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

[Bal Gosal, Conservative, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to rise in the House today on this historic occasion, the third reading of the Rouge national urban park act.

Before I get to the good news, I find I must speak to the fact that the past hour has been wasted by another example of legislative vandalism by the official opposition, the NDP. I am told that it might have been a mistake in signals and I suppose we have to consider that, but I think this is just the latest in a long-running example, both in committee and here in debate in this House, where the NDP has obstructed, undercut, and taken part in legislative vandalism.

I will now go to the good news. The Government of Canada is proudly embarking on a Canadian first, a new kind of national protected area within Canada's largest metropolitan area. The creation of Rouge national urban park is a proud and historic achievement not only for all the residents of the greater Toronto area and all of Ontario, but also for Canadians right from coast to coast. Rouge national urban park, which is a Canadian first, builds on an incredible legacy of pioneering and innovative conservation work undertaken by Parks Canada for over a century.

In 2011, the year of Parks Canada's centennial, the agency was awarded the Gift to the Earth award by Mr. Gerald Butts, who was then of the World Wildlife Federation International. As colleagues now know, he is working on a recovery effort for another endangered species, but that is another story.

The creation of Rouge national urban park is an immensely proud occasion for all Ontarians and Canadians. It helps to position Canada at the forefront of the world's emerging urban protected areas movement. Rouge national urban park would be one of the planet's largest and most significant urban protected areas, providing a sanctuary of protected and restored forests, marshes, wetlands, farmlands, and centuries-old cultural landscapes alongside the greater Toronto area's rich cultural diversity.

This bill allows more land to be added over time, which would eventually make this wonderful park 25% larger than the current protected area, making it 13 times larger than Vancouver's Stanley Park—no offence intended to my colleagues from British Columbia—16 times larger than New York City's Central Park, and 33 times larger than London's Hyde Park.

Rouge national urban park would be a shining example of the very best of Canada, because it brings together and enshrines in legislation the protection and the celebration of three things that define us as Canadian and speak to the very essence of Canada—our nation's national, cultural, and agricultural heritage.

This bill integrates the protection of nature, culture, and agriculture in a new and bold approach, but I want to make it clear that the Rouge national urban park would provide us with a strong legislative framework to meet, to exceed, and to expand upon the protections and mandate currently in place to protect and manage smaller portions of the Rouge by a variety of public landowners.

Protecting nature, culture, and agriculture together does not mean that protection of natural resources is somehow diminished, as some have implied, nor does it mean that there are no priorities or that the Rouge is trying to be everything to everyone. That is simply not true. Those who suggest such scenarios do not understand the Rouge Park's urban setting, the needs of its landscape mosaic, or the opportunity to demonstrate true leadership internationally.

Having been asked by the Rouge Park Alliance, which for years had managed the lands currently called the Rouge Park, to find a solution to the governance and conflicts that were making park management impossible, Parks Canada began consulting with thousands of Canadians and with hundreds of groups and organizations representing stakeholders, communities, non-governmental organizations, and governments.

Through the process, the government determined that an integrated approach was the most appropriate for the Rouge. It is an approach that has three very clear interconnected priorities when it comes to protection: nature, culture, and agriculture. This model is what Canadians and the Rouge Park Alliance, the formerly provincially appointed managing authority of Rouge Park, have asked for. This approach would allow us to make the very best conservation gains across the entire park landscape in ways that would allow for the Rouge's natural, cultural, and agricultural resources to receive the highest level of protection now and far into the future.

The Government of Canada's integrative and inclusive approach will allow us to succeed where the previous disparate park authorities and regimes have not before. While there has certainly been some wonderful work done to protect the Rouge over the last 20 years, there have also been divergent and sometimes conflicting interests in the lands that make up the future Rouge national urban park. During that time, no single legal regime governed these lands, and at times the voices of many groups and residents were not reflected in policy development and park management. Nature, culture, agriculture, and visitor connection opportunities were often seen as competing rather than complementary priorities.

When the bill came to committee earlier this month, one of the witnesses we heard from was the Hon. Pauline Browes, the director of Waterfront Regeneration Trust Corporation and a former federal minister of state for the environment. Mrs. Browes gave the committee some of the history of the creation of the Rouge Park. She stated:

Every municipality in the Rouge watershed passed a motion endorsing the proposal, as well as the TRCA, to urge the federal government to establish a national park. The Government of Ontario publicly and enthusiastically supported that recommendation. The community supported the recommendation.

Ms. Browes continued:

This legislation is before you. Parks Canada, a heralded organization of experience and very competent individuals, has been assigned the responsibility of the permanent protection and preservation of the natural, cultural, and agricultural aspects of the Rouge national urban park. In particular I would like you to look at clauses 4 and 6. I have read the debates that each of you have made in the House of Commons...but the language of these two clauses is clear and self-explanatory. These clauses will allow the minister to make the decisions based on the identified purposes for which the park is being created and the factors which must be taken into consideration. Pitting the elements against each other by putting one as a priority...would really create conflict. I would ask you to consider the natural, cultural, and agricultural aspects, and I mean the cultural aspects with the aboriginal issues and the archaeological issues. When I was a member we did some archaeological digs in the park and we found a 17th century French coin. There's a lot of cultural heritage within this park.

