Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 24 - Evidence - February 24, 2015
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 24, 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 5:06 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
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 in the Senate, and I am chair of this committee.
I would also like to welcome honourable senators, any members of the public with us in the room, and viewers all across the country who are watching on television. As a reminder to those watching, these committee hearings are open to the public and also 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 introduce the deputy chair, Senator Paul Massicotte from Quebec.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga. I'm from Ontario and sponsor of the bill.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, senator from Toronto. I'm the critic of the bill.
Senator Seidman: Montreal, Quebec.
The Chair: I would also like to introduce our staff, beginning with the clerk, Lynn Gordon, on my left, and our two Library of Parliament analysts, Sam Banks and Marc LeBlanc.
Bill C-40, "An Act respecting the Rouge National Urban Park," was introduced on behalf of the Minister of the Environment in the House of Commons on June 13, 2014. The bill was passed by the House of Commons on January 26, 2015 and, following second reading in the Senate, was referred to our committee on February 19.
Rather than amend the Canada National Parks Act to establish Rouge Park as a national park, the bill creates a new standalone act establishing "Rouge National Urban Park," a new type of federal protected area.
It gives me great pleasure to welcome before us today the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of the Environment, Minister of Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council.
Joining the minister today are officials from Parks Canada: Alan Latourelle, Chief Executive Officer; Pam Veinotte, Field Unit Superintendent, Rouge National Urban Park; and Andrew Campbell, Vice-President of External Relations and Visitor Experience.
Minister, I understand that you have some votes to do — and we just completed our — so we'll get on with your remarks. If we have time for a few short questions, we'll take them, but I understand you have to leave at 5:35 and we'll make that happen. The floor is yours, minister.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq, P.C., M.P, Minister of the Environment: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and senators, honourable members. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon about the Rouge National Urban Park. The act is a key initiative that supports the National Conservation Plan that we launched last year in May. The bill will create and establish Canada's first national urban park. It will connect millions of Canadians and residents of the Greater Toronto Area to our world-class network of protected areas. It will also help foster an appreciation for our country's natural, cultural and agricultural heritage.
The establishment of the Rouge national urban park represents a truly unique opportunity for Canada. With a study area of 58 square kilometres, the proposed national urban park will be one of the largest urban parks of its kind in the world. It will be 16 times larger than New York's Central Park and 13 times the size of Stanley Park in Vancouver.
Located in the eastern sector of the Greater Toronto Area, the Rouge national urban park will serve as a gateway for people to connect with and discover Canada's world-renowned network of protected areas. It will be the first national park in Canada easily accessible by public transit, and the park will engage and inspire current and future generations of Canadians to become stewards of our country's shared natural, cultural and agricultural heritage.
Allow me to provide you with a brief snapshot of the Rouge and how Parks Canada came to be involved.
The current regional Rouge Park, as it exists today, was created in 1995 and spans about 40 square kilometres. From 1995 to 2012, the park was managed by the Rouge Park Alliance, a group whose chair was appointed by the provincial government of the province of Ontario.
In 2010, the alliance commissioned and released a landmark governance report for Rouge Park. The alliance came to the realization that although Rouge Park had made significant progress since its creation in 1995, there were many long-standing issues, including insufficient ecological protection, lack of stable funding and no comprehensive master plan. These issues could not be solved under the alliance's governance model, under the provincial model.
After considering the recommendations of the governance report, the alliance unanimously recommended that the Rouge Park become a national entity, cared for and managed under the leadership of Parks Canada.
Parks Canada's involvement in this compelling project began after our government announced in the 2011 Speech from the Throne our commitment to create a national urban park in the Rouge Valley. Since that time, we have conducted extensive public consultations on the proposed national urban park.
The legislation and draft management plan for the Rouge national urban park are the result of the most proactive and broad engagement of Canadians, communities, stakeholders and different levels of government. We have met and received feedback from close to 150 stakeholders, community and government groups and agencies. We have also heard from more than 15,000 Canadians to date.
Our government's funding announcement of $143.7 million over the first 10 years of the park establishment and operations represents the most significant investments in the Rouge's history. This will allow us to protect and restore the park's natural ecosystems and native wildlife, and recover endangered species.
All told, we are confident that this important work will translate into the most significant act of urban conservation in the history of our country, and this is something all Canadians can be proud of. Indeed, the conservation benefits of this initiative are substantial.
In the first 10 years of this initiative, Parks Canada will invest more than $15 million on conservation and restoration priorities, and this includes archaeological surveys, environmental assessment, restoring heritage buildings and monitoring the health of ecosystems. The funding will also help us invest in species-at-risk recovery, agricultural best practices research and implementation, ecological connectivity, and eradicating invasive species throughout the park.
In contrast to this $15 million investment in conservation by our government, the Rouge Park's previous annual budget for restoration work was about $200,000 a year.
I would like to take a moment to also compare the Rouge national urban park act with one specific piece of Ontario legislation, the Greenbelt Act.
