Wayne Stetski

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, February 21st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, there are several aspects to the question and I will start with the basic question about free access to parks. I worked with B.C. and Manitoba parks for many years and there was often an internal debate and discussion about whether parks are a social good, which means they should be free, or whether they have a business side to them, which means people should pay to enter them. My preference would be that governments fund all parks systems well enough that they do not need to charge a fee to get in. I am very interested to see what happens this year with free access to national parks.

I raised this question with the minister who said that every national park in Canada has been asked to produce a plan for this year on how to deal with potential increased use, including Banff and Jasper. I look forward to seeing what those plans look like. Hopefully national parks will be well prepared for free use this summer.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, February 21st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, what I like about Rouge park is that it was built from the ground up. It was built by people who lived in the community, who had concerns, who had a vision, and they kept at it for a long time, many years, until they finally saw it realized.

I also like the fact that it brings together agriculture and conservation in a model adjacent to millions of people who live close by, because people need to start to understand the importance of agriculture and how it benefits conservation. This will be a great model for that.

It brings together some great principles that also came about because of community involvement, and that is necessary to ensure the well-being and future of the park. The more people who care about it, the more people will be there to watch how it goes in the future.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, February 21st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

I am pleased today to speak in favour of Bill C-18, a bill that would amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act, and the Canada National Parks Act.

With the indulgence of the House, I am going to dedicate my speech today to Parks Canada employee and volunteer extraordinaire Barry Campbell, of Tofino, B.C. Barry devoted 45 years of his life to Pacific Rim National Park Reserve as a park naturalist, park warden, and volunteer after he retired, pulling hundreds if not thousands of bags of invasive weeds from the park. He died just after Christmas from cancer. Barry mentored me during my first parks job as a park naturalist, and I enjoyed it enough that I continued to make working within four parks and the environment my career and my passion right up to today, when I work as the NDP critic, or advocate, for national parks. I thank Barry for starting me on the path to a lifelong devotion to parks. My sincere condolences go to Barry's wife, Barb, and to his children, Michael and Ben, and their families.

While we are here today to talk about Rouge park, I would like to take a moment to put Rouge into both a historical and a system perspective.

Canada's national parks system began in 1885 with Banff National Park, so it is 132 years old. May 1911 was an important date, as the first ever body to administer national parks was established. It was called the dominion parks branch, which is now Parks Canada. In 1930, the National Parks Act was created and first focused on preservation.

There are currently 45 national parks, 46 with Rouge included. They cover every province and every territory, and they represent a variety of landscapes and natural heritage. They currently cover just over 303,000 square kilometres, or about 3% of the total land area of Canada.

Twelve of our national parks are UNESCO world heritage sites, including Wood Buffalo National Park, which is under investigation right now. There is a fair bit of concern as to whether Wood Buffalo should keep its status due to the Site C dam in British Columbia and the oil sands in Alberta.

The smallest national park is Georgian Bay Islands National Park at 14 square kilometres. Rouge will be just 19 square kilometres, at least until it is increased. The largest park is Wood Buffalo National Park at almost 45,000 square kilometres.

How are these parks currently doing? The most recent report is entitled “State of Canada's Natural and Cultural Heritage Places” from 2016. It talks about the need to improve consultation with stakeholders when establishing parks, regarding ecological integrity. Progress has been made since 2011, when things were in really quite bad shape, but 91% of the indicator ecosystems have now been assessed. Regarding species at risk, the report states that many species continue to face threats from inside and outside heritage places, habitats are disappearing at a rapid rate in many parts of Canada, and climate change can also affect biodiversity.

Parks Canada's 2012 national asset review highlighted that over half of the agency's holdings were in poor or very poor condition and required investments, maintenance, and rehabilitation. It also goes into parks' ecological indicators and some of the issues that are currently out there. There definitely needs to be some improvement in terms of managing our existing parks as well.

Another area where parks and protected areas are challenged in Canada is in meeting the Aichi targets signed onto by Canada. Canada has agreed to set aside 17% of its land by 2020 as protected areas. We are currently at about 10%. Also, 10% of Canada's marine areas should be protected by 2020. We are currently at about 1%.

The environment and sustainable development committee is just completing a study on how to meet and perhaps exceed Aichi targets moving forward. There are many ways we can do that, including working with first nations to create indigenous parks, making sure that there is connectivity between parks and protected areas, working interdepartmentally within the federal government, working with the provinces and territories, municipalities, and non-governmental organizations. There are many other recommendations. I ask members to stay tuned as a great report will be coming to Parliament shortly.

