ENVI Committee Meeting

     We are starting the meeting.

    Welcome to the Parks Canada staff. Thank you for being at the table with us to help us answer any questions that might come up as we move through clause-by-clause consideration.

    I'll recap where we were last Tuesday. We stood down the first clause because it was a definition and we needed to deal with that. It's right at the top of my list here, so we're still holding that. Also, I ruled Ms. May's motion inadmissible, and we voted down CPC-1.

    Yes, that's correct.

    (On clause 2)

    We are now on NDP-1. We had just had that brought forward to us.

    Mr. Stetski was able to speak to it, I believe. Didn't you speak to it?

    Okay, we just got to it. Why don't you speak to it, then? We'll get started on that one.

    Thank you.

    The purpose of this is just to bring Rouge in line with other national parks by including proposed subsection 6(1), which is:

    That is in all the other acts, and for some reason it wasn't in the preliminary part of the Rouge Park bill.

    I would also like to ask the national parks staff if there is any particular reason why that clause wasn't included in the Rouge bill.

     Thank you very much for the question. I think it's important to look at the act in its entirety. If you look at section 4, which is the reasons for establishment, I think you see what all the stakeholders who came together determined was the vision for the park and the reasons for establishment.

    The dedication, as you referred to a dedication clause, is bringing something new into the section that you included it under, and we are not certain what impact that would have, in terms of something that no one is seeing, on the stakeholders and others we've been working and consulting with. We have concerns about bringing that in at this point.

    Go ahead.

    Are these actual concerns about what it might say or do, or concerns about the fact that it hasn't been talked about by the group so far?

    Jim, do you want to...? Did I summarize that?

    It's the second one.

    Yes, I think it's that second one, the concern of something brand new coming in at the very last minute. I think there is agreement on the reasons for establishment of the park and the vision for the park, and that's found in section 4.

    Mr. Aldag, go ahead.

     Just to clarify, is that section 4 of Bill C-40? I'm trying to find....

    Yes, sorry, that's section 4 in Bill C-40, the Rouge National Urban Park Act.

    What I was going to ask, and it's very much in line with Wayne's questioning.... We were told that the ecological integrity piece came in to bring it in line with the Canada National Parks Act, so it is interesting that the dedication clause is missing.

    I would be curious to see what section 4 says, to give it that kind of....

    Maybe I can read section 4, Madam Chair, if that's okay.

    Yes, please.

    It says:

     As you were reading, I was following along. I don't know if Mr. Stetski would agree, but it would seem it takes the official Canada National Parks Act dedication clause and tailors it to the Rouge, so that would cover off that piece. If Mr. Stetski would agree, then I think we would not need this clause in there.

    For me—and I am trying to put it into the context of the Rouge—the dedication clause in the parks act talks about leaving it “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations”.

     I didn't really hear that in section 4. That, to me, was a very important statement that occurs with all other national parks.

    I'll read it again, because I think it might cover that:

    That does address future generations. There's discover and connect, and enjoyment's just a little.... I'm hoping that discovering and connecting is enjoying.

    I don't think it's as strong. I'd still like to put this forward. If we end up voting on it, we'll vote on it.

    Okay. Are there any other comments?

    Mr. Aldag.

    If I could just summarize what I'm reading, although it may not be exactly the same wording, Wayne.... From my perspective I'd be satisfied in accepting what Ms. Veinotte from Parks Canada had shared as having that protected. From my perspective, I think it would be redundant to accept the amendment as put forward.

    Does anybody else have anything else to say?

    Ms. May.

    Thank you.

    Technically, I am only allowed to speak at the discretion of the chair because this isn't my amendment, but I appreciate the chance to say that the language Mr. Stetski's put forward is the traditional language that goes with national parks, in terms of the commitment. The language of “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” is quite different from enjoyment for future generations. As Wayne just said, it's much stronger and it's consistent.

    In the first version of the bill—and why I'm so pleased there's a second version of the bill—this was going to be a second-rate national park where ecological integrity wasn't respected. I think that's why the purpose, under section 4 of Bill C-40 is not as strong as what was just put forward in this proposed NDP amendment.

    Thank you for that.

    I can just speak to it. I can't vote on it, can I?

    No.

    It comes down to what's being discussed. You could argue that Rouge is not the pristine space. It's already somewhat impaired. It's a matter of trying to....

    Go ahead, Mr. Aldag.

