THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 23, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day with videoconference at 9:15 a.m. [ET] to consider Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada) and to consider a draft budget; and, in camera, to study emerging issues related to the committee’s mandate and consideration of a draft report.
Senator Paul J. Massicotte (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in‑person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.
If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used.
Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down, on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I’ll ask my fellow committee members to introduce themselves, beginning on my right.
[English]
Senator Arnot: I’m David Arnot. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta, Banff National Park.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, senator from Ontario.
Senator Wells: David Wells, senator from Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Senator Oudar from Quebec
The Chair: Today, the committee continues 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 Chief Mary Duckworth, from Caldwell First Nation, and Anneke Smit, Associate Professor, from National Urban Park Hub, University of Windsor.
Welcome, and thank you for being with us.
Five minutes are reserved for your opening remarks. The floor is yours, Chief Duckworth, followed by Ms. Smit.
[English]
Mary Duckworth, Chief, Caldwell First Nation: [Indigenous language spoken].
Honourable senators, I’d like to read something I’ve prepared for you today. Before I begin, I want to acknowledge that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. I am Chief Duckworth of Caldwell First Nation, whose traditional territory ranges from Windsor to Long Point, which runs the North Shore of Lake Erie within the Great Lakes region. I will be submitting a map to the Senate. I did not bring it today.
We are the descendants and ancestors who fought in the War of 1812 with Tecumseh, Pontiac and the Crown. There is evidence of our ancestors’ sacred burial grounds and tools that were unearthed as far back as 1969, and documented by Father John R. Lee in his report entitled A General Archaeological Survey of Essex County, Ontario, which he wrote under contract to the National Museum of Canada’s Human History Branch.
Establishing Ojibway national urban park will be an opportunity to share this history with everyone. Five years ago, I, along with Caldwell First Nation, joined the initiative to create the Ojibway national urban park. In addition to guaranteeing the highest level of environmental protection permanently under the Canada National Parks Act, it is an opportunity to truly engage in truth and reconciliation. Canada’s national parks system was created under the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act of 1911. Many iconic national parks were cleared of First Nations communities, including being forcibly removed.
Caldwell First Nation is an example of this, having inhabited Point Pelee since time immemorial. The land was taken from the nation without consent. After the War of 1812, the Crown promised to return the land that was taken back to the nation. The Crown broke that promise, and Point Pelee National Park was created in 1918. Creating Ojibway national urban park under the Canada National Parks Act, which Bill C-248 does, will include the provisions of co-management and co-governance that exist in the Canada National Parks Act.
After discussions that lasted more than a year, a memorandum of understanding was signed between Parks Canada and Caldwell First Nation for co-governance of Ojibway national urban park. This has been the standard for national parks across the country for over 20 years from Nahi to Naheedna of Gulf Islands National Park Reserve. Caldwell First Nation wants and expects to be treated equally as other First Nations which have co-management and co-government agreements with Parks Canada to manage national parks. This is an important step in recognizing the lasting impacts of displacement and marginalization. It will guard against those harmful processes reoccurring, and allow Parks Canada to work toward reconciliation.
Indigenous leadership and giving the complete historic narrative of the lands — the whole story of who used those lands and how they were used — along with ecological integrity and restoration, is what we will be achieving through the legislative process that guarantees this. We cannot accept anything less. The people of the region, the environment and the entire community’s future health need to be assured, which can only happen through legislation.
Senators, governments come and go. Policies are changed or abandoned, but laws are enshrined. Every other national park was created through legislation. Ojibway national urban park deserves the same protection. This is about ensuring that all regions of this country are treated equally and fairly, and that reconciliation is put into action rather than just words. Supporting this bill and establishing Ojibway national urban park in law will be forward progress in all of these endeavours. I say meegwetch.
Anneke Smit, Associate Professor, National Urban Park Hub, University of Windsor, as an individual: Good morning. I live and work on the traditional territory of the Three Fires Confederacy of First Nations. I’m an associate professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Windsor and the Director of the Centre for Cities at the university. The Centre for Cities is an interdisciplinary centre focused on research, teaching and community engagement on inclusive and sustainable city building. It’s in that capacity that I’m the co-lead of the University of Windsor National Urban Park Hub. I appear before you today to present comments drafted in consultation with my co-leads Dr. Catherine Febria, Canada Research Chair in Freshwater Restoration Ecology and head of the Healthy Headwaters Lab; and Professor Clint Jacobs, Indigenous knowledge specialist, both of the Faculty of Science. My comments are my own but prepared in consultation.
Today, they are both at the University of Windsor playing integral parts in the International Association for Great Lakes Research annual conference and, therefore, are not able to be with us today. However, I urge you to call them both as witnesses on another day, if you are able.
The hub is a research and engagement initiative created to support both the Windsor candidate site and the National Urban Parks Program more broadly. It was formed in April 2023 and is currently funded by a $1.2 million, two-year contribution agreement with Parks Canada, with matching in-kind funding supports from the University of Windsor. I appear before you today to deliver a strong message of support for the creation of a national urban park in Windsor and the urgency of doing so, as well as to highlight the three objectives of the National Urban Parks Program — as created by Parks Canada — and their importance to the creation of this park regardless of the process through which it is created.
The three objectives of the National Urban Parks Program are conserving nature, connecting people with nature and advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. Viewed through the lens of these objectives, the pressing need for the creation of a national urban park in Windsor is all the more evident, and a focus on these objectives will ensure that the development of the park happens in line with the policy at a national level, regardless of how the park is created.
I’ll speak briefly to each of these. First is conserving nature. You heard in MP Brian Masse’s testimony about the critical importance of protecting these lands; about the endangered species that exist in this tiny pocket of land; and about its unique ecosystems, which are the last or next-to-last examples of some of these ecosystems, as much has been lost to industrial and other development over the years. You also heard about the long‑standing efforts of many in our community to protect these lands, and you’ve heard from Chief Duckworth this morning on this. For decades, these lands have been fought for.
MP Masse — and many other people who have fought for this — has been involved in this push for more than a decade, and Windsor—Tecumseh MP Irek Kusmierczyk has committed himself to the creation of the park during his years in office as well. The provincial government and MPP Dowie, who will speak to you later today, recognize the need for protection, as does the City of Windsor and Mayor Dilkens. Beyond this, the broader economic, social and environmental context of the Windsor region and the border region is key, and I’m happy to address that in any of the comments today.
This is an economy that has been dominated by manufacturing — specifically auto — for more than 100 years. It is firmly in the constellation of the Rust Belt or legacy cities and all that entails in the cross-border region, and it has one of the lowest percentages of tree cover in the country.
Windsor, however, is on the cusp of an explosion in a good way. All eyes are on Windsor. Massive investment is coming. It is a time of growth in our community. The university is thriving. The bridge is coming, as well as electric vehicle battery manufacturing and a new hospital; these are wonderful investments for the community. They require a careful step. They require significant protection against urban sprawl, and against the further loss of ecosystems and further loss of biodiversity. The pressure to build is immense.
On advancing reconciliation, you have heard from Chief Duckworth, and I will simply relay to you, on request, a message from my co-lead Clint Jacobs, and these are his words directly quoted. He says:
As part of reconciliation, the Indigenous peoples in the city and rights holding First Nations in the region are eager to heal, rekindle and restore important cultural, spiritual, ceremonial, educational, recreational connections to the park, including Ojibway Shores and adjacent waters and other green spaces in the city. Co-governance and co‑management of the park with Indigenous peoples in the city and rights holding First Nations in the region is critical. It’s crucial to support Indigenous care and stewardship of the park by Indigenous peoples in the city and rights holding First Nations in the region. The proposed parklands fall within existing land claim areas of Walpole Island First Nation.
Again, I urge you to call further witnesses to hear directly from members of these communities.
