Bill C-28 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (victim surcharge)

This enactment amends the victim surcharge provisions in the Criminal Code to
(a) allow the court to exempt an offender from the payment of a victim surcharge in cases where the offender satisfies the court that the payment would cause the offender undue hardship and to provide the court with guidance with respect to what constitutes undue hardship;
(b) provide that a victim surcharge is to be paid for each offence, with an exception for certain administration of justice offences if the total amount of surcharges imposed on an offender for these types of offences would be disproportionate in the circumstances;
(c) require courts to provide reasons for the application of any exception for certain administration of justice offences or any exemption from the payment of a victim surcharge; and
(d) clarify that these amendments apply to any offender who is sentenced after the day on which the amendments come into force, regardless of whether or not the offence was committed before that day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Canada National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Rouge National Urban Park Act

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-18, an act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Canada National Parks Act.

We will support this bill at second reading because we generally support its fundamental principles. We have a few amendments to put forward in committee. However, in general, this bill is in line with what we requested.

This bill will remedy mistakes made in the past by the Conservatives, who haphazardly introduced a bill without consulting their provincial colleagues, in particular their Ontario colleagues, and without adequate consultation of environmental groups. This earned the ire and indignation of these groups and of the province. However, it did result in the creation of the Rouge Park, but it was not enough to allow us to address our needs and create a national urban park worthy of its designation.

As I said, Bill C-18 seeks to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, which was passed by the Conservatives during the last Parliament. Unfortunately, they did not set the bar very high when it comes to creating parks. On the contrary, they lowered the bar. These amendments will ensure that the preservation or reestablishment of ecological integrity by protecting natural resources and ecological processes will be the minister's priority in all aspects of park management.

This was one of the problems. At the time, the Conservatives explained their failure by saying that the creation of an urban national park was new territory. They felt that because this was out of the ordinary they did not need to focus on ecological integrity and therefore lowered the bar for conservation.

Of course, both environmental groups and the NDP said that this did not make sense, that we should rather invest in order to maintain strong, robust regulations on ecological integrity. This should have been one of the top criteria. Concessions to urban realities could be made later, but the ecological integrity criterion needed to be front and centre.

The other change that Bill C-18 makes is that it adds approximately 1,669 hectares of federal land to the Rouge National Urban Park. This will make it possible to have a collection of useful land with ecological integrity and a viable ecosystem, which is how it should have been from the start. Unfortunately, since the Conservatives could not seem to agree on a solid bill, they did not manage to obtain the land that was already protected and that belonged to the Province of Ontario at the time.

Finally, Bill C-18 also changes the boundaries of Wood Buffalo National Park in Alberta. This change will reduce the area of the park by 37 square kilometres in order to create the Garden River Indian Reserve. As such, the bill fulfills the promise that was made to the Little Red River Cree Nation, which is a very good thing.

The NDP wishes that the government would protect more land by creating more national parks using sound environmental legislation. We hope that the Rouge National Urban Park will be the first in a series of national parks in urban settings across Canada.

In fact, my NDP colleague from Alberta asked our Liberal colleagues a question about that in question period. She just got back from a mission to Marrakesh for the international conference on climate change, COP22. I know that she did an excellent job there representing Canada and the NDP's positions on addressing climate change.

All the work that needs to be done to protect and uphold first nations' rights is of course essential, so it is extremely important that we consult first nations.

The member said very little about how she plans to improve the situation. Unfortunately, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was amended in 2012. I was a member of the environment committee at the time, where I witnessed what I would call the gutting of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

That legislation used to require adequate consultation, or at least more consultation than what is required today. It was sacrificed and handed over to the National Energy Board, which has expertise when it comes to energy, but not really when it comes to protecting the environment. We cannot ask the fox to guard the henhouse; it makes no sense. That is basically what happened. The government of the day put the fox in charge of the henhouse, as the NEB was asked to protect the environment. Well, that is not how it works.

During the election campaign, the Liberals promised to reform the environmental assessment process and said that no more major projects would go through under the old Conservative process, a process they condemned then as they do now. For now, however, major projects are still being assessed according to the old Conservative process. Unfortunately, that promise was not kept.

