Transport Committee on Oct. 28th, 2009

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

"Or restoration" rather than "and restoration"?

[Marie Lemay]

"Or restoration."

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Fine. We will look at that.

This question has already been raised, but I think it is important. The NCC has a great deal of power, given that it goes through the governor in council rather than through Parliament when it wants to make major changes. I presume that you comply with the legislation once it is adopted. You do what must be done based on what has been laid down by law. I don't know whether you have thought about this, but I would like to give you my viewpoint on it.

Going through Parliament is a much more open process. There are committees where the entire population can express itself through spokespersons. Going through the governor in council is quicker, but the general public is not included in this process.

[Marie Lemay]

First of all, we have to consider the initial situation, the framework in which we work. In many instances, we do not need to obtain government approval for expenditures or the plan. In my opinion, the Chair of the NCC Mandate Review Panel, Mr. Paquet, expressed this aspect the best. He made his comments during an interview, after the legislation had been tabled. He more or less said that it was as if the government had given the NCC flexibility, but within a framework that was quite strict. This is interesting. Indeed, we have the impression that there are more controls, but that we have a little bit more elbow room within this framework. That is more or less what we feel.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Another aspect is consultation.

Previous groups have told us about the way that Québec parks operate when it comes to nearby or neighbouring lands, compared with the way that the NCC operates. Plaisance Park springs to mind, for example. It was pointed out that civil society and environmental protection agencies are much more comfortable working with the Quebec government because of the way it operates. We were told that there was greater and adequate cooperation and that they were given a say in environmental management.

There is consultation at the NCC. But, are there any parameters around the way that you operate? Do you see the need—which may not necessarily be prescribed in the legislation—to be more proactive in working with organizations on matters that have an impact on them?

[Marie Lemay]

The NCC has always consulted interested parties. I must point out that we are going through quite a transformation when it comes to consultation. We are in the process of completely changing the way we do business, not only to consult but also to engage both stakeholders and the public in the process. I hope that these people who raised this issue are also aware of the tremendous amount of change that has taken place over the past while and which is still occurring as we speak.

I will give you the example of the Gatineau Park Master Plan. A public advisory committee was struck to develop the plan. We now do this for all of our master plans. So a stakeholder committee follows the review process for the plan. We did the same thing when we reviewed the Greenbelt. A public committee monitors all of that. Once this has been completed, the committee is dismantled.

Next year we will be reviewing the plan for Gatineau Park. We will be assessing where we are and whether or not the plan is being implemented properly. Public consultations will be held. Since we adopted the Gatineau Park Master Plan, we have developed the park conservation plan, once again in consultation and cooperation with stakeholders. We have a full series of plans. We have the recreation plan.

So stakeholders and the public are engaged in the process. We have no choice in the matter anymore. The principles of openness and transparency have given us no other option. And it is not only because we want this to occur: the external environment is pushing organizations to act on this matter, and that is good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Ms. Hoeppner.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I also want to thank you for your commitment to openness and transparency. I think you are really displaying that the direction you have taken is the one you wanted to take.

I want to build on some of the questions that have already been brought forward and some of your testimony. You said you've met and will continue to meet with 13 mayors of the national capital region. So those meetings will continue to take place and they will be part of the work you do when you develop the master plan. Is that correct?

[Marie Lemay]

Yes, they will continue to take place as long as they want to meet with us. They've been very eager so far. They will inform the development of the master plan, but they will do much more than that.

It's interesting, because there are 13 municipalities of different sizes. My thought at first was about what the common link would be, but things like transportation, environment, the Gatineau River, bicycle paths and cycling are of interest to all. So they will inform the plan but will do much more.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I represent a riding in southern Manitoba, and we have a lot of municipalities. The leaders live with the people they represent. They shop with them, they are their neighbours, and their kids go to the same schools. If individuals are not happy, they tell them in the street, “We're not happy with what you're doing. We're not happy with the direction you're taking on a particular issue.” They also tell them at the polls.

The Mayor of Chelsea was here and was very credible, given his position. He does answer to his constituents. If he doesn't represent their views, they will let him know in many different ways. He told us about a couple of groups in Chelsea: H2O Chelsea, and Nature Chelsea. Volunteers test the water and share that information with the NCC.