With Bill C-40, Parks Canada, through the Minister of the Environment, would be given the responsibility to bring all groups together and work for the betterment of Rouge national urban park to ensure a broad range of perspectives is heard and nature, culture, and agriculture are all valued, celebrated, and, most importantly, protected to the full extent of the law.

Our government's approach will see everyone with a stake or interest in this wonderful new national park working together, where a win for nature will also be a win for agriculture and for the cultural landscape of the park. In practical terms, this means that Parks Canada would apply its world renowned approach to conserving biodiversity and restoring native wildlife and ensuring the health of park ecosystems through rigorous monitoring of the park's flora, fauna, waters, and soil. Parks Canada would work with farmers to end the cycle of one-year leases and initiate a leasing regime that would foster economic stability. The farmers would in turn work to manage farmlands in an ecologically sound fashion, commit to conserving resources, and contribute to the visitor experience and cultural heritage of the park.

Integral to all of this, as emphasized in the bill, is the fact that Parks Canada would manage the health of ecosystems. It would apply this concept across all of the park's ecosystems, landscapes, and resources in a way that not only protects and restores natural and cultural heritage, but also promotes a healthy and vibrant farming community. This new type of protected area cannot, as some have requested, be managed for ecological integrity. The fact that more than 75% of the park's intended area has been altered or disturbed by civilization, the fact that it is in close proximity to Canada's largest metropolis, and the fact that it comprises a variety of landscapes and uses make the concept of ecological integrity simply inappropriate for the Rouge. Instead, this unique protected area calls for this new approach to conservation.

When the bill was before committee earlier this month, one of the witnesses we heard from, Mr. Larry Noonan from the Altona Forest Community Stewardship Committee, said:

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

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

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

Stepping aside from Mr. Noonan's quotes for a moment, there are loopholes in Ontario's act that basically allow any number of events to take place, with profound negative impacts on both the protected area itself and the wildlife, archaeological realities, first nation realities, and the agricultural component of this unique new entity.

After saying that ecological integrity cannot be applied to an urban national park, Mr. Noonan said:

The Rouge national urban park act cannot have this term included...Instead, Bill C-40 refers to “the maintenance of its native wildlife and of the health of those ecosystems”. The Rouge national urban park and the management plan lay out strategies for attaining the highest possible level of health for the park's ecosystems.

As well, we heard from many other witnesses, a list of whom I will not go into at this point, who did not believe that ecological integrity was even achievable within Rouge Park due to its unique urban setting and the large percentage of historic land disturbance.

Conservation of nature is clearly one of the main objectives of Rouge national urban park and the integrated management approach is very much in keeping with internationally defined standards for the conservation of protected areas.

The legislative framework for the Rouge national urban park meets the definition of a category V protected area under the stringent criteria of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. This category of protected area applies where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character, with significant ecological, biological, cultural, and scenic value. This is exactly what Rouge national urban park represents. I will commit to the House that Parks Canada will see to it that all of this park's unique components live up to the highest international conservation standards and receive the strongest ever legal protections in the history of the Rouge.

Integration is tailor-made for this unique landscape and it is the right way forward for Rouge national urban park. Integration allows us to protect, and future generations to appreciate for eternity, if I may say, the striking colours of sugar maples in the Rouge's Carolinian forest in the Fall and to enjoy the fresh maple syrup made by the Rouge's heritage farmers every spring. In other words, our integrated approach is just about as Canadian as one can get.

In light of this historic occasion and in the spirit of coming together for the public good to create a lasting legacy for Ontarians, Canadians, and citizens of the world, I would urge all members to support the bill before the House The legislative framework for the Rouge national urban park meets the definition of a category V protected area under the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Stringent Criteria.

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

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

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

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

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

The hon. member for Thornhill.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

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

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

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

That is legislative vandalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear members of Parliament:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is perfect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

What else could we have done?

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

[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.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my hon. colleague that his government slashed funding by a third and cut one-third of the scientific positions in parks management. Partners, people and the member for Scarborough—Rouge River have been working very hard on the Rouge park file for a long time now.

There was consensus on creating the park. However, the Conservatives have done such a bad job that they have managed to break that consensus; it had to be on purpose. How can a government break consensus on creating a park? That is unprecedented. It is really exceptional.

The Government of Ontario told the Conservatives that they were messing up. Stakeholders who appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development also told them they were messing up. They could have solved all of the problems just by making one small change to a clause in one little amendment, but they dismissed the amendment out of hand.

Why did they have to be so stubborn, so obstinate with the partners, the provincial governments and others, who were calling for the creation of a good Rouge park?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite was speaking about the funding. Our government committed $149 million for the creation of the Rouge park plus a commitment for future years for the maintenance of the park.

I do not know why the hon. member is asking why we are not providing funding for the park. I can assure him that we provided $149 million for the park.