One of the recommendations is also to consider expanding the number of national urban parks, of which Rouge is the first one. Why does Rouge deserve to be Canada's first national urban park, and why do we support the bill?

Bill C-18 proposes amendments to the Rouge National Urban Park Act, and these important amendments include making the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity the first priority of the minister in all aspects of the management of the park, and adding approximately 1,669 hectares of federal land to Rouge national park.

Bill C-18 also broadens Parks Canada's ability to pay out funds from the new parks and historical sites account. That will help create new parks as well.

Finally, Bill C-18 modifies the boundary of Wood Buffalo National Park in Alberta by withdrawing 37 square kilometres to create the Garden River Indian Reserve, which is a long planned commitment around reconciliation, so there are three aspects to the park.

Why is Rouge that important? First, Rouge park is one of the most biologically diverse areas in Canada, including a rare Carolinian forest, 23 federally designated species at risk, and over 1,700 plant and animal species. It also provides the only ecological connection for wildlife between the Oak Ridges moraine and Lake Ontario. It includes many agricultural and culturally important resources, including a national historic site and one of Canada's oldest known aboriginal historic sites and villages.

Important as well, there is an active farming community that is not protected under the Park Act, and it is really important to realize that agricultural activities and conservation, if done well, can go hand in hand, and Rouge park would be a good model to demonstrate that.

It is the first national park in an urban setting, accessible by public transit. It creates a model for other areas of protection in urban settings, and approximately 20% of Canada's population live within one hour of Rouge park. These are all really important factors as to why it is important to protect Rouge.

In conclusion, we want to recognize the hard work and dedication of all community members who have worked tirelessly to protect the existing parklands and to establish Rouge National Urban Park. We believe that future national park management for Rouge should do a number of things. It should clearly prioritize ecological health, ecological integrity and conservation. It should ensure that all activities that may affect the park undergo a thorough environmental assessment, and that is one of the challenges of that bike trail in Jasper, there has been no environmental assessment or community involvement. It should include a science-based management plan to provide for strong public and parliamentary oversight. We should consider adding almost 10,000 acres to the park by adding federal lands currently set aside for an airport.

We will continue to hold the Liberal government accountable to deliver a Rouge park that truly can serve as a model for establishing a number of new urban national parks across Canada.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, February 21st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to quote from some of the witnesses we heard regarding Bill C-18:

Ecological integrity, is it justified? Of course it is. This is one of the most biodiverse areas in all of Canada. Yes, there will be challenges. Yes, this is an aspirational goal, but we can do it.... The diversity is so great here and the potential is so high that we should choose no other goal....

That was Jim Robb, general manager of the Friends of the Rouge Watershed.

Dr. Stephen Woodley, who is with the IUCN, and is the vice-chair for science, said:

The term “ecological integrity” is used as a management end point by many protected areas agencies globally, and it's embedded in the IUCN guidance. It provides a well-understood and measurable system to understand the ecological condition.

Michael Whittamore, who is president of Whittamore's Farm, made this statement:

...we have complete confidence in [Parks Canada's] ability to execute a management plan that will meet the needs and expectations of all the stakeholders and reach a level of ecological integrity for an urban park in an urban setting....

What does the member have to say about these expert witnesses, who range from local to international, on ecological integrity?

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, February 21st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the words offered by my colleague, but we have to go back and actually check out what was happening in 2012 and 2014.

A headline in 2012 said that “Parks Canada hit hardest by Harper Conservative budget cuts. Up to 1,600 positions are going to be eliminated”. Another headline was on a 33% staffing cut in science in Parks Canada. In 2014, a backlog in deferred maintenance of almost $3 billion made the headlines.

Therefore, I have to ask the hon. member this. Does she not believe that the way that the Conservative government of the day was treating Parks Canada may have had some influence on whether the Ontario government or the supporters of Rouge park wanted it transferred at that time?

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, February 21st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful that this bill has been put forward, and we will support it at third reading.

The current Rouge Park area has long been protected, first and foremost by community groups keeping an eye on it and by the provincial government under its legislation. As part of the land transfer agreement with the Government of Ontario, the federal government has committed to meeting or exceeding the ecological protections that have been in place in the past. How will the government ensure that this commitment is met in this legislation and ultimately in the parks management plan?

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, constituents of my riding of Kootenay—Columbia and I personally very much support multiculturalism, and yet there have been a number of concerns expressed to me by constituents about today's motion and Motion No. 103 as well. I believe their concerns are based on misinformation.

I would like the member to tell the people of Kootenay—Columbia and the rest of Canada why they should take comfort from these motions rather than be concerned about them.

