Evidence of meeting #36 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was park.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Help me understand, Mr. Chair, because I thought that if it was defeated—
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Oh, right. I'm trying to keep up here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You will see that this would amend clause 9. There's a lot of the same reasoning that Mr. Hyer pointed out. Specifically, it is adding the word “aboriginal” in the list for heritage and also encouraging ecological and sustainable farming practices.
I think this is important. In some of the testimony we heard from Parks Canada, they talked about people coming to the park and being exposed to culture as part of the park, not just trees and birds, but culture and aboriginal culture.
We did hear from the minister. She quoted from a letter from the York Region Federation of Agriculture, which said that farmland needs to be preserved so that farmers can produce food for their surrounding urban neighbours for generations to come. That is talking about the encouragement, I think, of a sustainable farm, an ecologically sound farm, because if it's not ecologically sound and sustainable, we're not going to be able to talk about future generations. I would also rely on some of the evidence put forward by Dr. Faisal Moola of the Suzuki Foundation.
I think this is an amendment worth supporting.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
We move now to amendment PV-9a. This is in conflict with amendment NDP-9, so if it is adopted, the question cannot be put on amendment NDP-9.
Mr. Hyer.
Green
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Chair, given that the goals of this park are “to meet and exceed” the present protected area status that's there now, this is proposed to encourage a net gain in ecological integrity and watershed health in the area. If it is going to meet the commitment to meet or exceed the present protection in the area, this is an important addition to the bill.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Given that this is going to be a very complicated park to administer at the best of times, given that the management of the park is given virtually no guidelines whatsoever in this act—they have no idea of what “ecological health” or “ecological integrity” might be—and given the defeat of all of the other amendments, the concept of a net gain of ecological integrity and watershed health is in my judgment minimal, because there will inevitably be demands on this park. There will be pressure from Markham, from Pickering, and from Scarborough to the south to chop off this, add this, flow this, pipelines, roads, whatever. If you can't actually demonstrate that there has been a net gain in ecological health, you might as well just pave over the darned thing and be done with it right away.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Chair, in addition to the comments you've just heard about ecological health, I think this amendment to clause 9 would identify best management practices within infrastructure guidelines, encourage net gain to the park, and avoid incremental net loss. I think it's an important amendment.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
The difference here is the net gain in the size of the park over time. If you read the bill, you will see that it has about three squiggly little pieces in Markham that are actually in the bill, but the minister has sold it as 58 square kilometres, which is quite a bit short of where a lot of other people would like to go.
Given the reaction of the government in Queen's Park in that they've decided to withdraw their 44% of that land, it's somewhere in the order of 30 square kilometres, maybe, and then there is no connection up to the Oak Ridges Moraine.
There isn't a person at this committee who actually knows what they're voting on as far as what the size of this park is going to be, so to have a net gain.... A net gain over what? Over the three squiggly little pieces that are in Markham?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Are you speaking in favour of or against the amendment, Mr. McKay?
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I'd like to see some net gain here. It can't get worse than three squiggly little pieces.
Conservative
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
I'd like to point out that the Government of Ontario has signed a binding agreement to transfer lands, which it has announced it is going to renege upon. I'm not so sure that the Government of Canada could not enforce that agreement against the Government of Ontario, but I leave that to other levels to determine.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
We're going to vote on NDP-9.
It's a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We move to PV-10a.
Mr. Hyer.
Green
Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Chair, this is pretty simple and straightforward. The current bill, as it stands, says there'll be a review of the management plan every 10 years. It's pretty standard in park planning across Canada and across Ontario that there are five-year reviews of park plans for several reasons.
A regular state of the park report is a really useful thing, particularly given that more and more parks, instead of remaining static, have adaptive park management and the plans that allow for adaptive park management.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
November 5th, 2014 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Since NDP-10 is identical to PV-10a, the question on NDP-10 cannot be put.
We move to NDP-11.
Ms. Leslie.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Chair, this would see us amending clause 9 and adding quite a bit after line 43. The point of this amendment is to mandate the regular scientific monitoring of land surface and land cover in the park.
I draw specifically on testimony from Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, when they talked about the need for requirements for setting ecological objectives and indicators, and provisions for ecological monitoring. We think that this amendment covers part of what's missing in this bill.
Conservative
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I am not aware of any other national park in Canada that is subject to such a requirement, although I'm always happy to be corrected if there is something that I am not aware of.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
If there was a clause about ecological integrity in here, I guess we wouldn't have to be putting this in here, so by reference, monitoring of land surface is incorporated into any park, but not this one.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
We move to the entire clause 9 as printed.
(Clause 9 agreed to)