Evidence of meeting #50 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was concept.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, External Relations and Visitor Experience, Parks Canada
Absolutely: as we're the ones who are in the process of putting those plans together, we've studied each of those plans as they've gone through—
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
So you're looking at them now to put them into action?
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, External Relations and Visitor Experience, Parks Canada
We have looked at each of those plans for what we would do as we go forward. We have looked at each of the plans very carefully. As we look towards the future, we're building on the best practices of the past and looking at how that sits within the federal framework.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
So are they being used today? That's my question.
Do Friends of the Rouge or the David Suzuki Foundation know?
4:55 p.m.
General Manager, Friends of the Rouge Watershed
I'd be happy to answer that. I have participated in almost all of these processes.
The current Rouge Park concept deviates significantly from the existing plans. For example, in the new vision of the Rouge national park concept, there's no mention of the words “ecology” or “ecosystem”. That's the primary vision of the existing Rouge Park, which has been approved multiple times over two decades. Another thing is the 600-metre wooded corridor. That's enshrined in provincial legislation through the green belt. It's in Rouge Park plans consistently. There's no mention of that 600-metre wooded ecological corridor within the Rouge Park concept.
I could give you more examples.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
But Mr. Campbell just said that's all being included in the plans going forward.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
It's not in the concept, but maybe it's being included in the plans going forward, so it's good to have that commitment.
I think it was you, Mr. Campbell, who said that when you did the consultation, the public was saying that they wanted the park to be protected and accessible for farming and conservation as well as public use. I know that my constituents and people who live further away.... For me, the park is in my backyard, but people who live further away in Toronto or in the greater Toronto area also want to use the park, this gem that is right near this urban community or these near-urban communities. What is being done to increase public use of the park? Is there anything being done to increase public access through public transit or bike trails?
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, External Relations and Visitor Experience, Parks Canada
On that front, we have been working with everybody from Metrolinx on being able to bring different types of public transport into the park and looking for access points for metro for GO trains—for those who aren't as familiar with Metrolinx and everything they own.... We've looked at that.
We've looked at what trails could go in there. We've met with the Waterfront Regeneration Trust to look at how their trail would join up. We've met with the Trans Canada Trail and looked at how that would match up. We've looked at many different areas. In fact, one of our nine guiding principles is access.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
My thanks to all the witnesses for your attendance here today. It's always a feast for the mind to listen to such good ideas.
Mr. Campbell, we've heard that the previous Rouge River plans have been studied in coming up with the current concept, but we have also heard that this concept doesn't include those plans. I'm having trouble integrating that. Can you explain for me why that would be, or if that's even true, or whether this concept is subject to further development as you go along? That's what I'd like to know.
5 p.m.
Vice-President, External Relations and Visitor Experience, Parks Canada
The concept was created as the consultation document. We organized many of the people who had been involved in all of those plans over the years, and together we came up with a concept paper that we could go out and consult on.
It's very difficult when you're out with a concept paper to get into tight specifics. As we start to move down into other areas, to look at what legislative process we may take, to look at what regulatory process we may take, and how the management plan for that area will be put together, many of these details will come to light and we'll be building on our work from the past.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I assume that the land assembly process is going to have an impact too. I'll come back to that in just a moment. You're nodding your head yes—
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
Vice-President, External Relations and Visitor Experience, Parks Canada
Okay.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
For example, this 600-metre forested corridor that we've heard about, that's not written out of the concept, is it?
5 p.m.
Vice-President, External Relations and Visitor Experience, Parks Canada
Absolutely not.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Okay. That's what I thought.
Getting back to the question of land assembly, you've just told me that the land assembly will have an impact on how the details of the concept unfold. I'm having a little difficulty, but am I right that the land assembly also has an impact on the proposed study area? Can you just illuminate that relationship for me?
5 p.m.
Vice-President, External Relations and Visitor Experience, Parks Canada
Yes, that's correct.
There are certain areas within what was considered—within the 100 square kilometres—that in the land assembly become difficult in terms of encumbrances on those lands that would make it difficult for us to assemble them, or in current legislative processes that we have between, let's say, the city, where one of the areas in the middle of the park is a former landfill site that still has leaching ponds in it.
It's very difficult for the federal government and the municipal government to come to an exchange on these types of lands at nominal value when the remediation would end up on the federal side, so some of those are excluded.
There are areas in the Pickering lands that still are part of the study area for the airport in the east end of Toronto. That's under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada, so we excluded those as well.
So some of it is because of the encumbrances on the current land....
5 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
If I could paraphrase it in more informal language, you're telling me that the Government of Canada cannot order the Government of Ontario to turn over some of those parcels. Is that correct? Some dumbing down of that...?
5 p.m.
Vice-President, External Relations and Visitor Experience, Parks Canada
That would be correct, and there would be some that we just would not do that for, because of the way we would move through who would end up with the liability, but we can come up with an associated land type of agreement with different levels of government.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
The word “liability” brings me to the next question. I want you to just expand a little on what you mean by “encumbrances”, which might prevent certain areas from being incorporated into the land assembly?
5 p.m.
Vice-President, External Relations and Visitor Experience, Parks Canada
For instance, on the study area with the Transport Canada lands, there is a regulation that says what that area is, and the only area that we have included of the former airport lands would be the area that doesn't have that encumbrance or that regulatory framework on it today.
But there are also some along...that either the Toronto regional conservation area.... For instance, it's often been said of the zoo lands, “Why have we not put those in?” They're used for a totally different use, so from our perspective, it would not make sense in the legislative framework.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
What I think I heard you say earlier was that the desire is to go forward in as expeditious a manner as possible with what is accessible now. Did I hear that correctly?
