THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 9, 2024.
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 9:15 a.m. [ET] to study Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada).
Senator Paul J. Massicotte (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Paul J. Massicotte, I am a senator from Quebec, and I am the chair of the committee. Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
Before we begin, I would like to remind all senators and other meeting participants of the following important preventative measures. To prevent disruptive — and potentially harmful — audio feedback incidents during our meeting that could cause injuries, we remind all in-person participants to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all senators on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents: All earpieces have been replaced by a model which greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback.
The new earpieces are black, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use a black approved earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting. When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down, on the middle of the round sticker that you see in front of you on the table, where indicated.
Please consult the card on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Participants must only plug their earpieces into the microphone console located directly in front of them.
These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Thank you all for your cooperation. I would ask my committee colleagues to introduce themselves, beginning on my right.
Senator Verner: Josée Verner from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan.
Senator Wells: David Wells, Newfoundland Labrador.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, Quebec.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today, the committee has invited the sponsor of the bill and government officials to appear as part of its examination of Bill C-248: An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada).
For our first panel, we welcome Brian Masse, Member of Parliament, Windsor West, sponsor of the bill. Welcome, Mr. Masse, and thank you for accepting our invitation. You have ten minutes for your opening remarks. You now have the floor.
[English]
Brian Masse, Member of Parliament for Windsor West: Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss my private member’s bill, Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada).
I would like to begin by acknowledging the land on which we gather is the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg peoples. The Algonquin people have lived on this land since time immemorial. We are grateful to have the opportunity to be present in this territory.
First, I want to say it is a pleasure and honour to be the one to sponsor this legislation in the House of Commons, but it is really a community bill in the whole. I also want to thank my sponsor in the Senate and all the senators who spoke about the bill in recent deliberations. I appreciated all the interventions. They are critical and added a lot of value to what we are talking about here today.
Another thing I want to also acknowledge is that this issue goes back decades. Ojibway national urban park, in fact, is almost half a century. It would be too numerous to name all the individuals who worked over the years for this to happen, but I’m going to mention a few of our essential partners in this bill.
Chief Duckworth of Caldwell First Nation; the mayor and council of the City of Windsor; the Wildlands League; Friends of Ojibway; Unifor Local 444 environment committee; Wildlife Preservation Canada; Citizens Environmental Alliance; Essex County Field Naturalists’ Club; Save Ojibway organizations; and now even Parks Canada, which is advocating for the preservation and improvements in our area.
All the local residents as well need to be recognized, including my good friend Tom Henderson who fought for years to stop development and make parks a priority. He has been a teacher at schools but also a teacher in our community.
The proposed Ojibway national park in my riding in Ontario is part of traditional territory that the Confederacy of the Three Fires which includes the Ojibway, the Odawa and the Potawatomi with respect to longstanding relationships that the First Nations people have on this 100-mile Windsor Essex Peninsula which includes Detroit as well — Le Détroit.
The proposed Ojibway national urban park in my constituency of Windsor, Ontario has been a long, hard fight for our community. The Windsor-Essex region overall has a long history fighting to preserve and protect natural areas in one of the most industrialized areas in the country, the automotive capital of Canada.
It is the rarest and most at-risk ecosystem in the country, and the tall grass prairie less than 1% of the precious ecosystem remains in this zone.
Let me describe one of the essential components of this national urban park, a unique collection of parks complimenting each other. The bill includes combining several parks of provincial Tallgrass Prairie Heritage Park reserve along with a piece of land and shoreline owned by the federal government. The area is approximately 900 acres including the Detroit River and it could become one of North America’s treasures. It serves not only as home to a larger ecosystem to hundreds of species, but provides mitigation to flooding due to climate change and will become a natural heritage area that our community can enjoy, appreciate and use for healthy living spaces in ecotourism.
This would be a significant addition of land protection in southern Ontario, one of the most developed areas in the country in a step toward Canada’s goal of preserving more than 25% of the country’s land. The components are these: Ojibway Shores is a vital 33-acre green space and the last remaining undeveloped natural shoreline in Windsor-Detroit. It is home to many species at-risk and endangered species that rely on migration through the surrounding local parks for survival.
Right across from that is called Zug Island. I won’t get into the details, but it looks like Mordor from Lord of the Rings, highly industrialized, has coal deposits and plants of steel and other types of industrialization.
The Ojibway Prairie Complex is collectively five closely situated natural areas within a ten-minute drive of downtown Windsor. Ojibway Park, Tallgrass Prairie Heritage Park, the Black Oak Heritage Park and the Spring Garden Natural Area for a total of approximately 604 acres. Those parcels together are part of the complex.
In the complex, there are 230 acres of additional prairies and savannah which is really unique. The most striking aspect of Ojibway Prairie Complex is a tremendous variety of vegetation and animal life, wetlands, forests, savannah and prairie combine in the habitat for a large number of rare plants, insects, reptiles, birds and mammals. In fact, this whole area that I’m talking about has over 550 endangered species.
Spring Garden Natural Area is another component. It is designated part of the Ojibway Prairie Remnants Prairie Area of Natural and Scientific Interest by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. The site carries a designation of an environmentally significant area by the Essex Region Conservation Authority. Many rare, threatened and endangered species of plants and animals inhabit this park such as the Purple twayblade orchid, the American chestnut, Wild Indigo Duskywing butterfly, Red‑headed Woodpecker and Gray Fox. Spring Garden features oak, savannah and woodland dry prairies, Buttonbush swamp and a wetland in the form of an old lagoon.
Another point is the Black Oak Heritage Park. The surrounding lands have a rich cultural as well as natural heritage. Early explorers reported the presence of Huron Indian cornfields along the part of the river. The vegetation of Black Oak Heritage Park is made up of a variety of savannah, woodland species in addition to the abundance of open Black Oak woodland, it is the best local site to see American chestnuts. In the early 1800s, an area on the edge of Windsor called Chestnut Grove likely referred to this area.
There is also the component of the Tallgrass Prairie Heritage Park. It is home to several rare and unusual animals. Near the picturesque ponds, you might find the Double-striped Bluet and the Pronghorn Clubtail dragonflies. Provincially rare butterflies can be seen visiting prairie wildfires including the Southern Cloudywing and the Wild Indigo Duskywing. The red-bellied snake, Butler’s Gartersnake and Eastern Foxsnake are common park reptiles. Slender bush-clover was found here in 1977, and at the time the only other recorded area similar to this was done through botanist John Macoun in 1892 from Leamington.
Another rare prairie wildflower, the Tall Green Milkweed is currently unknown elsewhere in Canada. Other wildflowers such as Nodding Lady’s Tresses orchids and Fringed Gentian bloom profusely out of the site.
Ojibway Park is another component and it features an excellent nature centre and several well-kept guiding nature trails on which visitors can discover and learn about the park’s 160 acres of pine, oak forests, savannah, ponds and tall grass prairie. Spectacular wildflowers gardens around the nature centre into the majesty of the Tallgrass Prairie in full bloom.
Lastly, Ojibway Prairie Provincial Park and Reserve is unlike any other place in Ontario. Every week from May to October new species comes into bloom, including wildflowers, Indian grassland sections and the path in August and September is beautiful.
Lastly, but not least is the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge established in binational efforts and conservation back in 2001. It was also done through the Ramsar Convention which includes the Humburg Marsh and other critical species at risk.
I wanted to paint that picture for you, because later when we discuss some reasons why legislation is important, it becomes about the diversity of the species. Why this is seen as an urban park is really different than other urban parks because of the variety of species there, and locations, geography and so forth. Hence, the legislation was created in a specific way. When I went to the Library of Parliament and asked the best way to actually create an urban park, they came back with a bill. The bill looks like a bunch of coordinates on it, but it’s because it amends the Canada National Parks Act to include the geography into the best protection system possible.
I’m a Personal Support Worker, or PSW, by background, I’m not a lawyer. I relied on the Library of Parliament research, and other parks have done this. Most recently, you had a bill come through here, Bill S-14, which did the same thing, including the geography of the parks.
Geography is done through the city of Windsor open mapping system. They did the best that they could with the system in itself, and there were discussions by some saying that there might be private lands in there. We do not want private lands in this park. There are enough public lands to make it wholesome. In the future, lands could be added to the park if it were so warranted and wanted.
Again we want the highest standard of protection, especially given the fact that we have a memo of understanding going with Caldwell First Nations who are supporting this bill from the beginning to actually co-manage the park. This is critical because when you talk with Caldwell, and I hope that you have a chance to hear from Chief Duckworth. She will tell you about the struggles of Caldwell First Nations and the beauty of reconciliation in that story as we have seen many advancements.
At first they were left out of the Gordie Howe International Bridge which is next to this project.
The urgency with my bill is to do it right. The Gordie Howe International Bridge, if you are not aware, will hopefully be completed in 2025. The date has changed a few times.
What that means is in my constituency right now, currently along two kilometres of the waterfront, we have 40,000 vehicles a day that traverse through my community. Some of that will be reallocated and removed, and it will actually go toward the Gordie Howe International Bridge. What that means is right next to it are these pieces of property. This is why we want the best protection possible and a proper business plan.
With regard to national urban parks, there is another system that the government has employed with regard to urban parks. We can talk further about the differences between them.
The reason we went ahead with the bill is because the bill was contemplated before the actual systems that were being designed by policy management were put in place. My community meetings go back more than five years and this advocacy took place about ten years.