    As a final comment, if I heard what Parks Canada indicated, it would be a concern for me, too, to hear that this hadn't been discussed. It seems like there have been a lot of very finely detailed negotiations to get to this piece. If we could be jeopardizing something, we'd have to really look at the risks of doing that. Again, the message I'm hearing is that Parks Canada is happy with the legislation as it's being put forward. That makes me happy with the legislation as it's being put forward, without the amendment.

    If there's no further discussion, I'll bring it to a vote.

    (Amendment negatived)

    The next one up is one that was brought to us last week, which is CPC-1.1.

    Normally Mr. Fast would be moving this, because it's his amendment. I'm going to need someone to move it to get it on the floor.

    I'll move that motion, Madam Chair, as soon as I find it.

    We'll stand by till everybody finds it.

    Okay. It's talking about clause 2, replacing lines 15 to 17 with the following:

    That's right.

    It's replacing the words “Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes must be the first priority of the Minister when” with what's here.

    Yes, it is. That's how I take it.

    Is there any discussion?

     Yes. Quite a few of us over yesterday received some correspondence from a Mr. Tom Lee, who's a former head of Parks Canada. This wasn't solicited or anything like that. I think it just came out. I got it the same way all of you did.

    I'd just like to read it into the record.

    “Chairman and Members of Committee, I have belatedly become aware of the Committee’s review of the above draft legislation. As an individual who was head of Parks Canada from 1993 to 2002 I would like to express my views on the legislation.

    “I fully support the establishment of this national urban park. I had the opportunity to participate in preliminary ideas on this proposal during my tenure and fervently hope that this is only the first of a series on national urban parks which will bring Canadians into greater contact with both Canada’s natural features and its historical and cultural resources. I will, therefore limit my comments to my one major concern, the use of the term ecological integrity, for which I have three concerns.

    “Firstly, as applied to the Rouge Park, it is an objective that is never intended to be achieved or even closely achieved and could only be even closely achieved by violations of parts of the Act including those for agriculture. To argue that an ecological integrity is “a continuum" which might range from say 5% to say 90% is disingenuous, particularly when agriculture will remain a continuous part of resource management: a position which I support and is supported by legislation.

    “Secondly it is not necessary to include this term as an overall objective for all lands when the legislation could easily be drafted to provide...zoning for those lands which would be specifically targeted toward achieving the maximum ecological integrity possible, for example conservation zone.

    “Thirdly, the inclusion of ecological integrity as the primary management objective is, and I know that is was not the intention of the proponents of this clause, 'double speak', with broad and potentially negative implications to the entire national parks system. The Committee has already seen some of the implications for this in some of the testimony. The fact that there is a ski hill or a townsite in an existing national park is neither an argument for agriculture in Rouge or an argument for more ski hills and townsites in the rest of the national parks system. The point is that this argument does not have to be and should never be opened.

    “Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation and best wishes in your deliberations.”

    This is exactly what Mr. Fast's concerns and our side's concerns were. This gentleman, a pretty well-known expert in the field, listened to our deliberations. I would just like to bring that into play.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Okay.

    Next up is Mr. Shields.

    Thank you.

    I have another document, which came from Kevin Van Tighem, as some of you probably know. He was the first conservation biologist in Waterton Lakes National Park during the 1990s, the best national park in Canada. I just want to get that part in there, that he was at—

    We've heard that a few times.

     Now that we've established his credentials, he said:

    Here are another couple of phrases:

    Finally, he said:

    Thank you, Madam Chair, from Kevin Van Tighem.

    Thank you for that.

    Mr. Aldag.

    I worked previously with Mr. Lee and Mr. Van Tighem, and I know they are reputable characters. When we had Parks Canada in last week, I put out a question—specifically to Mr. Watson, the current CEO—about how organizations evolve in their thinking. The question that I put was this: where is Parks Canada today on its thinking concerning ecological integrity?

    I would say that, if we go back to the testimony, we heard very clear statements from Mr. Watson, but I will turn to the Parks Canada witnesses at the table now. As people within the system today, not retired, not outside of the system, but part of the ongoing conversations about ecological integrity, could you speak to that concern?

    I guess, really, I'm trying to get the Parks Canada perspective, today, on the appropriateness of ecological integrity in the legislation as it has been put forward related to the Rouge National Urban Park legislation that is before us.

    Is it okay if I take this one?

    Ecological integrity is extremely important for the Government of Canada, for the Province of Ontario, for stakeholders, and for Parks Canada itself. We can look at the decades of experience that Parks Canada has had in applying ecological integrity, and we can also look at the Canada National Parks Act, and at the varied situations and places that ecological integrity has been applied.