I would like to first say that Parks Canada recognizes the importance of Ontario's greenbelt and the many excellent achievements in nature conservation and the protection of agricultural lands that have been made in Ontario's greenbelt since its creation in 2005.
That said, let me make myself very clear. As much as we respect Ontario's Greenbelt Act, there is simply no comparison to be made. Bill C-40 is by far much stronger. In contrast with Bill C-40, Ontario's Greenbelt Act does not provide any law enforcement mechanisms to protect the park's resources, does not put any limits on the development of infrastructure, allows aggregated resource extraction, allows hunting, and contains loopholes that allow dumping of contaminated soil and the killing of endangered species.
Bill C-40 is much stronger by ensuring the Rouge's natural ecosystems and cultural landscapes are protected. For example, there are no loopholes that allow for inappropriate development or resource extraction. All endangered species will be protected to the full extent of the federal law. There will be year-round law enforcement with stiff penalties. Dumping, poaching, polluting and removal of artifacts, wildlife and fossils will be strictly prohibited. Hunting, mining and all other forms of mineral extraction will be strictly prohibited.
Bill C-40 also protects and promotes a vibrant farming community and sustainable farming practices. The bill will protect Class 1 farmland and end any fear of encroachment on the park's natural, cultural and agricultural values.
To summarize, Bill C-40 will provide Parks Canada with the strongest-ever legislative framework in the Rouge's history, one that applies to the entire park, protects nature, culture and agriculture; takes into account the realities of the fourth largest urban area in North America; respects all agreements, commitments and dialogue with all public landholders contributing lands to the national urban park; and fulfills the vision of the Rouge Park Alliance by creating a much-enhanced protected area.
Parks Canada is honoured to have this opportunity to establish the Rouge national urban park in close proximity to 20 per cent of Canada's population. This will be a nationally protected area where natural, cultural and agricultural resources and landscapes are managed in an integrated manner and are protected, appreciated and experienced by everyone.
Our agency's sincere hope is to create a national urban park that will help to preserve and protect this national treasure for present and future generations. Now is our chance to get things right for the Rouge, to ensure that the park is protected in both the short and the long term. Once under the care of Parks Canada, Rouge national urban park will be healthy and resilient for generations to come.
With that, I'd be happy to take your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Respecting the minister's time we have 15 minutes and five questioners, so I'm going to ask you to ask one question so we can actually touch on everyone.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you, minister, for being with us today. This is very important.
When you first get involved in this proposed park and this proposed legislation, you say, wow, it's obviously very good news for Canada, very good news for Toronto as a city, and one would say this should be an easy one. Who could disagree?
But then we find out, once we start delving into the topic — and I'm sure the minister is very much aware — where the Province of Ontario is not prepared to cede their portion of the territory, which exceeds 50 per cent of the park. It looks like the debate is about the wording and the emphasis on conservation versus the balance of all the interests.
Minister, would you try to clarify for us why this disagreement exists in spite of the memorandum of understanding? It looks like a minor difference of opinion, but probably much emphasis. Why couldn't the parties agree and why wasn't the federal government more flexible to seek agreement with the Province of Ontario?
Ms. Aglukkaq: I'm making the assumption that you're talking about the land transfer issue?
Senator Massicotte: Yes.
Ms. Aglukkaq: Okay.
We are very disappointed with Ontario and their delay in transferring the provincial lands of the Rouge national urban park. We signed an agreement with all jurisdictions and land assemblies, including Ontario. To make myself very clear, the federal government is honouring that agreement and moving forward with the agreement that we had signed, and we are living up to the terms of the agreement that we signed with the Province of Ontario. All lands under Parks Canada's care will receive the strongest protection.
Minister Duguid's comments continue to surprise us as there had been no previous indication from the Province of Ontario that federal policies or legislation for the Rouge national urban park would prevent the support for the transfer of the provincial lands.
Indeed, we have honoured Ontario's wishes when we signed the original agreement, every step of the way, and we'll continue to do that.
For the past three years, my officials have met with their provincial counterparts on dozens of occasions to discuss the land assembly of the Rouge national urban park. These discussions have always been very positive and collaborative, so I remain optimistic that Ontario will honour its commitment to transfer the land and live up to the federal-provincial agreement that they signed onto a few years back, just as we are doing our part in honouring that agreement.
We are urging Ontario to do the right thing and honour its commitment to Canadians and Ontarians, and follow through on the promises to transfer their lands to the federal government for the Rouge national urban park.
Senator Patterson: Congratulations on this exciting new urban park.
The act before us, Bill C-40, repeatedly refers to the goal of protecting natural ecosystems and the maintenance of native wildlife and ecosystem health, but I know that national parks legislation uses different terminology, "ecological integrity." Could you please explain why the conservation term "ecological integrity," while it's okay for a wilderness park, is not appropriate for an urban park such as this?
Ms. Aglukkaq: This is the first national urban park in Canadian history, so naturally the regional legislation does not fit into an urban setting. That is why we had to create the Rouge national urban park, which is unlike any other national park in Canada.