Finally, access to nature is the last objective. The National Urban Parks Program is unique in Parks Canada’s mandate. There are many different goals and considerations as compared with other national parks. What does it mean to build a national park in the city, both for Windsor and more broadly? These questions entail questions of what stories were told and how we reflect on the dispossession history of Parks Canada, which you have heard reflected in Chief Duckworth’s testimony this morning. What does access mean for active and public transportation? What does it mean to balance the needs of biodiversity with development? What can we expect of municipalities when we come in with a new national urban park in terms of matching funds or commitments to protecting the land?
Regardless of the path through which the national urban park in Windsor is created, these three objectives must and, in fact, can frame the decision to create the park as well as its development.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll now proceed to questions.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you both for being here. I appreciate you being here in person.
I’ll start with Ms. Smit. You’ve told us that the National Urban Park Hub is co-funded by Parks Canada and matched by the University of Windsor in-kind. My understanding is that the focus of the hub is the co-creation of a national urban park in Windsor. I think it’s great that the work you’re doing will be expanded to other national urban parks across the country. It’s an important point that this is a model for what we do in the future, which is one of my concerns with Bill C-248 as a bill specific to this park. Also, it is to provide expert advice to Parks Canada through an inclusive process grounded in community consultation and advancing Indigenous stewardship. I think it’s a fantastic partnership that assures full consultation with all communities. I think I’m not overstepping to say that the duty to consult is a pillar for the hub.
Can you expand upon your efforts and elaborate upon the consultation process as part of the Parks Canada — which has funded you — process around the national urban park in Windsor? And can you compare it to how your organization was — or was not — involved in the creation of Bill C-248?
Ms. Smit: Thank you so much for the question, Senator Sorensen.
Correctly, as you stated, the mandate — or the contribution agreement — that we have with Parks Canada and the University of Windsor is meant to be broader than simply informing the creation of this national urban park. There is a strong piece there meant to be guiding the development of wise practices through trial and actual work on the ground, understanding that this is one of a number of parks that will form the national urban parks system across Canada.
To that end, our work is not directly contracted by Parks Canada; we are at arm’s length in that sense. The contribution agreement is worded carefully to ensure that this is work that may inform both the national process as well as the development of the park in Windsor. We are not directly conducting consultations on behalf of Parks Canada, which is an important distinction to make.
With that said, I can reflect on the consultation process that has taken place in the contribution agreement by Parks Canada to the City of Windsor. That concluded some months ago. There was a What We Heard Report released that did undertake a number of consultations with the community, both public and then some more specific to particular constituencies.
The work we have undertaken has taken a slightly different approach. That is partly because we recognize the history of Parks Canada and the history of dispossession. We also recognize the mandate of Parks Canada in these three objectives. This was a program launched in 2021, and running strongly through the creation of this program is the understanding that not everyone has had equal access to parks and national parks, specifically over time. It’s a file that I know you know very well.
We have taken a relational approach. My staff and our team have had 22 relationship-building meetings to date, representing more than 50 groups — many of whom have had no engagement on the national urban park process up until now. That leadership represents roughly 25,000 people within the community of Windsor from diverse backgrounds, from institutions to community organizations.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you very much. The objectives you listed, in my mind, should be part of legislation and listed as such.
Chief Duckworth, first, I’m hoping you can clear something up for me. I’ve been told a few times that, as Chief of Caldwell First Nation, you support Bill C-248 on behalf of Caldwell First Nation, but that you also speak in support of the bill on behalf of Walpole Island First Nation. Can you clarify that for me? I received that message in a few different ways.
Then, if I could, because Bill C-248 is only geographic coordinates — that’s all that’s in the bill — do you believe any traditional harvesting activities taking place on the lands covered by this bill are protected with this bill in place?
Ms. Duckworth: To answer your first question, I am the selected Chief of Caldwell First Nation, and I represent my community. I do not represent Bkejwanong Territory; that would be Chief Dan Miskokomon. However, we are part of the Three Fires Confederacy — the five nations that are the rights holders within the territory. There are only five nations that hold rights to the territory. We settled a land claim in 2010 because we were forcibly removed by the RCMP, who whipped us off on horseback out of our traditional lands, which include Point Pelee, the North Shore, Windsor-Essex and Chatham-Kent. We have a document that was settled through the courts on a specific claim.
So I cannot speak for the other First Nations, but I can say we are sister nations, and we move at our own pace. We will make decisions for our communities, and we will not make decisions for our sister nations.
What was the second part of your question?
Senator Sorensen: If Bill C-248 were passed, do you feel confident that the traditional harvesting activities and the rights for those are protected with this bill?
Ms. Duckworth: The highest level of protection falls under the Canada National Parks Act. I feel that’s the most important as I sit here today.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Chief Duckworth and Ms. Smit. I also want to recognize that MP Masse is in the room. I thank him for his dedication to obtaining this designation.
Chief Duckworth, I think you answered part of the question from Senator Sorensen, but how many communities do you represent? I know it’s one First Nation, but how many individual communities — in the area we’re talking about — do you represent?
Ms. Duckworth: To be clear, I represent Caldwell First Nation. When we completed the memorandum of understanding with Parks Canada, we were left on-ramp for the other First Nations. We said if the other First Nations were going to come, our sister nations would all sit together, but it is not for me to call upon those nations; it is up to Parks Canada to consult with our sister nations, and make sure there’s an on-ramp and that they understand what’s happening.
To add to that, when you ask whom I represent, I represent only Caldwell First Nation as a rights holder, but there are sister nations there that need to be consulted. They have been consulted, which is my understanding. I spoke to Chief Joe Miskokomon of the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, who is a rights holder. He will be coming.
Some of our communities are in chaos. As you know, the benzene issue is happening in Aamjiwnaang and flowing down to Walpole Island. It will make its way to our territory, so you see different chiefs here taking care of business for our people.
Senator Wells: Thanks for that clarification.
Will there be additional rights for Caldwell First Nation if this park were designated?
Ms. Duckworth: No. As I said, when we met with Parks Canada, we were clear that we were there to do the memorandum of understanding to move forward to protect these lands and ensure that our sister nations, if and when they come, have an equal seat at that table, but that is for those nations to decide.
Senator Wells: I understand the difference between your First Nation, and whom you represent, and others. I get that.
Speaking for myself, I think there’s a general agreement this is a good thing, but it’s our job to be aware of the sharp edges around the designation. In a previous meeting, MP Masse was seated where you’re sitting. We talked about if, in the creation of this national urban park, there would be the loss of rights of other property owners who aren’t associated with the First Nations that may be part of this agreement, such as the loss of rights of cabin owners or people who own private property in the area. What is your position on the possible loss of rights for those people who are outside your representation? Do you have an opinion on that?
Ms. Duckworth: I would say that I know what it’s like to be stripped of rights and forcibly removed. I would say that it would be up to Parks Canada to act in a good, kind and respectful manner to address those people who are private landowners.
Senator Wells: Just to be clear, there are no outstanding claims by Caldwell First Nation with the government?
Ms. Duckworth: Yes, there are.
Senator Wells: There are?
Ms. Duckworth: Of course.
Senator Wells: I’m reading from the website, and I see some claims were settled, but not all claims?
Ms. Duckworth: We have an active claim for Pelee Island right now, which is an overlapping claim with the Bkejwanong Territory, which is Walpole Island.
Senator Wells: Would the establishment of this urban park help to settle that claim? Would it lead to some resolution of it, or is it completely separate?
Ms. Duckworth: Completely separate, senator.
Senator Wells: Thank you.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations.
I wanted to look at the difference between the two ways that you can access the status of the park. You had said “regardless of the process,” but there are big differences that I’m concerned about. One of them is that with the private member’s bill, it would involve 323 hectares, but with Parks Canada, it would be 875 hectares. That is a huge difference.
When Parks Canada looked at the site, in terms of the coordinates in Bill C-248, there are 6 privately owned parcels of land within the coordinates, and 10 privately owned parcels of land are affected by the quality of the legal description, so already we are confronted with a problem. Bringing the private municipal and provincial lands could prevent landowners from exercising the rights attached to their interests. Passing the bill will not correct that.
