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.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Mario Laframboise]

That is correct.

However, we will be discussing Bill C-37 during committee business, at the end of the meeting.

Mr. Bevington, you wanted to say something?

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Mario Laframboise]

Good afternoon, colleagues.

I am pleased to be replacing our chairman, Mr. Tweed, who, just like our deputy chair, Mr. Volpe, cannot be here today. It is my privilege therefore to chair this meeting.

As per the agenda, we will begin by hearing from witnesses, including Mr. Miller, Chief Safety and Transportation Officer at Canadian National. We will then hear from representatives from the Department of Transport. We will be discussing high speed rail, a study which is already underway.

You have all received the correspondence from the Minister of Transport, Mr. Baird, dealing with Bill C-37. We will have an opportunity to discuss this during committee business, perhaps 15 to 20 minutes before the conclusion of this meeting.

Mr. Jean, you have the floor.

[Marie Lemay]

This started with Minister Cannon back in April 2006, when he appointed a panel to review the mandate of the National Capital Commission. He asked them to receive submissions and to meet witnesses, and there's a report on that we could give you, if you want. There were a significant number of briefs; I think there were over some 30 briefs presented and 34 meetings held. They did a phenomenal job in a very short period of time, because they only had about six months to do it. There were three members on the panel, presided over by Monsieur Gilles Paquet, and they came up with 31 or 32 recommendations.

What the NCC did at that time was it decided to try to enact everything we could without having to make a change to the legislation. So in the spirit of the recommendations and listening to what people had said about openness and transparency, collaboration and partnerships, and municipal government involvement, it was a matter of getting all of these things going. There was even a recommendation on an ombudsman. All of that was put into place.

That's why I was saying that Bill C-37 is like closing the loop, because for us it's a missing link, the things that we couldn't do without the legislation being changed. This bill will allow us to just wrap it up with a nice bow and then we're ready to go.

[Marie Lemay, Chief Executive Officer, Executive Office, National Capital Commission]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I have to say I'm very happy to be here this afternoon, and thank you for taking the time to listen to us on a very important subject.

I hope we'll be able to answer the many questions that I'm sure you'll have.

Since January 2008, I have had the privilege of leading an organization that has an extraordinary mandate and dedicated and professional employees that want to instil pride in Canadians by making Canada's Capital Region a place where Canada comes together.

Collaboration and partnership are two words that can be used to describe my approach to leading the NCC. We have worked very hard to renew the collaborative relationships with our stakeholders, our federal partners, various levels of government and the public. This approach is very much in line with the recommendations of the NCC Mandate Review Panel. We initiated meetings of the Tripartite National Capital Planning Committee—a forum where the mayors of the cities of Gatineau and Ottawa and myself, discuss many projects of mutual interest.

We have four meetings a year with the two mayors, and we are starting to see the results of these meetings.

We have also initiated a round table meeting with the 13 mayors of the national capital region, something that to my knowledge has never been done. Originally I had planned to have one meeting a year, and at the request of the mayors we have two a year, and we're actually holding our third one very soon in December.

These collaborations, in my opinion, are essential to helping us fulfill our mandate. Our efforts and collaborations extend far beyond just the municipal partners. We're working also with our federal partners. To give you an example, at our senior staff level we are having regular meetings with our colleagues at Public Works. We have also established a memorandum of collaboration with Parks Canada, a very important partner for us.

My overall message with respect to this bill is that we're extremely pleased that the government recognizes the importance of building a great capital for all Canadians, and we're confident that the proposed amendments give us the new tools to carry out our responsibility to enhance and maintain a world-class national capital region for all Canadians, a region that will make Canadians proud.

If you'll allow me, I'll briefly comment on how the proposed bill is going to affect the NCC.

First, the bill requires us to submit a master plan for the national capital region to the cabinet for approval at least once every 10 years. The plan for Canada's capital is an overarching plan that provides the vision for the capital region for the next 50 years. This is a very important document. l like to say that, with the proposed amendment, it will now be the government's plan for Canada's capital. We expect to have a full revision of the plan for Canada's capital completed and ready for submission to cabinet and tabling to Parliament by 2013.