The bill was launched when I had an opportunity with the lottery system in the House of Commons. I got lucky number seven. We wanted to move on this. Given the fact we do not know what the future will be, we want to get this done.
I want to conclude by saying thank you. I will be in Washington coming up again about this park. I do have support letters — which you will get once the translation was not completed — from Debbie Dingell, Rashida Tlaib, Stephanie Chang, and a number of different conservation authorities who want us to connect in the proper way with this park. Thank you for your time. I look forward to the questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Welcome, Mr. Masse. As you know, I am very supportive of an urban national park in the Windsor area. As you mentioned, Parks Canada is working through their process of creating urban national parks, certainly in your area and seems to be the priority right across Canada.
I do have concerns with Bill C-248. I’m intrigued by the process using the parliamentary library. My experience would suggest that Parks Canada may know how to create a national park better than the parliamentary library.
My questions will start with: At the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, or ENVI, the question of whether private lands might be included in the coordinates of 248, since then — which is important, this has happened since then — Natural Resources completed surveys that identified parcels of privately owned lands in the coordinates of Bill C-248.
I’m mindful of this after hearing my colleague Senator MacDonald speak about his family’s traumatic experience with expropriation when the government decided to reconstruct Louisburg in the 1960s.
As officials at that other committee said, mistakenly declaring private property as national parkland could have serious impacts on landowners who would have to seek Parks Canada’s permission to make even basic changes to their properties.
Are you aware of where those lands are? Have you informed the affected landowners? Is this not expropriation?
Mr. Masse: Thank you for the questions. They are very important. First of all, no one has provided any coordinates to me about these lands. To this date, even though we —
Senator Sorensen: Sorry, but they are your coordinates.
Mr. Masse: They’re my coordinates, but no one has come forth to identify what those coordinates are.
Senator Sorensen: I don’t want to debate you, but wouldn’t that your role?
Mr. Masse: No. The coordinates we have are through the Library of Parliament. I’m happy to share the coordinates in terms of how it was done. It is done through the City of Windsor mapping system. The Library of Parliament has the researchers and all of the surveying. This is how other parks have been done. They design the coordinates, and the coordinates can be changed. No one has presented to me or come to me and said what these lands are. We just heard that they are, but we don’t know what they are.
Senator Sorensen: Who should have done that? Sorry, I’m just not following.
Mr. Masse: We have the coordinates here. If someone knows that they have private property that is in the coordinates and whether it’s been done, it would be nice if they came forward and told me which ones, because we would amend this. That is the whole point. We want to keep all these out.
This is a part of the reason we’re creating this by using the resources of the City of Windsor and the Province of Ontario, who have all agreed. We just want the public lands.
That would be a great amendment. If there is a chance to do that in terms of getting those coordinates out, then I hope those people would come forward, tell me what they are and we can amend the bill. That would be an excellent amendment for the Senate to make.
Senator Sorensen: There are municipal and provincial lands also included in the coordinates before us that are not currently administered by Parks Canada but are in various stages of negotiation for inclusion in the urban park.
How could this bill come into force before all the municipal and provincial lands have officially been signed over? You elaborated on how the coordinates in 248 were established, but I don’t understand how we can move this forward when the province and municipality have not officially signed over what is included in the coordinates that you present to us.
Mr. Masse: That is another excellent question.
Coming into force presents a couple of opportunities. Coming into force could take place right away and negotiations could continue. As with Bill S-14, you adjusted some of the park locations and status there.
There have not been any land negotiations with the City of Windsor and the Province of Ontario. I have spoken with MPP Andrew Dowie from the province, and I’ve also spoken with the City of Windsor. We are still waiting for that to happen, despite this long time in between.
Coming into force could be another excellent amendment. There could be coming into force up to one year, which is a common thing that is done. The bill could be amended, and it would be complementary. We received advice from legal services at the Library of Parliament, who said it would strengthen the bill. It is seen as a positive amendment that could go back to the House of Commons.
Coming into force could be a year, for example, or up to a year. That would give parties the time to negotiate and conclude it, and then there would be an opportunity to address that situation of concern.
The City of Windsor has raised a couple of concerns. Of course, as with every piece of legislation — that is why we’re here — it needs help and work. We want to make sure it is better. There is the issue, again, of whether or not there is land in here that shouldn’t be here. We don’t want it in. We want it out. I just need to know what it is.
Secondly, coming into force is another amendment that could be looked at. It is a common thing that is done. That is another amendment that could be looked at to take care of those concerns.
Senator Sorensen: Of course, at the House of Commons, you realize that amendments were considered out of scope because all we have are coordinates. We’ll deal with that.
Mr. Masse: The reason is because they didn’t have a date. That is why they were ruled out of order. There could have been a challenge to the chair if they wanted to do so at that time. If you have a date, you are not out of order.
Senator Arnot: I have two questions, Mr. Masse.
First of all, I want to say that you deserve great credit for your leadership in promoting and advocating for this park. I think it is a great concept and one that most people would obviously support.
What was the process you used to consult Indigenous peoples about the creation of this park? I know that you worked with Chief Duckworth of the Caldwell First Nation. I’m thinking of the Walpole Island First Nation, and I wonder if there are other Indigenous communities who feel they have a claim to this land and should have been consulted.
Here is my most important question, in my opinion: Would you please explain your rationale for putting forward this legislation as a private member’s bill rather than through the Parks Canada process? Do you believe this bill aligns with the Parks Canada process and policy? What would you say to the critics who say there is no need for a private member’s bill and that the administrative smoothness of going through the Parks Canada process would be most beneficial for creation of an urban park in Windsor?
Mr. Masse: Thank you, senator. Those are excellent questions.
With regard to Caldwell First Nations, I have been working predominantly with them. In my riding, as I mentioned, there is the Gordie Howe International Bridge, where they were left out of consultation. We started our relationship on a positive note because we were fighting for Ojibway Shores, which the port owned at that time. That is a critical piece of property on the waterfront. The port was going to develop it, and we were able to stop it.
Once we stopped that, I went to Caldwell First Nations. They were just forming under their treaty rights. I asked if they wanted interest in the land. They said no but that they were interested in keeping it naturalized. From there, we fought to get them included in the Gordie Howe International Bridge consultation, which they did.
I have always taken my lead from Caldwell because they are dealing with the relationship with Walpole. The respect I’ve shown to Caldwell and Walpole is to go through the process they’ve asked me to do.
With regard to the difference in the bill, you will see that the environmental protection required for this bill is significantly different than what the urban park process is. We started this before there was a government process. Some might argue that this triggered the government to respond, because we’ve been after this for quite some time.
I do not want to read his quotes, but when the minister was here, he and his officials spoke about how the Canada National Parks Act was the best way to protect property. I have the testimony right here. At any rate, it is the same thing. What we want is the best standards because of the ecodiversity and because it is connected to the United States. When we looked at their land in the United States, Canada was involved in creating that.
In terms of the Parks Canada urban process, we still do not know where it will end up. It would be very much an experiment on a bad piece of property, given the diversity we have with regard to this system.
We’ve had public meetings and consultation over the years. People are involved and they want the best protection for the ecosystem. It is not a perfect process; I acknowledge that. I went through the process where we said to the Library of Parliament that this is the tool available to us as legislators, and this is what they came back to us with. They also did an evaluation of the processes for creating national urban parks. They do an evaluation on it as well, raising some of the concerns I have.
In terms of the coordinates issue, we had to use the City of Windsor’s open data. That is what is available to us.
If there are problems with some of this, we’re happy to fix it. They talk about some of the challenges. Generally speaking, if we can’t figure out who owns our parks and who doesn’t, that is a problem even outside this bill because that would pre-exist. All we’re doing is trying to assemble the city, provincial and federal lands together. If the argument is that there is an issue with those things, that would have to be sorted out anyway, and it should be.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Mr. Masse, for being here and for putting this forward.
I think we’re all in favour of preserving flora, fauna, vistas and the natural elements that we enjoy. I do have some concerns. I wasn’t sure if it was in your opening remarks. I thought I heard you say there are no private owners within these boundaries. Is that correct?
Mr. Masse: That is what we understand from what we’ve tabled for our geography. There are people who are saying that there is something wrong with these coordinates, but no one has come to tell me what the coordinates are — nobody at all. We need to know what they are. Those would be the amendments. We would want to get them out of the bill.
Senator Wells: Did you do any public notice posting? If someone owns land, it is recorded somewhere, either in a municipal, provincial or federal registry.
Mr. Masse: We have reached out as best we can. We used the city system in place. That is the one that is the most reliable. If we could find those and get them out — There has been a lot of public commentary. There’s been no shortage of media coverage on this.
With regard to some of the properties in other cases, people may not even know that they own these properties. They are registered as someone’s private property. It could be that someone doesn’t even know that they have the property.
Senator Wells: Good point. So if we pass this bill unamended and someone — in a year or two years or ten years — comes and says, “Look I have a deed for this land that now I no longer own, or I’m restricted from enjoying because it is under guidelines, regulations or rules of the national park,” what is the remedy?
It seems to me that the step of identifying should not happen after the boundaries are drawn.
