Environment Committee on Dec. 8th, 2016

[The Chair (Mrs. Deborah Schulte (King—Vaughan, Lib.)), Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'd just like to start the meeting, if I can. Thank you very much, everyone.

We have six witness groups with us today, and I want to make sure we give them as much time as we can. We had to change our standing orders to give them five minutes so that we could have all six in front us. We appreciate their understanding regarding that.

From Parks Canada, we have with us Daniel Watson, who's the chief executive officer. From the Canada Parks and Wilderness Society, we have Janet Sumner, the executive director of the Wildlands League. From Friends of the Rouge Watershed, we have Jim Robb, general manager, and Kevin O'Connor, president. From Whittamore's Farm, we have Michael Whittamore, who's the president. As individuals, we have Alan Latourelle and Stephen Woodley. Mr. Woodley is the vice-chair for science at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's world commission on protected areas. He's with us via video conference.

Why don't we start with Parks Canada? I think that's probably appropriate. If you wouldn't mind starting for us, Mr. Watson, I'd appreciate that. You have five minutes.

Thank you.

[Daniel Watson, Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to address the committee as it begins its review of Bill C-18. I look forward to the committee's deliberations.

Rouge National Urban Park, set to become one of the world's largest urban protected areas, is special in its protection of natural and cultural heritage. I am pleased to be here today to speak to the steps that are being taken to complete Canada’s first national urban park.

Rouge National Urban Park’s proximity to Canada's largest city, and 20% of our nation's population, provides Parks Canada with an unprecedented opportunity to encourage Canadians to experience nature and to connect with Canada’s cultural heritage.

While it is located in one of the most densely populated areas of North America, Rouge National Urban Park is home to over 1,700 species of plants and animals, as well as 27 species at risk. It also protects some of the largest examples of rare Carolinian forest habitat and some of the largest marshes and wetlands remaining in the city of Toronto.

This site gives evidence of over 10,000 years of first nations presence in this area. It includes some of Canada's oldest known indigenous sites and villages, showing that this was a well-used gathering place and agricultural area going back for millennia.

Parks Canada will make significant use of Rouge National Urban Park to introduce all Canadians, and especially youth and newcomers, to many aspects of our natural and cultural heritage.

Being able to anticipate the formal inclusion of a full and contiguous body of land into Rouge National Urban Park, we've started the move to a full range of Parks Canada programming. Examples include work with the Toronto Zoo to release over 100 threatened baby Blanding’s turtles into the park—prior to this initiative, only seven turtles remained in that area—partnerships with schools from across the GTA in educational events like Frog Watch and the restoration and creation of wetlands, forests and agricultural lands; and work with the park’s farming community and indigenous partners to complete 31 conservation projects.

With the tabling of Bill C-18, Ontario resumed active work to transfer the necessary provincial lands to Parks Canada. Officials from Parks Canada and the Government of Ontario are working diligently to ensure that those provincial lands are transferred in a timely way. I am pleased to be able to report that we now expect to complete all of these transfers in 2017, with key and major elements of these transfers occurring within the first half of the year. This represents a key step in ensuring that a single and contiguous area, stretching from the shores of Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine, falls entirely within the boundaries of Rouge National Urban Park and under the same legislative framework.

Although I do not wish to infringe upon the time for questions regarding Bill C-18 and Rouge National Urban Park, which I will be pleased to answer, I would like to touch on two elements that do not relate to Rouge.

The first is the new parks and historic sites account. This account is a tool used in the development of national parks, historic sites, and marine conservation areas. It was established as a non-lapsing, specified purpose account funded from appropriations, the sale of property and immovable assets, and donations from the public.

In order to support the government's commitment to develop and expand Canada's world-class network of protected heritage areas, the proposed amendment would allow the new parks and historic sites account to be used in a broader manner. Currently, the act restricts use of the account to protected places that are not yet fully operational. The proposed amendment would allow the public to donate funds to expand or complete existing natural and cultural heritage areas.