That is why my Alberta colleague asked the government to keep that promise and ensure that our environmental assessments are worthy of the name. They were better when we had the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and they can be made even stronger and tougher.

Unfortunately, I do not know what is going on, but the Liberals are taking their sweet time on this issue. It is really awful because major projects, such as TransMontaigne Product Services LLC and energy east, are currently under review. People all over Quebec and in other parts of Canada are very worried about this, and they do not have much faith in the current process.

We asked for a rigorous, independent, science-based assessment, and we asked the government to start the energy east pipeline assessment over using a credible process. Unfortunately, the National Energy Board is assessing the project, and it has no intention of starting over. This is appalling.

That is why my colleague asked that question in the House today. We need a rigorous environmental assessment process for major projects, something we currently do not have.

We believe that the bill on the Rouge National Urban Park should give a clearer priority to ecological health and integrity, something the current bill does, so that we can focus on conservation.

We also need to think about all of the activities that could affect the park. Such activities are bound to take place there since, as has been mentioned, it is an urban park. My Conservative colleagues used that as an excuse not to focus on conservation.

Nevertheless, we can focus on conservation and study other activities that could potentially occur in the park because it is in an urban setting. For example, it makes sense for there to be agriculture and other similar activities that can also be subject to a strict environmental assessment. That goes without saying.

We also need a science-based management plan. In order to do that, the government needs to have the courage to review the Canada Environmental Assessment Act, as I mentioned before. It is not right that the National Energy Board is assessing major projects. That makes no sense.

Finally, there is a need for solid public and parliamentary oversight mechanisms.

These issues will be assessed by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. I know that my colleague from Alberta sits on this committee and she will ensure that these provisions are assessed and given comprehensive consideration. I would also like to mention that my other colleague with an interest in parks has also done a very thorough job on this file in order to ensure that conservation and ecological integrity are front and centre in this bill.

The New Democrats have been pushing for a long time for the Rouge National Urban Park to have the same legal protection as other national parks in Canada. We want the bill to establish a solid template for the creation of other national parks in urban settings.

We applaud the efforts made by people, all communities, environmental organizations, people living in the community around the Rouge National Park, and the Friends of Rouge National Urban Park. These people worked very hard for decades to ensure the creation of this very unique park. It will be the first national urban park in Canada.

Efforts are required to ensure everything goes well, however. I still remember very clearly how much work was done on this file by our former NDP colleague Rathika Sitsabaiesan, who was not reelected but is still working very hard. She introduced Bill C-696 to correct the flaws in the Conservative's bill on the Rouge national park. She worked very hard to correct the situation.

As the House can see, the NDP does not sit idly by. When we saw that this bill would neither make the park big enough nor ensure adequate conservation, we immediately introduced a private member's bill. That is how the NDP works. We are a collaborative party. We are a party that wants to make progress. We come up with solutions to problems.

That is what we want to keep doing in committee when this bill gets there. We have suggestions for improving and fine-turning this bill. I hope the Liberals will agree to work on improving it.

I am happy that the Liberals are correcting, in some way, the Conservatives’ mistakes in the Rouge National Urban Park bill. On the other hand, we have not heard much from them on the establishment of new national parks. In addition, we are not meeting our target for creating either land or marine protected areas.

I would like to talk about a very important marine protected area that has been at the project stage for almost 20 years. It is the St. Lawrence estuary marine protected area where the beluga whale’s critical habitat is located. Belugas are not just a threatened species, because they now have species-at-risk status.

On May 14, 2016, the Liberal government published the project to determine the beluga whale’s critical habitat in the Canada Gazette. If memory serves, the government has about 90 days after that to issue a ministerial order designating and protecting a critical habitat.

Today is November 24. More than 90 days have passed since May 14, and yet, we are still waiting.

When will we have regulation determining the beluga whale’s critical habitat in the St. Lawrence?

Why are we not adding to that a project to establish marine protected areas in the St. Lawrence estuary? We have been waiting for 20 years. We do not want to end up with more problems such as those we faced when the Conservatives wanted to build an oil terminal right in the beluga nursery. It made no sense. In fact, the scientists all knew that and said so. Nevertheless, it was allowed to go ahead.

