Evidence of meeting #42 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rouge.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
It's admissible. If it's admissible, then we would be glad to debate it.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay, because you are actually addressing the clause, lines 15 to 18, that are in the act, so it's admissible.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Just for clarity, this is the fun of all these amendments. They do often overlap, so I need to make it really clear that, if we adopt this one in our committee, NDP-1 and PV-2 cannot be moved as they will amend the same lines. You just have to be aware there's a lot going on here. If we're looking at yours, and we do adopt it, then in essence, those others will not be addressed.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Yes, I can see that. I just want to make sure the whole committee is aware.
Go ahead and let us know why.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Let me start off, and I'll pass the floor, if I may, to Mr. Kent after that.
I think we've heard evidence. We know ecological integrity is the standard that is used in all of our national parks, but that isn't justification enough because this national park, by all accounts, is unique. It is urban. There's a much more direct interface between urban areas and this park. I believe we've had testimony at the table and we've also reviewed testimony from the previous time the bill came forward that spoke to the issue of ecological integrity as taking this legislation beyond what actually can be delivered.
I believe Mr. Latourelle in his testimony said that he didn't believe this definition could actually be achieved, which many believe should be achieved. The goals that it's intended to achieve will likely not be achieved because of such a significant interface.
We've seen concerns raised by some of the users within the park area. We've seen Mr. Whittamore who has acknowledged that he has seen the provisions on agriculture, which have assuaged his concerns somewhat, but he still has trepidation over where this might lead going forward.
I believe the wording that was in the original act was appropriate for what is truly a unique park.
With that, if I may, Madam Chair, I'll pass it to Mr. Kent.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Fast.
I think we heard from Mr. Woodley today and from Mr. Latourelle on the record in previous appearances that the original legislation for the Rouge National Urban Park was guided by the IUCN's best practices. Mr. Woodley today conceded that, in fact, the IUCN's standards and policies are very clear and that ecological integrity is open to a variety of interpretations.
This is basically speaking to what the IUCN considers to be its guiding principles and highest practices. Ecological integrity is not conditional on the IUCN's high practices.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
As I said in the previous discussion on clause 1, ecological integrity is key to the legislation we're putting forward. To see it taken out and replaced with this is not a position I'm willing to support. I can give more reasons.
To Mr. Fast's point, that the park is unique, it's special and our belief is very much that ecological integrity needs to be part of the legislation to see it move forward. That's where we stand on that one.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I just want to add my support to Mr. Aldag's position.
Ecological integrity is key to this bill, and ecological integrity can be applied to an area as small as a marsh.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Coming back to Mr. Watson's point, that the Province of Ontario has made it clear that they will not transfer the lands without ecological integrity, I think they are imposing ecological integrity on Parks Canada to ease the way forward in order to actually see the transfer of the lands.
I'll leave it at that.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Is there anyone else?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We still have a few minutes. Do you want to go to the next one or move this to the next meeting? I'm happy to keep going, but I know the time and we won't have a lot of time to get into it.
What do you want to do?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay.
There is a motion to adjourn.
(Motion agreed to)
The meeting is adjourned.