Environment Committee on Oct. 29th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

We're going to move on to the—

[Pauline Browes]

I'm just responding to some of the debates that have been taking place in the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

We'll move to Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you to all of you for being here. I have five minutes and a lot of questions.

Ms. Empringham, you were mentioning that the farmers are already using best management practices. Currently, you said that farmers are using environmental farm plans. What does that mean?

[Kim Empringham]

An environmental farm plan is a plan that was created by farmers. It is a plan that comes with a workshop. You sit down with a binder that shows what.... It's basically around water health and environmental health. You look at your farm based on the criteria that are in the book. It will help you decide if there are areas on your farm that you can improve. It's a plan going forward.

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

Is there somewhere that it's available, maybe online, and people can see it?

[Kim Empringham]

Yes, the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association helps to run the program, and it's available there.

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

All right, maybe we'll have a look. Clearly, it's a big thing and—

[Kim Empringham]

For best management practices, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has a whole set of best management practice books that you can look at.

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

Okay.

I know that sustainability is an issue. Buying local and eating local is an important piece for me personally, and I know it is for the NDP. I have two questions that I'll roll into one.

I don't want to see the farmers kicked out, but I do want to see more sustainable farming practices. If you say they're already being done, then that's great. My question is, to what extent are pesticides and fertilizers being used on the farmlands that are going to be within the park? How can we make sure that there is more community farming or local farming that might be a way, as Ms. Browes said, to have children interact or people who live in the urban jungle actually interact with the farms and maybe have some sort of community farming initiative happen somewhere?

[Kim Empringham]

As far as the pesticides and fertilizers that are being used are concerned, they are being used according to the regulations. To be able to buy pesticides, farmers need to take a course to understand how to use them properly. Using integrated pest management means that you look at the pests that might be there on a regular basis and decide at the proper time to only use them when necessary and the amount.

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

Pesticides and fertilizers are being used according to the rules—

[Kim Empringham]

—and regulations, yes.

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

Okay.

[Kim Empringham]

As for people being able to come out to experience farms, there are some farms in the park now that have pick your own. If you're thinking more along the lines of agricultural education type farms, that was one of the suggestions that Parks Canada put forward in the management plan, a demonstration-type farm. Over time, especially because the average age of farmers in York region is 58, we're going to have some retire, and so there will easily be a spot that—

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

Pardon me, Ms. Empringham, I'm going to cut you off, because I have less than two minutes right now.

Mr. Hébert-Daly, you mentioned international obligations that we have to conservation and you said that conservation should be a priority and that without conservation, we wouldn't have this park.

What does that mean? What are the international standards that we need to be looking at for this park? Why is this important?

[Éric Hébert-Daly]

Well the IUCN, which is the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, is essentially the body that sets international standards for what is considered to be a protected area. The IUCN definition says that it's:

a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.

That's their definition. They particularly say and clarify in their guidance that only those areas for which the main objective is conserving nature can be considered protected areas. There is a prioritization laid out in the IUCN definition, which in our view is one of the key reasons that having it as a primary lens for management decisions is so important and so vital to the park.

This does not need to come into conflict with other uses. In fact, the legislation has the visitorship, the agricultural pieces, and all those other goals. In fact, it says that it can include many areas with other goals as well at the same level, but that in case of conflict, nature conservation is the priority. It's about using it as a filter through which you look at all those decisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much. Our time is up.

I want to thank each of our witnesses for being here today.

Our first hour is up. We are going to have a three-minute recess before we reconvene to hear our next witnesses.

Thanks to each of you for your time and for your opening statements, which are very helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

There has been a little confusion in terms of witnesses. We were expecting three; we have two.

Tim Gray, from Environmental Defence, was supposed to be here. He's going to be represented by Caroline Schultz, from Ontario Nature. Welcome. We also have Mike Whittamore, from Whittamore's Farm.

We'll proceed in the order they're listed.

We'll proceed with Caroline Schultz for her opening seven-minute statement.

Welcome.

[Caroline Schultz, Executive Director, Ontario Nature]

Good afternoon, members of the committee. I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to share with you our recommendations on Bill C-40.

As mentioned, I'm speaking on behalf of Ontario Nature and Environmental Defence. My name is Caroline Schultz and I'm the executive director of Ontario Nature.

