Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue No. 27 - Evidence - May 18, 2017
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 18, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C- 18, An Act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Canada National Parks Act, met this day at 8 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good morning colleagues. Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
My name is Richard Neufeld and I am honoured to be chair of this committee. I am a senator from British Columbia.
I wish to welcome all those who are with us in the room and viewers across the country who may be watching on television or online. As a reminder to those watching, these committees hearings are open to the public and also available online on the new Senate website at sencanada.ca. All other committee-related business can also be found online, including past reports, bills studied and list of witnesses.
I would now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves and I'll begin with by introducing my deputy chair, Senator Massicotte from Quebec.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Black: Douglas Black, Alberta.
Senator Wetston: Howard Wetston from Toronto, Ontario, close to where you are.
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler, New Brunswick.
Senator Griffin: Diane Griffin, Prince Edward Island.
The Chair: I'd like to introduce our staff, beginning with the clerk Maxime Fortin, and our Library of Parliament analysts Sam Banks and Jesse Good.
Colleagues, on May 4, the Senate mandated our committee to study Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, Parks Canada Agency Act, and the Canada National Parks Act. Today, for the second meeting of our study on Bill C-18, I am pleased to welcome Ms. Janet Sumner, Executive Director, Wildlands League, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.
Thank you for joining us. Please proceed with your opening remarks after which we'll go to some questions and answers.
Janet Sumner, Executive Director, Wildlands League, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present to your committee today as you consider Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, Parks Canada Agency Act, and the Canada National Parks Act.
I am the executive director for CPAWS Wildlands League. I'm also a local resident of the Rouge and measure in minutes the time it takes me to leave my house and have my paddle in the water of the Rouge.
The world is facing two great environmental challenges: climate change and biodiversity loss. We are in the midst of the planet's sixth mass extinction of plants and animals. It has not been this dramatic since the loss of the dinosaurs. The best way to fight biodiversity loss is by creating protected areas.
The mission of CPAWS Wildlands League is protecting large, connected areas of Canada's wilderness and making sure development is appropriately managed on the rest. We work on large landscapes, collaborating with indigenous, federal, provincial and local governments. We work with forestry, mining and hydro development companies creating solutions. It is our job to find that sweet spot.
I have travelled extensively across many of Canada's wilderness areas. I've slept with polar bears and walked among a herd of barren-ground caribou. I've flown forestry units in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. The conclusion is that Canada is absolutely magnificent.
While the Rouge is no great wilderness, there are 1,700 species that live in the Rouge, 23 of them endangered. Getting protection right in the Rouge will protect habitat for these species to thrive. It is a gift, a legacy for the children of the GTA, Scarborough, Pickering, Durham and the surrounding regions of the Rouge.
The Rouge provides much-needed habitat for migratory monarch butterflies on their travels south. From the Red- shouldered hawk and Peregrine falcon to the butternut tree, protecting the Rouge is a gift to Canada.
With regard to the bill before you, Bill C-18, I would like to thank the Honourable Catherine McKenna and her team for working diligently to come up with solutions. But this is built on the thousands of countless hours put in by volunteers, the indigenous peoples that stewarded this land, and we are very lucky today to have the Rouge in the condition that it is.
CPAWS Wildlands League supports the amendments in Bill C-18 to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act. With 7 million people living within one hour's drive of the proposed Rouge National Urban Park, park managers will need strong legal tools to protect the park's ecosystems from the inevitable pressures of the surrounding urban environment, which is easily the greatest threat to the park. This includes an explicit legal mandate to consider nature comes first and foremost in all management decisions, including when faced with proposals for new roads, parking lots or other development proposals. Without such a framework, nature would inevitably lose.
We agree with the greater certainty for the farming community that is proposed in this bill, and we look forward to working with farmers on the many ways we can improve the ecological integrity of the park. EI is a journey. It is a continuum. You start where you are and make steady improvements over each three to five year increment. That is EI in action.
When I think of the flooding right now at the Rouge, the banks swollen and the changing profile of the river where it meets the lake, I am reminded of the day I spent walking with farmers in one of their fields. Our purpose that day was to see a stewardship project that is working to restore the hydrological functioning of the Rouge. This is the work of improving EI, to restore ecological systems and make them more resilient.
Rouge Park houses much of the lower Rouge River Watershed, one of the last flowing into western Lake Ontario to remain free of urban development. It provides the only ecological connection for wildlife between the Oak Ridges Moraine and Lake Ontario. Restoring hydrological systems and working on ecological integrity therefore is vital.
It is where we host our Paddle the Rouge event each year training youth to paddle. It is where we introduce hundreds of newcomers to Canada, to nature and the beauty in their own backyard. And it is where I take my grandson. He is amazed by water lilies and bugs.
We have a solution here that works for nature, for the farmers and it's my understanding also meets the test for Ontario to transfer these lands.
I'm pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that.
We'll begin with the deputy chair, Senator Massicotte.
Senator Massicotte: Ms. Sumner, thank you for your presentation. Obviously, you've contributed a lot to getting to this point. Congratulations on behalf of all Canadians.
Let me get to the crux of the issue whereby we seem to have a difference of opinion about definitions and how we get to the ecological integrity and whether we need to do more than what is being proposed.
As you know, the current bill, as proposed, is acceptable to the federal government and it is acceptable to the provincial government, especially the current minister, maybe less for the previous minister.
Some people are saying this is very good but we need to go beyond what is being proposed and that we need to include regulations. It was previously projected by the Ontario government to have certain regulations in place. Otherwise we don't get where we want to go. I'm sure you know what I am referring to.
What are your thoughts on that issue? What do you recommend we do?
Ms. Sumner: We took a look at the amendment that was proposed by others, and we actually sought a legal opinion on that. What we heard — and my understanding — is that if we take the definition that we have of ecological integrity in the act and make it subservient to other pieces of legislation or regulations, it would weaken ecological integrity and it would not be additional but rather undermining of the intent of including ecological integrity.
My concern is that we've come a long way to get to the solution that we're at. As I said in my remarks, it works for farmers, and that's not just by chance. That's through many hours of conversations and trying to understand what EI is.
I think that if we are to destabilize this solution at this point, it would mean passage of the Rouge may not in fact happen. I want to see ecological integrity there so that the park is managed with nature first.
Senator Massicotte: You mentioned earlier you lived in the park? Is that correct?
Ms. Sumner: Live near it.
Senator Massicotte: You are not one of the households and farms which are actually tenants in the park. You're not one of those?
Ms. Sumner: I live just off the Kingston Road near the Dairy Queen.
Senator Massicotte: I'm sure you know many people who live there. You obviously have met the farmers and so on. How do you respond to the allegation that they're getting a sweetheart deal? They are actually friends of previous government officials, been there for a long time, and it's an insider deal. It's not a fair deal and the rent they are paying is not adequate. How do you respond to that? Is there any truth to that matter?
Ms. Sumner: I work as an environmentalist. I work on environmental issues, so I have not looked at the fair market deal for the farmers.
I do know that I've walked some of their lands. I buy the produce at Mike Whittamore's farm. I'm sad it won't be another year of public produce there. My understanding is the farmers have been very good stewards. I think this act allows us to move forward with them on ecological integrity, and I'm looking forward to that.
Senator Black: Ms. Sumner, thank you very much for being here. I don't have a question for you, just an observation. I have the privilege, as do you, of living on the edge of a national park. I live immediately adjacent to Banff National Park, so I'm very aware of the contests of interests that arise on a weekly basis between development and protecting nature. I recognize how tense and often unpleasant those conversations become.I want to thank you and congratulate you, because I know how complicated this must have been to get to the point today where you're sitting there saying we should do this.I want to thank you and your organization very much, and I would urge you to move to Banff.
The Chair: Is your place for sale?
Senator Black: I'm talking of a —
The Chair: It's a renter pay.
Senator Griffin: Like Senator Black, I don't have a specific question; I have an observation. That's mainly because Senator Massicotte took all my questions. We'll have to talk to him about that.
