Bill S-5 (Historical)

Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve Act

An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada)

This enactment amends the Canada National Parks Act to establish Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada.

Rouge National Urban Park Act

[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.

Victims Bill of Rights

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak at report stage of Bill C-32. I also had the pleasure and privilege of attending a hearing of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on this subject. However, that does not make me an expert on it.

As I said at second reading, during the debate in the House, we are going to support Bill C-32. However, we are afraid that the bill may create expectations that will not be met. To some extent, that is what we saw this morning, when we considered Bill S-5. The government can have the best will in the world and try to come up with a bill that lays the foundation for certain principles: a victims bill of rights, in this case. However, if the resources are not forthcoming and fail to accompany the goodwill and the principles, we are a long way from being able to achieve the goals sought by the victims. They do have the right to be supported by the system in the ordeal they are going through. It is a system over which we have at least some control in the House.

One might think that there is logic of a sort for a law and order government to introduce a bill like this one and give it some resources so that it has teeth. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening, but we have seen this in a number of other areas.

The Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime made a number of recommendations, most of which were ignored. With respect to the recommendations, in fact, the Conservatives took the ones that were the least disruptive or the most neutral in terms of process in order to salve their consciences, in my view. However, other recommendations that were much more substantive were set aside.

Why have an ombudsman for victims of crime if the government is not up to accepting her recommendations and the ideas she presents, which are the result of her experience and the work she does from day to day?

When the bill was tabled in 2014, after many years and numerous press conferences announcing that it was on the way, the ombudsman was extremely critical of the bill and its content. She went so far as to say that she would recommend amendments as Bill C-32 went through the various stages of the process. That is what she did. She submitted some 30 recommendations for changes, but only 14 were accepted. Some were even amended in part. In the final analysis, the recommendations were watered down by the committee which, as we know, has a Conservative majority.

I do not intend to discuss this bill of rights only in a negative way. As I said, I will be voting in favour of the bill, just like my colleagues. The idea of a victims bill of rights is a welcome one, according to what we heard from the groups representing victims of crime. However, speaking of a bill of rights for victims, some of the witnesses came to talk about problems with the content, either because it represents more a kind of harmonization of the federal approach with the provincial approaches, or because ultimately—as the Canadian Bar Association said during the committee hearing—the wording of some sections of the bill could have harmful effects that are not being properly taken into consideration by the government at this time.

In spite of everything and in spite of all the amendments that were submitted to the committee, no changes were made, which is extremely harmful because there were some constructive amendments. The only amendment the Conservative majority on the committee accepted involved a review of the scope and effectiveness of the bill of rights after two years.

As a result, two years after the bill of rights goes into effect, we will check whether it has achieved the goals that the government has boasted about and that the victims are entitled to expect. To get the amendment passed, however, there had to be a sub-amendment by the Conservatives to change the review period to five years. In other words, we will not see whether the bill of rights is actually effective until at least five years later.

I do not want to say that this is smoke and mirrors, because the idea is commendable. Nonetheless, it might not meet the expectations set by the Conservative government's hyperbole at all its press conferences, where it boasts about the upcoming victims bill of rights.

The victims themselves or the victims groups mentioned it a number of times, including before the committee. The testimony of Arlène Gaudreault from the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes is quite representative of what the committee heard. I quote:

Presenting this bill [of rights] as a quasi-constitutional tool meant to strengthen victims' rights indicates to victims that their rights will be taken into account and enforced. However, that is a misleading message. It fails to make the necessary distinctions and creates false expectations. Therefore, it is bound to lead to dissatisfaction among victims.

That is a key point because, even though the victims groups realize that this bill is flawed, they get the sense that they will have an active voice in the process as a whole, especially when it comes to criminal trials against an accused and the parole process.

In fact, they will have a stronger voice than they have as things currently stand, which is a partial explanation for our support for the bill. However, the place the government wants to give victims is not as tangible as the government would have us believe. This view was shared by many of the witnesses in committee.

I would like to come back to the fundamental question from the Canadian Bar Association. The government has introduced a number of law and order bills. I would include here the omnibus budget bills, as they contain a number of amendments to the Criminal Code and legal provisions.