Mr. Masse: That is a good point. The problem is that until the bill is created, until we map the entire system, which will be done further and more so, we wouldn’t know some of those things. What normally happens in those situations, there would be a legal process that would take place in a court process. This is what we want to try to avoid. We did the best we could, and it’s fairly accurate. The system is very accurate. We are looking at the public system to identify what the city lands were, what the provincial lands were and what the port, which is now under Parks Canada, lands were and getting those geography points. If they have somehow sucked in a little piece, here and there, of something else let’s get them out. We have used what we can under public knowledge and public surveying the best we can to identify those zones. If there is something in there that shouldn’t be, we don’t want it there.
Senator Wells: Typically, in other regulations that are attached to legislation, you would have a gazette process where you would post it for six months or a year that would say, “This is our plan for this area. If you have any issue with it, here is where you would present that issue.” In your view, would it be a suitable amendment to this bill to have a gazette process with a requirement for the publication of the boundaries in all the areas?
Mr. Masse: Absolutely. Again, we don’t want any private land in this project, but we have to use the processes available to me in the legislation, and this process has been used to increase park sizes, and they will change, and so if that is another process, then for sure. That’s where the coming into effect for one year could also be helpful to identify some of those elements. The recipe or solution that the legislative services have given us advice about is to add an amendment like that would give time for some of that or other questions about roadways or jurisdiction issues that come up. There is no perfect process to create this legislation. It is different than the Rouge National Urban Park. The Rouge involves a highway, farms, all different uses that are not in this bill. I don’t want any private land in this project.
Senator Wells: Yes, and I don’t either. But if there is private land within there, I don’t want that to be an island where access might be restricted. If there is a plot of land or an area that somebody owns or some company owns or that’s owned, and the park is around that because that’s carved out because it’s private, I think access is also important to maintain because that’s part of the enjoyment of one’s private land.
Mr. Masse: Yes.
Senator Wells: It would be wise for the committee to think about that. I am still on the track that Senator Sorensen said. Maybe that step should have been done first to identify the lands rather than say, “Here’s the swath of land. We’ll make it a park —” and we all agree it’s a good idea — “and then if anyone has any problems with it, we’ll address it through the court after,” because that’s where it would be addressed.
Mr. Masse: It’s a fair argument. But right now, just when you dealt with Bill C-14, you had to amend other lands that needed adjustment afterwards. The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good is the saying that is often used in these situations. We used the best legislative resources that we have available to us, and the Library of Parliament, I would argue, is one of the best in the world.
Senator Wells: Agreed.
Mr. Masse: We have incredible people there. So they used the open data system that was available to them. They talk about it could be a matter of a few centimetres and had to round off some decibels. If somebody out there has identified that there is land in here and these coordinates are wrong, tell us what page. Tell us where they are and let’s fix it. I’m not a land surveyor or a lawyer. I rely on these things. I can’t go out there with my own equipment and do it, but we need that information to come to us. We want good neighbours too.
Really important about the question, which is germane to this, is for this to be successful we want the people that are adjacent to this area and the landowners to have this as an enjoyable and improved asset for them and their families and the value of their property, which I would argue will be enhanced by reduced flooding, less development that increases flooding, and also having a private property next to a national park is generally seen as an upside to the value of the property. We want them to be good stewards too.
We had other places, like in the Spring Garden where you had the Massasauga rattlesnake. People didn’t like them, so they used lawn equipment on top of their habitats. You don’t want those things to happen that are real and can take place. It’s a very important piece. We did the best that we can to mitigate that, and we still want to do the best possible to eliminate that from the equation.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Obviously, no one is opposed to parks. I’m a big fan of private members’ bills, which generally address administrative and governmental blind spots on something that isn’t being done — despite the fact that it’s something we’d like to see. What happened, as I understand it, is that you had this excellent idea, you launched the process, and the Parks Canada machine, which is probably slightly less nimble than you, said, “What a great idea! Let’s do it.” Meanwhile, the park they’re proposing is roughly twice the size of the one in your bill — correct me if I’m wrong.
We’re facing a paradox and an impasse. Insofar as private members’ bills have many qualities, it’s always difficult to obtain extremely precise technical data. I’ve encountered this problem myself. We don’t have the resources to do it. Wouldn’t it be wiser, at this point, to say that you’ve succeeded, that you’ve alerted Parks Canada, which understands, and try to participate in the process, which isn’t perfect, but which may be safer in terms of private land and all the little technical details that follow? At this stage, wouldn’t it be more prudent? I understand that it’s difficult, because we become attached to a bill; it’s our baby. Is it a good idea to have these two parallel processes that are challenging?
[English]
Mr. Masse: It is a good question. Having Parks Canada more involved in my community has only helped. We have high environmental diseases and issues related to industrialization that we need natural areas, and that will be an improvement. The reason why there is consistency with all the groups and organizations, for the most part, that want the highest level of protection is because of the types of species at risk here, the fact that it is on the international border and that there is widespread support for the best practices.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Why has Parks Canada not delivered that?
Mr. Masse: Under the public policy, even the minister admits in his testimony here that they may actually return to legislation after going to the policy proponent of the urban park. And I’m sure Parks Canada officials who are following me here will explain the strengths of that and also the weaknesses and why we have solidarity, in many respects, especially among Caldwell First Nation and others, wanting to have —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Slow down. I don’t get you. What is the minister saying here? Is Parks Canada saying that they can’t offer protection to the animals, to the plants?
Mr. Masse: What he says in his testimony here and why he wanted the Parks Act amended under Bill S-14 was to provide the highest protection possible. They currently own this property on Ojibway Shores, and even that wasn’t included in Bill S-14. The Ojibway Shores property has some of the most endangered species on the Detroit River and is the only piece of federal property that is still not under the highest protection.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You are saying that even though they have more territory in their proposed park they don’t have the right territory that you are proposing? Is that it?
Mr. Masse: They do have that territory unless they have some different coordinates; I don’t know. However, they don’t have the same enforcement capabilities for the environment until it is under the Parks Act. That was the point of Bill S-14. There is testimony as well from others with regard to that; and that’s why, especially being on the international border, being a migratory area for so many different species, there is the solidarity of having this and especially it is part of reconciliation of having it at the highest standard possible for preserving the nature there.
That’s why you also have, I think, some controversy in some of the other urban park policy areas where provincial, federal and municipal governments are concerned that they would lower standards. It is also what I’m told by the Province of Ontario is that they want to ensure that the highest standards are there too. Again, having them as witnesses would probably be the best way to hear their thoughts on those things.
Again, these are all really good questions. It is not a perfect process that we’re proposing here, but it is the one available to us and the one that can actually make a difference. It’s the one that has been used before.
Senator Cardozo: I first want to ask a question about interaction, and I’m using the word “interaction” rather than “consultation” with First Nations. You mentioned you were in contact with the Caldwell First Nation. Are they involved in your process? Have you been in contact with other First Nations in the larger area?
Mr. Masse: Yes on both occasions. But most formally with Caldwell First Nation, because they have been the group I have been working with even before this project even took place, in terms of creating a national urban park. Chief Duckworth, they have got a land settlement claim, so the more recent benefit of reconciliation in the sense that they basically fought with the British during the War of 1812, were promised Point Pelee, and then they were burned out of their properties. They survived and most recently have reconciliation.
My riding, which I have represented for 22 years and 5 years as a councillor prior to that, had no real land rights involvement with Caldwell until it just emerged over the last few years. That’s where I have taken my direction from. They testified at committee as well that they were working with Caldwell First Nation and Walpole Island First Nation. I have worked primarily with Caldwell because that has been kind of the direction I have been given, and I respect that direction. The Walpole Walpole Island First Nation and I have been in touch and I have been at their different events and so forth. They have also been part of the Gordie Howe International Bridge process.
Again, I would just say that having Chief Duckworth here, and if you want Walpole Island First Nation as well, would be a good indicator of those relationships.
Senator Cardozo: Thanks. There is a park called Ojibway Park, currently.
Mr. Masse: Yes.
Senator Cardozo: It has been there for some time. What your bill is talking about is enlarging the area?
Mr. Masse: Yes, just connecting the pieces. That’s where the bill is a little bit difficult for anybody to look at, because it’s a bunch of numbers for the most part. What it does is it puts the numbers together into what we wanted to have, which is just the park areas that I have identified assembled under the system of the Canada National Parks Act, so it enjoys the same protection and gets the same rules, regulations and so forth, so it is assembled and connected and managed together.
Right now, you have different managers. You had the port of authority, but now you just have Parks Canada on one piece of property, and the City of Windsor on a couple of pieces of property and you have the Province of Ontario on a piece of property. It’s kind of like when we talk internationally about the fish in the Detroit River. They don’t carry passports, understand geography or know different nations. All the species travel among the different areas, but if they are not managed in a comprehensive way — and there are working relationships that take place, but you have different governments, different levels of protection and a different system. What we’re trying to do is to combine that under one big umbrella.
Senator Cardozo: I understand that. If I can ask one more question. I think you are seeing a lot of support for the idea of an urban park here. Given the concerns about the mapping you have done versus the mapping that perhaps should be done through the Parks Canada process, this is sort of where our sober second thought comes in as a Senate. I don’t want to lord it over you, but that’s where we really look at it and ask if it makes sense or if there is a better way of doing it. I’m wondering if it is not only not our job — because we are busy people — it is sort of outside our role to go to the extent of replacing this whole thing by another whole thing. Wouldn’t it be better if we sent it back to you in the House and say, well, get it right in a process that is going to be real?
