THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 30, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5 p.m. to Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Canada National Parks Act.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good evening, colleagues and 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 serve as 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 committee hearings are open to the public and also available online at the Senate site sencanada.ca. All other committee-related business can also be found online including past reports, bills, studies and lists of witnesses.
I would now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves. I’ll introduce the deputy chair, Senator Massicotte from Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Griffin: Diane Griffin, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Wetston: Howard Wetston, Toronto.
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, Quebec.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton from Ontario and the sponsor of Bill C-18.
The Chair: I would also like to introduce our staff beginning with the clerk to my left, Maxime Fortin and our Library of Parliament analyst Sam Banks.
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 Canada National Parks Act.
Today, for the third meeting on our study of Bill C-18, I am pleased to welcome Mr. Larry Noonan, Chair, Altona Forest Stewardship Committee.
Thank you for joining us, Mr. Noonan. I understand you have some opening statements, after which we will go to a question and answer session.
Colleagues, I wish to remind that you after Mr. Noonan’s presentation, we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
Mr. Noonan, the floor is yours.
Larry Noonan, Chair, Altona Forest Stewardship Committee: It is a pleasure to be here to talk with you about Bill C-18. I am sure you all have heard of ecological integrity which includes the concepts of natural processes such as fire, flood, erosion, natural regeneration of forests, et cetera. There was a reason that the most respected national park agency in the world did not recommend that ecological integrity was to be included in the original act for the creation of the park.
However, clause 1 of Bill C-18 says that the Rouge National Urban Park Act is amended by adding the definition of “ecological integrity” by using the exact wording from Parks Canada’s website which is also used for national parks.
When Parks Canada implements this policy, will forest fires and floods be allowed? Can the natural processes of erosion on trails and river banks be remediated? Can Ontario construct more roads, expand pipelines or add more hydro towers in the Rouge? Not under ecological integrity. However, the only request Ontario made when first asked to provide input on the bill was to ensure that 200 hectares were available for additional infrastructure.
In the Rouge National Urban Park Act, section 16(1) states:
Public lands. . . in the park may be disposed of to a federal or provincial authority. . . for the purposes of the installation or maintenance of public infrastructure, including public utilities or transportation corridors.
Ontario has actually betrayed its own stated desire for ecological integrity while insisting everyone else must adhere to this standard.
The last time I spoke here to this committee, I said that ecological integrity could not be in the act unless the definition was changed. Well, Parks Canada has done the next best thing. They have greatly added to the clarification of that term in reference to their parks. The stress is on management and working toward ecological integrity, not just leaving processes to work on their own.
Furthermore, Parks Canada, working with federal, provincial and territorial agencies and with the United States National Park Service produced a booklet called Principles and Guidelines for Ecological Restoration in Canada’s Protected Natural Areas in April 2017.
With the agreement of these agencies, this booklet details what should be done in many situations to work toward ecological integrity. Some of the recommendations are: Using management methods to duplicate the role of natural processes as closely as possible; restoring stable soil surfaces, stream banks and shorelines; installing permanent artificial structures to control erosion and flooding; restoring stream connectivity through the use of appropriate materials; revegetation of riparian areas; seeding and planting in locations that have been stabilized or need to be stabilized; stabilization of rapidly eroding sites; and restoring natural hydrologic flow to protect ecosystems.
This document stresses action and working toward establishing natural processes but by using other more active methods when necessary such as reforestation, pond creation, et cetera, all the time moving towards ecological integrity.
What about the farmers who are not mentioned in this booklet? Should they be concerned about the future with ecological integrity as a rule for the park?
One opponent talking about the Rouge farmers said:
The interests of a few people are being put above the interest of the public and the interest of the environment.
Do these opponents see ecological integrity as a means to an end? The elimination of farming in the Rouge?
Let’s examine ways how strict adherence to ecological integrity can put pressure on farming inside the park.
Can farmers cut back the naturally generated hedgerows around their fields? Can they install farm field drainage tiles? Can farm animals such as cattle co-exist with the natural processes of ecological integrity?
Riding Mountain National Park is in Manitoba and is in MP Robert Sopuck’s riding. He recently told the Commons that:
In the name of ecological integrity, grazing was eliminated in the park ... they [farmers] were all summarily told to leave, at great cost to individual farmers, and with no compensation whatsoever.
He added:
Adapting ecological integrity in the Rouge could see many Rouge farmers evicted from working farms that have been in production since as early as 1799.
