Bill C-18 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Canada National Parks Act

This enactment amends the Rouge National Urban Park Act to set out priorities in respect of factors to be considered in the management of the park. Additionally, it adds land to the park. It also amends the Parks Canada Agency Act to allow the New Parks and Historic Sites Account to be used in a broader manner. Finally, it amends the Canada National Parks Act to modify the boundary of Wood Buffalo National Park of Canada.

Rouge National Urban Park Act

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are making changes here that will indeed be very helpful; for example, establishing the Garden River Indian Reserve. There is a parcel of land, 37 square kilometres, that will be withdrawn from the Wood Buffalo National Park. Our government is honouring this important commitment to the Little Red River Cree Nation.

This type of legislation is important, because it respects the commitments that the government has made to not only preserve ecological integrity, but to ensure that our aboriginal people are respected.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss Bill C-18, on the Rouge National Urban Park Act. This has been put forward by the Liberal government as a strategic move to provide political cover for the opposition by the Ontario Liberal government to the previous Conservative government's establishment of the national park. Most notably, I oppose the Liberal government's inclusion of “ecological integrity” as the first priority of the park management.

The park is most exciting for my riding of Markham—Unionville, since it provides the opportunity for GTA residents to engage with nature, local horticulture, and agriculture.

Conservatives support the enlargement of the park through the inclusion of additional lands. We are extremely proud of our former government's commitment of $143.7 million over 10 years to create a Rouge National Urban Park, a unique space where nature exists alongside the ever-growing urbanization of Toronto and the GTA.

To make it work, Ontario [Liberal government] originally agreed to transfer Rouge Park to [the federal government], which would operate the site as a national park of 5,665 hectares. That is more than 14 times the size of Vancouver's Stanley Park.

This seemed like a done deal until late 2014, when Brad Duguid, the then Ontario minister of economic development, employment, and infrastructure, began playing political games. In September 2014, he wrote to the Conservative government “to complain that the legislation that creates the federal park, did not include adequate environmental protections.”

...after Bill C-40 passed through the Senate without the amendments Ontario [Liberals] wanted, Mr. Duguid wrote a second letter...saying the province [would] no longer transfer its land to the federal government.

Bill C-40 clearly stated that the federal government needs to “take into consideration the protection of its natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes and the maintenance of its native wildlife and the health of those ecosystems.” The Ontario Liberals claimed “take into consideration” was not strong enough.

But let's remember this is an urban park. It is not set in the wilds of Canada; it contains private residences and businesses, and is criss-crossed by highways, roads, railway lines, transmission lines, and utility pipes, all in a concentrated area.

As well, if the rules were too rigid, [the federal government] would not be able to return any of the land to the province if it needed it for new infrastructure—a specific request from the Ontario government when the two parties signed a memorandum of agreement on the project in 2013.

Contrary to Ontario's [Liberals] rigid position, [the previous Conservative government] made reasonable compromises [in creating this national park]. It...protects the flora and fauna and any endangered species. It prohibits hunting, dumping, mining, logging and other unparklike activities—some of which, such as logging, are still allowed in Ontario provincial parks. There would be full-time Parks Canada wardens to enforce the rules.

Moreover, the [previous Conservative government had] committed $143.7-million to the project over 10 years, far more than the province ever promised for Rouge Park.

Given the difficulties of establishing a national park in the heart of the GTA, the previous Conservative government was praised for striking a right balance. The Ontario Liberal government never acknowledged this. It was more interested in playing political games prior to the 2015 federal election.

Mr. Duguid said, “There’s a federal election this year. I expect that following that, whether this government’s re-elected or there’s a new government elected, there may well be a change of heart by then.” At the time, The Globe and Mail stated that the Conservative government's position was coherent and that the Ontario Liberals were playing games, jeopardizing the historic project in the process.

I am opposed to the amendment, which would make “ecological integrity” the first priority of park management in Bill C-18. This is a purely political move by the Liberal government to provide political cover for the Ontario Liberal opposition to the previous Conservative government's establishment of the Rouge National Urban Park.