Congratulations on the work that has been done to date. I went to the Rouge about a year and a half ago. I was really impressed with what was being done. I was there with the Nature Canada board. Way back, several years prior to that, with the discussions that were going on with the Rouge, the Nature Canada board was very concerned about the concept of ecological integrity and whether how this park was going to be managed would have a negative impact potentially on other places in the park systems.
Like Senator Black, the important thing here, as he noted, will be the ongoing management of the park and resisting the pressures for development. We are in an unusual situation here with such a huge urban population nearby, and the place could easily get loved to death. I know that's a problem in Great Britain with nature preserves — how to keep them from being overrun. It's not that anybody has bad intentions, but that can happen. That part of it is also an issue.
I have great confidence in Parks Canada and how they intend to manage this park, but I'm sure that agency is also very appreciative of all the work that's been done by volunteers and by non-government groups to get this park to where it is and where we hope it's going to go. Thank you.
Senator Wetston: Good morning. I live in Toronto, and I'm happy we have the park. I play golf near the park but not in the park.
Biodiversity. How does the bill address those issues from your perspective? Positively? Negatively? Does it address the issues comprehensively, and your concerns with respect to biodiversity in the Rouge National Urban Park?
Ms. Sumner: As I mentioned at the top of my remarks, biodiversity loss is a global challenge, and it's not the job of any one individual park to address that; rather, it is the job of Canada to be thinking about how to stem biodiversity loss across Canada.
Protecting the Rouge where it is — and it's a piece of Carolinian forest that is the northernmost expanse of that forest. Having ecological integrity protected in the park and nature coming first will allow those 1,700 species to have habitat.
Ecological integrity is a continuum. It's about improving the ecological functionality. We're not starting with a great wilderness; we're starting with a park that has many attributes and features, and we're going to be improving those.
Like others have remarked, I have a great deal of faith in Parks Canada to work with the many stakeholders — the farmers and many others — on how we build those stewardship programs and make nature have a better chance in the Rouge.
Senator Wetston: Do you agree with the bill?
Ms. Sumner: Yes. We want to see it go forward.
Senator Wetston: What comes first in this? Does the ecological integrity, as addressed and defined in the way it is, assist in addressing this concern that you have about biodiversity?
Ms. Sumner: Yes, because it puts nature first. It says that will be the chief management tool that Parks Canada will have to address when looking at all proposals. It will mean that Parks Canada will be planning with others to improve ecological integrity along the way.We can't wave a magic wand to make the park a perfect wilderness today. It is about this continuum of improvement.
Senator Wetston: If you could improve this bill in any way — king for a day or queen for a day, whatever we're going to call this — how would you do it?
Ms. Sumner: We haven't actually thought that. We're really quite happy with what we have before us. As I said, it's a solution, and any time you try to destabilize that solution, then you have to go back to the table with all the others that you came to this solution with. My fear is that if we start to do that, if we start to mess with that — it is the highest attribute you can have in the parks legislation when you're saying nature is coming first. If you try to change that direction, it will destabilize the solution we have before us.
Senator Wetston: I live in Toronto, a city with a lot of people, congestion and, as I said to the minister, a lack of accessibility in some ways to nature and other things — even parking spaces, to be a little bit granular about that. I listened to Senator Griffin, and she has a tremendous amount of experience in this area.The issue for me personally is the opportunity for many individuals who live in Toronto to access the outdoors and nature, to breathe fresh air, walk in the park and see nature, which is not as available in Toronto. When we do it in the city, we walk around roads, highways and bridges. You know that whole scene.From that perspective of being overrun, is that a concern that you have?
Ms. Sumner: Yes. That's where we have to have some faith in Parks Canada to help us manage that. There are 7 million Canadians who live within an hour of the Rouge. There's no question. Would I like more parks and more wilderness? Absolutely. We can get on to doing that if the government wishes. We're quite happy to have that happen.
I do think that this area is where the youth of the GTA and those surrounding the Rouge will be able to take their first steps into nature and be able to go paddling. It's been my pleasure to introduce the youth in my family to the Rouge and take them out. I see the Rouge as a hope and possibility.
Senator Fraser: I'm at a disadvantage. I've not worked with parks, I don't live near a national park and I don't play golf near a national park, so I'm starting from way further back than many of my colleagues on this.
I have a couple of questions. The first really does betray my ignorance. In the definition of ecological integrity, the bill refers to "abiotic components.'' What does that mean?
Ms. Sumner: I would actually look to Parks Canada to answer that question.
Pam Veinotte, Field Unit Superintendent, Rouge National Urban Park, Parks Canada Agency: Good morning. "Abiotic components'' simply means that there are both living and nonliving components of an ecosystem.
Senator Fraser: Rocks and trees.
Ms. Veinotte: It's everything. It's a way to cover every aspect of an ecosystem, because an ecosystem is made up of many parts. If you think about a house and all the systems and elements that are included in a house to make it work and make it run, that's one of the ways we can sometimes describe an ecosystem and all the many parts. It's living and nonliving things.
Senator Fraser: Thank you very much indeed. I've learned something. I hope I'm going to learn something more.
I gather you were involved in the discussions and negotiations that brought us to this point?
Ms. Sumner: Yes.
Senator Fraser: And I gather those were long, careful and probably sometimes arduous.
Ms. Sumner: Yes.
Senator Fraser: So that I can understand the dynamic a little better, could you explain to me if there was anything that you learned in those discussions about the concerns of people on the other side of the table that you hadn't quite been aware of before, and what you were willing to give up, if anything, in order to achieve this bill, which I gather you like a lot?
Ms. Sumner: As I mentioned in my remarks, one of the things that we do well at CPAWS is that we work across the aisle or across the table with folks who may have different interests, whether that's a mining or forestry company, and I would say in every single one of those engagements I learn an incredible amount.
It is part of my job to sit down and understand the interests of the other people around the table. In this case, there was a culmination of a conversation of many years, quite frankly, of meetings with farmers and finally saying, "How do we just understand each other?'' One of the turning points for me was that the farmers were already doing 31 stewardship projects with Parks Canada and working on improvements to the ecological integrity of the park.
For me, a key point in describing what EI was for them was that it had been used or understood to mean that it would magically go from one day being like this and the next day everything will have to be ecologically perfect. It was slowing that process down for each other and understanding that EI is not a place that you just turn a switch and that you arrive at, but rather all the work and stewardship projects you're already doing are themselves examples of improving ecological integrity.
Frankly, that's how we have to work on every one of our parks. There are challenges in every park, whether it's from climate change or industrial development that may be close by or, in this case, development that is encroaching.
Figuring how those projects are going to actually improve the functionality and the space for nature is a challenge. As soon as we started to slow that process down, being less fearful of being on different sides and just having a conversation, that's when we got to a place where we could say EI is not as scary as we think, and we do believe that it will take sitting around a table to work on the management plans for the park and also the trust that we've seen in how Pam and her team have come to the table. They haven't come to the table with a mandate to rule, but rather to convene. Those conversations, in my estimation, are about possibility again, and how we can open up and create a better place for nature.
Senator Fraser: This slowing down, not halting but slowing and making it more gradual, if I may, was that your big give?
Ms. Sumner: No, it wasn't a give. What I was referring to was a slowing down of the conversation, not making it as much of a back-and-forth of "we must have this; no, we can't,'' but, rather, slowing it down and really listening to each other and asking, "What do you mean by EI?'' There were many people contributing to the conversation that made it sound like EI was something that you just turn on and we're going to stop farming. As soon as we said that's not what we're all about, I think it was a different conversation.
You'll have to ask Mike as well what the farmers gained, but my understanding was that, from what I can see in the bill, there is greater certainty in the length of leases and things like that. I think that's something that the farming community were looking for. Again, I can't speak for them; you'd have to ask. For us, our primary concern was seeing ecological integrity in the act.
Senator Mockler: Ms. Sumner, I certainly don't want to point to you or the group, but my objective is trying to get it right. I'll give you the experience that we have in New Brunswick. No doubt you remember Kouchibouguac National Park in New Brunswick?
Ms. Sumner: Yes.
Senator Mockler: That's my first statement.
My second statement is that I have lived as a resident since the 1960s and early 1970s, as a businessperson and as a member of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick and I know the confrontation that we had at Kouchibouguac National Park. It's still ongoing, the ups and downs and the black eye, if can I say this, that impacted the residents of New Brunswick, not to say Atlantic Canada when you look at national park management.