The Canadian Bar Association had an opportunity to appear on a number of occasions before these committees in connection with these amendments to the Civil Code and the Criminal Code. Generally speaking, its criticisms were quite scathing and went to the heart of the bill. Because this association represents the views of the majority of lawyers from coast to coast in Canada, we should pay attention to what it says.

In this case, the bar association’s opinion was that the wording of some of the clauses could be challenged under the Constitution or have undesirable effects that might possibly work against the victims. I would have expected this government, which must act responsibly, to have given consideration to these comments from the Canadian Bar Association.

The Standing Committee on Finance heard evidence from the Canadian Bar Association. I know it is quite strange to speak about this committee and this association. Nonetheless, we heard from this association on a number of occasions, because of these mammoth finance bills that the government introduces.

As in other committees, including the public safety and justice committees, the government seems to dismiss out of hand not only the credibility of the Canadian Bar Association, but also its significant and constructive contribution, as if it were an ideologically opposed enemy. It should perhaps view it as an ally that could help improve bills.

I say again that the role of the opposition is not just to oppose all the government’s initiatives. We oppose some bills and we support some bills, such as this one. However, I think the fundamental role of the House of Commons and the opposition is to point out to the government the shortcomings of legislation introduced in the House.

This role has been flatly rejected by the government since it was elected with a majority in 2011. This is very sad, because the process itself and the credibility of the House are called into question when these cases, which are many, are challenged in the Federal Court or the Supreme Court.

In summary, we are going to support this bill. However, we fear that it is nothing but a facade, just an empty shell that does not fully meet victims' expectations.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act.

Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2. This bill would put into place important support for families, as well as key job-creating measures, which would build on our government's record of over 1.2 million net new jobs created since the economic downturn.

On Monday, before question period, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-12, the Drug-Free Prisons Act. By tackling drug use and trafficking in federal penitentiaries, we will make the correctional system safer for staff and inmates, while also increasing the success of rehabilitation.

After question period, we will consider Bill C-44, the Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, at report stage. I understand that, regrettably, the NDP will be opposing this bill.

Tuesday will see the House debate Bill C-43 before it gets its third and final reading.

Wednesday we will consider Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, at report stage and I hope at third reading. This bill was reported back from the very hard working justice committee yesterday. It was adopted unanimously after a thorough and exhaustive study all autumn. The victims bill of rights act would create statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime for the very first time in Canadian history. This legislation would establish statutory rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights.

The chair of the justice committee implored House leaders yesterday to pass the bill expeditiously. I hope my colleagues will agree.

Next Thursday we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-32, Bill C-12, Bill C-44, and Bill S-6, as well as taking up Bill S-5 at third reading to establish the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act.

Next Friday, the House will complete the third reading debate on Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act, to create Canada's first national urban park.

After that we will have an opportunity to wish everybody a Merry Christmas.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve of Canada.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue to debate Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2, at second reading. That is a bill that focuses on job creation, economic development, growth, and prosperity for all Canadians, and is certainly something that is welcomed in this time of continuing global economic uncertainty and something that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. That debate will continue tomorrow and then will conclude on Monday.

Of course, also on Monday, the President of France, François Hollande, will address both houses of our Parliament that morning.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, we will consider Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act, at second reading.

Ideally, we will conclude this debate on Wednesday so that a committee can get on with the important work of studying the details of this legislation. This will be an opportunity for all parties to study the bill and its important measures in detail.

Next, I am hoping that on Thursday we could wrap up the second reading debate on each of Bill S-5, the Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve act, and Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act.

Finally, next Friday, November 7, will be dedicated to finishing the third reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act.

There was a specific question with regard to the remaining two allotted days. As members know, I believe we have four weeks available to us after the opportunity in the ridings to observe Remembrance Day with our constituents. I anticipate that those two allotted days will be designated for dates in that last four-week period.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me take the opportunity to extend my own appreciation and thanks to our Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, the House of Commons Security Services, and their security and law enforcement partners for their extraordinary work yesterday.

Much has been said, all of it deserved, and I cannot think that anybody here thinks we can say it too much. All members of the House, and the institution itself, were incredibly well-served by them yesterday. We have every right to be proud of them.

All members of the House, and the institution itself, were incredibly well served by them yesterday. We have every right to be proud of them.

I also want to acknowledge yesterday's efforts of your other officials, and the indulgence of my counterparts and their staff, as we managed our way through the logistics surrounding the next meetings of this House.

