- Member of Parliament
- Liberal
- Willowdale
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $103,807.12
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues as we resume debate on Bill C-248 this evening. As members are well aware, this is in act to amend the Canada National Parks Act or the Ojibway national urban park of Canada. It is a great honour to join all of my colleagues here this evening.
Allow me to begin by acknowledging that I am joining this discussion from the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe.
In earlier contributions we saw in the debate with respect to this park, as well as what we have heard this evening, what has certainly emerged is that there is consensus in this chamber that it is imperative that we move forward with this specific park. I must say that it is great, on an evening like this, to see that there is consensus in this chamber.
It is important to emphasize that Windsor is one of seven cities where work is currently under way to create national urban parks. In fact, it falls under a new $130-million program that has the aim of designating up to six new national urban parks across Canada by the year 2026. Canadians expect us to be bold, and that is why we are fully committed to moving in the right direction with a time frame in place by 2026.
The national urban parks program is being led by Parks Canada and I should emphasize that it cannot be short-circuited. At the heart of the process led by Parks Canada, in this particular case and in others, is the premise that we should not forget that there needs to be partnership and collaboration between stakeholders and communities. Every one of us is committed to partnering and working hand in hand to explore opportunities and define boundaries and governance structures, as well as to achieve a shared vision. The process must be grassroots and bottom-up as well.
Since this process began, Parks Canada has been actively collaborating with key partners in the Windsor area, including, as was alluded to, the City of Windsor, Caldwell First Nation and Walpole Island First Nation. Engagement with key stakeholders has also begun, including with conservation and heritage groups, as well as universities, tourism stakeholders and economic development shareholders. I emphasize engagement and collaboration because I want to highlight one of the obvious weaknesses of the bill before us.
Though I think we can all agree the bill has very good, laudable intentions, the process is top-down and totally bypasses grassroots and bottom-up engagement. The failure to undertake appropriate engagement with indigenous peoples specifically on whose traditional lands the proposed park will occur violates the very spirit of reconciliation and risks undermining new relationships and the requisite trust that must always underpin such developments. Creating a national urban park without proper engagement with indigenous partners from the very start would be an unfortunate setback and would get in the way of achieving an important objective.
Bringing together communities and stakeholders to develop a shared vision would ensure that a national urban park is created that endures as a special place that would allow all of us to come together for generations. At this preliminary stage, key decisions require careful consideration and engagement, particularly with respect to the extent of lands to be included within the boundaries. The bill before us prematurely presupposes the precise limits of the park. Furthermore, the bill's identification of these lands, which includes lands currently owned by the provincial government, amounts to a taking of lands without consent and without consultation.
I re-emphasize that a robust, consultative process is being short-circuited. Imagine supporting a bill, for example, in which Ottawa automatically takes control of a park in Quebec or in one of our western provinces without a single conversation or negotiation with the relevant provincial authorities. This is not the spirit with which to launch an enduring national urban park, and it lacks respect for key partners who have ensured the conservation of the subject lands in the face of significant urban development pressures.
Although the lands identified in the bill may be those that should be included in the park, we must take the time and work collaboratively with our local partners to properly assess this question and to explore whether there are other lands that might be considered. This needs to happen before the boundaries of a proposed park are finalized. The bill before us defines the boundaries prematurely. It also closes the door on the possibility that private landowners or adjacent municipalities may identify lands that could be added to the Ojibway footprint. The bill would close the door to that.
We are already building an Ojibway national urban park. Last summer, over 50 local partners stood in Ojibway with my colleagues, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the Minister of Families, to declare our ironclad commitment to establish an Ojibway national urban park. A few months later, we announced over $580,000 in Parks Canada funding for the City of Windsor to begin pre-consultations. Just two weeks ago, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced to the House of Commons that we have an MOU in place between Parks Canada and Transport Canada to work together on transferring the Ojibway Shores lands from the Windsor Port Authority to Parks Canada for inclusion in the eventual Ojibway national urban park.
Ojibway Shores is the last remaining underdeveloped shoreline and natural habitat along the Detroit River, and it would connect the Ojibway Prairie Complex to the Detroit River. It has significant environmental value. It is an essential ecological gem and concentrates in its 33 acres some of the most diverse plants, as was alluded to earlier this evening, insects and animal species in North America. Many of them are rare and at risk.
The Windsor community has been fighting for 20 years to preserve Ojibway Shores. Our government got it done. Ojibway Shores will be preserved forever, and it will be part of a national urban park for generations of residents and visitors to enjoy.
This MOU that I refer to is a major step forward. It underscores the importance and the value of collaboration and consultation in setting the ground work for the national urban park. We are on the cusp of achieving something that everyone wants: A national urban park that will benefit the people of Windsor and all Canadians, contribute to our ongoing efforts to protect the environment and advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples.
Bill C-248 is well-meaning, but it is contemplating the wrong approach, and it sends the wrong message. That is why the House should not support this piece of legislation.
1123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:39:37 p.m.
- Watch
Absolutely, Madam Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly. The member can take comfort in the fact that the legislation, as it is currently drafted and as it was envisioned in 1988, requires that we do that review. In addition, the City of Ottawa has decided to do a review.
