Evidence of meeting #33 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 44th 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.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
1:30 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Operations, Parks Canada Agency
Yes, you can set up a principled approach, if that's what you're saying, to setting up legislation that in fact could exist for many urban national parks across the country and would be based on some of the principles that needed to be set up for the Rouge. The Rouge had some very specific elements to it that wouldn't necessarily go forward. In that case, it was around ownership and federal ownership of the land.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
1:30 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Operations, Parks Canada Agency
Some portion of it will have some ownership. That's correct.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
You mentioned earlier that “any provincial or city infrastructure in the park will immediately become subject to our regulations.” Why is that a problem?
1:30 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Operations, Parks Canada Agency
I'm going to try to use an example, because it's probably the easiest way.
Under our regulations, ecological integrity is the number one priority of national parks in the country. As we start to look at, for instance, municipal infrastructure that would go through the park or be abutting the park, that would be the overarching goal we have. In that, for the lands that would actually be transferred, the regulations—I'll use the sewer line, a hydro line or any type of utilities corridor that would go through that park—have not excluded it in the current set of lands that you would transfer.
There is no provision in the national parks act to do that. We added that into the Rouge National Urban Park Act so that if we sat down with the province and it said that for this highway interchange, we need to move the boundary back this much, it was possible to—
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Okay, I've got it. I have only a little bit of time here and I want to ask just a couple more questions.
Is Meewasin Park in Saskatchewan under consideration as a national urban park?
1:30 p.m.
Vice-President, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation, Parks Canada Agency
That's correct.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you.
There's another one I want to talk about here. You talked about clear title to surface and subsurface that you had to look at, including the liabilities associated therewith.
Clear title should be pretty easy to get, including in subsurface, don't you think? I mean, it's land that's existed for a long time. With title, it's clearly established who owns it, and it's on record. That's not really going to hold you up, is it?
1:35 p.m.
Vice-President, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation, Parks Canada Agency
For any of the lands, we require surveys that are led by Natural Resources Canada. It would do all that work. It's ensuring that all that proper due diligence is done beforehand. It's a timing issue.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Yes, but that due diligence is part of your job. For anybody who's acquiring land, it's their job. If this legislation moved you to do that job, it would just be a step in the process.
1:35 p.m.
Vice-President, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation, Parks Canada Agency
That happens ahead of the legislation coming into effect, though. We would do all of that ahead of legislation coming into effect.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
The way I'm used to seeing it here, legislation from Parliament will direct the bureaucracy to take action. I'm hearing you say that you'd rather have the department take action on its own without direction from a bill that's passed by Parliament.
We know there are steps between A and Z. There is a bill in front of Parliament that is moving towards having Parks Canada create a new park. Are you saying that process is stopping us there?
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
We're going to have stop there. Maybe you can elaborate on that in an answer to someone else. It's an interesting point.
We will go to Ms. Lambropoulos for five minutes, please.
October 28th, 2022 / 1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank Parks Canada for being our witness today to answer some of our questions.
This is my first time on the committee, so my apologies for not necessarily knowing the full length of the bill we're discussing. I did read briefly on Bill C-248 and I listened to your testimony.
Based on what you were saying, steps had already been undertaken prior to this legislation being introduced to the House to create a national urban park in Windsor. Therefore, I'm looking for a confirmation on this: Whether or not this legislation gets passed, will there be a park created in Windsor, in your opinion as representatives from Parks Canada?
1:35 p.m.
Vice-President, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation, Parks Canada Agency
Again, we commend MP Masse on his work and his dedication to establishing a park. We do want to do that too.
Our process will take a little bit longer than this bill, but will achieve the same result in the end. However, as noted, there are a lot of challenges with a bill that creates a park without having done some due diligence on—
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC
Perfect. Thank you very much.
Also, I come from a riding that is looking to have a national park created close by. Considering that approach, I was also wondering what the potential consequences could be of this bill going forward. I'm talking about from a budget stance.
You've mentioned having the goal of creating several national urban parks across the country. If this bill were to move forward, would that be to the detriment of other parks that you have in your planning?
1:35 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Operations, Parks Canada Agency
Thank you very much for the question.
Obviously, as public servants we do take our direction from the government. The Speaker has ruled that this in fact does not create the necessity to have a royal recommendation. Therefore, we wouldn't be in a good position to comment on that.
That being said, obviously what the feeling must be is that we would be able to reallocate funds within our existing budget to be able to do this, or that Parliament would appropriate new funds.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC
Technically, it wouldn't necessarily affect the creation of these other parks. That's what I'm hearing.
1:35 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Operations, Parks Canada Agency
Again, it's a difficult question to answer. Right now we would need to find funding to do this and other parks if there were no appropriation. The only way to do that would be to not do something else.
I don't want to say what that “not do something else” would be, but it would be to not do something else or to have every one of our national parks across the country have a reduction in the amount of service and the amount of protection that we would provide.
1:40 p.m.
Liberal
Emmanuella Lambropoulos Liberal Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you. Then it would affect other areas. I appreciate the response you gave and the way you were able to give it.
Next, as other members have mentioned, Rouge national park in Toronto was created. It's a great example to look at as well. An act was created. Of course, that's why you're looking to have a broader scope and to create more parks without necessarily creating an act each time, but if this bill were to go through, what are some changes that could be made if we looked specifically toward the Rouge national park act? Is there anything we should be taking from there that was done properly and that could be added to this bill?
1:40 p.m.
Senior Vice-President, Operations, Parks Canada Agency
I think there are a couple of things that would be good to look at. Certainly, when we were doing the negotiations....
I will say that I was responsible for those negotiations of land transfer with the Rouge National Urban Park. One thing we did do at the end of that, between the municipalities, the regional government, and the Province of Ontario, was to say that a certain percentage of the park could in fact be utilized in the future for urban infrastructure.
That, I think, is a positive, and I think there were positives around the fact that there was an established indigenous circle for the leadership within that park. There was an established provincial, municipal and regional governing body. There was an advisory committee to the minister.
I think those are all very positive elements of the Rouge National Urban Park that should perhaps be considered as you move forward.
1:40 p.m.
Bloc
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
The more I listen, the more I am concerned.
I understood that you already had an initiative similar to the one in this bill. I also understood that you are wanting to create federal municipal parks elsewhere.
Could you tell me where in Quebec? The purpose of the question I asked earlier was to raise this concern, to know where the federal government is planning to appropriate places or land in Quebec to make federal municipal parks.
That is my concern.