Debates of Dec. 4th, 2014

Bill C-40—Time Allocation Motion

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that time allocation motions are objectionable not simply because they interrupt debate and thorough consideration in the House; they also constantly interrupt committee work.

This is a government that is constantly saying how important committee work is, yet it is constantly making sure that committees cannot do their job. I am supposed to be in the procedure and House affairs committee right now listening to witnesses on the bill from the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, Bill C-586, Reform Act, 2014, and hearing from Nelson Wiseman, professor at University of Toronto; Democracy Watch; Fair Vote Canada; Friends of the Reform Act; and Samara, but our committee has been cancelled because of this House leader.

I would like the member for Wellington—Halton Hills to ask his House leader at some point whether this was on purpose.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that I do not manage the business affairs of committees and do not even look at that when I deal with this, because we are dealing with the question of getting this important piece of legislation through the House.

I would love to not have to resort to measures like this. I would love to have an agreement with the opposition. However, as I indicated, no agreement could be reached, so this is the measure we take.

It is important that this happen, that we do get to the point where we actually establish Canada's first urban national park. The Rouge park will be a tremendous asset for this country and in particular for the greater Toronto area. It is something that has been long anticipated.

I can understand that there might perhaps be some partisan motivation in opposition members from Scarborough or Durham wanting to be able to go on the hustings in the next election and be able to say that the government could not get it done, but we can get it done.

That is one of the watchwords of this government. We are business-like, we get the job done, we are hard-working and orderly, and this is an example of that approach at work. We are delivering on the commitments we have made to Canadians, in this case for Canada's first urban national park.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have spent most of my life fighting for parks and protected areas and I created quite a few.

I really wanted to vote for the Rouge park. An urban park is a great idea. I was intending to vote for the bill, until I brought amendments to committee that were dismissed out of hand.

Every conservation group—every single one—is now opposed to this bill. This bill would actually weaken the protections that were put in place by the province. It violates the memorandum of understanding with the province. Ontario now opposes this bill.

A few simple amendments could have made the bill better and fixed it, but committee members were busy on their BlackBerrys, mindlessly voting against every amendment without even listening to them. The arrogance of the government on this bill is unspeakable.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have articulated fairly well some of the reasons the existing protections under provincial law fall far short of the protection that would be in place under this law.

Would the current provincial law directly prohibit mining on all lands here? No. Of course, under this statute, under the proposed bill to establish the Rouge national urban park, it would be prohibited.

Is there a prohibition on the removal of native plants and fossils on all lands under existing law in Ontario? No, there is not, but there will be, once we have this bill that establishes the Rouge national urban park in place.

I could go on and on, whether it has to do with hunting, protection for species at risk, or the question of dumping waste. All of these things are better protected under this bill. That is why it is such a mystery that people would take a position on the contrary.

When members look at the facts, they will see that getting to the finish line not only increases and significantly enhances protection for these lands over the protection they currently enjoy under provincial law, but it will also be a major milestone in establishing Canada's first national urban park, something that is very eagerly anticipated by the people of Scarborough and the people of Durham.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will save you and the House the painful verbosity of a long, self-serving preamble. I have but a plain question for the government House leader.

Will the proposed new act provide better protection than what is in place now for the existing park?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is clearly “yes” on any of a number of items of straightforward protection.

However, there is something more significant: the funding. It is the funding that would establish trails within the park and establish four discovery centres within the park to make it usable, interpretable, and understandable to the people of the community. It would not be just an idea, as it is now. It would not be just a bunch of land, as it is now, but something that could be used and enjoyed. People would be able to walk through it, travel through it, hike through it, and learn about it, and people could learn about the history of our first nations people there through a discovery centre.

Is any of that, one penny of that, on the table from the provincial government? No, there is not one penny, and we know why: the provincial government has no money. We have put forward significant commitments to fund those things and to make them happen, but the opposition wants to stop that from happening. We are not going to let that happen. We are going to make sure we deliver on this asset, which is environmentally and culturally so very important to this community.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really confused by the minister because he says that the people of Scarborough want this tiny park. No, the people of Scarborough want a 100-square-kilometre. park. What the government is offering is 40-something.