Ontario Nature is a charitable organization that works to protect wild species and wild spaces through conservation, education, and public engagement. We represent over 30,000 members and supporters, and 154 member groups across the province of Ontario.

Since our organization was founded as the Federation of Ontario Naturalists in 1931, Ontario Nature has been the voice for nature throughout the province, protecting and restoring natural habitats while connecting thousands of individuals and communities with nature. Over our 84-year history, Ontario Nature has played an instrumental role in establishing most of the province's protected areas.

Ontario Nature and Environmental Defence supports the creation of Rouge national urban park. The park has great potential to protect biodiversity while protecting healthy local food production and connecting urban dwellers in the most heavily populated region of Canada to the national park system.

However, if Rouge national urban park is to realize its full potential, we believe that Bill C-40 must be amended to clearly prioritize ecological integrity.

Here are specific recommendations:

First, we are asking that there be a requirement that ecological integrity be the first priority of the minister in park management. Bill C-40 affords significantly weaker protection to the natural environment than either the Canada National Parks Act or Ontario's Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act. In both of these statutes, ecological integrity must be the first priority of the minister in making management decisions about the park.

In contrast, Bill C-40 omits any mention of ecological integrity, a concept that is integral to the very purpose of the other two laws, nor does it require the park to be managed to protect wildlife and natural ecosystems. Rather, it leaves this critical element of park management up to the discretion of the minister. In other words, the minister need only take protection of natural ecosystems into consideration in managing the park.

Clause 6 should be amended to require and ensure that the protection of the natural environment is prioritized in park management.

On a second point, we believe that the schedule needs to be revised to include in the park approximately 48 square kilometres of publicly owned lands that are under federal jurisdiction. The Rouge Valley connects Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine. The lands described in the schedule, however, will not protect this important ecological corridor. There is a wall of urban development around the town of Stouffville that effectively cuts off the Oak Ridges Moraine from Lake Ontario.

The schedule excludes about 48 kilometres of publicly owned federal lands that are currently available immediately adjacent to the proposed park. By including these adjacent lands in the park, the critically important ecological corridor between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine would be secured once provincial lands are transferred. The park would almost double in size, making it far more likely that biodiversity and ecosystem services will be conserved.

On a third point, we believe that the management plan requirements need to be strengthened by explicitly including details about ecological objectives, indicators, monitoring, and reporting. Clause 9 of Bill C-40 sets out details about what must be included in a park management plan, but it lacks in particulars regarding ecological elements to be included. We recommend that subclause 9(1) be amended to require that the management plan include ecological integrity objectives and indicators, provisions for ecological monitoring and reporting, and performance evaluation.

With respect to evaluation, we also recommend that a state of the park report be tabled in the House of Parliament every five years.

From a science perspective, size and landscape connectivity are vital considerations in designing protected areas. We therefore recommend that these adjacent federal lands be included in the schedule.

As point four, we recommend that there be provisions added to ensure that potential adverse ecological impacts are duly considered when decisions are made regarding infrastructure installation or maintenance.

Clause 12 sets out the powers of the park superintendent regarding clearing of land for infrastructure installation or maintenance, and clause 16 sets out the right to dispose of lands within the park for the purpose of installing or maintaining infrastructure. Such activities have the potential to adversely affect wildlife, ecosystems, and ecological integrity. To ensure that these issues are adequately considered and addressed, we propose that each of these clauses be revised to include requirements to consider reasonable alternatives and to minimize and where possible avoid environmental impacts.

Also, please note that we support the 200 hectare limit for transfers, as currently stated in the bill.

Our point number five is to strengthen the preamble. We recommend amending the preamble of the bill so that it first of all, explicitly includes the restoration of natural heritage, and second, avoids the vague and undefined term “diverse landscapes”. We believe that Rouge urban national park offers an exceptional opportunity to protect and celebrate nature and our agricultural heritage. Both nature and farming are specifically mentioned in clause 4, and “diverse landscapes” detracts from this clarity of purpose.

I'd like to thank you for your time and the opportunity to share Ontario Nature's and Environmental Defence Canada's recommendations with you. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Ms. Schultz.