I am expecting that the provincial government will also put forward some money and bring the standard of the park up from what it is today. It is completely neglected.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we wind back the clock six months, we had broad consensus. The Ontario government was on side, the federal government was on side, all the members from Scarborough and Pickering were on side, and the environment folks were on side. The farmers wanted some stability. They wanted something better than year-after-year leases, et cetera.

How did we get from there to here other than that at the point of consensus, the government drafted a bill that was so shockingly inadequate that the Province of Ontario withdrew its consent, the ecology folks went offside, and thousands of petitioners said, “No way”?

Is that the government's definition of consensus?

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

Mr. Speaker, consensus is a two-way street. That was negotiated in a memorandum of understanding. Everyone was in agreement, and then suddenly the Province of Ontario decided to withhold land. It listened only to seven environmental groups and so on. That does not lead to consensus. It leads toward confrontation, which is not needed in the creation of a national park.

It would be good for all Canadians to have this park. I hope that the Province of Ontario will come to its senses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really saddened that I will not be able to support this legislation moving forward, because I was one of the people at the very first visioning exercise for the creation of the Rouge national urban park. I was the youngest person in the room, and being the youngest person in the room, I knew that I would be the one to get to enjoy the park the most. I was super excited about it.

I will be sharing my time with a colleague.

While I will not be able to support this legislation brought forward by the government, I do support creating Rouge Park as a nationally protected park. We want this land to be protected. We want it to be a national park that everyone can enjoy for generations to come. This legislation would decrease protection.

I was so excited when I heard in the throne speech that the government planned to make the Rouge Park a nationally protected park.

I went to the day long visioning exercise. For years I have worked for the conservation and protection of the existing Rouge Park. The Rouge River is in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge River. The largest piece of the current Rouge Park is in my constituency. I am blessed to have this park literally in my backyard.

The Rouge Park is special in being located in an urban setting. Roadways, highways, hydro corridors, railways, and oil pipelines are all within the Rouge Park. It is a special park because most of our national parks do not have all of those things within their protected areas.

People on the ground affected by this park had a vision. We knew we could make it happen. We knew we could make it work. We could envision a nationally protected urban park that would include farmers, conservationists, environmentalists, highways, roadways, railways, and hydro corridors. Obviously these things could not be moved. We all thought there was real potential for a 100 square kilometre national park that would be called Rouge national urban park. We were excited about it because it is designated within the greenbelt natural heritage system. It is the northernmost point of the endangered Carolinian and mixed woodland life zones. The Rouge Park is the largest public park within the southern Ontario region that is close to 25% of the population in the greater Toronto area. A lot of us were excited.

Our party was happy to push the bill to committee at second reading. We believed that the government would have good faith at committee. We thought we would be able to put forward amendments that would strengthen the legislation now in front of the House.

I will talk about three items: ecological integrity; maintaining or exceeded the current protections already afforded within Rouge Park; and the 100 square kilometres. First, I will speak about ecological integrity.

The Canada National Parks Act states:

Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of parks.

Clause 6 in Bill C-40 states:

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

The difference is the strong piece that already exists in the Canada National Parks Act, which says that maintenance and restoration and protection of our natural resources should be the first priority of the minister.

In contrast, the new legislation put forward by the government would water it down so much that although the minister must take it into consideration and think about it, he does not have to do anything about it.

Let us look at it as people on the ground who love this park would. I am in the park at least once a week or, if not, once every two weeks. It is part of my life. We want to see it protected. We want to make sure that it can last for generations to come. This bill would significantly water down the protection of the ecosystems and would not really help in maintaining the ecological health or integrity of the park.

I want to make it abundantly clear that the NDP supports the creation of a Rouge national urban park, but not if it means that the protection of its ecological integrity is risked. That is what would happen with this bill, and that is why, sadly, I cannot support it moving forward as the Conservatives have outlined it.

I know that I only have 10 minutes, so I will move to my next topic, that of meeting or exceeding the existing protections. My colleague who spoke on this bill earlier mentioned the memorandum of understanding between the Province of Ontario and the federal government that was signed in January, 2013. The federal government signed this memorandum of agreement to “meet or exceed” Ontario's existing policies, which included the greenbelt and the Oak Ridges Moraine conservation plans, during the drafting of the legislation and management plan for the Rouge national urban park.

The provincial greenbelt plan provides provincial policy status to the Rouge park and watershed plans. I know that the current protection for the park is a patchwork of about 11 different policies and plans. The federal government agreed to meet all of those existing plans. I agree that they are patchwork, but the federal government agreed that it would ensure that the new legislation, Bill C-40, would meet or exceed the protections provided for this park.

The provincial minister sent a letter to the federal minister, who, I must add, has not yet spoken on this bill once. We have reached third reading, the last stage of this bill, and the current minister of the environment who is responsible for this has not even spoken on the bill once, which I think is absolutely shameful. I have digressed a little.