[The Environment, February 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, both Conservative and Liberal governments have downloaded responsibility for Saskatchewan's environmentally critical grasslands without any concern for their future. These grasslands are unique ecological heritage sites. They act as important carbon sinks and are home to rare and threatened species. Now the government is considering giving away the last of these grasslands in southwestern Saskatchewan and ending the environmental protection they receive.

Will the Minister of Environment and Climate Change commit today to create a new national wildlife area to preserve these ecosystems for future generations?

[Democratic Reform, February 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, over 100 residents gathered in the city of Nelson in my riding, and thousands more across Canada to send a message that they wanted the government to keep its word on democratic reform.

Following the Prime Minister's announcement that he was breaking his promise to Canadians to end the first past the post system, I received a large number of letters and calls from constituents telling me they felt betrayed, saddened, and angry, asking me to keep up the fight.

Here are the facts. Two-thirds of Canadians voted for parties promising electoral reform in the last election. During committee hearings, almost 90% of experts and 80% of public testimony called for the government to adopt a proportional voting system. During my own democratic reform tour last year, I heard overwhelmingly from voters that they were ready for change.

Change will happen in Canada. It will take hard work and political courage, but we can do it and we must. That is what Canadians are demanding we do.

[Income Tax Act, February 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak directly to Bill C-323, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (rehabilitation of historic property). Again, I would like to thank my colleague from York—Simcoe for putting forward this important legislation. Indeed, it is the first time legislation like this has come before the House, although there are similar laws in place in the United States.

We are going to support this at second reading. We would like to get this to committee to have some discussion. The reason we are going to support it is that we really do believe in maintaining our historic buildings as part of our cultural heritage. When I was mayor of Cranbrook, we were looking for ways to try to increase the support for keeping historic buildings, and this is certainly one way to do that. There is an additional cost of course, if someone owns a historic building. It is up to about an additional 21% in cost, so offsetting it with a 20% tax rebate for the improvements seems absolutely appropriate.

I want to talk about some of the support that has come forward to me on the bill.

The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada has said it believes:

...there is an important federal role for leadership in heritage conservation. Policies that promote preservation and re-use of historic properties have demonstrated huge economic returns on investment through job retention and creation, tourism, and enhanced property values.

Policies such as tax incentives not only help protect cultural resources and the history represented by heritage places, they promote respectful redevelopment in our communities. In addition, conservation, repair, and adaptation fight climate change by producing less carbon than new construction.

I also received a letter from the National Trust of Canada, which says, “The significant impact of the measures proposed in Bill C-323 would be felt” in ridings across Canada It goes on to say:

They would transform the economic fundamentals for saving historic places...encouraging the rehabilitation of heritage buildings of every size and type. In the process, they would create more skilled jobs than new construction, and promote the retention of existing buildings, which serve as important carbon sinks.

It further says:

There are many examples of the significant financial and environmental impact of heritage conservation.

Job Creation—Studies show building rehabilitation generates upwards of 21% more jobs, including skilled jobs, than same investment in new construction;

Economic Stimulus—The Commercial Heritage Properties Incentive Fund (CHPIF), a Canada-wide pilot program (2003-2008), was designed to test the benefit of a heritage tax credit. The results were impressive: Federal contributions of $21.5 million supporting 49 projects leveraged over 8 times more in private sector investment ($177.2 million); and

Sustainability and Climate Change—Building renewal and re-use capitalizes on materials and energy already invested, reduces construction and demolition waste, and avoids environmental impacts associated with new development. A recent study shows that it takes from 10 to 80 years for a new “green” building to make up for the negative climate change impacts of its construction. In other words, the greenest building is one that already exists.

From a community in my own riding, the city of Nelson says:

These tax measures could transform the economic fundamentals for renewing historic places, and encourage building conservation of every size and type, from landmark commercial buildings to modest homes.

Council has learned firsthand the significant financial impacts of heritage conservation in Nelson. Further studies have also shown that building rehabilitation generates over 21% more jobs...than the same investment in new construction...capitalizes on materials and energy already invested; reduces construction and demolition waste, and avoids environmental impact...

It went on to say that, “the significant impact of this Bill will be felt in Nelson”. Indeed it will be felt in all of the communities in Kootenay—Columbia and across Canada. It urges the support for Bill C-323.

While we will be supporting the bill for all the right reasons, right through second reading, we do hope to have some further discussion at committee. We are a bit concerned that there is no means test for the tax rebate. The millionaire or billionaire owner of a historic building in, say, Toronto's Forest Hill would be able to claim a 20% tax credit, despite being well able to afford to pay for the work without a federal subsidy.

We will explore that a little further at committee. We definitely support the principle of this bill, and will be supporting it at second reading.