The second amendment to which I would like to bring your attention sets out the changes to the boundary of Wood Buffalo National Park. It removes a small portion of land to facilitate the creation of the Garden River Indian reserve. The Wood Buffalo National Park management plan from 1984 committed to the excision of lands in the vicinity of the Garden River for the future creation of an Indian reserve under the Indian Act. The Canada National Parks Act from 2000 also includes a provision reflecting the future withdrawal of lands in Garden River for the purpose of establishing an Indian reserve. This commitment was made to the Little Red River Cree Nation following a series of negotiations. The amendment being proposed is consistent with Canada's commitment to reconciliation and to building a nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

Madam Chair, these amendments would ultimately improve Parks Canada's ability to protect and celebrate Canada's natural and cultural heritage.

I am pleased to answer your questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

We are going to hear from all the witnesses, and then we'll go to questions after, because we can't always count on our video conference to stay with us.

It would be great if Mr. Woodley would be willing to take the next slot.

Mr. Woodley, you are up.

[Dr. Stephen Woodley, Vice-Chair for Science, World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

It's kind of appropriate that I am speaking to you from the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. It's appropriate that I take some time out from that to speak to you.

I want to speak about the IUCN and protected areas. I work with the IUCN now. Formally, I worked with Parks Canada as chief scientist. I had a big involvement in getting ecological integrity as part of the Parks Canada management framework and indeed other management frameworks.

The language of parks and protected areas is often confusing. We use the term “park” to describe many different things, from a national park to a city park, a business park, and even a dog park. I am going to stick with the term “protected area”, because that's what we are talking about today.

There is a definition that is provided by the IUCN, agreed to by Canada, and used throughout Canada: “A protected area is a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”.

The key thing about this definition is that the primacy of nature is there. In the our guidance, that's further clarified. It says, “For IUCN, only those areas where the main objective is conserving nature can be considered protected areas; this can include many areas with other goals as well, at the same level, but in the case of conflict, nature conservation will be the priority.”

Under the IUCN definition, there are six management categories, from private to government and indigenous communities. We can see a lot of things occurring on the landscape or seascape under the definition of “protected area”.

The amendments proposed to Bill C-18 are aligned with making the Rouge national park meet that definition of protected area, in that there is a clear priority for nature conservation and a clear management goal in the name of ecological integrity. This clarifies the original act, which required the minister only to “take into consideration” the protection of ecosystems, which would not meet the “protected area” definition.

The term “ecological integrity” is used as a management end point by many protected areas agencies globally, and it's embedded in the IUCN guidance. It provides a well-understood and measurable system to understand the ecological condition. I do note that the term is used by other ecosystem management organizations as well, including the U.S. Forest Service and the International Joint Commission for the Great Lakes. Ecological integrity can apply in a number of situations, not only protected areas.

The Rouge is, indeed, a protected area. The idea of having a protected area within or adjacent to urban centres is actually an old one. There are many examples globally and even in Canada. For example, Halifax has a wilderness park within its boundaries, the Blue Mountain-Birch Cove Lakes Wilderness Area, which is designated under their wilderness protection act.

This idea of an urban protected area is, as I said, global, but it is not to be confused with something like Stanley Park or New York's Central Park. They are urban parks, but they are not protected areas.

Some global examples of urban parks include Nairobi National Park, Seoul's famous Bukhansan National Park, which gets 10 million or 12 million visitors a year, and the Royal National Park in Sydney, Australia, which is one of the oldest protected areas in the world. All of these places are managed to high standards to conserve nature.

The IUCN has a guidance document particularly on urban parks. Foremost in that guidance is that urban protected areas must meet the IUCN definition of a protected area. In that sense, urban protected areas aren't really different from other protected areas. They of course have uniqueness in being close to cities and having high visitation, but they are still protected areas.

Just in closing, I think it's wonderful that there is a new national protected area within the boundaries of Toronto. Bill C-18 makes the area consistent with the IUCN definition, and I wish the Rouge every success in meeting its ecosystem and conservation goals and helping people connect with nature.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Next up is the PowerPoint presentation, so we'll move to Mr. Robb, if you don't mind.

[Jim Robb, General Manager, Friends of the Rouge Watershed]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members.

I'd like to thank the thousands of people who have worked on this park for many, many years, people in the whole GTA and across Canada who have experienced the Rouge Park and love it. I'd like to thank a few people who are with me today: Kevin O'Connor, our president, and Gloria Reszler, who have both worked on this as volunteers for more than 30 years.

