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.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

While I appreciate Mr. Fast's input on this proposed change, ecological integrity is essential to Bill C-18. With that said, I'm not supportive. I don't know where we move into the process. I just want to say that this is not consistent with the intent our government has put forward with this legislation, and I can't support this.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

That's my oversight.

Let me go back. It is that Bill C-18, in clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 7 through 12 with the following—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It's coming. I'll read that back.

The amendment is that Bill C-18, in clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 12 with the following, “Conservation or restoration must be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of the Park.” That comes straight from Mr. Latourelle's testimony.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

On clause 1, I do have one. It is that Bill C-18, in clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 7 through 13 with the following.... It's the definition of ecological integrity.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

In your testimony you referred to the potential for the current drafting of proposed section 6 to possibly lead to divisive campaigns to restrict visitors and close down agriculture. Is that something you've seen in the past? Could expand a little bit on why you would have that concern based on the current drafting of Bill C-18?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you very much to all our witnesses.

I have a question for Mr. Latourelle. Looking at Bill C-18 and the proposed subsection 6(1) that actually highlights the ecological integrity, it also refers to the protection of natural processes. I think that's probably also signalled in the definition of ecological integrity, where it talks about rates of change and supporting processes. What do you understand that to mean? Should we be concerned that there are processes we would just have to let happen? What are your comments?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you very much, and congratulations on that. It's only regrettable that Ontario, in delaying transfer of the lands, has allowed dumping of garbage, poaching, all sorts of traffic-control issues and so forth to happen, and we look forward, as speedily as possible, to completing that transfer in whatever form Bill C-18 eventually emerges.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

Again, coming back to the point, I believe everyone around this table does want to see the park completed, the Bill C-18 amendments notwithstanding. I wonder, Mr. Watson, of the $143.7 million committed by the previous government for the first 10-year development of the park, we know that, under Superintendent Veinotte a lot of work has been going on for the lands already controlled federally. I'm just wondering if you could update us on the amount of expenditure to date and the accomplishments to date.

[Janet Sumner]

Back to Mike Whittamore's comments, I think that getting the park management plan right is going to be a delicate balance, and it's going to be a conversation. Frankly, we need everybody at the table to be moving this forward in a way that will help us achieve and move forward on EI. It is going to be through that collaboration that we find that sweet spot and make those connections. I'm pleased to see that we're going to be moving forward on this and that C-18 is hopefully going to pass.

[Janet Sumner]

One of the interesting things I'd like to comment on is the idea that it has to meet or exceed.

If you look at the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, it clearly already has in there that it's protecting the ecological and hydrological integrity of the moraine. Where you already have it in existing Ontario legislation, you need to meet or exceed that. That's what the provisions for EI do in the C-18 amendments.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

It's good to see you again, Mr. Whittamore.

I think everyone around this table certainly agrees that the first priority is completing the Rouge National Urban Park, moving those Ontario lands in under the auspices and management of Parks Canada.

You said that while you have some comfort with the assurances in Bill C-18, you still have a certain amount of trepidation. Does what Mr. Latourelle has said here today feed into that trepidation and concern about future challenges to your existence as an agricultural operation?

[Michael Whittamore, President, Whittamore's Farm]

Members of the committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you today regarding Bill C-18 and the proposed changes to the wording in the Rouge National Urban Park Act.

My brother and I operate a pick-your-own farm market and farm entertainment business in the heart of the provincially owned lands that are to be transferred to the Rouge National Urban Park. We have had a front-row seat for the past 44 years watching successive governments struggle with this crown asset. We were expropriated in 1972 and have leased back land for 42 years. Five different government ministries and agencies have been our landlord. We have farmed the entire time on one-year leases and often on one-month overholds, my entire farming career.

Two words are at the heart of the discussion today: ecological integrity. The last time I appeared before this committee during deliberations on Bill C-40, the same two words were being discussed. At that time I was not in favour of including those words in Bill C-40. There was, and still is, plenty of evidence that shows reaching the ecosystem health objectives of the Rouge National Urban Park can be achieved in many ways.