My question is, how many people are we going to displace when we talk about farmers? How many people are we going to displace? There's no doubt, sitting at the table, that you can find a consensus. I believe in that. Could you explain to me how we have brought together, and is it a fair deal? We hear that it's a sweetheart deal and it's not a fair deal. Could you enlighten us on that particular situation so I can say, as a parliamentarian, that I support it?
Ms. Sumner: It is not my understanding that people are being displaced by this bill, and if someone wants to point out specifics, I'm happy to look at that. One of the things that we did was work with the farming community to ask whether we could get EI in the legislation, and for them it actually provides greater certainty with the ability to sign longer-term leases.I would actually see that the contrary is true, and that it actually provides that certainty, whereas for the last 30 years they've been on rotating leases of one year at a time.
Again, that's not our issue focus, so I don't have as much to offer on those particulars, so I can't speak to whether it's a sweetheart deal for the farmers. It's not my understanding. My understanding is it does provide that certainty. For nature, it also provides certainty by including ecological integrity.
Senator Mockler: The ecological integrity, as it applies to Canada's national parks, is simply, according to comments that we've heard, unachievable in an urban setting. The ecosystems have integrity when their native components remain intact, but because ecosystems are constantly changing, conservation strategies that have ecological integrity as their goal must also allow processes that reflect the ecosystem's natural conditions.
My question on this would be: Can you list the agricultural stakeholders who were consulted during the development of Bill C-18, what they stated and how the government responded to their concerns? And did you have concerns on the process that was taken into consideration?
Ms. Sumner: I can't list the agricultural folks. I'm sure that Parks Canada has a list of those. I know the farmers I met and walked the lands with. My concern was about getting to a mutual understanding of what EI is.
Again, the quote that you were reading from treats EI as this place that, all of a sudden, magically appears. It doesn't work like that. It is about, today, starting with what you have and deciding what projects you will move forward. This is what I said directly to the farmers. You're already working on 31 projects and you're already improving EI. What are the next 31 projects that we can work on together? What are the next things that we want to improve? Even if you look at the budget for Parks Canada, it will take many years to restore the functionality in some of these areas and address the changes.
For me, one of the best things about the Rouge is it starts to not only anchor biodiversity but also provide resiliency in terms of a watershed and tree canopy. Toronto has had many challenges, whether the ice storm or the flooding we're dealing with now. The Rouge is the kind of place you want to see more of because it will provide that buffer against the challenges that climate change will be offering us.
In my estimation, this is how we do want to approach a park. We want to be sitting down with all of the people who will be part of a solution and try to move it forward.
Senator Mockler: Do you feel, with your experience — and you're a professional — that the concerns of the farmers and the stakeholders have been met, and do they have a security clause that if, down the road, something happens, they can go back and sit at that table?
Ms. Sumner: When the legislation was written, and I'm just going to try to turn to the opinion that we garnered, and that is that we have ecological integrity in there, but it also says for greater certainty it does not prevent the carrying out of agriculture activities. So both of those are in there. It does say we will manage for nature, and there are so many projects that we could do with farmers. I see this again as a possibility. In the chair that I sit, as we move this bill forward, we're starting to get more requests from other places across Canada, whether it's Halifax, Saskatchewan or B.C., saying, "How do we get our national urban park?''
Starting to move forward on this kind of protection allows us to make sure that we have the possibility of having nature places for urban Canadians to go to. It means that our national parks don't all have to be so far away. We can start thinking of how we create resiliency with municipalities and start to build back some of the ecosystems that need to be there for nature.
Senator Dean: Thank you, Ms. Sumner. There have been a number of references to the importance of this initiative as a piece of public policy — I think we can call it that — that involves multiple parties with different interests. Thank you for the role that you've played in making that a success.
You've talked about the convening role of Parks Canada. One of my interests is looking at how governments work well and sometimes don't work so well. Could you tell us you little more about the convening role of Parks Canada, the role of the federal and provincial governments and how that worked, what worked well about it, what we can learn from it and what we can learn about how we might do a little better? It's obviously a success story, but just unpack the notion of the convening role played by Parks Canada.
Ms. Sumner: I actually think there was a tonal change with the appointment of the superintendent and the bringing in of some of the park's staff in the sense that it was about how we sit down at a table and actually start to get some projects going. Once you do that, people get engaged and start becoming part of that.
It's not perfect. Before these amendments, there was more division. These amendments and the process to get to those amendments have allowed us to bridge some of those divides. In previous iterations, we were still focused on what was different about each other and not really thinking about how we could come to a solution.
For me, getting to these amendments was a process, a conversation that was helped by Parks Canada staff, having so many good stewardship projects and momentum, building faith and working from a science base. It's important to be evidence-based and grounded in science. We have some incredible partners with the University of Toronto right there, the zoo and others working from a science base in terms of restoration.
The further we go along in this, the more goodwill is developed, the more people step up and say: How can we work on a good project? How can we make this better?
There will be difficult conversations in the development of management plans. There will be difficult conversations in melding that with other realities, but that is what happens when you sit down at a table with each other. I look forward to those, and I look forward to the ways in which we will improve the Rouge.
I'm not sure how I could speak to improving the process looking back, but I am hopeful about the process moving forward.
Senator Dean: Is it permissible that we might ask the superintendent to comment on the role of Parks Canada on this matter and this concept of the convening role? If we don't have time, I completely understand.
The Chair: We may have time for that, but we have a couple more questions.
Senator Dean: I'm done.
The Chair: That's Parks Canada's role to do that.
Senator Patterson: I'd like to say that I certainly applaud the creation of this urban park. I noted your comments that our national parks don't need to be so far away. As someone who supports CPAWS, I would like to tell you that where I'm from, Nunavut, we are way exceeding the quota of national parks.
Well-intentioned folks from Toronto want to expand protected areas in Nunavut. There is a different point of view that many of us have about that because we don't get any economic benefits from these huge, vast, remote protected areas. One of our biggest national parks had 17 visitors last year. There is no business for outfitters, guides, hotel owners or anyone.
We think that we've done more than our fair share of protecting lands from other potential sources of economic development, including rigorously regulated mines, for our huge growing population of unemployed people. It's a small population, but the proportion of unemployed people is very high.
Having said that, I want to say that I agree entirely with you that we should be establishing parks in urban areas where many more people can benefit from them than are benefiting from the vast protected areas in Northern Canada.
I have a question that I'm just dying to ask of you from your presentation: How did you survive sleeping with polar bears?
Ms. Sumner: Well, we had an amazing indigenous guide, Sam Hunter, and he spent quite a bit of his childhood playing with polar bears. He tells stories of chasing them into town to scare the adults. He was a bit devilish and a great guide.
We spent four nights on Cormorant Point where they have the traditional hunting and fishing area. When we got there, I must say I was a bit alarmed that we had polar bears within eyesight and watching us and slept rather nervously the first night. But by the end of the trip, I was saying, "They're not getting any closer; come on.''
Sam was a great guide and taught us how to live with polar bears and be thoughtful about it. It was a great journey with him.
Senator Patterson: I trust Sam still has all his limbs?
Ms. Sumner: He does. But he told us after the trip that he has had a couple of rather close encounters. Yes, he does have all his limbs.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you for being here, Ms. Sumner. I'm quite familiar with the original legislation. I carried this legislation in the Senate for the minister, and we thought it was a good first effort. We knew there were still a lot of concerns about how broad it should be and how it should be applied.
I want to ask you to go back to the concept of ecological integrity. When the first minister of the previous government spoke to this issue, her statement was:
The idea and the concept of ecological integrity as it applies to Canada's national parks is simply unachievable in an urban setting. The ecosystems have integrity when their native components remain intact, but because ecosystems are constantly changing, conservation strategies that have ecological integrity as their goal must also allow processes that reflect the ecosystem's natural conditions. That means such ecological processes as wildfires, flooding, and pest outbreaks would need to be allowed to run their natural course, which is not desirable and realistic in an urban setting. The park includes major highways, rail lines, hydro corridors, as well as farmland, and seven million people live on the Rouge's doorstep.