Our election platform stated that in the first six months of an NDP mandate, we would launch a very detailed project, in conjunction with the province of Quebec, to establish a marine protected area for the beluga whale. This is an important development that we want to see. I hope that the Liberal government will go ahead with it. In any case, it needs to get with the program concerning the ministerial order on the beluga’s critical habitat; the deadline of May 14, 2016, has long since passed.

To summarize, the NDP is willing to work with the Liberals, and also with the Conservatives if they agree to change their attitude, to improve Bill C-18 . It is already a very good bill, but it could be improved by doing what environmental groups are calling on us to do, which is to ensure that the Rouge park enjoys the same legal protection as other national parks.

In addition, we want to have the opportunity to propose a few amendments to make the bill stronger so that the framework it creates can serve as a template for the establishment of other national urban parks. We hope there will be others.

With regard to the Rouge National Urban Park, we want to give clear priority to environmental health and integrity as well as conservation.

We are aware that other activities are integral parts of the park, and we want them to be included, and to be subjected to thorough environmental assessments. We also want there to be a science-based management plan. Furthermore, we want the Liberals to present to us a short-term and long-term plan for the establishment of a new urban park, new national parks and marine protected areas.

If the recommendations of the 2017 Green Budget Coalition were accepted, we would have six national parks established by 2020, if memory serves. That would enable us to reach our targets, or at least come close.

Right now, the Liberals need to read the recommendations of the 2017 Green Budget Coalition. They contain many good ideas for achieving our conservation goals. Unfortunately, we are a long way from doing so at the moment.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the debate, we have been hearing over and over again from our friends across the aisle about ecological integrity being an overriding principle of the park and that it should be removed because it impedes development of the park. Would my colleague tell us what more he thinks we need to do to ensure that ecological integrity is enshrined not just in this park, but parks across the country?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am sure that he is working very hard on this very important issue.

The Conservatives really dropped the ball on this file, in particular because they weakened the provisions on ecological integrity protection and conservation.

On the other hand, I am wondering where my colleague stands on the Green Budget Coalition’s recommendations, which include establishing at least six new national parks and three new national wildlife areas by 2020 and identifying new areas requiring protection through a plan based on science and traditional knowledge. This is extremely important.

It is a step in the right direction. It was vital to improve the legislation on the Rouge National Urban Park, because we could not afford to have weak criteria for urban parks. There may be other activities in the Rouge National Urban Park, such as agriculture, and thorough assessments to ensure that ecological integrity is maintained. I am therefore in agreement with my colleague on this. We must have a very rigorous legal framework.

Let us see what we can do in committee to ensure that this perspective is taken into consideration. The idea is first and foremost to make the ecological health and integrity of the Rouge National Urban Park a priority. That will ensure that we have a real park that is large enough to have a complete ecosystem.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have more of a comment than anything else, recognizing the effort of many of the different stakeholders who have made today possible. My colleague from Scarborough—Rouge Park has done yeoman's work in ensuring there is a clear understanding of just how important this park is.

I want to take the opportunity to expand upon how important parks, large and small alike, are to all Canadians. For example, I know how much we appreciate our river walk system in Winnipeg, and we want to see that expand.

Canadians seem to have a natural love of nature, and it is often best explored when we go to parks. I will leave it open-ended for my colleague across the way to provide his thoughts about the importance of having that park for Canadians in all regions, even though we recognize the Rouge park today.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Rouge National Urban Park is extremely important, since it is about an hour’s drive away for almost 20% of residents of the Greater Toronto Area. Everyone in the GTA will thus have ready access to the park. That too is important.

National parks are often remote and inaccessible, but this one is very close. People will be able to enjoy nature. It is increasingly important for people to get close to nature so that they can protect our environment more effectively.

We should note that in this park, there are 23 species considered at risk by the federal government, 800 species of plants and 55 species of fish. This demonstrates the richness of the park’s ecosystem and the importance of protecting it.

On the other hand, I deplore once again the fact that the government has no comprehensive plan for achieving the Aichi targets, which are to preserve 17% of land areas and 10% of marine areas by 2020. We are a long way from that.