As we all know, politics played a large part in the delay of the transfer of the provincially owned lands to Parks Canada. A small committee of farmers met with both Minister McKenna and Minister Philpott in early February 2016 to discuss our concerns. Minister McKenna was looking for a way forward to allow the lands to be transferred. At a subsequent meeting, we were assured that we would be allowed to continue farming even if the two words “ecological integrity” were included in the amended act. She indicated there would be a clause with words to that effect. The minister did exactly what she said she would do.

Proposed subsection 6(2) says, “For greater certainty, subsection (1) does not prevent the carrying out of agricultural activities as provided for in this Act.”

Proposed subsection 6(1) ensures that the “Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, must be the first priority of the Minister”.

There are 42 words in the definition of “ecological integrity”, which will be included in the amended act. Words mean different things to different people. The interpretation of “ecological integrity” embedded in the Rouge National Urban Park Act will have to take into consideration section 4 of that act, which describes the three key objectives for the establishment of the park, one of which is “promoting a vibrant farming community”. Proposed subsection 6(2) of the current bill, which I just spoke about, contains six key words: “as provided for in this Act”. Those six words give some comfort to the agricultural community that there is a future for us in the Rouge National Urban Park.

I have a certain amount of trepidation in agreeing with Bill C-18, as 44 years of government ownership has that affect, but we collectively need to finish this job and make the Rouge National Urban Park a reality. However, as I stated before, we do not need old plans such as the Rouge north management plan added to the Rouge National Urban Park Act. These documents do not address the needs or concerns of the agricultural community, and they contemplate the destruction and reforestation of hundreds of acres of class 1 farmland, and that is bad public policy.

What we really need to do is step back and let Parks Canada do its job. This is a completely new type of park in the family of Parks Canada. The agriculture community has spent several years now working with staff and management, and we have complete confidence in their ability to execute a management plan that will meet the needs and expectations of all the stakeholders and reach a level of ecological integrity for an urban park in an urban setting that has an extensive human footprint, including an agricultural footprint dating back hundreds of years.

A simple example of this is the Wendat Nation, who resided in the park over 500 years ago and grew corn. They were farmers too.

We suggested to the ministers during our meeting in 2016 that all stakeholders need to try to work together for the common goals of the Rouge National Urban Park. For far too long, farmers and environmental groups have been at odds with each other. With age comes wisdom. I now believe that spending time together and gaining a better understanding of each other will have a positive impact on the park and will actually lead to collaboration of the stakeholders within the park.

To that end, Minister Philpott arranged a meeting with a few farmers and Janet Sumner from CPAWS in October 2016. We did a walkabout on a recently completed wetland rehabilitation project on a farm, one of a number of projects that has doubled the acreage of wetlands in the park in just two years. We had a great discussion, and I think each party came away with a better understanding. Also, we broke bread. Actually, we had Tim Hortons coffee and Timbits. What could be more Canadian than that?

Once the lands have transferred, I hope the minister will direct Parks Canada to form the advisory committee, which will be composed of all the stakeholders. This too will provide an avenue for understanding.

I'm in the business of the rural experience. My brother and I invite thousands of people to our farm every year. Countless times I've had parents come up to express their appreciation for their children being able to see where their food comes from and to experience nature first-hand.

We have an incredible opportunity here at the Rouge National Urban Park to showcase nature, culture, and agriculture. As was the case with the Banff National Park, history will show that the creation of the Rouge National Urban Park was truly visionary.

Thank you.

[Janet Sumner, Executive Director, Wildlands League, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee.

My name is Janet Sumner. I'm executive director for CPAWS' Wildlands League. The mission of CPAWS and of the Wildlands League is protecting large, connected areas of Canada's wilderness. We work on large landscapes collaborating with indigenous, federal, provincial, and local governments. Our work with the forestry sector leads the way on caribou planning, and it is in our DNA to build solutions.

I've been the executive director for Wildlands League for the past 13 years. I've travelled this province extensively, especially in the far north. I've slept with polar bears—not right next to them—and walked among a herd of barren ground caribou. I've flown forestry units from Alberta to Ontario. I love this land, and it is my intention to make sure the children in my life, my grandchildren, nieces, and nephews, inherit a country where nature thrives. The children of the GTA, Scarborough where I live, Pickering, Durham, and the surrounding regions of the Rouge deserve that, too.