We'll move to Mike Whittamore for his statement and then we'll come back to questions.

[Mike Whittamore, Whittamore's Farm]

Members of the committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you today about the importance of agriculture in the Rouge national urban park.

“The farmers in the Rouge operate industrial factory farms intensively producing monoculture corn and they pollute the Rouge River with runoff containing pesticides and phosphorus.” There is absolutely no validity behind these statements. They do, however, characterize the adjectives, thoughts, and ideas about agriculture in the Rouge park that were exchanged in this Parliament during debate at second reading of Bill C-40.

I read all the transcripts. The agricultural community, my agricultural community, is disgusted, angry, but mostly sad that some people think so little of us.

This has been 20 years in the making. It started after the creation of the park in 1994. Through all the consultation over 20 years, the thoughts and the concerns of the agriculture community were ignored. We were told that we were just tenants with a conflict of interest. This characterization of agriculture took on a life of its own and some environmentalists fanned the flames.

There have been countless reports and editorials in the Toronto media over the last 20 years using the same adjectives, thoughts, and ideas. This was done to justify the reforestation of large tracts of productive agricultural land to create a sustainable Carolinian and mixed forest habitat which links Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine.

Jim Robb, executive director of Friends of the Rouge Watershed, confirmed at a meeting in September with the provincial minister of infrastructure that it would take another 1,700 acres of class 1 farmland to be reforested to meet the goals and objectives of the Rouge north management plan. This is in addition to the thousand acres of prime farmland that have already been reforested in the past several years.

That's twenty-seven hundred acres, enough land to feed over 75,000 people in perpetuity, and this is just the beginning. Planting trees on productive agricultural land is wrong. It uses up a scarce resource that helps to provide the food, fibre, and security, particularly food security, for the seven million people that live within one hour of the park.

Reaching the ecosystem health objectives of the Rouge national urban park can be achieved in many ways, not just by planting trees. Agriculture can and should be part of the integrated solution to reaching that goal.

I produce fruits and vegetables on my farm. In the 30 years that I've been farming, we have adopted many new and innovative methods for producing crops while reducing our ecological footprint. These management tools include drip irrigation, minimum tillage, integrated pest management, no till planting, plant zone fertilization, and many others. We also continue to use management tools that have existed over the millennia, including tile drainage, windbreaks, and extensive crop rotation.

Today's agriculture not only provides the food and fibre for a growing urban population, it also provides a host of other benefits. Some examples are carbon sequestering, improved hydrologic function, improved air quality, pollinator species habitat, and finally, food and habitat for many forms of wildlife.

Bill C-40 and the Rouge national urban park draft management plan clearly acknowledge the importance of agriculture in the Rouge. This plan demonstrates that agriculture, culture, and nature are all equally important contributors to a vibrant education-centric urban park. Agriculture can and will play an important role in reaching the goals and objectives of the Rouge national urban park.

The farmers in the Rouge operate family farms and efficiently produce food and fibre using best management practices that protect and enhance the Rouge ecosystem.

These statements are the truth about who we are, what we do, and what we have done for generations. We are proud of our industry and we ask that all members of Parliament seek the truth and stop depending on others to formulate their opinions about agriculture in the Rouge national urban park.

I leave you with this closing thought: whether you build a house, pave a parking lot, or plant a tree, the results will be the same on class 1 agricultural land.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Whittamore.

We will move to the questions. The first questioner will be Mr. Chisu, for seven minutes.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much to the witnesses for their presentations. I listened with great care to their issues.

I live 100 metres from the lower Rouge Park. My family and I have enjoyed the park for the last 25 years. I was delighted that I was able to participate actively in a historic event that finally will make the park a national treasure close to the largest city of Canada, which is Toronto.

I can tell you I was not impressed with the letter from Minister Duguid of the Ontario Liberal government that was addressed to Minister Aglukkaq in which he reneged on the memorandum of understanding signed before the last provincial election. This action clearly is without any reasonable justification.

On this preamble, and looking at the presentation of farming in the Rouge Park, I would like to ask Mr. Whittamore to tell me how long his family has been farming in the Rouge Valley.

[Mike Whittamore]

My mom's family came in 1804, so we've been there for 200 years. She was a Lapp. My father came in the 1950s.