Environment Committee on Nov. 15th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I don't have the gavel, but we will start.

Welcome to meeting number 36 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Today we're dealing with Bill C-248, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, Ojibway national urban park of Canada, which was referred to us on June 8, 2022. More specifically, we are doing clause-by-clause today.

Replacing Ms. Collins, we have Mr. Bachrach. It's nice to have you back with us, Mr. Bachrach.

We have Mr. Benzen replacing Mr. Kitchen; we have Mr. Lewis replacing Mr. Kurek; and we have Madame Vignola replacing Madame Pauzé.

As witnesses, we have the sponsor of the bill, Brian Masse, MP for Windsor West; and from Parks Canada, Andrew Campbell, senior vice-president of operations, and Caroline Macintosh, executive director of the protected areas establishment branch.

I think that covers all the niceties. Unless I'm missing something, I guess we can go straight into clause-by-clause.

We have two proposed amendments. These are Liberal-1 and Liberal-2. I don't know who will be proposing these amendments. I await a proposer.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'll be proposing a couple of amendments.

Before I propose those amendments, I have a quick question for Mr. Masse.

Thanks for being here again today, and thanks to all of our witnesses for being here.

Could you assure the committee with 100% confidence that there are no private, municipal or provincial encumbrances on the lands that are referred to within this bill?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Not that I'm aware, and if there were, then these things could be worked out later on, if there are negotiations that get carried out. I think that's one of the reasons that we have the amendments in front of us and why I support the amendments. They provide some more flexibility and clarity to allow those things to be worked out.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I'd just like to ask the same question of Parks Canada, if that's possible.

[Andrew Campbell, Senior Vice-President, Operations, Parks Canada Agency]

Thank you.

We have not done the study area to look and make sure that there are no encumbered titles within it. At such time as the act would pass, immediately all of the areas within this bounded area would become part of a national park. That would mean that if there are private lands.... To give you a quick example, if you wanted to put a doghouse in your backyard, you would have to go to the field unit superintendent and ask permission. If you wanted to put a trap out for a mouse in your backyard, you would again need to go to the field unit superintendent for permission.

If you were the provincial government, you would have to go to the field unit superintendent for permission to do anything within the Ontario lands. The same would be the case with the Windsor lands.

Immediately upon passing, that would all come into force.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

There are no private lands.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

With that in mind, should this bill pass, what would that mean operationally?

[Andrew Campbell]

Again, because we don't know...and some of the boundaries do abut private lands, so we don't know whether you're out by a coordinate or two. First of all, it's speculative to say that there would be private lands or there would not, but we would have to administer the act as written, which would mean in all of those areas Parks Canada would have administration and control, even though we would not have ownership.

It's a bit of a strange legal piece. Very few times would you ever have a piece of land where you would have administration and control where you wouldn't have ownership, but in this case, that would be the case.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I just want to take a little.... It's not speculative in terms of the geography that was done. It was done by all the experts. It was done by the geography of the City of Windsor, the province and the process. If there is a mistake, that's one of the reasons we have, again, the amendments.

It's not speculative. I think it's a pretty harsh term to use. We've identified these as all known public lands from the city, the province and the federal government to be assembled. We feel fairly confident on that, but again, that's why the amendments are there, to provide that flexibility.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I very much appreciate that.

My concern with this bill is that it does seek to add lands under the Canada National Parks Act, in which the federal government, at this point, does not have a property interest. I'm just a little concerned that it won't follow the appropriate procedures. That's one reason I think these amendments are very important, to mitigate against that risk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Would you like to propose an amendment?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Sure. I have two amendments.

The first one I would like to propose was shared with the committee previously. It falls under the reference 12053664.

It is that Bill C-248 be amended by adding before line 4 on page 1 the following new clause:

0.1 The Canada National Parks Act is amended by adding the following after section 38:

38.1(1) Sections 8 and 22 of the Rouge National Urban Park Act apply in respect of the Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada with any modifications that the circumstances require.

(2) In the event of a conflict between section 8 or section 22 of the Rouge National Urban Park Act as they apply to the Ojibway National Urban Park Act of Canada and this Act, the provisions of this Act shall prevail.

That's the text itself.

The importance of this is that the amendment would amend the bill to reference specific provisions of the Rouge Act to apply to this bill. Those include establishing an advisory committee and having incorporation, by reference, of different levels of government laws and bylaws that would still apply in the park.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Thank you.

It's hard for me to see if anyone wants to speak to this amendment.

Maybe the clerk could guide me here. I have a ruling on the amendment. Does that pre-empt any debate? I think it would. Would it not?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Alexandre Longpré]

It does, Mr. Chair. You can give your ruling now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That's what I'll do.

Bill C-248 enacts the new Ojibway national urban park of Canada act by way of geographical descriptions.

The amendment we're talking about here, LIB-1, seeks to apply section 8—involving the creation of an advisory committee—and section 22—involving incorporation by reference and regulations—of the Rouge National Urban Park Act to the provisions of Bill C-248. These would be new concepts that are not envisioned in the bill.

As page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states, “an amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

Therefore, in the opinion of the chair, and for the above-mentioned reasons, the amendment is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

I don't see anybody. Again, it's hard for me to see if someone in the room has their hand up. I don't see anyone on screen with their hand up.

Mr. Bachrach, go ahead.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I just wonder if the committee might see fit to hear from Mr. Masse with regard to his take on this proposed amendment and your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I believe we can have debate on this.

Can we, Mr. Clerk?

[The Clerk]

No, Mr. Chair. There can't be debate on your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. There can't be debate on the ruling.

We'll go on to amendment LIB-2 if no one contests the ruling.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Mr. Chair, we need to address clause 1 first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, we need to vote on it, of course.

Liberal-1 is out of order, so we have to vote on clause—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, the bells have started ringing. Should we get unanimous consent to go on until 10 minutes before the vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I would like that, if we could continue, yes.

Would 10 minutes before the bells—in other words, 20 minutes into the bells—be okay with members to suspend at that point to allow for voting and then allow the statutory 10 minutes after the vote before resuming again? Is everyone okay with that?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

It looks like it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Okay. That's good. Thank you.

The amendment is inadmissible. Do we go now to Liberal-2? Is that the procedure?