Bill C-37 (Historical)

An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission

An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts

This enactment amends the National Capital Act to
(a) modify the governance structure of the National Capital Commission and increase its transparency;
(b) clarify the National Capital Commission’s responsibilities, including those regarding planning and sound environmental stewardship;
(c) establish the boundaries of Gatineau Park;
(d) enhance the National Capital Commission’s regulation-making powers;
(e) remove the requirement that the National Capital Commission seek Governor in Council approval for real estate transactions; and
(f) harmonize that Act with the civil law regime of Quebec.
This enactment also amends the Official Residences Act to clarify the National Capital Commission’s responsibilities regarding official residences. As well, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Action Plan for the National Capital Commission

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

moved that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, since its creation in 1959 the National Capital Commission has ensured that the national capital region would remain a place of which all Canadians can be proud. Our government believes that this region is a second home for every Canadian.

In fact, the national capital region has a special place in our history and heritage. It is for that reason among others that we must take action to promote and protect it.

That is officially the mission of the National Capital Commission.

The decisions made by the commission are consistent with the role of the region, not only for those who have the privilege of living here, but also for all those who have the good fortune to call Canada their home.

The mandate of the commission is to plan and build a national capital that is beautiful and that reflects the unique character and significance of the seat of the Government of Canada.

Not only does the NCC develop, conserve and improve the national capital region, but it also organizes and sponsors a great number of events that enrich the cultural and social fabric of the region and of the country as a whole.

Before I outline our government's action plan for the National Capital Commission, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House of the important role this city and surrounding area have played in Canada's development.

From the time when the Ottawa River was jam-packed with fallen white pines on their way to Quebec City and onward, to the vibrant G8 centre of today, Canada's capital has evolved with the nation.

From its humble beginnings as a rough-and-tumble shantytown far from major centres of Toronto and Montreal, today the capital region is a thriving metropolis straddling the border of Canada's two most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec.

The desire to protect and maintain the beauty of this region is almost as old as Canada itself. In 1899 the Government of Canada established the Ottawa Improvement Commission in order to beautify the city, including its parks and lands along the Ottawa River.

A series of unfortunate incidents occurred in the early 20th century that had a noticeable impact on the region. Among the most damaging, the great fire of 1900 and another fire in 1916 which destroyed the Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings.

If not for the dedicated efforts of many people, the Centre Block may have never been rebuilt and our two cities would have evolved very differently. Instead, successive governments realized how important it was to build a strong capital region in the image of the country and for all Canadians.

By the start of the second world war, attractive parks and driveways and public buildings were seen around the capital. Initiatives were well underway to protect the forests in the Gatineau Park.

Ten years later, the government asked French architect Jacques Gréber to develop a strategic plan for the national capital region.

His vision, explained in a document known as the Gréber report or the Gréber plan, was presented to the House of Commons in 1951, before it would significantly shape changes in the capital region, during the second half of the last century.

Indeed, the National Capital Act came into effect in 1958. The national capital region was then officially defined as an area of approximately 4,700 square kilometres that included 27 municipalities, in two different provinces. The act also established the National Capital Commission as the federal body responsible for the capital region.

The commission is now responsible for a large number of properties and popular events in the region, to which both locals and visitors are deeply attached.

Indeed, many Canadians have had the opportunity to enjoy these activities, whether it is skating on the Rideau Canal during Winterlude, or admiring the fireworks from Parliament Hill. Thanks to the NCC, the national capital has all kinds of exciting attractions for Canadians.

However, the National Capital Commission is responsible for more than just annual celebrations. It also oversees the Greenbelt, the parkways, bike paths and the Gatineau Park.

This government recognizes the importance of the National Capital Commission in the region and the rest of the country. This is why we have sought to keep it relevant to the times.

In 2006 the Prime Minister named me minister responsible for the National Capital Commission. Shortly after I launched a review of the commission to assess the continuing relevance of its mandate, mission and activities.

An independent panel, chaired by Gilles Paquet, recognized that capital cities were distinct and most capitals had an agency responsible for their oversight. These agencies are charged with planning work, reviewing architecture and design, handling heritage buildings and managing public programming events.

During its review, the independent panel held meetings with numerous experts, received written briefs and heard oral presentations at public meetings in Ottawa and Gatineau from more than 100 people. The panel considered the opinions raised by all stakeholders, including concerns regarding the expansion of the National Capital Commission's mandate, governance mechanisms and lack of clarity in legislation.

In December 2006, the independent panel released its report to the public. The panel's report was comprised of 31 recommendations, including renewed funding, new rules for openness for board meetings, separation of the roles of the chief executive officer and board chair, a more direct connection to Parliament and a new focus on the environment.

Our government has implemented a number of measures to follow up on the panel's recommendations. For example, in the 2007 budget, we increased NCC funding to $15 million. This additional money has allowed the National Capital Commission to continue its important work, without having to give up on some assets, such as the Greenbelt.

We have also established the distinct positions of chairperson and chief executive officer. Then, in September of last year, the government authorized the National Capital Commission to acquire private properties located in Gatineau Park, without having to seek approval for every single transaction.

We have achieved a lot in terms of implementing the independent panel's recommendations.

The amendments being proposed in the bill take into account the majority of the panel's remaining recommendations, the intentions of private members' bills presented in Parliament and public comments. If passed, the amendments proposed by the government will make the NCC operations more transparent and accountable and will allow the NCC to better fulfill its mandate.

Among the major changes brought forward, let me review a few.

The first requires the board directors to hold at least four meetings in public per year, while still maintaining the option to have closed-door meetings, if necessary. This was an extremely important issue when I sat as a town councillor in Gatineau city hall. This was an important area because town councils in both cities were open to public discussion. It was, needless to say, an extremely important element.

The second requires the board of directors to submit once every 10 years a 50-year master plan to the National Capital Region to be tabled in the House of Commons. This is similar to what we see in many municipalities across the country, where the schema is tabled so that everybody can have a better view of where their community is going over the course of the next several years.

Through these changes, we are formally recognizing the fact that the NCC is already responsible for six official residences, and we are also recognizing the role that it is already playing in transport planning in the capital region.

The NCC will no longer have to seek cabinet approval for individual real estate transactions such as acquisitions, disposals and leasing. From now on, the way the NCC manages this type of transactions will be subject to approval under the current annual corporate planning process.

This legislation establishes the boundaries of Gatineau Park, and it emphasizes sound environmental stewardship.

Moreover, the regulatory powers of the National Capital Commission would be strengthened to better protect its lands and natural habitats.

As the legislation currently exists, there is no legal requirement to hold any meetings in public at all. Therefore, in 2007, following the mandate review of 2006, the commission took the initiative to become a more open and transparent organization. It invited the public to come to its board meetings. The first of these meetings took place in November 2007, and this was a good step toward modernizing the crown corporation.

The amendments proposed by our government will require that the commission's board of directors meet in public meetings at least four times a year. This will help make the more organization more transparent and accountable.

Currently the National Capital Commission does not have any requirements to publish any planning reports. However, by requiring the organization to submit a 50-year master plan at least every 10 years to the Governor-in-Council and table it in the House, the public will have a better sense of the overall direction and plan for our national capital region.

For many residents, the national capital region's Gatineau Park is an important green space and one of the most popular regional amenities throughout the year. Over the past few years, this government has heard from stakeholders, including members of Parliament, that the park is not being adequately protected.

The changes that we are making to the National Capital Act would require the commission to manage its properties in accordance with the principles of responsible environmental stewardship, with particular attention being given to maintain its ecological integrity. These changes would ensure that the Gatineau Park's breathtaking beauty and rich history would remain preserved for generations to come.

One key element in the mandate of the National Capital Commission is the National Interest Land Mass. These lands are located in the national capital region and have been acquired by the federal government over the past century. This land is considered essential to the functioning and experience of the capital, including the greenbelt, the Gatineau Park, riverbanks, public places and commemorations.

The existing National Capital Act is silent on the National Interest Land Mass. This has caused confusion among stakeholders, specifically regarding the types of properties to be included as part of this collection of lands and the process used to designate these properties.

The bill before the House proposes that the commission may designate or remove designations of properties that are part of the National Interest Land Mass only if pertinent regulations have been approved by the Governor-in-Council. These regulations would set out the criteria that are used in deciding which properties should be included and the process followed by the commission in arriving at these designations.

The National Capital Commission has a number of tools at its disposal to ensure that the lands for which it is responsible are properly administered in the interests of Canadians over the long term. Currently, the NCC's responsibilities are limited to protecting property, preserving order and preventing accidents.

The proposed legislation would allow the Governor in Council to make regulations governing the use of the property and the activities that take place there, and protecting the area's environment, the goal being to improve real property management and environmental stewardship. The National Capital Commission should have the means to enforce these regulations. Accordingly, the bill provides that any person who contravenes these regulations can be fined.

The proposed changes to the legislation also aim to make the commission, and specifically the deliberations of its board of directors, its long-term planning activities, and its decisions related to the national interest land mass, more transparent. In addition, the bill places a special emphasis on the protection of not only the real property for which the NCC is responsible, but also the environment and ecological integrity of Gatineau Park. As well, the bill recognizes the role the commission plays in areas such as transportation planning and the management of official residences in the national capital region.

I urge all members to vote in favour of this bill to keep our national capital region vibrant and a place of well-being for future generations.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his speech. I can say right now that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill but we would like to verify a few things.

Would my colleague agree to submit all National Capital Commission activities, decisions and development projects in Quebec to the Government of Quebec for approval?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague and his party for their support of this bill. We are quite pleased.

With respect to his question, I believe that there are memorandums of understanding or agreements between the Government of Quebec and the National Capital Commission for the management of a number of things. I recall quite clearly having had the opportunity to discuss this with the former minister responsible for the Outaouais, Mr. Benoît Pelletier. We have always been able to come to an agreement about certain things and it was governed by a protocol between the two levels of government.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I liked the part of the minister's speech on the board of directors having to submit a 50-year master plan. That sounds like a very good idea in protecting the important green space in the area.

The minister alluded to some problems that the previous board had with meetings and public information being available. Could he expand a bit as to what inspired the bringing forward of this bill at this time?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things MPs in the area realized was, first and foremost, it had been 15 years since the National Capital Commission had gone through a legislative review and a review of its activities. Therefore, one of the first things we did, as I mentioned in the speech, was to name an expert independent panel to review not only what fundamentally was not in sync with public thinking and the evolution in public thinking on transparency and public meetings, but also to see what role the National Capital Commission could play by comparing what was being done in other places.

As I mentioned, the committee came forward with a series of recommendations and contemporized the actions that needed to be taken by the National Capital Commission at this specific period. There are elements in the there that we view as being essential, which were not there before.

I think we can all be proud of the direction the review panel has brought us and hopefully we can get this adopted as fast as possible.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague, who is the minister responsible for the Outaouais in the government. Does the National Capital Commission have forecasts to ensure that its expenditures in Gatineau and Ottawa are equitable?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I became a city councillor in Gatineau, Marcel Beaudry, one of the great chairmen the National Capital Commission has had, told me that the commission acted somewhat as a counterweight to balance things out between Ottawa and Gatineau. We have seen several activities over the last few years. I am thinking in particular of the work done on intersections, city streets, development and urbanization of the land. We have seen also the role played by the National Capital Commission to support initiatives by both the City of Gatineau and the City of Ottawa.

Thus, without giving figures—for I do not think we can get to the essence of things through quantitative analysis—we can look at the big picture. I think that the Canada-Quebec agreement which covers the Outaouais region of Quebec essentially sets up an obligation for the National Capital Commission. In 40, 50 or 60 years, people will take stock and realize how much the NCC was a driver of development in both the Quebec and the Ontario communities.

In my view, it is very much in the interest of everyone that this commission continues with its mandate and that we make sure it has the tools it needs to do so. Together, we will all be proud of our national capital.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member and the government for bringing forward the bill. My colleague from Edmonton Centre has been part of the campaign in favour of this proposal to declare Gatineau a national park for quite a long time.

I had the privilege last week of speaking to the delegates from around the world who were attending the ICLEI event, which was about local initiatives for biodiversity. It is incredibly inspiring to hear what is going on in South Africa and Australia and some of the cities across our own country.