I'd like to thank the last government for this bold initiative: Peter Kent, who is here and was the Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Pauline Browes, who has also worked on this for 30 years. I'd like to thank all the eastern GTA Liberals who worked so hard on this, but particularly John McKay, who met with us so many times and helped to get ecological integrity there. Finally, I'd like to thank Ontario Nature and Environmental Defence for putting forward submissions today that are basically identical to what Friends of the Rouge is putting forward today.

I'm sure I've missed people. I've missed Lois James, who is a mentor and has been working on this for 50 years. I spoke to her today on the way up on the train, and I know she's here in spirit. She's 94 years old.

What we're really asking for is one key amendment, and it's an amendment to make sure that the last 26 years of public planning and approvals involving all the stakeholders, the first nations, all levels of governments, and several municipalities, doesn't somehow get lost in the shuffle to a national park. This amendment started off with the meet-or-exceed criteria in the Canada-Ontario agreement for the land transfer. It was brought forward by Minister Duguid, in his September 2 letter. It was agreed to by 15 eastern GTA candidates who are now Liberals, and it was in the party-approved position of the Liberal Party.

This one amendment could go in clause 9 or in clause 6. We've been told there might be an admissibility issue. If it goes in clause 6, it would just read, “For greater certainty, subsection (1) is intended to support and complement the implementation of pre-existing Ontario Greenbelt, Oak Ridges Moraine, Rouge Park and Watershed Conservation Plans.”

These plans were done by all three stripes of government, and there were over 20 years of rigorous, public, science-based, conservation planning. In a time when there is so little money to go around for this kind of work and when we have to get on with fighting climate change and protecting biodiversity, we can't afford the slippage.

As I said, it was a Liberal Party-approved election commitment that the amendment would be made. It's in the meet-or-exceed policy, and it was also part of the original Canada-Ontario agreement.

I want to give you a quick context. We're in one of the largest extinctions the world has ever experienced, and in southern Ontario, 78% of the land is in agriculture and settlements. Only one-quarter of a per cent is in national parks, and about one-half of a per cent is in provincial parks. Under the 2010 International Biodiversity Convention that we signed, our target was 17%. We know that's over all of Canada, but the Rouge is in the Carolinian zone, which is Canada's most endangered zone. Almost one-third of our endangered species are there and almost one-third of our population. We have 0.25% national parks. We are very fortunate. This is the largest piece of land left.

This is a beautiful shot of the Finch Meander trail, which is one of the special places in the Rouge. This image is of the Rouge beach.

You have to follow the existing plans or you will be going astray from the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the things that are being done to protect the water that several million Canadians drink. Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, we have to do more.

Under biodiversity, the Rouge is the most biodiverse place in Canada that I know of. It's pretty incredible and the fact that it's next to one of our largest cities also makes that biodiversity even more....

This is what the Liberals committed to. Number one, they said that their priority was making restoration and maintenance of ecological integrity the top park priority. This bill does that, and we commend the Liberals for following through with that commitment.

Secondly, they said they would amend the act to support and complement the implementation of existing land use and conservation plans. That's what we're asking today.

Ecological integrity, is it justified? Of course it is. This is one of the most biodiverse areas in all of Canada. Yes, there will be challenges. Yes, this is an aspirational goal, but we can do it. Let's head for an A-plus park, and if we achieve A-minus, we will have left something that future generations will thank us for. The diversity is so great here and the potential is so high that we should choose no other goal than what has been put forward before you.

On infrastructure, I've heard a lot of misinformation on this. The infrastructure issue has been largely dealt with. First, most of the infrastructure, the highways, the roads, and the railways, have actually been excluded from the park. They're being zoned out with generous provisions for widening. In a lot of existing national parks, you have major highways, you have golf courses, you have a lot of different infrastructure, and they're within the boundaries. In the Rouge they're excluded.

Second, the minister has a specific clause in which the minister can reallocate up to 500 acres of land within the park for unanticipated future infrastructure.