To that end, I would like to thank all the political parties for their efforts to protect Rouge Park, which Jim mentioned. Over the years all the political parties have contributed to getting the Rouge to this stage. While the Rouge is not a great wilderness area, it is a rare piece of Carolinian forest. It is an anchor for biodiversity in the GTA with over 1,700 species. It provides much needed habitat for migratory monarch butterflies as they wend their way south.

With regard to the bill before you, Bill C-18, I would like to thank the Honourable Catherine McKenna and her team for working diligently to come up with the solutions that rectify the critical weakness in the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the failure to prioritize nature conservation in park management and meet the international definition of a protected area.

I would also like to thank Daniel Watson, CEO of Parks Canada, and his team for patiently listening to Canadians and working so hard in their efforts to support this bill. Daniel had to listen to me for a lot of hours.

The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Wildlands League supports the amendments in Bill C-18 to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act to prioritize ecological integrity in law in the management of the park. From the red-shouldered hawk and peregrine falcon to the butternut tree and the beautiful monarch butterfly, this is huge. Nature will finally come first.

With seven million people living within one hour's drive of the Rouge National Urban Park, park managers need strong legal tools to protect the park's ecosystem from the inevitable pressures of the surrounding urban environment, which is easily the greatest threat to the park. This includes an explicit legal mandate to consider nature first and foremost in all management decisions. Without such a framework, nature would inevitably lose.

We agree with the greater certainty for the farming community that is proposed in this bill as well, and we look forward to working with farmers on the many ways we can improve the ecological integrity of the park. EI is a destination we believe can work with farmers. Rouge Park houses much of the lower Rouge River watershed, one of the last flowing into western Lake Ontario to remain free of urban development. It provides the only ecological connection for wildlife between the Oak Ridges Moraine and Lake Ontario. It is where we host our annual Paddle the Rouge event each year, training youth to paddle. It is also where I live and where I enjoy time with my grandson as he dips his paddle in and remarks to me, “It's so peaceful here.”

I am pleased to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[Dr. Stephen Woodley, Vice-Chair for Science, World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

It's kind of appropriate that I am speaking to you from the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. It's appropriate that I take some time out from that to speak to you.

I want to speak about the IUCN and protected areas. I work with the IUCN now. Formally, I worked with Parks Canada as chief scientist. I had a big involvement in getting ecological integrity as part of the Parks Canada management framework and indeed other management frameworks.

The language of parks and protected areas is often confusing. We use the term “park” to describe many different things, from a national park to a city park, a business park, and even a dog park. I am going to stick with the term “protected area”, because that's what we are talking about today.

There is a definition that is provided by the IUCN, agreed to by Canada, and used throughout Canada: “A protected area is a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”.

The key thing about this definition is that the primacy of nature is there. In the our guidance, that's further clarified. It says, “For IUCN, only those areas where the main objective is conserving nature can be considered protected areas; this can include many areas with other goals as well, at the same level, but in the case of conflict, nature conservation will be the priority.”

Under the IUCN definition, there are six management categories, from private to government and indigenous communities. We can see a lot of things occurring on the landscape or seascape under the definition of “protected area”.

The amendments proposed to Bill C-18 are aligned with making the Rouge national park meet that definition of protected area, in that there is a clear priority for nature conservation and a clear management goal in the name of ecological integrity. This clarifies the original act, which required the minister only to “take into consideration” the protection of ecosystems, which would not meet the “protected area” definition.

The term “ecological integrity” is used as a management end point by many protected areas agencies globally, and it's embedded in the IUCN guidance. It provides a well-understood and measurable system to understand the ecological condition. I do note that the term is used by other ecosystem management organizations as well, including the U.S. Forest Service and the International Joint Commission for the Great Lakes. Ecological integrity can apply in a number of situations, not only protected areas.

The Rouge is, indeed, a protected area. The idea of having a protected area within or adjacent to urban centres is actually an old one. There are many examples globally and even in Canada. For example, Halifax has a wilderness park within its boundaries, the Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes Wilderness Area, which is designated under their wilderness protection act.

This idea of an urban protected area is, as I said, global, but it is not to be confused with something like Stanley Park or New York's Central Park. They are urban parks, but they are not protected areas.

Some global examples of urban parks include Nairobi National Park, Seoul's famous Bukhansan National Park, which gets 10 million or 12 million visitors a year, and the Royal National Park in Sydney, Australia, which is one of the oldest protected areas in the world. All of these places are managed to high standards to conserve nature.