Ottawa, Gatineau and Aylmer are privileged to have this incredible park in their midst, which has been waiting to be preserved for all time by the federal government.

I am delighted that the government has responded to the recommendation that the board be revised and opened up to the public so that all decisions into the future can be more transparent and participatory, and to provide the legislative boundaries. I laud the government for that. In one week we have the Nahanni and now hopefully the Gatineau.

I am sure there will be issues that members of the various parties will want to discuss, and it will be good that the bill goes to committee, but I commend the hon. member for moving it.

I am wondering if the hon. member can give any assurance that this will not be one of the acquisitions that the government will be selling off and that towards the next budget the government will commit money to purchase additional private properties. I understand in the bill there is a provision to allow for the purchase of additional surrounding properties as they come up for sale.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a quick comment in terms of the extremely important role that Gatineau Park and the greenbelt area play in this region.

I was involved, as a town councillor, with developing a strategic plan for Gatineau's 20/20 vision, and one of the outstanding features was Gatineau Park. We built our economic development and social and cultural plan around the fact that we have a very strong green entity in the community and that it is an asset that we need but that we can also promote as being extremely important for our community, and moving forward, for the quality of life for all our citizens.

On the question of whether this federal government will sell off the assets, the hon. member should not worry; we will not sell off those assets. Those are assets that we, as Canadians, can look at and say, “This is our national capital region. It is a beautiful region. It is an outstanding region”.

All we have to do is look at other national capitals around the world and we can certainly be among the most prominent, the most important, because of the environmental sustainability vision that people like Jacques Gréber and others had for this region, long before both the hon. member and I had visions. That is the task we have, to continue that vision and go in that spirit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts.

First of all, we have serious questions about the bill regarding the changes made to the governance of the National Capital Commission and the management of Gatineau Park. We plan to support Bill C-37 in principle, so it may be referred to committee for further study.

The national capital is a symbol of our country. It is important to ensure that this vision is understood by all visitors from around the world.

The national capital is a symbol of our country and it is important to ensure it represents the vision of Canada to visitors from around the world. An open and transparent National Capital Commission is critical to ensure that the capital represents the values of Canadians.

The national capital region is one of the most beautiful capitals in the world and we are very proud of it.

This organization is an important part of the national capital region. We must maintain transparency within the National Capital Commission and continue to improve it if possible. An open and transparent corporation would reflect the values of Canadians.

This update is a reflection of the current political reality. The public wants to have access to the discussions that relate to where they live. Any decisions that are made will have considerable repercussions on their lives. It is also a matter of principle. So, we have some serious questions, as I was saying, regarding the administrative changes proposed for the NCC.

I would remind the House that it is an independent corporation. Here are a few lines from the National Capital Commission's web site regarding its mission:

to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the national capital region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance;

to organize, sponsor or promote such public activities and events in the national capital region as will enrich the cultural and social fabric of Canada.

Generally speaking the role of the NCC is to develop the land in the National Capital Region and to promote our region.

This bill is a follow up to the recommendations of an ad hoc committee chaired by Mr. Gilles Paquet in 2006. The specific purpose of Bill C-37 is to amend the National Capital Act to:

(a) modify the governance structure of the National Capital Commission and increase its transparency;

(b) clarify the National Capital Commission’s responsibilities, including those regarding planning and sound environmental stewardship;

(c) establish the boundaries of Gatineau Park;

(d) enhance the National Capital Commission’s regulation-making powers;

(e) remove the requirement that the National Capital Commission seek Governor in Council approval for real estate transactions; and

(f) harmonize that Act with the civil law regime of Quebec.

This enactment also amends the Official Residences Act to clarify the National Capital Commission’s responsibilities regarding official residences.

Along with the green belt, Gatineau Park is one of the jewels in the crown of Canada's capital. Born of the Greber plan, it has gone on to become the lifeblood of our capital. Today we have some serious questions about the boundaries of Gatineau Park. They need to be made very clear.

On page 13 of the bill, the description of the Gatineau Park boundaries reads as follows:

The boundaries of Gatineau Park are within the registration divisions of Hull, Gatineau and Pontiac, Province of Quebec, are located in the municipalities of Chelsea, La Pêche, Pontiac and the City of Gatineau, and form part of the cadastres of the Township of Aldfield, the Township of Eardley, the Township of Hull, the Township of Masham, the Township of Onslow and the Cadastre du Québec.

An examination of this bill leads one to immediately grasp the need for a thorough study of the matter. The description of the boundaries runs from page 12 through page 34, a very detailed description. So we will be in need of briefings, maps, engineers, and GPS to make sure that everything that needs to be included or excluded is properly delineated and identified. We therefore feel this requires a far more thorough examination in committee. There we need to clarify its functions and accessibility and set the boundaries.

For many reasons, I do not think that Gatineau Park should necessarily become a national park, basically because there are portions of land inside and around the park that belong to the government of Quebec. I also think that any protection afforded the park should not include a prohibition of citizens to have access and engage in activities there. However there should be some limits set.

Highway developments in recent years have improved access for residents to the western part of the city of Gatineau and to the park. Like the greenbelt in Ottawa, Gatineau Park is an ecological treasure, but it must also be able to grow and adapt to the human environment. There must be a balance between the two. Protecting the park is essential. To do so, we have to know its physical boundaries and put protective mechanisms in place.

Some are disappointed that Bill C-37 does not go far enough, but others are happy to begin the discussion. That is the gist of the message I want to deliver today. We must vote in favour of the bill so that it can be studied in depth in committee. In the course of that process, we will have to pay attention to certain concepts included in the bill so that they are fully understood and defined. I cite for example two terms used in the bill which must be studied, explained and explored. The first is the reference to a national interest land mass and the second concerns the ecological integrity of the park.

The bill raises other questions. Would the NCC charge user fees? Also, is there a possibility of privatizing the park, certain parts of it or certain works arising from the use and preservation of the park? In addition, this bill raises the issue of public transit in the region. This whole issue, and its local and regional impact, must be studied. The issue of transportation in the region is nothing new, even though it is included in this bill. It is part of the original mandate of the National Capital Commission. That is why the commission has already participated and is now participating in studies and in some planning of transportation. The use and disposition of properties in the park must also be very clear, so as to cause no prejudice to anyone.

In conclusion, the Liberal Party of Canada will support Bill C-37 in principle, in the interest of its further study in committee.

At this time we support the bill proceeding to committee stage. In principle, the bill adds clarity and transparency to the National Capital Commission and grants it clearer responsibilities in which to manage itself. There are questions on how these administrative changes will work and we will need to examine these in committee. The issue of setting the boundaries of Gatineau Park must also be examined closely. This issue has the potential to be controversial. We will examine this issue more closely over the summer and in committee.

In principle, the bill brings clarity and transparency to the National Capital Commission, and assigns it clear management responsibilities. We have questions about how these administrative changes will function, and so will need to have them studied in committee.

Any question relating to the boundaries of Gatineau Park must also be very closely examined.

We will work on this over the summer and during its study in committee, seeking the clarifications to all the issues we raise.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer, who is my neighbour in the Outaouais, for his speech in which he said that the Liberal Party will support Bill C-37 so it can be studied in great detail in committee.

Could the hon. member tell us why it is necessary to look at the boundaries of Gatineau Park?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Of course, it is rather difficult to determine now the benefits and drawbacks related to certain boundaries of Gatineau Park. However, I can provide an example for the hon. member.

There are currently some private properties in Gatineau Park. Other properties are immediately adjacent to the park. Some of the properties located inside the park benefit from transactions that took place in years past. If we were to now block or stop any additional development in Gatineau Park, this would have the effect of increasing the value of existing properties. However, in some cases, the value would go down. We are talking about properties that were acquired from other private interests, of land acquired from the National Capital Commission, or of properties neighbouring the park. Therefore, I believe that we will have to look very closely at the boundaries of Gatineau Park.

Earlier, I talked about the park's geographical location. Hon. members probably noticed that a section of the park is located in the riding of Hull—Aylmer, but most of it is in the riding of Pontiac.

We will have to take a close look at the park's boundaries to ensure that the process is fair to those who are already settled in the park, to those who have neighbouring properties, and also to municipalities. Indeed, some municipalities are currently using public roads located in the park, while residents of these municipalities use the park in various ways. So, we will have to be very cautious and careful, and we will have to do a thorough and detailed study of the boundaries of Gatineau Park.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his response.

Now, I would like to know what my colleague from Hull—Aylmer thinks about submitting all National Capital Commission activities, decisions and development projects relating to property in Quebec to the Government of Quebec for its approval.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Gatineau already asked that question to my colleague, the member for Pontiac and Minister of Foreign Affairs, who obviously spoke just before I did in favour of the bill. The response given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs was quite clear: there are agreements between the governments of Quebec and Canada on different topics, different transactions and different places where the Government of Canada can act in the province of Quebec.

But I do not believe that the Government of Canada has to ask the Government of Quebec for permission to do work in a park that belongs to the Government of Canada. I understand and I can see where the member for Gatineau is going with his question. We should not expect that tomorrow morning, next month or five years from now, the Government of Canada, through the National Capital Commission, will decide to build a zoo, an amusement park, water slides or other things without consulting the neighbouring municipalities, the general public and obviously also the Government of Quebec.

The Government of Canada has jurisdiction over its own territory but there are agreements on sharing responsibility and on consultation between the governments of Quebec and Canada, so my colleague from Gatineau has nothing to be afraid of. I do not really believe that just because it owns Gatineau Park, the Government of Canada, through the National Capital Commission, will play tricks on the Government of Quebec.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts. The Bloc recognizes the importance of improving the conservation of natural settings and the protection of Gatineau Park and property development. It considers, however, that the federal government must act with respect for the environment and the jurisdictions of Quebec, as regards the management of its land, for example.

In this vein, the Bloc would like to express a number of reservations. They concern, among other things, the matter of transportation and the powers of the National Capital Commission to designate parts of Quebec land a national interest land mass.

The Bloc supports efforts to make the National Capital Commission more transparent. And particularly so, as these measures echo recommendations made by the Bloc during the 2006 consultations when the commission's mandate was reviewed.

In addition, the Bloc decries the fact that the government did not include certain recommendations drawn from our 2006 brief on the review of the NCC's mandate, to the effect, first, that all activities, decisions and proposed development by the NCC within Quebec territory be first submitted for approval to the Government of Quebec and, second, that spending on one side or other of the river be shared equally by Gatineau and Ottawa.

Consequently, the Bloc is in favour of having Bill C-37 studied in committee as concerns Gatineau Park. This is an important site the NCC manages. With an area of over 350 kilometres, Gatineau Park is currently a federal park administered by the National Capital Commission. Unlike other national and provincial parks in Canada, the park has no legal protection, which makes it vulnerable to sales of its lands by the NCC.

Under an agreement concluded in 1973, the Government of Quebec transferred management control over 5,060 hectares of land belonging to Quebec situated within Gatineau Park to the federal government, in perpetuity, according to the two orders in council accompanying the agreement. The agreement concerns some 17% of the park lands. Despite the transfer of the right of management, the Government of Quebec continues to view itself as the sole owner of these lands.

Certain concerns should be raised regarding, among other things, the matter of transportation. In the section on the NCC's mandate, a new provision concerning the objects and purposes of the commission is causing concerns. The bill proposes powers under the objects and purposes of the National Capital Commission with respect to transportation in the region. To the Bloc, it is clear that responsibility for the development of Quebec land in the federal capital and elsewhere belongs to the Government of Quebec. The same is true in the case of transportation.

The Bloc Québécois believes that federal government legislation and policies should be amended so that all activities, decisions and proposed development by the National Capital Commission within Quebec territory should first be submitted to the Government of Quebec for approval.

With respect to transferring financial resources, the Bloc Québécois does not agree with a number of the National Capital Commission's objectives, particularly those concerning the development of a national identity, it goes without saying.

We recognize that the Outaouais region will benefit from planning and we understand that Canadians want to revitalize the area surrounding the federal seat of government. All the same, we believe that all planning activities should occur under the direction of the Government of Quebec.