I wonder if you can explain if the points the minister raised have been addressed, such as what the government is now proposing to make ecological integrity a major priority. How do you square these two things?
Ms. Sumner: First, I would like to say thank you very much for working on the previous bill and bringing the park to the place that it was. I think that we also worked with the previous government on trying to stickhandle to get the legislation to go forward.
The concerns that we have, as we have said to previous governments and to this one, was that the transfer of the Ontario lands needed to meet or exceed the protections that they have today. Some of those protections are in place around ecological integrity. It made no sense to us to be looking at transferring land to a lower level of protection. That would defeat the purpose, in our estimation. At the same time, we wanted to have a uniformity of management over the Rouge, and having a larger space for nature was always going to be better for nature as well. Getting to the point where we could meet or exceed the levels of protection really required getting to ecological integrity.
As I've stated in previous answers, ecological integrity is not something that you achieve overnight but, rather, it's a journey. Many of the comments that you're referencing are if we were to basically achieve ecological integrity in the next nine minutes or when we pass the legislation; that's not going to happen. We do have fires that are run in High Park, for example, and the city is able to manage those and make sure that we regenerate those forests using controlled fire systems.
It is a science. Parks Canada has to manage this in many other parks where we have close proximity to human habitation or dwellings and want to make sure that there is not a cost to humans.
For us, we see that the ability to improve the ecological integrity on a continuum and keep moving and improving is entirely possible in this region. We have many examples of how Parks Canada has managed that over the years.
The Chair: Before we go to second round, I will ask a couple of questions.
In your remarks, you said that you agree with the greater certainty for the farming community that is proposed in this bill — I understand that — and that you look forward to working with farmers on many ways you can improve the ecological integrity of the park.
You mentioned a few times that there things that can be done. Could you maybe give me an idea of what a couple of those might be? You're saying they're doing a good job now. That doesn't mean we can't do better. What kind of things?
Ms. Sumner: I think one of the pieces that we're looking forward to is how to ensure the connectivity between the lake and the moraine is stronger. How can we build that and create those connections so that it reinforces flyways for birds or it establishes stronger linkages? That needs to be planned very carefully and thoughtfully. And how does it work with farmers and how can you have farmers helping you in achieving that?
The Chair: I grew up on a farm. I left the farm early; I was cheap labour on the farm. Tell me what happens on the ground. What would a farmer have to do to manage better ecological integrity?
Ms. Sumner: Some of it is about their own concerns around flood control. The projects I've looked at include how, in some cases, we remove or add culverts or change water courses so they're more naturally resilient. It's thoughtful things like that. Looking at the farmers' fields where they're flooding, is that helpful? Is that something we to change? We have looked at some species they want to plant and would this be a better species? With the use of pesticides, can it be managed better? It's those sorts of things.
It is a whole array and it depends on the specific farm, where it is and what you're trying to achieve. There is no one answer. It's a matter of sitting down and developing the various projects. As I said, Parks Canada already has 31 projects under way, and I would look to some of those as examples of what we would continue to do in the future.
The Chair: So doing some of those, I don't think you can do anything without a cost. Obviously, nothing comes free.
Ms. Sumner: Right.
The Chair: Who pays that cost?
Ms. Sumner: I haven't looked into the financing of the cost, but some of these projects that have been undertaken have been of benefit to the farmers, and again, you should ask some of the farmers about how they're managing these costs. But my understanding is that some of those costs have been shared costs and some have been costs that are actually helping the farmers. It's also of benefit to them.I'm not sure what the economic plan is for the management of those. I would I have to turn to Parks Canada for how they're managing that.
The Chair: I'm going by what you have in your remarks and what you've told us about things that need to be done. That's why I'm asking you the question, not Parks Canada. Parks Canada has already testified.
I just want to know if the farmer is expected to pay all the costs that would be attributed to some of these changes in the way he or she farms the land. You obviously had those discussions with farmers. You live close to there. Is there some way that can be mitigated some other way?
Ms. Sumner: We never discussed cost with the farmers. Again, that's not our area of expertise, and the management of the costs and how those are attributed would be conversations that are happening in negotiations with farmers.
The Chair: The other question is a little off topic. I think it's great we have an urban park. I live in northern British Columbia. I'm the same as Senator Patterson. We created a B.C. park that's larger than Nova Scotia, parks and wilderness, so I know about taking land away from other types of activity.
You said people were interested in Saskatchewan, and you mentioned B.C., about a national urban park. Where would that be? I'm quite familiar with parks in British Columbia.
Ms. Sumner: It's not my area, so I can't speak to that, but I think it's Howe Sound. That's my understanding. These are, again, just rumours that I've heard and folks are thinking "Oh, this is an interesting opportunity. How could we do that?'' Again, it's not my area of expertise, so I can't speak to that specifically.
Senator Massicotte: While we have you here as a knowledgeable witness, we received a written presentation — and I'm not sure there will be witnesses — saying this is all very good but we need to add some more land. We need to add, from memory, I think it's 6 or 7 million square feet. Are you aware of what I'm talking about and do you agree with the need to do so now?
Ms. Sumner: Passage of this would meet the test for Ontario to meet or exceed and would allow them to transfer the lands they're considering.There are other lands. I think it's the old Pickering airport lands that they refer to.
Senator Massicotte: They refer to that, yes.
Ms. Sumner: We have not been pushing for that, but from an ecological perspective, a larger park is always better.
Senator Massicotte: But it's not critical to satisfy your objectives currently proposed in legislation?
Ms. Sumner: No. We would be very happy if the government and Parks Canada wanted to move forward with an enlarged Rouge National Urban Park.
Senator Massicotte: Going back to the definition of ecological integrity, you summed it up in your presentation as nature's priority. How do you deal with that from a technical point of view? You mentioned flooding a few times and farmers. Before humankind was there, and even a couple of thousands of years ago, flooding occurred. It was actually very good. You say we should manage that flooding. If nature is priority, you should just let it flood, no? How do you define that? How do you work that?
Ms. Sumner: Perhaps I wasn't clear. Flooding is part of the natural course of things, but in ecosystems, there is a sense to hydrology and how it needs to work. In an urban setting, if you're in the Don Valley and that floods, it's because we haven't done a good job of maintaining nature there.
In the Rouge, we're looking to improve how the hydrology functions. That's my understanding. As we improve that, it means the floods that do occur are part of the natural course of things and not, perhaps, the over-flooding or the breaking of the hydrology that we have there.
It's really about restoring the natural flow of things and that the hydrology will function as it's meant to. It's not stopping flooding; it's not even necessarily managing it. It's creating the resiliency of the system to work with the flooding and how that works.
Senator Massicotte: The way I read that, it's humankind using what it considers superior knowledge to affect nature. Nature has its flows, and it includes flooding. You say, "We know better. We're smarter than nature. Let us help you, Nature, get a better result.'' Is that nature's priority?
Ms. Sumner: No, I'm saying let's restore the systems of nature so that it can manage the flooding.
Senator Massicotte: It's a grey area, but I appreciate your —.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Sumner, for your presentation and answers. We appreciate it very much.
For the second segment, I am pleased to welcome, by video conference, Mr. Mike Whittamore, Owner, Whittamore's Farm. We're still trying to get in contact with Mr. Jim Robb. We will start with Mr. Whittamore. The floor is yours, and then we'll go to some questions and answers.
Mike Whittamore, Owner, Whittamore's Farm: Members of the committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity today to speak to you regarding Bill C-18 and the proposed changes to the wording in the Rouge National Urban Park Act.
My brother and I operate a pick-your-own farm market and entertainment farming business in the provincially owned lands of the Rouge National Urban Park. We were expropriated 45 years ago and have been renting from the government and several different successive agencies over the last 45 years. For my entire farming career and my brother's career, we have been on one-year leases and often on one-month over-holds.
Two words are at the heart of the discussion today: ecological integrity. When I appeared before this committee during the deliberation on Bill C-40, the same two words were being discussed. At that time, I was not in favour of including the words in Bill C-40. There was, and still is, plenty of evidence that shows reaching the ecosystem health objective of the Rouge National Urban Park Act can be achieved in many ways. There were a number of people, including senior management from Parks Canada and the then-federal Minister of the Environment, who agreed that ecological integrity, as defined, was not feasible or desirable in an urban setting.
