Mr. Speaker, I will take the member at her word. She talks about the environmentalists. Let us look at what they said.
When asked about farming, Caroline Schultz of Ontario Nature said that yes it wanted farming in the park, but “There are certain types of farming that would not be compatible”. If someone is a farmer, then it is adios.
Jim Robb spoke about the 600-metre ecological corridor and said that it would take 1700 acres of class 1 farmland out of production.
Parks Canada estimates that 2,000 acres of class 1 farmland will be out of production.
The member spoke against ecological integrity in the park because she recognized it could not happen in this park.
However, they cannot have it both ways. The members cannot say that they support farmers in the park, but then turn around and tell them what to farm, where to farm and how to farm in the park.
These people have suffered for 40 years, when their land was first expropriated by the Trudeau Liberal government. They deserve certainty. They deserve to be allowed to farm what they want, how they want, using best farm practices on the lands that were expropriated from many of them. That is the reality in this area.
Does my colleague not recognize the fact that the people she mentioned, who support the amendments brought forward by the NDP, do not actually live or work in the park?
Kim Empringham, a farmer, supports our legislation. If people are ratepayers, they support our legislation. They actually sent letters to us in support of the legislation. If they live, work or play in the Rouge, they support it. If it is an outside agency, which has no business telling the people in this area what to do and how to do it, it wants these amendments, which have only one purpose, and that is to kill farming. They cannot have it both ways.
Would the member just be honest and admit to the fact that the vast majority of the amendments brought forward, which spoke of ecological integrity, would do one thing, and that is eliminate farming from the Rouge?