In addition, the Green Budget Coalition stated that the federal government should establish six new parks, and nothing has been done so far, unfortunately.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his always interesting comments on the environment. I am particularly pleased to ask him a question, since he knows a fair bit about my riding.

The bill that is before us today seems quite well designed for Rouge Park, but we would like it to serve as a template for future parks.

My colleague may know Saint-Quentin island, in my constituency. This island, situated in the very heart of the city, at the confluence of the St. Maurice and St. Lawrence rivers, in my view has all the necessary characteristics to become one of these other urban parks, if only for the diversity of its flora.

Does my colleague consider this island a territory worthy of being a national park? What are the provisions of Bill C-18 that impact Rouge Park and that could serve as a template for other parks?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, who knows his region very well.

He mentions Saint-Quentin island. I go there regularly because it is such a lovely place. Citizens can go there to replenish themselves in nature and learn to know and observe the various resident species.

I am not perfectly knowledgeable about all the ecological richness to be found there. Making a national park of it someday is another question. But what is certain and important is that we must continue to protect the national asset that is Saint-Quentin island.

In my view, where new national urban parks are concerned, we must ensure that the bar is raised, not lowered, when it comes to conservation. Unfortunately that is what the Conservatives did with the Rouge National Park bill. They lowered the bar when they ought to have kept raising it.

I encourage my hon. colleague from Trois-Rivières to keep up his excellent work of promoting nature, and I encourage the people of Trois-Rivières to visit Saint-Quentin island, which is a true gem in the area.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and recall fondly working with him on committee when we were studying this bill. He will remember very clearly that the term “ecological integrity” was one of the big sticking points.

In this bill, clause 2, subclause 6(1) has “maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity” as a priority and the very next clause says that nothing in this bill prevents the “carrying out of agricultural activities”. It is pretty obvious that these two values are going to come into direct conflict with each other. My big concern is that when push comes to shove, the agricultural community will lose its voice.

I wonder if my colleague is able to guarantee the House today that that will not happen and that agricultural practices that have been carried on for generations will continue. The agriculture committee heard from witnesses who said that their families have been farming since 1805, I believe it was. My concern is a reduction in the protection for agricultural producers in very rich farmland.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it was my great pleasure to sit on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development with my colleague. Even though we were not always in agreement, we could still collaborate on other subjects.

The member mentions something that was indeed a question and a concern on the part of the farmers. This has been expressed and underscored. What is important to remember is that these things are not mutually exclusive. It is important to make ecological integrity a priority, but it is also important to allow other activities that have been around since the 19th century, as he says. I am thinking of agriculture, for example. We just need to make sure we have a rigorous environmental study when those activities are maintained. The two, then, are not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite. I would even say that the two are mutually beneficial when their environment is improved.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to rise today to discuss this important bill, Bill C-18, which deals with Rouge Park, a bill that makes some amendments to some work that was done under the previous government; and, in the context of this bill to talk about some important underlying principles in terms of the way we deal with and manage parks within the context of preserving the environment, and relate that back to some of the things happening in my own constituency as well.

What I want to do to start is share a bit about a national park near my own constituency, really as a way of building into some broader principles around environmental preservation.

My constituency, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, is just east of Edmonton. It borders with Elk Island National Park, which is just outside of the riding and it is to the east side of Strathcona county right on the border. Elk Island National Park is 35 kilometres east of Edmonton. It is fairly easy to access along the Yellowhead Highway, so I encourage any members who are in the area to take advantage of visiting Elk Island National Park. It is Canada's eighth-smallest park in area, but it is actually the largest fully enclosed national park. It has an area of close to 200 square kilometres, so it is an interesting place in that context. There are plenty of opportunities for camping, and the park has a mix of different kinds of prairie ecosystems.

In terms of the unique history of this park and in terms of the principles that I want to draw out of it for this debate, the history is very closely linked to the story of the preservation of bison within western Canada.

Historically, before European contact there were vast bison populations on the western prairies. Bison were very important for the livelihood of indigenous people, and there are stories of early wagon trains going through the west, and for days on end the people constantly seeing bison and always being in their line of sight. Regarding the early relationship that our indigenous people had with bison, part of what was interesting to me was that at one point in time they did not use horses for hunting at all. They had to develop innovative techniques for hunting bison, and in some cases that involved great personal risk because they did not have the safety associated with being up on a horse. After the time of European contact there was a significant decline in the bison population as a result of over-hunting and this sort of thing, and the way in which the animals were used which was quite different from how they were used by the indigenous communities.