Ecological integrity causes much confusion so that it needs an entire booklet to clarify it. So why is this amendment needed?
In January 2013, the Province of Ontario signed an agreement to transfer Ontario lands in the Rouge to Parks Canada. Yes, more than four years ago.
The reason for the delay was the claim that the federal protections for the park did not meet or exceed provincial protections. This was soon disproved and Alan Latourelle, the former CEO of Parks Canada said:
Any individual or organization that directly or indirectly implies that the federal legislation for the Rouge National Urban Park does not meet the standard of the current provincial legislation for the Rouge lands is misleading the public.
The Premier of Ontario then used the term “ecological integrity” as her reason for further delays.
Despite these problems, I ask you to pass this legislation as quickly as possible. My reasons are that the plants, animals and ecosystems of the Rouge have been ignored for far too long. Hunting, poaching, erosion and many other problems exist on Ontario lands with no remediation. Ontario has not addressed these issues and refuses to hand over the lands to an organization which has the knowledge, ability and the will to make positive changes in the Rouge. Additional delays will only compound the problems. So passing these amendments will remove Ontario’s latest objection, and maybe Ontario will then hand over the lands.
As far as ecological integrity is concerned, environmentally responsible people, including Parks Canada staff, under the guidance of the booklet Principles and Guidelines for Ecological Restoration, will continue to work for the best in the Rouge National Urban Park -- its plants, animals and environment -- while moving towards a standard of ecological integrity. They will also keep farms and cultural heritage a significant part of the park.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Noonan. We’ll go to questions.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you, Mr. Noonan, for your presentation. If I were to summarize my understanding of what you presented to us today, you can understand that the definition of “ecological integrity” is a difficult one to meet and satisfy, because it has some contradictions in it, as you highlighted. But with the history, the additional definition experience that Parks Canada has, and the booklet that is referred to, you’re now happy that the legislation, as titled and worded, would be acceptable to you?
Mr. Noonan: I would say yes. The main problem in the amendments is the delay of well over a year that has happened because of their introduction.
Senator Massicotte: You also highlighted for us the problem with the farms. We asked similar questions when we had the witnesses here. As you know, this legislation, probably because of the possible contradiction, specifically refers to the farms being inherent to that urban park. Does that somewhat satisfy your concern re the farming?
Mr. Noonan: If I can remember it properly, it says that it doesn’t preclude farming in the Rouge, as per the act. I don’t think the act has enough protection for the farmers, for the future.
Senator Massicotte: As you know, they are all rentals, and I gather historically on one-year rentals. One can make the argument that the obligation of Parks Canada is that the integrity of the whole park should be superior to the commercial interests of the farmers, even though they have never had a long-term interest in those lands. How would you respond to that?
Mr. Noonan: I would say the farmers have been there a long time, that the farmland is the best there is in Canada, and that that type of land is shrinking. I want food close to where I live, and I would like to see the farmers stay there and continue to produce this food, while other areas around are going to disappear from farm production.
Senator Wetston: Just a couple of quick questions, Mr. Noonan.
Are you generally supportive of urban parks?
Mr. Noonan: Of this urban park?
Senator Wetston: Of urban parks generally.
Mr. Noonan: Yes, I would say so.
Senator Wetston: Have you had any experience with other urban parks besides Rouge?
Mr. Noonan: I’ve visited a number of them. I wouldn’t know exactly what you mean. I am the chair of Altona Forest, which is an urban park in Pickering, 105 acres. We’ve put five kilometres of trails in there, we did a bird study two weeks ago, and we do all kinds of other things there. From that standpoint, I’m very familiar with what it takes to keep something going and successful.
Senator Wetston: What I’m getting at is this: Have you learned something there that is missing in the efforts at Rouge National Urban Park?
Mr. Noonan: I would say there are things with the Rouge National Urban Park that I’d like to see in Altona Forest. For instance, there are many laws, and we don’t have the people to enforce them. And Rouge National Urban Park has wardens. I have seen activities in the Rouge National Urban Park such as poaching. I have found an arrow from hunters. And there are all kinds of other things going on. I belong to a group that hikes there every week, and we have phoned the police. They won’t come in because they don’t know how to get to the site where the action is going on, whereas the wardens will know exactly where to go.
It is the same thing with Altona Forest, which I — with my group — am looking after. We tell the police, and they sometimes come, but they can’t find their way in there to determine where this activity is going on.
