Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 25 - Evidence - March 12, 2015
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 12, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park, met this day at 8:01 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill; and to consider a draft budget to study non-renewable and renewable energy development including energy storage, distribution, transmission, consumption and other emerging technologies in Canada's three northern territories.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Richard Neufeld. I represent the province of British Columbia, and I'm chair of this committee.
I would like to welcome all senators and any members of the public with us in the room and viewers all across the country watching on television. As a reminder to those watching, these committee hearings are open to the public and available via webcast on the sen.parl.gc.ca website. You may also find more information on the schedule of witnesses on the website under "Senate Committees."
I would now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves, and I will begin with the deputy chair, Senator Massicotte from Quebec.
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette, New Brunswick.
Senator Mitchell: Grant Mitchell from Alberta.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton from Toronto.
Senator Greene: Stephen Greene from Nova Scotia.
Senator Black: Douglas Black from Alberta.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Eaton: Nicole Eaton, Ontario, sponsor of the bill.
The Chair: I would also like to introduce our staff, beginning with the clerk, Lynn Gordon, and Library of Parliament analyst Sam Banks.
We are continuing our examination of Bill C-40, An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park.
Senators, as you know, we have heard from a variety of witnesses about this proposed legislation and have also received a number of written submissions. We are now at the stage where we will go through the bill clause by clause.
Before we do this, I would like to remind senators of a few points in terms of the mechanics of the process. When more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of the clause. Some amendments moved may have consequential effect on other parts of the bill. We will endeavour to keep track of these places where subsequent amendments need to be moved and will draw your attention to them if necessary.
Because no notice is required to move amendments, there has been no preliminary analysis of the amendments. If any member wishes to propose an amendment, please allow colleagues and staff sufficient time to review them before opening the floor for debate.
Finally, I wish to remind senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the result of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll-call vote, which obviously provides unambiguous results. Senators are aware that any tie vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions about the above? If not, we will proceed.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-40?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 containing the definitions carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Senator Eggleton: I wish to move an amendment that, namely:
That Bill C-40 be amended in clause 4, on page 3, by replacing lines 23 to 27 with the following:
"purposes of protecting, restoring, enhancing and presenting, for current and future generations, the natural and cultural heritage of the Park, including a vibrant agricultural community, and encouraging Canadians to discover".
Mr. Chair, that amendment is one that the provincial government has proposed as a compromise. As you know, in the debates we have had and lot of discussion around the words "environmental integrity" or "ecological integrity," and a number of people have said that they don't think that particular phrase is appropriate in this case given the mixture of uses and structures in the proposed park. This is a compromise that talks about the elements in the park and the need to protect, restore and enhance them. It includes the agricultural community, because I know concerns have been expressed about that.
I have two other amendments as well. I think all three are important in terms of establishing a national urban park, which everybody wants to see happen. That has been the effort right from the beginning and people have been excited by that effort.
Unfortunately, their excitement has been dashed by Bill C-40. Bill C-40 has not taken into consideration the memorandum of agreement sufficiently with the provincial government to bring about the provincial lands being combined with the federal lands. The result of all of that is that the province has backed away at this point in time, but they have suggested compromise.
I do know that the ministers and staff people have been in contact in the last few days. The provincial position is not new. There is a trail of correspondence that goes back a year and a half or two years on this particular matter, and I'm happy to file that with the committee if there's any concern about that. This is not a late-in-the-day effort to change things.
Nor should we look upon this as a dispute or a battle between the federal and provincial governments. We should look upon this in terms of what's in the public interest.
What is in the public interest is the combination of the two properties into this national urban park. Otherwise, we end up with only a third of what the park could be.
Indeed, much of the federal property is encumbered, so a lot of it does not have public access. The provincial lands are a significant part of it all and need to be included to make this truly a national urban park. Otherwise, you give it only that in name only.
If you pass Bill C-40 without this amendment, then I believe it will be a long time before some resolution is reached on the matter.
I think when it comes to looking at the regional interest, the provincial government needs to be a partner with all of this. The way to do it is through this amendment and the two amendments that will follow it.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Eggleton.