The Canada National Parks Act would not give Parks Canada the ability to authorize access to maintain and repair existing or new municipal and provincial infrastructure. The brief we received from Parks Canada said that the Government of Canada would be exposed to a reputational risk due to lack of fulsome engagement and consultation with all the First Nations.
When you look at that, that is a lot of resolution to do after a bill is passed. When you said “regardless of the process,” I would like to know — from both of you — what you think is the best way for you to reach your result?
Ms. Duckworth: I think, senator, that there needs to be amendments to the bill. I don’t think it’s perfect. I don’t think that it’s beyond being amended and brought to a place where you are comfortable. I’m not sure when you speak about a risk to the nations, because that would be Parks Canada’s responsibility to have consulted them. If they haven’t done that, then I don’t know why they are pushing back.
I would expect that their responsibility is consultation and accommodation. If they have done that, that’s great. If they haven’t, then, senator, I would ask them why they haven’t.
I did hear what you said with regard to the fact that you don’t consult and accommodate, but you have done consultation because you have a report for all kinds of people, which is a public document. I see the university as an institution. They are not rights holders. Caldwell First Nation and our nations have the ability to do the reports that you need. We don’t need to go to institutions; I have said that. Caldwell First Nation is not sitting at the table with the university — I don’t know what nations are.
I would do a deep dive and look at amendments, and let’s do something wonderful. Windsor-Essex is on fire. We are a border community with a new bridge coming. The pollution is going to come off the Gordie Howe International Bridge down onto the citizens, onto the wildlife and onto the species at risk. We are the most southern First Nation in Canada — cactuses grow where I come from. I’m here to protect the lands.
I’m here to work with the Crown — the federal government — the very people who removed us from our lands. I think that Windsor-Essex deserves to have a park. I think it should be co‑managed by the First Nations so that we never find ourselves in a position where we’re being removed by the RCMP or any other police, respectfully, senator.
Ms. Smit: I’m happy to respond as well, if you’d like, senator. Thank you, Chief Duckworth, for your comments.
I will make just one clarification, which is that the report was issued by the consultancy that was contracted by the City of Windsor. It’s a separate consultation process, but your point is well taken.
I would respond by saying that I understand the complexity of this file. I think all of us who are working on the file understand how hard this is. I understand the legal challenges attached to the private member’s bill. I understand the difficulties of merging what are essentially two separate processes.
I think what I would want to reflect to this room for your consideration is how much this file and this park matter to the community, and that it needs to get done. We’re at a moment where people have been fighting for generations and for decades respectively to protect this land.
You have support for this across the partisan landscape. You have support from the community. We are at a moment where protection of this park is absolutely at a critical moment, and you have political will coming together — uneasily, but coming together — to make this work.
You are going to hear from Windsor — Windsor is showing up for this today. The communities have shown up in a variety of ways. The work continues to happen. We know the process is not perfect. It often isn’t for massive projects like this. I think there is space, as Chief Duckworth has noted, for amendments, and I would hope that all the parties necessary would be able to come together to make this work at this moment. It is a critical time.
The second thing I would say is that I understand the process, and I support the Parks Canada process. The creation and the push to protect this particular land does predate the creation of that National Urban Parks Program. It aligns well, but it comes from somewhere much more deeply before that. I think from that perspective, it’s about understanding that, yes, these three objectives of the National Urban Parks Program, and being a part of that National Urban Parks Program — and all of those things — will improve the process, but we are at this moment and we have this opportunity.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, Dr. Smit. Following up on what you have been talking about, thank you for the good work that you are doing with the National Urban Park Hub.
What challenges are there for integrating the legal and policy frameworks with the environmental and social goals in your group’s projects? Really, are these challenges any different from the Parks Canada process versus the process in the private member’s bill? Are there any impediments or advantages?
Ms. Smit: Some of this is probably beyond where I have the authority to speak, and it’s beyond the scope of the contribution agreement that we have with Parks Canada, so I won’t go far down this road, except to say that there are ways in which the pieces that we are most concerned with — speaking as the Centre for Cities, our mandate is to look at inclusive and sustainable city building in the context of national urban park creation, which includes wise practice on consultation. To the chief’s point, these are where these processes are being tested. We understand that, collectively, consultation has a long way to go in this country. This is a place to really test those processes.
Those challenges are there, but they can be addressed through this process as well.
Senator Arnot: This question is for Chief Duckworth.
Chief Duckworth, first, I want to say that I do not think anyone from whom I have heard is against the creation of this park. That is very clear. However, we’re told by Parks Canada that this park will come into existence in 2025 with or without the Bill C-248 that has been presented.
Is that your impression as well? Do you have any comments about that? In other words, it is going to happen anyway, without any private member’s bill and without any of the deficits in the bill that need to be amended.
Ms. Duckworth: I would say, senator, did consultation and accommodation happen? If the park is going to do it, it is going to happen. Did it happen? Because it seems, to me, that is an oppressive statement. I think work needs to be done. The opportunity is there to do what is right. This has been a long journey.
The important thing for Caldwell First Nation is to have an understanding of co-management and co-governance for the First Nations and the rights holders in the territory, which is in the Canada National Parks Act, which is not in operation in southwestern Ontario. I think these are important matters that need to be looked at. It is easy for Parks Canada to say it will happen no matter what and this doesn’t matter. This is a five‑year journey of holding their feet to the fire, of walking away from the table, of demanding to be heard, of calling the minister and calling the president.
There is a lot of work to be done. I think it is Parks Canada’s responsibility to work with the First Nations to ensure we deliver the best for everyone, not just the First Nations — it’s the level of protection. If they are going to pull the trigger in a year without looking at the five years of work, shame on them.
Senator McBean: Thank you, Chief Duckworth. My question was in line with Senator Arnot’s question. I picked up on the “regardless to the path of creation,” and that the park, the spaces and the land will be protected. But, Chief Duckworth, I heard you say that the legislation provides you with the highest levels of security and standards for environmental protections of your land. I think maybe you have just answered this, but do you feel vulnerable? Does Caldwell First Nation somehow feel vulnerable with the Parks Canada plan?
Ms. Duckworth: Yes, we do.
Senator McBean: Okay.
Ms. Duckworth: We have a meeting already set for May 30 with Parks Canada, where they have provided us with the agenda and what they want to talk about. The first thing they want to get off the table is this: “Let’s deal with the co-management and co‑governance and get that off the table.”
Yes, I do feel vulnerable. It is my responsibility to protect the people, the lands, the four-legged, the swimming and the winged ones. It is our time to do that; it is 2024. You have the opportunity as senators to help us.
That is the bottom line. That is why I drove to Ottawa. We don’t get paid; chiefs and councils don’t get money. We’re not funded. We have to drive. But you know our ancestors walked the Indian trails here to meet with government and negotiate, so I took the time to drive from all the way down in our traditional territory to the Algonquin territory where you sit today to address this important matter.
Senator McBean: I am sorry to hear that the work is not being done in a good way. Thank you for sharing that with us. Hopefully that changes.
Professor Smit, you said that a big part of this is the conservation, which will help. That is to protect the lands and the species of unique ecosystems, but does the piecemeal nature of Bill C-248 accomplish that, or does the work have to be done in a better way to make a broader, more inclusive urban park?
Ms. Smit: Thank you for the question, Senator McBean.
I’m not a scientist, so I will give you my non-scientific answer: First of all, I hope you will have an opportunity to hear from scientists on that. To the extent that I am able to reflect what I think my co-leads might say, this protection gets us a part of the way there. It gets us this amount of land protected. There is more work to be done.
We’ve heard already today that the footprint of the proposed park, from a Parks Canada perspective, is broader than what is currently in Bill C-248. Is there potential later? I know that you will hear from MPP Andrew Dowie as well. There might be other pieces to this, but for the protection of these lands, we are fighting over a postage stamp at this point — to get that protection at this moment over what we have.
