Environment Committee on Oct. 31st, 2012

[Andrew Campbell]

That is correct.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

In terms of some of these areas where there may be encumbrances, may I say that it's perhaps a possibility that somewhere down the road, with enough time, some of the regulations that impact that land or some of the usages or other encumbrances might be dealt with, but that you just want to do this expeditiously and get as far as you can first. Is that a good summation?

[Andrew Campbell]

Yes. Certainly with the direction that we would receive from the government, Parks Canada would be happy to do the work that would be required if additional lands did become available.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay. Very good.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

You have a minute.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Regarding consultation, as I understand it, in 2012 there was a pretty extensive consultation process. There was, for example, an information piece dropped off to 26,000 residents in and around the park area. Can you tell me what the input has been? How many people have you heard from regarding the concept that you're developing?

[Andrew Campbell]

That number is interesting. During the Toronto International Film Festival, they closed down Yonge Street, and we put out information booths there. We talked to very many Canadians, to Torontonians. In terms of direct input, over 2,500 have filled out the online survey. We've had about 4,600 who have come to different events. We've run 120 different community consultations where we've had participation from 10 to 40 people to over 100 people. We have met with very many people, in the tens of thousands.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you so much. Your time has expired

Ms. Duncan, you have seven minutes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all of you for coming.

I notice a difference in language. Mr. Robb, you're very careful to talk about a national park, and Mr. Campbell talks about a national urban park. I don't have time to get into this, but I would ask, Mr. Robb, if you could table with the committee why you think it should be a national park.

Also, could Mr. Campbell table with the committee why it should be a national urban park?

Dr. Moola, did you have comments on that as well?

Could I ask the three of you to provide that, please?

I'm also concerned when I hear from Parks Canada that this national urban park is well aligned with Parks Canada's mandate of protection, education, and visitor experience, as well as the agency's current priority to meaningfully reach an increasingly diverse urban population.

Why I'm concerned, as a former scientist, is that I don't see the words “ecosytem” or “ecological health” there. If I look back at the pre-June 2012 plans, there was mention of protection and appreciation of the park ecosystem. If I look at it post-June 2012, again, there is no mention of the words “ecosystem” or “ecological health”.

Mr. Robb, could you address that, please?

[Jim Robb]

Yes. The public vision that has been developed—actually, of hundreds of thousands of people participating in processes over the last 22 years—has been always to protect and appreciate the park ecosystem. The public really appreciates that.

I've worked with over 50,000 people just in the last 12 years in bringing them out to the park, in taking them on nature walks. We had record-setting community meetings in Scarborough in the eighties, when we had over 1,000 people out to three consecutive municipal meetings about this.

It was always “protect and appreciate” the park ecosystem. Those words are not there in the national park vision—

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

So what would be your specific recommendation to this committee for its report?

[Jim Robb]

Well, basically, we've asked you to make five recommendations to the minister. We think that priority should be given to....The vision should basically be the one that's been there and adopted by the public for the last 22 years. It's a vision that's broad enough to allow you flexibility, but it's direct enough to represent a long-term vision for the park.

We'd ask you to recommend that Parks Canada adopt this vision that's been there in plans over the last 22 years.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

In 2009, I believe, the Rouge Park study area was 160 square kilometres of public lands. Post-May 2012, the study area was reduced to 57 square kilometres. It excludes important and existing areas of Rouge Park. It excludes the Rouge Valley and Milne Park in Markham. It excludes 36 square kilometres of federal lands within the greenbelt. I could go on.

Mr. Robb, could you address that, please? Can you identify to this group all the groups that want the larger study area? If you don't have a comprehensive list, could you table it later with the committee?

[Jim Robb]

Yes, I'd be happy to. I've mentioned a few: the World Wildlife Fund, Nature Canada, Ontario Nature, Great Lakes United, Environmental Defence Canada, and the Canadian Environmental Law Association. The list goes on.

We understand, as we said, that the study area should be big. There are rational reasons why the study area and the actual park might be smaller, but we don't think you should take it out of the study area. Yes, there has been some consultation, but that study area was defined before anything was taken out to the public, and we think you need to go through a fair, rational, and scientific process before you eliminate.

Let me give you an example: the Toronto Zoo lands. You have a facility there that's dedicated to biological diversity and enjoyment of nature. The valley lands next to it are some of the most sensitive in the whole Rouge. They have an environmentally sensitive area, an area of natural and scientific interest, to the north. To the south, they actually have a Carolinian Canada site—the most endangered habitat in Canada. Their lands are also endangered, but because Toronto is thinking of selling the zoo, they're not in the study area. That doesn't make sense. They should be in the study area, and there will be debate back and forth about it. Can we include them? What should happen?