As to the national interest land mass, which is a very touchy, important and sensitive issue, the bill introduces new sections authorizing the National Capital Commission to designate some lands as being of national interest. In clauses 10.2 and 10.3, the federal government is proposing nothing less than to give the National Capital Commission the power to acquire lands deemed to be of national interest. As soon as such lands come under the ownership or management of the National Capital Commission, it becomes responsible for planning their use. The Bloc Québécois recognizes the importance of protecting Gatineau Park from building development, but that protection must respect the integrity of Quebec territory.

With respect to the boundaries of Gatineau Park, these are defined for the first time in the legislation. Although this is a positive step, the Bloc Québécois wants to hear what experts have to say about the boundaries and will make sure that they correspond to those recognized by the Government of Quebec.

In the interest of transparency, the bill makes a number of changes to the National Capital Commission's operating procedures, that is, how the federal organization makes decisions. For example, the bill requires the commission to hold four open meetings per year. That was one of the demands in the Bloc Québécois' 2006 brief, and it will make the commission more transparent. Furthermore, at least every 10 years, the National Capital Commission must submit a master plan to the governor in council, who will in turn submit it to the House of Commons following approval.

These provisions are a step in the right direction. The Bloc Québécois would have liked to have seen another provision about the equitable appointment of commissioners, as stated in the brief I referred to earlier. It is important to understand the terms. We asked that:

“national capital region” commissioners representing Quebec be as numerous as those representing Ontario, and that Quebec be guaranteed one quarter of the commissioners from outside of the “national capital region”.

Some of the additional recommendations contained in the Bloc Québécois 2006 brief on the National Capital Commission review were not included in the government's bill and that is deplorable. Here are a few that could have been included in this bill.

With respect to the integrity of Quebec's territory, and based on the fact that the current government has promised to respect Quebec's jurisdictions, the Bloc Québécois expects all activities of the National Capital Commission concerning Quebec to be subject to the approval of the Government of Quebec.

Although the federal government and the National Capital Commission consider the Outaouais and the Ontario side as a single entity, we consider Gatineau and Ottawa to have their own identity and interests and the National Capital Commission must recognize that the Government of Quebec and the City of Gatineau, on the Quebec side, are better positioned to meet the needs of their citizens.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the federal government and its agent, the National Capital Commission, have the obligation to respect the integrity of Quebec's territory, both in terms of the land mass and the exercise of power.

The federal government's law and policies should be amended to ensure that: the federal government ceases to dispossess Quebec of its land; the National Capital Commission does not have the right to proceed with expropriations; all National Capital Commission activities, decisions and development projects on Quebec territory are to be approved by the Government of Quebec in advance; all board meetings of the National Capital Commission are to be held in public.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the federal government and its agent, the National Capital Commission, must formally undertake to equitably share their expenditures between the cities of Gatineau and Ottawa on the basis of population.

The Bloc Québécois will vote for Bill C-37 so that it can be studied in more detail in committee.

Gatineau Park is an extraordinary place and very beautiful. It deserves to be visited and better known. In the very distant past, the Champlain Sea came this far and one of the banks where its waves crashed was Gatineau Park. When we visit Champlain Lookout, we can see how vast and deep the Champlain Sea might have been.

There is also Lac Philippe, the picnic places and Pink Lake, which is remarkable for the fact that there is no oxygen in its depths. It is highly valued by scientists, who can conduct some of the rarest studies in the world here. There are also the bicycle paths, the hiking trails, and the places where families can go with their children to admire and appreciate nature in a safe environment.

As a result of the various eco-climates in Gatineau Park, trees as rare as the ironwood can be found. It used to be prized by locals when the forest industry was still cutting down trees here. Ironwood was used to make axe handles. It is very rare nowadays, and the members of all parties and all the people in the world should get to know and appreciate the micro-climates to be found in Gatineau Park.

Many people enjoy the cross-country ski trails in the winter. They have places along the trails where people can stop and eat something they have brought along. A wood stove is provided. People can get warm in these enclosed places and enjoy their skiing all the more. My students and I did some winter camping in Gatineau Park. We could spend the night in the quinzhees and continue our skiing the next day on the well-groomed trails.

The animals are also very interesting. There is Kingsmere too. You know just what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker. It was the cottage of none other than William Lyon Mackenzie King, the former Prime Minister of Canada. If I am not mistaken, you invited parliamentarians to visit it last night. It really deserves a visit.

We all know—

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but there is someone here.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we had to deal with some business of Parliament, but now I will continue.

If I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, I had got to the Kingsmere estate, which you are familiar with because as Speaker of the House of Commons, you occupy one of the residences there, which is maintained by the National Capital Commission. It is also an interesting place because the former Prime Minister of Canada, Mackenzie King, built residences there out of material he inherited from his grandfather, who was the leader of the Reform Party in Ontario, in Upper Canada, at the time of the 1837-1838 rebellions. We will recall that the Reformists in Upper Canada and the Patriots in Lower Canada worked, each in their own way and with their own people, to bring democracy to the people they represented, Upper Canadians and Lower Canadians. We know that the British Empire was familiar with the formula which it applied at home, but refused to allow real democracy to be instituted in a straightforward, honest manner.

So Prime Minister Mackenzie King’s grandfather was one of those leaders, as Louis-Joseph Papineau, an important figure, was for Lower Canada. It is interesting to note that Montebello, where Louis-Joseph Papineau spent the last 20 years of his life, is not far from Gatineau Park, in terms of relative distance when we compare them today.

It also has a very interesting lake, not only in terms of its views and what it is used for, but also in political terms: Meech Lake. We all know that the Bloc Québécois first came into being in the Outaouais. As they say, truth emerges from the clash of ideas. The Meech Lake accord was first signed by all of the premiers on Quebec’s national holiday, June 24, 1987, on the shores of Meech Lake. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had invited all of the provincial premiers to work out a way for Quebec to become part of the Constitution that had been patriated so incongruously—to put it mildly—by then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Meech Lake saw the start of a great debate, all across Canada, all across Quebec. On June 23, 1990, the three-year-old agreement finally crumbled. We know the political dealing that took place at that time. Five demands had been put to Canada by Quebec, for it to sign on to the patriation of the 1982 Constitution. I would mention in passing that it was never signed, and since that time a majority of the members representing Quebec in the House of Commons have been from the Bloc Québécois.

I tell this story by way of saying that inside Gatineau Park itself, in this magnificent spot, is a place of great political significance to the Bloc Québécois: Meech Lake. It is worth making the trip, to go and walk on its shores and even go swimming, just as one might in Lac Philippe.

That said, the Bloc Québécois reiterates its position: we are going to vote in favour of Bill C-37 so that the National Capital Commission can enter the 21st century.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of my colleague from Gatineau. Since we have both worked on several files which come under the responsibility of the National Capital Commission and since we have some time left, I would like to ask him a few questions.

My first question is about the important role played by the National Capital Commission with respect to integration and urban planning in the national capital region on both sides of the river. Is my colleague satisfied with the powers and responsibilities of the NCC vis-à-vis this role of creating cohesion between both sides of the river with regard to urban planning and land-use planning? Is he satisfied with the powers and the role it has?

Second, I would like to know if he is satisfied with the way the NCC carries out this work presently? If not, what would he like to see corrected in the work of the NCC?

If I have some time left after his answer, I will ask him another question.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier, who was once president of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa, where I also was a student and where I also tried to be elected, a few years after his mandate, not as president, but as a member of the executive. Although I lost the election at the time, I am happy that we can both be members of Parliament here today. Therefore, I salute my colleague, who is originally from Mattawa.

Here is my answer to his very pertinent question. To begin with, land use in Quebec is a matter for the National Assembly of Quebec to decide. Also, the City of Gatineau knows best how the land should be used in the interest of all of its population. I agree that there can be some degree of coordination due to the creation of the National Capital Commission, which was in 1959, the year I was born. Cohesion and coordination always are useful.

Now, we must never forget, and this element is missing from the bill, that the integrity of the Quebec territory must be respected.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member with interest. He pointed out that he would want to make certain that a fair distribution of projects would exist between Ottawa and the Gatineau area. I think we can all agree that we should encourage that not all the development should occur on one side or the other, that there should be a good balance between those.

However, the minister indicated that under the new bill we would not need cabinet approval for real estate acquisitions. Could that be of some concern as well? Now that we are relying on the commission to make decisions, we are putting a lot of trust on it. In addition, the whole area of the green space is a big interest to my colleagues in the NDP. We want to ensure that green space is protected at all costs. We would not want to see the development and diminution of the green space over time.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party for his question. Certainly, people have been asking for this for a very long time. Taxpayers' money should be spent fairly by the federal government. That is a basic principle. In the Gatineau-Ottawa region, there must be a 25/75 distribution if we are to reflect the population distribution fairly. We know that 25% of the population of the greater federal capital region is in Gatineau and 75% is in Ottawa. We do not want more than that, but we certainly do not want less. This is very important in the case of the National Capital Commission.

A great deal of Quebec land has been included. That is very important. The environmental aspect is also important. We are in favour, but the environmental laws of Quebec must be respected.

Let me come back to the topic of highway development. When the building of new bridges is considered, where the two cities, the governments of Ontario and Quebec, the federal government as well as the National Capital Commission are involved, the process is very cumbersome. With coordination, we can usually get results.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised the question of bridges, an issue that concerns us deeply in this region.

As we all know, there is a proposal in the works to build at least one more bridge in order, we hope, to one day be able to get heavy trucks out of the downtown core of the national capital.

My question relates to the potential construction of a second bridge, which could allow us to create a ring road around the national capital region.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts and his point of view on the existence of a ring road around the national capital region in the future. A ring road would allow us to effectively manage traffic in the region.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, since I have lived in both Saskatoon and Regina, cities that have ring roads, I think it is an excellent idea. In fact, ring roads help unclog the cities. They also give better access to specific areas of the city.

However, I will start by addressing the first point. The National Capital Commission presented three possibilities: a bridge linking the Canotek industrial park on the Ontario side with the Gatineau airport; another possibility with Lorrain Boulevard on the Gatineau side; and also Kettle Island around Manor Park on the other side of the river.

Since 1951-52 when the Gréber plan was implemented, Gatineau has worked towards building a bridge at Kettle Island. Unfortunately, the City of Ottawa has not done its part.

Where does that leave us? We will have to wait three or four years to see how things will turn out. Nonetheless, the bridge issue is fundamental, and we must consider the work done by the people of Gatineau and the Quebec ministry of transportation to widen Montée Paiement Boulevard in order to build a bridge at Kettle Island. We must remember that this work has been done. We know that it is currently being examined as one of the options for a future bridge.

That said, it is smart to think about a ring road. It is a way to get around. But we must look at the work done by the different partners, since there are a number of partners in this project.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Gatineau Park has been affected in recent years by golf course development and the construction of highways through the park.

Does the member believe that this bill will protect everything in Gatineau Park, which is a jewel?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the reason we want Bill C-37 to be referred to committee. We want the legislation to include guarantees, and we want the land in Gatineau Park to be protected to the same extent as the integrity of Quebec's territory, for which the National Assembly of Quebec and the City of Gatineau are responsible.

The committee will have to work very hard to ensure that such protection is in place.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the government for bringing this bill forward. I think this is a bill that will need some study at committee. It is a bill that will require us to hear witnesses. However, I want to thank the government for bringing forward a bill that will do what I think many of us want to see done.

Gatineau Park will actually be protected. The park will be given the proper designation. It will have someone who is going to be a steward to make sure that this park is there for generations. I also want to acknowledge a number of people who were the driving forces behind this bill getting to this place so that we will hopefully have protection for the park.

I want to acknowledge my predecessor, Ed Broadbent, who brought his private member's bill forward to do what this bill is attempting to do, which is protect Gatineau Park. After Mr. Broadbent's retirement, I was able to get the confidence of the people of Ottawa Centre and be elected to the House of Commons. I brought this forward as my first private member's bill and have since brought it forward to this Parliament after the last election. Some changes have been made, but it is essentially the same design.

I brought forward two bills. One was Bill C-207, which was to reform the NCC, and Bill C-367, to protect Gatineau Park. The government has done some good things in its bill that have brought these two component parts together.