This seems like a long timeframe, but it's because there are extensive public consultations that are part of this process. One of our biggest challenges is to show to all Canadians the value of this capital, and hopefully we'll be able to call on you to help us do that, because we intend to involve you in that process too.

The review of this overarching plan for Canada's capital is proceeding in parallel with other plans we have: the capital urban lands master plan, the Gatineau Park master plan that you've heard about, and the greenbelt master plan. Those are three plans that also feed into the larger vision.

These plans all have a direct impact on the National Interest Land Mass. The National Interest Land Mass is comprised of lands that are considered essential to the functioning and experience of the Capital. Over time, the composition of the National Interest Land Mass changes through additions and, very occasionally, removals of lands that result primarily from revisions to these plans.

Bill C-37 will require us to develop regulations, criteria and a process before lands are designated for addition to, or removal from, the National Interest Land Mass. This bill will authorize us to make such regulations and this will be a public process. We see the incorporation of this concept into the legislation as enabling us to ensure the long-term preservation of the land mass and protection of Canada's “green capital.”

The Bill clarifies and confirms our mandate with respect to transportation in the National Capital Region by explicitly referring to that function. This is helpful because it confirms the leadership role the NCC has played in recent years as the main federal representative for transportation initiatives in the National Capital Region. An excellent illustration is the one Mr. Mills cited with respect to environmental assessments for a new bridge over the Ottawa River. We are also leading an important study on the integration of interprovincial transit.

The NCC is responsible for coordinating development on federal lands in the national capital region. This is fundamental to our role as a federal planning agency within the capital, covering all planning, design, and development projects as well as proposals to dispose of or acquire lands.

The purpose of the amendment of section 12 of the National Capital Act is to clarify and modernize the language of the law to ensure that the NCC's authority clearly applies to today's types of transactions—for example, long-term leases by the federal government.

Mr. Chair, l'd like to turn now to the provision in proposed subsection 10.4(1) that requires us to manage all real property in accordance with the principles of responsible environmental stewardship. l have to say that in the 22 months since I became CEO, it's fair to say that there is no one issue that has taken more of my time than environmental stewardship. I've personally held more than 10 meetings with different environmental stakeholder groups to discuss their concerns.

We recently adopted an environmental strategy that provides a framework for strong stewardship. The strategy enlists our employees, stakeholders, and the public working together to create a sustainable capital. It centres on five priorities for action and sets measurable objectives for each. These are reducing waste, enhancing biodiversity, preventing pollution, combatting climate change, and positioning our leadership in environmental practices.

Proposed subsection 10.4(1) of the bill is entirely in line with this strategy. We expect it will strengthen our position and enable us to move forward with added confidence and certainty.

Section 10.4(2) requires us to give due regard to the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park. We manage the Park in accordance with the Gatineau Park Master Plan. This plan projects a vision of the Park as the Capital's conservation park, respectful of the environment and preserving it for present and future generations, while welcoming Canadians to visit and participate in recreational activities in ways that are respectful of the environment.

We believe the requirement regarding ecological integrity, together with the strengthened regulatory powers in this bill, will go a long way toward supporting the implantation of the vision in the Master Plan. The bill also provides that the Park's boundaries can be changed only by an Order in Council.

The NCC is actively engaged in buying private properties to further consolidate our ownership of park lands as was identified as a priority in the 2005 Gatineau Park Master Plan.

Since 2008, I've asked staff to prioritize and pursue acquisitions in the park, and we've acquired 17 private properties, totalling more than 111 hectares of land. As per the Gatineau Park master plan, our priority of acquisition has been for large lots--more than 10 acres, or 4 hectares--that can be subdivided, and lots that are located in ecologically sensitive areas.

We have just completed our conservation plan for the park, and we are now moving to identify ecological corridors outside the park that need to be protected.

The proposed addition to the bill that allows us to make regulations prescribing user fees is an essential element for the future of the capital region. We already charge fees to access some of our lands--for example, we sell daily and seasonal passes for skiing in Gatineau Park. It is certainly not our intention to charge for access to all of our properties. We have no immediate plans--and I repeat, no immediate plans--for specific new fees. This bill tells us that if we were to consider any new fees in the future, we must justify them and receive cabinet approval prior to proceeding with implementation, which we are not required to do at present.