I'll finish off by saying that agriculture can exist in the park, and we support it. It will be finding the right balance between public access to the land and private leases. We ask that you amend clause 6 or clause 9 to support and complement the implementation of existing conservation plans, the greenbelt plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine, and the Rouge watershed. If you don't do this, the tens of thousands of people who worked so hard on it will really feel that their efforts have somehow been diminished. We feel that if you don't do this, we'll be reinventing the wheel and spinning our wheels.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

We did get this sent to us today, so I know everybody has had a chance to have a look at it.

[Jim Robb]

Either one, Madam Chair. If it goes in clause 9, or it goes in clause 6, it's the idea of carrying through with the commitments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Next up is Janet Sumner.

[Janet Sumner, Executive Director, Wildlands League, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to the committee.

My name is Janet Sumner. I'm executive director for CPAWS' Wildlands League. The mission of CPAWS and of the Wildlands League is protecting large, connected areas of Canada's wilderness. We work on large landscapes collaborating with indigenous, federal, provincial, and local governments. Our work with the forestry sector leads the way on caribou planning, and it is in our DNA to build solutions.

I've been the executive director for Wildlands League for the past 13 years. I've travelled this province extensively, especially in the far north. I've slept with polar bears—not right next to them—and walked among a herd of barren ground caribou. I've flown forestry units from Alberta to Ontario. I love this land, and it is my intention to make sure the children in my life, my grandchildren, nieces, and nephews, inherit a country where nature thrives. The children of the GTA, Scarborough where I live, Pickering, Durham, and the surrounding regions of the Rouge deserve that, too.

To that end, I would like to thank all the political parties for their efforts to protect Rouge Park, which Jim mentioned. Over the years all the political parties have contributed to getting the Rouge to this stage. While the Rouge is not a great wilderness area, it is a rare piece of Carolinian forest. It is an anchor for biodiversity in the GTA with over 1,700 species. It provides much needed habitat for migratory monarch butterflies as they wend their way south.

With regard to the bill before you, Bill C-18, I would like to thank the Honourable Catherine McKenna and her team for working diligently to come up with the solutions that rectify the critical weakness in the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the failure to prioritize nature conservation in park management and meet the international definition of a protected area.

I would also like to thank Daniel Watson, CEO of Parks Canada, and his team for patiently listening to Canadians and working so hard in their efforts to support this bill. Daniel had to listen to me for a lot of hours.

The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Wildlands League supports the amendments in Bill C-18 to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act to prioritize ecological integrity in law in the management of the park. From the red-shouldered hawk and peregrine falcon to the butternut tree and the beautiful monarch butterfly, this is huge. Nature will finally come first.

With seven million people living within one hour's drive of the Rouge National Urban Park, park managers need strong legal tools to protect the park's ecosystem from the inevitable pressures of the surrounding urban environment, which is easily the greatest threat to the park. This includes an explicit legal mandate to consider nature first and foremost in all management decisions. Without such a framework, nature would inevitably lose.

We agree with the greater certainty for the farming community that is proposed in this bill as well, and we look forward to working with farmers on the many ways we can improve the ecological integrity of the park. EI is a destination we believe can work with farmers. Rouge Park houses much of the lower Rouge River watershed, one of the last flowing into western Lake Ontario to remain free of urban development. It provides the only ecological connection for wildlife between the Oak Ridges Moraine and Lake Ontario. It is where we host our annual Paddle the Rouge event each year, training youth to paddle. It is also where I live and where I enjoy time with my grandson as he dips his paddle in and remarks to me, “It's so peaceful here.”

I am pleased to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much. That was very quick. I'm sure we will have a lot of questions after.

If we could have Mr. Whittamore up next, that would be great. Thank you.

[Michael Whittamore, President, Whittamore's Farm]

Members of the committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you today regarding Bill C-18 and the proposed changes to the wording in the Rouge National Urban Park Act.

My brother and I operate a pick-your-own farm market and farm entertainment business in the heart of the provincially owned lands that are to be transferred to the Rouge National Urban Park. We have had a front-row seat for the past 44 years watching successive governments struggle with this crown asset. We were expropriated in 1972 and have leased back land for 42 years. Five different government ministries and agencies have been our landlord. We have farmed the entire time on one-year leases and often on one-month overholds, my entire farming career.