As Senator Wells said, we don’t want people waking up one day and say, hey, I didn’t realize my land just got taken over. Wouldn’t it be better if we sent it back and you got it right and then proceeded that way?
Mr. Masse: There are a couple of things. I appreciate that. Again, this was the legislative process that has been used before. There is also the issue over if there are properties in here that are not publicly owned, then you would think that somebody somewhere would want to share those geography points with us, because we can’t disprove what we are not told is happening.
Senator Cardozo: How would they know this is happening? I mean, everybody is busy in the world, and if we are here in Ottawa fixing this thing —
Mr. Masse: I know that. Let’s assume that argument is correct. If somebody out there has this information, we just need to find this information. Why it is not being brought forth, because if that’s true, then we can make those amendments. We used the science that is available and the legal process that was conducted through the Library of Parliament on how to create a national urban park. We used that.
Senator Cardozo: In closing, given our bicameral system, this is also a very interesting political science kind of exercise that I am finding interesting. Wouldn’t it be better for us to say the proposer of the bill should get this right, rather than us rewriting the bill so much to get it right?
Mr. Masse: The problem that we have is time. If we throw this process out, we throw ourselves into an unproven process with park policy, which is not legislation, which also is not what everybody is asking for. And then we have the Gordie Howe International Bridge coming online, where we will have tens of thousands of vehicles per day in the midst of migratory species coming back across from the United States back into Canada. It will undermine other types of park systems we have that are connected to this with the migratory patterns.
That’s why I hope we try to fix this bill. I know the second sober thought is used as a saying, as you have, but the reality is we have two chambers for a reason. It’s because two chambers can get things done better than one chamber. I think that’s what we’re here to do.
I know everybody is busy, but I can tell you time is of the essence. If this will mitigate climate change, and be part of reconciliation, which we promise so much, and we have some of these key elements part of it, I think it is our obligation to act on it if we can.
Senator Cardozo: I get that. Thanks.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: I have a quick question for you, Mr. Masse. You mentioned that you worked with First Nations, the Indigenous peoples affected and the Library of Parliament. Have you worked with Parks Canada officials to try to align your initiative as much as possible with the broader process Parks Canada is developing?
[English]
Mr. Masse: No. Not at this time because the process right now determines what Parliament decides. They have been very helpful. They have been in my constituency doing different events related to a number of different things, and the relationship is strong and good. But nobody has presented any of those additional things for us at this time because we’re looking at two different policies here. We’re looking at creating a national park that is consistent with what has been done in the past, and we’re also looking at the government having an urban park policy, which they are still working on right now. I think their testimony will be rather good as part of this process.
I can tell you, again, what we’re consistently hearing from this is that we want the highest environmental standards, and that’s the issue that we’re really dealing with.
Senator Verner: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for the work, especially with mitigating climate change and what I see as environmental racism.
But I do have a problem. I don’t understand what is happening here. It just seems that there is so much in the air, and I don’t know what we would be agreeing to if we support the bill. So the 2024 federal budget proposes to allocate $36.1 million over five years to develop Ojibway Park with ongoing funding of $4.6 million annually for operations and maintenance.
The budget states that the Ojibway national urban park is to be developed in partnership with the city of Windsor and Indigenous partners, including the Walpole Island First Nation and Caldwell First Nation. Given that the federal budget would allocate funding to establish and operate the proposed Ojibway national urban park, is Bill C-248 necessary and how do the main project partners and other interested stakeholders feel about there being two separate processes to establish this park?
Mr. Masse: Thank you, senator, for that question.
Having the testimony in the past, they’ve wanted legislation. Again, the government’s urban park policy plan is not legislation.
Here is what the minister said at the committee:
Ensuring that these lands can benefit from the highest level of protection is more important than ever. This legislation is the critical step to ensure Parks Canada has the authority and tools required to protect these lands for current and future generations
That’s Bill S-14. That is what I’m trying to do — to amend the Canada National Parks Act. So, those are the minister’s own words.
Also you had strategic planning and policy person, Jewel Cunningham, who stated:
. . . the best protection we can offer lands is under the National Parks Act. It is where ecological integrity is first and foremost, and where we have the strongest enforcement measures . . . .
That is the difference we are looking at here with regard to the two processes that are potentially out there. We have used the tools to try to improve the National Parks Act. Maybe the word “urban” suggests something. I can tell you this much: The type of biodiversity at this place is exceptional, and it is unheard of in many other parts. What we’re trying to do is to put it into the best framework for protection for the future.
It is why I have enjoyed the support of a number of different groups and organizations over the years, because even as they’ve gone through the consultations with the park policy proponent, they are recognizing that that is not going to meet the standards. Even under the park’s policy, if you go to their websites and look at the comments, they say that they may end up with legislation anyway. So why wait? If we’re supposed to be taking reconciliation responsibly, protecting against climate change and protecting species, then our partners are telling us they would prefer legislation.
It is not perfect by any means, but we have redresses to take care of some of these things. We can amend the bill ourselves here, and we can also send it with a draft to have an amendment to actually give time for it to be brought into force. There are also legal courses that take place on a regular basis if there are issues out there. I don’t know of these properties — again — that are supposedly in here. We don’t want them in here. We did everything we possibly could to avoid that. The support I have received from the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals — we’ve all talked about the same thing. We don’t want the land that shouldn’t be in here, in here. That’s why it was passed.
Yes, it is imperfect. I’m sorry that we’re having to deal with it here. But that’s why I appreciate the opportunity to come here. I appreciate what the Senate does. If the Senate can improve this bill, then let’s do it.
Senator McCallum: Thank you. Section 10-1 of the Canada National Parks Act provides the minister the authority to come into agreements with federal and provincial ministers, agencies, local and Aboriginal governments, bodies established under land claims agreement and other people and organizations for carrying out the purposes of the act.
Usually, with parks or when there are First Nations and Inuit groups who are the rights holders, they are mentioned in the bill. I do not see that here.
What can be done to ensure that Indigenous stewardship would be supported and respected, especially looking at that Zug Island where there are coal and steel? Are the emissions affecting the park now, and will they continue to affect it?
Mr. Masse: Yes. Thank you. That is a good question. So, yes, they are. The steel plant has been decommissioned. If you remember the old story of the “Windsor Hum,” that was the noise emanating from that island. Even though it is not from Windsor, we got named in it. I do not know why that happened but it happened. Caldwell First Nation — the rights holder — want legislation. They are asking for legislation. I would have Chief Duckworth here about that. If that is what you are looking for? They have signed a memo of understanding which is excellent with Parks Canada for Point Pelee and for this park as well. It was a wonderful advancement in their relationship. We’re seeing improvements there.
Again — and this is where my American counterparts are interested in this too — the wildlife refuge created on the U.S. side was created with Canada. It is the only one in North America, and it is to the highest standard. They will be looking at us and wondering why, environmentally, we do not have the highest standards for a place across the river just a few miles down. Sorry to use both miles and kilometres; I’m from Windsor, so we use both metric and imperial. But they are really that close. The U.S. is putting a lot of money into the Great Lakes and other places. That is why there is an interest in trying to have the highest standards for this park.
Senator Galvez: Thank you, Mr. Masse, for coming to our committee and for clarifying this situation. I think that everyone is for protecting the park and protecting this habitat for the migratory species and advancing reconciliation. I think that is very clear.
I will also add to what my colleague, Senator Miville-Dechêne, said — that when you are doing a private members’ bill, you don’t have all the resources, and time is of the essence.
I remember when we were studying Bill S-14. One of my questions to the witness was, “What are the criteria for defining a national park or an urban park?” While for national parks, it was a little bit more advanced, for urban parks there was almost nothing. I remember. “How are you doing that?” They said, “We go by initiatives. If there is an initiative of Indigenous peoples or anybody else, we’ll hear that.” So, I think that they are progressing, but they are behind you. This is my understanding.
However, because you are ahead, you are facing these situations. So, potential for private lands within the coordinates that you are given — this is one issue. Relationship with the lands that are owned by the province. The fact that there is no clear policy for urban parks. These are the three things. I want you to talk to me about the sense of urgency and the sense that we cannot wait anymore for Parks to reach out to you.
Mr. Masse: Thank you for the question. The challenge is that we do have a policy that’s going to be created, but we don’t know what it is. The policy may actually lead back to legislation. Right now with the Gordie Howe International Bridge coming online — it has taken so long to get here, and it is going to be opening up — we don’t know what is going to take place with regard to the properties next to it. That is a critical issue because those consequences could be very real to the migratory species and so forth. We may have to deploy other types of protections that are necessary.
We have also put our international reputation on the line by pushing for U.S. Wildlife — as I mentioned — on the U.S. side to be a part of creating that with Canada even having elected officials, and at the same time not reciprocating on the Canadian side. If we do not move on this, we could also have another government come into place that would actually take a public policy and remove it. That is a real issue that could take place. It has happened in the time that I have been here. I have seen it happen when governments come and go. I don’t want to speak on what a government may or may not do in the future. We hope that we all would support continuing this, but public policy is not the same as legislation. That is the key here to finding a way.
Again, we’re also going to have to assume that Parks Canada got all of its land surveying completely done properly, which hasn’t happened in the history of the organization either. There have been times when there have been adjustments to property back and forth. That is one of the things that we have to keep in mind as well. Until we get the final commitment and an agreement from all of the land owners together, there might be adjustments. Of course, they have more resources, are on the ground now and are looking at the different things that they weren’t looking at before. That took place because there is a movement to have this as a national park in name is not the one we want; actually in legislation is what we want.