The story of Elk Island National Park is closely tied to the restoration of plains bison in the area. It was an important place for preserving habitat, a space for bison to live. In 2007, when the last estimate was done in terms of numbers in the area, there were about 300 wood bison in the park. This is not a huge number, but certainly an important number, and an important step for the preservation of an important part of our ecological history and of our human history in terms of the relationship that our indigenous communities and subsequent settler communities had with bison. We have taken a large step back from where we were in terms of population but at the same time, in the 20th century we have seen significant progress.

There is an important underlying point here about the history of Elk Island National Park, which is relevant very much to the discussion we are having about Rouge Park and the way in which we understand the human relationship to that park in the context of an urban environment. Some people would take a negative view of all human interaction with the environment. They would almost go so far as to describe the human relationship with the natural environment as being parasitic, but that is obviously not reflective of reality. There are many cases of human interaction with nature not harming nature, where resources can be managed well and where a proper balance can be struck that benefits all and has a positive impact on conservation.

I spoke, in the context of bison in western Canada, about how the resource was well-managed by indigenous people, and subsequent efforts in the 20th century in terms of conservation and trying to bring back some population of bison. The attempts did not always work, and there were hiccups along the way in terms of efforts at conservation. That is clear from the specific history of Elk Island National Park.

However, human interaction with nature is not a negative. We are part of nature and we can make a positive contribution to the environment that we are in. Human beings are an important part of the natural world. We are not the problem. I regard nature as a good but not a good that is in inevitable conflict with a belief in the dignity and importance of a human being as part of nature and the importance and legitimacy of using nature to meet our immediate and long-term needs. There is nothing wrong with recognizing an appreciation of the value that nature provides while also recognizing the legitimacy of the human use of the natural environment to meet our immediate as well as our long-term benefits.

I do not often refer directly to Catholic social teaching in this House, but I think it provides an interesting and unique perspective when it comes to understanding the roots of a cohesive, robust, pro-human environmentalism. I would encourage all members in this House who have a particular interest in environmental issues to take a look at Pope Francis's still relatively recent environmental encyclical where he talks about environmental preservation. The title is Laudato Si. I do not agree with everything in it, but at the same time I see it as an insightful and original reflection on environmental protection. It is not quite what most of either its proponents or its detractors perhaps described it as in some of the heated media conversations that followed its release.

Let me share a few quotes from it that speak to at least a certain kind of perspective on environmentalism that I think is worth reflecting on.

It states:

Human beings too are creatures of this world, enjoying a right to life and happiness, and endowed with unique dignity. So we cannot fail to consider the effects on people’s lives of environmental deterioration, current models of development and the throwaway culture.

This is another instance. It states:

Our insistence that each human being is an image of God should not make us overlook the fact that each creature has its own purpose. [Nothing] is superfluous. The entire material universe speaks of God’s love, his boundless affection for us. Soil, water, mountains: everything is, as it were, a caress of God. The history of our friendship with God is always linked to particular places which take on an intensely personal meaning; we all remember places, and revisiting those memories does us much good. Anyone who has grown up in the hills or used to sit by the spring to drink, or played outdoors in the neighbourhood square; going back to these places is a chance to recover something of [our] true[er] selves.

I will read a couple more quotes that I think are interesting and instructive.

It states:

An integral ecology is inseparable from the notion of the common good, a central and unifying principle of social ethics. The common good is “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfilment”.

This is the final instance. It states:

Human ecology also implies another profound reality: the relationship between human life and the moral law, which is inscribed in our nature and is necessary for the creation of a more dignified environment. Pope Benedict XVI spoke of an “ecology of man”, based on the fact that “man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will”. It is enough to recognize that our body itself establishes us in a direct relationship with the environment and with other living beings. The acceptance of our bodies as God’s gift is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home, whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation.