I think everyone has a copy of the amendments both in French and in English. Is there any other debate in regard to the amendment?
There being none, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt this amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: We'll do a recorded vote and proceed to the roll-call. The clerk of the committee will call members' names beginning with myself and then go in alphabetical order. Verbally indicate yea or nay on the amendment.
Lynn Gordon, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Neufeld?
The Chair: Nay.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Black?
Senator Black: Nay.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Eaton?
Senator Eaton: Nay.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C.?
Senator Eggleton: Yes.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Greene?
Senator Greene: Nay.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: Nay.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Massicotte?
Senator Massicotte: Nay.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Mitchell?
Senator Mitchell: Yes.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Nay.
[Translation]
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Ringuette?
Senator Ringuette: Yea.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Rivard?
Senator Rivard: Nay.
[English]
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Nay.
Ms. Gordon: We have three yeas; nine nays; and zero abstentions.
The Chair: So the amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Senator Eggleton: My amendment here is:
That Bill C-40 be amended in clause 6, on page 3, by replacing lines 36 to 39 with the following:
"the Park, give priority to the protection, improvement and restoration of the health, biodiversity and sustainability of the Park's ecosystems, native species and watersheds, its ecological connections between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine, and its cultural, agricultural and scenic values.".
The clause as presently worded says that these matters will be taken into consideration. The province believes that they should be spelled out very clearly as a must do as opposed to a might do. "Taking into consideration" doesn't mean this is necessarily going to happen, and this helps to better protect the park and the various elements in the park.
The Chair: Any other debate?
I have one question, Senator Eggleton. What gives you assurance that the Province of Ontario will not join their land in this park? Do you know something that the rest of us don't know? Have they said to you, "Look, these amendments that you are putting forward," which are the Province of Ontario's, "won't join with the park?" That is, they're just going to stand outside and say no, we're not going to have —
Senator Eggleton: You should know that. They've clearly stated that in writing. The letters have been before this committee. They have clearly stated that they don't feel that the memorandum of agreement has been lived up to. They've made it clear that they will not join their lands in this park until there is better protection for the various elements, including the environment in the park. They've made that very clear.
The letter that comes from the minister I think further clarifies that with respect to the specific wording that he says would get them, in fact, back to adding in their lands, which represent two thirds of what this national urban park would be.
It's clearly in this letter that he addressed to the minister just a few days ago, and it has been filed with the committee.
The Chair: Senator Eggleton, I read the same letters. The Province of Ontario was invited to present to this committee and chose to write a number of letters. That's why I'm asking you at the last minute because the last minute was the tenth when this last letter came in, and I just wanted to get some clarification.
Senator Eggleton: May I further respond to that by saying there are a whole series of letters. The minister felt that the proper approach is to approach the minister, his cabinet counterpart on this issue, and he has done so.
My own observation on a number of occasions is that provincial governments frequently don't appear at committees of the Senate when they're dealing with matters that involve another ministry, and they continue to work with the ministry on it. I think that's become clear, and I think that's most unfortunate. It's not in the public interest to not have a real national urban park.
The Chair: I just thought if it was that important and they wanted to send letters with amendments to a bill, that they would have come and defended those.
Senator Eaton: Senator Eggleton, what gives me real pause is the phrase "give priority" because they make no mention in this amendment of protecting agriculture. What this amendment could say is "give priority to the protection, improvement and restoration of the health, biodiversity and sustainability of the park's ecosystems," which means that they would probably have the legal feet to go in to a farmer and say, "This is not working out for the ecosystem or this native species," or "There is a certain little rat here, so we're going to have to take away your farmland." I think it's too bad the province didn't make it more clear that they would protect the agricultural land that's already established there.
Senator Eggleton: Well, agriculture is mentioned in this —
Senator Eaton: Not in this particular —
Senator Eggleton: Yes, it is, in the amendment.
Senator Eaton: It says:
"the Park, give priority to the protection, improvement and restoration of the health, biodiversity and sustainability of the Park's ecosystems, native species and watersheds, its ecological connections between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine, and its cultural, agricultural and scenic values.".