Putting the words “ecological integrity” into Bill C-18 does nothing regarding the management of the park, for two reasons.

First, ecological protection is already a clear priority. The plan for the Rouge National Urban Park already meets or exceeds all 30 of the urban protected area guidelines set out by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

An independent City of Toronto staff report reported as follows:

The [Rough National Urban Park management plan] goes beyond existing plans by committing to the implementation of: actions and targets for species-at-risk; elements of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resource's 2011 draft Fisheries Management Plan for the Rouge River; natural resource monitoring and reporting; and management practices on park farmland that will benefit the environment.

Many experts also oppose the designation “ecological integrity”, including the former chair of The Rouge Park Alliance, the chair of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, the Altona Forest community stewardship committee, and the Toronto Zoo.

Secondly, Parks Canada, which is to manage the park and is devoted to the protection of national treasures such as the Rouge National Urban Park, opposes Bill C-18, since it is unrealistic to adopt a mandate of making ecological integrity the top concern of park management. A true environmentalist's definition of ecological integrity would mean leaving forest fires to burn, floods to run their course, and wildlife survival, all without human intervention.

The problem is that the park, being an urban park, is by definition inherently connected to human presence. Within the borders of the park, there are highways, power lines, a pipeline, working farmland, and a former landfill site. The park sits beside residential neighbourhoods and is very much integrated into the ever-growing and increasingly populated GTA.

Additionally, stating that the top priority of the park management is to preserve ecological integrity could mean an opening for interference with, or complete removal of, farmers from the Rouge National Urban Park. Currently, parts of the park are occupied by farmers, some of whom have tilled that land since the 1800s.

All of this means that since it is not possible, in practice, to make ecological integrity the primary guiding principle of park management due to the park's urban nature, then the designation of ecological integrity would only be empty words.

I will cut it short. In conclusion, I will fully support this national urban park, but not the ecological integrity amendment to Bill C-18.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to questions and comments, I will inform hon. members that we have passed the five-hour mark in debate on this particular motion. All interventions from this point on will be the normal 10-minute speech, followed by five minutes for questions and comments.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for an excellent, well-articulated speech, that actually talks about the challenges and the political games being played by the federal Liberal government. He brings up something called ecological integrity. I have listened to some Liberal members make speeches, and the environment minister should be ashamed of herself. These speeches are obviously written by her office, and she is not explaining to her own colleagues what ecological integrity means.

When we look at the Rouge, there is a huge watershed. If we are looking at ecological integrity, that should be maintained. Over the years, buildings and infrastructure have been built in this watershed. What that would mean is that if we want to maintain ecological integrity and there is a fire, they would have to allow the fire to go through this watershed, and the buildings and infrastructure that are there already.

My question for my colleague is this. This is a big undertaking, and the Ontario Liberals have mismanaged it for years. Who should pay to bring that park up to the level of ecological integrity? Should it be the federal government and Canadian taxpayers, or should it be the Ontario government that has mismanaged this file for so many years?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these are all the political games being played by the Ontario Liberals.

If we want to look into the overall situation, we should be thanking these people. Some may remember the names of David Crombie, and also Pauline Browse and Jim Flaherty. By the way, they were all Conservatives. They were the people who made the difference. This is where we are at this moment. If there is a chance, the Rouge National Urban Park information centre should be named after Jim Flaherty or Pauline Browse. They are the people who made this happen.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend, again, about ecological integrity. The Rouge National Urban Park Act of 2015, Bill C-10, “Management of the Park”, section 6, 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.

That was sensible legislation. It states that the minister must maintain that park. However, to put ecological integrity into it threatens the railroad, Highway 401, the 407, the pipelines, the airways, and farming. Any group, such as CPAWS, or some group that could form—it could be called friends of Rouge Park—is going to fight the government and ask that these things be changed. I would like the member's comment on this.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a political head game by the Liberals. They are empty words. It would not work. We have the parklands, the railway lines, the highways, and every single thing.

