Evidence of meeting #34 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was farmers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Nature
I wouldn't call it picking and choosing, but I think you have to look at all components.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
You said in your statement that the draft federal legislation, Bill C-40, fails to offer the protection Rouge park deserves, contrary to existing provincial Rouge park policies. Then you compare that with the draft federal legislation and say that it does not prioritize ecological integrity in park management. You're comparing policies with legislation. Does that make sense to you? Is that a fair comparison?
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Nature
I think it's a fair comparison, because it's about the intent.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
In other words, you're stating that the Ontario government policies give greater protection to the park as it stands versus the federal. Is that what you're saying?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
The minister was here and she basically highlighted at length how the bill will not only meet but exceed in many cases the environmental protection that is currently being applied on these lands. Can you give us specific examples of how this bill will not meet or exceed the current environmental protection?
5:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Nature
I can't give you the specific wording because I don't have the provincial policies.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Do you know if the Ontario government is providing within their own legislation the level of protection for this land that they have specified?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Their current legislation of protection of the Rouge. Are they meeting their own standards? Can I put that to you?
5:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Nature
Are you talking about...? I'm sorry, can you clarify what you're asking?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Basically, the Ontario government has a certain level of protection they say they will meet within their own protective lands. Are they doing that in regard to the Rouge?
5:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Nature
Well, there is a number of different layers of protection on the Rouge, so I'm not sure what we're talking about specifically, because there's.... I need more specificity, I think.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Basically, the land as it is today is protected by the Ontario government. You're saying it's protected more than it would be under this bill. Is that what you're saying from a legislative standpoint?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Well, I don't agree with you.
I have a quick question for Mr. Whittamore.
We had CPAWS in front of us. I believe they said, as far as ecological health is concerned, that they want to maximize the amount possible. They said they support farmers, but you've been in a situation, and I believe Mr. McKay brought it forward. You can have an aggressive environment minister driving a bulldozer that may be affecting the ability to protect the land. You properly stated it could go exactly the other way. If we have in this legislation, in the legislative part of it, in regards to ecological health, to maximize the amount possible, does that give you comfort?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Yes. CPAWS would like to see ecological health protected to the maximum amount possible in this legislation.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
They would like to make sure that's in there. Would that comfort you to see that?
