

The local community has said that we need better legislation to ensure the Rouge is maintained for future generations. The creation of Canada's first urban national park will set the precedent on how we protect ecologically sensitive land in urban settings in the future. It is imperative that we get this concept right. The government can create all the parks it wants, but without funding and careful protection of the ecological integrity of these and all national parks, the designation is relatively meaningless in terms of conservation.

We listened to expert testimony and proposed 18 different amendments to create a more robust legislative framework for Bill C-40. We were extremely disappointed—but, sadly, not surprised—that the Conservatives have once again shown their unwillingness to listen to stakeholders and work with the other parties to create legislation that represents all of the interests of those involved. That is why we are creating a new bill. The new bill will be in the name of our MP for Scarborough—Rouge River.

We want to see the creation of a park, but we are not going to settle for substandard environmental protections. We will continue to work hard to see the creation of a Rouge national urban park. We will work toward good, strong environmental policies that prioritize ecological integrity and the maintenance of farmland, ensuring the best possible protection of our precious Carolinian forests and watersheds, while working with the agricultural community to ensure the continuation of sustainable farming and local food production in the park.

To summarize, we have been through a process in debating this bill, first at second reading, when multiple petitions were presented that called on the government to act in a certain way. We actually had more consensus at the beginning of the process, but because of the unwillingness of government members to work with other stakeholders, institutional and government support has slowly but surely fallen away from this bill as this process has gone on, as the bill fails to meet the standards that we all believe should be there to ensure ecological integrity, sustainable farming, and protection of our watersheds. A pipeline that goes across the area and multiple highways and roads and infrastructure all add challenges that have to be taken into consideration.

However, in the creation of this park, we also have a golden opportunity to establish worldwide international best standards with respect to the interaction of the environment and infrastructure, with respect to the environment and farming, and with respect to the interaction of people, human beings, within sensitive ecological areas. We could look to making best practices there, taking what already exists around the world in order to make the best park with the best protection. It would the kind of template we would be proud to pass along to other parks and other urban areas in the future, because 80% of Canada's population lives in urban centres already, and the importance of having ecological lands, forests, watersheds, and other aspects of nature in and around these urban centres will continue to increase.

With a growing population, we also need to make sure that we are producing more food locally. This is why we are also upset that the government has continued down the path of past Conservative and Liberal governments in failing to correct the mistake made in evicting of many farmers in the expropriation of land for Pickering airport. There we have tens of thousands of acres of prime agricultural land that should be farmed locally, land that should be producing food for the greater Toronto area. It should be protected for generations to come so that the farmers there could rest assured that sustainable best practices are in place to make sure they are not causing any problems for the surrounding environment and that they are the most productive that they can be and can pass those farms along to future generations who can continue to feed the growing population in the greater Toronto area, which is already well over five million people.

When we factor in areas further than that, within the Hamilton area, we are looking at many more people. A large chunk of Canada's population is found in southwestern Ontario and southern Ontario, so the more food we are able to grow locally, the less environmental impact our food supplies will create. When food from distant places is shipped across a continent or across an ocean, enormous resources are used to get that product to market.

Whether our resources are appropriately priced is an entire discussion altogether, but we can all agree that locally produced food makes good sense for the economy and good sense for families, and it certainly makes good sense for the environment. The government is missing an opportunity to protect tens of thousands of acres of land that was expropriated for the creation of Pickering airport. There are other areas where we can expand airport capacity so that we do not have to lose that prime agricultural land.

The parliamentary secretary kept going on and on about the importance of making sure that farming continues to exist in that area, but where is that member when it comes time to have the discussion about reversing the terrible decision to expropriate that land 40 years ago, which resulted in farmers being on one-year leases ever since?

I and several colleagues have visited many of those farms. We participated in day-long events where we actually got to understand and see what that area brings to the province of Ontario and to our local economy. It could only get better than that if those lands were protected. However, in that debate, the parliamentary secretary is nowhere to be found. He cares about a few farmers, but he does not really seem to care about the rest. It is our total food supply that has to be protected.

The bill falls far short of what we should be expecting and the kind of standards we should be exacting to make sure we have a Rouge national urban park that respects all the stakeholders: farmers, environmentalists, the local community, local governments, and everybody involved in that park.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the importance of what we are talking about in regard to a park.

There is an obligation on the government to work with the different stakeholders. It was very clear that not only did the government not listen to the stakeholders, but when it had an opportunity at committee stage to try to improve upon the bill, the government once again refused to do that.

It is unfortunate, given the importance that Canadians put on our national parks, that the government lost the opportunity to provide government action that Canadians would support. The reason we believe the government has failed is that it has not worked with the people who are important to work with, whether those are the grassroots organizers of the park, the volunteers, or different levels of other governments. The member might want to comment on that.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill says that the minister “may” create an advisory committee, and this is one of the primary problems that we see with this legislation. We and many witnesses who came before the committee said that should be changed to the minister “shall” create an advisory committee to make sure that the local stakeholders are involved in future decisions and that they have an avenue to contact the minister who is going to be making the final decisions.

Especially in the climate of this Parliament, the opposition has very little trust that the current minister responsible for this file will make the proper decisions to make sure that the parkland is protected.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Scarborough Southwest will have three minutes remaining for questions and comments when this matter returns before the House.

The House resumed from November 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, be read the third time and passed.