The specific recognition of the special nature of Gatineau Park should not be interpreted to suggest that we are any less diligent with respect to the environmental stewardship of the greenbelt. We apply the same management principles of protection of ecosystems to portions of the greenbelt. However, the greenbelt is not a uniform ecosystem; it is home to an international airport, institutional buildings, as well as environmentally sensitive lands. It is our opinion that the concept of maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity does not apply to the greenbelt entirely. However, the NCC will continue to apply very strict management principles to the natural areas, and we are looking forward to finalizing the review of the greenbelt master plan that is currently under way.

The Report of the Panel on the NCC Mandate Review proposed a comprehensive set of recommendations to give the Commission new tools and a new culture, appropriate for the 21^st century. Since then, as much as possible, we have been working hard to implement the detail and spirit of the report.

Bill C-37 will close the loop. It will give us the missing tools to get the job done. We are enthusiastic about it, and we are committed to achieving a capital that Canadians will look to as a model of environmental stewardship--a capital for all Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. We welcome questions.

[Russell Mills, Chair, National Capital Commission]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lemay and I are pleased to be here this afternoon and welcome this opportunity to comment on Bill C-37 and the likely impacts on the operations of the National Capital Commission.

In my previous career I was editor and publisher of the Ottawa Citizen for many years, and for most of those years the Citizen pressed the NCC to open its board meetings to the public. We were concerned about lack of transparency and a general perception of secret operations. I wasn't surprised when a large majority of witnesses who appeared before the mandate review panel called for open meetings.

The Mandate Review recommended that the board hold at least four meetings a year and that they should be open to the public.

Mr. Chair, we were able to act almost immediately on that recommendation.

It's given me considerable satisfaction to preside over open meetings since my appointment as chair two years ago--and the sky has not fallen.

Since I've arrived we've addressed some controversial issues. The decision about the environmental assessment of bridge corridors over the Ottawa River comes to mind. Open meetings give us legitimacy when decisions are made. If they're made behind closed doors, they're more likely to be questioned or misunderstood.

We are giving the public an opportunity to observe and to understand how and why our decisions are being made. Our agendas are posted on the NCC website in advance of each meeting, and the meetings are webcast live for those who cannot attend.

We do hold an annual general meeting where the public has an opportunity to address our board as well as an annual meeting where interest groups have the opportunity to address the board. And we have expanded an already active consultative process with stakeholders.

In board meetings when we're considering matters with commercial sensitivities or cabinet confidences, for example, those matters must still be discussed in camera. When that's necessary we make the in camera agendas public on our website.

We have also undertaken several other initiatives in the interest of greater openness and transparency, and they are in line with the recommendations of the mandate review panel. In some cases they go beyond the requirements of Bill C-37. We have an ombudsman who started her work a year ago. We fostered a culture of openness and transparency and made customer service a priority.

With my appointment as chair of the board and the appointment of Ms. Lemay as CEO, the government moved rapidly to implement the recommendation of the mandate review included in the Federal Accountability Act to separate the responsibilities of the chair and the chief executive.

The NCC was created in a very different era—half a century ago. And while, in spirit, the mandate hasn't changed all that much—modern governance standards certainly have.

One of the elements I'm particularly pleased about in terms of governance, Mr. Chair, is the repeal of section 15 of the National Capital Act, which places certain constraints on the NCC that do not apply to other crown corporations as it relates to transactions. This measure will have a significant impact on our ability to be open and transparent. It will allow us to treat more of the NCC's business in the public forum, business we were not permitted to do in public in the past--acquiring property, for example.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair and ask Ms. Lemay to comment now on how the bill applies to the management of the major responsibilities of the commission's mandate.

Marie.

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

Bill C-37 refers to a master plan. The Liberal Party would also like that master plan to concern the issue of employment centres in the greater National Capital Region. That means that the 75-25 policy for Government of Canada jobs should be managed through that master plan of the National Capital Commission. The Commission would thus be able to play the role of police officer. In that way, it would ensure that the Government of Canada considers in the 75-25 division, not only those positions for which Treasury Board is the employer, as is currently the case, but all positions, that is to say all direct and indirect jobs at federal organizations. So 75% of jobs would be on the Ontario side and 25% on the Quebec side. We think the NCC is in the best position to manage that.