I would hope that certain amendments are considered, but a good thing about the bill is that it opens up the National Capital Commission board meetings to the public. That is something that had been long overdue. It sounds strange to be saying that in 2009, but for far too long the NCC did its business behind closed doors.

The bill will also legislate boundaries for Gatineau Park. It may be strange to know that, prior to this, there were no boundaries for Gatineau Park. In fact, most Canadians would not have been aware of that. Indeed, people who have lived their whole lives in this region would not have known that there were no boundaries. Now, we have that and those are good things.

There are a couple of things I would like to see and I will enumerate those. We can certainly bring these to committee. In Bill C-207, that I brought forward on the reformation of the NCC, I recommended that we reduce the number of people on the board to make it a little more functional and hands on, and that we ensure that there would be city councillors from both the Gatineau side and the Ottawa side, nominated by the respective councils and represented on the board of the NCC.

Right now we do not have a democratic representation on the board. There are appointments made by governor in council. I thought this would be a smart thing to do. Consultations that I held here in the community recommended that we have someone who represents the interests of the people in the region, from the council perspective in both Gatineau and Ottawa. It would also still have people who were appointed to make sure that the national view was incorporated.

I also wanted to make sure, and this is connected to Bill C-367, my private member's bill on Gatineau Park, that we not only legislated the park boundaries as is contemplated in this bill but give it the same protection as a national park, so that no new developments or encroachments on the park would take place without the approval of Parliament. That is a very important piece. It is not in the bill and I hope that we can amend the bill to do that.

Gatineau Park is an incredibly important piece of our country's history. It is the residence of the Speaker and a former residence of one of our prime ministers. Interestingly enough, it was one of the first parks that was to be contemplated as a national park. Yet, because of reasons I will get into in a little bit, it was never able to achieve its right as a national park.

It was created back in 1938, as we know, but its history goes much further back than that. It was a very vibrant place for logging and other industry. It was a place, however, that people knew from the beginning, going back to 1912, that there needed to be some protection. There were park officials who said, “Look, we have to keep an eye on the development here. There's some industry happening”.

There were deep concerns around forest fires and how that related to industry, and the fact that the actual park itself might not be around without protection. Over many years and the persistence of people in the area, there was a push on the government of the day to contemplate protection.

Interestingly enough, and I will get back to the point of the former prime minister, it was his concern that it would be seen to his benefit because of his residence there. He did not want to be seen as having put a national park there. He did not want to be attacked by the opposition parties of the day. So it was left unprotected.

There were many studies. Sparks Street, just down the way, is actually named after Percy Sparks. Percy Sparks was with the Federal Woodlands Preservation League. He was someone who was very clear about the need for protection. In fact, one of the recommendations that he made to the government of the day was to make sure that there were boundaries and protection but for reasons, as I mentioned, of politics. However, it was never actualized.

There had been great work done in the Rockies to protect natural green space, but we were not doing it in the foothills beyond Parliament. However, over time there were considerations about how to protect the area. By and large these ideas worked and they were considered by many as a workable solution.

The development encroachment of recent years has stressed the park, be it through roadways that were built or through the development of recreation that was not really sustainable. People have been kind of chipping away at developing the park. It was very clear to many that the park needed protection.

We know that green space is limited. We know that the habitats that exist there are very diverse, the flora and the fauna. We know that when we talk to people from the Sierra Club, CPAWS, and the Friends of Gatineau Park, these groups have been extremely active in making sure that there is protection for the park. All have done inventories of Gatineau Park. It is one of the most diverse areas that we have in the country. The biodiversity there is extremely important. There is a very vibrant fish habitat.

However, if industry and development are allowed to encroach upon habitat, and we do not put in sufficient protections, then we will see that lost.

One of the things we need to note about Gatineau Park is that it has done a very good job. People have done a very good job of keeping a balance with the exception of the development that I mentioned. Right now in Gatineau Park there are recreational opportunities and people are able to enjoy the park as a leisurely place, but there are also people who are interested in biodiversity and protection who want to ensure that we do have some diversity and protection of the green space. Without protection of the park, without legislative protection of the park, it will be lost.

Growing up in this city, it was common practice for us to get on our bikes and go up to Pink Lake and some of the other lakes and go for a swim. It would take us about 35 to 40 minutes on our bikes and enjoy pristine nature. I have seen that change since I was a kid. We need to ensure that the beauty of the park and the diversity of the park is kept. Without protection, without legislative protection, and without resources, that will not happen. The pristine beauty and the opportunities I had when I was growing up will not be there for my children or grandchildren unless we protect the park.

When we look at what is in the bill, there are extremely important components to protect the park. One of the things that is important to note, and I give some credit to the NCC, is that recently CEO Madame Lemay and Russ Mills, as the chair, are looking at opportunities to acquire land to ensure that we grow the park. As I mentioned, we have seen development chip away at the park. Recently, there has been an acquisition of lands. That must be a mandate for the NCC. We must make sure that the park grows and is protected. We must make sure that the kind of development we saw in the past does not happen again.

When we consider the protections that are contemplated in the bill, there must be a balance by making sure that the park grows, making sure that people can use the park for recreational purposes, making sure that the biodiversity is protected, and making sure there is a plan for the future. Those component parts must be realized by the bill.

While many from outside the region would be surprised that Gatineau Park is a park, they may say to go ahead and provide it with the protection it needs. We must appreciate that this is a very diverse place, that it needs strong protection. This has to be thought out well and that is why it is important that we send the bill to committee.

I began my speech by mentioning the fact that I was giving credit to the government for bringing the bill forward and there was applause from the government side. When we get things right, let us mention it.

What needs to be done at committee is to look at those component parts I just mentioned. We need to look at biodiversity and the environmental interests of the park and ensure they are going to be protected. We must ensure that we have the necessary structures in place to be sure that happens. We must ensure that the recreational opportunities are there for people, and that we ensure that the biodiversity is going to be there and that we grow the park.

If we look at what is happening around the world and certainly across the country when it comes to green space, we need to reclaim green space and grow parks. We have had numerous decades where we have just used our green space in ways that have not been helpful.

That is why it is incredibly important that this go to committee, to hear from witnesses to ensure that we can make this park continue not only the history that I mentioned in the short time I had but to make sure that it is going to protect the biodiversity that is going to ensure the future of the park. We must ensure there are mechanisms in place for many, many years.

I want to close by saying that too often in our country we do not preserve our history. We forget the past. With this bill and with this park preserved we will preserve our history and protect the past. We will also look to the horizon and the future to make sure that we do the right thing, preserve the biosphere that is Gatineau Park. It is one that is worth preserving to make sure that this is something for all to see. When my children, grandchildren and others visit the park in the future, they will know we did the right thing with this bill. We protected the park. We protected our history and we protected the environment that is so pristine.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from June 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a servant of the national capital region in this House, I am especially pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-37, our government's action plan for the National Capital Commission.

Allow me to also note that I will be splitting my time with our wise chief government whip. I speak of the hon. member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills.

I am delighted to rise in this House to speak about the amendments to the National Capital Act introduced by our government.

Members of this House will not be surprised that my wife and I have walked, cycled, and skied every centimetre of every trail in this region. As a boy, I also swam at Petrie Island and at Britannia Bay. As a teenager, I even took forbidden midnight dips in Pink Lake. Come to think of it, my first date with my wife was a 40 kilometre bicycle ride to Pink Lake and back, 36 years ago today, during the Rosh Hashanah holidays of 1973.

I know well the scenic beauty and unique experiences that our capital has to offer to all who live here and to those who come to visit.

With my family and friends, I often enjoy the charms and treasures of our wonderful capital. This would likely be impossible were it not for the vision and hard work of the National Capital Commission.

It was at Camp Fortune that my wife, our four children and I learned to downhill ski and snowboard. Closer to home, the Mer Bleue cross-country trails, sheltered from the icy wind, are just superb.

A strong NCC means a strong national capital region, and we must ensure that the NCC is as effective and as responsive as possible. This includes increasing transparency and accountability. This has been a cornerstone of all our government's policies since taking office 1,319 days ago.

Let us not forget that this is the government that introduced the Federal Accountability Act. Our government has listened and we made changes to the NCC that will make it more open and more accountable to residents, to taxpayers and to all Canadians.

The Prime Minister's decision to appoint Marie Lemay as head of the NCC 20 months ago was an enlightened one.

The appointment by the Prime Minister of Russell Mills as NCC chair also was an inspired stroke of genius.

Naturally, they are supported by Maureen Hayes and a team of seasoned professionals.

Now, by introducing amendments to the National Capital Act, our government is presenting a vision for the future of the NCC. In order to ensure that Crown lands and historically important sites can be enjoyed by Canadians for years to come, we must act now.

The NCC plays a key role in protecting and preserving these lands.

Take the Greenbelt, for example. This great swath of land encircling urban Ottawa includes farms, forests and wetlands that total over 20,000 hectares. These lands provide places for people to experience outdoor pursuits and appreciate natural beauty, in some cases literally at their doorsteps.

The Greenbelt encircles Ottawa from Shirleys Bay in Ottawa West--Nepean to Green's Creek in Ottawa--Orléans. Nearly three-quarters of the total area is owned and managed by the NCC on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada. The rest is held by other federal departments and private interests practising sustainable farming and forestry.

More than one million visitors a year go walking, sliding down hills, cross-country skiing or snowshoeing there, among other places.

The environmental protection provisions in Bill C-37 will help protect fragile ecosystems in the Gatineau Park and in the Greenbelt while also ensuring that residents in urban and suburban Ottawa-Gatineau have a greater say in issues that affect them and their families.

The NCC also administers the Rideau Canal on behalf of Parks Canada.

Now a UNESCO world heritage site, the construction of the canal is one of the single most important developments in Ottawa's and likely Canada's history.

The Rideau Canal was a vital economic and military safeguard for the country in the 1800s. It is a tribute to the genius of Colonel John By and his Royal Engineers. I did not mean my engineers, just the Royal Engineers.

Today, it is a favourite route for boaters. In winter, a nearly eight kilometre stretch of the canal is transformed into the world's largest naturally frozen skating rink. It is a cornerstone of our heritage and the centrepiece of our national capital that continues to awe visitors from around the world.

Here I would like to pay tribute to Henry Storgaard and to all the board members of the Rideau Canal festival. The work that they did this year was amazing. I was thrilled to support them.

By the way, I also commend Michel Gauthier's efficient organization.

It is important for children across the country to learn about the Rideau Canal, a cornerstone of our heritage and the centrepiece of our national capital that continues to awe visitors from around the world.

On behalf of Canadian taxpayers, the NCC owns and maintains many green spaces and parks. Many people who visit the region remark favourably on the quality of these facilities. In downtown Ottawa near the National Arts Centre we have the luscious Confederation Park. In my youth, it was an ugly parking lot. Before that, it was a luxury apartment building.

Now, it hosts various cultural events throughout the year, such as Winterlude, the Ottawa International Jazz Festival and the National Capital Marathon Race Weekend, just to name a few.

Those who live and work here know that these parks are delightful places to escape to, at lunchtime for example, to read, meditate or simply relax.

These are but a few examples of what the NCC has to offer, on a daily basis, to both locals and visitors.

I encourage all hon. members to vote in favour of this bill and to help keep the national capital region and the National Capital Commission doing the good work that they are doing right now for the benefit of all Canadians.

I encourage hon. members from all sides to vote for Bill C-37, thereby helping the NCC to continue the excellent work it is doing for the benefit of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the speech by my colleague from Ottawa—Orléans. He bursts his buttons extolling the virtues of the parks of the National Capital Commission. He boasts on behalf of the National Capital Commission about the use made of the greenbelt and the parks in the region, where, he says, people can go and read.

I would say that Bill C-37, as it now stands, is unacceptable.

My colleague spoke about the greenbelt. I do not think he took the time to read the bill. If he had, he would know that the preservation of the ecological integrity of NCC properties does not include either the greenbelt or properties in the greenbelt.

I would like to know why he thinks Bill C-37 is so good when it refers solely to Gatineau Park and not to the greenbelt at all.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the partisan tone of the question I just heard is rather unhealthy.