    The Rouge is unique. However, we do believe that by working with our partners we can apply ecological integrity in an urban setting. Because of that experience we have had—and we have now had almost two years of managing the land in the Rouge—I believe we can do great things. We are already demonstrating the great things we can do, so we don't see it affecting the application of ecological integrity in the rest of the system.

    Thank you.

    Thank you.

    Is there anything else?

    Mr. Stetski.

    I just wanted to add that we had a discussion a few minutes ago about leaving the dedication clause out because it hadn't been adequately discussed with some of the stakeholders over the years. Ecological integrity was one of the key primary focuses for the groups that have been pushing for the Rouge for many years, and for that reason alone, it is absolutely worth leaving it in.

    Mr. Kent.

     Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    To come back to this, we realize, and the CEO of Parks Canada said on Thursday, that Ontario made inclusion of ecological integrity conditional on the transfer of the land. It was absolutely conditional.

    I think that the committee may be under a bit of a misimpression, based on the testimony of the CPAWS witness last week, who talked about the regulations for the Ontario protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine. I would just like to suggest that Ontario doesn't have a basis.... Those protections do not apply to the Ontario lands that are subject to transfer now.

    Certainly, from my understanding over the years, all stakeholders have agreed that conservation should be the first priority, and that farming should continue and be celebrated—and we've heard that in a variety of ways. I'm still concerned, and Mr. Latourelle, in his testimony, sees the possibility of what I'd call a poisonous seed, that future governments, or future forces, may try to use this ecological integrity but misapply it to an urban park to crack it open.

    You heard that the farmers have some trepidation that, in fact, one day someone may come in and interrupt the commitment that is contained and provided for in Bill C-18. They fear that someone may use “ecological integrity” to overwhelm and reverse that element and that protection for the farmers, for the agricultural land.

    I think we've heard the same kind of discussion from testimony last week and this week.

    If there's nothing else that needs to be said today, then I'd like to vote on this amendment.

    (Amendment negatived)

    The Chair: All right.

    Now we're on PV-2, if everybody can pull that up.

    Thank you.

    It's the second amendment put forward by the Green Party.

    It's very straightforward. Again, as we were just touching on the ongoing issue of agricultural use in the Rouge area, my amendment proposes to replace lines 18 to 21 on page 1, which right now reads, “for greater certainty, [the subsection on maintaining ecological integrity] does not prevent the carrying out of agricultural activities”. What my amendment tries to do is to ensure sensitivity of the agricultural activities to the other, larger issues of watershed health.

     This phrase would replace lines 18 to 21 with:

     It's an attempt to ensure that, in management, the agricultural activities face a threshold for agricultural activity that is different from the threshold for agricultural activity that isn't adjacent to an area where you're protecting ecological integrity.

    All right. Thank you very much.

    Would anybody like to speak on this one?

    Mr. Aldag.

    It's not so much to speak on it, but to turn to our Parks Canada witnesses to provide comment on it.

    When I had first read this, I thought that it was, perhaps, redundant because I saw that we already had the statement in there of “all aspects of the management of the Park”. To me, that seems to be broad and inclusive. I didn't know what the benefit was of bringing in the extra qualifiers. I just saw it as already being broad and inclusive.

    I don't know if Parks Canada wants to comment on whether we need to add qualifiers, or if the existing wording is sufficient to deal with the kind of concern that Ms. May has raised.

     Yes, I think it's very important the way the amendment is structured now in terms of proposed subsections 6(1) and 6(2). I think we have clarity in proposed subsection 6(1) about how the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity will be the first priority when considering all aspects of the park. But very important to the farming community is the fact that their interests are well represented in proposed subsection 6(2), and it's very clear. I think it's important not to qualify something that is already very clearly spelled out in proposed subsections 6(1) and 6(2).

    Again, given the situation that you heard about from the farmers represented by Mike Whittamore of Whittamore's Farm last week when he testified, I think that inclusion of proposed subsection 6(2) is extremely important.

    Mr. Eglinski.

    Madam Chair, I can't consider this amendment. I look at it, and I just see it as the start of what we've been concerned with right from the beginning. It's the first start of ecological integrity trying to chip away at little factors. That is why our argument has been so strong to not have ecological integrity, because this is what's going to continually happen in the future with this urban park.

    Does anybody else have anything else to say before we put it to a vote?

    (Amendment negatived)

    (Clause 2 agreed to)

    The Chair: Next up is amendment NDP-2.

    Over to you, Mr. Stetski.