The IUCN has a guidance document particularly on urban parks. Foremost in that guidance is that urban protected areas must meet the IUCN definition of a protected area. In that sense, urban protected areas aren't really different from other protected areas. They of course have uniqueness in being close to cities and having high visitation, but they are still protected areas.

Just in closing, I think it's wonderful that there is a new national protected area within the boundaries of Toronto. Bill C-18 makes the area consistent with the IUCN definition, and I wish the Rouge every success in meeting its ecosystem and conservation goals and helping people connect with nature.

Thanks.

[Daniel Watson, Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to address the committee as it begins its review of Bill C-18. I look forward to the committee's deliberations.

Rouge National Urban Park, set to become one of the world's largest urban protected areas, is special in its protection of natural and cultural heritage. I am pleased to be here today to speak to the steps that are being taken to complete Canada’s first national urban park.

Rouge National Urban Park’s proximity to Canada's largest city, and 20% of our nation's population, provides Parks Canada with an unprecedented opportunity to encourage Canadians to experience nature and to connect with Canada’s cultural heritage.

While it is located in one of the most densely populated areas of North America, Rouge National Urban Park is home to over 1,700 species of plants and animals, as well as 27 species at risk. It also protects some of the largest examples of rare Carolinian forest habitat and some of the largest marshes and wetlands remaining in the city of Toronto.

This site gives evidence of over 10,000 years of first nations presence in this area. It includes some of Canada's oldest known indigenous sites and villages, showing that this was a well-used gathering place and agricultural area going back for millennia.

Parks Canada will make significant use of Rouge National Urban Park to introduce all Canadians, and especially youth and newcomers, to many aspects of our natural and cultural heritage.

Being able to anticipate the formal inclusion of a full and contiguous body of land into Rouge National Urban Park, we've started the move to a full range of Parks Canada programming. Examples include work with the Toronto Zoo to release over 100 threatened baby Blanding’s turtles into the park—prior to this initiative, only seven turtles remained in that area—partnerships with schools from across the GTA in educational events like Frog Watch and the restoration and creation of wetlands, forests and agricultural lands; and work with the park’s farming community and indigenous partners to complete 31 conservation projects.

With the tabling of Bill C-18, Ontario resumed active work to transfer the necessary provincial lands to Parks Canada. Officials from Parks Canada and the Government of Ontario are working diligently to ensure that those provincial lands are transferred in a timely way. I am pleased to be able to report that we now expect to complete all of these transfers in 2017, with key and major elements of these transfers occurring within the first half of the year. This represents a key step in ensuring that a single and contiguous area, stretching from the shores of Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine, falls entirely within the boundaries of Rouge National Urban Park and under the same legislative framework.

Although I do not wish to infringe upon the time for questions regarding Bill C-18 and Rouge National Urban Park, which I will be pleased to answer, I would like to touch on two elements that do not relate to Rouge.

The first is the new parks and historic sites account. This account is a tool used in the development of national parks, historic sites, and marine conservation areas. It was established as a non-lapsing, specified purpose account funded from appropriations, the sale of property and immovable assets, and donations from the public.

In order to support the government's commitment to develop and expand Canada's world-class network of protected heritage areas, the proposed amendment would allow the new parks and historic sites account to be used in a broader manner. Currently, the act restricts use of the account to protected places that are not yet fully operational. The proposed amendment would allow the public to donate funds to expand or complete existing natural and cultural heritage areas.

The second amendment to which I would like to bring your attention sets out the changes to the boundary of Wood Buffalo National Park. It removes a small portion of land to facilitate the creation of the Garden River Indian reserve. The Wood Buffalo National Park management plan from 1984 committed to the excision of lands in the vicinity of the Garden River for the future creation of an Indian reserve under the Indian Act. The Canada National Parks Act from 2000 also includes a provision reflecting the future withdrawal of lands in Garden River for the purpose of establishing an Indian reserve. This commitment was made to the Little Red River Cree Nation following a series of negotiations. The amendment being proposed is consistent with Canada's commitment to reconciliation and to building a nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

Madam Chair, these amendments would ultimately improve Parks Canada's ability to protect and celebrate Canada's natural and cultural heritage.

I am pleased to answer your questions. Thank you.