As we all know, politics has played a large part in the delay of the transfer of the provincially owned lands in Parks Canada.
A group of farmers met with Minister McKenna and Minister Philpott early in 2016 to discuss our concerns. Minister McKenna was looking for a way forward to allow the lands to be transferred, and at subsequent meetings we were assured that we would be allowed to continue farming even if the words ecological integrity were included in the amended act. She indicated that there would be a clause with words to that effect, and the minister did exactly what she said she would do, in Section 6(2):
For greater certainty subsection (1) does not prevent the carrying out of agricultural activities as provided for in this Act.
Subsection (1), as you all know, ensures the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity must be the first priority for the minister.
There are 42 words in the definition of ecological integrity that will be included in the amended act. Words mean different things to different people. The interpretation of ecological integrity embedded in the Rouge National Urban Park Act will have to take into consideration section 4 of the act, which describes the objectives for the establishment of the park, one of which is promoting a vibrant farming community. Section 6(2), which I spoke about, contains six key words: "as provided for in this act.'' Those words give some comfort to the agricultural community that there is a future for us in the Rouge National Urban Park.
Both myself and the farming community do have a certain amount of trepidation agreeing with Bill C-18. Forty-five years of government ownership tends to have that effect. But we collectively need to finish this job and make the full Rouge National Urban Park a reality.
As I stated before, we do not need old plans, such as the Rouge North Management Plan, added to the Rouge National Urban Park Act. This old document does not address the needs or concerns of the agricultural community, nor were we consulted when the document was drafted almost 20 years ago. It contemplates the destruction and reforestation of thousands of acres of class 1 farmland, and that is bad public policy.
What we really need to do is step back and let Parks Canada do their job. This is a completely new type of park in the family of Parks Canada. The agricultural community has spent several years now working with staff and management, and we have complete confidence in their ability to execute on 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 that already has an extensive human footprint, including an agricultural footprint dating back hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
We suggested to the minister during our 2006 meeting that all stakeholders need to try to start to work together for the common goals of a Rouge National Urban Park. For far too long, farmers and environmental groups have been at odds with each other. With age comes wisdom. I now believe that spending time together and gaining a better understanding of each other will have a positive impact on the park and will actually lead to collaboration of all the stakeholders within that park.
To that end, Minister Philpott arranged a meeting with farmers and your previous speaker, Ms. Janet Sumner, in October, and we did walkabout on a recently completed wetland rehabilitation project on one of the farms. A number of the projects have actually doubled the acreage of the wetlands in the park in just the last two years. We had a very good discussion and I think each party came away with a better understanding.
Once the lands have been transferred, I hope that the minister will direct Parks Canada to form the advisory committee, which will be comprised of all stakeholders. This too will provide another avenue for understanding.
The one other part I would like to talk about is the other pillar of this park, which is the visitor experience.
I'm in the business of the rural experience. My brother and I invite thousands of people to our farm every year. Countless times, I have had parents come up and express their appreciation for their children to be able to see where their food comes from and experience nature first-hand. We have an incredible opportunity here at the Rouge National Urban Park to showcase nature, culture and agriculture.
As was previously noted, there are seven million people who live within one hour of this park. Like Banff National Park, I believe that, 100 years from now, history will show that the creation of the Rouge National Urban Park was truly visionary.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll go to questions.
Senator Massicotte: In summary, what I hear from you, with trepidation, is that you're now totally comfortable with the proposed legislation where you effectively have two potential conflicting priorities. One is the ecological integrity as a priority, but at the same time there's a paragraph in there saying you respect the right of farmland and farm usage in the area.You're comfortable with that and you support the bill as such. Am I correct in saying that?
Mr. Whittamore: That's correct. I do support the bill. As your previous speaker said, in the urban park context, ecological integrity will be a journey. The agricultural community wants to be part of that journey.I do support that, and I agree with the way the amendment is written.
Senator Massicotte: You also do not agree with the need to include some previously proposed Ontario regulations to get us there. As you know, some proponents say we need to amend the act to make reference to those provincial regulations to make sure we maintain the objectives previously defined. You also say that is not necessary. You're happy as it is. Is that accurate?
Mr. Whittamore: Yes. I agree that it's not necessary. At least so far, there's already been 1,700 acres of Class 1 agricultural land that has been reforested and the Rouge North Management Plan contemplates thousands of acres more. The park management has told us that that is not a good idea and that there are other ways to reach the ecological health of the ecosystem. They believe that agriculture can and should be part of that solution.
Senator Massicotte: I'm sorry to ask you this — it's obviously not personal — but some people have alleged that with the current users of the land, the farmers and the homeowners who are all tenants, there was a scheme going back to a couple of years ago whereby they manipulated the circumstances to get these lands very cheap. Therefore, these are friends of the government, insiders and so on, and they now are tenants seeking to better their deal or get a favourable deal as they have had in the years past. Could you comment on that? I know there was a police investigation and previous governments nullified that, but could you comment on that?
Mr. Whittamore: Sure. We need to go back to the late 1970s. When the land was expropriated, we had this grand design of a new airport. We were actually in the provincially expropriated land, which was for Cedarwood city. Very quickly we had a big recession and then they cancelled the airport or put the airport on hold. All of a sudden, both provincial and federal governments had 40,000 acres of land that they needed to do something with. This was right at the time when I was starting my career, 1980 and 1981.
The government of the day came out with a young farmer program. That allowed young farmers, if they were willing to come back onto the farm, to pay market rate for the land, but for the houses and the outbuildings, they were paying below city rates. An example would be that currently the going rates are $1,400 a month for a house and the agricultural rate would have been about $800.
We bought that land. It's actually not just a couple years ago. In 1998, we bought back some of the lands during the Conservative government when they wanted to get out of the land banking system. We have actually owned that land for 18 years. If you go back and look at the price of land, we paid fair market value in 1998. The land values have appreciated, but in 1998 we paid exactly. We went out and did comparative analysis and we paid around $7,000 or $8,000 an acre for the land at that time.
Somebody is saying that we have a sweetheart deal? I can tell you, five years ago on one of our properties I was paying $700 a month for the house, and all of a sudden the rates started going up. Now with that same house, within five years, I'm paying $1,350 a month. When I phoned my landlord, which was Infrastructure Ontario, I said, "Are we not under the landlord tenant act? Because this house is 140 years old, built before 1991, and in Ontario you have rent control.'' I was told, "No, it's the government. We don't have to abide by rent control.'' So effectively in five years, the rent on that house has doubled.
These houses are not urban houses. These houses are 140 years old. The government hasn't put hardly any money into them. Your oil bill is $4,000 a year because there's no insulation in these houses. That's the reality. I'm not sure what sweetheart deal anybody is talking about.
As far as land rent, I'm currently paying $80 an acre. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has done studies. In southwestern Ontario, they pay $120 to $150, but when you're pricing rental of land, you have to take into consideration a number of things. Is the land systematically tile drained? I can tell you unequivocally all the lands around here have not had a tile put in them in 45 years, except for the land that I'm on because I grow high-value crops. So I took a risk 20 years ago and spent $100,000 putting tile drains in.
The bulk of land is imperfectly drained, there are lots of wet spots, so it's not particularly high yielding. There are way more heat units in southwestern Ontario than there are here. So land rent around here should be somewhere between $50 and $80 an acre, but we've heard in the federal lands that some of it is $120 an acre. As far as sweetheart deal, I'm not sure what they're talking about.
Senator Wetston: First of all, I want to say that I understand the economics of farming as best I can and how difficult it is. I congratulate you for continuing in this profession because I think it's very important. And I understand the business of farming and how difficult it is to maintain a viable operation. Congratulations.
I have seen your farm, by the way, but I haven't really visited it entirely. I live in Toronto. It's a remarkable facility.
I wanted to ask you how this bill affects the economic viability of your farming operation, or does it affect it?
