Environment Committee on Oct. 27th, 2014

[Alan Latourelle]

Our next step is to work hand in hand with the territory to agree on the next step, because we at Parks Canada would not be out there by ourselves. We want to make sure that every step of the process, including public consultation engagement, is done in collaboration with our territorial partners.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Is there a priority timeframe to work on this?

[Alan Latourelle]

The Government of Canada has done a land withdrawal to look at the feasibility of establishing this national park. That land withdrawal is still in place, so we are still working with the Government of the NWT.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Ms. Leslie, you have four and a half minutes.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Great.

Thank you all, and thank you, Mr. Latourelle, for your opening remarks. I found them very useful in explaining and laying some things out for us.

I do understand the difference between legislation and a management plan. That's part of my problem, that I do understand the difference. I also know that ministers come and go, so I'm reluctant to rest a lot on the management plan, because it can be redrafted quite easily. I tend toward wanting to enshrine certain principles in legislation.

I do understand that the MOU doesn't mention ecological integrity. None of these other conversations mention ecological integrity, but the National Parks Act does, and that's the problem for me. The National Parks Act talks about maintaining ecological integrity, and then we have a new bill with a different—I'm not going to say “lesser” right now—definition. As I said to the minister, I get that maybe we need a different understanding of our level of protection for an urban park, but I don't quite understand how this is different from a town in Banff, how this is different from a highway in Cape Breton highlands.

Yes, the proportion is different. You mentioned the percentage in Rouge Park. But when you're creating a highway, when you're maintaining a highway, you still have this principle of maintaining ecological integrity.

I'm still not with you here. Can you help me get this?

[Alan Latourelle]

Mr. Chair, first I'll take a step back to the National Parks Act, because immediately people turn to subsection 8(2), which is the ecological integrity clause. But the real purpose of national parks is not that. It is part of the act, but the dedication clause, which has been there since 1930, is really the main purpose in dedication of national parks. It is for use, enjoyment, education in a way that leaves these places unimpaired for future generations.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Right.

[Alan Latourelle]

I think that is the starting point.

The second part of it is that when you look at Banff, as an example, you have close to 6,000 square kilometres of land adjoining Jasper National Park and another 10,000 square kilometres. You can have highways, but when you look at a place that's 16,000 square kilometres, we have been successful in maintaining the ecological integrity of that place based on the definition that's currently in the National Parks Act. It's not achievable here.

The other part of it is that people are asking why we need a definition. I think clause 6 is self-evident. It says the following:

The Minister must, in the management of the Park, take into consideration the protection of its natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes and the maintenance of its native wildlife and of the health of those ecosystems.

It is pretty self-evident, and it's not uncommon; for example, in 2002 the National Marine Conservation Areas Act, which we're responsible for, came into force, and it has no definition either.

From our perspective, that plus all of the other clauses in the bill, including, for example, the clause related to the management plan that guides what will be included in the management plan in terms of protection, I think will achieve the conservation outcomes that we want to achieve, because we are also governed by the Parks Canada Agency Act, and there are other aspects, such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and also the Species at Risk Act. Therefore, it's not a piece of legislation in isolation from all of the other pieces.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I hear what you're saying. I still am left with...it's not even a feeling; I believe a lot of these things need to be worked out in the legislation and not in the management plan. I believe we're smart people in this room. We can figure out a way to protect farmers and ensure they're not going to be evicted off their land. I know we can do that. It can be in the legislation, and everybody will understand. Yes, there's some different stuff we have to do here, because it's an urban park; I just don't accept that we should leave it to the management plan.

In my last seconds—you probably won't have time to answer this—I don't understand that the Rouge park bill has that clause, about dedicating the park for the benefit of the people of Canada. Am I wrong that it's not in the Rouge park bill but only in the National Parks Act?

[Alan Latourelle]

I think when you look at the—

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Is it only in the National Parks Act?

[Alan Latourelle]

It's only in the National Parks Act. For example, the Rouge park preamble is specific to Rouge park. It is a bill for this park only, not a system of urban parks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Ms. Leslie, we're now beyond the seven minutes.

We'll move to Mr. Sopuck, please.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I'll yield my time to Mr. Calandra.

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

I have a few questions.

I want to get back to farming. Some of you guys have been very active in that area. To the best of your knowledge, in the entire park, which spans from Lake Ontario to 19th Avenue, there used to be a lot more farming in what I call the southern part of the park, south of Steeles Avenue. I'm not wrong that the vast majority of that land to the south, with the exception of that bordering on Steeles Avenue, has been reforested. Am I correct on that?

[Andrew Campbell]

That's correct.