Those are a few quotes from that document. I know that many members here will perhaps disagree with some of the fundamental philosophical presumptions there, but I think those quotes and the broader document present us with an interesting way of thinking about a kind of integrated and balanced environmentalism, one that recognizes the good that exists in nature and the importance of preserving and protecting it.

It should also be one that recognizes the natural and proper place within it of human beings and how human beings can and should enjoy nature, make legitimate use of it, and seek its preservation. We are not alien to the natural world. We are very much part of it. There is a continuum in terms of respecting the dignity of individuals and the value of the natural world we inhabit.

To summarize, some discourse around environmental issues suggests that we should be able to do whatever we want with the environment. This ignores the value inherent in nature and the benefits to human beings that accrue from nature. The other extreme, which denies any human engagement with or use of the environment, fails to recognize the importance of the common good, the well-being of human beings in that context, the place of humans within the natural environment, and the way in which we can facilitate conservation and the improvement of the environment.

That is the intellectual context of my perspective on the environment. Let us talk specifically about the history of Rouge Park, because the creation of urban parks speaks very specifically to another concern raised in Laudato Si, which is the fact that people in urban areas may not have the same opportunities to engage with nature as people perhaps in other times or people in rural areas. Not everyone has easy access to the wilderness parks we have at points today discussed.

The creation of urban parks is, in a particular sense, for the people in and around them. This is evident in the vision, in terms of the creation of Rouge Park, that we would preserve natural spaces and the beauty of nature inside, or in very close proximity to, urban settings. This enables the enjoyment of nature, the use and observation of nature, and the personal enrichment that comes from being present in nature by people who live in urban centres. Obviously, the proximity to Toronto means that a very large population of people in that area have access to that park. They are really going to benefit from the decision the previous government took in terms of proceeding with the creation of this urban park.

I am proud of the Conservative government's record with regard to moving forward with the establishment of this park and the significant dollars invested in it. This is Canada's first nationally protected urban park.

I will provide a few facts about Rouge Park. The park is on the border of Pickering and Toronto. It is about 50 square kilometres, and as has been noted by my colleagues, compares favourably to other urban parks. It is 19 times larger than Stanley Park, 22 times larger than Central Park in New York, and close to 50 times larger than High Park in Toronto. It protects about 12% of the Rouge River watershed. It is a beautiful area. My dad actually grew up in Scarborough, and my grandparents lived there until quite recently, so I am somewhat familiar with the area.

When we talk about an urban park, we are not talking about untouched wilderness. We are dealing with land with different kinds of uses, such as agricultural uses. We are not talking about a wilderness park, as might be the case with certain other national parks that exist.

When we look at the decision of the government, through this amendment, to introduce language on ecological integrity, there is legitimate concern on our side of the House about the implication of this for those important principles in terms of human engagement and interaction with the natural world, which is the purpose of having this urban park. It is not the only purpose, I should say. It is one of the purposes, which is the human experience of the natural world and the human benefit from it as well as the continuation of those other important uses, such as agriculture.

It is interesting to listen to the speeches government members have made maybe seeking to clarify that ecological integrity is not in any way intended to create a problem for the agricultural use of some of the land in the park.

We have to think not only about the good intentions, which I am sure exist, of members in this House but about what that terminology actually means and could be interpreted to mean going forward. From many of the comments government members have made, it sounds like what they would like to see in the park, in some sense, is the preservation of the status quo uses of the land, perhaps with ecological advancements in the sense of the increasingly effective use of the land, from an ecological perspective, but in a way that continues in the mode of the existing uses.

I agree that there are ecological ways of farming. It is part of the natural and proper interaction between people and the natural environment. However, I think government members should acknowledge the concern that using that word introduces some potential problems in terms of how this park is going to be understood and how it is going to be used in the future.

Indeed, we have seen from governments before that what starts as maybe a well-intentioned phrase may move in the direction, subsequently, of expropriation and efforts at reforestation and other things that would not be sensible uses of the land in the context in which it has been set aside as an urban park.

The language risks creating that slippery slope. That is why I think it is important that we address this issue and do everything we can to preserve and strengthen the park but recognize that it is to be a place for interaction, for a meeting of people with nature.