Of course the benefits of the greenbelt and the other acquisitions of the National Capital Commission preceded the government of which I am a member. The pleasures we enjoy now existed previously. They are the result, actually, of the genius of Jacques Gréber.

I think it is really inappropriate for the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer to take advantage of an occasion like this to engage in partisan attacks.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be nasty or engage in partisan attacks, but I think my colleague from Hull—Aylmer asked what is basically a very legitimate question.

Bill C-37, which is before us now, talks about protecting the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park. That is clearly what it says. Nothing is said at all about protecting the ecological integrity of the greenbelt.

My colleague asked a question of the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans, that is to say, what is his reaction to this gap in the bill.

It is very important, in my humble opinion, to protect the ecological integrity of the greenbelt on the Ontario side of the National Capital Region, and I include in that the parts of the greenbelt in the riding represented by the hon. member across the aisle.

I therefore want to repeat the question asked by my colleague from Hull—Aylmer, namely, whether my colleague across the way thinks that the ecological integrity of the greenbelt should also be protected.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier was able to ask his question without falling into a partisan tone.

The prime objective of Bill C-37 is precisely the accountability of the commission to Canadians. That is the main focus of the bill.

If the members across the way think the bill should be improved, I encourage them to propose amendments during the debate.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on one key feature that is highlighted in Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act, and that is the protection of Gatineau Park. Gatineau Park is an outstanding feature that represents about 7.5% of the total land area in the National Capital Region. Within a 15-minute drive of Parliament Hill and downtown Ottawa, one can appreciate the natural environment. The park is so far removed from the bustle of city life that deer, bears and even timber wolves reside there.

There are many sites and facilities in Gatineau Park that attract people who like to enjoy the outdoors, not just during the summer months, but in all four seasons of the year. For instance, camping is permitted in specific sites in the Lac Philippe area during both summer and winter months. Also the network of cross-country ski trails is considered one of the greatest in North America with close to 200 kilometres of trails.

Another feature is the Eardley Escarpment which hosts the richest and most fragile ecosystem in Gatineau Park. The escarpment, which divides the Canadian Shield and the St. Lawrence Lowlands, provides for spectacular views from its highest point at 300 metres.

The idea of a park in the Gatineau Hills dates back to the 1800s. There were two reports commissioned in the early 20th century recommending that the Canadian government create a park in the hills. The Government of Canada recognized the concept of Gatineau Park with the introduction of a budget on July 1, 1938 for the purchase of land in the Gatineau Valley.

Today, the park's visitors, who are both residents of the region and tourists, enjoy its trails, forests and lakes in summer as well as winter.

Federal interest in Gatineau park is under the responsibility of the National Capital Commission which manages a number of properties, parks and green spaces in the national capital.

Gatineau Park is included within the National Interest Land Mass. Such designation indicates a formal expression of the federal government's interest in the long-term use of these lands to create a capital that will inspire Canadians with pride and be passed on as a legacy for future generations.

Gatineau Park is facing a number of challenges that could have long-term impacts on the park. The population is increasing in the national capital region, and the southern portion of the park is increasingly surrounded by urban neighbourhoods. There is a greater range of activities taking place in the park, and the number of park visitors has also increased to the point where there are now over 1.7 million visits annually.

In 2006, an independent panel was commissioned to study the mandate, mission and activities of the National Capital Commission. Many people and interest groups who were consulted felt the long-term sustainability of the green capital lands, especially Gatineau Park and the Greenbelt, were at risk and strongly advised some formal protection be bestowed on these lands.

In December 2006, the panel published its report with 31 recommendations regarding the commission's operations, governance and resources. One recommendation was that the NCC's environmental stewardship role be strengthened with respect to the federal green spaces in Canada's capital, including Gatineau Park.

I want to point out two actions the government has taken to help the NCC in its overall management of Gatineau Park. First, budget 2007 provided for an increase in annual ongoing funding of $10 million in capital expenditures for the NCC. The increase will enable the NCC to rehabilitate assets, particularly those within the National Interest Land Mass such as Gatineau Park.

Second, in September 2008, the National Capital Commission was granted approval to purchase private properties in Gatineau Park without seeking Governor in Council approval of each specific purchase. With this new approach it will be more efficient and effective for the commission to increase its ownership within the park's boundaries.

Admittedly Bill C-37 does not specifically create a new national park in the context of the Canada National Parks Act. One of the key objectives of the national parks system is to have a good representation of each of the natural regions of Canada. Gatineau Park is located in a region that is already represented by the Mauricie National Park. Also, since title of some lands in Gatineau Park still remains with the Province of Quebec, the Government of Canada has no intention to change that ownership.

Although Gatineau Park is not recognized as a national park, the bill does introduce several mechanisms that serve to greatly improve the protection of Gatineau Park. In developing these mechanisms, consideration was given to the provisions found in the Canada National Parks Act.

The government proposed legislation including a legal description of the boundaries of the park. Any changes to the boundaries could be made only by the government through an order in council.

Second, Bill C-37 requires that the National Capital Commission give due regard to maintaining the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park through protecting its natural resources and processes. This would mean that the commission would have to take into account the impact on the lands, fauna and flora in the park before making any decisions regarding the park. In fact, it is worthwhile noting that the objective of maintaining ecological integrity in managing parks is stipulated as the first priority of the minister responsible for the Canada National Parks Act.

To enable the National Capital Commission to fulfill the requirements regarding the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park, the bill also introduces a provision that allows for regulations to protect not only the natural resources and process on all NCC properties but also specifically the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park.

As we know, the commission presently has a schedule of fees for various uses of different sections of Gatineau Park. For example, campers at Lac Philippe and cross-country skiers who use NCC trails are asked to pay specified fees. This practice is similar to charging fees for the enjoyment of Canada's national parks. In accordance with the bill, the commission would also have to obtain government approval prior to introducing regulations that prescribe user fees.

With respect to the question of the impact on private properties, I should first point out that there are approximately 300 private owners in Gatineau Park. However, these lands collectively represent only 2% of the total area of the park. Bill C-37 respects the rights of private property owners.

In recognition of the importance of consolidating the lands in Gatineau Park to safeguard their natural integrity, the National Capital Commission has explicitly identified the acquisition of properties in the park as one of its priorities and has set aside funds for this purpose. To the extent that properties in Gatineau Park remain privately owned, any plans for their development would be subject to applicable environmental laws and zoning regulations.

In closing, I want to reiterate the government's commitment to protecting the future of Gatineau Park for Canadians not only for the present but for decades to come.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on a theme that the minister raised in his remarks about ecological integrity.

The work on ecological integrity was driven largely by a former Liberal minister of the environment, Sheila Copps, who convened a national panel on ecological integrity and then took the findings and results of that panel and sorted them, integrating them into the National Parks Act and beyond in the federal government.

One of the things we learned through that process was that ecological integrity is something that is difficult to achieve when a land mass of park like this one is not properly connected to other ecological zones or is not properly buffered.

The worst case scenario is what has happened in the city of Boston, where a similar park, though smaller in scope and size, has had its ecological integrity completely reversed and there is not a single remaining indigenous species of flora or fauna in that park today.

Can the minister help us understand exactly how the government will move to make sure ecological integrity is in fact achieved?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the act commits the government and the NCC to the proper responsible environmental stewardship of the park. It is innate within the nature of the NCC to protect the green lands in the Ottawa area and the green lands on the Gatineau side. The boundaries of Gatineau Park are being clearly set.

We also have money for purchases of private properties if they become available, to continue to generate a pure park. The intention long term is to have a pure park there as much as possible.

We will be looking after the ecological effects of the park.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question of course is for the minister.

I would like him to explain to me what is meant by the expression “pure park” in relation to Gatineau Park, number one.

Number two, my understanding is that the minister also has a large section of the greenbelt in his riding, and I am wondering how he feels about the fact that no mention has been made of the need to protect the ecological integrity of the greenbelt in his riding.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two questions.

Regarding the first, the long-term intention is that if private properties within the park become available, the government has provided money to purchase them so that we can continue on a long-term basis to create a park that does not contain alien buildings.

With respect to the greenbelt in my own riding and the greenbelt itself, the NCC has the mandate to maintain that greenbelt. From time to time there may be minor adjustments to the greenbelt because of the need to widen roads, et cetera, but the greenbelt itself is being protected and has been for many years.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully, but the minister recognized in his comments that during the public consultation phase in 2006, the public clearly said they also wanted the ecological integrity of the greenbelt to be protected. In response to the question, he did not specify whether or not he would be prepared to support an amendment to the bill whereby the protection of the ecological integrity would apply not only to the park, as it stands now in the bill before us, but also to the greenbelt.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am one of the great supporters of the greenbelt. I believe it is part of our heritage and it must last as long in the future as possible. The greenbelt allows the growth on the Ottawa side to be controlled, so that there is growth on one side of the greenbelt and growth on the other and we can protect this belt.

The long-term goal of the NCC would be to try to protect as much of the ecological basis of the greenbelt as possible, and if members visit the greenbelt, as I do quite often on a day-to-day basis, they will be doing that.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the bill. It seems the National Capital Commission exists by virtue of the simple fact that there is not likely to be in this country a federal district, ever is a long time, but not soon for sure, because I do not think there is any appetite for it in either province, Quebec or Ontario, other than that the concept comes up every once in a while only to be shot down. Given that there is not likely to be a federal district any time soon, the National Capital Commission takes on even greater importance, because it is basically, therefore, the only tool that exists, the only agency that exists, to see to the appropriate development of not just green areas, but the capital itself. Therefore, I place a great deal of importance on this matter, since I represent a riding that is in the heart of the nation's capital, and I firmly believe in the importance to any country that its capital be a good reflection and accommodation of the entire country.

There is another concept that has to play in the crafting of legislation and consideration of such legislation, and that is the evolution on both sides of the river of the municipal authorities over the past three or four decades. If one were to take a close look at the growing maturity of the planning capacity of both the municipality on the Outaouais side in Gatineau and on the Ontario side in Ottawa and trace the history of the evolution of that authority and that power, one would see a greater capacity, a greater sophistication, and a greater maturity in the planning capacity of each.

However, when the National Capital Commission was created many moons ago, that was not the case. Therefore, the legislature at the time thought it best to give the National Capital Commission perhaps wider planning authority and less of a consultation mandate than I think it should have today.

These are some of the overriding, overarching considerations that will be reflected in my comments on this proposed bill.

The first element on which I would like to focus is one that was mentioned by my two colleagues, the members for Ottawa South and Hull—Aylmer, as well as by myself, and it deals with ecological integrity.

We, on this side of the House, obviously agree with the concept of protecting and maintaining ecological integrity. However, does the bill do what must be done? I believe this is a perfectly legitimate question in two respects.

First, is the concept of ecological integrity given enough priority? Second, is it applied equally enough throughout the land? We asked that question but it still remains unanswered.

Regarding the importance, at least from my point of view—and I think my colleagues on this side of the House share this concern—I believe that the issue of ecological integrity should be a priority. If one looks carefully at the wording of this bill, such is not the case. I could find the exact wording, but it says that in its planning, the National Capital Commission must give consideration to the maintenance of ecological integrity. That is not giving priority to ecological integrity. If one draws a comparison with the way this legislative assembly has dealt with national parks—and I am not suggesting that Gatineau Park has the same status—and if one looks at this issue in particular, one can see very quickly that in the case of national parks, ecological integrity is a top priority. It should be the same for Gatineau Park, but that is not what the bill does. That is a first observation and a bit of a disappointment with regard to the government's proposal. I think this should be amended should the bill make its way to committee.

The second concern is equally important. It is the whole concept of a greenbelt, which is as important on the Ottawa side, in the National Capital Region, as Gatineau Park is on the Outaouais side of the region. The bill, as far as I know and unless I have misread it, makes no provision for protecting the ecological integrity or even for maintaining it. There is no mention of priority here, even. There is the whole issue of the entire greenbelt.

I can tell you as an MP for the Ontario side of the National Capital Region that this is of paramount concern to me and that it concerns many of my fellow citizens. I am pleased to note, however, that the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills recognized in his remarks that, in the consultations conducted by Mr. Paquet in 2006, and as indicated in his report, this concern for preserving the greenbelt and its ecological integrity had been raised by the people of our region.