Mr. Whittamore: As I said, we've been on one-year leases. One of the things that the agricultural community is most excited about is the potential for a 30-year lease. When you're on a one-year lease or one month over hold, you don't put any money into infrastructure. Nobody has done any tiling. Any of the guys who are growing corn, soybeans or wheat on any of this land are not putting $1,000 an acre into the tile drains because you're on a one-year lease. Over the 45 years, there were proposed dump sites on the land. They were going to build the dome stadium on some of this land. Whatever successive government came along, it depended who had the file and what they might want to do with the land.Farmers were not going to invest time and money in the farms without a kick-off clause. So we had five-year lease but they have a one-year kick-off clause. They give you six months' notice and you have to go. With these 30-year leases, there will not be a kick-off clause.
The farmers are excited about that. We recognize that we're going to have to do environmental farm plans and we will work with the Parks Canada people. That's probably the single biggest thing that will ensure that you will see money and investment into this land to improve the land for both agriculture and for the ecosystem health.
Senator Wetston: I thank you for your comment because I find it quite challenging to think how you could invest in your property, whether it's an urban park or not, without having a long-term lease to allow you to make that investment. It does seem to me that the government is on the right track here.
I don't know if it should be 30 or 20 or 15 years, but I would say something long term to enable that type of investment in your property certainly sounds like it would be warranted. I'm hoping that that outcome might occur positively because I think it probably is the only way you can make those long-term investments. You've already taken that step with respect to some of that, obviously.
I want to ask you another question, if I may. I think biodiversity and climate change are challenges environmentally. It was discussed a bit by Ms. Sumner when she gave her testimony today, which I think you heard. Have you experienced any direct impact of climate change in farming on your property?
Mr. Whittamore: In the 35 years that I've been farming, I would say I'm seeing more extremes. If we look at the rain episode two weeks ago, over a seven-day period, we got five inches of rain. That happens from time to time, but ADRs, all day rain, where you would get just a gentle rain over a 24-hour period, tend to be coming rarer.
As far as temperature, because we grow sensitive crops, strawberries and raspberries, cold temperatures in the winter have always been a concern. What we're seeing in the winters now tend to be more extremes where you get a short period of extreme cold rather than a more consistent winter, and there's definitely not as much snow; we're not seeing nearly as much snow as we did.
As people say, climate change can take time. But we're seeing changes.
Senator Wetston: The unfortunate part about this is you have to look at the science and believe the science. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we only live in the time that we have on this Earth. It's very difficult to experience the climate changes that may have occurred 10,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago or 100 years ago.
My question really is if you've identified in your own operation these types of changes. It does seem to be very consistent with others' experiences, suggesting that there seems to be more extremes or perhaps more volatility that they're observing as a result of climate change, whatever that cause may be. Of course we're studying that issue at this committee at this time.
Thank you very much.
Senator Fraser: Welcome to the Senate, Mr. Whittamore, even if only by remote control.
Can you tell me how many farmers there are on the lands we're talking about, and what kind of farms do they tend to be? Are they small? I'm not a farmer, so you're going to have to use simple language to explain it to me. I'd like to know a little more about this community.
Mr. Whittamore: The number of farmers is somewhere around 45 to 50. It's a mix of farmers. There are some larger cash crop farmers who grow corn, soybeans and wheat, underseeded with clover. They would have a fairly large percentage of the land. That's partly a function, though, of what has happened historically with 45 years of government — "neglect'' may be a strong word — but there's been a relative amount of neglect, with outbuildings falling into disrepair.
I can remember in my youth, it was an extremely vibrant community. There probably would have been 200 farmers. But with expropriation, it devastated the community. It tore the community apart. Quite a few farmers moved away, so we lost a number of farmers because they decided to go and move out to western Ontario or somewhere farther away where they weren't going to run the risk of expropriation.
Aside from the large cash croppers, there are a number of smaller farmers. There's not a lot of animal production. There are some sheep farmers, a few beef farmers and I think there's probably two or three dairy farmers. Then there's a number of people like us who would be fresh market or market gardeners, either pick-your-own, farm market or they're growing the crop and selling it directly either into the Toronto food terminal or directly to the stores.
Senator Fraser: I was quite moved by your testimony about how your opinions have evolved over the years. Do you think that the same is true for most of the farmers?
Mr. Whittamore: I do. You have to understand: There's been 45 years of government intervention, and when you meet with them, they always say, "Comment noted,'' but then they go and do what they want to do. The farmers are cautiously optimistic. That's the best way to describe it.
I sit on a committee where we liaison with the Rouge National Urban Park. We're working on the leases right now and doing a number of different things. When you're in the committee and you work with these people as long as you have — I have complete confidence. I'm so impressed with Parks Canada — the people they hire, the management team. This was the first government agency that really comes to us and asks us our opinion. We learn from them and they learn from us, so I have complete trust.
As the committee, we don't meet with the farmers all that often, but we go back and try to say —I think now, particularly in the north part of the park where the federal lands have been transferred and, as your previous speaker Janet said, there are 30 projects on the go. What I'm hearing from Parks Canada is the farmers are lining up. They're going to have projects for years to come, because what they're doing is a collaboration.
I know one of the other senators asked about who is paying. I'll give you a simple example. I think it's a joint payment. Parks Canada is looking to create a wetland. The one that we walked around used to be where the cattle wander so that the cattle can go down and get a drink from this small creek. The cattle aren't there anymore. The broken tiles have been reconnected. They did some landscaping or changing the river flow. The tiles now run in. For those of you who don't understand, tile drains are four-inch pipes about two and a half feet below the surface that pick up the water. Instead of having surface water run in, which is full of bacteria and warm, the water actually percolates down and comes out those tiles. If you look at that water, it's far cleaner, cooler and much better for the wetland and for the environment in general.
While they were doing that, Parks Canada noted they were two small fields. The farmers said, "What about clearing out the fence row?'' Fence row is historically "this land that we're on is full of stones. If I had a penny for every stone that I picked, I would be a multimillionaire now.'' All the stones get put into the fence row, so now they're clearing out these fence rows.
The farmer, because the equipment has evolved and gotten larger, instead of having two five-acre pieces of land, the fence row is gone and now we've got a 10-acre field.
It's a win-win. We created the wetland habitat and the farmer now has a field that is larger, and it's easier and more efficient for him to get his farming practices done. That's a simple example.
Senator Fraser: Okay, thank you very much.
Senator Mockler: Mr. Whittamore, how many acres of land do we farm in the Rouge right now, collectively?
Mr. Whittamore: If we're including the potential of the provincial and the federal land, I don't know the numbers exactly but the total area is going to be somewhere around 10,000 or 12,000 acres, I believe. Production-wise, it'll probably be 8,000 acres. Parks Canada would have the exact numbers.
Senator Mockler: When you talk about stones, I have to tell you that where I come from, in the farming community, stones are important for the quality of the soil.
You talked about long-term leases or long-term agreements with governments.
Mr. Whittamore: Yes.
Senator Mockler: Tell me if I'm off track here with your experience, but I would certainly accept a 40-year rather than a 30-year. I'll tell you why: If we want our sons and daughters to take on the farm, you need more than 30 years.
Mr. Whittamore: I agree. I'm coming toward the end of my career, and there are 10 grandchildren and they're all doing their own thing right now, but if the next generation is going to come and farm, we will have to have 30-year leases.
It could be a 40-year lease or a 20 year lease. What I think we should do is, if, let's say, it's going to be a 20-year lease, after five years, meet with park management and ask, "Are we good with what's going on? Is anything going to change? Okay, let's add another five years onto the tail,'' so that it is a perpetual 20-year lease.
Don't make it a 20-year lease and then start talking in year 19 about what we're going to do. Every few years, meet, and just add onto the lease so that it's a perpetual lease. Whether it's 20, 30 or 40, I don't think it really matters. I do agree, however, that for farmers to have a vision for a career, it certainly needs to be more than 20 years.
Senator Mockler: Do you feel that the concerns of the farming community have been met? If not, could the establishment of a park advisory board mitigate future concerns?
