Environment Committee on Dec. 8th, 2016

[Daniel Watson]

The draft of that management plan, of course, went out in 2014, and it would be replaced with another one in 2017. We've been working with the province closely on a number of things, mostly on the land transfer at this point in time. I can't honestly say whether or not they've responded on that, but I can find out and get back very quickly to you.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Infrastructure, certainly in our time, had prevented them from responding at all.

Mr. Latourelle, it's good to see you again, and congratulations on your 13 years as CEO of Parks Canada.

You stated that having ecological integrity as a management priority in the Rouge National Urban Park actually puts at risk other Canadian national parks. Can you explain that?

[Alan Latourelle]

I'll use some of the other witnesses' comments, also. Basically, the definition of EI is very scientific, and what we're seeing across the country is basically people interpreting very differently, and then people looking for equal legislation with what's happening elsewhere.

For example, I foresee there will be some challenges with places like Pukaskwa, in terms of the hydro line, and people coming in and saying that they want the hydro line through the park. Because on the Rouge you have all of this infrastructure; you have a smaller park.

I'm not inventing this. In my 13 years, I wouldn't say daily, but very regularly we have been approached in meetings for this type of development, which we said “no” to. My main concern is, how do we say “no” when people start using comparisons, especially if you are using the exact same legislation?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

With the wilderness parks under Parks Canada's administration....

[Alan Latourelle]

Yes.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

This goes back a number of years on the political side of the talks with Ontario to develop the Rouge National Urban Park. You said, “Any organization that implies that the Rouge National Urban Park Act”—the original act, Bill C-40—“does not meet current provincial legislation is misleading the public.”

Is that because the provincial lands, until now, have no prohibitions on aggregate mining, infrastructure, destruction of species at risk habitat, and the potential expansion of existing transportation corridors?

[Alan Latourelle]

I did say that, so I'll be clear on that. Those were generally my words.

The other part of it—and now I'm free to say what I want—is that basically, when you look at the history, I think what happened is that we sat with Ontario at that time, agreed that we would meet or exceed, and they agreed. I think the standard has changed from an Ontario perspective, clearly, and that's where we are today.

I think, whatever comes out of this process, putting ecological integrity as the first priority, as an example, was not the requirement by Ontario at that time. If that's a requirement now, that happened after the process when we signed the agreement initially at the officials' level.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

It's good to see you again, Mr. Whittamore.

I think everyone around this table certainly agrees that the first priority is completing the Rouge National Urban Park, moving those Ontario lands in under the auspices and management of Parks Canada.

You said that while you have some comfort with the assurances in Bill C-18, you still have a certain amount of trepidation. Does what Mr. Latourelle has said here today feed into that trepidation and concern about future challenges to your existence as an agricultural operation?

[Michael Whittamore]

Not so much that it's going to affect other parks. The trepidation I have is that when these lands get transferred, it's not going to end.... We're going to have to work together, and that's why I said exactly what I said. We're all going to have to sit down, because there are going to be and continue to be competing interests.

Agriculture just wants to get a fair shake at the table. That's all we're asking for. We don't feel that in the last.... I know, Jim, there were 26 years of public consultation, but the agricultural community was not fairly consulted.

All we're asking is that as we move forward.... We recognize that agriculture is going to have to change. We're not against planting trees. Make no mistake; we plant trees. All farmers plant trees. We're not against that, but we want to work together.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I have just one very quick question to Mr. Woodley.

When Mr. Latourelle was the CEO of the agency, he said that the original Rouge National Urban Park Act was the strongest legislation governing IUCN urban parks in the world. Would you agree with that, given that much of the ecological integrity references are outside of the legislation and in policy?

[Dr. Stephen Woodley]

No. I think that if you look at all the legislation around the world that governs parks that are in urban areas, protected areas in urban areas, many of them have national-park-strength legislation. Without a management goal in the old act, no, I don't think it met that standard.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Stetski is next.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here today.

Mr. Whittamore, I really liked your phrase that the park needs to be a showcase for “nature, culture, and agriculture”. I absolutely think it's important that the park serve all three of those aspects.