However, the wording proposed by the government expresses no interest in protecting the ecological integrity of the greenbelt. This risks becoming an issue because it is quite important.

The second question concerns the whole issue of the plan for the national capital. Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts, proposes that every 10 years the National Capital Commission submit a 50-year plan or plan for the development over 50 years of the National Capital Region to the Governor in Council and that the plan be submitted for approval only to the Governor in Council. For those watching us, the Governor in Council means cabinet. In the 30 days thereafter, if I am not mistaken, the Governor in Council must table a bill in this House.

It does not go far enough. Like Parliament, the House is called on to approve master plans for national parks. It is sufficiently important that members representing all ridings in Canada decide on the development plan or the comprehensive development plan for their national capital.

It would be a golden opportunity to have a debate and a vote in this House at least every 10 years so that the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada can decide on the sort of capital they want.

That is not asking too much. The fact of ratifying the plan—if it or they were ever ratified—would simply confirm Canadians' perception of their capital. To ask only cabinet, the Governor in Council, to approve these plans every 10 years is inadequate. If the bill goes to committee, I will certainly insist that an amendment be called for as well to permit those who represent Canadians, the members of this House of Commons, to make decisions on their capital.

The other advantage of such a measure would be that once every 10 years all members would be asked to think about their capital, its development, its future and how Canadians in their riding, regardless of where they are in the country, connect with their capital. This sort of debate and interaction between members from across the country and the national capital could only benefit the country. We all know that people often tend to be critical of Ottawa. However, we must make our capital a place of pride that all Canadians can be proud of and where they can find something for themselves. That is the second point.

Third, I do not believe there have been consultations by the government on the legislation after the Gilles Paquet exercise, and that is too bad. I asked Ontario representatives, Quebec representatives and municipal representatives on both sides of the river if they had been consulted on the legislation and the answer was no.

It is a bad way to start. The government, having received the report from Gilles Paquet, should have taken it upon itself to consult the municipal and provincial authorities, if only to start creating a consensus and also to show that this would be the way of the future.

There is an incredible importance in the fact that the National Capital Commission itself would consult its municipal and provincial partners on a regular basis. The government, not having done that, shows a terrible example. Perhaps we should even consider amendments to the legislation that would create a mechanism that would oblige the National Capital Commission in this consultation on a regular basis.

If we are to create a plan for the National Capital Region, which hopefully would be approved in the House every decade, I think the strength of that plan would obviously be greater if it were the result of some serious consultation with municipal and provincial authorities in the National Capital Region.

The fourth point has to do with the role of planning. The land-use planning in the entire National Capital Region, its economic development, and the location of jobs must necessarily be included in the master plan that the National Capital Commission will prepare to submit to the Governor in Council and, I hope, to the House for approval every ten years.

The role that the National Capital Commission will play in the plan is not very clear insofar as this development and the integration of it is concerned. I have supported the famous 75-25 split in public service jobs—75% on the Ontario side and 25% on the Quebec side—ever since it was formulated and it should be built into the legislation and into all NCC plans, at the very least.

The distribution of these jobs within each of the regions on both sides of the river is also important. There has to be a balance within these regions, which should also be reflected in the plan. Why do I emphasize this? Because it should also be included in all the planning around transportation.

When we are talking about transportation, we are talking about public transit and the network of roads and bridges. As soon as the issue of transportation is raised, we fall into discussions which, I hope, will not be interminable, even though they have always seemed to be so far. The government had a golden opportunity to introduce a bill and make amendments to the National Capital Commission Act that would have given it the ability and authority to do what needs to be done in order to plan appropriately for economic development and the integration of road and public transit networks on both sides of the river.

In the Outaouais, there are plans for Rapibus. Very good. In Ontario, there is light rail. How will these two networks be integrated? The National Capital Region is an integrated economic unit and this fact should be taken into account in the rules, in the legislation governing the National Capital Region, and in its mandate and its planning obligations. However, this does not seem to be the case. I am rather concerned about this deficiency in the bill that the government introduced in June, if I remember correctly, and that we will now spend a few minutes discussing. It is very important because it concerns the future of our community and the future of the Canadian capital. We need to do our homework and do it right. I think there are some problems in this regard.

There are a number of areas where we may agree on the technicalities of the various authorities that the NCC should have in terms of its flexibility for acquisition and disposal of land, as long as the ecological integrity is respected. That is why it is so important to put it in for the Greenbelt as well.

If we are to say that we will not protect the integrity of the Greenbelt but give the NCC the authority to acquire and dispose of lands without coming back to the higher authorities, whether it be the Treasury Board or cabinet, then we may open the door to some things we do not want to see. Therefore, it is attractive to tie in both ends.

I have no problem as a legislator in granting some authority to institutions and agencies such as the National Capital Commission. I come from an milieu where we had delegated much higher authority than we seem to in this Parliament. Therefore, I am quite open to that. However, it has to be done within the context where the expectations of preserving certain things, such as the ecological integrity of a Greenbelt, are well spelled out and cannot be deviated from.

If we do not spell out the fact that we expect the ecological integrity of the greenbelt to also be respected, then I would be very hesitant to increase the authority of the NCC in acquiring and disposing of land, perhaps in the greenbelt. That is how it ties in. If we have protection of the ecological integrity of the greenbelt as well, the rest flows very easily.

Finally, this is a personal bone that I have with the government. Here would have been a very good example of a bill that could have been set up for referral to committee before second reading. We have heard a willingness to co-operate from all parties. We have heard some concerns from the three opposition parties so far, and we may hear some more, about some things that are in the proposed bill and some things that are not in it.

I would hate to be forced into a situation, should the bill go to committee after second reading, to be told that we could not amend it a certain way because it might be seen to be expanding the bill, that we could not do a certain thing because blah, blah. Whereas if we had referred to committee before second reading, after five hours of debate or less, whichever committee would get this would have had the opportunity to really bite into this legislation and do what was best.

When we were on the other side in a minority situation, I was a deputy House leader. We made it a point to ensure that as many bills as we could were referred to committee before second reading, because we wanted to trust the committees. We wanted to give leeway to the committees and their members to do what was right, and it worked.

The fact that the government refuses time and again to refer any bill to committee before second reading shows that it does not want to work with the opposition parties. It shows that it does not trust in the capacity of individual members to get along in a committee setting to do what is right for the public good, to do what is right for legislation. The government refuses to acknowledge, when it comes down to it, that we all have the same interests in protecting the nation's capital, in this case, or protecting the interests of our fellow citizens, in most legislation, but it does not want to give us that. It seems to say “It's my way or the highway”.

In great part that sometimes leads to the situation we now see in the House, where it is very difficult. That side has no desire whatsoever to listen to anything from this side.

Should the bill go to committee and should there not be a willingness to accept certain amendments, I will not support the legislation after second reading. That has to be very clear. I have said this after having spoken for 20 minutes, and those guys were not listening. I detailed quite clearly the legitimate preoccupations that I am conveying to the House on behalf of my constituents, but it does not seem to sink in.

It is unfortunate that we may end up in that situation, but if that is the desire then so be it. As for me, I will continue to work positively to try to improve the legislation should it go to committee.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier that I listened to all his remarks attentively. I would also remind him that on more than one occasion we have worked with him on a series of files he considered important and that we are prepared to continue to do so in this matter, including on the amendments he feels might improve the bill.

Naturally, environmental matters are important for the greenbelt. The contents of this bill reflect the results of public consultations we conducted. Parliamentarians' views are equally important, as is most certainly the view of the member opposite.

Now it is rather regrettable that they are voting against a bill that represents a significant improvement over what existed when they were in the department because they were there for 13 years and did not do it. Now they complain that we are doing it badly or inadequately.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I said that I was prepared to support this bill at second reading so long as many of the problems I have raised are resolved in committee. That means that I hope the government is prepared to consider and support certain amendments. We have submitted questions to the minister. I put the question to the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills on this subject specifically. He was not prepared to answer. That leads me to assume that all the amendments may well be blocked. If that is the case, when the bill goes to committee after second reading and the government does not permit improvement of the bill, we will vote accordingly. I personally am prepared to let it go to committee after second reading, but on a number of conditions, which I insist on. We will see what happens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks by my colleague from Ottawa—Vanier. They reflect his wisdom and planning.

He touched on an important matter when he spoke of the administration of the bridges in the National Capital Region. As we know, the NCC currently administers the Champlain and Portage bridges. The Chaudière and the Alexandra, better known as the Interprovincial, and one third of the Macdonald-Cartier are administered by Public Works and Government Services Canada.

I would like my colleague to tell me, given that the government wants the National Capital Commission to be involved in the planning, whether he thinks it wise for the five existing bridges and future bridges to all be under the administration of the National Capital Commission, with appropriate funding, of course.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that management should always be made as simple as possible. The fact, though, is that a number of bodies are responsible for the bridges in the same region. There is another bridge too that could be included, although it is used by trains and not vehicles. It is obvious that we need to be consistent if we want sound management of all the various elements in the network of roads—including the bridges in the National Capital Region—and if we want to give the National Capital Commission a certain ability to plan transportation, something that is desired in the bill and that I very much support. If a piece of road heads for the river but stops there because there is no bridge, it is hard to get across. The road system is therefore far from complete. It would be logical for the National Capital Commission to manage all the bridges and have the credits it would need to do so.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, getting back to the question on the protection of the environment, I would like to assure the hon. members for Ottawa—Vanier and Hull—Aylmer that the protection of the environment is just as important on this side of the House as it is on theirs.

The government will ensure that the NCC is carrying out its responsibilities to manage the environment by examining its annual report and business plan, which are submitted each year for approval by the Governor in Council. In addition, the government will ensure that the NCC carries out its obligations to manage the environment by examining and approving its 50-year master plan.

I will also invite the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier to talk these things over a little with me after this session. We will find ways to improve the bill.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to hear these words from the minister because that would mean they were coming from the government.

I have another problem with what I just heard. The 50-year plan mentioned in the bill will be adopted or approved solely by the Governor in Council. First of all, the House will therefore not have a chance to address the famous plan mentioned here, and second, there is no mention in the bill of the ecological integrity of the Greenbelt. So there is an inconsistency here.

If the government is serious, which I do not doubt, one of the government ministers or a parliamentary secretary who can speak on behalf of the government needs to make a statement like this.

With all due respect, my colleague knows what I am talking about. It is the Governor in Council who has to speak out. So far, the Governor in Council has not confirmed what my colleague across the way just said. If the Governor in Council wants to confirm it, I think the situation would be better than it is now.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Action Plan for the National Capital Commission

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with my hon. colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse.

By introducing amendments to the National Capital Act, the government is presenting an action plan for the National Capital Commission. The National Capital Commission and its predecessors, the Ottawa Improvement Commission and the Federal District Commission, are part of a planning and building legacy of over 100 years.

Over time, the mandate and tools that Parliament gave to the NCC have evolved to reflect current issues. For instance, in 1969, the mandate of the NCC was expanded to encompass implementation of a new policy for increased presence on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River. In 1988, the NCC was given the additional responsibility of organizing, sponsoring or promoting public activities and events in the national capital region.

The NCC is the largest federal landowner in the national capital region. It owns 470 square kilometres of land, including Gatineau Park, the greenbelt, 2,100 hectares in the urban area, 40 kilometres of parkways, 170 kilometres of recreational pathways and some 1,300 buildings, 63 of them being heritage properties. The NCC also owns and operates six official residences in this region.

Given the important mandate of the NCC to plan the development of the capital region and maintain the assets under its custody, Parliament decided many years ago that the NCC should be subject to more government oversight with respect to its real estate transactions. We have to realize that this was at a time where government was smaller and ways of conducting business in general were different.

However, times have changed and the current thresholds set out in the National Capital Act are such that virtually every real estate transaction that the NCC seeks to enter into requires Governor in Council approval. This is not efficient for a crown corporation that is expected to operate at arm's length from government and as much as possible like private entities.

Not only does the requirement for GIC approval affect the NCC's ability to quickly seize business opportunities, it also prevents private companies from making good use of NCC's properties in a timely fashion so they can also contribute to making the capital a vibrant place.

That is why this government proposes in Bill C-37 to remove the obligation for the NCC to obtain GIC approval of each real estate transaction.