Plans do change from time to time. However, here is the plan as I have it for the next week.

Today, we will continue debating the bills I have indicated on our projected order of business, first, Bill C-35, justice for animals in service act (Quanto's Law), at second reading. It is kind of appropriate since we were among many of those very police dogs, and other service animals yesterday, taking care of us. Perhaps it would be a good tribute to them to see this bill advance.

We have Bill S-5, Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve act, which we will continue debating, as well as Bill S-2, incorporation by reference in regulations act, at second reading.

Tomorrow we will start report stage of Bill C-41, Canada-Korea economic growth and prosperity act. If there is unanimous support, perhaps we can also take up third reading tomorrow as well.

In any event, on Monday and Tuesday of next week, we will continue with any uncompleted debates on today's and tomorrow's bills, as well as Bill C-21, red tape reduction act, at second reading.

Starting on Wednesday and for the remainder of next week, we will debate the economic action plan 2014 act, No. 2, which my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance introduced this morning.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to my colleague. On the question of question period, as I have observed before, the tone of question period is overwhelmingly determined by the tenor of the questions asked.

There was a very worthwhile letter to the editor in The Globe and Mail yesterday on exactly that subject from a gentleman from Halifax, which I was most appreciative of. I am sure that if the members of the opposition take heed of that, we will see very high-quality question periods in the future.

In terms of the business of the House, for the balance of today, we will be continuing forward on the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act, Bill S-5. Tomorrow, it is our intention to complete the last day of Bill C-36. This is the bill to respond to the court's decision. The court has set a deadline for us in December, and we do want to respond to that. We will be proceeding with other matters on the order paper through the following week.

I do intend to identify Tuesday as an additional allotted day. I believe that it will be an opportunity for the NDP once again.

We have had some discussion in the House of the importance of the potential matter of the mission that is under way in combatting the ISIL terrorist threat right now. There is the potential for the schedule that I have laid out to be interrupted at some point in time by the need for a motion of the House, should there be a decision by the government to proceed with a combat mission.

I do not believe that I reported to the House exactly what we are going to be doing on Monday. On Monday, we will deal with Bill S-4, the digital privacy act, and Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of missing and murdered aboriginal women, I was pleased that last night the House of Commons had an opportunity to vote to concur with the excellent work in the report done by the committee of parliamentarians that examined that issue, one of well over two dozen such studies that have been undertaken on the subject. They have been helpful in forming the government's action plan that is taking place to help address this problem and help to improve the conditions of aboriginal women on reserve and elsewhere.

In terms of the government's agenda, this afternoon we will continue the second reading of Bill C-41, the Canada-Korea economic growth and prosperity act. This important bill would implement our landmark free trade agreement with South Korea, Canada's first in the Asia-Pacific region, I might add. It would provide expanded access for Canada's businesses and workers to a growing G20 economy, Asia's fourth largest.

Free trade with South Korea is projected to create thousands of jobs for hard-working Canadians by boosting Canada's economy by almost $2 billion annually and increasing our exports to South Korea by almost one-third.

That debate will continue next week, on Tuesday.

Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will see the conclusion of the report stage of Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. The House will recall that we are working to implement this legislation before the Supreme Court’s decision in Bedford takes effect before Christmas.

Monday shall be the third allotted day, with the New Democrats choosing the topic of discussion.

I am designating Monday as the day appointed pursuant to Standing Order 66.2 for the conclusion of the debate on the first report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

On Wednesday, the House will return to the report stage debate on Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime legislation.

Thursday morning should see the end of the third reading debate on Bill C-8, the combating counterfeit products act. Then we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-40, the important bill to establish the Rouge national urban park. After question period we will start the second reading debate on Bill S-5, which would also, in a similar vein, create the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve.

Friday will be set aside for third reading of Bill C-36.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, after this proceeding, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-21, the Red Tape Reduction Act. I know that my hon. friend, the President of the Treasury Board—a man with firm views on paper documents—is very keen to get this debate started.

Tonight, after private members' hour, the House will resume the third reading debate on Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act. Once that is done, I look forward to picking up where we left off this morning with second reading of two bills to create new parks: Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, in the greater Toronto area, and Bill S-5, which will establish a new national park reserve in the Northwest Territories.

