Environment Committee on Oct. 27th, 2014

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I've had a glance through some of the clauses of this bill. I know, for example, that clause 4 establishes the protection and presentation of natural and cultural heritage. Clause 6 requires the minister of the day to manage the park taking into consideration “the protection of its natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes” and “the maintenance of...native wildlife and...the health of...ecosystems”. I'm told that clause 7 is a first in federal legislation in creating a protection regime for “cultural resources”. Clause 9 requires management plans to address the protection of natural and cultural heritage and so on.

There is a lot of protection of natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes mandated in this bill, but at the same time, we know that, as I looked at the map, Highway 401 runs right through the middle of this park. I think there are also some hydro lines.

The question I want to put to you is, how does this bill allow for necessary public infrastructure development in the park while at the same time protecting the environment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Woodworth, that was a great question, but we're well beyond your time to allow an answer. Maybe we'll have to ask for that answer in writing.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Or maybe someone in the opposition will pick that up.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We'll now move to Mr. Harris for five minutes.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you to the minister for being here.

Mr. Woodworth forgot that there's a pipeline going through the park as well, the line 9B pipeline. There have certainly been some proposals that perhaps it should be moved adjacent to one of the other big pieces of infrastructure, such as one of the roads or highways going across, so as to ease access should there ever be a problem there. Then we're getting into navigable waters and the lack of stop valves on either side of the Rouge in order prevent any potential spill from becoming an unmitigated disaster.

I want to go back to the minister's speech and also the comments on what on the surface seems like a very good list of protections that are over and above what the provincial protections are.

Minister, is there much mining or hunting going on in the Rouge currently?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

In some areas I believe there are some hunting activities. In the area of mining, no, but the bill does not allow mining development in a park.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I ask the question because you yourself have said that it's a national urban park, so there are actually some differences from normal parks that have to be taken into consideration. Your mentioning of it in your speech is actually the first time I've heard mining brought up in the context of this park. It is an urban area, where we don't typically have mining or hunting. I can only imagine how fast the Toronto police response would be to guns going off in the park. Poaching typically is not a very difficult problem in that park. There are occasionally some fishermen who might not have a licence who go in and pull some fish out, and on a rare occasion perhaps somebody might go hunting for a deer, but I've never personally heard of those issues. I think it's a bit of a red herring talking about those issues, because they don't so much apply to the park.

It's other issues that are actually of concern with respect to the protections that the park provides. My colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River mentioned the Morningside tributary. There's also the Rouge River Valley. The Rouge River headlands for the waterways are not included in the park and are at this point not seeming to be getting any protections, which actually causes problems further downriver.

What will Parks Canada be doing to try to protect the upper areas of the waterways so as to ensure that silt and other contaminants don't end up in the river, end up downstream, and end up into Lake Ontario?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Chair, I will address some of the areas he mentioned.

Poaching is an issue in that area. Illegal dumping is an issue in that area. Illegal fishing is an issue in that area. If these issues had not been raised, we wouldn't have considered them. They are in this particular bill because they were in fact issues raised by stakeholders in the over 110 consultations we had with provincial governments, municipal governments, as well as the people who live in those areas. They are there and are identified as issues.

As well, this is a park in the process of being created. Bringing in all the stakeholders to hear how we would set this up was necessary. It is the first national urban park. It is different from a national park, and its provisions and clauses will be different. We have to identify the specific issues that are not necessarily identified in national park legislation.

I'll have Alan elaborate further.

[Alan Latourelle]

Mr. Chair, the other aspect is that we face that same challenge in a lot of our national parks also where the headwaters or the wildlife corridors are outside the park or migrate through the park. It's working through the broader ecosystem and working with adjoining landowners to develop strategies together that we've been able to achieve our conservation objectives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

We'll move for the last four minutes to Mr. Sopuck.

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

To follow up on Mr. Woodworth's questioning, how does this bill allow for infrastructure development in the park while protecting the environment?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

On infrastructure, to meet with provincial and municipal landholder requirements, Bill C-40 provides the legislative framework needed in an urban setting. At the same time, the framework will allow Parks Canada to effectively manage and protect the park while allowing for future public infrastructure needs, such as utilities or transportation corridors.

The bill itself sets a strict limit of 200 hectares as the amount of land that can be disposed of for these purposes and for only these three purposes that I've identified. As well, under the Rouge national urban park act, the Government of Canada cannot dispose of or sell any of the lands for private development.

Thank you.

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

Okay, and just getting to the question of ecological health versus ecological integrity, I'm quite amused by that. It's quite frankly a distinction without a difference.

Would you agree, Mr. Latourelle or Minister, that what's important is ecological processes? That's what we're really talking about, right? It's about conserving and protecting the vital ecological processes. Regardless of whether it's ecological health or ecological integrity, it's all about those processes. Is that correct?

[Alan Latourelle]

It is correct, but within the conditions and within the area where the park or the protected area is established.

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

Is that...[Technical Difficulty—Editor] As I look at those two concepts, one of them implies ecological integrity and almost implies large areas in the absence of humans where natural processes continue, whereas ecological health refers to the areas where humans tend the land under a conservation ethic. There's more human involvement in ecosystems where we use the term “ecological health”. Is that a fair distinction?

[Alan Latourelle]

It is a fair distinction, but I think the other part of it is the type of use of the land. For example, in the Rouge national urban park, a significant component is the land that we've agreed on and are working productively with the farmers. That, for example, would not be able to achieve the ecological integrity objective within that context, but we can demonstrate environmental leadership by working collaboratively with them.

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

Again, just looking at certain ecological processes, if we look at the current park as proposed, the hydrological cycle is still continuing, isn't it?

[Alan Latourelle]

That exists currently, and in fact, our objective is to improve it.

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

Yes, and in terms of ecological processes such as aquifer recharge and water purification by wetlands, those are features of that park. The wetlands are largely intact and the woodlands are largely intact. Is that correct?

[Alan Latourelle]

There are several parts of the park that have been disturbed. Again, I think part of our overall objective is to protect and improve the ecological health of that park.

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

Again, some kinds of human disturbance can be classified as—quote, unquote—stewardship, whereby the land is tended carefully and people reap economic gain while at the same time ensuring ecological processes continue.

[Alan Latourelle]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Minister, for being with us today and for bringing us up to date on the proposals for Bill C-40.

Our first hour is over. I'm going to call a three-minute recess. Our officials from Parks Canada will remain with us.