Senator Wetston: We’ve heard from environmentalists and members of the farming community who are very supportive of what’s occurring now, particularly with respect to this bill and the efforts for Parks Canada, for example. It seems to me, as Senator Massicotte suggested, that you’re very supportive of it as well. You obviously are not entirely supportive of all aspects, but I think you have indicated that progress has been made. That’s part of the reason why you’re supportive of the bill.
Mr. Noonan: Yes.
Senator Wetston: If you have a comment — I don’t mind you saying what you wish to say — I have another part to the question.
Mr. Noonan: Yes, I am supportive of this bill being passed. I don’t think it was necessary to introduce it, but I would like to see it passed so we can get on with it.
Senator Wetston: I realize that you’re concerned about the lands being handed over from the Ontario government, and that should occur, I expect, once the bill is passed. I think you expect that.
Mr. Noonan: Let’s hope so.
Senator Wetston: My question to you is this: Should all this come into being — lands are transferred, the bill is passed, Parks Canada does what it intends to do, it’s been referred to — what are some of the things that you would recommend in the early days to ensure the successful implementation of the bill?
Mr. Noonan: The things that come to mind right away are the parts of the park that are dangerous. There are other things, obviously, if you want to talk about ecology and so on, but there are parts of the park that are very dangerous right now. There’s a bridge that has a hole in it. I have reported this to the minister in Ontario. I have sent letters to the premier. I have done whatever I could do to try to get this fixed. The best they did was to put a little plastic fence around it, which people move right away.
There’s also massive erosion happening. One of the things I mentioned here was to put in permanent supports to stop erosion. We’ve lost two metres on Riverside Trail this spring alone.
There’s more erosion happening like that. Also, some of the trails have eroded almost two metres below the land level where you are walking and you’re looking up, both sides, because the water rushes down. That needs to be fixed. There are all kinds of things like that.
Senator Wetston: Thank you very much.
Senator Griffin: Thanks for being here today. It feels like we’re in a huge vacuum.
There’s probably a good reason why ecological integrity wasn’t in the initial designation for the act. I was on the Nature Canada board of directors, and our concern at that time, as a member of the conservation community, was that the ecological integrity, as defined in the National Parks Act, was going to be diluted and that what would happen in this urban park could possibly have negative impacts for management in allowing certain activities in other parks that have not been allowed. You mentioned Robert Sopuck, MP in Riding Mountain National Park, and his comment there.
I think that’s probably why the definition of “ecological integrity” was left to be further developed in terms of accommodating this park to make sure it didn’t cause problems with other national parks. That’s my reading of the situation, and I don’t know if that’s also your understanding of the situation.
Mr. Noonan: I think that’s half of it. The other part is that if you look up “ecological integrity” on the Internet, you will find as many different definitions as you find places where they’re located. Most of them talk about natural processes, which is allowing things to happen naturally, with no intervention.
In an urban park where there are so many problems, intervention is the only way to fix them. For instance, if you had a stream, which we have in the park, that leads into one of the Rouge rivers, which was straightened by a municipality in order to put a road beside it, according to natural processes, that has to stay there. But to fix that properly, you have to meander it slightly and replant there. That’s one of the 15, I think now 31 projects, that has already been done on the federal lands inside the Rouge.
Now that the definition has been fleshed out, it gives specific things to do to manage, to move and to act, and that’s why I believe it’s a lot better.
Senator Griffin: We have an agreement. Thank you.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you. You questioned the necessity of ecological integrity, and yet we know that without that terminology in there we don’t get the Province of Ontario to the table. They refused to come before on that account. The Friends of the Rouge and other local groups that have been passionate about this for many years have always fought for the inclusion of ecological integrity, and the farmers now seem to be on side because Mr. Mike Whittamore, who came here, said that they felt that a compromise had been worked out that all the parties could agree to. He noted particularly that in fact agricultural activities are for the first time mentioned in the legislation and that they are getting the opportunity for a 30-year or long-term lease agreements -- they have been operating with one-year-at-a-time lease agreements.
Doesn’t that indicate the necessity for this? If we took out ecological integrity, we’d be back to where we were at, a much smaller entity and not the kind of agreement that we now have amongst the parties.
Mr. Noonan: I agree with Mike. The fleshing out of the definition has changed my mind, and it certainly has changed the minds of a lot of farmers and everyone else.