Obviously, with this 75-25 division, there would also be the question of sustainable development, which is the question of knowing where to set up such and such a department, how to attach it to existing municipal infrastructure, and so on.

Has CREDDO already examined this matter, Ms. DesRoches?

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

Ms. DesRoches, I want to touch on other aspects of the bill, including the matter of the regional transport mandate. Bill C-37 just barely touches on the matter of a transport mandate with the tips of its fingers. The Liberal Party thinks it shouldn't do so just for the tips of its fingers, but with its entire hand.

How do you view that?

[Jean-Paul Murray]

Before answering your question, I would like to provide you with a little context.

With Mr. Broadbent and Ms. Spivak, we prepared proposals for the purpose of tabling private member's bills. However, during the meetings that preceded the renewal of the NCC's mandate, people told us that didn't take enough account of ecological integrity and that amendments therefore had to be made. These two proposed amendments were accepted by the Senate committee.

With respect to restoration, when a house reaches the end of its life cycle, as they say at the NCC, it is demolished and an attempt is made to “renaturalize” the location. I also believe that the NCC's mandate is to reclaim municipal roads within the park. That's stated in the master plans; I didn't invent that. I suppose that means that, in the event an obsolete municipal road is reclaimed, the asphalt is removed and an attempt is also made to “renaturalize” the location. An example of this might be what the NCC did at Kingsmere when it created the foot bridge to the Mackenzie King estate. It removed the old road and “renaturalized” it all.

So we're talking about “renaturalizing” the areas where that should be done. I believe that Bill C-37 should recognize this principle because, in its current form, it could conflict with the park master plan. The plan defines conservation as an ultimate priority. If we say we want to grant a right of review or to manage ecological integrity somewhat, that doesn't necessarily mean we'll consider that situation as being of the utmost importance.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, madam; good afternoon, gentlemen.

Let's continue along the same lines, Mr. Murray. In your brief, you discuss five major pillars, which illustrate your thinking on Bill C-37. In particular, there is recognition of the park as a national park. Ecological integrity is also fundamental.

There are also other important elements, including Quebec's territorial integrity. I understand the first two pillars, but I would like to understand more about what you mean by the third. There's also the fact that Parliament must have the power, not Cabinet. I would like you to give us a little more information on that point and on the very delicate question of the prohibition against building new residences.

To summarize, there's the question of Quebec's territorial integrity and the fact that Parliament should have the last word, not the Governor in Council—

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

In collaboration with her. So Bill S-210 was much better, in your interpretation, than Bill C-37.

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

You agree that we should modify Bill C-37 with an amendment so that the ecological integrity is maintained and respected in all of the NCC's properties, such as the greenbelt.

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

Okay.

Mr. Speyers, I think we're talking the same language.

In Bill C-37, clause 10.4 deals with environmental stewardship. We want to change the wording. We're saying that the NCC in priority must maintain the ecological integrity of the commission's real or immovable properties in the Gatineau Park, and we want to add that it must be applied to all other NCC properties, such as the greenbelt in Ottawa and all lands of national interest as described in section 10.2.

My understanding of your main beef is that the greenbelt is up in the air without any particular protection. I tend to agree with you, in the sense that if tomorrow morning we were to give protection to the Gatineau Park without touching the greenbelt, the government—although we want to change some of the rules—could turn around and decide to dismantle the greenbelt with only public opinion as a holdback.

Is that right?

[Andrew McDermott]

Over the last decades, a consensus has emerged on Gatineau Park as a result of public and private initiatives, federal-provincial cooperation, NCC consultations, and parliamentary debate. It’s now generally felt that the park legislation must meet basic criteria to be reliable and effective.

Recent opinion polls provide compelling evidence of this consensus. For example, an online poll conducted by Le Droit last April found that 86% of respondents wanted the federal government to give Gatineau Park legislative protection. As well, in 2006 a Decima-Ottawa Citizen poll confirmed that 82% of the population wanted Gatineau Park to become a national park.

According to this consensus, Gatineau Park legislation should mandate conservation and ecological integrity as a top priority, enshrine boundaries, eliminate private property development, and dedicate the park to future generations.