The current proposal includes major highways, rail lines, hydro corridors as well as farmland. Our bill provides the highest level of protection for the Rouge Valley while promoting a vibrant and sustainable farming community.
More than 75 per cent of the Rouge lands have already been altered and/or disturbed. Applying the wrong conservation approach would be a disservice to the park and its mixture of landscapes. If we were to implement ecological integrity in the Rouge, we would significantly impact the park. There would be increasing pressure to remove the farms that are there now and the people who reside there would have to be removed. Worthwhile facilities, such as the Toronto Wildlife Centre, would not be permitted. Land would not be removed for public future infrastructure, which is the requirement Ontario asked for and we agreed to in the past as part of the agreement. Other infrastructure, such as stream flood control structures, would have to be removed to meet the wilderness legislation. So we had to come up with a different legislation because this is an urban park.
Senator Patterson: Very helpful. Thank you.
Senator Eggleton: The Province of Ontario obviously has a different view of all of this. There was the memorandum of understanding that indicated Parks Canada will work with Ontario to develop written policies in respect of the creation, management and administration of the park that meet or exceed provincial policies. They cite the Greenbelt Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, all to amplify their position on this. They came to the conclusion in the end that they would not transfer the land, so it's not a big a park as you're indicating. You're saying 58 square kilometres, but it's only 36 because the province will not transfer the land. So it's not as big a park and it's more dispersed.
When saying they wouldn't transfer the land, they said:
Under current provincial laws and regulations, Ontario's portion of the proposed park receives a high degree of environmental protection. Our government has always been a strong supporter of the Rouge National Urban Park, but it will not allow weaker laws to govern the lands.
Yes, you have a different view of it than they have. I understand that, but they also have in their corner a whole raft of organizations that are part of the desire to create a national urban park. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Friends of Rouge Watershed, Environmental Defence, the STORM Coalition, Nature Canada and Ontario Nature all want the park, but they don't want it the way your government's handling it. They think the way your government's handling it is wrong.
I thought you would be paying more attention to what the province thinks as the right way to go. They've been involved in this Rouge Valley park for a much longer period of time.
In view of this standoff here at the moment, would you agree to go back to the table, get your officials back to the table to talk to the provincial government, the Province of Ontario, and meanwhile request that this bill be deferred until you can have a settlement of the issue with the province?
Ms. Aglukkaq: Thank you for that question.
In terms of comparison between the two legislations, I would encourage you to do the comparison, because there is a significant difference between the federal legislation and the provincial legislation. I said in my opening remarks that the alliance came to us for those enhanced provisions. So I think it's very clear, in terms of moving forward, where the original direction came from to have Parks Canada involved in the protection of the Rouge area.
The Government of Canada, as I stated, is unequivocally meeting the terms and conditions of the federal-provincial land assembly agreement for the Rouge national urban park. We are honouring what we agreed to with Ontario. It is unfortunate that Ontario is playing politics and at the last minute has decided not to transfer the land.
Senator Eggleton: Maybe you're playing politics.
Ms. Aglukkaq: The only requirement in the agreement related to legislation is that the legislation provides the flexibility to accommodate Ontario's future infrastructure and transportation needs. That was a requirement. Under Bill C-40, it also allows the removal of land for this purpose of up to 200 hectares or equivalent to 245 Canadian football fields. Ontario made that provincial request in the agreement that we signed on to, which we agreed to and we're honouring.
So the agreement does not require or mention ecological integrity, any conservation standards or any prioritization of nature over culture and agriculture. We agreed to holding off on 245 Canadian football field sizes of land for Ontario. Introducing the ecological integrity provision at the very last minute and not honouring the agreement will mean the removal of farmland, the land that the First Nations have used for thousands of years to hunt on, to removing infrastructure in that region, to meet the ecological integrity provision that they are proposing. That particular provision does not make any sense in an urban park, as I stated before. It makes sense in a wilderness park, but in an urban park in the Toronto area, it would be removing hydro lines, rail. It does say —
Senator Eggleton: Some of us know Toronto better than you do.
Ms. Aglukkaq: That's what ecological integrity means.
Senator Eggleton: You're reading your notes there. I think you should get back to the table with the province.
Ms. Aglukkaq: Thank you for your comments.
The Chair: Around here we show some respect at this committee. I would expect everyone to actually do that, including the last questioner.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for the presentation, minister. It's an honour to have you here today. After 30 years of deliberations and people wanting to have this park, just like me, it's about time we have it because my kids love this park.
The thing is, it is claimed that the government did not listen to those who have objections to the bill. How many groups have you consulted with during the process?