Again, ecological integrity was such a term that no one knew exactly what was going to happen. Now that we do, it’s a lot better. A 30-year lease is great. I’m wondering what’s going to happen after the 30 years. That’s why I think something more needs to be fleshed out with the farmers.
Senator Eggleton: But all the parties now come together. And that I think is particularly important. Thank you.
Senator Mockler: When you were answering a question from Senator Wetston, you asked why was the bill necessary. Could you explain, from your point of view, what you mean, why it was not necessary to introduce the bill?
Mr. Noonan: Before the definition was basically fleshed out by Parks Canada, I thought that ecological health, which is in the original act, would suffice. I still believe that it was a good guiding principle because it had the actions involved in it.
Now that the definition has changed, then I don’t say this amendment is necessary but it’s certainly not bad. And I would like to get it done as soon as possible.
Senator Mockler: Maybe other officials can answer this other question. Who is going to pay for all of this? Do you have an idea of how much it will cost to fix the repairs that you have identified and the many others? The reason I’m saying that is we’ve had that in New Brunswick with a national park. I know that Parks Canada are professionals. They have done their job and I don’t question that.What I question is at the end of the day somebody has to pay.
Mr. Noonan: It goes back to Ontario, when I talked to them about it, saying they don’t have the money to spend. But the money for this has been set aside, from what I understand from the original act. There are a certain number of millions of dollars, over 10 years, to make these changes.Lots of money has already been spent on rehabilitation projects throughout the park in the areas that are owned now by Parks Canada. I have visited most of these sites. The work that has been done is really great.
The southern part, where the Ontario lands are still located, the majority of it, has many more problems. Those, I think, are critical to be started as soon as possible.
Senator Mockler: Those millions of dollars that have been identified and the cost, who has those numbers to tell me, as a parliamentarian, this is what it will cost at the end of the day?
Mr. Noonan: Those numbers have been published. I don’t have them in front of me. I remember reading them and I think there are people here who will be able to answer that question.
The Chair: Could you step up?
Would you say your name for the record, please?
Pam Veinotte, Field Unit Superintendent, Rouge National Urban Park: I’m Pam Veinotte, I am the Field Unit Superintendent for Rouge National Urban Park. There are two budget figures that are important when it comes to Rouge National Urban Park.
The first is the amount of money that was provided for the first 10 years of the park’s establishment and moved to full operations; that’s $170.5 million. Following that 10-year period, our annual budget will be $10.6 million a year.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that. Are there any other questions?
Senator Fraser: It sounds to me as if it works out on average to about $10 million. Should I assume that the reason the first 10 years of money was allocated in a lump sum was because some years there might have to be extra spending and other years you have to make up? In other words, that it wasn’t going to be an average situation for the first 10 years; is that right?
Ms. Veinotte: That is very true. It has actually given us flexibility for determining what needs to be done in any given year over that 10-year period, especially given the way land is transferring to Parks Canada and then our ability to work on great restoration projects, taking inventory and working on cultural built heritage, working on visitor facilities, visitor programming.
It was meant to give us that flexibility to do what we needed to do over the 10-year period to bring it to full operation.
Senator Lang: Perhaps you could clarify further on the financial aspect. We have the province involved with the transfer of land. Do they have any financial commitments once this is all completed?
Ms. Veinotte: Not in terms of official management of the park. What Parks Canada does, in many of our locations, though, is that we work with partners on a variety of different initiatives. That could be municipalities, a province, and it could also be an organization in the community. In that case, if there was a project that was of benefit to more than us, more than the park but would have bigger or larger, broader benefit, then partners would put money into that project or that initiative.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Noonan, for your presentation and for answering the questions. We appreciate that very much.
We are now at a stage where we will go through Bill C-18 clause by clause. There are six clauses in total. Before we do this, I would like to remind all members around the table that if at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. As chair, I will do my utmost to ensure that all senators wishing to speak have an opportunity to do so. For this, however, I will depend on your cooperation. I will ask all of you to keep the remarks to the point and as brief as possible.
I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the result of a voice vote or show of hands, the cleanest route is to request a roll call vote, which provides clear results.
Finally, I would like to point out that we have officials from Parks Canada in the room if you wish to ask them questions before we start the clause-by-clause consideration or if you need clarification on one of the clauses as we go along. Are there any questions?
I see there are no questions.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Rouge National Urban Park Act, the Parks Canada Agency Act and the Canada National Parks Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Carried. Is it agreed that I report the bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Permission to adjourn?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee adjourned.)