I will paraphrase a letter that the provincial minister of economic development, employment and infrastructure wrote to the federal minister, as I do not have time to quote it. He basically said that the protections for the park in Bill C-40 are much less than what already exist in Ontario through the existing provincial policies and plans. The current state would enhance the ecological integrity of the proposed Rouge national urban park. The provincial minister said that he would not be able to transfer the 5,400 acres of lands currently owned by the provincial government for the creation of the Rouge national urban park.

That takes us right to my third point of the 100 square kilometre park. The community dreamed of a 100 square kilometre park, which would be absolutely amazing, but then the government proposed a study area of 58 square kilometres. Now, with the provincial government not willing to transfer more than 25 square kilometres of land, this new national park would be less than one quarter of the size all of us on the ground had dreamed of for decades.

I am going to read a little bit from a letter that was sent to all members of Parliament from seven different environmental organizations. They asked us not to support Bill C-40 at third reading. They said that they had attempted to make it better, to work with the agricultural community, environmentalists, and the government. They opposed passage of this flawed bill, saying that it would not be good for the Rouge national urban park.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am giving you and all the people who care about the Rouge park my word today that I will be working on writing a new private member's bill that would improve this bill. I look forward to being able to table that in the House and eventually seeing it become legislation once we have an NDP government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer back to an intervention by the previous NDP speaker when the Conservative member had talked about how we cannot have it both ways, that either we love the farmers and hate the ecologists or we love the ecologists and hate the farmers. I want to ask the hon. member if she thinks we can have it both ways, whether with some proper drafting, good will, and possibly even some consensus, we could legislate protection for both farmers and ecologists to minimize the differences rather than maximize them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood for his pointed intervention. I think it was a very good one.

My colleague from Halifax mentioned that in the amendment put forward by the NDP to clause 6 of the bill, we had proposed enshrining into legislation the protection of agriculture for farmers as well as the environment, and the need for conservation and ecological health and integrity in Rouge Park. I think the farmers would agree because all of the witnesses who came to committee were reasonable. I took it upon myself to ask all of the witnesses if they felt that farmers and the environmentalists were at opposite ends and whether or not they could work together. They all said that there was common ground and that they could work together.

I want to finish this response with a quote from Ms. Kim Empringham, who was from the York Region Federation of Agriculture. She said:

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

She was clear that the farmers in York region she represents say that we need to improve ecological health and scientific integrity, as well as maintain sustainable agriculture. The farmers have already said they are environmental stewards of their farms by running them in an environmentally friendly way, and that is what we all want.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-40 needs amending but is not getting it. A big part of is that on January 26, 2013, there was a memorandum of agreement between Parks Canada and Ontario, which Ontario has now backed out of. The goal of that agreement was to meet or exceed the following existing protections in the area: the greenbelt plan of 2005, the Oak Ridges Moraine conservation plan, the Rouge north management plan, the federal green space preserve master plan, the International Joint Commission water quality agreement, the Rouge River watershed plan, and the Rouge Park natural heritage action plan.

My question for the hon. member is this. Why are we proceeding with something that instead of meeting or exceeding the present protections would actually degrade and worsen them?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague forgot a few other plans that are already protecting it, like the Oak Ridges Moraine conservation plan of 2002, the Duffins Creek watershed plan, and the federal green space preserve. I can go on because there are other pieces or plans that are protecting that land, and it makes no sense that the federal government is creating legislation that would weaken the protections of an existing park. We are creating legislation to create the first ever urban national park in this country, yet the government wants to provide less protection for the parklands. It just makes no sense. That is why Nature Canada, Environmental Defence, CPAWS, the David Suzuki Foundation, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, Ontario Nature, and the STORM Coalition all came together and asked all hon. members in the House to vote against Bill C-40, which is clearly a flawed bill and is providing less protection for this park.

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

Mr. Speaker, about 15 years ago, the House passed three pieces of legislation that have been crucial to protecting our collective heritage: the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act.

Today we have a magnificent network of 44 national parks and four marine conservation areas that we are very proud of, because these natural resources are for the benefit of all Canadians.

However, while we are protecting this wilderness, we must also acknowledge the fact that Canada is now an urban country. In 2006, more than 80% of our population was living in our cities. That is why this bill to create the Rouge national urban park is so important.

The project begins a new phase in the history of our conservation practice by establishing Canada's first national urban park. Clause 4 of this innovative bill outlines its objectives, which include protecting and presenting, for current and future generations, the natural and cultural heritage of the park and its diverse landscapes, promoting a vibrant community and encouraging Canadians to discover and connect with their national protected heritage areas.

This bill creates a new framework for the ecological protection of Canada's urban areas. Rouge Park is already the largest park in Canada's largest city. The park is home to a wealth of exceptional ecological resources, including one of the largest Carolinian forest habitats in Canada and important heritage sites such as an old portage route, Lake Simcoe and Lake Ontario.

The current Rouge Park owes it existence to the perseverance and continued efforts of citizens' groups that have been working hard for decades to preserve it. If the government is serious about its commitment to Rouge Park, it must act diligently and respect Canada's long tradition of conservation.