Ms. Aglukkaq: As I stated earlier, when the request was made to our government to start the process of establishing an urban park, we did an engagement process that is quite extensive. Since our government announced in the 2011 Throne Speech that we would move forward, 15,000 Canadians have provided their views on it. Perspectives of more than 150 organizations have also been involved in the workshops, meetings and presentations. We've had engagement with the First Nations in that region that use the land traditionally, who have been engaged through this process. We completed last summer an extensive four-month process public engagement with the parks on a management plan. The municipalities have been engaged in those discussions, and the provincial government was included in this process. It has been extensive, and many people have participated in giving their feedback.
Senator Enverga: That's great.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, minister, for being with us today.
Clause 13 of the bill allows the Minister of the Environment to enter into leases, grant easements and issue licences of occupation for public lands in the park. Could you provide some examples of the purposes for which such rights or interests may be granted, and are there any limits to the number of rights or interests?
Ms. Aglukkaq: Thank you for that question.
For the very first time in 50 years, we're going to be able to provide long-term leases, for example, with the farming community. I met with the farming community that is within this corridor, and they're happy and pleased that they're going to have long-term leases to be able to develop their lands and farm their lands with certainty. Parks Canada will assume those discussions with other landholders and negotiate through that process.
I can say that when I had the meeting with the farmers in that region, they were very supportive of the long-term certainty that this bill will allow them, and the creation of the national urban park will be a certainty within their own area of farming that this will be protected.
Parks Canada will be working closely with the farmers as well as residential tenants and property management experts in developing the leasing structure that supports that long-term leasing arrangement that would be complementary to both our needs as well as theirs. The one good example I will say is the farming industry is very happy with this development.
Senator MacDonald: Minister, thank you for being here today. I can't believe that we've never established an urban park. I think the time has come and I want to congratulate you for your efforts.
Ms. Aglukkaq: Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: I have one question about the use of the Historic Sites and Monuments Act. I grew up beside a national historic site. Our family and other families had a lot of land expropriated to rebuild Louisbourg back in the 1960s, so I'm familiar with the background of this stuff.
This new park is being established under section 2 of the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, and not under section 42 of the Canada National Parks Act. I assume there are some national historic sites within this park. Could you tell us what the sites are and why they are going to be managed under the Historic Sites and Monuments Act as opposed to the Canada National Parks Act?
Andrew Campbell, Vice-President of External Relations and Visitor Experience, Parks Canada: Senator MacDonald, thank you for the question.
One of the special things about the Rouge Valley and the area that the park is in is that it's one of the oldest Seneca communities. Carrying Place was a route used by the Seneca to take canoes out and trade routes up to Lake Simcoe, if you're familiar with the area. That is one national historic event.
As well, there is Bead Hill, a 17th century Seneca village used primarily by the agrarian people of the Seneca, farming that land back as far as hundreds of years ago. That's an unexcavated archaeological site, very close to Highway 401 on the lower section of the park. The bill gives those sites the greatest protection that we have for national historic sites in the country.
Senator MacDonald: Any plans to excavate there?
The Chair: Senator MacDonald, we're pushing the time with the minister. In fact, we're a bit over time.
Thank you very much, minister, for coming. I'm sorry we started a little late, but it's the same with you; you had votes and we had votes. Thank you very much for coming, and we'll continue with some questions with your staff. I appreciate it.
Ms. Aglukkaq: Thank you for your time.
The Chair: We'll continue with questions.
Senator Massicotte: I'll tell you my reflection. I read the House of Commons proceedings in Question Period, the memorandum of agreement you have with the Province of Ontario and the proposed act. I see where the difference of opinion lies with several words, different emphasis, some more inclusive. In other words, your wording is more general.
To be frank with you, I've negotiated probably thousands of agreements. I see the difference of opinion and can appreciate that some people put a lot of emphasis on a difference of words. However, I'm surprised you cannot come to an agreement because I think you could use a couple of words differently, or with a different slant, because your speeches make clear the emphasis you put on the ecology. It makes it clear where your commitment is, yet the act is not as clear.
Why couldn't you come to an agreement? Was there an attempt to try to come to a couple of words that would satisfy people? It doesn't appear that you're very far apart. People obviously project their fears, and given a lack of clarity, maybe they have reason to be concerned. Why couldn't we come to a deal there?
Alan Latourelle, Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada: Mr. Chair, I think part of the issue we're facing is that we've reached an agreement. Andrew Campbell, who is sitting on my left, is the one who negotiated it with the Province of Ontario, so he knows it inside out. I was intimately involved, as well as Pam as the superintendent. We agreed that we would meet or exceed the existing policies of the Government of Ontario, and we are doing that.
Where there is confusion is that a small group out there is misleading the public by putting in clauses that don't exist anywhere currently. For example, in the Greenbelt Act, 11 or 12 priorities are established. Part of it is protecting Class 1 farmland. We're meeting that. Part of it is protection. There's nowhere in those documents currently, as they exist, that has ecological integrity in legislation that applies to these lands. We're saying the minister must make sure that the wildlife and natural features are protected. We are meeting the obligation. There are some folks who interpret the commitment we've made to go beyond what's currently in the provincial legislation.
