Environment Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Noonan.

[Larry Noonan]

I think it meets or exceeds what's in place right now, particularly in some areas like policing and in many others.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

You have 40 seconds, Mr. Chisu.

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

Do you think that ecological integrity is a concept that is achievable within the Rouge national urban park, without evicting farmers, businesses, and homeowners?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I think we've already had the answer from Mr. Noonan.

Let's ask Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Wells.

[Alan Wells]

I don't think it's achievable and that is why it's defined as an urban park.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Buchanan.

[Ian Buchanan]

It's not achievable. The benchmark of looking at ecosystem health is the right framework. Tying that in with some emerging science looking at novel ecosystems that accept that perhaps restoration to a previous state is not possible, what we need to be is practical, forward-thinking, looking for improvement but aiming for the right target.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chisu, your time is up.

We'll move now to Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses.

Pardon me if I'm very soft-spoken. My voice is slowly disappearing on me.

My first question is going to be for Mr. Wells and Mr. Buchanan. I'm going to ask both of you the same questions. In your opinion, what do you think is the biggest threat to preserving the ecological health of Rouge National Park?

[Alan Wells]

The biggest threat to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

To preserving the ecological health.

[Alan Wells]

I don't know what the biggest threat is. I guess the threat currently is that there is not adequate protection. But I think that threat will be minimized when proper enforcement is in place.

As Mr. Buchanan pointed out, when we brought together all the enforcement agencies we had a table as big as this table of all the various agencies that had a piece of the enforcement. So there were infractions and abuses of the—

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

Pardon me, but I'm going to cut you off, because I don't have too much time. Your answer is that the biggest threat to preserving ecological health in Rouge Park is not having adequate enforcement.

[Alan Wells]

It's not having adequate.... Yes.

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

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Buchanan.

[Ian Buchanan]

The biggest threat would be picking the wrong end point, as was mentioned. Ecosystem health is a “yes”, but ecological integrity is unrealistic. The debate would continue. There is also the matter of taking a level playing field and prioritizing one thing over another. The collaborative environment will take care of that, but prioritization of some of those components sets us on a wrong tangent for recovery.

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

Thank you.

I'm asking you specific questions because these are questions I've been asking of almost all of our witnesses.

Can the ecological health of Rouge national urban park be restored and protected while the interests of the farmers or the people who are living and working through agriculture on the land be protected?

Mr. Buchanan, I know you mentioned that 38% of the lands in York Region are agricultural, so we want to look out for the farmers' interests as well as conservation. Can both be achieved, and if so, how? Can you answer that in a few seconds?

[Ian Buchanan]

Restoration is all about what the target is and whether there is room for improvement and a net gain of ecosystem. The answer is that, yes, the Rouge can be taken to a special place. There is absolutely room for improvement but not that built on ecological integrity. They have to come up with a practical end point and work together to improve that environment.

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

Okay, that's about the same answer.

Mr. Wells, do you have an answer to that?

[Alan Wells]

I think my answer would be similar, but I do want to point out that the agricultural land also functions in the park, and although it can be improved just like the other areas of the park, in my view it's not a negative to—

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

We've learned from some of the farmers who did come in that they are engaging in environmental practices. I forget what it's called...environmental plan. There you go—it's the environmental farm plan. I had two of the three words. They told us that they are being environmental activists through their agriculture. That's what they're doing in their work.

A 2013 report by Environment Canada called “How Much Habitat is Enough?” mentions what is needed to improve the health of the Great Lakes area as a whole. Are the federal park proposals we're seeing through Bill C-40 consistent with the plans to improve Great Lakes water quality and health as a whole? Do they ensure that the headwaters are protected and important for the entire ecosystem?

Mr. Wells, could you begin?

[Alan Wells]

I'll defer to the scientist on the panel.

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

Let's hear from the scientist.

[Ian Buchanan]

They are aligned with those objectives. Certainly, there are a number of things already in place and in motion, and Bill C-40 reinforces many of those things to achieve the same objectives. I know York Region, for example, has a forest-cover target of 25%. I'm not sure what the current target is for the Rouge watershed itself. “How Much Habitat is Enough?” talks about having about 30% forest cover. We're all in alignment, and that is what's important here: working towards the same objectives.