I want to focus a bit on ecological integrity. All of the amendments we've proposed today have been focused on ecological integrity. I'd like to start with Mr. Woodley, a well recognized chief of science with national parks who is now recognized internationally.

How do you feel about the words “ecological integrity” when applied to Rouge Park?

[Dr. Stephen Woodley]

We don't have a gold standard for assigning an ecological end point. Alan is perfectly correct that Parks Canada led on the development and application of the idea of ecological integrity, and it has been picked up by many countries. I don't think it's really all that different than the IUCN definition of conservation. I think the most important thing to understand is that it's not a binary condition. It's not a condition that you either have or you don't. It's a sliding scale.

We all agree that the Rouge isn't pristine, but it has real ecological value now. In terms of ecological integrity, I think that the management goal is to maintain what we have, and where we have opportunities to make it better, to restore it. I think that the state of park reporting we set up looks at success or failure based upon relativity, where we are now. We don't want to decline. I think ecological integrity can easily account for that kind of sliding scale. In fact, it does so right now in the range of national parks.

Parks Canada runs a park in Point Pelee, a park in the Thousand Islands, and a park in P.E.I. that is a coastal strip, all under the rubric of ecological integrity. I think it does so quite successfully because it uses relativity in its management, and I think it can equally apply here. Ecological integrity is used, as I mentioned, by management agencies. It can be used for forest companies.

If you look at the case of Pukaskwa and the power line, that clearly takes away ecological integrity from its current state. I think the answer is in relativity.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I'll ask the same question if I might to Mr. Robb from Friends of the Rouge Watershed.

[Jim Robb]

I think that Dr. Woodley gave an excellent answer.

I've had the benefit of visiting about 20 of our national parks. If you go to Banff, there's a lot of development there, but in the National Parks Act, ecological integrity is prioritized. If you go to Jasper or Riding Mountain, they have roads and sewage treatment plants and a lot of different things. The Rouge has its own unique challenges, but with the biodiversity, cultural, agricultural, and ecological potential that's there, you want to set a high aspirational standard.

As Dr. Woodley said, there is a certain relativity. We're heading for a point way in the distance that will be much better than what is there now. However, we're not trying to straitjacket Parks Canada into changing the Rouge into a northern park, which is basically at no impacts or very little.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Ms. Sumner, if I might, I'll ask you the same question with your national perspective.

[Janet Sumner]

One of the interesting things I'd like to comment on is the idea that it has to meet or exceed.

If you look at the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, it clearly already has in there that it's protecting the ecological and hydrological integrity of the moraine. Where you already have it in existing Ontario legislation, you need to meet or exceed that. That's what the provisions for EI do in the C-18 amendments.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I'll stick with you, Ms. Sumner.

If you could add any improvements to what you've seen in the amendments to the act, is there anything you would recommend?

[Janet Sumner]

Back to Mike Whittamore's comments, I think that getting the park management plan right is going to be a delicate balance, and it's going to be a conversation. Frankly, we need everybody at the table to be moving this forward in a way that will help us achieve and move forward on EI. It is going to be through that collaboration that we find that sweet spot and make those connections. I'm pleased to see that we're going to be moving forward on this and that C-18 is hopefully going to pass.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Watson, congratulations on becoming CEO.

What are your general thoughts on how important having an urban national park is to the future of national parks?

[Daniel Watson]

It's incredibly important.

When we set up the first national park in the country, it was something that was brand new. Over time that has served to change the way Canadians see themselves. In the past, we created parks where the land and the natural treasures were. This time, we're finding that in the midst of where the people are. That represents an enormous change for this country.

We are now in a world where second, third, fourth, and fifth generations of people have no meaningful connection to nature. They didn't grow up on farms; they didn't travel across the country in station wagons and camp along the way. To know that literally two blocks away from where you are are endangered species, which you might have an impact on in half an hour of volunteering at the end of your workday or school day is something that changes Canadians' understanding of not only what environment is there but what they can do to help save it.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Excellent. Thank you very much.

Next up is John Aldag.