If we have time left before midnight, we will continue debating Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, or Quanto's law); Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act; Bill C3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; and Bill C-21 if we do not finish that by 5:30 today.

Tomorrow will be the sixth and final day of second reading debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, a bill that, despite lengthy debate, all parties agree should be studied by our hard-working justice committee.

However, the highlight of this week will of course come later this afternoon. The Usher of the Black Rod will knock on the door and summon us to attend the Governor General in the Senate chamber where, with the three constituent elements of Parliament assembled, we will participate in the ancient ceremony of royal assent.

Based on messages read from the other place, and messages I anticipate later this afternoon, 14 new laws will be made upon His Excellency's imperceptible, or barely perceptible, nod. This will mark a total of 25 bills passing through the entire legislative process since October's Speech from the Throne. Of these, 20% are private members' bills, further underscoring the unprecedented empowerment of members of Parliament under this Prime Minister's government.

Speaking of the time passing since October, we are also marking the end of the academic year. This means the end of the time with this year's fine class of pages. Here I know that some in the chattering classes have concerns about the length of my weekly business statements, but I hope they will forgive mine today.

As we all know, the pages work extremely hard and do some incredible work, both in the chamber and in the lobbies. They perform many important duties, which in some cases go unnoticed, or at least so they think. They show up before the House opens each morning and stay until after it closes at night. We all know that over the past few weeks, it has meant much longer days than usual, but even then, the pages have remained professional, respectful, and have started each day with a smile, and ended it with one too, although that occasionally required a bit of encouragement on my part.

I would first off like to thank them for their service. Without them and their support, members of Parliament would not be nearly as effective and efficient in performing the duties that Canadians sent us to Ottawa to undertake.

I do have some insight from being married to a former page, from the class of '87 actually, and she often refers to her year as a page as the best year of her life. Here I can say that the experiences the pages have had at the House of Commons is something they will remember for the rest of their lives.

In addition, I know that in my wife's case, some of the friends she made in the page program are still good friends to this day, including, in fact, the chief of staff to the current leader of the Liberal Party. I hope that will be the same for all of you, that is being friends for life—not that other thing.

I am sure that the pages are looking forward to the summer break so they can all take their minds off of school and visit with friends and family to share their many stories and experiences, some of which are even funny, with us here in the House. I will not be surprised one day if we find some of them occupying seats in this chamber, something that happened for the first time in this Parliament with the hon. members for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and Mississauga—Brampton South, both having been elected to sit here in this Parliament.

Some of the pages may also find employment on Parliament Hill working for members, and I know that I have, without fail, been impressed by the high calibre of ambitious young people who have worked in my office during stints as page.

Over the past three years, the House has worked in a productive, orderly, and hard-working manner, and this has not been possible without the help of the pages. I believe it is safe to say that I speak on behalf of all members of the House when I thank them for their dedication and service, and finally, give them our best wishes for success in all their future endeavours.

Rouge National Urban Park Act

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to enter into this debate. In the interests of full disclosure, Rouge Park is very close to my riding as well, and I have taken my children and my grandchildren through the park from time to time, both in winter and summer, so I am quite familiar with this piece of real estate and am very pleased to see that we have moved to the point of presenting legislation. However, in typical fashion, the government seems to have a talent for taking good news and turning it into bad news.

I suppose it is only coincidental that after the northern gateway decision, we are now debating two park bills, the first with respect to Rouge Park and the second with respect to a park up in the Northwest Territories. It is only coincidental that the announcement about northern gateway and the discussion about parks happens almost sequentially. It has nothing to do with trying to burnish the environmental creds of the government.

Before I go too much further, I want to acknowledge the 25-year effort by my colleague, Derek Lee, in conjunction with Pauline Browes, in advocating on the floor of the House for the park and the reservation of these lands, along with a number of citizens groups, Friends of the Rouge, Save the Rouge, WWF, COSCA, and of course the patron saint of the park, Lois James. I am certain that I have left out a number of NGOs and individuals who have been very important to why we are here today. Regrettably, they do not seem to be as involved in the potential management plan as they possibly should be, and I hope that once the dust settles here, the officials will think it over and see their way clear to incorporate them into the park management plan.