Mr. Whittamore: I think the concerns of the agricultural community have been met. As I've said, obviously there is some trepidation given 45 years of history, but I believe that advisory committee, with all the agricultural and environmental group representation, will be one of the single most important things we can do, first, to move the park forward and, second, have a better understanding of where each of the organizations come from. We've spent far too long being at odds with other organizations; I'm at fault and the farming community is at fault. As I said, with age comes wisdom, but I really do hope that we get this advisory committee set up.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Whittamore, for your presentation. It's much appreciated.
For the second half of this hour, we have connected with Jim Robb, General Manager, Friends of the Rouge Watershed. Mr. Robb, if you have a presentation, you can make that, and then we'll go to some questions and answers.
Jim Robb, General Manager, Friends of the Rouge Watershed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and senators, for this opportunity to address your committee.
Since 1991, our community conservation group, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, has coordinated more than 60,000 volunteers and supporters to improve the health of the Rouge River watershed and park. Since 1986, I have worked as a Rouge volunteer and since 1997 as general manager of Friends of the Rouge Watershed. Between 1990 and 1996, I was the vice-chair with the Ontario environmental assessment board.
A 120-square kilometre public land assembly surrounds the Rouge Watershed near Toronto. This federal and provincial public land is predominantly designated Ontario Greenbelt Natural Heritage System. This public plan is the last chance to create a large park in southern Ontario, an area with one third of Canada's population, one third of Canada's endangered species but only one-four-hundredth of its land in national parks and 80 per cent of its land in agriculture and settlements.
Thank you to the Senate and the House of Commons for supporting the prioritization of ecological integrity within Bill C-18. A remaining serious omission of Bill C-18 can be remedied by adding the following amendment, 6(3). It should read:
Subsection (1) is intended to support and complement the implementation of preexisting Ontario Greenbelt, Oak Ridges Moraine, Rouge Park and watershed conservation plans.
Amendment 6(3) is necessary to honour:
(a) the broad public interests represented by the preexisting Ontario Greenbelt, Oak Ridges Moraine, Rouge Park and watershed conservation plans;
(b) the 2013 Canada and Ontario written agreement to meet or exceed preexisting Ontario conservation plans during the creation of the national park;
(c) Ontario's explicit request for an amendment like 6(3) in September 2014 and February 2017 letters to the federal environment minister, and;
(d) the written, party-approved commitments of candidates in 16 eastern-GTA ridings, including elected MPs Jane Philpott, Gary Anandasangaree and 14 of their colleagues.
In a February 2017 letter to Minister McKenna, Ontario minister Brad Duguid wrote:
Bill C-18 amends the Rouge National Urban Park Act, section 6(1), to prioritize ecological integrity. Thank you. It would be most appreciated if you could also ensure that our second request is addressed with subsection 6(3).
Respected NGOs, like Environmental Defence and Ontario Nature, also want subsection 6(3) included in Bill C-18. The executive director of Environmental Defence states:
Ontario's Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) relies on the implementation of Greenbelt, Rouge Park and Watershed Plans to buffer the impacts of growth and climate change, and better protect Lake Ontario's health, and human health and well-being.
In a letter to Minister McKenna, a 20-year Scarborough—Rouge River MPP, Alvin Curling, now retired, states:
. . . Ontario's Rouge Park Plans were developed by four different provincial governments of three different political stripes. . . They all took important steps to protect and restore the park's ecological integrity and the heart of the park — the Little Rouge River "main ecological corridor'' forest link between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Amendment 6(3) is necessary to support federal mandates and approved plans to:
(1) protect and improve water quality, watershed and public health pursuant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and Toronto Region Action Plan;
(2) mitigate costly flooding and erosion liabilities, which increase with climate change;
(3) improve habitat biodiversity and recovery of species at risk;
(4) improve public access to public lands in Canada's most populous region, and;
(5) recreate the historic First Nation Toronto Carrying Place trail and Ontario Greenbelt main ecological corridor between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Currently, residential and agriculture leases with lease rate subsidies of approximately 60 to 80 per cent mean that most of the public lands in Rouge Park are labelled no trespassing to the public. If this taxpayer-subsidized status quo is hastily frozen with 30-year leases, Canadians will be excluded from most of their public lands in this national park and Canadians will lose $3 billion of services, such as mitigation of pollution, flooding and climate change and $100 million due to the lease subsidies and the absence of open and competitive bidding.
Canadians are growing impatient with broken commitments and delayed action on serious climatic and environmental challenges. As Kevin O'Connor, President of the Friends of the Rouge, notes:
If subsection 6(3) is omitted from Bill C-18, the federal government and Parks Canada will waste precious public time and money on reinventing the wheel while urgent environmental remedial action plans are delayed by unnecessary duplication.
Canadians want the Rouge National Urban Park to be a visible example of remedial environmental action and optimism for our country, our planet and our youth.
Please demonstrate vision by supporting Bill C-18 and adding amendment 6(3) to support the implementation of long-standing remedial action plans that were developed and approved with science and abundant stakeholder and public consultation.
Thank you for your work on behalf of Canadians. I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robb. We'll go to questions.
Senator Massicotte: Let me thank you, on behalf of Canada, for your efforts over many years to make this park a reality in the best interests of Canadians. I know you've worked very hard. We've had you before as a witness, and we give you many thanks to you and your organization.
I read your submission and, obviously, I heard your presentation just now, but I guess what I'm hearing is the following: You're basically using evidence, facts and previous support for your position to amend this bill. I'm being polite here, but it looks like some people changed their minds, including the previous Liberal Party of Canada and some previous people who were ministers.
From what I see today, it looks like the current minister — not the previous minister in Ontario — supports the bill as proposed. The current government, which is the Liberal Party of Canada, supports the bill as proposed. You're right in raising the fact that they had a previous position, which was contrary. It looks like that's where they're at today. Maybe it's a revelation they had and maybe they understand better, or maybe they understand what governing is all about and reaching consensus.
How do you respond to that? In other words, what you're saying is right, but they are now at this point where the federal and provincial governments, including some environmentalists and some farmers, are saying this is the right thing to do as is, and they are also saying please don't amend the bill as you're proposing because it's only going to complicate the definition of ecological integrity. How do you respond to that?
Mr. Robb: I say they're ignoring the law of the land and ignoring the agreement that the federal and the Ontario governments signed on January 26 of 2013.In that agreement, it explicitly says that Parks Canada will work with the Ontario government to meet or exceed the existing Ontario greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine policies. These policies are due-diligence policies.
When the Rouge Watershed and park plan were done, they looked at growth also, and the province says we have to grow. There are more people coming to our country. Toronto is a big growth area. So they projected what would happen with the growth. They found that they wouldn't be able to meet riparian rights and water quality in the Great Lakes, and they would not be able to avoid costly flooding and erosion. So they went back to the drawing board, and they said, "We're going to grow, so what do we do?'' They basically said, "To be able to grow, we're going to have to restore public lands to forests and wetlands in Rouge Park and other public lands to reduce the runoff and pollution and compensate for the additional pressure of growth.''
To give you an analogy, this would be like obtaining an approval for an airplane of a certain weight based on a certain landing gear and wing profile and then saying, "We're going to go ahead and build the airplane. We're going to accommodate as many people, but we're going to scrimp on the landing gear and the wings.'' That airplane will crash.
This is just completely against environmental law, and it's completely against the policy framework that Mr. Whittamore and the farmers were involved with for the last 27 years. The Rouge ecological corridor, which is the centerpiece of the park and which they're trying to strip away, was developed during the years of Mike Harris's government. It was put into the greenbelt plan by Dalton McGuinty. It was put into Markham's official plan.
What is happening here is that parochial interests in one riding are threatening to compromise the broad public interest of 37 million Canadians.
Senator Massicotte: So what I'm hearing from you is that these people are playing a short game, without being interested in Canada's long-term interests because of maybe political objectives, but we heard the witnesses. Some were physically here. They looked pretty sincere and real in the interests of Canadians. But you're saying, "No, these people are'' — I'm trying to be polite — "all wrong and changed their mind. They're building short-termish.'' Is that the case?
Mr. Robb: Here is what I would say: There are many good farmers and heritage farmers in Rouge Park. It's true that this land was expropriated by the government 45 years ago, and that's a nasty process. But this is 45 years later, and many of the heritage farmers have retired and moved away or bought bigger farms with the money they got from the federal government in the 1970s.
