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.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
Last but not least, we have Ms. Sumner from the Wildlands League.
October 28th, 2022 / 2:10 p.m.
Janet Sumner Executive Director, Wildlands League
Good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation to speak.
My name is Janet Sumner. I am the executive director for Wildlands League. Wildlands is a not-for-profit charity that has been working in the public interest to protect public lands and resources since 1968.
At Wildlands, we have extensive knowledge of land use in Ontario and across Canada. We have a long history of working with governments—provincial, federal, indigenous and municipal—scientists, the public and resource industries on progressive conservation. We've published on a variety of issues, including the recent Hill Times article on the role of nature networks in urban areas and how they can play a key role in a federal plan to preserve biodiversity.
You may also have seen the results of our work in helping amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act to include ecological integrity as the management priority by law, thereby meeting the IUCN standard as a protected area. We celebrated this achievement with a community paddle of the Rouge, where we had 200 paddlers out for a Sunday paddle with the Prime Minister.
Wildlands thanks the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for its attention to Bill C-248. Wildlands is a strong supporter of the need to create Ojibway national urban park, and I’ll explain why.
For the past few weeks in Ontario we have been witness to the most glorious displays of autumn splendour in recent memory. It's times like these when the beauty of nature is inescapable, even in the midst of our cities. We are fortunate that our work at Wildlands League routinely asks us to go out into nature, shake off the city and get inspired. We also get to see the threats and what is happening to nature first-hand.
I was raised in London, Ontario. As a family, we spent time on the shores of Lake Erie, and as a teenager, I visited Windsor, Chatham, Sarnia, Dorchester, St. Marys, Tillsonburg and back again every baseball season and hockey and soccer year. I know the back roads and the beauty of southern Ontario.
Today there are two main existential threats. These are the increasing climate chaos and the grave loss of biodiversity. In southern Ontario, there is both an incredible species diversity and Canada’s fastest-growing and largest urban population, yet barely 3% of the landscape is safeguarded by permanent legislated protection. It’s no surprise that the majority of Canada’s at-risk species are clinging to existence.
I'm actually going to jump ahead in my remarks so that I get this last point in.
What we hope to see is a nature network in Windsor, but we need to create it in the right way. We need to make sure that the legislation includes and prioritizes ecological integrity. Right now, moving forward with policy, we don't have that guarantee.
Further, the transfer of provincial lands, which are actually governed by the Ontario Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, does include ecological integrity as the management priority. If those lands are transferred, there is a risk that the transfer will actually downgrade protection in law.
That's why we fully support Bill C‑248, as do the City of Windsor and the chief of Caldwell First Nation. We would like to see protection of ecological integrity in law.
We also support the opportunity for co-management of the Ojibway national urban park and defer to the first nations on how they may want to move this forward.
Finally, I'll just—
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
There will be time to explore these issues through questions.
Mr. Kurek, please go ahead for six minutes.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much. Thank you to the witnesses for joining us here today.
I've found over the course of debate—this being a private member's bill—that it seems as though there is significant support for the creation of this park. It remains interesting that all but two members of the government voted against the private member's bill, but the unique dynamic of a minority Parliament saw that it passed. It is now before this committee. It certainly provides some interesting opportunity for collaboration.
I listened with great interest—and I hope that the witnesses had a chance to listen—to the Parks Canada representatives earlier.
My question is for Chief Duckworth and Councillor Francis.
There seems to be a hang-up with the process. The government and Parks Canada have said that the process through a private member's bill is problematic, yet we've heard significant support for Bill C-248 moving forward. I'd like to open it up to both of you to provide some comments, particularly about the process question. We understand the support. On the process question, why do you support or not support Bill C-248 as the mechanism to create this park?
We'll start with Chief Duckworth.
2:15 p.m.
Caldwell First Nation
Meegwetch.
The mechanism is a legislative framework. That's the mechanism that's been used to create the Rouge. Being able to create a new legislative framework, we can create a really strong document to work from to ensure that the first nations are being consulted, that we all have a voice and that we're able to protect the land.
I work in first nations government and I don't understand what the holdup is. I know that for me and the Caldwell citizens, this is important, as I'm sure it is for Walpole. Walpole is not here, maybe because they just had an election. They are just getting oriented. I'll speak to that. I'm not sure.
Maybe Mr. Francis could answer that better.
2:15 p.m.
City Councillor, Ward 1, City of Windsor
We support the legislation in Bill C-248 because it's a tried and true process. When we're talking about policy negotiation, we don't know what that entails. With legislation, there are firm parameters as to what that entails, to the point where the City of Windsor has offered its parcel to Parks Canada at no cost.
Not only that, but we know how significant it is to have a park run and established by Parks Canada—sooner rather than later—with Point Pelee. We've seen it. That allows us to protect this significant portion of land throughout our city forever. Future generations of Windsorites and, quite frankly, everyone in Essex County will be forever grateful to the federal government if we are able to move faster.
