Transport Committee on Oct. 28th, 2009

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

If the NCC decided, for example, for whatever reason, to sell land, and some of that land made up the 17% of the territory belonging to the Quebec government—

[Marie Lemay]

You know that the 17% is covered by a management and operation agreement with Quebec. The agreement that was signed with the province requires reciprocal approvals from each party on what will be done with this land. So if we wanted to do anything at all with that 17% of the area, we would have to consult our Quebec colleagues. If the province wanted to do something on the site of the CEGEP de l'Outaouais or the college, it would also have to ask for our opinion, because the agreement requires it.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

So the agreement is clear.

[Marie Lemay]

The land you are talking about, the 17% in the 1973 agreement, falls under this agreement. It was an exchange.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

All right.

Let me raise another matter: development inside the park.

There is the issue of the right of first refusal if land owners inside the park wanted to sell some or all of their property.

Would you like a right of first refusal to be included in the bill?

[Marie Lemay]

To answer your question properly, I should first explain how we proceed at the moment.

Since I arrived at the NCC, staff have been assigned to purchase land inside the park. We get in touch with people and we go by market value. So the people have to want to sell and we have to have the money. That is how we work.

Since we began, we have purchased 17 parcels of land, totalling more than 111 hectares. It did not work for two properties, I feel, because the owners were not interested in selling their property at market value. We must also consider the interests of the taxpayer. So we were not able to acquire those two lots.

We drew up a list of priority acquisitions based on the Gatineau Park Master Plan, that is to say, large areas of land and sensitive areas. Take as an example a house built on a one-acre lot that is already damaged. The NCC is not really interested in purchasing a damaged house on the shore of Meech Lake for $700,000. I would rather keep the money for land that can be subdivided and where we could do a lot of construction.

This approach has been very successful. I think that a right of first refusal would not have changed anything up to now, at least since I have been here. However, if you decide to include a right of first refusal, please make sure that you include the details, such as what the right of first refusal means, how we proceed, whether market value is an issue, or if it is simply a way to add value. Details like that are very important if you decide to go that way.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

In the bill, making environmental integrity a priority would prevent, for example, the subdivision of private property in order to add new structures, be they houses, extensions or garages and so on.

Would you be comfortable if subdividing or parcelling land for sale were excluded, and if we did not allow private property to further affect the environmental integrity of the park?

[Marie Lemay]

I think that there are two sides to your question. Of course, we are in favour of the park's environmental integrity. With regard to priorities, I would like to caution you about one thing. In managing Gatineau Park, conservation is a priority, as we decided in the 2005 master plan, but we must manage the park as a whole. There are recreational activities that do respect the environment.

If we want to improve or repair a service area, must we absolutely put it somewhere else in order to protect an ecosystem? We have to be careful. I know that the people from Parks Canada are a little uncomfortable with that. We certainly do support environmental integrity.

With regard to subdividing, to my knowledge, that is up to the municipality, but we will live with what you decide. We respect municipal jurisdiction because we are on municipal territory. This is a decision we have made.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming here today.

I've been interested in the relationships between the chair and the commission. Would this bill change any of those relationships? Commissioners are appointed across Canada to sit on this board. What's the working relationship right now with those people? When it comes to the decision-making, the greater public involvement here, are the commissioners included as part of the process?

[Russell Mills]

Up until three years ago the NCC had a combined chair and chief executive role, and that's the way it had been for the first 50 years of the organization. Marie and I are the first people who have filled the roles of chair of the board, which is for me a part-time position, and full-time chief executive, which is Marie. We've tried to be very respectful of each other and not tread on each other's areas.

The chair is merely one member of the 15-member board and has some responsibilities for the smooth functioning of the organization and relationships between management and the board. But I consider all of the members of the board from across the country to be equals in their participation in the oversight and governance of the commission.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

When you're conducting much more in-depth consultations with mayors from this region, would the board members be present?

[Russell Mills]

No.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So you would be separating the public response, the ability to interact with decision-makers here, within these communities around the National Capital Commission. Your board members wouldn't be privy to that discussion or have an opportunity to question those people?

