Environment Committee on Oct. 27th, 2014

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

You seem to be comfortable. They don't seem to be quite so comfortable. But we'll put that aside for the time being.

I want to address this false food fight with farmers. I had the privilege a couple of weeks ago of spending a day up with the farmers. I met with a whole bunch of them, including Paul Reesor, who was quoted by the minister. I spent the whole day with Paul. Since I have a farm background, I know quite well that farmers are probably some of the foremost, if not the foremost, stewards of land resources. They have a lot of great ideas which I think could quite easily be integrated.

What I keep circling back to is that if there's no legislated definition, if you're not actually prepared to deposit the plan based upon the definition here, they are as much in the dark as the rest of us. You might turn out to be eco-freaks for all I know, and poor Mr. Calandra's worst nightmares might come true that the whole place would be re-naturalized. I don't think that's ever going to happen. Nevertheless, it seems to me, for the purposes of comfort for ecologists and farmers alike, that a little precision in a definition wouldn't be amiss.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We'll now proceed to Ms. Sitsabaiesan for the next five minutes, please.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you to all of you here.

Before I start my questioning, I have a question for the clerk. I know that when the minister was here, she said that she was reading a list of differences between the provincial and federal laws, and she said she was willing to provide that. I'm wondering if the clerk can pursue that list for the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Yes. We'll proceed with that.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and the clerk.

With respect to farming, Mr. Calandra mentioned Whittamore's Farm. I go there all the time, because it's just north of where I live. By no means do I want to kick farmers off of their lands where they live and they farm.

The minister mentioned that sustainable farming will be developed in the area. Mr. Latourelle, in your remarks you also mentioned that we'll end the cycles of one-year leases and go to four-year leases. In turn the farmers will commit to improving environmental protections, contribute to the visitor experience...and the rest of your sentence there.

My question is, what does that mean? Does that mean that cash cropping will stop in these farmlands? Does that mean that pesticides will not be used anymore? What does that mean? I'd like to see a change towards sustainable organic farming in the community, because it's also affecting the groundwater tables.

I'm just asking you, what does that mean?

[Alan Latourelle]

To give you a very short answer, I think our objective is to work with the farming community on what are, within the farming industry, the best environmental standards. That's what we want to work with them on, and those that are accepted within that geographical area that have already been developed by the industry.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay, so it's a longer term working on best practices—

[Alan Latourelle]

Mr. Chair, there are some great best practices currently, so it's to continue working with them on that and working with education organizations and others. Again, first and foremost in our case would be for Parks Canada to work with the farming industry to develop those standards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I won't take this off the member's time, but speaking as a farmer myself, I can tell you that if you have a long-term view, you can implement such practices as crop rotation, which improves the health of the soil. There are all kinds of things you can do long term that you cannot do short term. I think that's part of the answer.

Please continue. You have another three minutes.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to the visitor experience and the protection of the cultural history and significance of the area, I know that it is home to the Mississauga, the Huron-Wendat, and Seneca first nations. Just two weekends ago I was in the park visiting the lands of where the ossuary used to be and where the aboriginal village site is below the ground. I'm wondering as part of the visitor experience and education of the park and moving forward if the aboriginal education centre for that area will be part of it. I think it's an important piece of the education and maintenance of the history of those lands. I'm just wondering if that's going to be part of the plans moving forward. Could you enlighten us, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Ms. Veinotte.

[Pam Veinotte, Field Unit Superintendent, Parks Canada]

We've been working with the first nations since November 2011. We set up an advisory circle with the 10 first nations so we could understand how they wanted to be involved and their hopes and aspirations for being involved in everything from protection to presentation. What we learned was they're very happy that they can be re-engaged in the park, because their engagement went by the wayside. They see themselves involved in many different projects and initiatives. Certainly getting their culture exposed to all the others who use the park and finding ways to show their settlement, their transportation routes that they had, will be an extremely important part of educating visitors, not just on one site, like Bead Hill national historic site, but also throughout the whole of the park. They don't want to be relegated to one area. They want to have the messages of first nations taken throughout the whole of the park.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Throughout the park, of course. I'm just wondering if the aboriginal education centre is part of that plan and if you could provide us with a list of the members who are in that consultation group.

[Pam Veinotte]

It is the seven Williams Treaty, the Six Nations and the Huron-Wendat, the 10, but we can give you the exact list if you'd like.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Would you please give the list to the committee through the clerk?

[Pam Veinotte]

Yes.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

We move now to Mr. Woodworth, for five minutes, please.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I want to direct my questions toward what I regard to be a bit of a word game going on in relation to the phrases “ecological health” and “ecological integrity”.

I believe you've directed us to the correct place in the memorandum of agreement, paragraph 2.09 (a), which commits the Government of Canada to develop policies that meet or exceed the provincial policies in the Greenbelt Plan 2005, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006, and the Big Move.

My general impression of those specific policies to which the federal government has committed itself is that they are land-use planning policies that determine what kind of development can go where and under what circumstances. Am I right about that, first of all?

[Andrew Campbell]

In general terms, yes.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Of course, land-use planning policies can have as an objective protection of ecological integrity or perhaps as an objective protection of ecological health, but the specific policies are what the Government of Canada has committed itself to. Correct?

[Andrew Campbell]

That's absolutely correct.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Let me be very specific about where the rubber hits the road here. I hope this isn't too technical, but I just at random drew out the Greenbelt Plan 2005, and in section 3.2.2 I see a title, “Natural Heritage System Policies”. For example, paragraph 4(a) of that section says:

Where non-agricultural uses are contemplated within the Natural Heritage System, applicants shall demonstrate that:

a. At least 30 percent of the total developable area of the site will remain or be returned tonatural self-sustaining vegetation

Can I count on the Government of Canada to ensure that policy and others within the Greenbelt Plan 2005 will apply to constrain development in the Rouge national park?

[Alan Latourelle]

Mr. Chair, what I can say is that we are establishing this national urban park for different reasons. First, clearly it's for conservation. That is clearly our objective, but it's not only that; it's also to ensure sustainable farming. In terms of our objectives, we will meet the objectives that were set out in those documents. There are some that we are challenged with, and there's a separate clause in the agreement that allows us to have a discussion with Ontario.

We've done a detailed review of all these documents, and we feel that we've met or exceeded those obligations.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That's really what I want to be sure about, that all of the policies that are in those land-use planning agreements referred to in paragraph 2.09(a) of the memorandum will, in fact, serve as a minimum basis for the requirements of development in this national park. If there's to be any development at all, none of those policies will be violated. Am I right about that?