Environment Committee on Oct. 27th, 2014

[Andrew Campbell]

Our agreement is that we would meet or exceed, and our goal is certainly to meet or exceed. We do have section 2.10 in the agreement, which says that where we are in conflict, we have a mechanism, which has not been noted in the press, to rectify that. In the plans and policies that they've asked, if you read them together as plans and policies, you'll notice there are, in fact, a number that are contradictory. Where those are contradictory, we are trying to meet the four goals that are in the act, and to have an integrated way of moving those forward. In fact, as a land-planning document, the Big Move is quite contradictory to some of the other plans that are within what's being asked for. We are trying to meet or exceed all of them, and I think that's something that has not been noted to date.

That is why we put in section 2.10, because the Government of Ontario has contradictory policies over the management of this land.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Have you had to invoke section 2.10 in your negotiations up to this point, or has it been all smooth sailing in terms of recognizing and respecting those policies?

[Andrew Campbell]

One of the amazing parts about this, Mr. Chair, is that in the consultation for our management plan, or in the act, we have not had a single instance that the Government of Ontario can point to where we have not met...and we have asked them specifically for that. There has been nothing, in specifics, where they cannot meet....

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

The time is up. Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.

We'll move to Mr. Harris, for five minutes, please.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thanks to our witnesses again for being here. It's great to see Pam here today. We were just chatting during the break. It was actually over two years ago that we first met to discuss issues around the park. Things are moving forward, but these things do, unfortunately, sometimes take a lot of time. It's important when developing a national park of any kind to get it right.

When we had the minister here, I was asking some questions about mining and poaching and hunting. The minister had spoken about how there would be year-round dedicated law enforcement officers in the park, which is also not the case under the province. Of course, this being an urban setting, the province isn't dealing with policing; it's the Toronto police and Durham Region and York Regional Police.

I'd simply ask how law enforcement done by Parks Canada would be integrated in working with those different police forces that already monitor the park.

[Alan Latourelle]

Mr. Chair, I think we have more than 100 years of experience through our park wardens and law enforcement.

I'll use Banff as an example, but you can look at most of our national parks where there is, as in the case of Banff, an RCMP detachment that deals with all the criminal investigations. Our responsibility is really focused on natural resource management, but we do collaborate and develop some agreements with them to ensure we're supportive of each other's mandate. Clearly, in the case of the Rouge national urban park, we would do the same with all these police organizations. We would develop an MOU, work with them, and support them, and they would support us when required. That has worked extremely well from Newfoundland to B.C.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I thought the question deserved to be raised because again we are talking about a new situation with an urban park, and it's not the RCMP, but in fact three different police forces. If you went along the waterfront, technically you could add CBSA as well because you have entry potential from the United States. There are certainly some things to figure out.

It would be on natural resource management, but does this mean that other security issues are going to be deferred to the police in Toronto, or York Region, or Durham, depending on where in the park for instance something might take place?

[Pam Veinotte]

I wanted to say our park wardens will be committed to enforcing the legislation and to protecting natural, cultural, and agricultural resources.

Right now that's done by a collection of conservation officers in other jurisdictions such as the province who are not stationed in the park. Our park wardens will be stationed in the park, and they will be dedicated to enforcing whatever legislation does apply to the Rouge—the act, the Species at Risk Act, and so on. That's really what they are going to be there to do.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

This might be difficult to provide an answer to at this time, but roughly how many wardens do you think a park like this would need?

[Alan Latourelle]

First, I think we need to understand what our legal obligations are as an agency. What I would say is there is a very significant investment. The minister mentioned $143 million over 10 years, so it's more than $14 million a year.

We will have a good mix of investment in law enforcement, but also in restoration, and also in science, and all of our programs for resource conservation.

We will look at it. I think part of it is although Parks Canada has been involved in this for three years now, we still have to do more research in terms of the operationalizing of our operation. On that part of it I think we still need to do some work.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

That was why I said it might be difficult to give an answer, but those are the kinds of questions people are always curious about with respect to their own safety within the park grounds.