Two words are at the heart of the discussion today: ecological integrity. The last time I appeared before this committee during deliberations on Bill C-40, the same two words were being discussed. At that time I was not in favour of including those words in Bill C-40. There was, and still is, plenty of evidence that shows reaching the ecosystem health objectives of the Rouge National Urban Park can be achieved in many ways.

As we all know, politics played a large part in the delay of the transfer of the provincially owned lands to Parks Canada. A small committee of farmers met with both Minister McKenna and Minister Philpott in early February 2016 to discuss our concerns. Minister McKenna was looking for a way forward to allow the lands to be transferred. At a subsequent meeting, we were assured that we would be allowed to continue farming even if the two words “ecological integrity” were included in the amended act. She indicated there would be a clause with words to that effect. The minister did exactly what she said she would do.

Proposed subsection 6(2) says, “For greater certainty, subsection (1) does not prevent the carrying out of agricultural activities as provided for in this Act.”

Proposed subsection 6(1) ensures that the “Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, must be the first priority of the Minister”.

There are 42 words in the definition of “ecological integrity”, which will be included in the amended act. Words mean different things to different people. The interpretation of “ecological integrity” embedded in the Rouge National Urban Park Act will have to take into consideration section 4 of that act, which describes the three key objectives for the establishment of the park, one of which is “promoting a vibrant farming community”. Proposed subsection 6(2) of the current bill, which I just spoke about, contains six key words: “as provided for in this Act”. Those six words give some comfort to the agricultural community that there is a future for us in the Rouge National Urban Park.

I have a certain amount of trepidation in agreeing with Bill C-18, as 44 years of government ownership has that affect, but we collectively need to finish this job and make the Rouge National Urban Park a reality. However, as I stated before, we do not need old plans such as the Rouge north management plan added to the Rouge National Urban Park Act. These documents do not address the needs or concerns of the agricultural community, and they contemplate the destruction and reforestation of hundreds of acres of class 1 farmland, and that is bad public policy.

What we really need to do is step back and let Parks Canada do its job. This is a completely new type of park in the family of Parks Canada. The agriculture community has spent several years now working with staff and management, and we have complete confidence in their ability to execute a management plan that will meet the needs and expectations of all the stakeholders and reach a level of ecological integrity for an urban park in an urban setting that has an extensive human footprint, including an agricultural footprint dating back hundreds of years.

A simple example of this is the Wendat Nation, who resided in the park over 500 years ago and grew corn. They were farmers too.

We suggested to the ministers during our meeting in 2016 that all stakeholders need to try to work together for the common goals of the Rouge National Urban Park. For far too long, farmers and environmental groups have been at odds with each other. With age comes wisdom. I now believe that spending time together and gaining a better understanding of each other will have a positive impact on the park and will actually lead to collaboration of the stakeholders within the park.

To that end, Minister Philpott arranged a meeting with a few farmers and Janet Sumner from CPAWS in October 2016. We did a walkabout on a recently completed wetland rehabilitation project on a farm, one of a number of projects that has doubled the acreage of wetlands in the park in just two years. We had a great discussion, and I think each party came away with a better understanding. Also, we broke bread. Actually, we had Tim Hortons coffee and Timbits. What could be more Canadian than that?

Once the lands have transferred, I hope the minister will direct Parks Canada to form the advisory committee, which will be composed of all the stakeholders. This too will provide an avenue for understanding.

I'm in the business of the rural experience. My brother and I invite thousands of people to our farm every year. Countless times I've had parents come up to express their appreciation for their children being able to see where their food comes from and to experience nature first-hand.

We have an incredible opportunity here at the Rouge National Urban Park to showcase nature, culture, and agriculture. As was the case with the Banff National Park, history will show that the creation of the Rouge National Urban Park was truly visionary.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you so much.

The last up, then, is Alan Latourelle.

[Alan Latourelle, As an Individual]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much to all of you for understanding and for respecting the five minutes. That was wonderful.

Now we'll move to questions.

First up is Gary Anandasangaree.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and colleagues. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am the member of Parliament for Scarborough—Rouge Park, so I have a particular interest in this file, as the park is within my riding.