Is that indicative of some of the other relationships you have with municipalities?

[Marie Lemay]

Yes. The Mayor of Chelsea is one of the 13, and there are four mayors who represent municipalities that are affected or benefit from the Gatineau Park. So that's part of the collaboration. We also signed a memorandum of collaboration with the Municipality of Chelsea just a year ago, so there are many more exchanges.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Yes, he spoke about that.

[Marie Lemay]

And it may reassure you to know that I spent 15 years working for municipal government, so I really do understand and respect the work they have to do. There is no way we can deliver on our mandate if we don't collaborate with the municipal governments.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Absolutely, and I think we need to realize and give credit where credit is due. Those are the individuals who are working most closely with the public. As I said, they meet them on the street; they see them day to day.

We can come here. It's a little easier to have the distance. Those municipal leaders are right there, and I think we need to give credit to that and we need to give them basically the power to do what they're doing and not discredit them and say, “No, we want to be able to approve it.” They know what they're talking about. They're dealing with individuals. So I am pleased to hear you are having and continuing with the collaboration.

We've had a few different witnesses who have been here. Some of them have said they want Gatineau Park to be a national park and some have said they don't want it to be a national park. Some have said they want it to be a national park with all the benefits but none of the responsibilities. So we're hearing a few different messages.

My concern and my question for you is this. With your approach to conservation and protecting the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park, how would that protection be compromised or different if it were a national park? Can you just talk a little bit about the differences?

[Marie Lemay]

The first thing that needs to be very clear is that Gatineau Park is a really important asset in building a capital for Canadians. It is not just a park; it's a jewel in the capital region.

Our mandate is to build a great capital for Canadians. Within that, how do we really take care of that park that has such an importance to the capital region? We have numerous exchanges with our colleagues at Parks Canada. We believe we do manage it at the level that Parks Canada would manage it. We collaborate a lot. The things I talked about—the conservation plan, the ecological corridors that we're about to identify.... We have 40 scientific research projects that go through every year in Gatineau Park in collaboration with scientists to bring the knowledge up. We have biologists working in the park. We have 20 employees there. We do manage the park according to the Gatineau Park master plan; that's our bible. But the things in there are really very much in line with how Parks Canada manages its parks.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

It's very similar.

[Marie Lemay]

Yes.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

And you would say that's because of your collaboration as well as your commitment.

Again, back to involving the public, if the people who live there were not happy, you'd be hearing from them in an organized way.

[Marie Lemay]

I was going to say yes because of what we do, but mostly it's because when we did the master plan that's where people brought us. They brought us to say “conservation first” in this master plan. That was a decision that was made through the process and that's where we are. So you're right. That proves that's how we got there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mills and Madame Lemay, proposed section 10.1 deals with the NCC's master plan for the national capital region. The Liberal Party's opinion is that the master plan in the future should consider the potential location of the region's employment polls. Let me explain what I mean by this.

We have all heard of the 75-25 sharing of Government of Canada jobs. As it stands, only the jobs under Treasury Board are calculated or included in the equation. We think that's wrong; it should be all of the Canadian government's direct and indirect jobs.

As an example, now the employees of the museums are not in the equation. The employees of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation are not in the equation. Canada Post is not in that equation. Yet all of those employees are directly or indirectly tied to the Government of Canada. So we have to redo the calculation.

But the important part of my suggestion and the suggestion of the Liberal Party is that the NCC should become, let's call it, the “policing agency” of the federal government to ensure that these employment polls are situated intelligently throughout the national capital region. By this I mean that if you're going to be looking after planning in the transportation sector, if you're going to be looking after bridges, then I think you have an important role to play in saying, okay, in west end Ottawa we should have x percentage of jobs, in east end Ottawa we should have x percentage of jobs, and so on, including in Ottawa south and on the Gatineau side of the river, east, west, and so on.

How would you react to that, sir, if the bill were amended and the responsibility for establishing these employment polls within the national capital region, and the policing of that particular policy, were to end up on the board table of the NCC?

[Marie Lemay]

Our intent in the plan for Canada's capital was that the employment polls would be identified. That's another reason it's so important to have it approved by government.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

By government or by Parliament?

[Marie Lemay]

I say “government” because that's what's in the legislation.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Okay, we say “Parliament” and you say “government”.