Evidence of meeting #43 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 parks.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair (Mrs. Deborah Schulte (King—Vaughan, Lib.)) Liberal Deb Schulte
We are starting the meeting.
Welcome to the Parks Canada staff. Thank you for being at the table with us to help us answer any questions that might come up as we move through clause-by-clause consideration.
I'll recap where we were last Tuesday. We stood down the first clause because it was a definition and we needed to deal with that. It's right at the top of my list here, so we're still holding that. Also, I ruled Ms. May's motion inadmissible, and we voted down CPC-1.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We are now on NDP-1. We had just had that brought forward to us.
Mr. Stetski was able to speak to it, I believe. Didn't you speak to it?
Okay, we just got to it. Why don't you speak to it, then? We'll get started on that one.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Thank you.
The purpose of this is just to bring Rouge in line with other national parks by including proposed subsection 6(1), which is:
The Park is dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act, and it must be maintained and made use of so as to leave it unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
That is in all the other acts, and for some reason it wasn't in the preliminary part of the Rouge Park bill.
I would also like to ask the national parks staff if there is any particular reason why that clause wasn't included in the Rouge bill.
3:40 p.m.
Pam Veinotte Field Unit Superintendent, Rouge National Urban Park, Parks Canada Agency
Thank you very much for the question. I think it's important to look at the act in its entirety. If you look at section 4, which is the reasons for establishment, I think you see what all the stakeholders who came together determined was the vision for the park and the reasons for establishment.
The dedication, as you referred to a dedication clause, is bringing something new into the section that you included it under, and we are not certain what impact that would have, in terms of something that no one is seeing, on the stakeholders and others we've been working and consulting with. We have concerns about bringing that in at this point.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Are these actual concerns about what it might say or do, or concerns about the fact that it hasn't been talked about by the group so far?
3:40 p.m.
Field Unit Superintendent, Rouge National Urban Park, Parks Canada Agency
Jim, do you want to...? Did I summarize that?
3:40 p.m.
J.G. Jim) Rossiter (Counsel, Parks Canada Legal Services, Parks Canada Agency
It's the second one.
3:40 p.m.
Field Unit Superintendent, Rouge National Urban Park, Parks Canada Agency
Yes, I think it's that second one, the concern of something brand new coming in at the very last minute. I think there is agreement on the reasons for establishment of the park and the vision for the park, and that's found in section 4.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Just to clarify, is that section 4 of Bill C-40? I'm trying to find....
3:40 p.m.
Field Unit Superintendent, Rouge National Urban Park, Parks Canada Agency
Yes, sorry, that's section 4 in Bill C-40, the Rouge National Urban Park Act.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
What I was going to ask, and it's very much in line with Wayne's questioning.... We were told that the ecological integrity piece came in to bring it in line with the Canada National Parks Act, so it is interesting that the dedication clause is missing.
I would be curious to see what section 4 says, to give it that kind of....
3:40 p.m.
Field Unit Superintendent, Rouge National Urban Park, Parks Canada Agency
Maybe I can read section 4, Madam Chair, if that's okay.
3:40 p.m.
Field Unit Superintendent, Rouge National Urban Park, Parks Canada Agency
It says:
Rouge National Urban Park, which is described in the schedule, is established for the purposes of protecting and presenting, for current and future generations, the natural and cultural heritage of the Park and its diverse landscapes, promoting a vibrant farming community and encouraging Canadians to discover and connect with their national protected heritage areas.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
As you were reading, I was following along. I don't know if Mr. Stetski would agree, but it would seem it takes the official Canada National Parks Act dedication clause and tailors it to the Rouge, so that would cover off that piece. If Mr. Stetski would agree, then I think we would not need this clause in there.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
For me—and I am trying to put it into the context of the Rouge—the dedication clause in the parks act talks about leaving it “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations”.
I didn't really hear that in section 4. That, to me, was a very important statement that occurs with all other national parks.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I'll read it again, because I think it might cover that:
Rouge National Urban Park, which is described in the schedule, is established for the purposes of protecting and presenting, for current and future generations, the natural and cultural heritage of the Park and its diverse landscapes, promoting a vibrant farming community and encouraging Canadians to discover and connect with their national protected heritage areas.
That does address future generations. There's discover and connect, and enjoyment's just a little.... I'm hoping that discovering and connecting is enjoying.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I don't think it's as strong. I'd still like to put this forward. If we end up voting on it, we'll vote on it.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
If I could just summarize what I'm reading, although it may not be exactly the same wording, Wayne.... From my perspective I'd be satisfied in accepting what Ms. Veinotte from Parks Canada had shared as having that protected. From my perspective, I think it would be redundant to accept the amendment as put forward.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you.
Technically, I am only allowed to speak at the discretion of the chair because this isn't my amendment, but I appreciate the chance to say that the language Mr. Stetski's put forward is the traditional language that goes with national parks, in terms of the commitment. The language of “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” is quite different from enjoyment for future generations. As Wayne just said, it's much stronger and it's consistent.
In the first version of the bill—and why I'm so pleased there's a second version of the bill—this was going to be a second-rate national park where ecological integrity wasn't respected. I think that's why the purpose, under section 4 of Bill C-40 is not as strong as what was just put forward in this proposed NDP amendment.
