Madam Chair, good afternoon. It's a real pleasure to be here.
I am the former CEO of Parks Canada—the second longest-serving CEO of Parks Canada. I was probably the first Parks Canada employee who actually walked on the Rouge, before we started this process several years ago, even before politicians became involved, from our perspective.
I truly believe this is the right thing to do, from a long-term perspective, for Canada and our urban park program. Today what I will share with you is my views on ecological integrity specifically, because we have very limited time.
I want to be clear up front that I agree that conservation should be the first priority in the management of this park, so my comments take that into consideration.
It's important to know that ecological integrity as the first priority is the highest international conservation standard. What I mean by that is that, based on my quick review, no national parks globally other than those managed by Parks Canada have that standard in legislation. There are many policies, and I'll use the U.S. national parks as an example, but they don't have ecological integrity as the first priority in law.
The Rouge National Urban Park is truly unique in the system of Parks Canada heritage places. It is accessible, as has been mentioned before, by close to six to seven million Canadians. It is divided by numerous roads, infrastructure, highways, the Toronto Zoo, and a former dump, but also has rich agricultural lands and offers an exceptional opportunity to demonstrate international leadership in conservation, indigenous relations, and in connecting people to nature. It is truly unlike any park in the Parks Canada system.
I recommend that the committee consider reviewing the ecological integrity standard proposed in the bill from two perspectives: first, that of the practical reality of the nature of the lands and their settings that are ultimately to be included in the park, and so of the full park; and second, that of the way this could affect the management of existing and future national parks.
I would suggest that the ecological integrity standard will be impossible to achieve at the broad urban park level over the next 25 years because of the fragmented land masses and the fact that more than 50% of the proposed boundary consists of agricultural lands and because of development pressures outside of the park.
My main concern is that, as a result, I foresee future state-of-park reports that consistently provide a failing grade, based on the scientific assessment of the condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region, including biotic components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change, and supporting processes.
I guess this will be a foreseeable outcome, despite the great conservation initiatives that will have been implemented by Parks Canada, by farmers, and by Canadians. As a result, I expect that there will be divisive campaigns in the longer term to limit the number of visitors or convert farmlands to their natural state.
As for existing national parks, based on my experience, having the same conservation standard in the Rouge National Urban Park as exists in all national parks will result in ongoing challenges for other national parks. Managers will be faced with increased demands to have major utility corridors, new roads, or new lands in their national parks. The proponents—this is based on my experience of the vast system of parks—will use Rouge National Urban Park as the example of how ecological integrity can still be achieved in a fragmented park. In the worst-case scenario, this could put at risk the quality of the overall system of Canada's national parks.
The Rouge National Urban Park is an amazing and unique experiment in protecting and presenting large urban spaces. Let me be very clear, once again, that I totally agree that conservation should be the first priority; however, the conservation standard should be based on the uniqueness and operational reality, and it should encourage, not divide, all stakeholders to work together to build on the current strengths and achieve new heights.
To achieve this objective, I recommend that proposed subsection 6(1) in clause 2 be replaced by, “Conservation or restoration must be the first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of the Park.”
I also recommend that the IUCN definition of conservation replace the definition of ecological integrity proposed in clause 1 for section 2 of the act as follows: “The protection, care, management and maintenance of ecosystems, habitats, wildlife species and populations, within and outside of their natural environment, in order to safeguard the natural conditions for their long-term permanence.”
From my perspective, this would achieve a goal of legally establishing conservation as the first priority for the park. It is simple and understandable for Canadians. It meets the IUCN standards, avoids impacting existing national parks, exceeds the Ontario legislation, and allows Canadians to work together positively and constructively to make Rouge National Urban Park an international success story.
Thank you.