The public would totally abhor the fact that next to the Toronto Zoo we're taking out the heart of the Rouge Valley lands that are in the park now. So there are lands that are in the park now that aren't in the draft park study area. It makes no sense to us.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

So the direct recommendation to the committee here is...?

[Jim Robb]

We make it the 100-square-kilometre study area and then we use a rational scientific public process to look at which sites. If there's a Transport Canada regulation that's too much of a problem on the airport lands, maybe that comes forward and they can't be included, but let's study them.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I was concerned when I heard you say, Mr. Campbell, that you want to move as quickly as possible. I understand that—you have a mandate—but we want it done right too. This is for the next generations. We want the scientific process and we want the public process.

If we look back to the provincial greenbelt plan, there is identified a 600-metre wide corridor for the Rouge. There is no mention of this main ecological corridor, which could be considered the ecological backbone of the park. I'm wondering if Mr. Robb and Dr. Moola might want to address that.

[Jim Robb]

I'd be happy to address it, and I'd like to put it in context too. In southern Ontario, 59% of southern Ontario is in agricultural use, and less than 0.26% of southern Ontario is in national parks. Only another 0.5%—about—is in provincial parks, so less than 1% of southern Ontario is in national and provincial parks.

We have this one little block of 100 square kilometres of public land left, so that ecological corridor is in an endangered life zone. It's crucial that it be part of the park. The actual omission of it from the park concept really makes us worry, because it's there in the greenbelt plan. It's provincial legislation. It's there in successive plans. It should be in the park concept.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Dr. Moola, please.

[Dr. Faisal Moola]

Last year Canada passed a very auspicious milestone, which was the 100-year anniversary of Parks Canada and our internationally renowned parks system. We've had many decades of science to look at the creation of our national parks system and at how to most effectively protect biodiversity. There's no question that we cannot create a national park that's an island in a sea of intensive development.

The David Suzuki Foundation actually supports a larger study area and, in fact, maintaining those intact areas like this ecological corridor.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mark Warawa]

Thank you so much.

We'll now begin our five-minute questioning.

We have a member of Parliament visiting us today from Surrey, British Columbia.

Welcome, Ms. Sims. You have five minutes.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

I want to say that it really is a pleasure to be here today to be talking about something as wonderful as our parks.

I'll address my remarks especially to my two colleagues, my friends from Surrey.

I'm sorry, Carrie. I missed your presentation, but I have had time to read it.

Ken, I heard yours as you were making it.

What Bear Creek Park represents to me is what can be achieved when all levels of government work together to realize the dreams and aspirations of citizens. That's what Bear Creek Park exemplifies today. As you said, it is an oasis right in the centre of the fastest-growing area in B.C., yet it is a wonderful oasis that is well used by its citizens in a variety of ways. It provides people with a lot of pleasure, both in organized activities and in walking through the trails.

I have a question for you, Ken. I have a very short time. Five minutes just fly by, and I could just spend all this time praising the City of Surrey and the citizens of Surrey for being so committed to our parkland.

When you look at Bear Creek Park, you see that it's one example of urban salmon-bearing streams that lack adequate protection in the context of the Lower Mainland. Can you talk about the challenges facing urban creeks, rivers, and tributaries?

[Kenneth Bennett]

Yes. Thank you for the question. I could talk for a very long time about that.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

You have a very short time.

[Kenneth Bennett]

In the urban setting, water quantity and quality is a big issue from the drainage from heavily urbanized impervious areas that feed the park in particular, and all urban areas, for that matter. Protecting the upland forested areas that connect to the protected riparian areas, as I said in my presentation, is lacking. Consequently, when you move out of the park system—Bear Creek Park being a bit of an exception, because it is a big large park in a urban section—the connectivity is fragmented beyond that.

Bear Creek, for instance, has a fairly good corridor, but once you move on, there's fragmentation all across the municipality. The City of Surrey is doing a biological diversity strategy to try to connect those dots again, but therein lies the problem, because we don't have the resources to start working through a connection on urban and private land.

When we come down to the very localized urban setting, unlike our Rouge Park counterparts who are talking about 100 square kilometres of national urban park, we're talking urban park settings in heavily urbanized areas. For that reason, and for all the same reasons, but on a smaller scale, I think we need to have those kinds of strategies in place to help protect those parks. The federal department can certainly help with that.