Senator Massicotte: I buy that, and I agree with you that the proposed act is quite coherent with the MOU that was signed with the Province of Ontario. I buy that. But at the same time, when you're seen to want to work with society on the different issues they have, it makes me think of a 12-year-old saying, "No, it's my way. That's what that the wording says. I've got a right." I don't think the difference is very significant. Why wasn't there flexibility to try to satisfy the concerns as opposed to simply arguing, "Legally, we're right"? Why that emphasis?
Mr. Latourelle: I think we have to go back. For example, there were several witnesses at the environment committee in the House of Commons, and you'll hear from witnesses over the course of your deliberations. Nine out of eleven supported the ecological health concept because that concept makes sense within the area we're talking about. You'll hear from several witnesses, I'm sure, that were involved in farming, saying, for example: "In Grasslands National Park, we don't plow and we don't plant. We have relationships with farmers, but it's for grazing purposes only."
We've looked at the reality of this great place, the proposed Rouge national urban park. We're looking at it from the perspective of ensuring that there's long-term sustainable farming, that there's the protection of the park and that for the first time ever, through legislation, we're ensuring the protection from Lake Ontario to Oak Ridges Moraine; so we have met our obligation.
Senator Massicotte: I buy that. I have no problem with that.
Mr. Latourelle: To be very frank with you, this has never been raised at the official level with us before.
Senator Massicotte: From my interpretation, the wording difference is not significant. In other words, there is a difference of opinion, but it would appear to me that with a small effort you can come to an agreement. Have you tried to come to an agreement and show some flexibility as opposed to simply saying, "That that's the agreement we signed"? Has there been any attempt to agree to a minor variation of wording to get them on side?
Mr. Latourelle: There are a lot of discussions still to be had with Ontario. When we're talking about meeting or exceeding their policies, this is only one part it. The legislation is one part. The management plan, we are still —
Senator Massicotte: But the legislation.
Mr. Latourelle: But legislation to legislation, this legislation I can assure you is by far stronger than any legislation we've looked at. What we're seeing is there are a lot of area plans being referenced as not meeting — those will be dealt with through the management plan and through area plans. So those are the policies. That's what Ontario is using as a policy instrument currently.
Senator Massicotte: I agree with all that. You're not answering my question. Have you made any effort to come to an agreement to support the legislation?
Mr. Latourelle: We've made significant efforts to work with Ontario at the official level over several years, and the agreement we've come to is on paper and we're meeting that agreement.
Senator Enverga: I have lived in the area for more than a decade. When I go to the park, I see that there are other services. I can see even in the park itself there are not only potholes but craters. People are basically parked on the side of the street and going everywhere they want to be, which I think disturbs the wildlife habitat.
As soon as we pass this bill, what's your priority to ensure we protect this park? Do you have any priorities?
Mr. Latourelle: First, I think once the legislation is in place and Parks Canada starts operating the park, we want to look at all aspects. For example, with the farming community, we want to establish long-term leases that will allow them to invest in infrastructure and long-term investments that are secure.
In terms of conservation, as the minister mentioned, we're investing $15 million over the next few years. It's by far the largest investment in conservation. We're going to achieve real results in terms of species at risk, invasive species and the monitoring program.
We are making a significant contribution to fix a lot of the infrastructure, such as the trail system, and work with local communities.
I think part of it is also that we have strong support. Every single municipality that has agreed to transfer us land has signed the land agreement and currently supports us in the concept that we've put forward.
Senator Enverga: Every summer we go to the farms to pick berries. Is there a plan to plant different kinds of berries? Are you going to be making it more productive land? What's going to be happening in this park?
Mr. Campbell: From a farming perspective, obviously we're not getting involved in what people want to market as farmers in the area or what they want to grow from a crop perspective. But one of the things we have heard from the farming community is with longer-term leases and longer tenure obviously you can invest in more different and diverse types of plants and products. Right now most of the farmers in the park are on a rotating one-year lease, so when we look at different tenures for their leases, you could invest in an orchard or high bush berries.
When it's a one-year lease, you put those in, and if your lease isn't renewed the next year, you've lost 100 per cent of that investment. I think we will see that the farming community, which has wanted to diversify, will be able to do that.
Senator Seidman: I'd like to ask you a little more about the farming. The preamble to the bill talks about sustainable farming practices. In fact, the minister in her speech talked about sustainable farming practices. If you could help me understand what that means, what kind of farming happens there now and how will that change? Are you offering a new approach?
Pam Veinotte, Field Unit Superintendent, Rouge National Urban Park, Parks Canada: First of all, there is a mix now of what we would call traditional farming, and also some newer types of farming coming along, crops that are of more interest and appeal to new Canadians. Many people living in Scarborough, Markham and Pickering are looking for those new types of food products.
We intend to diversify the type of farming because there is a real interest in giving new farmers, through incubator farms, an opportunity to move from little plots where they may get that opportunity elsewhere to slightly larger plots in the Rouge.