    In the balance of our amendments, we are looking to strengthen the act in a number of ways. In this one, section 8 of the act is replaced by changing the words to “The Minister must establish a committee” and then adding conservation organizations as well as organizations and experts that the minister considers appropriate.

    I'm going to make a ruling before we start discussion, because it is actually inadmissible. It's similar to what we had last week.

    I'll say it again:

    We do not have that clause in front of us, so I'm going to rule that inadmissible.

    Next up is amendment NDP-3.

     Mr. Stetski.

    Again, this is looking to strengthen some aspects by adding the following:

    The list includes ecological integrity objectives and indicators and provisions, measures for the protection and presentation of Aboriginal and other cultural heritage, measures for agricultural heritage, environmental guidelines, and a report on the state of the park and the progress that has been made towards achieving the objectives, as well as any amendments to the management plan.

    Again, this is just strengthening the wording.

    I appreciate all the work that you did for these. A lot of thought has been put into it, but in this case, I have to make a similar ruling. Again, we are working on a clause that is not before the committee, so I'm going to also rule this inadmissible. Sorry.

    We now have amendment NDP-4.

     Basically it's the same thing. These are all put in place. They're all consistent with Bill C-18's overarching objective, which is to ensure that ecological integrity is the priority in the management of the park.

    This one goes to new proposed subsection 12(2):

    It's the same question, Madam Chair.

    I think you know how this is going to go, sorry to say. Again, good work but this is inadmissible in this clause-by-clause assessment. Thank you.

    The last one of these is NDP-5.

    I'll read it really slowly so that it takes longer to get to the inadmissible part.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Wayne Stetski: This one has the same objective of trying to ensure that ecological integrity is the priority in the management of the park. New proposed subsection 16(1.1) would read as follows:

    Again, thank you for all your work, but I have to consider this out of order as well. It is amending a section of the act that's not before us and being considered by this committee. That one I will rule as inadmissible as well. Thank you.

    Mr. Eglinski.

    I'm just reading through the amendment. Would it be proper for me to ask the Parks Canada people a question in relation to it?

    Generally, if I'm going to rule it inadmissible, it really isn't going to be before the committee, so you can't really do that.

    Okay.

    But I don't see any reason why you couldn't talk to them about this at another point.

    All right. I just would have asked for some clarification.

    We're not going to consider it, so once we start getting into it, I think that would be a bit of a problem.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Okay.

    Mr. Aldag, do you have anything?

    I do. It's for a clarification of which clause we're on.

     You're going to call the question, “Shall new clause 2.1 carry?”, right?

    No. Hold on a minute.

    The question I need to ask is this. We had a proposed amendment from Mr. Robb that came up last week. There was a new proposed subsection 6(3).

    Yes.

    I'd like to ask Parks Canada a question about that. It would be bringing it forward from the floor to get their comment on the appropriateness—

    You would have to bring that forward, if you want to do that.

    I'm just asking when I would do that. Which clause would that be under? Where are we at on this right now?

    You're not going to be happy with me, because we adopted clause 2, and it would have been in clause 2.

    Okay. That was....

    Nobody's going to like me. I'm glad I brought cake.

    By unanimous consent, which I'm not sure you're going to get—

    No, let's say I made a technical error. I spoke with Mr. Robb last week and said that I would raise it at the appropriate time. I thought we were at the appropriate time.

    We were at the appropriate time when we were doing clause 2, because he wanted to add it to clause 2.

    Yes. I just—

     By unanimous consent we can go back and open that up and you can put it on the floor.

    Do I have the unanimous consent from the committee to do that?

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Chair: I don't have unanimous consent. I'm sorry.

    We are now on clause 3.

    (Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to)

    (On clause 1)

    Now we have to go back to clause 1. We stood that clause because of the definition. We couldn't pass it because there was a possible amendment to the definition, but that definition has not been adopted in the amendment, so I have to rule on it. I have to read my ruling.

    Just so you know, I am ruling on amendment CPC-0.1. In terms of definitions, the interpretation clause can only be amended if the bill has been amended in a way that requires such a change, so this is not the place to propose a substantive amendment. This did not come up as a clause passed, so in essence, I rule it inadmissible because it's not referenced and it's not in any of the amendments adopted. That's another inadmissible.

    (Clause 1 agreed to)

    The Chair: Shall the title carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: We are done on the Rouge Park, plus the clause-by-clause consideration. Thank you all very much. Good job to all of you. I think there was a lot of very good information brought forward to be considered and I appreciate the staff being here to help us through with some of those decision points.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]