Environment Committee on Nov. 5th, 2014

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

That's right.

The way the current clause reads is that the minister “may”, and of course if the minister “may”, she or he “may not“ as well. So there is no obligation on the part of the minister to establish any committee whatsoever. Hence, this is a good amendment. We could get into semantic distinctions as to “must” and “shall”, but it certainly is an improvement over what currently exists.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

That applies to NDP-4.

We move now to PV-5a.

Do you wish to move your amendment, Mr. Hyer?

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

Yes.

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

I have a point of order, Chair, before Mr. Hyer speaks.

With reference to the concerns of the clerk, if in fact clause 8 presently exists as the minister “may”, and this would follow as a subclause (2) where the minister “must”, if the minister “may” or “may not”, how can it be the minister “must” in subclause (2)?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

That will be clarified in a few minutes, after Mr. Hyer makes his—

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

No, but I think it is a point of order. So if we clarify the point of order....

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I think the protocol is that we have to give the person the option of at least tabling the motion. Right now, it's not even on the table. Unless the motion is on the table, we have nothing to base the point of order on.

Mr. Hyer.

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

Actually, Mr. Chair, this would add an entire subclause to the bill. It would say not only that the minister must establish a scientific advisory committee to advise the minister on management of the park, but that it “must include landscape ecology scientists of the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada, as well as representatives...”, etc.

To underscore it, this would avoid repeating the federal government's failure to follow through with the park's advisory panel promised in May 2012, but it puts a finer point on it of making sure that it is a scientific advisory committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

Mr. Hyer and committee, I have a ruling here.

In relation to Bill C-40, which seeks to establish a Rouge national urban park, the amendment proposes the establishment of a scientific committee to advise the minister on the management of the park.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 767 and 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new entity that would impose a new charge on the public treasury; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible, as well as amendments NDP-5, PV-12, and PV-12a, as they are consequential to this amendment.

I'm ruling this particular amendment inadmissible.

Since those amendments are inadmissible, we now go to clause 8 as printed.

(Clause 8 agreed to on division)

(On clause 9—Management plan)

We have amendment NDP-6. This amendment involves a line in conflict with amendment PV-6a, so if amendment NDP-6 is adopted, the question cannot be put on PV-6a.

We are on amendment NDP-6.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, we're amending clause 9. As you can see, we're replacing lines to talk about a “science-based management plan that sets out a long-term vision”. I think this is an important clause to strengthen the bill so that it is more in line with the Canada National Parks Act. It includes details about ecological protection while recognizing that agriculture is also a big part of the park and the fact that it is in an urban setting.

We get this partly from testimony that we heard at committee, specifically from a recommendation that language in the bill meet our international and Canadian standards for protected areas. That's our motivation behind this amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Because that was negatived, we can now move to amendment PV-6a.

Mr. Hyer.

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

This strengthens clause 9, putting a higher degree of specificity on it, and includes the following important aspects: ecological vision, rather than just vision; ecological integrity; watershed health; cultural heritage; and restoration. This is the standard, Mr. Chair, for park management in Canada, and the Rouge should receive the highest standard of protection, the same as any other park in Canada. It's consistent with the park's purposes, its priorities, existing provincial policies, and good science-based management.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

On debate, Mr. McKay.

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

Certainly it's a big-time improvement over what is currently there.

The way that clause 9 reads is that the minister can prepare any plan he or she likes and put in a couple of evaluations and objectives and that would be the end of it. At least there is some reference to ecological integrity, watershed health, etc.

I support this amendment because it at least puts some flesh on the bones, which is not there currently.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That moves us to amendment PV-7a.

Just so you're aware, this line is in conflict with amendment NDP-7, so if we adopt PV-7a, the question cannot be put on amendment NDP-7.

On amendment PV-7a, Mr. Hyer.

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

Mr. Chair, this enhancement of a fairly vague and general clause makes it consistent with the greenbelt plan, the Rouge north management plan, the federal green space preserve master plan, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Rouge River watershed plan, and the Rouge Park natural heritage action plan.

It provides more clarity and specificity to the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Is there further debate on amendment PV-7a?

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I feel that I should put on the record that there was considerable difference of opinion between the witnesses regarding whether the notion of ecological integrity is appropriate to an urban park, insofar as ecological integrity often carries with it requirements for flooding, burn, and so on, which are not appropriate in an urban park.

It's my opposition to the notion of ecological integrity that causes me concern on a lot of these amendments.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

That is defeated, which means we can move to amendment NDP-7.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, this amendment would amend clause 9, as you can see, and replace certain lines. Again, we are trying to get at the issue of ecological health and ecological integrity, watershed health, while at the same time recognizing that agriculture is a large part of the park.

This amendment is consistent with the greenbelt plan, with the Rouge north management plan. It's consistent with the federal green space preserve master plan and the Rouge River watershed plan. All of the work that's been done over the years, over the decades, to protect this space needs to be represented somehow in this bill, in the final form, as a national park. This amendment would do exactly that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Is there further debate on amendment NDP-7?

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

I'd like a recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Amendment PV-8 is in conflict with amendment NDP-8, so if PV-8a is adopted, the question cannot be put on amendment NDP-8.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment broadens, and at the same time makes more specific, the cultural heritage component, adding “aboriginal”—and there is an aboriginal heritage there—“and the encouragement of innovative ecologically sound farming practices”.

I've discussed this with a number of farmers, some inside this area, and other farmers. They believe there is potential for the farmers within this new park area to shift their activities in a way that will provide more value added, more profitability, and make them even more sustainable by being more innovative and more ecological, and then marketing it as such.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you, Mr. Hyer.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move to amendment NDP-8. Ms. Leslie.