Appropriate oversight of the NCC's operations, including its real estate transactions, presently exists through Governor in Council approval of its annual corporate plan. The NCC may decide to designate any property as part of the national interest land mass if the property is considered to be essential to the long-term character of the national capital region.

The NCC is not required to seek the approval of third parties or other levels of government in order to designate properties as part of the national interest land mass.

The independent panel that reviewed the mandate and functions of the NCC reported that the nature of the national interest land mass and the process that underpinned its delineation have been shrouded in secrecy and raised several questions, including criteria used to designate properties. Similar concerns were raised in the Auditor General's 2007 special examination report of the NCC.

That is why Bill C-37 provides a process for greater transparency and predictability in the national interest land mass process. The bill introduces a definition of “national interest land mass” and requires regulations governing the relevant criteria and process. This would enhance the oversight of the NCC by having regulation-making powers in the act regarding these criteria and a process subject to public consultations in accordance with the usual regulatory process. Obviously the NCC could not effect the management, development, conservation or use of those properties if it did not own or otherwise control them.

In previous speeches made in this House regarding Bill C-37, some comments were made regarding the regional representation on the NCC's board of directors. The National Capital Act already requires certain representation from Quebec and Ontario as well as from other regions of the country. More specifically, other than the chairperson and the chief executive officer, two members of the NCC board must be residents of local municipalities in Quebec, including one from Gatineau, and three members must be from local municipalities in Ontario. The act allows for an additional eight members from elsewhere in Canada, including places in Quebec and Ontario outside the national capital region to be appointed to the NCC board. Bill C-37 maintains the representation of local municipalities in Quebec and Ontario to ensure adequate representation of other regions across the country.

The government takes the matter of effective governance of crown corporations seriously. Through the GIC appointment process, the government ensures that individuals appointed as chairs meet the selection criteria and that the directors appointed meet the needs of crown corporations, based on advice received from the board of directors. The NCC is no exception.

The proposal that municipal councillors be on the NCC's board has not been adopted, since their participation could lead to potential conflicts of interest and the need to recuse themselves. This would render such appointments ineffective.

While the views of local residents are taken into account, given that the NCC's decisions often have an impact on people living in the national capital region, the main focus of the NCC has to remain the building of a great capital for our country.

An important component of the government's action plan for the NCC is the efficient protection of Gatineau Park. Among other measures, Bill C-37 proposes to oblige the NCC to give due regard to maintaining the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park. Although not defined in Bill C-37, the term “ecological integrity” is defined in the Canada National Parks Act as “a condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region and likely to persist, including abiotic components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes”.

There is enough already enshrined in legislation to say that what is proposed in Bill C-37 sends a pretty clear signal to the NCC of Parliament's expectations on how Gatineau Park is managed.

Gatineau Park is not the only fabulous green asset we have in the national capital region, and this is why Bill C-37 also proposes to clearly add the obligation for the NCC to manage its properties in accordance with the principle of responsible environmental stewardship.

All in all, Bill C-37 proposes amendments that address issues that have been voiced in the last few years and updates the NCC's enabling legislation to ensure it can continue to build and maintain a great capital that fully reflects the beauty of our country as well as its cultural and natural diversity.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell the same question that I asked the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills.

Would he support an amendment to this bill that would address the concerns of many citizens vis-à-vis the greenbelt? That is, if there were an amendment proposed that would ask that the ecological integrity of the greenbelt also be protected, and not just of Gatineau Park, would he, as parliamentary secretary, support that amendment?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's concern in this respect.

As I mentioned in my speech, the National Capital Commission is obligated to oversee the environmental integrity of both Gatineau Park and the green space. It is called the green space.

This bill will go through its normal process. It will go to committee, and if there is an amendment to be made, I would ask my colleague to make that amendment or make it through his colleagues who are sitting on that committee. I would have to see the wording of the amendment before I would comment. Listening to the intent and the spirit with which my colleague is speaking, I would not be adverse to it. Again, I would have to see the wording before I could commit to whether I would be able to support that amendment.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell on his defence of a bill to modernize the legislation governing the National Capital Commission.

Listening to the opposition, the thought crossed my mind that we have not had an opportunity like this in a long time to finally pass legislation that will modernize the NCC and bring it up to date.

Are we not putting the cart before the horse by talking about amendments already? It is important to get this bill through the House first. Does the member agree that it is important for those who want to move forward on this bill to vote for it in this House?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, the intent of this bill is to upgrade, modernize and increase the transparency of the act to make it more accountable, to modernize the NCC in carrying out its roles and responsibilities. This will follow the normal process of bills of this nature, being first reading, second reading, to committee and back to the House for final reading.

I would encourage my colleagues on all sides of the House, from all parties, to support this important bill.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the parliamentary secretary's own remarks, he acknowledged that the term “responsible environmental stewardship” is not defined in this act. He went on to say that “ecological integrity” is defined in the Canada National Parks Act, and he read its definition.

Number one, why did the government change the terminology from what is commonly understood to be sustainable development to responsible environmental stewardship, as the government did, for example, in the defining and enabling legislation for Natural Resources Canada, which was considered to be a serious watering down of environmental standards across the country?

Second, how does he propose, as a legislator, to instruct the management of the NCC in its ecological integrity responsibilities? What exactly is it going to be using as a baseline if responsible environmental stewardship is not defined and ecological integrity is outside the ambit of his act?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we spoke about ecological integrity, and I gave its definition as contained in the Canada National Parks Act. As I mentioned, I feel that definition provides ample information to the NCC on how to carry out that responsibility.

I hear from the opposition that it wants such detail inserted into this act that we would not actually need a National Capital Commission; it would all just be regulated by the act.

We have to invest our confidence in the decision-making abilities of the National Capital Commission and we have to ensure that the right people, with the proper qualifications, sit on the board of the commission so they can make the right decisions.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about the action plan for the National Capital Commission this afternoon.

I am very proud of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for taking action on this issue. He helped us all recognize the strategic importance of the National Capital Commission. Our capital, which belongs to all Canadians, is world-class.

I think that this bill is a good one because it will modernize the institution. Its many strong elements include recognition of the boundaries of Gatineau Park and a strong stance on the need for responsible environmental management. It also contains a comprehensive governance regime for the board of directors and provides for governor in council approval of the master plan. These measures are all the result of consultations. We consulted stakeholders and now we are moving forward. For 13 years, the previous government failed to act on this issue. Now, those members have a chance to work with our government to modernize the National Capital Commission, to make it fully operational and to ensure that it meets present-day needs.

This afternoon, I listened to opposition party members. I suppose it is easy to criticize for the sake of criticizing, to nitpick and stall. We all understand the spirit of this bill. There can be no doubt that this bill will modernize the National Capital Commission. We believe that it should be passed and referred to committee. If it needs improvement, we will improve it. This is our chance to get things done. That is what we were elected for: to make things happen. That is why we are taking action.

By introducing amendments to the National Capital Act, our government is presenting its vision for the future of the National Capital Commission, a vision that will enable Canadians to benefit from the commission's lands and properties now and for years to come. We are acting to support the commission's viability and transparency, to protect Gatineau Park and to prepare this important institution for the challenges and opportunities to come.

The National Capital Commission is an important institution in overseeing our nation's capital. However, it is not unique. Other countries also have similar institutions. For instance, in the United States, the National Capital Planning Commission is designated as the central planning agency. Quebec also has its own Commission de la capitale nationale and Australia has the National Capital Authority, which is responsible for planning and development in the nation's capital, Canberra. It is also responsible for the upkeep of public spaces that Australians can visit. Thus, these are all institutions that enhance the national character of the capital and ensure that people from all over the country are proud when they come here to visit Ottawa.

Certain individuals have played a key role in making Ottawa a truly modern capital, in every sense of the word. My hon. colleague from Ottawa—Orléans mentioned the architect Jacques Gréber, who developed the plan for Canada's national capital region in 1950. His report proposed a series of measures to improve Canada's capital. Mr. Gréber proposed the creation of a scenic parkway and a greenbelt, the restoration of shorelines and the expansion of Gatineau Park. The interesting thing about this is that it affected two provinces, the two founding nations of our country.

A large portion of the lands in Gatineau Park belonged to the Government of Quebec, but in 1973, the province agreed to transfer the administration of those lands to the federal government to create Gatineau Park. Our actions will protect the park's boundaries and encourage environmental stewardship. The National Capital Commission is also responsible for other important areas in the region. Every year the National Capital Commission fulfills its duties. As chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I can assure this House that the NCC is doing an excellent job in that area. Its contribution to the linguistic duality of the capital serves as a model for others.

Let us turn our attention to the greenbelt. What is the greenbelt? The greenbelt brings together several pieces of land along the Ottawa River on the Ontario side. It covers nearly 20,000 hectares of green space, including farms, forests and wetlands.

These lands allow people to discover their rural roots and natural heritage and are a place where sustainable agriculture and forestry can be practised.

What is interesting about the bill being debated this afternoon is that we will be strengthening the regulatory powers and the enforcement regime of the National Capital Act. The bill contains the basis for improved protection of the greenbelt through an environmental regulatory framework.

Think of the properties managed by the commission. We have the Rideau Canal, which stretches over 200 kilometres and was built in the 19th century to link Ottawa to Kingston. In June 2007, the Rideau Canal was designated a world heritage site by UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Members will recall that Quebec has a representative at UNESCO. This is another fine achievement by our government and a prime example of our open federalism.

UNESCO highlighted the historical importance of the Rideau Canal in the fight for control of the northern section of the North American continent.

In winter, a second section of the Rideau Canal measuring almost eight kilometres and equivalent to 90 Olympic-sized skating rinks is transformed into a skateway—the great Rideau Canal skateway. The Guinness Book of World Records has recognized it as the world's longest skateway. It is a place to celebrate the joys of winter in Canada.

The Mer Bleue Conservation Area is located east of Ottawa. A boardwalk protects the acidic water and the bog that shelters unusual species of trees and other plants. In 1995, the area was designated a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention, a treaty for the conservation and wise use of wetlands.

Other properties found in the greenbelt are Commissioner's Park, where there is a display of over 100,000 tulips each spring, and Bate Island on the Ottawa River.

The National Capital Commission is responsible for a very large area—over 58,000 hectares, in fact—spanning a number of different sectors. These green spaces are home to a variety of ecosystems, habitats, plants and wildlife.

Canadians recognize the importance of protecting green spaces and other properties managed by the National Capital Commission. Environmental groups and parliamentarians have certainly shown interest in preserving National Capital Commission properties, in particular Gatineau Park. However, the current National Capital Act does not address the importance of maintaining the integrity of these ecologically sensitive areas.

This bill makes it clear that ecological integrity, in particular when it comes to Gatineau Park, is a major concern. This is what came out of consultations with stakeholders. Our government is proposing changes to the National Capital Act in order to better protect the commission's properties. A new provision would be added to require the commission to manage all of its properties in accordance with the principles of responsible environmental stewardship. That would apply to Gatineau Park as well as the greenbelt.

The commission will have a great deal of responsibility with respect to governance, and that will allow for better monitoring of management of its powers for possible approval by the Governor in Council.

I must stress that this bill would make it possible to preserve the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park. These changes would go a long way toward ensuring the sustainability of National Capital Commission properties, and environmental sustainability in particular.

This is our opportunity to modernize the National Capital Act. We are reaching out to the opposition parties because we want to work with them on this. Obviously, it is easy to criticize and complain. But this time, they have a chance to do something tangible to modernize the National Capital Commission. I urge them to support the bill and to send it to committee. Then, parliamentarians will be able to examine the details of the bill. We could make it better, to ensure that we have a National Capital Commission backed by contemporary legislation that meets the needs addressed in our consultations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what I heard from my colleague on the other side of the House, but I think that I understood him to want the bill to be sent to committee quickly to have amendments proposed, which he might or might not support. There are a few points that should be amended in my opinion, and I would like to know what he thinks.

Clause 3.1 of Bill C-37 reduces the number of commission members from 15 to 14. I would like to know whether he would agree with us when we likely submit an amendment to have an uneven number of members, perhaps 15, or to give the chairperson the deciding vote. With 14 votes split evenly, a decision would not easily be made.