It is hard to reflect, sitting here in Ottawa, what this feels like in the community. Windsor-Essex is a very difficult place to do environmental advocacy. It is a place where the economic forces have pushed in a very different direction. With those tides, there is potential for culture change there, but that is the history.
These files can be toxic to work on. Environmental advocates really have to take to believe deeply in this work. To have gotten to this point, I really hope that it isn’t underestimated what that means to the folks who have carried this file that long. To get the protection of what we can at this moment, I think, is what you would hear from the scientists as well. It is not the end of the story, but it is at least a significant step forward.
Senator McBean: Thank you. I like the idea that we’re fighting over a postage stamp when, clearly, we want the whole envelope. Thank you.
The Chair: I have a comment to Chief Duckworth on the principle. We are here, frankly, with a bias to ensure you are happy, given the importance historically. But the problem we have, to be blunt, is that we’re being told by Parks Canada, with significant conviction — they have a lot of details, which they shared with us — that your park would be delivered more quickly, and more certainly, if we work with Parks Canada and not via the private member’s bill. We’re not experts, but I have to tell you this: There is a lot of information that suggests that to best serve you, we should concentrate on the Parks Canada plan, and not on the private member’s bill, given the impediments that might occur.
What do you do with that? We have no agenda. We’re saying, “If we really want to serve your community, we should concentrate and work with Parks Canada, because they are way advanced, and that would best serve your interests.”
How do you respond to that?
Ms. Duckworth: I would say that we would not be sitting here today if there wasn’t a private member’s bill, because there was no will from Parks Canada to do this. So the responsibility sits with Parks Canada.
To your point, we are vulnerable because there are elements in this bill that are important and need to be considered. I always say we’re not in a race. If we take the time to learn and understand the difficulties that we face, Parks Canada is an institution upon itself and delivers strong protections, but we need to take a look at all pieces and come up with the best solution. Without the private member’s bill being here and Parks Canada being here, as First Nations and our world view, we need to bring them together and deliver the best for Windsor-Essex and for the confederacy. We are the Three Fires Confederacy. The land that we are talking about, senator, is the last original piece of shoreline on the Detroit River. It is the last of it. All of it has been developed on both sides. There is an opportunity to learn about that. There is an opportunity to protect it. There is an opportunity to stop fighting in our camps and come together, because we’re the victims of the fighting, as we always are. We will be sitting back saying, “You know, five years of work for what — to have one push one out of the way? Let’s come together.”
Ontario is looking to create a park right now. You’ll have an MPP coming soon, but I say to you that there’s a responsibility in the Senate to understand what we’re talking about, to engage and to work with the best solution. You have the university. You have those whom I’ll call politicians. I don’t have a party stripe. I work for my people, and everything that we do is for protection of the lands, the people and the waters.
I work across many governments — municipal, provincial and federal. They have First Nations in a box. But today, we can celebrate if we can come together and land in a place that’s good for everybody. Windsor-Essex is on fire, I will say that.
The Chair: Thank you. We only have five minutes left for a supplementary round, so if you don’t mind making sure your questions and answers are tight.
Senator Wells: Thank you, witnesses. I’d like you to give me what you would like to see as an amendment in just a couple of sentences. What would it sound like?
Ms. Duckworth: An amendment might be looking at the private landholders — to look at that and act in a good, responsible way.
Senator Wells: What about co-management?
Ms. Duckworth: Co-management is already in the Canada National Parks Act, and we just need to figure out if Parks Canada will allow us to do that.
Senator Wells: What would you like us to do regarding co‑management in our response to this bill?
Ms. Duckworth: I think you’re in a position right now to ensure that there are co-management and co-governance for the Three Fires Confederacy and the rights holders. I am representing Caldwell, but those are my sister nations, and we work together effectively.
Senator Wells: Thank you very much.
Senator McCallum: I wanted to let you know that I fully support setting up the park. I’m just concerned about how many amendments would need to be made to correct the stuff that came.
I wanted to quote Mr. Hallman and what he said when he was here:
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.
Regarding when he told us that, is that untrue in your case? He did not go to you?
Ms. Duckworth: I spoke with him, and he wanted to bring us back to the table because we were at a difficult point with Parks Canada. It really is about the co-management, the co-governance and protection of the land, dealing with the private member’s bill, where it needs to be amended, working with Parks Canada.
Parks Canada is multi-million dollars, senator. We’re just a small First Nation that is underfunded, but we are a mighty nation when it comes to protecting our lands, and there’s a lot of work that Parks Canada has to do with First Nations to ensure that the words on paper are put into action. There is no reconciliation without action. I think the First Nations are clear on that. Today, I say the action will come from the Senate.
The Chair: Do you have a quick comment, Senator McCallum?
Senator McCallum: I was going to quote Mr. Hallman again because he talks about having a contribution agreement, and it sounded like Parks Canada has such a wonderful relationship with Indigenous people, but we’re finding out differently now.
Senator McBean: Chief Duckworth, is this tension connected to Point Pelee?
Ms. Duckworth: No, senator. We have been good partners with Point Pelee National Park. This tension, I think, is a power struggle, from which sitting at a political table I understand intimately, but, sitting in my community, it hurts me.
Senator White: I apologize for missing part of your testimony. During his testimony to this committee, MP Brian Masse mentioned that the Caldwell First Nation had taken the lead when it came to consultations on the national park in the context of this bill.
I was wondering if you could give us more insight into what that consultation process was from your side. Do you feel it has been working or is sufficient?
Ms. Duckworth: Caldwell First Nation took the lead. I’ll put it into context. We are all intimately dealing with issues within our communities. You know about the benzene. I know the chief was here. We know about what’s happening on Walpole Island. We know that in our communities there are crises happening, such as deaths, drug overdoses and homelessness. With a small chief and council, sometimes getting to the table with the parks is not the priority. We understand we have to leave that on-ramp because when the bill is passed, I’m sure you will see them come. They will be there, because now they have a right to participate.
When they talk about the funding agreements, it’s peanuts. The university, as an institution, got more money than the First Nations got as the rights holders. In 2015, I was on council. We were called by MP Masse and another MP — I forget her name. The port authority wanted to divest the land with the last natural park on the shoreline of the Detroit River, where Tecumseh, Pontiac and the confederacy fought. They said, “Do you think you could buy it?” We said, “No, but we’ll help you protect it.”
We moved along. It’s been five years, but we got to the point where we were being consulted through Parks Canada on some of it, but it’s more so our own homework and rolling up our sleeves, getting in, figuring out what’s going on and being able to make decisions for our community.
It’s been a long process. It’s been since 2015. It has revved up because the bill came, and we’ve been working through that process and having Parks Canada come. Parks Canada was knocking at the door, and we answered the door. They might be knocking at the door of other First Nations, but it’s up to them to answer, and nobody can force them because they’re sovereign upon themselves, and they make decisions as to where, when and how they choose.
The Chair: Thank you very much, chief. It’s very much appreciated. We’re having difficulty coming to the right decision, but, please, we all favour the park, and we’re going to try to get there as fast as we can. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
For our second panel, we welcome Mayor Drew Dilkens, from the City of Windsor; Mike Fisher, Interim President, from The Friends of Ojibway Prairie; and Andrew Dowie, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
Welcome, and thank you for being with us.
Five minutes are reserved for your opening remarks. The floor is yours, Mayor Dilkens, followed by Mr. Fisher and Mr. Dowie.
[English]
Drew Dilkens, Mayor, City of Windsor: Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. I’m the Mayor of the great City of Windsor, and I am pleased to address you today and to convey the City of Windsor’s support of Bill C-248, as well as our suggestions to improve it.
Let me begin by expressing Windsor’s unequivocal support for the establishment of the Ojibway national urban park. Certainly, we recognize the immense value this initiative will bring to our community, and we are encouraged by the steps taken thus far, including the federal government’s move to earmark $36.1 million in its budget for this project.