That's why we support this legislation that we're considering today. We know what that entails. It's concrete and it allows us to move forward sooner rather than later.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I appreciate that.
It's interesting that often the conversation is around the requirement for government to do something, when it's actually Parliament. Government is a function of Parliament. I think in a minority Parliament there are certainly some unique opportunities to forward these conversations.
To both the chief and the councillor, concerns have been raised about the challenges in consultations and some of the technicalities around boundaries and whatnot. Are you confident, given your experiences with Parks Canada and different levels of government, that if Bill C-248 passed, some of those challenges that have been highlighted could be overcome?
I'll go to the chief first.
2:15 p.m.
Caldwell First Nation
I'd like to say that absolutely they can be overcome.
Of the issues brought up by Andrew Campbell, the one thing I think will be an issue is consulting indigenous people. I refer to the rights holders. The rights holders are the Three Fires Confederacy, which are the five nations within southwestern Ontario, which now have a deal with Hydro. We are co-owners in the lines that are being run through all five nations' territories.
I did hear Mr. Campbell mention the Métis. The Métis are indigenous, but they are not rights holders and they are not from southwestern Ontario. As you'll see, the federal government and provincial government—
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I really hate to do this, but Councillor, do you just have a quick comment? I'm almost out of time. I just wanted to make sure that you both get a chance to comment on this.
2:20 p.m.
City Councillor, Ward 1, City of Windsor
Yes, I'm confident that we're able to move forward. Yes.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Chief, you have a few more seconds. If there is anything you wanted to add, I'll go back to you.
2:20 p.m.
Caldwell First Nation
No, I just feel that all the support is here. The support has been there. I just feel we wouldn't be here today if we did not table this bill. I made it clear with Parks Canada to please move through the process in a meaningful way so that we don't finish this park in five years.
I think I'll end on that comment. Meegwetch.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for helping us with this study that we're doing. When I voted in the House for this bill to come to committee, it's exactly for the reason that we can dive into what's been happening in terms of consultations.
Chief Duckworth, in particular I was interested in the relationship that you've had so far and also the relationship with Walpole. This summer I was up in the Chippewas of Nawash Nation and also the Saugeen Ojibway Nation, and in terms of the relationship between those two nations, I wonder about any kinds of parallels in the relationship that you've had with Walpole and whether what was said in the previous testimony about having an agreement.... Now you're mentioning that five nations possibly could be involved with the discussion around this park. Is there some type of an agreement with you and Walpole?
2:20 p.m.
Caldwell First Nation
To be clear, we always say as first nations people, let us worry about our relationships—
2:20 p.m.
Caldwell First Nation
—and you worry about yours. I think that was important to say to the park when they were consulting the two of us, so to put it to you in a way with the five nations, we understand our territory and we understand we work within that territory. There are five nations within that territory; two need to be consulted.
You have the Pinery provincial park. They are consulted by Kettle Point. There are other parks.
Now I forget the question.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
You're answering the question by showing the complexity, and that's what I really wanted to see on the record.
I feel like we haven't heard from Walpole, and that's a concern I have.
2:20 p.m.
Caldwell First Nation
I think that you have to look at it. You can't force people to the table. I have a close relationship with Walpole Island. I worked on their territory for 17 years. I know the people and I know the chief. There's no way we would hurt our sister nation. We don't do that to each other. There are never any fights in the paper; I don't know if you noticed. We always take care of business collectively within the Three Fires Confederacy.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Great, super. We're learning, as settlers. It's very similar to what I found in Chippewa, which is that people worked in each other's areas and family relations are even tighter.
I know that Parks Canada is consulting with Walpole about making sure that if people can be at the table, they're invited to the table.
To go over to Councillor Francis, congratulations as well on election to office, and thank you for your service. I'm not saying that lightly but I do have limited time.
I know that in the initial stages when we did the Rouge as a first run of a national urban park, we had to learn how to work within the levels of government as well as with the citizens we're all serving, but each of us has our jurisdictional responsibilities.
My understanding is that the goal is to create 15 new urban national parks, and that 20 submissions came forward to Parks Canada for consideration. Edmonton, Saskatoon and Windsor have now actively engaged. I know Montreal is looking and Victoria is also looking at becoming engaged in the process. In trying to get a framework for national urban parks in Canada, we're still fairly early, but some of the complexities are about having subsurface liabilities. For example, who's responsible if the sewer breaks, and does that fall under city council or does that fall under Parks Canada, and how do we know the difference between the two?
Have you been involved personally with the consultations or with the competition, first of all, to get from 20 down to a smaller number?
2:25 p.m.
City Councillor, Ward 1, City of Windsor
With the competition itself, no. I would assume that would be up to city administration and their committee with Parks Canada. As I said before, the Windsor City Council has passed unanimous support for this legislation. You'd have a willing partner in the City of Windsor. I don't foresee that to be an issue at all.