The bill would create a new precedent for ecological protection in urban settings in Canada. Rouge Park is an incredible resource, the largest park in the largest city in Canada. We should recognize and congratulate the efforts of concerned citizens who have preserved this natural legacy for many decades. We have to do justice to their efforts. If the federal government plans to take responsibility for the park that they have fought for, it must do so carefully and correctly.

We now have many prominent organizations that have worked with the park and have signed a letter recently, opposing the bill as it exists today, including the David Suzuki Foundation, CPAWS, Nature Canada and Friends of the Rouge Watershed.

The provincial Government of Ontario has expressed that it will refuse to contribute its lands to a park governed by the provisions of Bill C-40.

Given the importance of the mandate to create the first urban national park, I want to reiterate the importance of doing so properly. Bill C-40 raises concerns, mainly with regard to the minister's priorities when it comes to conservation. The priorities in Bill C-40 are different than those for a national park.

Bill C-40 states:

The Minister must...take into consideration the protection of [the park's] natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes and the maintenance of its native wildlife and of the health of those ecosystems.

However, in the case of a national park, the minister's first priority is to maintain the ecological integrity of the park through the protection of natural resources and processes. If we accept a model that will henceforth protect the ecology of urban settings, then we must ensure that ecological protection is a real priority and not left to the whims of a minister.

Creating a national urban park is something that a number of my constituents are interested in. I have the good fortune and privilege of representing LaSalle—Émard, an urban area on the Island of Montreal along the St. Lawrence River. In the middle of the river are the Lachine rapids, a natural obstacle that contributed to the creation of the Lachine Canal, the birthplace of industry in Canada, and the St. Lawrence Seaway, the second-largest in the world.

Besides its historical importance, the Lachine Rapids are the spawning grounds for 50% of the freshwater fish in the St. Lawrence River. Des Rapides park, which is adjacent to the Lachine Rapids, is a migratory bird sanctuary that is home to one of the ten largest heron rookeries in North America.

We are proud of this resource, and I invite my colleagues to visit this beautiful Canadian region. We are very proud of this resource, which has environmental, cultural and historical significance, from the settlement of first nations to industrialization.

Last month, I organized a forum on the future of our river, rapids and canal, which was attended by more than 120 people, in order to promote the importance of creating an urban park like the Rouge park.

At this forum, we discussed the importance of these Canadian urban jewels. My riding of LaSalle—Émard, much like the Rouge park, has sites like this, sites of exceptional natural beauty that are also part of our historical heritage. Due to the proximity of urban areas to these exceptional sites that we must preserve and enhance, people can get there very easily by public transit, by bike or on foot. There will be expert resources working as site interpreters.

I am very serious about creating a national urban park like the Rouge park. I would like to reiterate the importance of establishing solid guidelines in Bill C-40, not only to ensure we protect the land and preserve species, but also to really make this a priority.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's speech.

We have heard some very good speeches on the shortcomings of this bill and on the Conservatives' habit of opposing proposed amendments, even when they would make improvements. A number of people would like to have a national park like the Rouge urban park, but the government is unwilling to look at ways to preserve the park. We think it is important to create a national park, but also to provide adequate protections for that park.

Would my colleague like to say more about the recommendations we proposed and about the need to implement them before this bill passes?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and I congratulate her for the work she is doing within our caucus. Her region in northern Ontario also has some sites of exceptional natural beauty that are just as important to protect and discover.

Citizen groups have been examining this issue for decades and are have been working to protect this region. They turned to the Government of Canada to create a partnership in order to strengthen and to continue working on protecting the beautiful Rouge national urban park, which is home to some exceptional sites that I look forward to visiting.

The Government of Canada needs to respond to the requests of these groups, which worked very hard. It needs to be a partner that will understand the priorities for this park.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I want to talk about the same thing she did, namely partnership.

More and more in the House, we are seeing that this federal government is refusing to work closely with the provinces, particularly Ontario. At a dinner yesterday evening here in Ottawa, Premier Wynne gave a speech in which she clearly indicated that she was still waiting for an answer from the Prime Minister of Canada so that they can begin working together on a number of files, including the Rouge national urban park.

Can the member help us understand how a federal government can continue to act this way? The two levels of government should have finished the work and should be ready to sign an agreement, yet there is no consensus or partnership. The federal government is not co-operating when it comes to the mines in northern Ontario.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks.

Here, we all want our country to move forward. By definition, a confederation is a group of federations with harmonious federal-provincial relations. Such relations are part of a long-standing Canadian tradition. In order for our country to progress, these relations need to remain strong.

However, since the Conservative government took office, particularly since it obtained a majority, there seems to have been a breakdown in relations with the provinces and even the major cities of this country.

Let us work together to move this country forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to rise on debate on this bill.

A number of people have been working to create the Rouge national park for many years. By and large, these people truly have the best interest of the land and national heritage first and foremost.

For many years, the people in this area have wanted governments in the past to try to strike a balance between protecting the natural heritage of the area and also protecting the farmers.

I have said this before, but I will recap a bit.