Given the precedent established by the National Parks Act, any federal legislation to protect the park should respect the jurisdictions, sensibilities and territorial integrity of Quebec.

Unfortunately, careful analysis of Bill C-37 reveals that it meets none of the basic protection criteria, and fails to reflect any consensus on Gatineau Park. Moreover, Bill C-37 fails to respond to the concerns stakeholders and the public have raised before the NCC mandate review panel, and ignored several key recommendations made by the panel.

When it tabled its report in December 2006, the panel recommended greater parliamentary oversight of the NCC to ensure better accountability, transparency, and management. In particular, the panel insisted that Parliament be given final say in approving master plans for the nation's capital, as well as any changes to the national interest land mass, the NILM. The panel also urged the government to amend the National Capital Act to include a charter that would clearly define Gatineau Park's mandate and guarantee its better protection. Bill C-37 fails to provide either the greater legislative oversight the panel recommended or a charter defining a vision for the park. Instead, it gives cabinet authority to approve master plans and allows the NCC to make changes to the NILM and to Gatineau Park boundaries. As a result, the NCC's shady land deals and boundary changes will remain shrouded in secrecy and subjected to public criticism.

To fully address the problems facing Gatineau Park—fragmentation because of new roads, and urbanization because of new building—park legislation should rest on the five pillars we propose in our brief. Failure to amend the bill as suggested will allow boundary changes, residential development, and road building to continue to frustrate the public's ability to enjoy their park. Currently, under NCC management, people are left with postage-sized beaches at Meech Lake because of residential proliferation inside what should be a national park.

Also, Mr. Chair, failure to recognize Quebec's territorial integrity in this bill will be a blow to federal-provincial relations.

[Andrew McDermott, Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. We thank you for calling us today as witnesses and hope that our comments will convince you to amend Bill C-37.

The Gatineau Park Protection Committee is a standing committee of the New Woodlands Preservation League, of which I am co-chair along with my friend and colleague, Jean-Paul Murray. Through our various campaigns we have fought and convinced the NCC to recognize the work of park founder Percy Sparks, persuaded parliamentarians from both houses to table seven Gatineau Park bills, and led a 2008 campaign to stop a 20-house subdivision inside Gatineau Park boundaries. Earlier this year we intervened at Quebec's administrative tribunal and managed to secure rightful NCC ownership of 61.5 square kilometres inside Gatineau park land. I believe, Mr. Chairman, your committee has a letter to this effect to us from the Municipality of Pontiac.

The boundaries included in Bill C-37 were obtained as a result of our efforts and in cooperation with Senators Spivak and Banks.

[Al Speyers, President, Alliance To Save Our Green Belt]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee.

My name is Al Speyers. I'm president of the Alliance to Save Our Green Belt, ATSOG.

ATSOG was established in 1993 to help protect and enhance the national capital greenbelt. We are also members of the Greenspace Alliance of Canada's Capital and the Greenbelt Coalition of Canada's Capital Region .

Today I want to focus on a couple of points in the proposed amendments to the National Capital Act. The first point will deal somewhat indirectly with the boundaries of Gatineau Park as they appear now in the proposed act, as found under schedule 2. The other point I would like to raise relates to proposed section 18, as well as to proposed section 10.2, which deals with the national interest land mass. We'd also like to add at this time that my comments today are very consistent with comments made by Minister Baird, who appeared before this committee on Monday of last week.

First, while we clearly see the need to delineate the boundaries of Gatineau Park in order to enhance the long-term protection of the park against future erosion by development, unfortunately Bill C-37 offers no such protection for the national capital greenbelt.

It may be of interest to you that when the Diefenbaker government decided in the 1950s to implement one of the key recommendations of Jacques Gréber's report on a plan for the national capital, moneys were released by Treasury Board to the NCC specifically to begin the expropriation of land needed for the national capital greenbelt. Approximately 350 farms were thus obtained through this painful process, which eliminated the livelihoods of hundreds of people as well as those of their descendants. However, in spite of funds being released specifically for the creation of a greenbelt, today, more than 50 years later, the greenbelt remains unmentioned in any federal statute or regulation. It is, instead, rolled into the more general NILM, or national interest land mass, without any special protection of this very valuable national treasure.