I think by giving priority, they can wipe away a lot of things that are already established.
Senator Eggleton: It's all in the same sentence. It's all part of the priority.
Senator Eaton: It doesn't give me comfort.
Senator Eggleton: I'm sorry it doesn't.
It's a lost opportunity, though, if we don't go for this wording, and unfortunately the committee didn't support the last one. It's a lost opportunity here. It's too bad. It's terrible.
The Chair: No other debate?
I assume that you would like a roll-call, Senator Eggleton, so we'll go to that. Again, I don't have to read out what will take place. I'll ask the clerk to read out the names. This is whether we accept the amendment or not.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Neufeld?
Senator Neufeld: No.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Black?
Senator Black: No.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Eaton?
Senator Eaton: No.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C.?
Senator Eggleton: Yes.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Greene?
Senator Greene: No.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: Nay.
[Translation]
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Massicotte?
Senator Massicotte: Nay.
[English]
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Mitchell?
Senator Mitchell: Yes.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Nay.
[Translation]
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Ringuette?
Senator Ringuette: Yea.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Rivard?
Senator Rivard: Nay.
[English]
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: Nay.
Ms. Gordon: Yeas, three; nays, nine; zero abstentions.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Senator Eggleton: On clause 8, I have is a final amendment, and that is:
That Bill C-40 be amended in clause 8, on page 4, by replacing lines 17 to 22 with the following:
"8. (1) The Minister must establish a multi-stakeholder committee and a scientific advisory panel to advise the Minister on the management of the Park.
(2) The multi-stakeholder committee may include representatives from local governments, environmental, Aboriginal, regional or agricultural organizations and other organizations that the Minister considers appropriate.
(3) The scientific advisory panel may include scientists with expertise in ecology, hydrology, agriculture and parks.".
The way the bill reads at the moment is that the minister "may" do this. If the minister may do it, he may also not do it. This makes it a shell. This makes it compelling for the minister to do it.
I think these elements, all of these people, these various multi-stakeholder interests, are vital to be a part of it, and I don't see why it should be a problem to say that rather than leave it in the position of may do it or may not do it. That's my amendment.
The Chair: Any debate?
Senator Ringuette: As mentioned earlier, we were very taken by the decades of involvement of different groups and so forth. I honestly believe that it would certainly create a comfort zone for these groups of volunteers of over 30 years to know that the input of the different participants in the community will be kept — not may be kept, but will be kept. Working 30 years on a project and all of a sudden there is absolutely no assurance whatsoever in regard to the continued participation of these groups? I also think that they highly stress the scientific community in regard to the preservation and the enhancement of the park.
Be that as it may, legislation is reviewed many times before being presented to Parliament, and the fact is that the word "may" is there is for a specific purpose. There is no obligation whatsoever in regard to the minister or Parks Canada to keep those stakeholders involved. They have been involved. They have kept this portion of land in a certain condition with the hope — now you all say that is a done deal and so forth, but there is no more involvement from them.
Then you're going to say again, "Oh, well, if we don't pass this bill today because we amend it, it's going to be in the House of Commons forever." As far as I know, we're going to have an election in October, and both houses are going to sit until the end of June. It's not my region, but personally I find that it is a mistake for us not to say that these groups must continue to be involved.
Senator Mitchell: I've been opposed to the bill and supportive of the arguments made on the record by Senator Eggleton. It will be less. It will not live up to the standards of a park as it should.
The argument for the bill and against our opposition has been, "Well, let's get started and we'll work it out; it will be worked out." Well, one of the critical elements of working it out surely would be a multi-stakeholder committee. I don't think it's too much of a concession for those who would support the bill on the basis of "let's get started and work it out" to assure and to require that a proper structure be in place to facilitate that process. That's why I support this amendment in particular, now that we've lost the other amendments.
