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.
Green
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
No.
It comes down to what's being discussed. You could argue that Rouge is not the pristine space. It's already somewhat impaired. It's a matter of trying to....
Go ahead, Mr. Aldag.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
As a final comment, if I heard what Parks Canada indicated, it would be a concern for me, too, to hear that this hadn't been discussed. It seems like there have been a lot of very finely detailed negotiations to get to this piece. If we could be jeopardizing something, we'd have to really look at the risks of doing that. Again, the message I'm hearing is that Parks Canada is happy with the legislation as it's being put forward. That makes me happy with the legislation as it's being put forward, without the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
If there's no further discussion, I'll bring it to a vote.
(Amendment negatived)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
The next one up is one that was brought to us last week, which is CPC-1.1.
Normally Mr. Fast would be moving this, because it's his amendment. I'm going to need someone to move it to get it on the floor.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We'll stand by till everybody finds it.
Okay. It's talking about clause 2, replacing lines 15 to 17 with the following:
Conservation or restoration must be the first priority of the Minister when
Liberal
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
It's replacing the words “Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes must be the first priority of the Minister when” with what's here.
Liberal
Conservative
Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB
Yes. Quite a few of us over yesterday received some correspondence from a Mr. Tom Lee, who's a former head of Parks Canada. This wasn't solicited or anything like that. I think it just came out. I got it the same way all of you did.
I'd just like to read it into the record.
“Chairman and Members of Committee, I have belatedly become aware of the Committee’s review of the above draft legislation. As an individual who was head of Parks Canada from 1993 to 2002 I would like to express my views on the legislation.
“I fully support the establishment of this national urban park. I had the opportunity to participate in preliminary ideas on this proposal during my tenure and fervently hope that this is only the first of a series on national urban parks which will bring Canadians into greater contact with both Canada’s natural features and its historical and cultural resources. I will, therefore limit my comments to my one major concern, the use of the term ecological integrity, for which I have three concerns.
“Firstly, as applied to the Rouge Park, it is an objective that is never intended to be achieved or even closely achieved and could only be even closely achieved by violations of parts of the Act including those for agriculture. To argue that an ecological integrity is “a continuum" which might range from say 5% to say 90% is disingenuous, particularly when agriculture will remain a continuous part of resource management: a position which I support and is supported by legislation.
“Secondly it is not necessary to include this term as an overall objective for all lands when the legislation could easily be drafted to provide...zoning for those lands which would be specifically targeted toward achieving the maximum ecological integrity possible, for example conservation zone.
“Thirdly, the inclusion of ecological integrity as the primary management objective is, and I know that is was not the intention of the proponents of this clause, 'double speak', with broad and potentially negative implications to the entire national parks system. The Committee has already seen some of the implications for this in some of the testimony. The fact that there is a ski hill or a townsite in an existing national park is neither an argument for agriculture in Rouge or an argument for more ski hills and townsites in the rest of the national parks system. The point is that this argument does not have to be and should never be opened.
“Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation and best wishes in your deliberations.”
This is exactly what Mr. Fast's concerns and our side's concerns were. This gentleman, a pretty well-known expert in the field, listened to our deliberations. I would just like to bring that into play.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Thank you.
I have another document, which came from Kevin Van Tighem, as some of you probably know. He was the first conservation biologist in Waterton Lakes National Park during the 1990s, the best national park in Canada. I just want to get that part in there, that he was at—
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Now that we've established his credentials, he said:
For this very reason, I oppose the application of an ecological integrity standard to the Rouge National Urban Park. In my opinion there's an important distinction between a national park and a national urban park that risks being lost if the change is made, and it is a distinction [that is essential] to keep the national park management to the highest possible conservation standard while enabling promoting the establishment of more nationally-protected and near-urban parks in the future.
Here are another couple of phrases:
It is dangerous on the one hand because it risks lowering the political bar for ecological integrity in the other national parks where that standard has been and will continue to be vital for heading off ill-advised development proposals and occasional assaults on the whole idea of national parks.
Finally, he said:
By setting ecological integrity as the standard for the Rouge—and remember, ecological integrity is not an empty phrase; it has a very specific meaning—Canada risks creating a legacy of ongoing conflict and crisis as interest groups point out that farming is incompatible with maintaining a full suite of naturally-occurring species and processes and that allowing intensive use by urban visitors creates too many unnatural stresses on the ecosystem. The ecological integrity standard will be used as a wedge and a hammer for ongoing social conflict of pretty much every use and activity in the Rouge.
Thank you, Madam Chair, from Kevin Van Tighem.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I worked previously with Mr. Lee and Mr. Van Tighem, and I know they are reputable characters. When we had Parks Canada in last week, I put out a question—specifically to Mr. Watson, the current CEO—about how organizations evolve in their thinking. The question that I put was this: where is Parks Canada today on its thinking concerning ecological integrity?
I would say that, if we go back to the testimony, we heard very clear statements from Mr. Watson, but I will turn to the Parks Canada witnesses at the table now. As people within the system today, not retired, not outside of the system, but part of the ongoing conversations about ecological integrity, could you speak to that concern?
I guess, really, I'm trying to get the Parks Canada perspective, today, on the appropriateness of ecological integrity in the legislation as it has been put forward related to the Rouge National Urban Park legislation that is before us.
Field Unit Superintendent, Rouge National Urban Park, Parks Canada Agency
Is it okay if I take this one?
Ecological integrity is extremely important for the Government of Canada, for the Province of Ontario, for stakeholders, and for Parks Canada itself. We can look at the decades of experience that Parks Canada has had in applying ecological integrity, and we can also look at the Canada National Parks Act, and at the varied situations and places that ecological integrity has been applied.
The Rouge is unique. However, we do believe that by working with our partners we can apply ecological integrity in an urban setting. Because of that experience we have had—and we have now had almost two years of managing the land in the Rouge—I believe we can do great things. We are already demonstrating the great things we can do, so we don't see it affecting the application of ecological integrity in the rest of the system.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I just wanted to add that we had a discussion a few minutes ago about leaving the dedication clause out because it hadn't been adequately discussed with some of the stakeholders over the years. Ecological integrity was one of the key primary focuses for the groups that have been pushing for the Rouge for many years, and for that reason alone, it is absolutely worth leaving it in.
Conservative
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
To come back to this, we realize, and the CEO of Parks Canada said on Thursday, that Ontario made inclusion of ecological integrity conditional on the transfer of the land. It was absolutely conditional.
I think that the committee may be under a bit of a misimpression, based on the testimony of the CPAWS witness last week, who talked about the regulations for the Ontario protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine. I would just like to suggest that Ontario doesn't have a basis.... Those protections do not apply to the Ontario lands that are subject to transfer now.
Certainly, from my understanding over the years, all stakeholders have agreed that conservation should be the first priority, and that farming should continue and be celebrated—and we've heard that in a variety of ways. I'm still concerned, and Mr. Latourelle, in his testimony, sees the possibility of what I'd call a poisonous seed, that future governments, or future forces, may try to use this ecological integrity but misapply it to an urban park to crack it open.
You heard that the farmers have some trepidation that, in fact, one day someone may come in and interrupt the commitment that is contained and provided for in Bill C-18. They fear that someone may use “ecological integrity” to overwhelm and reverse that element and that protection for the farmers, for the agricultural land.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I think we've heard the same kind of discussion from testimony last week and this week.
If there's nothing else that needs to be said today, then I'd like to vote on this amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
All right.
Now we're on PV-2, if everybody can pull that up.