There's also a great interest from communities in community gardening. For example, one of the areas in Scarborough — Malvern — the community association is keen to plant community gardens, have their youth engaged in that activity, take those products back into the community and make those available for residents.
We also know that right now the provincial farm plans are not mandatory. One of the things we've committed to is, through the terms and conditions of our leases, that those beneficial management practices will be mandatory. The farmers are agreeable to supporting all objectives for the park, not just those that relate to farming but also those that relate to connectivity, to improved habitat, to visitor experience and education. They really support that fulsome understanding of the park and its vision, and that's because, of course, supporting that vibrant farming community is one of the main purposes of the park.
We'll be working and continuing to work with experts, farmers and community residents as we move forward in dealing with farming in the park.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much. That was really helpful.
Senator Eggleton: I would like to mention three things. First of all, the bill states in clause 8 that the minister may appoint an advisory committee on the management of the park. Well, "may" also can mean "may not." Why wouldn't the word "shall" be used here so we can be sure there's local input?
Mr. Latourelle: First, this bill gives the minister the mechanism and the authority to establish that committee. I think that needs to be confirmed. As we do elsewhere in the country, even when we don't have a clause like that, we establish local communities to work with us, and the minister's interest and intent is to establish a committee. The legislation provides the minister that authority.
Senator Eggleton: One will be established?
Mr. Latourelle: Yes.
Senator Eggleton: So the answer is yes.
Let me go back to this agreement again because of these words "ecological integrity." Section 2.09 of the Canada Ontario memorandum of agreement states:
(a) Parks Canada will work with Ontario to develop written policies in respect of the creation, management, and administration of the Park that meet or exceed provincial policies . . . .
In your view, that's the case; in their view, that isn't the case.
It goes on to say:
. . . including the policies set out in the Greenbelt Plan 2005, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe . . . .
All three of those, which the province operates under, use the phrase "ecological integrity," and this doesn't seem to be a problem. I don't know why that's a problem for you when it's not a problem for them. These were part of the memorandum.
Mr. Latourelle: I'll ask Andrew to add to this, but part of the memorandum, as you've listed the plans, those are the plans, not the legislation. In the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, taking out aggregates is allowable. We would never accept that in the Rouge national urban park. We look at it from legislation to legislation. This one is by far stronger.
When we get into the management plan process, which will set out the direction for the park and our actions, which are comparable to some of the plans that are listed, we will make our commitments. We've already shared that publicly and received extensive —
Senator Eggleton: But they are mentioned in the memorandum. They do have "ecological integrity."
Mr. Campbell: Maybe I can touch on that.
"Ecological integrity" does not exist in any of those acts when we start to look at policy to policy, not act to act. If we look act to act, we have sat down and met with the officials now for three years, and said, "What would be the changes that you would look for?" We have looked at that and we have received no input.
When we get down to the policy level, there's a formal mechanism that I could refer people to, within both 9(2) and 9(3), where if the province technically had a problem with us, they could bring those forward under a technical provision within the agreement. They have never officially done that. They have that ability. We put that into the agreement so there was a mechanism within the transfer agreement that if they had a problem with what they had, they could formally sit down with us. There's even a resolution mechanism within there that they have never asked to employ. This has all been played out in the press.
Senator Eggleton: The memorandum refers to policies, and those are policies.
Let me ask you about this other phrase that gets used, since there's an impasse on that. With reference to health of the ecosystems, what does "ecological health" mean? How is that defined? I haven't seen any definition.
Mr. Latourelle: I'll read it, senator, just to make sure I don't mislead you. The basic principle is to conserve natural heritage, including native species and their connected habitats. We're saying that the native species of the area will be protected, the natural heritage of the area, including farming, will be protected, and that we will be connecting the habitats to our stewardship. Integrating human health and well-being, including air, soil, water quality, enhancement, are all commitments we're making in terms of our management plan.
Senator Eggleton: Is that definition in legislation?
Mr. Latourelle: In the legislation, it's quite clear under clause 6 what the obligations of the minister are. The only obligation that is in the act is to ensure that the impacts on the ecology of the park are considered.
Senator Eggleton: The community organizations have indicated their support for an urban park but their disappointment at this legislation. They don't like the way the government is handling this. It involves 22 acres. The province is withholding 22 acres. That's a shame. It will not be as big a park. People in the area wanted something even bigger, never mind 58. Now it's down to 36 that you're proposing. What can we do to get this resolved? I didn't appreciate the comments of the minister — I'm sorry I went off on a tangent. She said the province was playing politics. That can go two ways. You guys are not supposed to be playing politics. What can we do to get this resolved?
Mr. Latourelle: Senator, I'll be very frank. Again, I'm not a politician. My job is to advise ministers, and I've been doing this for 20 years, and to manage protected areas in Canada. We've been recognized internationally with awards for leadership.
I've been in several park creations. This is the first park where we're blindsided because we've had a discussion at the official level with Ontario. We've made an agreement. We're living up to that agreement. Every municipality, Markham, Pickering, York, Durham, Toronto, the elected officials and the official level are all supporting the process we've taken.