It is already protected right now by a patchwork system of protective measures and by people who have built the park, activists who have stopped development from happening, and people like myself who go and plant trees and bushes and remove invasive species six times a year. The park is protected by us, the people who are there on the ground and who have been working so hard to create it and protect it.

There is a patchwork system of about 12 or 13 different policies and agreements protecting this land. It is not just a piece of land, as the minister says.

Why is it the minister is moving time allocation on the bill when clearly there still needs to be more discussion? Why has the minister responsible not spoken to this bill? Why will they not just do what the community wants and protect the Rouge Park, rather than chopping it up into this tiny piece and not even providing the protective measures that are already in existence with the patchwork system of protective measures that we, the activists on the ground for the last 35 years, have put together?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments from the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, and she does have some understanding of the issues. That would have been a superb question had it been placed in the Ontario legislature.

Everything she said was an indictment of what the Ontario government has done on this file. It was the Ontario government that pulled lands out of the park. It was the one that reduced the size of the proposed protected lands. It was the one that has not actually put any park protection in place for those lands. We are the ones looking to create the urban national park; it is the province that has resiled and broken the memorandum of understanding and the agreement on creating a park of significant size and scale. We are the ones going ahead with doing it, and we still invite and encourage their participation. We welcome them in.

We think that is what is best for the people in the greater Toronto area. York region, Durham, and the cities of Toronto and Scarborough in particular would benefit from this park and from the millions of dollars to establish all the elements that would turn it from an imaginary vision into an actual, real park, finally there on the ground, that people can use.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister professes to being confused. It is a mystery to him how all of these people and governments could be opposed to the park when they were in favour of the park just six months ago. Apparently it is just all politics: when all of those thousands of petitioners are saying not to support the bill, it is just politics; when all of the park people and all of the knowledgeable NGOs in the country who started out in favour of the park are now opposed to the park bill in its present form, they just do not know what they are talking about. It is quite remarkable.

Apparently the telephone system only works one way. It only goes from Queen's Park to here. It does not actually go back the other way.

It is simple. It is a simple fix. The minister should honour what the people of Scarborough and York regions want done.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. Having rules in place that would allow 80 valuable heritage buildings to burn down instead of being protected may be his approach, but it is not ours. He may want to wipe out 75 farms that have been in operation on the site for some two centuries and represent an important part of the cultural heritage. That may be what he wants, but it is not what we want to see happen.

We want to see an urban national park that reflects the history, environment, and culture of that area. That is what we are looking to do. We want it to be as large as it can be. We want everyone to participate fully.

We are going to protect all those assets. We are going to protect those heritage buildings, and there are over 80 of them. We want to see that they enjoy some protection. We also want to ensure that there is funding to make it understandable and interpretable. That is what the bill would do.

The member had a decade in government to make something happen. They did not get a thing done. We are getting it done.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there the House leader goes again with the campaign of fear that somehow everybody else wants to get rid of farmers. We do not have to pick between the environment and farmers. We can bring them both together. We can protect the farms and the environment at the same time. This is not about picking or choosing.

The minister in charge of this still will not get up to speak to this bill and the House leader never answered my first question. I asked how much communication has happened between the minister's office and the Ontario government since that September 2 letter when the province announced it would not support the park bill in its current form.

It is important for us as New Democrats to not just simply be in opposition, but also to make substantive propositions. We will propose a new bill that will fix all the crazy things that the Conservative government will do with this bill, which has managed to lose two-thirds of support for the bill.

When will the minister answer the question with regard to how much communication has happened between the minister and the provincial government to see if they have tried to solve this problem?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, communication and discussion has been going on for decades. It has been going on throughout the time—

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Since September 2, how much?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the Province of Ontario decided on September 2 that it wanted to back out of its memorandum of agreement after years of supporting the establishment of this park, after us following the terms and direction that it set out, after providing a lot more protection, then it is the Province of Ontario that has to account for its change in position and for deciding to do that.