Senator Galvez: Just a curiosity: I think the Minister of Environment voted in favour of your bill?
Mr. Masse: Yes, he did. I will be meeting with him later today. Again, we’re looking at improvements to the bill from the Senate to address the very good concerns raised during your original debate and here today.
The Chair: If I could ask a couple of questions.
First, I’ll make the observation that expropriating a piece of land when it has not been identified and is subsequent to the definition of that area really complicates the issue. I have been involved in a couple of these. It is really complicated.
For the sake of sharing information, I understand that what you are proposing is a private member’s bill, but the budget document that has been submitted by the House of Commons more recently also gives you the right to include this project in that budget bill.
For the sake of information, could you describe to our audience why you have two choices, what choice you made and why you made the choice of which venue you want to use?
Mr. Masse: We started this before the urban park policy process was taking place. We went to the legislative branch that does the work of drafting private members’ legislation, which is open to everyone in Parliament. It is very skilled work. We get a high degree of support from them.
This is what they came back with as the best way to amend the Canada National Parks Act to protect the properties. That is why the bill has a bunch of geography points and then it slides it under the umbrella of Parks Canada and other forms. That is why we went with this process and why we still feel that is the best one to go forward with.
The Chair: Why not leave it in the budget bill, which automatically gets passed —
Mr. Masse: It is going in the budget bill too, but that also increases our opportunity. That is a good thing. The government put $130 million toward urban parks across Canada. In this budget bill, they specifically reference Ojibway, which gives us another venue.
Another concern raised is where the money would come from. It would normally come from the existing park’s budget, as we add in the geography of this park. But now the government has acknowledged that this land is significant enough that it requires resources. It is a good thing. It gives us more flexibility.
Senator Sorensen: As you are aware, I know firsthand how challenging it is to manage a town within a national park under the stringent rules of the Canada National Parks Act.
My knowledge suggests that normally it is Natural Resources Canada that would do the coordinates for a national park, not the Library of Parliament. I stated in a speech I gave that it was Natural Resources Canada that defined 16 private parcels of land included in Bill C-248. That might have been the source that could have helped.
I have to imagine that the creation of this park will create logistic challenges for the adjacent municipalities in the Windsor area. Again, the bill is only coordinates. None of those logistical challenges are addressed.
I’m wondering why you opted to incorporate this park under the Canada National Parks Act rather than, say, the Rouge National Urban Park Act, which has in place provisions to address municipal issues.
On one of your comments: Rouge National Urban Park has many species at risk. With that legislation, Parks Canada separated legislation that protects them. Species at risk legislation protects them either way. The Species at Risk Act, or SARA, protects them either way. I don’t know why you went to the Canada National Parks Act when there is current legislation for Rouge National Urban Park.
Mr. Masse: That is a good question. The Rouge is a one-off bill.
Senator Sorensen: But they are the only park.
Mr. Masse: Yes. I don’t think that adding it to the Rouge would make the legal process binding. I think it would have been thrown out, actually. I have been working with the people who worked on the Rouge. The Rouge is different. It includes farms and highways. I have been there many times. It has a lot of endangered species. It is beautiful and amazing. That is why it is unique.
The Rouge had a lot of private property. This doesn’t have private property, other than the allegation of private property, which we want to get out of the bill. We just want the city, provincial and federal property. If, in the future, people want to add property, that is where Bill S-14 comes in and you add in those components later on to adjust it.
The Chair: Has the province acknowledged your process? Are they onside as well?
Mr. Masse: Yes, they are. They are waiting for negotiations. You could call MP Andrew Dowie as a witness.
Senator Sorensen: We have done so. You might not be aware. We received a letter from MPP Dowie yesterday, as Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. If you have not seen his letter, you should see it. It has some concerns.
Mr. Masse: Of course, it has some concerns. They’ve been trying to negotiate with Parks Canada. They’ve had to negotiate in the media, and they don’t want to do that. They want to sit down and negotiate a proper land transfer. That is why, again, the urban parks policy plan doesn’t have the same commitment under the national parks process, which is the follow-through. That is where we are at.
Senator Wells: It seems that you have to find a solution. You have a timeline on that solution, and one of those timelines is the Gordie Howe International Bridge and the effects that will come from that.
In reference to Senator Cardozo’s comments, it is probably not the Senate’s job to fix the bill in the way that it needs to be fixed. We can’t go out and do the gazette process, which I mentioned earlier, and try to identify landowners and redraw the boundaries that are stated in the bill.
I am trying to think of a solution for you. One solution might be that until this can be done in the right way, have moratoriums put in place by the relevant municipal, provincial and federal governments or authorities — and the bands, perhaps — on development of the area that you would like to capture. I don’t know if that is even possible, but it is another solution.
In your response to Senator Cardozo, to hear a senior MP from the New Democratic party extol the virtues of a bicameral system is heartwarming, and I thank you for that official policy of your party.
Mr. Masse: If I can address that. I think you know that many times we have lobbied for Canada. I have never had a view of negativity toward the other chamber. That is well beyond my pay grade and ambitions when it comes to electoral politics.
I appreciate that. I think I’m known for that in the House too. There is a reason why the House supported this bill in the way it did and why it has support in terms of many other factors.
The City of Windsor also wants to move forward on this. We have two kinds of processes here, and both are imperfect. You are right; it is challenging. We don’t want any private land in this at all. It has never been the intent. If somebody really had their property right now, wouldn’t you think they would have come forward at a certain point in time and said, “Hey, by the way, I have a concern with this”?
It hasn’t happened yet, but maybe it can still happen. That is where an amendment of coming into effect for up to a year would allow for the negotiation time and all those things that you are talking about to be cleared up. Then the bill would still advance, but it can’t come into effect until it has gone through the negotiation process.
It would also put pressure on for those negotiations to take place. That is a common thing. That was part of the legislative review services that we went back to, because we heard the concerns brought up about this. We went back and got advice from them in terms of how it goes.
If not, there is a remedy. It would go, as it normally does, to the court system. But that would not be preferable. It could come into effect, and you could deal with those types of things. Again, I don’t know which properties they are, but if we could get them out, that would be awesome.
The Chair: I suspect that the owner of land feels that he is in a better position to negotiate compensation after this law is passed than before. I think there’s a good explanation for why they are not showing up. They will show up at the right time when it costs a lot of money.
Mr. Masse: Good point.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Masse, for your presentation and for being with us this morning. It is much appreciated. It was immensely useful information.
[Translation]
For our second panel, we welcome, from Parks Canada, Andrew Campbell, Senior Vice-President, Operations; Ron Hallman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Caroline MacIntosh, Executive Director, Protected Areas Establishment.
Welcome and thank you for being with us. You have five minutes for your opening remarks. Mr. Hallman, you have the floor.
[English]
Ron Hallman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada: Good morning and thank you, chair for the opportunity to appear here on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe peoples. I’m pleased to be here with my colleagues and to make some opening remarks.
Parks Canada has served Canadians for 113 years, proudly stewarding a system of national historic sites, national parks and national marine conservation areas as well as the Rogue National Urban Park, the first of its kind in Canada.
We are very proud to lead the National Urban Parks Program that was announced and launched in 2021.
National urban parks offer powerful opportunities to conserve nature and support biodiversity, connect Canadians with nature and create pathways to support Indigenous reconciliation. They also create jobs and support local economies.
Since the program was launched in 2021, we have launched six projects with the signing of collaboration agreements across the country, including the one in Windsor. We have also developed a comprehensive national urban park policy that will be finalized this spring which will provide a framework to guide the designation and management of national urban parks. It is aligned with the preferred administrative models of the provincial and municipal jurisdictions and Indigenous partners with whom we work.
Under the policy, designation can proceed once partner agreements are concluded and funding sources are identified — all while maintaining existing protections, including those afforded under the Species at Risk Act.
We can also and we intend to continue working toward a legislative regime to ensure federal legal protections, while — and this is the key — respecting the jurisdictions of other partners.
In addition to these program level achievements, significant project-level results have also been achieved on the proposed national urban park in Windsor. For example, we established a multi-jurisdictional partner committee made up of local land administrators and the rights holding First Nations. We have actively engaged with the three First Nations of the Three Fires Council to advance their respective visions for shared governance. We acquired the Ojibway Shores lands, an ecologically vital parcel of land long sought by the community. We funded and supported the City of Windsor to acquire and prepare a second strategic parcel of land for inclusion in the park. We conducted foundational analysis studies and significant public and stakeholder engagements. We signed a relationship agreement with the Caldwell First Nation to explore shared governance and collaborative management and, subject to parliamentary approval, we are on the verge of securing funding for the park as proposed in Budget 2024. What remains to be done is completing the planning work and negotiating an agreement with partners to formally designate the park. I can tell you that Parks Canada is working toward that designation under existing authority in 2025.
In February 2022, the parallel process was initiated when private members Bill C-248 was introduced proposing that the Canada National Parks Act be used and that it be amended to enshrine a series of geographic areas as a national park in Windsor. I want to note, however, that the Canada National Parks Act creates a number of obligations on the minister and specific conditions that limit the effectiveness of that act in an urban environment. That is why the Rouge National Urban Park was created by separate legislation.