The City of Windsor has long been a committed steward of this remarkable and unique area of land. This began when we acquired the Ojibway Park nature preserve from the Canadian Salt Company in 1957. In fact, it was land in an area outside of the boundaries of the City of Windsor when we acquired it. It was land in the area of the Town of Ojibway. For residents of Windsor and the surrounding Essex County area, the Ojibway area is an ecological gem. The 15 kilometres of woodland and prairie hiking trails at Ojibway play an important role in our overall parks and trails system. Ojibway is an excellent family getaway located just minutes from Windsor’s downtown core, and has won many community awards over the years.
More importantly, the unique microclimate of southwestern Ontario makes Ojibway a unique butterfly sanctuary with species that cannot be found elsewhere in Canada. In fact, Ojibway provides opportunities for folks to see and learn about many species at risk, including animals, plants and insects.
For more than 60 years, the City of Windsor has been doing our part to maintain these environmentally significant and sensitive lands. We operate the Ojibway Nature Centre on site, providing interpretation and engagement opportunities for student visits and teaching experiences as well. Ojibway Park serves as the backdrop for many community gatherings, diverse programs and appropriate activations, including those connected to local Indigenous communities.
Ojibway is special to us in Windsor, where we have invested significantly over the years to help enhance and protect this sanctuary. Today, we recognize that only through Parks Canada ownership and codification of this bill into law can these separate private, federal, provincial and municipal lands be assembled to reach their full potential.
Our intention for what this park should become under Parks Canada remains the same as it was upon acquiring the lands: preserving as much of this pristine, environmentally sensitive land as possible for the enjoyment of future generations, with unimpeded access to the public in perpetuity.
This overall project is a perfect example of a non-partisan, cross-governmental, cooperative initiative in southwestern Ontario that will benefit our region, province and country. It links private, municipal, provincial and federal lands in Windsor’s west end to create a contiguous parcel of land as part of the new Ojibway national urban park. We are all very excited to see this project move forward.
With that being said, we also see opportunities to improve the proposed framework to fit Objiway’s unique landscape and our region’s ever-evolving urban environment. First, in keeping consistent with decades of open access and with respect to the massive investment from local taxpayers over the years, we urge that admission fees, or any other financial barriers to entry, be avoided to guarantee inclusivity and equitable access for all. Ojibway represents a vital communal space in Windsor-Essex. It is a place that fosters social cohesion and well-being, and ensuring financial accessibility to all is very important to us. A provision to enshrine barrier-free entry will reinforce the park’s role as a shared resource for all.
Second, these provisions should include having flexibility regarding park boundaries built into the bill. While the current proposal delineates specific lands for inclusion in the Ojibway national urban park, it is essential to acknowledge the ongoing collaborative efforts between Parks Canada and the City of Windsor to identify suitable lands for the park. For example, the bill consists of coordinates outlining areas of land contained within the city’s municipal boundaries, including lands owned by the City of Windsor. City administration has worked with the coordinates listed in the bill to produce a high-level outline of the area it encompasses.
However, the city recommends the federal government still undertake its usual process of surveying and appropriate due diligence to confirm the land described in the bill. We propose that the bill be amended to introduce a streamlined process for boundary adjustments, accommodating additions and removal of land as determined through collaborative studies and surveys.
Third, it is critical for the bill to address the management of existing infrastructure within the park’s boundaries. To mitigate potential complications and ensure continued access to essential infrastructure, such as storm sewers, utilities and transportation corridors, we propose amending the bill to exclude lands containing such infrastructure from the scope of the park.
With our continued support of Bill C-248, we invite the federal government to continue working closely with the city to get this important initiative right. Let’s put the necessary agreements in place to address any resulting uncertainties and get this across the finish line. Thank you very much.
Mike Fisher, Interim President, The Friends of Ojibway Prairie: Honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to share our community’s perspective on Bill C-248. I’d like to acknowledge that the land on which we gather is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. I also acknowledge that the land of the Ojibway Prairie Complex is the unceded territory of the Three Fires Confederacy — and the importance of reconciliation as a pinnacle for the creation of the Ojibway national urban park.
Today, I’m speaking to you on behalf of The Friends of Ojibway Prairie and as a member of the Windsor-Essex community. The Friends of Ojibway Prairie is a registered charitable organization of volunteers, established in 1992, that partners closely with the City of Windsor as well as Ontario Parks, and now Parks Canada, in support of the Ojibway Prairie Complex. In addition to today’s testimony, we have provided a written brief submission, and thank our co-signers for their support and partnership.
As the honourable senators listen to testimony, we hope that justice is being done to what a special place the Ojibway Prairie Complex is. No natural area in Ontario features such a concentration of rare species. The Ojibway Prairie Complex is a result of decades of efforts by all levels of government, community members and conservation non-profits to acquire and maintain these crucial pieces of land. The Windsor-Essex community is united in its belief that Ojibway is a natural gem that is well worth protecting. It is with good reason that the Ojibway Prairie Complex and surrounding natural areas are the consensus location for Canada’s second national urban park.
In addressing Bill C-248 that is before us today, I hope to provide some helpful perspective from our community. I am pleased to assure you that there is tremendous support for enshrining the Ojibway Prairie Complex in legislation as part of a national urban park of Windsor. Both Bill C-248 and the recent federal budget document refer specifically to Ojibway national urban park because there is such wide consensus and 12 years of community conversation behind creating a national urban park centred by the Ojibway Prairie Complex. These are our most prominent natural areas that have been stewarded by the Province of Ontario and the City of Windsor for decades. Bill C-248 simply seeks to remove any private lands from the boundaries so that the Ojibway Prairie Complex can be added to the Canada National Parks Act.
In April 2023, Windsor residents were delighted to see Bill C-248 pass the House of Commons. We noted that there were some concerns raised during the study, and the suggestion of possible private lands was raised during the third reading debate. Ultimately, the House of Commons voted essentially unanimously to pass Bill C-248. Our understanding in the community has been that the need to adjust the coordinates of the bill could occur during the Senate committee study. We remain a bit confused as to why there is discussion of private lands slipping into the boundaries, but no coordinates for these lands have been shared for consideration and discussion. The Parks Canada draft study map shared with the committee is an excellent exploratory tool, but it includes all private lands in its boundaries and is not helpful for discussing amendments to Bill C-248.
In Windsor-Essex, key stakeholders understand the difference between a park protected by legislation and one designated by policy. The fight for Ojibway national urban park has never been about attaining accolades. It has always been about doing everything we can to protect a natural heritage gem in the face of constant pressure of human impact. Getting the Ojibway Prairie Complex enshrined in legislation is simply about protecting our core jewel in the best way we can, and then looking to nearby natural areas to further grow the park.
Now is our opportunity to ensure that we have the tools in place to protect Ojibway national urban park for future generations. With the added challenges of a housing shortage, we are already seeing lands within the Parks Canada study area being clear-cut for development. Federal housing programs also place pressure on our local municipalities that leads to key ecological corridors and supporting lands being expedited for development. It is critical that we move quickly to provide the protective framework required to give our natural heritage lands a proper voice at the table in these conversations. If we miss this opportunity, we don’t know when the next one will come along.
Our community shares a common goal with many senators around this table in calling for collaboration between what is presented as two separate processes. While debate is framed in a way that proposes choosing one path or another in creating the park, our community sees a lot of opportunities for synergies from both efforts, with everyone working together for the best outcome.
In closing, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the committee’s study. The Friends of Ojibway Prairie and the broader Windsor-Essex community are passionate about this legislation. I welcome any questions and encourage you to please reach out to us at any time for any clarity on why we support Bill C-248. Thank you for your time, and thank you to community member Anna Lynn Meloche who, 12 years ago, approached me on the trails to share her dream of Ojibway national urban park.
Andrew Dowie, M.P.P. (Windsor—Tecumseh), Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Legislative Assembly of Ontario: Good morning, committee members. I’m appearing today as the Parliamentary Assistant to Ontario’s Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and also in my capacity as a member of the provincial legislature for Windsor—Tecumseh.