We support and share Minister Baird's concerns that the greenbelt should not be whittled away and serve as a land bank for municipal projects. In our more enthusiastic moments, we had hoped that perhaps a new statute protecting the greenbelt could be enacted, such as a National Capital Greenbelt Act or something similar, to give it more recognition, more protection, more permanence. However, nowhere in the proposed amendments do we find a direct reference to our greenbelt and nowhere do we find what the Gatineau Park now enjoys, a definition of its boundaries.

At a minimum, we had hoped that the greenbelt's boundaries could be enshrined in either the new National Capital Act or in some other federal legislation to help elevate this significant land mass and preserve it for posterity. In fact, a number of years ago we met with some senior representatives from Parks Canada to explore the possibility, the concept of providing for the greenbelt the same level of protection Canada's national parks enjoy under the National Parks Act. However, if this is perhaps not feasible at this time, we would urge that an important outcome of the current NCC review of the 1996 greenbelt master plan would be to ensure that there are adequate legislative protections for the greenbelt. This would be consistent with recommendation 8 of the panel on the NCC mandate review, which appears on page 31 of their report.

Mr. Chair and honourable members, I cannot overemphasize the need to codify our greenbelt in a federal statute. As recently as 1989, as a follow-up to recommendations made by what was then the Nielsen task force, the NCC's budget was cut significantly, and the NCC was then told to in effect sell land under its jurisdiction to make up the shortfall. To accomplish this, the National Capital Act was then amended to eliminate what is currently found under section 15 of the act, which provides the conditions under which the commission can buy, lease, and sell land. In addition, the commission's requirements under the Financial Administration Act were then also lifted so that the commission could keep all the proceeds of its land sales.

These changes to the National Capital Act had a profound impact on the character of the commission, which instead of being the traditional judicious steward of all our green spaces was now put in the position of having to sell off some of these lands to make ends meet. In short, the commission was transformed from the custodian of these lands to their outright owner, and now these lands are completely without protection.

The Nielson task force amendments to the National Capital Act in 1989 coincided with the need for significant areas of greenbelt land that the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton required for a Blackburn Hamlet bypass and a Hunt Club Road extension. The greenbelt should not be a land bank for municipal projects. We are basing this observation on real events and painful experiences, of which there are more.

My second point refers to the proposed section 18 in the amendments, which states that the “Commission may expend for any purpose of the Act any money appropriated for its use by Parliament, received by it through the conduct of its operations or received by it by bequest, donation or otherwise”.

It is the phrase “received by it through the conduct of its operations” that gives us some pause. Although it appears that the conditions under which the commission can buy, lease, and sell land under its jurisdiction are defined under section 15 of the current and proposed acts, that's assuming there are no deletions or changes. The commission is the National Capital Region's largest landowner, and land transactions, which are normally outside the scope of Crown corporations, are an integral part of the NCC's operations, .

Although “conduct of its operations” can be narrowly regarded as money generated from its day-to-day operations, such as admissions to special events, a broader interpretation of this phrase could easily include income generated from the sale of lands, including greenbelt lands. To avoid the possibility that section 18 could be interpreted as nullifying, or perhaps diminishing, section 15, either the “conduct of its operations” could be more clearly defined or a special clause could be added to exclude the possibility of land sales as part of those operations.

Our concern also focuses on section 10.2, which speaks to the national interest land mass, where the commission appears to have unilateral and arbitrary powers to “revoke such a designation”. In short, the commission under this proposed amendment has the power to reclassify downward any lands it deems necessary, including greenbelt lands. Already, significant sections of our greenbelt are classified as having higher or lower ecological significance. Our concern is that the ecologically less significant lands, although part of the whole, may lose their greenbelt designation to satisfy some development proposal. Under no circumstances should there be any perception that the commission might have a personal incentive to sell lands under its jurisdiction.

Mr. Chair and members, a previous administration also made amendments to the National Capital Act, resulting in significant and permanent loss of greenbelt lands. I'm here today to ask you if you can assure us that the greenbelt is here to stay in perpetuity. It is our opinion that our greenbelt deserves no less than what Gatineau Park received under this new act. Enshrine its boundaries in this act.

Thank you.