47 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:37:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's considered question.
On this particular note, it is imperative that as Canadians we thank the detachments that arrived in the city of Ottawa yesterday. They did a splendid job, several different detachments, so we are grateful for what the Province of Quebec has done.
Insofar as your question is concerned—
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:26:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to take part in today's significant debate.
After what we all witnessed on the streets of our capital yesterday, I feel compelled to say we each have a solemn obligation and responsibility to steer clear of excessive partisanship and rhetoric today. What we saw in our national capital should serve as a sober reminder of our solemn obligation to prove resolute in exercising our responsibilities and vigilant in safeguarding the interests of all Canadians. I firmly believe we must each endeavour to steer clear of division and resort to the principles that guide us in our decision with respect to the specific motion at hand. After all, at times such as this, Canadians are entitled to nothing less from their elected officials.
The facts before us are not in dispute. Today marks the 23rd day of the blockade and occupation in Ottawa. Apart from entrenched encampments in Ottawa, we have witnessed weeks of protests at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor and at the border crossing in Coutts, Alberta. Each of these developments has represented a deliberate and concerted effort to stifle our commercial lifelines or to impede the flow of civic life.
Our democratic right to protest or freely express our views is one thing. A blockade, an entrenched occupation and a permanent gridlock are quite another. Let me say firmly and equivocally that it does not matter what an occupation is about. That is not what the motion before us is about. A protest is generally understood to be time-limited and should never be allowed to devolve into an indeterminate occupation that completely ignores the rights of others. Our government has listened and should always listen to the concerns of all Canadians.
Allow me to talk about the significance of the rule of law. We are blessed as a country and have served as a beacon to people around the world because of our unconditional adherence to the rule of law. That is exactly why I arrived here as a teenager with my family. We were fleeing hateful ideology and extremism of a revolutionary government that had no regard for individual rights or the rule of law. The rule of law is at the core and the very foundation of who we are. The rule of law stands for the proposition that every person is subject to the law and must be held accountable for their actions. That is why none of us should turn a blind eye to what has been unfolding across our country or in our nation's capital in the last several weeks.
Surely, members know that residents of Ottawa have been subjected to sonic assaults for weeks. We cannot overlook that many felt compelled to form citizen brigades against what was occurring here. We cannot remain indifferent to what we are hearing from the residents of Ottawa. Members of the House are also surely aware that hundreds of small businesses, many of which were frequented by members of the House, have felt compelled to remain closed for the past three weeks. Surely we are better than that. We know that some of the protesters were jamming 911 lines in the last several days.
Canadians rightly expect our government to demonstrate resolve in the face of what we have experienced across our country. The only responsible course of action was to invoke the Emergencies Act. We have been in contact with all levels of government and have consistently heard, whether from the chief of police of Ottawa, the mayor of Ottawa or the Premier of Ontario, that the city of Ottawa is under siege, entirely overwhelmed and lacking the resources and tools to deal with the situation at hand. Let me remind every member of the House that a state of emergency was declared by the City of Ottawa on February 6, by the Province of Ontario on February 11 and by the federal government on February 14.
The Emergencies Act spells out a clear process. Despite much of what we have heard today, the act is time-limited and targeted, and must at all times be applied in a reasonable and proportionate fashion. That does not limit anyone's freedom of expression, neither does it limit the freedom of peaceful assembly. The act is replete with specific checks and balances. The legislation, as adopted in 1988, is circumscribed with layers of built-in protection to ensure that our charter rights are fully safeguarded at all times.
The Progressive Conservative government that introduced the Emergencies Act in 1988 ensured that the invocation of the act be done in a charter-compliant fashion. We have heard a lot from members opposite that the facts do not justify the invocation of the Emergencies Act. If the backdrop of developments in Windsor, Coutts and Ottawa has not persuaded the hon. members, nor what we have heard from residents, the police chief, the mayor of Ottawa and the Premier of Ontario, they should consider the following: Let me assure them that the act requires not only a sober assessment of what has happened, but a consideration of possible threats on the horizon.
When Perrin Beatty, a minister of the Conservative government, was asked in committee what justification was required to invoke the Emergencies Act, back in 1988 this is what Mr. Beatty, a Conservative minister, had to say: “It depends not only on an assessment of the current facts of the situation, but even more on judgments about the direction events are in danger of moving and about how quickly the situation could deteriorate.” Mr. Beatty further added, “Judgments have to be made not just about what has happened, or is happening, but also what might happen.”
When the measures were invoked by our government, it was clearly stated that the situation across our country was concerning, volatile and unpredictable. I dare say not a single person in this chamber could possibly take issue with that assessment, so I would ask members of the House not only to refuse to turn a blind eye to what we have seen, but to not prove deaf to the assessment of the Ottawa chief of police, the mayor of Ottawa and the Premier of Ontario. As passionate as we can each be, we do not have licence to allow our judgments to substitute for what we have overwhelmingly heard from public safety officials and national security experts over the course of the last several days. It is imperative that we actually consider this thing and that we look beyond this chamber to determine whether this has been justified.
1110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