I want to begin by thanking MP Brian Masse for his exemplary approach to bring forward Bill C-248. His perseverance, flexibility and engagement while working toward the outcome of the Ojibway national urban park should be a model for other legislators to follow.
I was elected to the Ontario Legislature in 2022 — well after Bill C-248 was tabled in the House of Commons — and was proud to immediately add my own support to the initiative, and use my private member’s ballot motion 15 to confirm the Ontario government’s support for collaborating on the Ojibway national urban park.
Ojibway Prairie Provincial Park is a non-operating park that is 64 hectares in size, and it is the largest protected remnant of native tall grass prairie in Ontario. It is classified as a nature reserve class provincial park, which has the highest level of protection under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, or PPCRA, which was established in 1977.
The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, or MECP, is responsible for the administration and control of the lands regulated as the Ojibway Prairie Provincial Park pursuant to the PPCRA. I can assure that both the ministry and the Ontario Legislature as a whole are interested in establishing the proposed national urban park in Windsor, and have been participating in the partner committee established by Parks Canada as a strategic and effective way to pursue this.
The MECP has highlighted a number of consequences from Bill C-248 as currently drafted. First, the Canada National Parks Act appropriately contemplates and provides for broad public consultation about the establishment of parks, including with Indigenous communities.
To our knowledge, specific discussion and consideration as to the outcomes to the province brought by establishing the Ojibway national urban park — by Bill C-248 — has been limited with respect to the incorporation of the Ojibway Prairie Provincial Park lands.
Second, the bill purports to add Ojibway national urban park to Schedule 1 of the Canada National Parks Act, thus making it subject to the provisions of that act.
The MECP’s understanding is that if the bill is passed, a substantial portion of the current Ojibway Prairie Provincial Park would be designated as part of the Ojibway national urban park. However, the bill does not address how the federal Canada National Parks Act and the provincial PPCRA are to apply — or not apply — to the lands regulated by both regimes or otherwise address the existing interests and use of the lands. We see the potential to result in significant operational conflicts.
Third, the proposed amendment to Schedule 1 of the Canada National Parks Act does not align with other provisions more generally — specifically, subsection 5(1) of the Canada National Parks Act clearly contemplates that to be included as a park under Schedule 1, Canada should have clear title or an unencumbered right of ownership to the lands in question. With the lands as they are and with the ownership as they are, this is not the case with the proposed Ojibway national urban park at this time.
Further, subsection 5(1) also provides that the provincial government must agree to the use of the lands for national park purposes.
An implication of the bill is that a portion of the Ojibway Prairie Provincial Park may come under the management and control of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change as a result of subsection 8(1) of the Canada National Parks Act. This would effectively deprive the MECP of its interest in the lands without providing any compensation for this loss of interest. In that case, the ministry would have no choice but to explore all options to protect its interests in Ojibway Prairie Provincial Park.
Finally, it is my understanding that there are conflicts between the study area for the proposed national urban park and the lands that are described in Bill C-248, specifically that the lands described in the bill do not include the entire study area.
In closing, the MECP sees the potential for unintended consequences from Bill C-248 as written, and we request that the bill be amended so that the description of the Ojibway national urban park does not include any portion of Ojibway Prairie Provincial Park, but we truly remain supportive of continued discussions on potential models for the proposed national urban park, including shared governance arrangements. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee today.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator White: I have a question for each of the witnesses in the room. Mayor Dilkens, during the testimony to this committee, MP Masse emphasized a sense of urgency that this process needs to be completed immediately for various reasons, including the number of endangered species. It’s even happening across the border. They’re creating a park on their side.
Do you share this sense of urgency? If so, do you think that this bill is the most efficient and effective way of creating this urban park, especially given that Parks Canada is moving forward and would have planned to establish the park anyway next year?
Mr. Dilkens: I echo MP Masse’s comments with respect to the urgency. There is inertia in the community that wants to see this happen, because it has been many years of different trials and tribulations trying to assemble land and put all of the pieces together. He represents the community’s view on the urgency to see this project get done.
At the end of the day, senator, we just want to see a national urban park created. I can tell you that Brian Masse’s private member’s bill was instrumental in having the federal government add the Ojibway Shores piece — which is a critical piece — to this national urban park. But for his bill, I would submit to this committee that this probably would still have been dragging on. He has achieved a major accomplishment as part of bringing this bill forward which has brought that land into this national urban park.
I would like to think that we could get something across the finish line through a reasonable discussion, with all of the parties coming together with Parks Canada. There have been some initial meetings, but it feels like things have paused in that regard.
From the city perspective, being the largest landowner here in this urban park, we see memorandums of understanding being signed and different things happening, and we are sitting back saying, “Well, that is great, Parks Canada, but when are you going to reach out to us? Let’s talk about what we see happening here,” including my comments about making sure this remains an accessible experience for people in the community.
We feel like there has been a pause. I’m excited by the fact that there is $36 million in the budget. That gives me great hope and optimism, but I know that by having a piece of legislation passed by Parliament, then it can’t be taken away. Then, I know it is done and the community knows it is done.
If we could find a way to delineate the coordinates to remove the private land, and if we could find a way to have the flexibility to add and change the boundaries over time, that would be great. Of course, it is important to have the ability to deal with infrastructure that exists on the existing lands, so if we have to change hydro lines, get in there with the sewer or deal with road issues, we need to have a pathway. We can all agree it has to be sensible, and we have to deal with these things, but it should be codified in some way so that all parties know what to expect and how to act moving forward.
Senator Sorensen: My first question is for Mayor Dilkens. I miss being “worshipped.”
Mr. Dilkens: You’re “honourable” now.
Senator Sorensen: Yes, that’s true.
First, it has been said many times in this room that we all support a national urban park in the Windsor area, but our job is to look specifically at the private member’s bill: Bill C-248. I hear your desire for amendments. I personally believe the amendments required would be significant and, frankly, maybe beyond our capacity. It is not just the coordinates; we have had conversations around operating logistics, sharing full consultation with all appropriate parties, jurisdictional responsibilities and MPP Dowie’s comments as well.
Amending this will be heavy. We look forward to any one of you writing an amendment for us to solve all of the problems.
My question for you is about Bill C-248 as it stands today. The coordinates of Bill C-248 apparently fall into the area where the Windsor Salt mine is. Bill C-248 would give Parks Canada subsurface rights, likely preventing mining in that area. Canada’s national parks do not allow mining.
I have also been advised recently that Morterm Limited, an Essex Terminal Railway — cargo terminal — at Port Windsor, has serious concerns about the rail corridor within the coordinates of Bill C-248 and the impacts on moving grain and steel, potentially with huge economic impacts. Those are two examples of business operations that may be seriously negatively impacted if Bill C-248 is passed in its present form, to say nothing of the 16 parcels of private lands.
My question to you, mayor, is this: As mayor, are you concerned about the legal flux that would be caused between all parties, including the City of Windsor, and would it be an obvious significant delay to finishing the park because they would be in the court system?
Mr. Dilkens: Senator, thank you for the question.
I would not want to see anything delayed. Absolutely, we would have to be sensitive to Essex Terminal Railway’s interests. They are an employer in our community and have been around for a long time. We have to figure out a pathway. I would put that in the bucket of infrastructure.
All of these things have to be worked out; there is no doubt about it. Everything that you said is all sensible. We just have to have a pathway to deal with those particular issues.
Senator Sorensen: I appreciate that.
MPP Dowie, thank you very much for submitting your letter to the committee. You said therein that the MECP has full intentions to continue discussions about the creation of a national urban park in Windsor through the partner committee led by Parks Canada. Can you update us more as to how those discussions are going?
Mr. Dowie: Thank you, senator.
Truly those discussions remain intact; the partner committee continues to meet. Also, the province has engaged with Parks Canada, specifically regarding the land transfer that then‑Minister Mendicino had offered about a year ago now. Right now, they have advised that the federal government does not have approvals to accept the land. With that, there is a bit of back and forth about those details. Those discussions continue to happen between Parks Canada and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. I will go on the second round.