Further, it remains Parks Canada advice that several outstanding considerations should be addressed prior to the passing or coming into force of any legislation, whether through Bill C-248 or through specific fit-for-purpose new legislation as contemplated publicly by the minister.
Specifically for the Windsor site the following items require attention in our professional opinion: First, outstanding questions regarding boundaries, titles, private property rights and subsurface rights that if unaddressed may inadvertently limit the act of land holders to exercise their rights; second, similar issues with respect to provincial and municipal lands and infrastructure that, if undressed, may create operational uncertainty and pose constitutional risk; and, third, confirming that we have satisfied ourselves with all implicated Indigenous partners to ensure that their interests and rights are respected, that the honour of the Crown is maintained and that Canada meets its obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
Chair and honourable senators, Parks Canada is excited to move forward on the proposed Windsor national urban park. We initiated this work less than three years ago and we want to build rapidly on the foundations that have been laid. I think our track record to date bears this out. We remain committed to working respectively with partners to address the outstanding considerations that I’ve identified to ensure that a truly national exceptional national urban park can be created in Windsor.
Thank you, chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hallman.
[English]
Senator Wells: Thank you, panel. You called it the Windsor national urban park. Isn’t it Ojibway national urban park or is this interchangeable?
Mr. Hallman: That’s a good question. The nomenclature of Ojibway national urban park is what the private member’s bill proposes and it may be what some other groups want. Normally, Parks Canada waits until we get through our negotiations and we work with our Indigenous partners in identifying a name to recommend to the minister and to Parliament. That hasn’t happened yet, and so I referred to it as “Windsor.”
Senator Wells: Understood. It wasn’t the crux of my question.
You said in your opening statement that once partner agreements are included or completed, you also said — and this is important — respecting jurisdictions of our other partners. Further, near the end, you said — I will paraphrase — nothing will be triggered until there was a certainty that there was no limiting of land owners and their rights. I’m paraphrasing, but I think that’s what you said. Did you hear the testimony of Mr. Masse? That’s what we were talking about. It was restriction and identification of landowners.
Isn’t this a process, especially under the Parks Canada jurisdiction, that will never end? If those conditions are met and we see no clear path to meet them, it seems to me that it won’t happen.
Mr. Hallman: In the early days of Parks Canada’s history, the governments of the day put lines on maps and said, “This is a new park.” Lands were expropriated from Indigenous people, non-Indigenous people, et cetera. Every modern park has been created with the collaboration of Indigenous partners, with communities and with provinces, and that is what we propose in this. The Rouge National Urban Park, this urban park, any other urban park, we will take the time and care to ensure that there are no private interests that get locked into the park. In fact, they get excluded or in some cases bought out, but it would never be our intent to create any kind of protected area that has private lands locked into them.
Senator Wells: I understand that’s the intent. Intent is really important, but it is not always what happens. As I look to the future, if something does happen and someone says, “This is my piece of land, it’s been in my family for years, here’s the deed, I didn’t know about this process that encompasses my land or, in fact, takes my land,” the weight of the government — Parks Canada — and its legal and financial resources are much greater than any individual that is trying to protect their rights. I see that as the biggest risk in this. I don’t know if the Senate is equipped to solve it.
Mr. Hallman: I might ask for my colleague Mr. Campbell to speak to that, but first I would like to say that in our consultation processes, we’re very transparent. The boundary would be out there way before any legislation would come and way before this designation would come. In fact, we have put maps out already that show the park would be much larger than what the private member’s bill proposes. The public can see it. If there were an issue there, they would not accidentally get tricked into being within our park.
Andrew Campbell, Senior Vice-President, Operations, Parks Canada: I’m sure the chair will remember that as the Rouge National Urban Park legislation went through, one of the things we were very careful to do was put an element within that piece of legislation that would allow for the removal of land without the court process for specific issues like this. If there were subsurface municipal infrastructure that went through, they wouldn’t have to go to the Parks superintendent to say that water main burst, we need your authority not to flood everybody in the places beside, basements and all those sorts of things. That was done. If there had inadvertently been any private land included in it, there was a method of exclusion without having to go to the courts.
The Canadian National Parks Act does not envisage that. There are only two ways you can take land out of the Canada National Parks Act. One is through the courts, and the other is through legislation.
Senator Wells: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Thanks very much. First of all, I’m going to ask if you can provide the committee in writing the coordinates of the lands that Parks Canada already controls and if you can provide the coordinates to the lands that Parks Canada is exploring for the urban national park in Windsor. If you could, send those along.
Our previous witness made reference to maybe delaying this for a year or putting it in force in a year. I’m delighted to hear that 2025 is potentially the schedule for Parks Canada, ideally, to be operating the park. That was good information.
Do the coordinates of Bill C-248 overlap with existing municipal infrastructure, sewer lines, water lines, et cetera — which, again, I totally understand — and will it pose any challenges? On that subject, you made reference to subsurface infrastructure. Is there anything else this committee should know about activities that currently occur on the lands included in this bill, for instance, do any private businesses or companies hold subsurface rights?
Mr. Campbell: Yes. Certainly, we can share coordinates with the Senate about what is in the study area.
From the other two questions, certainly, from the subsurface rights, from our look at the proposal, there would be subsurface rights that would be infringed upon for Windsor Salt, for example, and I don’t know whether they have been contacted through the private member’s process or not. But, certainly, the Canada National Parks Act has strong obligations around subsurface to ensure that there isn’t mining that goes on in the middle of parks across the country.
Senator Sorensen: That is frowned upon.
Mr. Campbell: Correct. We want to be able to enforce that provision, so there would be those discussions that would need to happen with Windsor Salt. That would be one of the elements if subsurface rights were included.
The other is, of course, municipal infrastructure that runs through the park. We don’t have a full mapping at this date of all of the subsurface municipal infrastructure that it would go through, but it would be there anytime there is a roadway. It is strange in Canada not to have subsurface something running under roadways and sidewalks, as you well know, senator.
Senator Sorensen: Thanks very much. Going back to the concerns around the coordinates, after this bill passed through the committee in the House of Commons, I think I was correct that it was Natural Resources Canada who completed surveys indicating that the coordinates of Bill C-248 include some privately owned lands. What impact would this have on an affected land owner? I use a very strong word — is this, in fact, expropriation? The coordinates within the bill also include provincial and municipal, which are at various stages of negotiation. Have any of these lands been signed over?
Mr. Hallman: The senator is correct that Natural Resources Canada does our work with coordinates. In terms of the question about provincial and municipal, no, they have not been signed over yet.
We are, as the previous witness indicated, in various stages of negotiation and discussion, but we have not completed them yet. In Parks Canada’s normal process, including the process contemplated for this park, we would resolve those issues prior to designating the park and certainly before legislation, because we don’t want to create jurisdictional or constitutional risk.
Senator Sorensen: Thanks very much. Have you had the opportunity to see the letter by MPP Dowie?
Mr. Hallman: I have. We received a copy from the officials.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Senator White: We have been hearing about the ecological importance of protecting these lands, including the rich biodiversity as well as a number of endangered species. In your experience, how does the assessment compare with other national parks, especially urban national parks? I’m trying to get a comparative understanding of the area and the urgency around protecting it.
Mr. Hallman: That’s a good question. The standard of care and standard of protection will be the same regardless of what instrument is used for a national urban park in Windsor. The species in Rouge National Urban Park enjoy the same level of protection for species at risk as any lands in Canada. As a senator mentioned earlier, the law of the land, the Species at Risk Act, applies everywhere. It is not because you are a national park, urban park or municipal park that your species are protected.
That said, the quotes attributed to the minister and to one of our vice-presidents in the earlier session are correct: There is the highest standard of protection for lands that go into a national urban park, but that standard of protection includes extinguishing different rights. If there are subsurface rights, they have to be extinguished, bought out or expropriated before they go into the Canada National Parks Act. There is no way to have that done unless the legislation is changed.
Additionally, there is no ability for the minister or superintendent to provide easements that might be required in an urban area.
The policy is intended to conserve nature, connect people to nature and to work with Indigenous partners. If a park is established or designated under the policy, it will continue to enjoy and benefit from all the legal protections that are there, such as the provincial laws, municipal bylaws, et cetera. We can work later to do the legislation.
To digress just a moment, chair, if we did this the way we normally do business — and the previous witness is correct that time is of the essence — and to the senator’s question, time is of the essence — if we did this the way we normally do, we would do a policy, then legislation and then we would start looking at which areas we want to protect. At this time, we’re kind of trying to do all three at the same time, and that’s what the government gave us the latitude to do. While we’re negotiating with municipalities as to what it might look like to have urban parks across the country that satisfy a variety of models that allow Indigenous partners to participate and be active partners. Even as we do that, we have a policy that will be released imminently that will give direction on how to manage a national urban park. We are also contemplating various legislative frameworks that would provide legal protections. In the meantime, if we designated an urban park today, they would still enjoy those protections, including species at risk.
Senator White: May I get clarity on that? I understand the protection mechanisms that kick in once we make it, but the assessment that you have done to reach the point that something needs to be protected, how is that compared to the assessments you have done to other urban parks?
Caroline MacIntosh, Executive Director, Protected Areas Establishment, Parks Canada: The National Urban Parks program just launched in 2021. We currently have six projects across the country. The first phase of the pre-feasibility assessment that we do once we decide that the proposed park likely meets the fundamental program objectives, we launch a series of studies. Part of those are natural heritage assessments that look at the full extent of species at risk in the area, critical habitat, and the characterization of the whole topography and geography so that we know where the wetlands and sensitivities are. In addition, we’re also doing the land assessments — who owns the land, what the features of the land are — different aspects to that.