I want to also acknowledge my good friend, the honourable member from Scarborough—Guildwood, who has a long-standing commitment to the park and whose work in many ways has gotten us to this point. All governments at all levels and from all parties have in their own ways contributed to where we are.

Certainly, the panel before us has had a very personal interest in the park. In particular, CPAWS and Friends of the Rouge have had an extraordinary level of commitment to ensuring that the park gets to be optimal for the people of Canada.

Mr. Whittamore, I'm very pleased to see you here, as well, in support of this amendment, and the minister's office certainly is to be commended for its work.

That's my preamble. Let me get to the chase with respect to ecological integrity.

I'd like to get a sense from the environmental groups as to why environmental integrity is important, and what more can we do to strengthen the ecological integrity within the park? This is an urban park, so we should really set a gold standard. What are the things that we need to ensure to have ecological integrity strengthened within the park?

[Jim Robb]

Thank you.

We really appreciate the support of so many of the people who are community leaders in the eastern GTA.

The existing plans were science-based, they were done over a 26-year period, and they had broad public consultations. All levels of government were involved, as well as stakeholders, farmers, and environmentalists, and they represent a compromise position. If the existing plans go forward, then you would end up with a park with about 50% to 60% natural and about 40% to 50% agricultural. The amount of agricultural could increase if the agriculture moves from cash crops to orchards, pastures, and things like that, which could be compatible with calling it a natural heritage system. I think there's lots of room for win-win solutions over time.

I think with the public demand for this park, it will grow over time and it will be important that at least half of the park is available to the public in nature. That may take 40 years. It won't happen overnight. At the pace that it's gone over the last 26 years, the pace has been so slow that the public demand for use of the park is outstripping the areas available. It will be a challenge, but if we can at least get going on supporting first and following through with commitments to support that type of amendment that we've put forward, then that's a foundation with which we can work and with which stakeholders can co-operate to find the right balance between nature, public use, and farming.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Janet, if I can get you to....

[Janet Sumner]

Thanks, MP Anandasangaree.

I think that one of the big wins in the amendments that we have today is the fact that the “ecological integrity” definition is as it is, and it is consistent between the National Parks Act and the Rouge National Urban Park. For me and for CPAWS, this is what really makes this a protected area. As Stephen Woodley has indicated, this is what makes it qualify under IUCN as a park.

I fully expect that as park management plans move forward—and hopefully this bill passes with these amendments—we will see the park management plan reflect the nature of achieving EI. As I indicated before, it's a destination. It's not something where you snap your fingers and you get it right away, but it's rather something where you are working forward and improving. As Mike Whittamore said, we did a lovely tour of a farm and saw how the hydrology is improving even now with Parks Canada working with the local members and farmers to improve ecological function on farms and elsewhere.

I see that the elements are there. We have the amendments, we have the definition right, and I think now we need to get to the business of doing that park management plan and making sure it lives and breathes, and that we have everybody at the table working on that.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Just as a quick follow-up, I know that during the debate a lot of discussion took place with respect to the types of infrastructure that exist and the types of infrastructure that may be required for the area in the future. What provisions are there right now that will ensure that the infrastructure needs of the local community can be addressed, while ensuring that the park itself is kept intact?

[Janet Sumner]

I think, as Jim indicated earlier, much of that has already been removed from the park, and then liberal allowances made for future infrastructure needs. I don't see that as a conflict.

[Jim Robb]

On the issue of infrastructure, I think one of the things that would be great is if we can work on the connectivity. Underpasses and overpasses have been done in other parks to keep the public and nature safe. There are things like funnel fences, where you can actually funnel wildlife towards safe underpasses and overpasses. I think the infrastructure has been excluded, largely, and we also have the minister's flexibility in reallocating some of the land.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thanks to you all for appearing before us today. All of your presentations were thoughtful.

First of all, Mr. Watson, congratulations on your first year as CEO of Parks Canada. Also, it's good to see Superintendent Veinotte accompanying you here today.

It's satisfying to hear that Ontario is finally beginning to prepare to formally transfer the lands, but I'm just wondering if Ontario Parks has responded yet to the appeal from Parks Canada to assess the management plan.