Clauses 3.1 and 8 confirm the abolition of the commission's executive committee. This government's accountability act, Bill C-2—as we remember—provided in clause 288 for the formation of an executive committee of the National Capital Commission. There is a contradiction. So, we will have to see with my colleague whether he would be prepared to accept amendments to correct these errors.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hull—Aylmer for his question. Indeed, the bill provides for a reduction in the number of members of the board of directors from 15 to 14. And 14 is an even number. So, when there is a vote, what will happen in the event of a tie vote?

I want to reassure my colleague opposite. Indeed, the board of directors in its new form, as we propose it, will include 14 members, and the chief executive officer will no longer be a member of the board. This change consolidates the oversight and the accountability of the National Capital Commission.

However, according to the regulations governing the commission, the chairperson casts the deciding vote in the case of a tie. This will make a decision possible in a tie vote. It is the chief executive officer who decides in the end in the case of a tie.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question for my colleague.

The proposed legislation will create a specific position for a CEO at the NCC. Does the member agree with having the position designated officially bilingual?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his question.

As I mentioned in my speech, the National Capital Commission stands out from other federal institutions because of its respect for the application and the spirit of the Official Languages Act. For this, as a parliamentarian, I think we can give the commission a tip of the hat. I find my colleague's proposal interesting given that we are in an area where English and French are used. It would seem to me totally appropriate for this person to be able to speak in both of our country's fine official languages.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague made a small mistake when he talked about the deciding vote. Personally, I have not seen the clause in the bill that gives the chairperson a deciding vote. However, it could be in the regulations, except that my colleague was talking about the chief executive officer having a deciding vote. The bill certainly makes a difference between the chairperson and the CEO, and I do not think that the CEO can have--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I meant the chairperson of the board of directors, not the chief executive officer. I stand corrected.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill which would seriously amend the enabling authority for the existence of the National Capital Commission and its mandate, and would deal with a number of pressing questions that have arisen more recently and have arisen over time.

However, before addressing the merits of some of the changes, I want to quickly review the history and the accomplishments of this crown corporation. It did celebrate 100 years, a century of achievement in 1999, from 1899 to 1999. It was established in 1959 and it had predecessors: the Federal District Commission of 1927 and the Ottawa Improvement Commission of 1899, so its roots go substantially back.

I think Canadians and parliamentarians know that the capital region was founded in the early 19th century as, effectively, lumbering and industrial centres. My own grandfather was a night watchman on LeBreton Flats, just a stone's throw from here, working the midnight shift, carrying his lunch-pail to work, carrying on his back a burlap bag of kindling back to the rooming house which my grandmother operated in downtown Ottawa at a time when Ottawa was very much divided between founding peoples at the time. Of course, it moved on and improved.

In 1899, Parliament created the Ottawa Improvement Commission. Its focus was to beautify Ottawa as the national capital. It created driveways along the Rideau Canal and Rockcliffe Park, and Minto bridges and several new urban parks.

From 1927 to 1959, governments established the First Federal District and transformed the organization into a more powerful Federal District Commission. It focused on working to the general advantage of Canada. It built the Champlain Bridge, the National War Memorial in Confederation Square, Gatineau Park, and the famous Gréber plan which sets out and maintains the existence of the green space in this region.

From 1959 to the present, the more recent generation, more recent time, the National Capital Act of 1958 doubled the size of the national capital region, bringing more of Quebec and Ontario together in the capital, as well as new expanses of natural land, rural land, and finally established the National Capital Commission in 1959, as I mentioned. Its focus was to create pride and unity through Canada's capital region.

What did it do during that time, 1959 to today? It removed the railway lines from downtown, something that, from time to time, we lament today given the importance of public transit, particularly light rail systems in our urban centres. It has built much infrastructure, expanded the Gatineau Park, created a protected greenbelt in the Ontario part of the capital region, decentralized government offices to campuses throughout the capital region and developed urban parks, things like the tulip displays and beyond.

The NCC has had a profound impact on our national capital region on behalf of all Canadians. It is all Canadians' whose tithes contributes to the NCC's budget. It is they who are shareholders in this national capital region. Some of us have the privilege and the benefit of serving as elected officials in this area. My own riding of Ottawa South is touched by NCC properties, the greenbelt, an international airport and more.

The NCC is here and it is here to stay. It has an undeniably important role in strengthening Canada's national capital, a G8 economy and a G20 economy. We want set up our capital here and we want to improve our capital that is becoming of our city, our region and our country.

The mandate and the activities of the NCC have not been without controversy in the more recent history in this region. There have been debates swirling about funding levels. Is the NCC sufficiently funded or has it been acquiring and developing properties on behalf of Canadians in order to provide the necessary funding levels to achieve its other responsibilities in its mandate?

What about its governance structures? How many people sit on the board? Do they meet publicly? What is their decision-making process? Is it open? Is it transparent? Is it closed door?

What about transparency itself? What kind of information is being accessed, links to consultation? To what extent is the NCC intervening appropriately, not only with other federal government line departments and central agencies, but other levels of government, the Corporation of the City of Ottawa, the Corporation of the City of Gatineau, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and municipalities across the region as well?

Its property disposition has been quite successful over the years. The changes proposed in the bill make significant changes to the powers and the quantum, the amount of money involved in these property deals. The bill speaks also to the question of expropriation of properties, for example, in the Gatineau Park.

There are, of course, other outstanding questions. What role should the National Capital Commission play in its 10 year plans? What role should it play with respect to transportation master plans and transportation infrastructure?

There is a new context that is important to situate as we debate this legislation. The new context is this: Ottawa-Gatineau is now the fourth largest census metropolitan area in the country and it is at least the second fastest growing, following, I think, just behind the great city of Calgary. It is growing quickly. In many respects our larger census metropolitan areas are re-emerging as city states. They are re-emerging as city states, not only competing one against the other, but they are competing against American city states, Chinese city states, European city states and beyond.

Why is this important? It is important because we know from the work of important academics, like Richard Florida, that the question of how we do metropolitan areas is critical to our economic success. We know that the higher the quality of life in a census metropolitan area, like the Vancouver district, the greater Toronto area, Halifax, Dartmouth and beyond, has a direct bearing on the ability of these regions to attract and retain capital.

This region used to host some 2,500 high tech firms. Last year, under the watch of the Conservative government, only one new start-up high tech corporation was created using venture capital.

We are in a venture capital crisis. Our ability to attract that venture capital to give rise to those start-ups, to innovate, to compete and win, is directly affected by the quality of life that an organization like the National Capital Commission impacts upon.

Our ability to retain and attract skilled and educated workers is fundamental, which is what the experts tell us we need if we are going to compete and win in the race for a clean economy and the clean jobs of today and tomorrow. Therefore, quality of life in cities is paramount if we are going to win that race to the top.

The bill would make some changes to the NCC that, ultimately, in the context I have just set, has a bearing on that quality of life. Let us examine, for example, what the bill says about the environment. It speaks about environmental stewardship in clause 10.

The environmental implications we are learning now as we go forward are extraordinarily important because we are now recognizing that the environment is more than simply a limitless carrying capacity system that can provide without any end for our needs to be able to assimilate our wastes, provide our natural resources, give us our crops and our foodstuffs, maintain ecological integrity and so on and so forth. We now know that fiction is over.

We know, particularly through the phenomenon of climate change, that we are now butting up against carrying capacity challenges. We are asking the atmosphere, for example, to carry 450 parts per million of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, at a time when the scientific community is quite certain that we are playing Russian roulette with our atmospheric carrying capacity, temperature and other climatic patterns on the planet. This is linked, believe it or not, to the NCC.

The NCC has a mandate. not only in an urban context but, as we have heard in debate here earlier, with respect to a major park called the Gatineau Park, which hundreds of thousands of Canadians enjoy each and every year, tour, visit and ski through. It is filled with lakes and it is developed to a certain extent.

What happens within that park, as the NCC is given new marching orders with respect to ecological integrity and environmental stewardship, in terms of decision making made by the NCC, is fundamental. In one of the earlier questions I posed, I made it perfectly clear that what we now know about the national park system, despite our best efforts in setting up isolated zones across the country to represent different ecozones and ecosystems, we now really know, as the biological evidence tell us, that our park system is failing. It is failing because our parks are not connected. They are not connected because the predatory species cannot move easily. That is why I am so proud of my colleagues from Alberta who have launched the Yellowstone to Yukon initiative, finally overcoming the fiction and stopping the denial that this question of integrating our land masses to be able to allow for connectivity is so important to maintaining our flora and fauna.

We also know that our parks not only need to be connected but they need to be buffered. If one mines up to the edge of a park, despite the short-term attractiveness of turning that natural capital into financial capital through profit, we also know that without being buffered our parks are being compromised which draws down, once again, on our natural capital.

I know these terms, this concept, this idea and this thinking are foreign to many in the Conservative government. In fairness, the Prime Minister only admitted that the science of climate change was in fact correct after the chief scientific advisor for former President Bush told him so. Up to that point, the Prime Minister was in wilful or non-wilful denial about the risks inherent with climate change, temperature increases, species disappearance and so on and so forth.

Canadians would be forgiven, I think, if at face value they see these changes with respect to the environment in this bill and be skeptical about the government's serious intentions and whether or not they can trust the government to do the right thing.

The bill, for example, does not speak at all to the question of watershed management. We have in the Ottawa River one of the mightiest rivers in the world. The daily flow of the Ottawa River is larger than every western European tributary combined. It is a massive and mighty river which much of this region was built on. Much of the lumber used to create this beautiful chamber was derived from the Ottawa valley and floated down the Ottawa River.

How is this question of watershed management, if we are going to move for example to a watershed management approach, as they have in British Columbia, how will this impact on the NCC's mandate?

As I mentioned earlier, if we do what happened in Boston, where the city of Boston grew up and around a park area, we see that within some 150 years every indigenous species of flora and fauna in that park has disappeared and something new has replaced it. That is hardly ecological integrity.

Ecological integrity and the movement toward it began under our previous government, when former environment minister Sheila Copps struck a national panel. Prime Minister Mulroney understood the importance of this. He mentioned it in speeches in 1992 at the Earth Summit. By the way, the Prime Minister is the first prime minister not to participate in international negotiations for climate change, biodiversity or otherwise in recent Canadian history, in over 35 years.

Therefore, the bill does not answer fundamental questions about responsible environmental stewardship and what it means. It does not answer questions about what ecological integrity looks like. It does not seriously, in my view sufficiently, guide the executive of the NCC in its difficult decision making on how it is going to move forward.

How will the NCC expropriate properties even if we lift the ceiling and allow it to expropriate property for millions of dollars? Will it do so using fair market value? If I owned a property in the Gatineau Park that was being expropriated, would I not go out and get the most expensive possible listings, bids that I could possibly muster, turn around and pass it on the federal taxpayer and say, “Please indemnify me”?

Another issue which I have not raised yet and I would like to close with is this. How will the NCC deal with the important question of public transit, light rail and moving our citizenry in this area? Just today, the city of Ottawa settled a $37.5 million lawsuit for breach of contract for a light rail project which had been approved by this city, and by the way had been approved by the former minister of transport and President of the Treasury Board. After all this was done, after $45 million of acquisitions were pursued by the city, now a $37.5 million settlement and $2.5 million worth of legal fees, all of which came from the unprecedented and reckless behaviour of the present Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities while he was Treasury Board president.

This is why I am calling, for example, on the city of Ottawa to release its legal opinions to the Canadian people, to the citizens of Ottawa, and to Canadian taxpayers who pay for the NCC, whether there are legal opinions as to whether or not the federal government should be indemnifying the city of Ottawa for the reckless behaviour of the member for Ottawa West—Nepean.

Will the NCC's participation in this kind of transportation planning prevent this kind of reckless behaviour in the future? We do not know, but that would be very important to address, given the NCC's important responsibilities and its mandate to the shareholders of Canada. The taxpayers of Canada provide the tax dollars every year to allow the NCC to pursue its mandate on behalf of all Canadians to have a beautiful, healthy, high quality of life in our national capital, so it can continue to thrive for all Canadians and that all Canadians can be proud of.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from September 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)