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

In terms of the land in this area, I'm correct also that this is class 1 farmland? If I'm not wrong, class 1 farmland is the most productive farmland or among the most productive farmland we have in the country.

[Andrew Campbell]

Perhaps I could just add, because I was somewhat responsible for the negotiations for the agreement with the Ontario government, that in fact the two major pieces within that Ontario government agreement, from a policy perspective, are the Oak Ridges Moraine and the greenbelt. In both of those, the vast majority, in fact eight of the twelve requirements under the acts.... If we go act to act, eight of the twelve are to protect the agricultural land within there. They have nothing to do with ecological integrity or ecological health. The main number, in both of these two acts, actually have to do with the protection of that class A farmland.

That's how it has been treated, and that's why we are treating it in the act in the same way.

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

I just want to go back; I misspoke before when I said it was 1997 and former minister Duguid. It was minister Duguid in 2007. Actually in 1997 it was under the Mike Harris government when thousands of acres of land were transferred to the Rouge Park to be protected, and it was in 2007 that the Ontario Liberals then took away that farmland to reforest it.

There is an article from June 21, 2010. Kelly Hatton, who had lived on that land for 32 years, was evicted. Her farmland was taken away and reforested, after having been assured that this would never happen. The quote from the Ontario government representative at the time was, “Nothing stays the same [...] things change”.

This is why our farmers in this area are extraordinarily worried. They hear the Ontario government all of a sudden starting to talk about ecological integrity, and they hear parties opposite cite Jim Robb, who was paid by the Rouge Park to plant trees in the Rouge under contract to the Rouge Park Alliance. When they hear him being cited as an individual, a reason why the Ontario government is not moving forward with the transfer of this land, this is why farmers tend to get worried.

Now I want to go back to this. In many speeches during this debate, people talked about the ecological corridor, the 600-metre corridor. That came up in speech after speech. In questioning, I was told it doesn't mean you have to evict farmers. That is perhaps true and perhaps it's not. The number that I was given from Jim Robb was that a minimum of 1,700 acres of class 1 farmland would be reforested.

When I spoke with my farmers in the area, they told me that it can't be done without evicting them. I spoke to, and you mentioned, Paul Reesor. He said it can't be done. That's why they support what you have done. It's probably the first time in 40 years that the York Region Federation of Agriculture has supported a government initiative in this area. It's the first time in 40 years that the Cedar Grove Community Association—since they were kicked off of their land, and their land has been expropriated by the Liberals in the past—has supported an initiative.

You know that I was opposed to the creation of the Rouge national urban park. The reason I was opposed to it was that I did not trust government when it came to working with my farmers.

Alan, we have had a lot of very difficult conversations in the lead-up to this. I have now come on side with the work you've done, based on what my farmers, the Cedar Grove Community Association, and the City of Markham have told me. There is a complete reversal in people's attitudes on this.

We have one of the most successful farm markets in that area, something called Whittamore's Farm. Thousands of people across the GTA visit Whittamore's Farm. He's going to be here. He's convinced that if an ecological corridor forms part of this, he will have to close, putting hundreds of people out of work.

This is why farmers are anxious.

Again, I want to get it on the record. How do you create this ecological corridor that has been supported by the members opposite in many speeches, without evicting farmers, and without taking a minimum, I'll say 1,700 acres; you said 2,000 acres? How can you do that? In your negotiations with farmers, is there any way that you think that could be done?

[Alan Latourelle]

I don't think it can be done without.... I think there are different options. If the option is the one that was thought about initially in 1994, I think it's not going to happen without significant impacts on the farming community. There are other options we are looking at that I think are achievable.

I must say that for the farming community, it's about taking the time—and Pam has done this in spades, and Andrew also—to meet with them on their land and have a discussion with them. They're great stewards of this great place. By working with them, working with other partners, landowners, and municipalities, I think we can achieve it, but not at where it was before. That would be my sense at this point.

Again, the management planning process will be dealing with that. Our objective is not to pursue it in the same way it was initially planned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Calandra.

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

Okay.

I have a quick question then, and anybody can answer.

In your discussions with farmers, have they ever been opposed to protecting the lands in addition to farming the lands? Have they ever said that they didn't want to be a part of protecting those lands?

[Andrew Campbell]

No. In fact, it's quite the contrary.

One of the things they are happy about in long-term leases is we would look at land.... In the past, because of the one-year leases, with drainage tiles and other things that have been broken or not replaced, they would be able to keep that land in productive land use and take other pieces of their land that they know would fit in better from an ecological perspective and have those be used for that purpose. We could take those lands out of their leases, have them pay for that land that is productive, and have them actually have ecological benefit.

We've had excellent conversations with the farmers around that, which I'm sure they'll be happy to talk to the group about.

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

Thank you.