Senator McCallum: I want to go back as well to the infrastructure. Before that, you know this bill is going to require many amendments. There is so much missing. For it to go back to the House of Commons and then come back, the other bill may pass before that happens. We have to think about that.
You said you wanted to exclude lands requiring infrastructure, which is something new that has been brought to our attention. The Canada National Parks Act would not give Parks Canada the ability to authorize access to maintain and repair existing or new municipal and provincial infrastructure.
If you are not to exclude, who is going to take care of all the costs?
Mr. Dilkens: I picked up the piece that you read, senator. If it is new infrastructure, that is one thing. I was suggesting to the committee that we need to have a pathway for the existing infrastructure.
Senator McCallum: We are talking about sewage lines and all of that, which is trapped now in these coordinates.
Mr. Dilkens: Okay. So you are talking about the existing infrastructure?
Senator McCallum: Yes. This came from Parks Canada — what the bill will not do.
Mr. Dilkens: We absolutely would need a pathway to deal with that, because when a sewer reaches its end of life, the public will expect that, when they get in the shower and flush the toilet, the water will be treated appropriately. We will need to have a pathway to deal with the infrastructure. That could be done with easement rights as well, but that needs to be enshrined so that we’re not guessing if something were to happen and everyone needs to react in that it becomes a territorial-type discussion. We should deal with that in advance so that we’re all on the same page.
Senator McCallum: It seems that there is more and more coming up slowly. It is causing me some anxiety. I don’t understand what is happening here. Why wasn’t all of this done before it came to us? We cannot make an amendment to have any money attached to it, so that is something we could not amend. That is something we have to think about. Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Mr. Fisher, to clarify, you probably understand this, but a lot of people do not know how we operate in the Senate, so I want to say this for the record. You mentioned that you felt the Senate was the place to make these amendments. The problem is that if we make so much as a comma change, it has to go back to the House of Commons. We are always a bit reluctant to make changes because we know it goes back there and that slows it down. We have spoken about the urgency of it.
I do not know if you have noticed, but things are much more cool, calm and collected in this house than the other. Sometimes, if you want to get things moving, it is better to sort of keep it going.
Mayor, perhaps I can ask you this: Chief Duckworth made the point that if you get it in law, it is more permanent. We can probably get the process done quicker and right through Parks Canada, but it doesn’t have the permanency of a law. That is the conundrum, I think.
Do you share that point? If we make these changes — and it seems like we have a lot of changes to make — part of the question is how much change a Senate committee can make before it goes beyond our purview.
I wonder if you could give us your thoughts on what I think is a conundrum.
Mr. Dilkens: Having a piece of legislation is obviously the high-water mark. Even with the legislation, I still think we need the Parks Canada committee to sort through a lot of the details. I would like Parks Canada to have a bigger, stronger activation from that side to give us the confidence that there is momentum behind this.
Again, I won’t discount $36 million in a federal budget allocated for a project, but the rubber needs to hit the road. If we’re being frank, looking at political cycles and thinking through the commitment that exists today, will that commitment exist in the future? I don’t know.
I know enough from my own municipal budgeting world and my time in politics that money can be moved around and different people have different priorities. Legislation enshrines it in a way that gives it some permanency, which we would very much appreciate. At the same time, we still need to have the parks discussion to work out some of the mechanics of the on‑the-ground issues that are bound to occur.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you. It is important when mayors come to Senate committees to have these discussions. I appreciate you taking the time to come here.
Mr. Dilkens: I wouldn’t be here if this weren’t really important for the community. MP Brian Masse has brought forward a bill that reflects the importance of the issue for the entire community, and I’m talking about all of Windsor but also all of Essex County as well.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’d like to come back to two things. I tried to ask Parks Canada questions at the last meeting about the collaboration that could exist between Parks Canada and MP Masse. I didn’t really get a satisfactory answer. What kind of collaboration would you like to see? It’s Parks Canada’s legislation, so eventually there will have to be collaboration if the bill is passed.
My second question is as follows. It seems to me that at this stage, it’s purely a political paradigm, in other words, you’re worried that the current government won’t be re-elected and that this threatens this park, from your point of view, because you don’t feel that its creation would be guaranteed if Parks Canada were the sole sponsor of the project without any legislation being passed. Do I understand the political nature of your intervention?
[English]
Mr. Dilkens: Senator, it is a good question. I believe there is a risk. Having the private member’s bill passed is the high-water mark in terms of guaranteeing the creation of this urban park.
I would like to think that, through Parks Canada, we could set up a timeline. This isn’t rocket science, respectfully, and I don’t mean that to the Senate but in terms of the overall project. This is not rocket science. We could get around a table with the right people and figure this out in fairly short order, and put together a timeline of who has to do what and report back in, as well as figure out who is responsible to do what and report back in, and figure out when we will make this happen. Unfortunately, I have not seen that happen, so that gives me cause for concern about the political risk that may exist if government changes. I don’t know what the other governments feel about this. I have never checked in on that.
There is a risk, and I’m trying to mitigate that risk the best way possible to make sure that we get the project over the finish line.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Did you sense any resistance from Parks Canada to working with MP Masse on this private member’s bill? If so, what kind of resistance is there? Is it resistance from an organization that wants to control what happens? Is that kind of resistance understandable? What is your opinion?
[English]
Mr. Dilkens: I have read the private member’s bill, which is very clear in terms of coordinates. When mapping out a set of coordinates on a map and using the municipal system to overlay those same coordinates, we can tell you whether it is public or private land very easily. Again, this is not rocket science. The fact that MP Masse sees a delay in getting answers to what I would call simple questions, they send political flares up saying, “Okay, who is doing what? Who has an interest that may not be aligned?” At the end of the day, as the mayor of the community, I don’t care about that. I just want to see this happen. The community wants to see this happen, so I’m here to support Brian Masse’s private member’s bill.
If Parks Canada were here, I would say, “Let’s get together in a room immediately after this and figure out the timeline on how we can move forward.” I want to see some traction. Brian Masse is the one who has taken the opportunity to put this forward and is trying to get traction on the issue, which I genuinely appreciate as the mayor of the community. We need to get the right people in the room, and I would hope that this discussion would lead to someone from Parks Canada reaching out to say they will set the timeline in motion and figure this out and then stick firm to the deadlines. This is not hard. We can do this. We are the largest landowner. As you have us on your side, we can do this pretty quickly.
Senator McBean: In the wake of questions, I might be having you repeat yourself again. Chief Duckworth said with respect to the relationship with Parks Canada that she felt vulnerable. I was listening to you say they seem to be going around signing a lot of memorandums of understanding, and you were feeling left out of that.
Is it a frustration? You just want to get this done, and everyone would like this park to exist. There seems to be two ways of getting it done. The easier thing to accomplish is the Parks Canada plan, but they don’t seem to be working. Do you find that it is really frustrating? I got the sense that Chief Duckworth was vulnerable and that you are super frustrated.
Mr. Dilkens: There are bits and pieces. I want to acknowledge that Parks Canada came to us in the last year and said they had identified a property where there was a home for sale. They thought that it should be included in the national urban park. They have a pocket of money and asked us to acquire it, and they would pay us to acquire that property, which we did. It was a very positive check mark in the column of great news and positive signs and progress. Then nothing happened. There was no momentum.
Again, it is just getting the right people in the room to figure out what the timeline is, and everyone in Windsor will be on your side. To whoever has the ability to get this over the finish line, we’re on your side. We are the largest landowner. You have our firm commitment to work with you. There is a unanimous council decision to work with folks. We unanimously supported Brian Masse’s bill which was instrumental in getting Ojibway Shores added to this.
Am I frustrated? A little bit when I watch memorandums of understanding being signed, and I can appreciate Chief Duckworth’s position as well because she, too, has a significant interest in wanting to see this move forward.