Many of the lands in the northern part of what would become the Rouge national urban park are class 1 farmlands. These lands were expropriated from farmers in the early 1970s by the Trudeau Liberal government for the creation of an international airport in Pickering. Thousands of acres of class 1 farmland were stripped away from farmers. In some instances, farmers were evicted from their farms. In other cases, they were given one-year leases. This has been the reality for these farmers since the early 1970s. They have been working off one-year leases on class 1 farmland.

To fast forward a number of years, the Bob Rae NDP government in Ontario started to try to bring together a process by which we could look at the Rouge Park differently. For the most part, the concentration was on the lands to the south of Steeles Avenue in Toronto.

What we saw through that process and the lands south of Steeles Avenue was that the farmers in that area were systematically, slowly but surely, eliminated. The class 1 farmland in that area is virtually non-existent today.

We have heard speaker after speaker from the opposition get up today and talk about how they believe we can bring forward a process that would not only protect farmers, but would also protect and provide ecological integrity for the Rouge Park going forward.

I know opposition members, particularly from the NDP today, have referenced the fact that they visited the Rouge Valley. They have had some meetings with, by and large, the environmental groups that are opposed to this legislation. They also reference comments made by a farmer at committee, and we have heard it twice in debate today. Her name is Kim Empringham from the York Region Federation of Agriculture.

Bear in mind that the federation represents 700 farm businesses in this area, which is responsible for thousands of dollars of economic activity and hundreds of jobs in the community. Farmers have been there for over 200 years, and the history of farming in this area goes back over 400 years.

What did Kim Empringham from the York Region Federation of Agriculture actually say? She said that the York Region Federation of Agriculture supported what Parks Canada had done. It supported the consultation process that Parks Canada had done and the legislation, which we are debating today, as is.

When asked by the member for Halifax about the legislation, Ms. Empringham said:

We're worried that we will gradually over time lose the land we have. When equal priority isn't given, it's hard for farmers and for agriculture to hold its ground and to maintain that level field.

Moreover, we heard from Mike Whittamore, who is a very successful farmer on the provincial lands in the northern part of the Rouge Park.

To be clear, there are two sets of lands. There are the federal lands on the northern part, which were seized for an international airport by the Liberals in the 1970s, and there are thousands of acres of provincial lands, which, by and large, were accumulated through either the Bob Rae NDP government or the Mike Harris Conservative government and put under the protection of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Some of those lands were also provided by the city of Markham and put under the protection of what was then called the Rouge Park Alliance.

Mike Whittamore is a farmer on provincial lands. He is a very successful farmer. He is one of the farmers, in the 1970s, whose family had been there for 200 years. His farm was expropriated from him, and he has been living off a one year lease ever since. What did Mr. Whittamore, a farmer, say? He said that what he was afraid of is that this would become the death of 1,000 cuts. He said the first step would be re-forestation, after that it would be pesticides and fertilizers, and we would go on and on.

What rationale does Mr. Whittamore have for that? I talked about it before in the House. What evidence does he have of that? In 2007, it was the same provincial government and Minister Brad Duguid, who is now suggesting that provincial lands should not be transferred, that went another step further in this area. They took hundreds of acres of class 1 farmland out of production and evicted the farmers from their lands and homes.

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of parks.

That exists in the existing parks legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on my hon. colleague's speech. I would say that she is right that it is important to have that strong language in a better bill, which we do not have here today, to make sure that the ecological integrity of Rouge national park is respected and so we can work together with the Province of Ontario so that it can transfer provincial land to make a much larger park. Preserving a larger area, and not breaking pieces of land up into little bits, is important. That is a factor in terms of ecological integrity and the ability of species to survive the inevitable fluctuations in any sort of ecology.

The Liberal Party, when we take power next year, will be fixing the problems in this bill so that we can create a better Rouge national park.

I would bet that the other opposition parties would feel the same way. There is no particular reason to be too partisan here today, but I would ask my hon. colleague to comment. I know that she talked about a private member's bill. It is probably not going to make it through this Parliament, but perhaps my colleague from the NDP would like to say what the NDP would do if it were to form the next government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kingston for his question. I agreed with most of his comments but not the part about the Liberals winning the next federal election. I did not agree with that particular piece.

When New Democrats form the next government, one of the things we will do is make the environment a priority. Our leader is a former environment minister. It is a key priority of our party, and we will ensure that our national parks are protected.

What we have laid out in the private member's bill is what we would introduce in government. We would adopt the Rouge Park vision, goals, and objectives. We would strengthen and implement the existing environmental protection policy framework. We would protect a healthy and sustainable 100-square-kilometre national Rouge park area and would restore a sustainable and integrated natural heritage system. There are other pieces in the private member's bill.

Suffice it to say, Canadians know where New Democrats stand when it comes to the environment. They can count on us to protect our national parks system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

The many urban parks in the Montreal area are not really interconnected and, unfortunately, there are not that many natural areas.

However, there are still some special spots, particularly in my riding, that run along the St. Lawrence River. For example, there are the Lachine Rapids and the adjacent Parc des Rapides.