[Russell Mills]

No, this is a management function, and the board is briefed on these discussions at its meetings and in the CEO's report.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So in a way it's changing the relationship, because before you had one chairman and a chief executive officer together, you had a 15-member board, and you had much less consultation in a regular fashion with the political leadership of these communities.

[Russell Mills]

All of that was done by the person who was the combined chair and CEO. If you speak to board members, ordinary board members or members of the commission from those areas, they will say that they had a lesser role than they do now. That's one of the problems with putting too much authority in one person's hands. The board gets a little bit marginalized. The new structure we have is generally perceived to be a better structure, better governance, and I believe it has worked that way.

[Marie Lemay]

If I may, on that point, what's interesting is that in the last two years, in terms of the executive committee that was in the legislation, this board has never made use of the executive committee because the board meets more regularly. With the technology today, the board is involved all the time. There were over 10 meetings last year. I'd say there's much more involvement of the board in decisions now.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

When it comes to the master plan, could you maybe describe in a little more detail how that's going to work under Bill C-37?

I'm sorry if I'm asking things that may have been.... It's my experience with national parks that master plan changes are very slow and cumbersome. Now, you have a much more responsive master plan that you can adapt to the great responsibilities that you're given to interact with dynamic cities and communities, yet in following a plan that's set out over 50 years, you also have to respond to what these communities want and what they require for their own use within a very short period of time. How does that work with a master plan that's ongoing over that great length of time?

[Marie Lemay]

It's interesting because you're really pointing at one of the big challenges of the NCC in terms of acting locally with a national mandate. You're talking about these communities—and I'm assuming you're talking about the municipalities here—and we have a national mandate. So when you look at the plan for Canada's capital....

We have a plan. We've had several plans for Canada's capital. I think it's still a long process, but it has to be a long process because you have to consult, you have to get all the great minds thinking, involving Canadians. This is what we're going to try do even better this time: reach out to Canadians to get their input on how they would like to see their capital. Part of our mandate is to inspire pride. It's not an easy thing to do. So we have to really engage them. We have to find ways to connect with them so that they know about their plan for Canada's capital, and that you, members of Parliament, really know about this tool and believe in it.

Having said that, we deal with the municipal component on a regular basis. There won't be any surprise through this plan. We coordinate it. This is one of the things that's achieved by the meeting of the mayors and me. We've started integrating our planning processes, because sometimes we consult the same people on the ground. For example, the City of Ottawa right now is redoing its operational plan. They have agreed not to touch the greenbelt until we're finished our greenbelt master plan. So we're going to finish our greenbelt master plan, and then it's going to feed into their operational plan at the next round. We are now trying to really integrate our planning processes so we can build on each other's.

So the plan for Canada's capital is not going to be a surprise to the local municipalities. Our big challenge, in my opinion, is going to be to get Canadians to really see this capital as their capital and be so proud and so engaged in it. You'll hear more about this, I can promise you.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Do you want to add anything to that?

[Russell Mills]

No, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mills and Madam Lemay, I commend you on the work you have done, the leadership you have provided to the NCC in improving transparency and accountability. I think it is important. I'm sure it functioned well before, but still, I think the openness gives the public confidence in what you do. So I congratulate you on that.

One of the issues that has been brought forward to this committee by other witnesses is the greenbelt, and it's an important issue. As far as the planning of that, it's great that you're dealing with the municipalities on the greenbelt, but there is planning that can be done. If you're on the Trans-Canada Highway and you drive by Banff, unless you really look, you won't see it because there is a treed buffer that separates some of the commercial areas from the natural areas. There are these kinds of things to plan around. The road system, I think, just improves the quality of the park and gives those people wanting to see the corridors for wildlife and more of a natural setting.... It just improves that.

So I'm just wondering, first, if you see that for your greenbelt plan, and secondly.... I'm from British Columbia. We have what we call our “agricultural land reserve”, ALR. The municipality cannot subdivide or do any development on agricultural land unless it has approval from the Agricultural Land Commission. Do you have that kind of authority with the municipality so that if they wanted to build a shopping mall on the greenbelt, for instance, you could say, not necessarily no, but this is what they have to do, they have to comply by putting that shroud of trees, or whatever it is, for the sightscapes of the park?