Every one of us who has made the time to come to Ottawa to appear in front of you today will make the same time and more to sit in a room together and figure out that timeline to move the project forward.
Senator McBean: Thank you. I will ask this because I get the sense that Mr. Fisher wants to answer that as well. I also get the sense that you are keen to have the Ojibway Prairie included, but did I hear correctly that the MPP does not want the Ojibway Prairie included in the park? I will go to Mr. Fisher first.
Mr. Fisher: Part of the challenge that we have as a community in hearing the conversations is that Parks Canada does not have a policy yet for national urban parks. It doesn’t exist. We don’t necessarily know what it will look like. It is still in development.
The other challenge is there is a map, but the map is a draft exploratory map. It is fantastic for having conversations, but approximately a quarter of that map is private lands. It is not something where we can compare. When you look at the map, none of those maps have been promised yet for inclusion in the national urban park. When we talk about creating a national urban park, we don’t know what that is through the policy because there is no policy as yet. That is the challenge we have as a community. We are comparing something that is guaranteed. Legislation has the coordinates laid out with something that does not yet have a policy and has an exploratory map with private lands in it. A quarter of it is private. We don’t know what the park looks like yet. Those conversations have not happened. We want collaboration and both sides working together, and understanding what certainty there is for our community.
The Chair: We are running short of time. I urge short supplementaries.
Senator Sorensen: I want to comment on the private lands. It is Natural Resources Canada who did the survey. I am thinking they are the ones who have the answers, and we may want to get them in as a witness.
I also want to comment that when the private member was preparing this bill, he made it very clear that he worked with the Library of Parliament; he did not work with Parks Canada. If we’re wondering why there is a disconnect, I’m going to suggest that this may be part of the issue.
I want to say again to Mayor Dilkens, as a previous mayor of a town within a national park, I have some first-hand knowledge of the stringent rules enforced through the Canada National Parks Act. I object to this bill being in the Canada National Parks Act. I think the better solution might have been to amend the Rouge legislation, and I know that Rouge is a different animal than the Windsor opportunity, but Canadian national parks are very different animals than national urban parks.
Are you concerned about the complications that will arise if this bill is passed before municipal lands have been signed over, but, if they are signed over, it is what we have been talking about: the details, the repair of infrastructure, road closures, who is doing emergency responsiveness and collecting the garbage, or a sewer line breaks and it is on both properties —
The Chair: The question?
Senator Sorensen: Are you concerned about those issues? I would suggest that the Rouge legislation addresses that.
Mr. Dilkens: I am concerned that it would have to be addressed. Respectfully, the Senate through the committee, or some other process, would need to find a way to address those very clear operational issues moving forward.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. It was a long question.
Senator White: From the last time, I had hoped to get your perspective, Mr. Fisher. I want to be clear: Given the two processes, from your perspective, why do you think one is better than the other — you would prefer legislation — as it relates to the Parks Canada model, for lack of a better word, especially given that they’ve done a pre-feasibility report? That is from my last question, which I did not get a chance to ask you.
Mr. Fisher: Thank you for the question. Some of it has been stated already. It’s the importance of enshrining it in legislation, prioritizing ecological integrity in the Canada National Parks Act. We know that this is something that will happen and will be enshrined for years to come. We know it is the best protections.
Parks Canada has done a lot of great work. Ultimately, what we’re asking for is exactly what Mayor Dilkens is saying: for everyone to work together. That has been a challenge for us. There has been a discussion on private lands for over a year, and no one has seen where those are. It seems like a simple thing to share. We would encourage both sides to work together. The challenge is when you compare head-to-head — we are forced to choose one or another — and the challenge with the Parks Canada side is that there is not yet a policy for us to look at in order to know what the park will be.
Second, we’re comparing this to a large map, but that map is exploratory. A quarter of it is private lands, and none of those lands have been promised. Whereas in a private member’s bill, we know what the starting point is, and we can work together collaboratively with the exploratory map later to expand the park.
Senator White: According to Parks Canada, regarding the level with the rights holder First Nations in that particular area — there are three in particular, but, because of time, I will not name them — from your perspective, how inclusive and comprehensive do you think that consultation process is or has been?
Mr. Dilkens: I don’t know because I have not been involved. Clearly, there is a memorandum of understanding signed with at least Caldwell First Nation, which has been very public, but with respect to Walpole Island and the others, I am not sure.
The Chair: Do you have a brief comment to add, Senator Burey?
Senator Burey: I know our time is limited.
I am a senator from Windsor, and I wanted to be here to say that everyone is looking forward to the Ojibway national urban park. Coming to the legislative side from the health sphere, I see that the devil is always in the details, right?
In terms of the flow of a policy to legislation, versus legislation to policy, would you be okay with a policy, which will be coming down from Parks Canada in probably six weeks and then moving to legislation? Or do you feel that is not an appropriate process?
Mr. Fisher: Actually, this is one of the areas where we’re really hopeful to see that collaboration. We have not seen the final Parks Canada policy yet. It hasn’t been released. But our understanding is that legislation could coexist within the policy, and that Parks Canada has planned for legislated lands within their policy. One discussion that would be fantastic for the community to have would be to say that the core of the Ojibway Prairie Complex would be legislated. For decades, these are lands that our community has been fighting for. It has been 12 years of advocacy to get it defined as a national urban park. The whole community knows what these lands are. You should focus on creating that first. Then, you work with Parks Canada’s policy to envelop the rest of the park and lands. There are significant opportunities for collaboration here. The challenge is that the community is forced to say, “Do you want it protected to the highest level forever, or do you want these lands, but you can’t have both.” We would love everyone together to do it the right way for Windsor-Essex and Canada. It is Canada’s second national urban park. Let’s get everyone talking and make it the best as opposed to making us choose one or the other.
The Chair: Thank you to the witnesses, and to the senators for your questions.
We are dealing with the core issues. Thank you very much for coming to Ottawa to share your opinion with us. We will now go in camera to discuss future business of the committee.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Colleagues, we’ve now resumed our meeting in public to adopt the following motion:
Is it agreed that the following special study budget application — study on climate change: Canada’s oil and gas industry — for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration?
Honourable senators, there’s been a request for a recorded vote. I will first ask the clerk to name all the senators present who are entitled to vote at this time.
[Translation]
Raymond St. Martin, The Clerk of the Committee: The Hon. Senator Massicotte; the Hon. Senator Arnot; the Hon. Senator McBean; the Hon. Senator McCallum; the Hon. Senator Miville-Dechêne; the Hon. Senator Sorensen; the Hon. Senator Wells; the Hon. Senator White.
[English]
The Chair: If any member present does not wish to vote, you may withdraw from the table now.
The clerk will now call members’ names, beginning with the chair and followed by the remaining members’ names in alphabetical order. Members should verbally indicate how they wish to vote by saying “yea,” “nay” or “abstain.” The clerk will then announce the results of the vote. The chair will then declare whether the motion is carried or defeated.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Are we voting on the revised motion? I just want to be sure.
Mr. St. Martin: We’re voting on whether or not to pass the budget.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of the revised motion, without the visit to the fort?
Mr. St. Martin: It’s not in the budget.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay. I just wanted to be sure what we’re voting on.
[Translation]
Mr. St. Martin: The Hon. Senator Massicotte?
Senator Massicotte: Yea.
Mr. St. Martin: The Hon. Senator Arnot?
Senator Arnot: Nay.
Mr. St. Martin: The Hon. Senator McBean?
Senator McBean: Nay.
Mr. St. Martin: The Hon. Senator McCallum?
Senator McCallum: Nay.
Mr. St. Martin: The Hon. Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Nay.
Mr. St. Martin: The Hon. Senator Sorenson?
Senator Sorensen: Abstain.
Mr. St. Martin: The Hon. Senator Wells?
Senator Wells: Yea.
Mr. St. Martin: The Hon. Senator White?
Senator White: Nay.
Mr. St. Martin: Yeas: 2; Nays: 5; Abstentions: 1.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you all.
(The committee adjourned.)