I find the Rouge Park initiative very interesting. We need to think about the long-term protection of these particular areas, which will also be outdoor schools. This will enable urban residents to enjoy nature and give them access to interpretation centres focusing on these ecologically rich and historical areas.

Could the member talk about the importance of a park such as the Rouge Park for the greater Toronto area?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who has asked a very important question.

In my riding, High Park, there is an outdoor school. It is very important for kids who live in the city. Often, people cannot afford to vacation in Muskoka because it is very expensive. For children, this outdoor school is a chance to learn about the importance of nature conservation.

I recently took part in a walk through a park to observe bats. It was so important and so interesting for the kids. It is very important that we protect the environment, not only for today, but also for the future of our children.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in government, every minister has a huge responsibility within their particular ministry. With the Minister of the Environment, it is the same.

To suggest there is going to be any less stringency placed on this national park is understating it. As I said in my speech, the minister is clearly concerned about the environment and wants to ensure the Rouge is protected. That is why we are moving forward on this, with protections that are not currently in place.

The minister is moving forward, along with our government, and we are going to protect the Rouge national park as it should be protected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I filed a petition in the House related to this issue, complaining about the fact that there was a lack of an agreement between the province and the federal government as this project moved forward. It said that there was a lack of transparency and accountability around a very particular issue, which is the issue of agricultural run-off into a river that flows into Lake Ontario, the source of drinking water for virtually everybody in southern Ontario.

The provincial government has been explicit. It does not want to sign on to this project until we have an understanding of how agriculture will be protected and managed, and how it will contribute to the ecological benefit of the entire region, not just within the park but within all of southern Ontario. The government has said that everything is completely out in the open, yet we have petition after petition, complaining that this process has gone forward too fast and without the consent of the provincial government.

When will the government sit down with the Premier of Ontario, the people of Ontario and the residents who have to live with this decision, and ensure that the highest ecological principles are protected and that the largest park possible is built?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the meeting with the premier and the Prime Minister will be forthcoming. However, there are going to be some things, naturally, that we disagree on with the provincial government in Ontario. I think there will be several disagreements. That is all I can say to that.

The fact is that we want to move forward and support farmers in their current status, like I talked about today in my speech. For 200 years, farmers have farmed the land in this area. As a government, we think, and have proven in committee, that farmers not only farm land, but provide benefit ecologically to the park.

We will move forward, and hopefully the provincial government of Ontario can move forward with us.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River for his passion for national parks generally, and particularly for his understanding of the importance of the urban forest cover.

I will not try to score cheap political points here, but I will ask him a question. Does he think that the new act would provide better protection than what is in place for the existing park?

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. That is why we are having the act put in place. It is to provide better protections to the Rouge River national park and to protect green cover and those sorts of things in the Toronto area, which I think most Canadians would appreciate.

We can see it in areas of my province, in Stanley Park, where areas have been protected and are still appreciated to this day. It is because governments like ours have moved forward and established acts like this so parks can exist and challenge the urban sprawl, work with farmers who are there, and still have better protections for our national parks.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

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

He said that once this bill is passed, Parks Canada will be in a position to manage the park very constructively and positively. He left out the fact that in 2012, the Conservatives announced $29 million in cuts to Parks Canada's funding, which led to the elimination of over 600 jobs and reduced Parks Canada's scientific capacity by one-third.

My question is simple: how can my colleague really believe his government's promise to manage the park properly now that such big cuts have been made?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is almost a lob question for what I am going to say now.

The fact is that we always hear from the opposition members that we are cutting funding for parks. In our economic action plan in 2012, the Government of Canada announced $143.7 million of funding over 10 years for the park's development and interim operations, and $7.6 million per year thereafter for its continued operation. This is proof in the pudding that there is going to be a lot of money in funds, and we are backing this seriously to ensure the Rouge takes hold and it is provided with adequate protections.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River was informative. This is truly an unprecedented project. What are the benefits of creating a national urban park instead of a traditional park?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from a great member.

I established this in the speech. The key difference with the urban park is that it will take into account some operations that have already been there for 200 years, like farming, while it still pushes out things like mining and other operations that are more ecologically challenging.

It recognizes transportation corridors that already exist. It honours farming that has been there for 200 years. It is unique in the perspective that it allows some environmental leeway to allow development to occur, while still protecting the park in the best sense of the word.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the answer that the Conservative member gave my colleague from Saint-Lambert regarding the paltry $391 million budget.

In fact, that amount is remedial and is merely a drop in the bucket. Parks Canada has been underfunded for years; its infrastructure is aging, and the government is giving a small cash infusion, trying to fix something that is perhaps in a critical state.

According to The Globe and Mail, Parks Canada is in trouble because it would need $2.8 billion to do all the deferred maintenance work. This chronic underfunding is threatening Parks Canada's ability to fulfill its mandate.

I would like the member to comment on the fact that Parks Canada needs a lot more than $391 million to fulfill its broad mandate, which includes not only infrastructure but also scientific research, conservation, preservation and education.