The interesting part of this proposal is that according to the bill itself, what is actually being incorporated into the park are three little pieces of property in Markham. When asked about this at the briefing yesterday, the Conservatives said they are actually in negotiation with three or four levels of government, a variety of conservation authorities, et cetera, but the way it is being presented by the parliamentary secretary and others is that this is 58 square kilometres. Actually it is not 58 square kilometres; it is about two or three acres. By the time the bill actually receives royal assent, it will still be two or three acres and the negotiations will have yet to be completed.

Why is this a concern? First of all, the Government of Canada can unilaterally transfer from the Department of Transport the lands under its control, but for whatever reason, it has not included those lands in this bill or in the schedule that would be attached to the bill. In addition, there are other airport lands that apparently might possibly be under negotiations and that are not included in the bill. Instead of 58 square kilometres, some people would like to see 100 square kilometres, going all the way up to the Oak Ridges Moraine, in order to protect a corridor for wildlife, et cetera.

It is in some respects, as far as a presentation of a piece of land is concerned, much less than what it appears. Take note of the contrast between the bill for the park in the Northwest Territories, whose name I dare not pronounce for fear of offending someone, and this bill. Half the bill, six or seven pages, actually goes to a metes and bounds description of the park itself. That is normally the way a park bill is presented. Bill S-5 is a proper presentation.

In terms of the schedule of the land being presented, the actual amounts are far less, and there is no guarantee that the lands in the presentation by the parliamentary secretary are in fact the lands that will be transferred.

There are two reasons for this. First, negotiations are negotiations and they may go somewhere differently than the government hopes they will. Second, there is no presentation of a plan for ecological protection. That is worth drawing attention to, because in normal park bills we have a specific clause in each and every bill. The specific clause says:

...a set of ecological integrity objectives and indicators and provisions for resource protection and restoration, zoning, visitor use, public awareness and performance evaluation, which shall be tabled in each House of Parliament.

There is no such inclusion in the clause. When I asked the officials yesterday why it was not in there, their reason was that this was a unique park. The reasoning actually does have some sense to it. As others have pointed out, Highway 401 goes over the park, as does Highway 2, and so do Steeles Avenue and Taunton Road, and there is also a huge hydro corridor through the park. Therefore, we cannot set up ecological metrics to evaluate the ecological performance of the park. What we are left with is a very vague clause in paragraph 6 of the bill. It 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.

“Take into consideration” is not a plan. Let me just sketch a scenario. The minister goes to the Province of Ontario and says, “We would like your thousand acres, or two thousand acres”—or whatever the number is—“and we want to know how you're going to manage this plan and this park.” The minister says, “Trust me.“ Well, “trust me” does not cut it.

As far as I and anyone else in the House know, including the parliamentary secretary or the minister, we do not actually know how this park is going to be managed. If I am the Province of Ontario, or the Town of Markham, or the City of Toronto, I am going to be asking that rather fundamental question. I would say' “No plan, no transfer.” I rather hope that it does not get held up on that. I hope there is a plan. I hope the ecological and cultural integrity of the park would be protected. However, “trust me” is not exactly a great answer when one is asking for thousands and thousands of acres to be transferred, which according to the government's numbers are supposed to amount to 58 square kilometres.

If in fact the government had some ecological or environmental integrity, one might actually say, “Okay, trust us. We will have a plan and we will fulfill this.” However, as we know, the government's environmental credibility is as about as rock bottom as rock bottom can be, so “trust me” is not exactly an answer when we are asking other levels of government to transfer thousands of acres to the park for what would otherwise be a very supportable proposition.

Again, why is this of greater concern? As others have alluded to, in the park there is what is called mono-cultural or industrial farming, and some of those farming practices are in clear contradistinction to proper park management functions. One might say “Well, let's not worry about that, because we'll make sure, as we renew each lease and try to move it up to market value, that in fact we will assure the best farming practices.” When I raised that question yesterday, one of the members of the Conservative Party dismissed the concerns about neonicatoids. Frankly, that stuff is of concern. Here we have Environment Canada and Parks Canada managing farms in the park, which should be held to the highest possible standards, to the best science we have available for farming practices.

The member just dismissed it: “I do not give a hoot about the bees. I do not give a hoot about the watershed. I do not give a hoot about the hiring practices. Just get my constituents the cheapest possible land for the longest period of time.” It does not inspire—

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that it has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: BillS-5, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Nááts’ihch’oh National Park Reserve of Canada).