All of those studies have been completed as part of the pre‑feasibility study. We know from that — even as MP Masse described — this is an area that is very rich in ecological value and represents some of the last vestiges of the tall-grass prairies, for example, and is worth protecting.
The key thing we want to do now is to bring it all together — all the pieces and parcels of land — and start working. Within the urban park context is a nature conservation strategy that would actually be part of the designation agreement that we would put in place. There would have to be commitments from all of the partners to support conservation of nature. That is one of the three pillars of the whole program.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Here we have two parallel operations conducted by two organizations that are not talking to each other.
Here’s my question. Why aren’t you trying to approach Mr. Masse to help him with his site scouting? There’s no contradiction here. This bill can be passed and then you can administratively expand the park.
Some of the work was done during the consultations.
As you know, a bill carries more weight than a regulation followed by Parks Canada. Given that you’re the main organization responsible for parks, why not combine your efforts and say that this bill can help?
I’ll give you an example. We were completely flabbergasted a few days ago when the CRTC told us it was pleased to see a private member’s bill that would force them to deal with customers who receive Internet bundles and are completely lost.
Sometimes bills can speed things up. So, is it possible for you to reach out?
[English]
Mr. Hallman: Thank you for the question.
First, I want to say that I admire and respect the vision that this private member’s bill seeks to bring forward. At the same time, as a professional public servant, we work with and serve the government and Parliament. I respect there is a parallel process brought forward legitimately through a private member’s bill and it is that member’s prerogative to pursue that.
That said, we are, and we are always, happy to work with willing partners and anyone who has a view on this. We are continuing to work through our process, but we are also supporting the minister and parliamentarians through this private member’s bill process as well. We will continue to give our fearless advice, at the end of the day, as the previous witness implied, we will loyally implement whatever it is that Parliament says.
In the meantime, our advice has been since day one, and continues today, that there are some challenges that ought to be addressed prior to the passing of any legislation, including the legislation that we would contemplate bringing forward in the future — and we do plan on having legislation in the future.
But as I said, we’re trying to build the plane, paint it and fly it all at the same time, because we believe that time is of the essence. Our partners are saying the same thing.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: But if time is of the essence, this bill will pass before yours, if it goes through the Senate, so why not take advantage of this first assurance and build upon it?
Mr. Hallman: That’s a fair point you raise. My role right now is to provide the best advice to parliamentarians to support you in making your decisions about the disposition of this legislation. The advice we have provided in terms of protected areas establishment and the types of things that need to be completed prior to the passage of any legislation or the coming into force for any legislation or any protected area, not just this one.
Senator Arnot: You have identified a number of challenges that you believe ought to be addressed. We all agree that time is of the essence for a variety of reasons, as has already been explained. If this bill goes forward, even with some amendments to improve it, is there not still a significant risk of an extended delay due to a high probability of litigation by various stakeholders that might have concerns? That’s my first question.
Second, you talked about the Three Fires Council being consulted. Does that include the Walpole Island First Nation and Caldwell First Nation? How many groups of Indigenous peoples have you consulted? Are there any Indigenous groups or people who have not been consulted in your process? Tell me about that. I need to know the extent of your consultation with Indigenous people.
Mr. Hallman: Chair, in terms of the senator’s first question about risk, I would agree that if we do not take the time and care to identify potential private land interests and subsurface interests, et cetera, we do risk interminable delays due to legal actions — and potentially even constitutional ones — from provinces and municipalities. That’s why, in our process, we are right now working on identifying those so that we don’t include any of those interests within the park — as we never do. We don’t want them in there, and they won’t want to be in there. That is our understanding. We seek to make sure we will be judicially resilient and constitutionally sound by addressing these issues prior to the passage of legislation, and that remains my fearless advice.
On the Indigenous question, you are quite correct, senator, in identifying that there are other Indigenous parties. We are engaging them all. I don’t know the extent to which the private member’s bill process has them all on board because I’m not a participant in that.
I can tell you that from where Parks Canada sits, we are at varying degrees of agreement with our Indigenous partners. We have a relationship agreement with Caldwell First Nation, and we are in discussions with others.
Perhaps I might turn to my colleague, Ms. MacIntosh, to speak more directly to your question about where we are at.
Ms. MacIntosh: Specifically, we have approached all members of the Three Fires Council. A total of seven nations have been approached. Of those, three have responded to us and are now sitting on our partner committee. That includes Caldwell First Nation, Walpole Island First Nation and Chippewas of the Thames First Nation.
I want to note that we work on protected areas establishments across the country, and we respect the rights of First Nations and Indigenous partners to speak for themselves. Only in the cases where there is a very clear agreement among those nations to have one represent the others do we work with only one partner. That is the case in some places. It is a very normal practice. We do not have that in this case. At this time, all three who are with us at the partner table are acting in their own right.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentation.
In the brief, it says that Parks Canada worked with Natural Resources Canada to extensively examine the coordinates of Bill C-248 and confirmed that six privately owned parcels of land are fully within the bill’s coordinates and 10 privately owned parcels are affected by the quality of the legal description to describe the boundary of the park. Have you given this information to MP Masse for him to make the correction to the bill?
My other question is this: As a First Nations person, if two groups came to me with different ways of dealing with the park, I would be so mixed up. MP Masse has said that he has consulted with them, but you are saying that there wasn’t adequate, fulsome engagement and consultation with rights‑holding First Nations. Did they tell you that? Do these Indigenous groups you are talking about include the Métis Nation of Ontario and other non-rights holders?
Mr. Hallman: I will address the Indigenous question first. My understanding from the member and his testimony is that he has dealt primarily with Caldwell. There are others that Parks Canada, as a representative of the Crown, does need to deal with. I would just say — again — that I admire and appreciate the work of the member, but even if he felt he had all First Nations on board, the Crown cannot delegate the work required to ensure the honour of the Crown, and we would still need to do that. I can tell you that we are not there.
To the question, no, the Métis are not involved in this.
I will turn to my colleague Andrew Campbell for the Natural Resources Canada, or NRCan, question about the lands.
Mr. Campbell: There are a couple of pieces on that question, chair, to the senator.
In testimony before the House parliamentary committee, we certainly raised the fact that we believed there would be a high probability and that NRCan was, in fact, the organization to go and seek. As good as our colleagues are at the Library of Parliament, it is really Natural Resources Canada that have that type of expertise. The same information we had received would be available to the member of parliament. It is why the boundaries of what is proposed by Parks Canada would be different than the boundaries being proposed by the private member’s bill.
Senator Galvez: That phrase “time is of the essence” has been pronounced 13 times this morning. I also find that there is potential for us to work together. If time is of the essence, the fact that we are working separately is really frustrating.
You are saying that, under your process based on just one single park — which is the Rouge National Urban Park, because that is the only one you have — you think that by next spring, you will be able to declare Ojibway Park an urban park. That’s what I heard — that by next spring, you will be ready. However, you have six projects in total. Have you assigned a priority to these projects? In which position is Ojibway Park?
Mr. Hallman: Thank you for the question, chair. We are working toward having the park designated under existing authority in 2025. I don’t know the exact date because we are working with our partners, but 2025 is correct.
Senator Galvez: You are working on other parks. Did you assign priority?
Mr. Hallman: We have different teams working on all the different ones. This one has come to the fore and has taken some public attention because of the private member’s bill. However, the others are all proceeding as well, and there are others that are likely to proceed very soon.
Windsor was made a priority by the government in the budget, so we continue to work on that. But as senators may be aware, chair, we also have projects going on in the Greater Victoria area, Edmonton, the Saskatoon area, Halifax —
Senator Galvez: With respect to the potential of private lands or provincial land, you solved that problem in the Rouge National Urban Park.
Mr. Hallman: I’m sorry, I’m not hearing.
Senator Galvez: With respect to the potential private ownership —
Mr. Campbell: I can answer that question.
Senator Galvez: With respect to the private ownership, you solved that problem when you created the Rouge National Urban Park with a clause that says the Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting the removal of private property and the disposal of abandoned property. So you have a solution for —
Mr. Campbell: In the Rouge National Urban Park Act.
Senator Galvez: But you are very creative. So you will find one for —
Mr. Campbell: The reason that the Rouge National Urban Park Act was, in fact, created was because you would have to start slicing and dicing things out of the Canada National Parks Act in order to be able to affect the types of things you need within an urban environment. We would need to deal with subsurface rights and slice that out of the National Parks Act.
One of the thoughts by parliamentarians at the time of the passing of the Rouge National Urban Park Act was that you don’t want to slice and dice and make Swiss cheese out of the National Parks Act. Therefore, it was better to make a separate act.
Senator Galvez: Here is my very last question. This bill from MP Masse — who knows the place much better than you because you are still in the process of gathering information. He lives there. It is his constituency, so he knows the people.
If we say that if by the end of spring, and we say April 30, or whatever, you haven’t gotten to that, then this law has to be implemented, or the other way around. MP Masse’s bill could be implemented, unless Parks Canada, by April 30, has gone through the whole process.
