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.
National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
You bring up a very valid point. I think we're in a situation where there is, for better or for worse, a general sense of anxiety about the possibility that farms would be further expropriated.
National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
I think that's a very unfortunate framework for us to be in.
I continue to say that farmers have done a very good job of protecting against the biggest threat, which has been urban sprawl. That has been a key part of how this park is able to be protected today.
National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
In my view, that's a big piece.
The legislation should not and does not speak to a change of land use. We're not suggesting by any stretch that farms be reduced or changed. What we're really looking for is an ability for farmers, and Parks Canada, and local players to be able to sit down and figure out how to manage the landscape in a way that's going to ensure that nature conservation and healthy farms are able to live and co-exist next to each other.
When you talk about restoration, I think that tends to be a trigger word.
National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
It tends to be a trigger word, because people think it means planting trees and renaturalizing farms, which we have said from the very beginning is not our view of that. Especially in a landscape that has so many pressures from all around it on infrastructure, as we've mentioned, the highway, the sewers, and everything else that this park is going to be in the middle of, we need to be able to make sure that the restoration from that perspective is what's going to keep nature healthy in the park.
National Executive Director, National Office, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
By giving a mandate to make sure that we're not overcoming some of those challenges by simply saying that we'll ignore those concerns, we're actually asking for there to be a space at the table for that.
The management plan, even as it's proposed today, has a very good clause around actually having a proper committee that will work to collaboratively find solutions to these things, but at no point are we suggesting a change of land use as it stands from a farming perspective.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Thank you.
Ms. Empringham, if the legislation were to include a prioritization of conservation, such as you've heard from some of the language here and in debate, if there were some way to do that, where it's clearly laid out where possible—even that, I think, may not be the best language—but as much as possible considering the agricultural and urban context, if it were explicit for farmers that.... You said that farmland needs to be preserved. That's part of what we're doing here. Do you think farmers would be comfortable with that?
York Region Federation of Agriculture
The need to preserve the farmland is so it stays in production. Adopting conservation projects that would take land out of production would be one thing, but as far as having farmers using best management practices or methods that would still guarantee production at the same level is concerned, I don't think there would be an issue with that.
The concern with having a higher standard for conservation as opposed to agriculture is that we're worried there will be a slippery slope.
York Region Federation of Agriculture
We're worried that we will gradually over time lose the land we have. When equal priority isn't given, it's hard for farmers and for agriculture to hold its ground and to maintain that level field.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Thank you. I have only about a minute and I want to ask another question.
Ms. Browes, are there any red flags for you?
Director, Waterfront Regeneration Trust Corporation
Having been brought up on a farm, I think it's very important so close to an urban area that we have this quality farmland. Many market gardeners are there. We go to pick strawberries, raspberries, and tomatoes. It's a key aspect of the Rouge.
Think of the number of children who live in cities who never get to a farm. This is a wonderful opportunity and experience for the children to actually go to a barn or see what a cucumber actually looks like on a vine. This is a very exciting aspect of this park.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
All right. Time's up.
Thank you, Ms. Leslie.
We'll move to Mr. Calandra, please.
October 29th, 2014 / 4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Thank you to all the witnesses.
Ms. Empringham, I'm going to start with you. The September 2 letter from Minister Duguid to Minister Aglukkaq reads:
I have heard from...stakeholders...including Friends of the Rouge Watershed, Environmental Defence, and Ontario Nature regarding...Bill C-40 and the draft...management plan...the federal government has released for public consultation.
It goes on to say that with respect to the position they came to, not to transfer the land. “This is a position that I”—Minister Duguid—“arrived at after discussions with stakeholders, local citizen groups, and staff.”
What input did you provide to Minister Duguid in advance of this letter?
Conservative
York Region Federation of Agriculture
He didn't consult with us at all, the federation or the farmers in the park, that I'm aware of.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
You're with the York Region Federation of Agriculture. Approximately how many farm businesses do you represent?
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
That's 700 farm businesses.
I do have a copy of a letter that the federation sent to Minister Duguid after that, on September 5, which says, “We urge you not to hold up the transfer of...Provincial lands to Parks Canada”.
Is that correct?