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

Mr. Speaker, as for a drop in the bucket, if I went back to the folks of Prince George—Peace River and asked them if $143.7 million was a drop in the bucket, I think their jaws would drop at that comment.

Certainly $143.7 million and $7.6 million for the Rouge thereafter are hardly drops in the bucket. It is a large amount of money. Most Canadians work hard for those tax dollars. We like to use them responsibly and spend them responsibly. We are doing so with the urban national park.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This act is to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Where is the Christmas spirit over there?

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

It's right here. It's right here.

There is one particular part of this bill that I want to point out. This bill, as it stands, says that the ecological or conservational aspects of any decision made under this bill only need to be considered, as opposed to what exists now, which says that the conservational relationship or impact of any decision that is made must be the priority. This is truly important.

Many times the broad-stroke approach of the government relies on the idea that Canadians are not interested in the details, but that is a detail that is extremely important. With this bill, no longer is conservation of paramount importance in making decisions; it needs only to be considered. This bill would weaken the existing environmental protection and would set a dangerous precedent for the development of future parks. The government consistently wants broad-stroke ideas, but Canadians are interested in the actual substance of the bill. When a bill proposes to change existing laws so that conservation would only have to be considered, as opposed to being a mandatory priority, then there is a problem.

With that, I will end my comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, those are strange comments coming from a member whose riding, I believe, is close to Montreal. As members will recall, it was this government that returned land back to the farmers whose land was seized in order to create the Mirabel airport.

Across the Rouge, as members will recall, this is land that was seized from farmers 40 years ago. It was expropriated from them. They were turfed. They were given one-year leases.

Whether the member agrees with all parts of the bill or not, part of what is in the bill would return this land to the farmers through a Rouge national park and give them long-term leases so they could make investments. It would provide $140 million to upgrade certain parts of the park that are under provincial ownership. He talks about the province not wanting to bring those lands forward. That is fine. Even if he disagrees with that and even if the province does not bring forward its lands, what the bill would do is take 5,000 acres away from a potential airport in the east end, save it as farmland forever, and give it back to our farmers.

Surely on that basis alone—because that is the essence of the bill before us—and with the example of Mirabel, the member and his party should be able to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question is, but I touched on that aspect in my statement. The issue is with the way many of these bills are put forward, and this bill in particular. Bringing forward the idea of returning the farmland is an interesting concept and seems like a positive concept; however, if we are doing that at the cost of the environmental protection of the area for future generations, if we are doing that at the expense of protective laws that already exist, and if the province itself is not willing to participate under those conditions, then I think more discussion needs to be had. I think the bill needs to be created in such a way that all parties can walk away saying that this legislation serves everyone: the farmers, the conservationists, and the people in the Rouge River area.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening very carefully to the speech of my hon. colleague and I congratulate him on it.

I particularly paid attention to the fact that there is a double standard on the other side of the House. The government likes to sell itself as doing some form of conservation, but it voted against a bill we brought to the floor to do something about Gatineau Park.

How can it vote against something as important as ensuring the protection of Gatineau Park and at the same time propose this bill, which really does not do the job in terms of conservation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess “double standard” is the catchphrase. I am giving the hon. members a gift, a gift of knowledge and wisdom: double standards are the force of the current government.

It is about doing it right. It is not about winning or losing. It is about doing what is best for everyone involved, for all the parties involved. As I said to my colleague across the way, it is about ensuring that all parties with a vested interest in the area that the bill touches on walk away with a sense that they have accomplished what they needed to accomplish.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try again because I do not think the member or the NDP understands that the bill before us deals with, in essence, the 5,000 acres owned by the federal government. That land is owned by Transport Canada. It was reserved for an airport, as part of one of the largest land-grabs in the history of this country. That is what we are talking about. It has nothing to do with the provincial lands. If the provincial government does not want to transfer its lands, that is its business.

The bill before us here today would deal exclusively with those thousands of acres of land that the Trudeau Liberal government took away from our farmers 40 years ago, forcing the farmers into one-year leases. That is all the bill deals with. It would give these farmers long-term leases. The only objection is from those environmentalists, who want to take half of that 5,000 acres, evict the farmers, and plant trees. That is what we are talking about here.

Does the member actually support the NDP position, which would see half of this land reforested and those farmers who have been farming in this area for 400 years, some of them the very same farmers whose land was expropriated 40 years ago—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We are out of time. The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's perspective. As I have said before, it behooves this place to ensure that all parties involved are heard and can participate. In essence, that is the problem. There is not only one party, the Government of Canada, there is a multi-party system, as well as the Canadians who the House serves. It is their voices that we all represent and their voices we need to ensure are heard in this place.

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

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, January 26, 2015, at the ordinary hour of the daily adjournment.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I can advise that there have been additional consultations that have occurred among the parties, and if you seek it, I do believe you will find unanimous consent of the House to see the clock at 2:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

On behalf of all of those in the precinct, I hope that all families and members enjoy a wonderful break in the six weeks ahead and that they have a safe voyage home.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, January 26, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:13 p.m.)

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #311

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.