We have been clear that this is an important objective. An urban national park in the Rouge is critical. It has to happen. We want to deliver on it. We want to deliver on the environmental protection that would go with it. We will not allow that to be held up by political games. We have put in place a proposal that would balance all interests, that would protect agricultural interests that have been there for centuries, that would protect heritage assets, that would protect the natural environment. People will finally, for once, be able to use and enjoy this first urban national park. We want to put it in place, to make it happen, with the support necessary to make it happen.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the creation of the Rouge national park shows our government's strong commitment to conserve Canada's natural spaces and connect Canadians to nature as highlighted in our government's national conservation plan.

Could the member tell me how Bill C-40 would support our hard-working farmers?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some would prefer to see a hard line ecological position in place that would prohibit and prevent any activities, including agriculture. That is why in the end we will never be able to accommodate every group. There are different interests at stake and we want those interests balanced.

We recognize that agriculture is a heritage activity, for 200 years plus, worthy of recognition in the park. That activity would continue to exist. The park would be exempt from those prohibited activities. That is the sensible thing to do. This park is not in a pristine natural environment. It is an urban national park. The pristine parks should be protected, but those other elements in our culture and history that we look to protect should also be there. They will be there and they will be protected in a way that will allow their use and enjoyment, and prevent their development for urban purposes forever.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have to pick between farmers or environmentalists. I asked almost every witness who appeared before committee if it was possible to work together. Farmers said that they were already environmentally responsible, that they were environmental activists. Environmentalists said they wanted sustainable farming to continue in the area.

My question for the minister is about something he repeated a few times, and that is ensuring people will enjoy the park and understand its cultural and historical heritage. People already enjoy the park. People are using it and learning about it.

I want to specifically ask him about the history of the park. There is a sacred burial ground and sacred village of the Mississauga, Huron-Wendat and Seneca First Nations peoples within the park right now. We put forward an amendment at committee to create an aboriginal interpretive learning centre on the park grounds. The idea was put forward by aboriginal first nations leaders and elders. Why did the Conservatives vote against it? Why has the minister responsible for this park still not yet spoken to the bill? Why does he keep saying that he wants to help the people learn and enjoy the cultural and historic importance of this park and communities when that is really not true?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there are actually four discovery hubs, which do not exist now, that are to be established with the creation of this park, funded by the federal government. She and here party are opposing that right now. One of those discovery hubs will be near Bead Hill National Historic Site. It will introduce visitors to Rouge Valley's aboriginal history and will deal with aboriginal themes, with a special emphasis on engaging youth. This is one of four of those hubs that will be presented.

She is not right when she says it is not there. It is there. It is one of the proposals, one of the things that will happen if this passes. However, she is resisting this passing, for some reason, and then standing here, saying that we need it.

This is the difficult thing. We get an opposition that claims it supports something, but then, for political reasons, it does everything it can to try to keep it from happening.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has a talent for revisionist history. For the last 30 years, all governments have worked to create this park. Whether they have been Conservative or Liberal governments at Queen's Park, or Liberal or Conservative governments in Ottawa, all governments have worked on the land assembly.

Pauline Browes is a legitimate person who has been properly recognized as a real contributor to this, as have Derek Lee and Lois Jane. Frankly, that covers the entire political spectrum. All of these people, up until six months ago, wanted this to happen, yet the government has a unique talent to take consensus, destroy it, stomp on it and do it for the most obscure reasons possible.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member's Liberal government get this done? Did it make it happen? Did it get the park established? No.

Is the Ontario Liberal government now establishing the support of the park? No.

It is very simple. We are moving forward. We are getting the park established. It will be an asset for the people of Durham, York region, Toronto, Scarborough and, in particular, for generations to come.

In particular, we talk about levels of protection, for example. It enjoys protection right now from the Ontario government, under the Greenbelt plan. It needs to merely amend the plan, change a line on a map. It does not even involve passing a law, and that protection will be all gone.

Under this bill, that protection would be there in perpetuity for the benefit of the people of Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.