A number of my family members live just three minutes from the park. It is a residential area. Would this mean that we would have to let a fire burn for months, for weeks, or whatever? Do we let floods go through it? We have 1,700 different species of plants in there, birds, fish, mammals, insects, reptiles, and many other things. There is 10,000 years of human history. The whole thing is good, except for the amendment in Bill C-18. It does not make sense.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-18, the legislation dealing with the Rouge National Urban Park.

One of my favourite pastimes is to spend time in a national park. I live near Jasper National Park, Banff National Park, and Wood Buffalo National Park. I tend to spend a significant amount of my spare time there, not necessarily in the parks themselves but in the wilderness. I have hiked up and down Maligne Canyon in Jasper National Park. I have been to the Miette Hot Springs and the Athabasca Falls. I have gone skiing in the park, and camped there several times as well.

I find it is always great to get out in nature, feel the wind in my hair, and stand on top of a mountain and see for miles. It is an exhilarating and freeing experience. I hope that all Canadians can get outdoors and experience the freeness of this country. It is a humbling experience.

As I said, nature is a a very large place, especially the Rocky Mountains. I would recommend it to anyone. When I stand on top of one of those mountains, I can see the entire mountain range. I feel incredibly humbled and very small at that point.

It is a value that I hope to pass on to my children. I spend a lot of time with my children in the outdoors. There is no better teacher than nature to explain how things work. When I walk around with my four-year-old daughter and we see the new flowers, I always ask her how they got there. She tells me that they are just there. I explain to her that the flower started from a seed that came from the flower before it. It managed to make it through the winter, and when it rained in the spring, the seed germinated and came up through the ground. Being out in nature offers us incredible educational opportunities. When I ask her how deer showed up in the park, she tells me they are just there. I tell her there is a mommy deer and a daddy deer, and a baby deer, which has some spots on it.

I cannot say enough about getting out in our national parks and appreciating nature. Canadians do not do enough of that.

I am encouraged and excited when I hear my fellow colleagues who live near Rouge Park taking about this big national park in the middle of a very urban area. I hope that many people will take advantage of the freedom of spending time with nature in this new national park.

We keep stumbling over the term “ecological integrity”. To me, ecological integrity means pristine nature, somewhat in keeping with Jasper or Banff, or some of the areas just north of where I live. It means it is untouched by human hands. When I find that waterfall and feel like I am the first person to ever see it, it is an incredible feeling.

A lot of northern B.C. is not a national park or anything like that, but—

[An. hon. member]

It is beautiful.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

It is beautiful, Mr. Speaker, and it has ecological integrity. It is not even a national park, but it has ecological integrity.

My sister lives in northern B.C., in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I have hiked through the Telkwa Pass. I remember coming to a 400-foot waterfall, and when I stood at the bottom of it, I felt like I was the very first person who had ever been there. That was probably not so, but I certainly felt like I was.

[An. hon. member]

You were the first person there.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is saying that for sure I was the first person there. That, for me, is ecological integrity.

When the government says that it is going to impose ecological integrity on an area that is populated, that is civilized, that has been industrialized for hundreds of years, that does not even come close to meeting the definition of ecological integrity. It does not diminish the beauty of the place. It does not diminish the experience one can have in that place. My definition of ecological integrity would not cover this park.

If we impose ecological integrity, it would mean that when we find that new creek bank, when we find that little swimming hole on the side of the creek, we will walk up to it and say, “I am the first person to have ever been here”. I doubt very much that in Rouge National Urban Park that would be the case. I have not been there, but just from the debate we have had here today, I strongly feel that it would not be the case.

I would not like to see it be ecological. Our highways, powerlines, pipelines, and railways are things that make us able to live our lives. Every one of us cares deeply about the environment and about passing this country on to our children in better shape than we received it. Also, none of us wants to give up living in the house we live in, driving the car we drive, or eating the food we eat that we can just go to the grocery store and buy. The very fact that I can buy strawberries in the middle of February is a testament to humanity's ability to overcome obstacles. I would not say that we should be going backward on a lot of these things.