What has happened since then is that the land has been leased for approximately 40 to $75 per acre, which now is only 20 to 30 per cent of the fair market value, and it's been leased out to a lot of people who are just influential and well-connected. They know the right people. If you go ahead with this, Parks Canada is new to this area. I'm not. In 2006, the Ontario Realty Corp, which used to manage this land, took a $47 million lawsuit out against its own employees for fraud, breach of trust and improper land transactions. This area is replete with a lot of very nasty skeletons in the closet. As far as I'm concerned, what is happening now will eventually come out, and the main Canadian public will just be completely dismayed by what's happening.
You can renegotiate leases. You can be fair to heritage farmers, but you have developer consultants leasing land in the park right now. You have people who are multimillionaires leasing land at $40 an acre. I am aware of a lease in Toronto for 500 acres and two three-bedroom houses that, in 2010, was $1,870 a month. Two three-bedroom houses and 500 acres in Toronto.
Senator Massicotte: On that last point, which is a subsidiary point relative to fair market value of rents, we raised that issue with Parks Canada, and I'm sure you heard the testimony. They don't know the past, the history, but they assured us with certainty that they will ensure that all future rent negotiations are at market value. I gather that has not comforted you very much.
Mr. Robb: It doesn't comfort me in this way: Right now, only about 25 per cent of the parklands, which are all public lands — we're not talking about private lands. Mike Whittamore has private lands outside the park, and he may lease some lands in the park. We're talking about public lands. The public has access to less than a quarter of the public land in this park. If you do 30-year leases for all the farmland, currently about 66 or 70 per cent of the park is growing cattle corn for ethanol and soybeans for cattle feed. Mike Whittamore's is an exception. It's a private farm outside the park that grows pick your own and fresh produce.
There are a couple of other small operations, but this is where, when people come new, they really don't know the reality. The vast majority of the land in this park is growing cattle, corn and soybeans. So what you have is private farmers outside the park who are scraping to make a living because commodity prices fluctuate because there is a lot of overproduction, in some years, in corn and soybeans. You have people inside the park producing the same commodity at lease rates one fifth of what the fair market value is. The figures I'm using are from an agriculture specialist with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and from many online, available sources. I talked to the Transport Canada person who is in charge of this area, and he said that 90 per cent of leases on the federal land have been about $40 an acre. He said new leases were higher than that.
Senator Griffin: I find it interesting. You quoted a letter to Minister McKenna from a former Scarborough—Rouge MPP, and there are five points in there as to why amendment 6(3) is necessary to support federal mandates and approved plans.
I'm puzzled as to why this can't be done within the whole management planning process that Parks Canada has been doing, is doing, will be doing on the site, as compared to having this amendment. Why can't this be achieved with what is being proposed in Parks Canada's management system?
Mr. Robb: Well, you already have a problem. In 2012, Peter Kent, the Minister of Environment, came forward and said, "We'll be setting up the Rouge National Urban Park stakeholder committee in the upcoming weeks.'' It's been five years now almost. I hear from Mike Whittamore that the farmers are being met with. We haven't been met with by Parks Canada. We're not part of that. This lease negotiation is premature until you have a park management plan, until you've protected the broad public interest.
If you don't reflect this in the legislation, like many things, you will reinvent the wheel. Parks Canada will be spending $18 million a year to reinvent a wheel already created in management plans by the Ontario government over the last 27 years, with years and years of public and stakeholder consultation.
It's better to put it in the legislation because legislation is stronger. As a former vice chair of the environmental assessment board, I have seen what happens when legislation isn't clear and directive. You can end up with really serious problems with implementation and waste a lot of public time and money.
Senator Griffin: So I'm willing to grant you that there may have been a lot of public consultation when these agreements were reached. That's great, but, from my understanding, for instance, the farm community was not part of that. I could be wrong in that, but previous witnesses said that.
I come back —
Mr. Robb: If I could address that.
Senator Griffin: Sure, go ahead. Address that, and then I'm coming back to my point.
Mr. Robb: That's completely false. From 1990 to 1994, the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources had a four-year public planning process for the first Rouge Park plan. It was approved by cabinet. Farmers were at the table. Environmental people were at the table. Community groups were at the table. All governments were at the table.
From 1997 to 2001, under the Mike Harris Conservative government, provincially, there was another four- to five- year public planning process with farmers, all stakeholders, environmentalists, municipalities, provincial and federal government at the table. That plan came up with the Little Rouge ecological corridor, extending from the lake to the moraine. Subsequently, the town of Markham did an official plan amendment to put that Little Rouge ecological corridor in their official plan. Subsequently to that, the provincial government had a two-year negotiation with stakeholders and the public to create the greenbelt plan. Subsequent to that, there was the Little Rouge corridor management plan for two years.
There have been millions and millions of public taxpayer dollars spent on stakeholder and public consultation. There were scientists involved. These plans were legally approved under provincial legislation, municipal Planning Act legislation.
What is happening here is that the Rouge is in a chrysalis now. It was a caterpillar with too many legs. It is in a chrysalis, and people who have been leasing public land in this park for a quarter of the fair market rate are trying to clip the wings before it can become a butterfly.
Senator Griffin: That's great. Thank you for clarifying. It is an impressive amount of stakeholder involvement in negotiating those agreements and getting to that level. However —
Mr. Robb: They're not agreements; they're legislation and plans.
Senator Griffin: Legislation and plans that are in place, but you're not convincing me why it needs to be included in this bill.Those are great things. I'm sure they will be very useful as a jumping-off point for Parks Canada to inform the process that they will be going through. They're not starting from scratch as a result. I think that's terrific. Thank you for your viewpoint.
Senator Massicotte: Mr. Robb, the other member of your panel was Mr. Whittamore, who you referred to. Mr. Whittamore, we're talking about detailed market knowledge relative to rates. You're in the marketplace. You seem informed. How do you respond to the allegation of a sweetheart deal for insiders and the rents being paid for those acres?
Mr. Whittamore: Well, Jim has said that we're paying either a quarter or a fifth of the market rate. Up until five years ago on land, my rate was $50 an acre for the land we rent. It got bumped within one year to $80 an acre. Even at $50, I'm paying only a fifth of the market rate? He's trying to say the land rate should be $250 an acre. I doubt that in Ontario, except maybe in southwestern Ontario on well-drained soil with 400, 500, maybe 600 more heat units than what we have. That someone would be paying $250 an acre is simply not true.
The OFA has been doing a study to find out what market rates are and should be in our area, and it's somewhere between $50 and $80 an acre. You can charge $250 an acre, but unless you have the productivity in corn and soybeans, and despite what Jim says, the traditional rotation is corn, soybeans and wheat. The last couple of years there has been a lot of wheat. If you look around now, there are hundreds of acres of wheat put in. It is actually a three-year rotation.
To be clear, the corn is not just used for ethanol; it's used for food production. There has been this notion over the years that somehow — they used to call it that we were growing export crops. None of the corn is exported out of this province. There are 14 million people who live here. It's all consumed. In fact, we're a net importer of corn. It is used for ethanol, but we didn't set up the ethanol. We're responding to the marketplace.
As far as soybeans, yes, they are fed to animals, but people consume chicken, fish, beef and pork. We're not exporting the soybeans. Tofu. Soybeans are used for a lot of different things, but they're used for human consumption. It is being consumed within the province.
Senator Massicotte: Any final comments, Mr. Robb?
Mr. Robb: Yes. The figures I'm quoting are based on a scientist from the Ontario Minister of Agriculture. I can give you the quotation.
I also checked the United States figures for a similar latitude. We are looking at these issues of fair trade and competition. In the United States, the figures are published county by county, and the figures for similar land in a similar latitude with similar heat units in the United States are about C $250 to $300 per acre.
Senator Massicotte: Maybe he's wrong. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, witnesses. We appreciate two good presentations and some good questions and answers.
Yesterday I put a motion forward that we would sit Tuesday, May 30, so we can hear from two more witnesses on this bill and then do clause by clause. Hopefully that passes today. We'll see what takes place.
Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)