I also want to say to this idea of an amendment and that sending the bill back would kill it. The House of Commons can pass this in 15 minutes with unanimous consent. They simply have to say, "Yes, let's do it." Believe me, by the time it gets to be June 21 or June 28, we all know how that focuses a chamber's attention and how quickly work can get done. There is no question that this can be passed if we send it back. I think it's perfectly within our rights to do that. It makes legitimate sense that this kind of structure should be there. If it is, this is a start and then it can progress in the way that the proponents of the bill are saying it will. I simply think it just makes imminent sense.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is there any other discussion?
Senator Patterson: Mr. Chair, the management committee envisioned in this clause is about managing the park. It will not resolve the issue of the lands. The lands issue will be resolved by negotiations between officials that have taken us to where we are now. There have been cordial negotiations between Ontario and the Government of Canada for years to get us to where we are now.
I was impressed when federal officials came before the committee — and Parks Canada is leading Canada in these negotiations — they are hopeful and optimistic that the park can be enlarged, building on the framework of this bill. I don't think this clause is critical to resolving that important issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Any other discussion?
One last thing: Clause 8 does not preclude having an advisory committee. It says "may" have an advisory committee. As I understand, every national park in Canada has an advisory committee, so it would be strange to me if this one wouldn't have an advisory committee, especially considering Parks Canada and all the people they worked with on this — as I said earlier 15,000 and 150 different organizations — to get to this point.
In any event, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Roll call? We'll start again.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Neufeld?
Senator Neufeld: No.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Black?
Senator Black: No.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Eaton?
Senator Eaton: No.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Eggleton, P.C.?
Senator Eggleton: Yes.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Greene?
Senator Greene: No.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: Nay.
[Translation]
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Massicotte?
Senator Massicotte: Nay.
[English]
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Mitchell?
Senator Mitchell: Yes.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: Nay.
[Translation]
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Ringuette?
Senator Ringuette: Yea.
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Rivard?
Senator Rivard: Nay.
[English]
Ms. Gordon: The Honourable Senator Seidman?
Senator Seidman: No.
Ms. Gordon: Three yeas; nine nays; zero abstentions.
The Chair: The motion in amendment is defeated.
Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We don't have any other amendments, unless there are some that I don't know about. Can we group a few of these clauses so we can move through it? Is that fine?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 9 to 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 13 to 16 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 17 to 19 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 20 to 22 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 23 to 32 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 33 to 52 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 53 to 61 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the coming into force of clause 62 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the schedule carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Ringuette: Before we complete the process, I would like to move that we defer the final reading of clause-by-clause and the titles to our meeting on March 24. Do I need to say it again in French?
The Chair: Does everyone understand the motion? Would you like a roll-call vote or just by voice?
Senator Ringuette: By voice.
The Chair: Everyone in favour of the motion, please say "yea."
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: Those opposed, please say "nay."
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Eggleton: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Is it agreed that I report the bill to the Senate this afternoon?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Now we go to the third part of our meeting. I wish to turn your attention to the draft budget application before you for our northern energy study for the fiscal year 2015-16. As you know, on November 25 the Senate authorized an extension for our reporting deadline in relation to our study of non-renewable and renewable energy development, including energy storage, distribution, transmission, consumption and other emerging technologies in Canada's three northern territories. Given that our deadline is now September 30, 2015, it is our intention to release our final report before the Senate adjourns this summer. I think everyone understands why we want do that, or all the work we have done to date will be lost.
You may recall that our 2014 budget approved by the Senate included funds for general expenses and our fact-finding trip in May 2014 to all three northern territories. I am pleased to report that the expenditures for the trip were a little more than one half of the expenses approved: $127,812 of $238,960. In addition, given we were not prepared to release our final report during the 2014-15 fiscal year, the approved general expenses of $13,500 lapsed.
As we are not seeking any more funds for any activities or travel under this order of reference, you have before you today for your consideration a budget application for general expenses that include $12,000 for graphic design based on our last budget and an invoice for a 50-page English final report, a 60-page French final report, and an infographic; miscellaneous expenses of $500 and printing of $2,000 in the event that we need to have access to these funds for more copies of both the English and the French.
Is it agreed that the budget application for the northern energy special study for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2016, be approved and that the chair be authorized to submit the application to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)