There are a few individuals out there saying that the park should be a lot bigger. If you look at the agreement with Ontario, right in the back, there's a map that shows the 58 square kilometres. People are pushing for 100 and saying Ontario shouldn't transfer the land until we allow 100. That was not the agreement.
The bottom line of what I'm saying is we are showing international leadership in conservation in this park. We are recognizing that it's a different park, but there are other people who have different views and want to see the farmland transferred into nature reserves, and that's not what we've agreed to.
Senator Eggleton: I have one more question. You say this is being played out in the media, but Minister Duguid of the Ontario government has written a letter outlining his position on this. It's not just being played out in the media.
Mr. Latourelle: No, but what I would add that when Minister Chiarelli, who was the responsible minister, signed the agreement, it was quite clear. In the agreement you will not see the words "ecological integrity" anywhere in the agreement. You will see on the map that it's 58 square kilometres and it says we will meet the policies. It's never mentioned in the agreement that we would take all of their policies, plans, sub-plans and put that into legislation. That was never the agreement.
Senator MacDonald: Going back to what we were trying to ask before the minister had to leave, are there any plans to do doing archaeological work on these sites on the property?
Ms. Veinotte: We've already collected a wealth of archaeological data from all the different jurisdictions. There are gaps in that data. We will be respectfully working with the other levels of government and the First Nations to fill those gaps in information. So, yes, we expect that there will need to be some archaeological work done. However, the extent of that and where that would occur, we have not made those determinations yet.
Right now we're looking at all the maps, all the data, looking at what's known and what isn't known, and then we will respectfully move forward, working with First Nations and the different municipalities and groups.
Senator MacDonald: Five thousand acres of land were originally designated for the Pickering airport. I'm curious what that land is incorporated in. What would happen to a park like this if there was an airport developed beside it? Would it have any impact, do you think, on an urban park, on the farmland? Are there allowances made for that? I want you to reflect on that.
Mr. Latourelle: I have a few comments. First, I think what Bill C-40 will do in due course when the lands are transferred and put under legislation, the 5,000 acres, is protect farm Class 1 farmland forever, and that is not the case currently. Currently it could be developed for other reasons. That's not the case with this legislation. It ensures its long-term protection.
I must say that the biggest challenge we're going to face in this park — and that's why the concept of ecological integrity for me makes no sense — is that you're operating within an area that is fully developed outside of the boundaries and potentially there may be an airport or not. That's a government decision of the future.
We're saying we can manage this park and ensure its ecological health. We have the capacity and resources through the government's commitment, and if this legislation passes we will have the tools to ensure we manage it responsibly for future generations.
I must say that if I look at my great grandchildren 100 years from now, they will see this place better than it is today.
Senator Massicotte: I want to go back to the issue. I understand the Province of Ontario has not taken any measures or the procedures to resolve the issue, but you are obviously very intelligent people. You read the press and you read the letter that has been publicly issued by the province. When you look at the issue, is the difference important? They're putting emphasis on different words. Yet your speeches make it clear not only will it be better — I hope it will be better than today — but you also have a commitment to look at the other speeches to see it significantly improved. You have a much bigger budget than what currently exists. Should we, as a committee, worry about the difference in opinion you both have? I wouldn't have thought it was very significant, but given that nobody is moving to try and resolve it, is it significant?
Mr. Latourelle: I can't speak for Ontario. I can only speak for Parks Canada and not the government. I would say that if you look at Markham, Pickering, Toronto, York region and Durham region, all of these organizations have signed the same agreement. All of them have written to the province saying they support the legislation we put forward, the management plan that we put forward and the key concepts.
Senator Massicotte: That's not my question, though. If you read where the Province of Ontario is at, including some of the organizations Senator Eggleton referred to, where they made their position very clear, they argue about where the balance is, whether your wording is tight enough. Is the difference significant? Is the bottom-line result different from what they would hope to achieve if you conceded to their comments versus what is currently in the act? Is there much of a difference?
Mr. Latourelle: Yes. There have been several letters, so I'll generalize. Putting ecological integrity as the first priority would never work in the Rouge national urban park. The concept of ecological integrity internationally was pioneered in Canada by Parks Canada. It started 20 years ago. We're in that business day in day out in our national parks system. That concept would never work in the Rouge national urban park.
Senator Massicotte: Explain why.
Mr. Latourelle: With farming, for example, you would have to make sure that the first priority would be ecological protection, and you would not consider, for example, when they plow and do all of their activities. That would be inappropriate within the concept of ecological integrity.
In the concept of ecological health, we're ensuring there are wildlife corridors that can go from basically Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine, ensuring that we can protect that place.
Senator Massicotte: Is that act very much different than the Canada National Parks Act you use, say, for Banff or some other park?
