Environment Committee on Nov. 5th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I want to call to order our meeting of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

We have with us today a number of officials from Parks Canada. Welcome. We trust that you'll be available should we need that expertise. Thank you for being here today.

We also have with us today a legislative clerk, Justin Vaive. Thank you, Justin, for being with us today. I'll be leaning on Justin for any legal advice that we may need as we proceed.

My understanding is that we will move through the bill on a clause-by-clause basis. There are a number of amendments that have been tabled, and I think we all have those here. They aren't formally tabled until they're moved, but you have advance warning of the possibility of their being tabled. We'll try to move through clause by clause, and when there are sections for which there are no amendments suggested, we may ask you for permission to move those clauses in a sequence collectively, but whenever there's an amendment, obviously we're going to take them individually, one at a time.

We're going to begin. We will leave the preamble and the short title until after we've considered all of the clauses, because should any amendments be carried, that could possibly have an effect on the preamble and the short title.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

We have an amendment suggested from the Green Party, Mr. Hyer.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'll do a short preamble, if I may, and then I'll be short on the amendment.

Ms. May would have liked to be here today, but given the ruling, as you know, we have short opportunities to present amendments, and she is doing amendments at the public safety committee right now on Bill C-2, the Insite bill.

I'm happy to present these amendments on behalf of the Green Party. I'd also like to preface this, should any questions be thrown my way, by saying that I am a terrestrial ecologist. I'm a former land use planner. I taught park planning at Lakehead University for several years, and I was quite involved in the creation of dozens of provincial parks of all kinds across Ontario.

I'll start with the first amendment here, on clause 2.

Mr. Chair, I have comments on each of them. Would you like me to read the amendments?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Hyer, let me just point out that we do want your input, but because you are not a regular member of the committee, we're going to have to limit it, hopefully to a maximum of 60 seconds.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I think I can do that in most cases, if not all, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay, I'd appreciate it if you'd cooperate in that way.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Yes, I will.

My question is whether you would like me to read the amended clause, so everybody has it in writing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We have it in front of us, and we have the actual bill in front of us in writing. I'll assume that all committee members have it in front of them.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you.

The reason we're moving this amendment to clause 2 is that the principle of ecological integrity is the foundation of conservation in Canada. It's embedded in much of the legislation and policies having to do with parks, other national parks and provincial parks, and in particular, in this provincially protected area as it was before.

“Ecological integrity” should be defined in clause 2. That's really important as it is already defined in the Canada National Parks Act. Banff, Jasper, and Bruce Peninsula have, as does this area, highways, towns, railways, and infrastructure inside of them, but despite that, they still prioritize the goal of ecological integrity. You're going to hear this theme in a number of these amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I have the amendment on the floor. Is there any debate on the amendment proposed by Mr. Hyer?

Mr. McKay.

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

I support Mr. Hyer's amendment. There is no other alternative. The government has not put forward any other definition for ecological health or any other concept. Absent anything else in any referable system of law, we are left with essentially nothing. There's no definition of “ecological health”. The definition of “ecological integrity” is not in the bill. So Mr. Hyer is absolutely correct that we are left with nothing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Is there further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

NDP-1 is identical so that one is automatically dealt with.

We will now move to vote on the actual clause, clause 2.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(Clause 3 agreed to)

(On Clause 4—Park established)

We have PV-2a.

Mr. Hyer.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Amendment PV-2a adds the words “enhancing and restoring” to the amended clause. Those are stated purposes in many parallel processes and overlapping areas such as the provincial greenbelt, the existing Rouge Park, Rouge watershed, Oak Ridges Moraine, and the Great Lakes water quality improvement remedial action plans.

These words, “enhancing and restoring”, are really needed to honour the federal government's written commitment in this process to “meet or exceed” existing provincial policies.

The greenbelt plan gives provincial policy status to the Rouge Park plans, and the Rouge Park watershed plans are covered as well.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We move now to NDP-2.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, I would like confirmation that in fact every member who's here at the table has permission to be here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'll ask for confirmation from our clerk that the members at the table are all signed in.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Angela Crandall]

Yes. I think Ms. Truppe has just been signed out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Ms. Truppe was just in for a few minutes, but she has been signed back out. She's welcome to take part in the discussion, but not to vote.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Great. Thanks. I appreciate that.

I think Ms. Sitsabaiesan is going to do NDP-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Just a warning that everyone is going to need their earpieces to hear me.

Yes, the goal of this is to bring clause 4 in line with the dedication in the Canada National Parks Act, by dedicating the park to the people of Canada. I know from the visioning exercise that it has been to be the people's park. This amendment would bring us in line with that goal from the very first day of making it the people's park and strengthening the ecological protection of the park by adding this language.

I'm going to stop there.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We move now to the main clause, clause 4.

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6—Factors to be considered)

We have PV-3.

PV-3 is in line conflict with NDP-3. If PV-3 is adopted, the question cannot be put on NDP-3. I'd like you to be aware of that before we actually vote on these amendments. There's conflict between PV-3 and NDP-3.

Mr. Hyer on PV-3a.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I've already noted the principle of ecological integrity is critical. It seems to have been rejected out of hand, but nonetheless, this amendment mirrors the language found in subsection 8(2) of the Canada National Parks Act, and that is:

Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of parks.

Also, to be consistent with the existing Rouge Park, greenbelt, and Oak Ridges Moraine policies and existing national parks and protected areas legislation and standards, ecological integrity of watershed health and cultural heritage should be a priority. It should be the primary goal for this system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Hyer.

Mr. McKay.

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

If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority, and that is the problem with this bill.

Clause 6 is actually just a series of statements rather than any stacking of or noting of particular priorities. When you put that in context with the already rejected definition of “ecological integrity”, the consequence is that this bill has no priorities whatsoever, and it is up to the minister of the day what the priorities are. The consequence of that is that there will be a limited ability to actually direct a particular vision of any kind.

If there's no ecological integrity, which there isn't, and there's no ecological health, which there isn't, and there is no statement of priorities, which there isn't, the consequence will be that this park will be much less than it ever could be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Woodworth.