To say that we should pull out the 401 highway or the 407 highway, both of which I have driven on, so I must have gone through this park at some point, or that we would want to divert traffic around that area or reduce highways in general I think would be regressive rather than progressive. I struggle immensely with the term “ecological integrity” when it is placed on a place that does not have ecological integrity, in my opinion.

The only real way I think we can protect ecological integrity is to restore it, but in this particular case, it seems unfeasible or even unwise to insist that we restore ecological integrity.

The member across the way referenced in his speech old travel routes. I asked him if the current travel routes, the current commerce routes, were something to be valued in this area. He said that we had indigenous trails that had gone through this area. It was before we had these kinds of things. Currently, we have commerce routes that run through it. Does he value those things? I do not think a new highway would fit within the term “ecological integrity”, but I am very pleased that it is there.

We are sucking and blowing with this legislation. We are saying that we want an ecological reserve, but then in northern Alberta, in Wood Buffalo National Park, he said that to maintain ecological integrity, we have to remove part of the land mass so that it can be developed as a reserve. In the one case, we will insist on ecological integrity in a very urban area that is already quite developed and has a lot of infrastructure and the like, but in another area that has ecological integrity, we are going to remove part of the park so that we can maintain the ecological integrity of the park but also allow our first nations to have a reserve in the area, and perhaps infringe upon that ecological integrity. Right within this piece of legislation there appears to be a sucking and blowing at the same time. If we are to insist in one area that we have ecological integrity and insist in another area that if we allow development or allow the building of infrastructure we would reduce the ecological integrity and must therefore pull it out of the park, to me that seems like we are sucking and blowing.

I would say that in northern Alberta we should pull that out of the national park and make it a reserve. I know that the people of the Little Red River Cree Nation, who are my constituents, have been working on this for a long time and really appreciate this gesture. However, I would say, given the statement we are making in northern Alberta, that we should probably make the same statement in Ontario and say that ecological integrity is not critical to the building of this new park.

I am thankful for the time I have been given today, and I look forward to some questions.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing consistently since yesterday from the members opposite that they oppose the concept of ecological integrity, which is already in the Parks Canada Act, applying to this file.

I hear the members opposite say that there is a highway and power lines in the park, seeming to imply that these are incompatible with a park governed by ecological integrity.

I am hoping that the hon. member could provide some clarification. Is he really suggesting that the highways and the power lines would be wrecked by this legislation?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely my question. I do not believe that Parks Canada is governed by the term “ecological integrity”. I know that it uses that term to assess its parks. Typically there is an ecological integrity assessment, but it is not something it aspires to do in all cases. This would be one of the first parks, as far as I know, that would have that term as part of its mandate to restore ecological integrity.

As I outlined in my speech just a minute ago, I said that my idea of ecological integrity is that when I find a waterfall, I feel like I am the first person who has ever been there. That is ecological integrity.

For a park to have ecological integrity, I would insist that there would not be a pipeline, a road, or a powerline going through it. That is why I do not think we should put ecological integrity in this piece of legislation.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I listened with great interest to what he was saying about the urban park.

My riding does not have an urban park managed by Parks Canada, but we are very proud of Saint-Bernard Island. The City of Châteauguay purchased the island five years ago from a religious order that had been there for 200 years. Those nuns were truly forward-thinking; they had an organic farm with very environmentally friendly practices.

The nuns are of course quite elderly now, and as you might imagine, when the island was put up for sale, certain developers were very keen to purchase it to build condos on it.

However, the City of Châteauguay seized the opportunity, purchased it, and developed its own urban park. This will help strike a balance between giving people access to the park, which hosts events like the Écomarché de l'île, an attraction that draws 10,000 people, and ensuring the ecological integrity of the park.

Does the member think that some degree of balance is possible?