Mr. Latourelle: Yes, completely. In Banff, we have ecological integrity. You will probably hear — and we've seen it from several individuals — that we have infrastructure in Banff and ecological integrity, so why can't we have ecological integrity in this park? Well, in Banff, 96 per cent of the park is wilderness. Yes, we have a highway, but 96 per cent is wilderness. In this park, which is an amazing place, 75 per cent has been disturbed historically. We are not starting with wilderness parkland here; we're starting with disturbed parkland but an amazing place. Working together with local cities and towns, as well as communities and universities that are close by, we can demonstrate international leadership and conservation.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you.
Mr. Latourelle: But it will be through our actions, not through legislation.
Senator Enverga: We've been reading about the letter from the provincial government. Now talking about politics, I recently received a letter, copied to me, to Kathleen Wynne from different municipalities like Markham, Richmond Hill, Pickering, City of Toronto, councillors of Toronto, my ward there, and the coalition of the Scarborough community centre. What do you think about this bill and how would you compare it with the letter? Will they commit their community to help volunteer to ensure that the park remains the same or remains the best in the world? What do you think about this letter?
Mr. Latourelle: Well, I think the letter is quite clear, and I'll just read one part of it. I received the same letter. "We support the proposal to add 9,000 acres of provincially-controlled land. We support the significant financial investment by the federal government."
But the most important point, from my perspective, is the partners that are putting land on the table to create this park are saying that Bill C-40 will support and surpass the legislative protection for the Rouge that's in place today.
Again, those are communities that we've worked with. These are mayors and deputy mayors writing this who are subject to the exact same agreement we have with Ontario.
Mr. Campbell: One point when we look at this is that Bill C-40 actually is attempting to balance three things. In fact, in the legislation that the province has — I'll take the main one, which is the Greenbelt Act, because it's the main one that actually governs the land that's being transferred. There are 12 provisions in the Greenbelt Act. Only 2 refer to nature. The rest are all about development. They're all about agriculture, and there is no primacy of the nature clauses. We now have people coming back in and saying, "Don't balance Bill C-40; don't balance that piece of legislation. What we need to do is not consider any of the pieces that were actually in the Ontario agreement."
In fact, when we signed and negotiated the Ontario agreement with Minister Chiarelli, one of the key points was whether we could we turn land back for infrastructure. They stipulated that that must be in the legislation.
It's very clear what is said that we must meet in policy and we must meet in legislation. The only thing we were asked to do in legislation was give them the ability to take land out of the park, 200 football fields' worth. That's the only thing they stipulated. Everything else was around balance.
In fact, we were quite nervous, on the balance side, that we wouldn't be able to hit all of the elements of balance of agriculture to nature. The nature protection, we knew that we were far ahead of where they were, so it's been quite surprising to us that the balance that they have in their other pieces of legislation is now not what they're asking for in Bill C-40.
Senator Enverga: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: It's very striking to me that in the three years of long discussions with Ontario park officials there was no mention whatsoever of the ecological integrity issue. I gather that there was a meeting of minds between Ontario and federal officials, and the government came out and made a commitment to transfer the land.
If we go ahead and pass this legislation, can the Ontario lands be added in the future? The second part of that question would be this: Is that your hope?
Mr. Campbell: Yes. The way that the act is currently structured, certainly the ability to add more lands is in there. There is a clear clause about how lands would be added, so our hope would be that at some point we would be able to get over the policy impasse that obviously exists, and the Ontario government at that point would turn the lands over to be able to be used in the Rouge national urban park.
It would be a shame if the park actually wasn't as big as it could be because Ontario continues to withhold land outside of the agreement.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Eggleton: Not the way they see it.
The Chair: Is the legislation now drafted in a way that you can meet some of what Senator Massicotte was talking about, some of the things that Ontario wants, without having to change the legislation? Is there enough wiggle room, I guess you would call it, to say, "Yes, we can look at some of these things and actually accommodate them"? Is that available, do you think?
Mr. Latourelle: Well, I would say that from a Parks Canada perspective, first, I take the legislation as it is. We can have a better park, better protected than it is today. I can list things that we're going to do in terms of, for example, no mineral extraction. That's currently allowed, so that would not be allowed in the national urban park based on Bill C-40. There will be no hunting. Full-time law enforcement officers will be in place and the bill includes stiff penalties.
I'm convinced that with goodwill, people can come to the table and resolve the issues. I think a lot of the issues that are being pushed and stated as legislation are not legislation. I think, legislation to legislation, we are meeting and by far exceeding the current legislation. I think there are several specific plans, area plans that people are trying to actually move up to legislation. I think those we will deal with through the management plan process. We're still waiting for their comments on the management plan. We have not received those four months later. When we get into specific area plans, we want to continue working with the local communities.
I want to reinforce that this park is a result of several years of negotiation, consultation with municipalities, the province. Every municipality is now saying they're going to transfer their lands and they're prepared to do that now. We only have one organization that is not prepared to do it at this point.
The Chair: Well, thank you very much for your time. I know you're busy, and we appreciate you coming out and answering our questions. There were some good questions and some very good answers.
(The committee adjourned.)