Ms. MacIntosh: Thank you. To clarify, we have local project teams on the ground, and the Point Pelee field unit is in close proximity to the location of this park. We have national parks’ staff who are very comfortable with both the local geography as well as all of the Parks Canada mechanisms and processes, and they understand clearly what the implications would be of having an urban park under the Canada National Parks Act, speaking to the challenges that we have raised here.
As Mr. Hallman pointed out in his opening speech, we have actually been able to advance key components of the work. We have transferred Ojibway Shores from the Windsor Port Authority. It is under protection. There are ways we can go through a stepwise process to begin assembling the lands and hold them under a legally binding agreement that says all of these lands will be for the future. There are opportunities to do that.
One of the challenges that we face right now is the double-track process. Our team on the ground is dealing with a lot of confusion from different partners. Certainty of the process would help us move faster. That would be a key element that would be beneficial to making this accelerate and address the question of “time is of the essence.”
The Chair: Let me deal with that question. Let’s be clear. If we do nothing from our side, will this park come up and be processed and be constructed in the next couple of years?
Mr. Hallman: I do not want to speak to hypotheticals. Obviously, what I can tell you is that the Parks Canada process is working toward designating, under existing authorities, policies, legal protections in 2025. If there is legislation, we will deal with that because we serve Parliament. I will stop there, chair.
The Chair: If there is no legislation, does the park get constructed?
Mr. Hallman: Yes, under policy.
The Chair: With your 2025 deadline?
Mr. Hallman: Yes.
The Chair: The other question that I have for you: Say you have a troublemaker who owns a piece of land, maybe insignificant if you wish, but he is waiting for you because he wants to be expropriated and there is nothing that motivates him other than a lot of cash. What do you do? I mean, we are here for five years, six years now. We did not get the approval. He does not cooperate and you are going to expropriate, probably. What is the choice there? How do you avoid getting stuck against the wall because we do not have a certain agreement in place?
Mr. Hallman: It is a great question, chair, and my answer would be this: We designed the boundary with our partners to ensure that we don’t have private lands in it, and we draw out the boundaries so that there aren’t private lands in there.
The Chair: Wishful thinking. What happens to this person who owns the land and does not cooperate? Does the whole thing get put on hold, or will you proceed with expropriation with values to be determined by the courts, if you wish?
Mr. Campbell: Yes. There would be a remedy, Mr. Chair. The courts would be one of the remedies.
You could also come back and one of the remedies that they could ask for is the sale of the land. You have brought up an interesting point when you haven’t finished negotiations with other levels of government as well, because we would be in the same situation with every other level of government. The boundaries would be established. They would be fixed. There would be no land transfer agreement, so there would be a challenge in negotiation with other levels of government at that point, because they would know exactly — from a federal government’s perspective — what we would need to have is a clear title, which is the obligation of the Canada National Parks Act, clear title.
The Chair: Wouldn’t your negotiations be augmented if you simply delayed the legal process and allowed time, maybe a year or two, of negotiation?
Mr. Campbell: Again, I won’t discuss the hypothetical, but negotiations are tougher if you have already set everything in motion.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much. I made a speech on this. I have some concerns. We have talked about the lands. We have talked about the Canada National Parks Act not being the right legislation. I will end with another question on Indigenous consultation.
Again, I look at the logistics. The operational logistics are not in this bill. From a practical perspective, who does fire management? Who are the first responders? Who maintains the subsurface infrastructure? Who collects garbage and manages the recycling? Who does the snow removal for access? All of these things need to be discussed, and maybe you could elaborate on the legislation with Rouge and why it is so different when it is an urban park than the Canada National Parks Act.
I thank you for your comments on Indigenous consultation. I am also uneasy around the consultation. In MP Masse’s own document that came to us quite some time ago, Chief Duckworth is mentioned several times. Nobody else is. She was a witness, but also in his document he talks about how Chief Duckworth supports the park. I knew about Walpole. I did not know about the other Indigenous, and I am never really sure if I am supposed to say “band” or “nations,” but what concerned me was the comment, and frankly I heard it from MP Masse, that Chief Duckworth was speaking on behalf of Walpole. I want clarity that this is not your practice.
Mr. Hallman: Our practice would be that Indigenous communities and leadership identify for us how they wish to be engaged and to whom they wish us to speak and who may speak for them. That is the only way that we operate.
In terms of the senator’s questions about some of the municipal types of services, chair, those would be covered under the policy designation agreement that would have to happen before we would declare the park.
To some of the questions that are out there about the lands, the private and the municipal, the provincial, without taking a lot of the honourable senators time, I would just refer us to the letter that we all received from the Province of Ontario. It is clear what their concerns are, the work that they believe remains to be done and the process by which they prefer to work.
Senator Sorensen: I think we have been emailed this morning a briefing from Parks Canada, which I think is in all of our inboxes as well. I think it had to be translated, and so we got it this morning.
Senator White: I have so many questions, the first of which is: Why are we doing this bill when we can do it under Parks Canada?
I will park that. To pick up on what Senator Arnot started and Senator Sorensen expanded upon, when we are talking about consultation with Indigenous people, you are saying that it is the Indigenous nation, band, community that determines that.
Do you provide support to them to do that? I know it looks like different things for different people, but is there a standard that you have that is not just one chief you are speaking with from a community? Do you have a benchmark, or does the community itself come and say, “We want our elders consulted,” and who does the consulting? When we say “consulting in our communities,” are you hiring someone in the community to go do that work?
As well, consultation usually happens when we’re halfway through the process. At what point did we consult with Indigenous peoples that we actually have the Indigenous knowledge so that we’re actually building it from there?
Mr. Hallman: Great questions, and I will turn to Ms. MacIntosh in a moment if I may. However, I would say at the highest level we work with the rights holder and whom they identify as their negotiator.
In all manner of protected areas establishment in recent years, we no longer start from the premise of, “We’re from Parks Canada; we’re going to create a protected area; how would you, the Indigenous community, like to participate?”
We have inverted that model. Often it is an Indigenous community coming to us, or us going to them, and saying, “We think we might be interested in this. Are you interested? If so, how could we do this together?” In many cases, more and more, how the Indigenous communities could lead this and we support you.
In terms of some of the more detailed questions you asked about how we engage, senator, perhaps I can talk to Ms. MacIntosh.
Ms. MacIntosh: Concerning the general process that we use for establishment projects across the country, we always do a scan to figure out which rights holders are in the area. We work with Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, CIRNAC, to get accurate information from them based upon treaties and rights. We take their expert advice on that.
In Budget 2021, part of the funding toward the $130 million that we received to set up the national urban parks program was for contribution agreements to all partners. We put extensive funding into that. A lot of Parks Canada’s funding in establishment goes to contribution agreements for First Nations who indicate an interest in coming forward to participate in the process. Through the negotiation of the contribution agreement, we work with them to decide who is their nominated designated person. Typically, a chief will sponsor it but we have a government-type official person who will actually sit at our partner committee.
In addition, they work with us to figure out how we do community engagement. Typically in a contribution agreement, the nation will take responsibility for going out to its band members and working with them, or the members of their community, and confirming their interest and discussing any issues. We have all kinds of different arrangements across the country. It is very much driven by the First Nation themselves.
You also mentioned a question about Indigenous knowledge. That forms a part of the studies that we do. We do the traditional environmental knowledge tech studies with them. They bring forward their traditional local knowledge. That becomes part of the body of reports that contribute to the feasibility and sets the parameters and conditions for the negotiation as well.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’re running out of time, so, Senator McCallum, has the last question.
Senator McCallum: Thank you. If Bill C-248 passes in its current form, consultation and cooperation with impacted Indigenous peoples may be required under section 5 of UNDRIP.
To the extent that aspects of the bill intersect with UNDRIP, this would lead to significant delays in this project that are likely to be costly and may impact Canada’s path to reconciliation.
What are the significant delays that you are speaking about? Have First Nations expressed concern about the private member’s bill. You have given them funding. I’m certain that they would use some of that to consult with the private member.
Mr. Hallman: I think the biggest risk is that we work at the speed of trust. It sounds like a cliche, but it is a cliche because it is true. We work at the speed of trust of our willing partners. We don’t want to breach that trust. If we do that, we’re in trouble in terms of the relationship and in terms of moving forward. It is hard to get that trust back.
As far as more specifics to the senator’s question, perhaps I could turn to Ms. MacIntosh.
Ms. MacIntosh: Again, we highly recommend that the nations engaged in the process be invited to the committee — that would be our advice — because we do not speak for them. Parks Canada has been informed that Walpole Island First Nation is not endorsing Bill C-248. We do not have an opinion from Chippewa. We know from the public appearances previously from Chief Duckworth of Caldwell First Nation that she is supportive. We’ve seen that publicly. The other nations have not weighed in and have not necessarily been responsive to the invitation to the partnership committee.
Mr. Hallman: To clarify, that doesn’t mean that they are opposed but we do not know the answer.
Senator McCallum: You did not speak to the significant delays that you are talking about.
Ms. MacIntosh: The risk there is a challenge that comes at a later date. If we go to proceed with the designation of the urban park and the duty to consult obligation is not met, we could face a situation where other First Nations come forward and say, “No, we have not actually inputted into this process.”
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, everyone. Your contributions will be taken into consideration by senators. I’d like to thank senators and our witnesses for their participation today.
The committee will be hearing from additional witnesses regarding Bill C-248 on Thursday, May 23rd, 2024.
(The meeting is adjourned.)