Environment Committee on Oct. 27th, 2014

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Chairman, I'll refer the question to Andrew Campbell. Thank you.

[Andrew Campbell, Vice-President, External Relations and Visitor Experience, Parks Canada]

Over the past two years, we in fact have established with all of the landholders a landholders' table, where we have looked at everybody who currently has ownership of any land within the park study area. We set that up and have had a meeting at least once a month with that group to advise us on things like how to bring the management plan forward, how to meet the commitments. Every one of the landholders in fact has had clauses within their land transfer agreement to say—

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

May I interrupt, just to get clarification. Is that group what you would call the transition advisory committee?

[Andrew Campbell]

That group has worked as the transition advisory committee.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

It has worked as that.

[Andrew Campbell]

Yes.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.

I have some questions about “meeting or exceeding”. You're probably familiar with that phrase because the memorandum of understanding between the federal government and the provincial government states that in the creation and management and administration of the park, provincial policies—and it does say “policies”; it doesn't say “legislation”—will be met or exceeded.

I wonder, Minister, if you could talk about.... I don't understand right now how this legislation as it's currently written will be meeting or exceeding a lot of other pieces of legislation, including the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, for example. There are a number of policies and pieces of legislation. Can you help us understand how this meets or exceeds them? I think it falls below.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

I'm going to go through a list of where there's a difference between the province and what is proposed.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this bill would not allow mining on the land. The province does not have that covered. It prohibits removal of native plants and fossils on the land. Again, the province does not have that protection. It directly prohibits hunting on the land. Again, the province does not have that. It allows for full protection under the Species at Risk Act, which the province does not cover. It also effectively covers waste dumping. Again, the province does not have that. The fines and penalties for illegal activity such as poaching are equivalent to those in the national parks. Again, the province does not have that covered. There are year-round dedicated enforcement officers. Again, the province does not cover that. The full protection of the park from Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine is covered. The province, again, does not have that. It also provides an ecological link between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine. The province doesn't cover that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Minister, thank you. I think we're getting the gist of it. We're well over the minute. Maybe we could come back to this at a future time or you could weave it into another answer. Thank you for your response. Sorry, but we're well over the time.

We'll move to Ms. Ambler for seven minutes, please.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Minister and team, for joining us today to talk about this wonderful project. I want to thank you for making this a priority for the government. I represent a riding which, as you may know, is located just to the west of Toronto and Highway 416, so I suspect that many of my constituents already do and will continue to enjoy the Rouge national urban park.

I also had the privilege of serving on the environment committee when we studied the national conservation plan and gave input to the then minister on what it should include. I want to thank you for taking up that advice this committee gave as well, because there was a focus on urban environmentalism. I can tell you that in Mississauga South, which is located on Lake Ontario, and the Credit River runs through my riding, my constituents and I are very proud of our beautiful lake and river. It is part of who we are.

I know that the people of the greater Toronto area appreciate this park and will use it. It will serve to inform generations of Canadians, millions of Canadians, who live very close by. I want you to know that their priority is conservation and environmental stewardship. It's not just people who live in rural areas and in northern Canada who appreciate the environment, so thank you for recognizing that.

I want you to know, too, Minister, that I invited my colleague Bob Sopuck to my riding. He laughed when he found out that you could drive from one end of my riding to the other in about 10 minutes, but he still appreciated the beautiful Rattray Marsh.

This park is basically an extension, I think, for the whole GTA to enjoy. Also, finally, thank you for backing it with a significant funding commitment.

Minister, all that said, it's clear that this is an unprecedented project on a grand scale. Can you tell us what the benefits are of branding this a national urban park instead of just a traditional national park?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you for that question.

I'm proud to be part of this project, in that it's the first of its kind in Canadian history: we're creating a national urban park protected through legislation. This particular park is 16 times larger than Central Park in New York City. I think we should be proud of that as well in terms of the work that we've done to do this.

The national urban park designation also provides a great approach that's tailor-made for a park's unique setting in Canada's largest city. The legislation is designed by recognizing the surroundings of where this is going to be located. Also, this new model for protected area management embraces the integrated conservation approach that recognizes the park's urban surroundings and the presence of working farms, the built heritage, cultural landscapes, major highways, roads, and rail. All of those were factored into the design of this, and it is unique and supports a designation for all Canadians in that region to enjoy.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

You mentioned that the current bill provides stronger environmental protection than what exists under provincial policies, but I think you might have wanted to say a bit more about that. Perhaps you could tell us more.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Yes, thank you. I can also provide a list, a comparison that identifies what's protected under...what's included in this bill as opposed to the province where it does not include....

Our government has created the Rouge national urban park act, the first of its kind in our country. To elaborate a bit on the crafting of that particular legislation, it goes well beyond the existing policies, which I'll provide, and it brings together the patchwork of activities that had occurred before, bringing it together under one legislation. I mentioned before that mining and hunting are prohibited under certain legislation, applying where the Ontario government's current policies and legislation are weaker in different areas. Parks Canada's 2014 draft Rouge national urban park management plan also strengthens and supports the provincial goals, including an ecological link between Lake Ontario and Oak Ridges Moraine and the protection of a prime agricultural area, which was very important to many of the farmers I met with.

The draft management plan also reinforces the province's Oak Ridges Moraine conservation plan by protecting the prime agricultural areas while conserving and connecting national heritage in those areas. Provisions have also been made to support the transit and road infrastructure identified in agreements with the province and regional and municipal governments.

That's it.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You still have 30 seconds.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

I'm good. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We'll move to Mr. McKay, for seven minutes, please.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for appearing.

Minister, we've all received this briefing book. I'm assuming that you have it as well. Perhaps you could turn to tab 3 and look at the map being proposed for the lands. I'm looking at that map and looking at the amount of land that the Province of Ontario has withdrawn from the bill. Not only are they lands that the Province of Ontario owns but also the lands it has through the TRCA under a reversionary trust and possibly all others.

Minister, in light of the decision however some might characterize it or impute motive to it, how can this bill proceed with this substantial amount of land actually not in the park?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the provincial portion of the land represents 44%.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

That's 44% of the 58 square kilometres.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Yes.

In this particular map, the pink area is the provincial part, and it's 44%.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

For argument's sake, the lands that you're proposing are about 30 square kilometres in the south end of Markham. Is that correct?

[Alan Latourelle, Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada]

No, Mr. Chair, what we are proposing is 58 square kilometres as the proposed study area in the park area. At this point we are still working with Ontario for them to deliver on their commitment that we made jointly.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I get that. You would like to continue to work with Ontario, but in light of the minister's announcement, there doesn't seem to be much that you have to work with, shall we say.

At this point, it's in the order of about 56% of the 58 square kilometres. The question in my mind is why this bill is going forward unless you have this arrangement with the Province of Ontario, because it will be a shadow of what it should be as a park.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

I disagree with you on that, in that we can proceed with the creation of the national urban park. As I mentioned before, I am quite disappointed with the Ontario Liberal government. I think they are playing politics with this issue. The environment minister, with all the discussions we've had with the provincial government, has been very supportive of this initiative. In September another cabinet minister of the Liberal government announced otherwise. Clearly there is a divide between caucus members of that government, but we'll continue to work with the government to draw this to a conclusion.

We can proceed with the creation of this park as proposed.