I mentioned earlier about the crossing of the line 9 pipeline. Is there anything planned vis-à-vis Parks Canada to ensure stronger protections or risk mitigation vis-à-vis the pipeline going across the park? Is Parks Canada envisioning doing anything there to help try to stave off the potential for something negative to happen?

[Andrew Campbell]

Yes, Mr. Chair. First, all of the regulations concerning pipeline safety would be in force, but as people will note, the Government of Ontario has actually asked for that land to be excluded from the park land. It would continue to be within the Ontario government's regime of land management because that line runs through the hydro corridor, which they have excluded from the transfer of the plan. In fact, the Ontario government would continue to own the land in which the pipeline goes through.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

That's good. Thanks.

We'll move now to Mr. Calandra, for the last five minutes, please.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you all for coming. I appreciate that. I'm happy the member for Scarborough—Guildwood spent the day with the farmers in the area. These are the same farmers who have been farming the land for 200 years, but he spent a day there so he has become professional on what they like. I thank him for spending that one day.

Speaking of friends of the Rouge, let's talk about Friends of the Rouge. The member for Scarborough—Guildwood, I believe the member for Scarborough Southwest, the member for Markham—Unionville, and the member for Etobicoke North submitted petitions from the Friends of the Rouge to the House. As we know the Friends of the Rouge plant thousands of trees in the park each year. They said that this plan ignores the ecological vision and policies of the former cooperatively run Rouge Park including a 600-metre wide forested main ecological corridor.

The Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood and two other Liberal members of Parliament and the member for Scarborough Southwest submitted petitions to Parliament calling for this 600-metre corridor to be enacted. We've heard that will take thousands of acres of class 1 farmland out of production. We know that will mean the eviction of farmers despite the fact they are trying to now back up and say that no, they don't want to evict farmers. We know that's what the result of that will be. I would suggest to you that's why farmers don't actually trust what they are saying. This is why farmers don't trust what the provincial government is doing, because the other parties to this in our House of Commons actually support and have submitted petitions to that end.

That's more of a comment than a question.

Is there mining in the park? I want to ask this. Is there actually any mining in the park?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but Mr. Calandra's characterization of supporting the petitions, it's been widely done—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

That's not a point of order. That's debate.

Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Is there mining in the park?

[Andrew Campbell]

There is no mining in the park currently, but because it is germane to the discussion on the policies, the policy on the Oak Ridges Moraine, which the park borders, and the greenbelt—two of the major issues—if you talk to any of the environmental or farming groups, there is an open pit aggregate mine in it between the park boundary and Markham airport. You could throw a baseball from the park and hit an aggregate mine—

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

—which speaks to why we put that in the legislation, which some found humorous earlier, but it is a reality. Because I live in the area, I would know that.

Is most of this class 1 farmland being farmed? In his presentation, the member for Scarborough Southwest suggested that these lands aren't being farmed.

[Andrew Campbell]

The vast majority of it is, yes.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you.

To the best of your knowledge, has the province ever met its own standards in managing this park?

[Andrew Campbell]

To the best of our knowledge, they have not met the standards of land management in the park, and I'll just leave it at that.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

To the best of your knowledge, has the province ever indicated its desire or brought forward legislation to make this a provincial park?

[Alan Latourelle]

Mr. Chair, I did quite a bit of research when we were initially approached, and that was not the case. The federal government at the outset put in $10 million. Since then the province has invested a lot in the acquisition of land, but I have not seen anywhere the concept of a provincial park being proposed.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

My understanding of this, and I've been on this a bit, is that in the early 1970s the Trudeau Liberal government expropriated this land, evicted farmers, and put them on one-year leases. Then Brian Mulroney and the Conservative government set aside $10 million. Nothing further happened. Bob Rae's government created the Rouge Park Alliance to manage the park. David Peterson, the Liberal premier, promised the park, but in the tradition of the Liberals, did nothing about it. I'm not sure. Jean Chrétien promised everything in one of his many red books, but never fulfilled any of the promises, unless they were done by a Conservative government in advance. Then Mike Harris transferred thousands of acres of land to help sustain a growing Rouge Park. Then our government created the Rouge national urban park—