I should say, as well, that this is part of the broader vision for national parks. Obviously, that is walked out in different contexts. Maybe the way people are interacting with nature in a wilderness park is going to be different and perhaps more limited than in an urban park. However, it is important, even for getting general public buy-in, support, and appreciation for the value of nature, that we maintain these opportunities for interaction. I would be concerned about the way ecological integrity is defined and the way it could be used in the present and in the future.

I believe the principle here is that parks have to entail a balance between the non-human, natural uses, the preservation of the environment, and the use of areas by human beings for their own well-being and the advancement of the social common good.

As Conservatives, we very much believe in the environment, and we advocate a balance. We advocate a balance with an eye to the economy, and more broadly speaking, with an eye to the common good, with a recognition of the value of the natural world and the value of the interaction between people and the natural world.

I think about the policies of the government in general with respect to the environment. I can say that in many cases, they may reflect a laudable goal, which is the advancement and protection of the environment, but they do so in a way that is out of balance with the human dimension and the need for the protection of the social common good.

The good intentions may not always be there. It may just be an excuse to talk about the environment when the government is undertaking measures that are not related to the environment. I am willing to assume that at least for many of the government members, there are good intentions there.

I think about the situation in my own province of Alberta. In the name of the environment, we have the imposition of significant new taxes that are going to be deeply injurious to the common good and deeply injurious to the well-being of people who are trying to get jobs and are trying to get on their feet. We can see the negative consequences of job losses and even the expansion of social challenges for people that result from job loss.

The government is presiding over these problems, yet it is imposing new taxes simply on the basis of an environmentalism that I would submit is disconnected from these broader questions of human good.

As we talk about Rouge Park, as we think about the situation in my home province, as we think about our broader perspective on the environment, let us remember the importance of an integrated perspective, one that considers the environmental good in the context of the common good, the social common good, and the economic common good. Those things do not have to be in conflict with each other. Indeed, they can work together. However, when we see policies that are out of balance, it is important for us, as the opposition, to object and call us back to a more balanced approach.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for those comments. He and I have worked together on a couple of issues over the year, and I always look forward to his comments. I look forward to him visiting Scarborough—Rouge Park in the near future.

The member talked about a lack of protection or that maybe we have gone too far in protecting the environment with respect to the park. What it really comes down to is that the stakeholders I have spoken to and the community organizations that have worked on this issue for the last three or four decades have overwhelmingly said that we need to have ecological integrity for the park enshrined in the legislation. This is why our Minister of Environment and Climate Change undertook an extensive consultation process with the parties involved and came up with this bill.

I think it is important for my friend to recognize that this is the only park that would not have ecological integrity enshrined in the legislation if we do not bring these amendments. Every national park in the country has ecological integrity, but this does not. I think it is important for my friend to recognize that this is an important element that the community has asked for, and the government is responding to those needs.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank my friend for the invitation to Scarborough—Rouge Park. I will be happy to take him up on that at some point. I am sure the Conservative electoral district association there is looking forward to setting up some door-knocking for me.

With respect to the member's comments about what the community is looking for, the reality is that the concerns we have been raising are not just concerns we have. I will share something that was said at the environment committee in 2014. This is from Mr. Ian Buchanan, the manager of natural heritage and forestry, environmental promotion and protection in the Regional Municipality of York, who is clearly an important stakeholder in this discussion. He said:

The biggest threat would be picking the wrong end point, as was mentioned. Ecosystem health is a “yes”, but ecological integrity is unrealistic.

We have an important stakeholder, and this is just one example of someone coming before the environment committee. I think this is along the lines of what I was talking about.

We can certainly agree that preserving the health of ecosystems is important and that, obviously, preserving the natural environment is a core part of the purpose of the park. However, if we were to head in the direction of ecological integrity, it is unrealistic. Potentially, in terms of its interpretation, it could create some significant problems down the line, whether it is for the agricultural use of that land or other kinds of uses, so—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We will go to questions and comments.

I understand that people are very passionate about this topic, but this is questions and comments and not elaborate speeches. We have already been through that. I just want the member to keep that in mind.

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is eminently sensible in suggesting that we must strike a balance between protecting the environment and the human use of our environment. I wonder if he would acknowledge that part of that balance is having certain areas, such as national parks, in which we really do err on the side of protecting and preserving nature.