The Regional council for the environment and sustainable development in Outaouais is one of Quebec's 16 regional environmental councils. Quebec is divided into 17 administrative regions.
It has been in existence since January 1990, and, over the past 20 years, we have worked on a number of issues involving transport, wetlands, education, forests and everything directly or indirectly related to natural spaces and environmental protection.
We've also presented a number of briefs to the National Capital Commission, the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, the City of Gatineau—I won't name them all. We sit on many environmental and sustainable development committees, all to carry out our mandate for joint action and resource conservation.
We were also members of the former Coalition SOS Leamy and the Coalition for NCC Renewal. We were members of the greenbelt coalition and the Gatineau Park coalition. In other words, our agency monitors NCC files quite closely. But we are also partners, since we sit on a number of committees, including the interprovincial transport committee. Over the past five or six years, we have taken part in virtually all the consultations organized by the NCC, concerning both the park and the capital core. We are also partners in certain activities, such as the clean-up of the banks of the Ottawa River. This means that the NCC is an agency that knows us and that we know well.
A commission to manage personal and real property in the territory of a capital and its surrounding areas plays a particular role for citizens of this country. However, it should not be forgotten that actions are being carried out in an area occupied by a local population and that, consequently, an effort must always be made to strike a balance between the two. And this fact should be reflected in the preamble. The protection of the natural environment is desirable in all respects, but the human environment should not be neglected, either nationally or locally. A satisfied population takes part in the development of the capital and assists in extending its reach.
The preamble of Bill C-37 also provides that it is important to ensure that the natural environment of the National Capital Region is preserved for the enjoyment of all Canadians. However, this is quite vague because the environment must be protected based on specific ecosystems, highly developed practices and the laws of the provinces where the lands are located. For example, Leamy Lake Park is a recreational park, with a protection aspect. Mowing the lawn down to the water's edge and preserving large grassy spaces that serve no purpose are part of management from another era. Quebec's policy on shorelines, littoral zones and flood planes requires that a 15-metre band be protected. The City of Gatineau and the RMC of Collines-de-l'Outaouais have adopted regulations to that effect.
NCC staff has made efforts, except that, when this is contracted out, the subcontractors and contractors aren't necessarily aware of the new orientations or are not concerned about them. So there's a problem.
You are also aware of the other problem of the non-migrating geese: they have adopted this type of development and adore the cut grass at the water's edge. At some point, environmental protection will have to be expanded and certain elements added based on ecosystems and recognized practices.
With respect to Bill C-37, we agree on the proposed structure, that is to say that there should be a distinction between the role of chairperson of the board of directors and the head of the NCC. We also agree that public meetings should be held since the Coalition for NCC Renewal recommended that.
I now come to the changes we are proposing. In our opinion, paragraph 10(1)(a) of the National Capital Act should be amended as follows:
[...] prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region, in partnership with local authorities having development authority and in consultation with the public, including in relation to transportation in that region, in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance, the whole in accordance with the environmental targets and consistency among the plans of the various local authorities.
The NCC has played a role in the capital's programming, planning, preservation and development since its inception.
Times have since changed. The development role devolved upon it today overlaps with that of the provinces and municipalities. The cities and RMCs have established development schemes and urban plans, which they did not do 30 years ago. The federal entity that has development powers over a municipal territory creates jurisdictional problems. Everyone would benefit by a better partnership between the cities, municipalities, RMCs and the NCC.
I'm not blaming the NCC, but as regards land use planning, the act could provide for the formalization of meetings to ensure consistency among the plans of all the parties.
There's also the infrastructure question. Some interprovincial bridges are the NCC's jurisdiction, while others fall under that of Public Works. That department has better teams, but its primary purpose may not be the improvement of the capital, judging from the MacDonald-Cartier bridge, which has rusted. It should be seen whether a single manager could facilitate matters for everyone. The bridge patrol is another issue. Sometimes it's the RCMP that takes charge of it, whereas at other times, it's the Sûreté du Québec or the municipal police force of one city or another. Perhaps it should be determined which federal authority takes charge of interprovincial bridges.
Under the bill, section 10 of the National Capital Act would be amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.1) The Commission shall furnish, maintain, heat and keep in repair the buildings on the lands described in Schedules 3 and 4 and shall maintain and, from time to time as required, improve those lands.
Since this is 2009, we could add this: “In accordance with recognized energy efficiency standards and practices.”
With regard to the National Interest Land Mass, it is interesting to note that criteria will be established for determining the lands that are part of that mass. However, it would be particularly important, in light of the problems experienced in the early 2000s, that the process of establishing criteria be transparent and that the public have access to the list of lands considered for a period determined in advance of the non-national interest designation.
The problem stems from the grey area between what is of national interest and what is of local interest. The NCC considers land surplus based on its national mandate, but does not have the authority to offer it to local entities, even if that land is of historical importance to the local community. A mechanism should be provided for, as well as a scale of values reflecting the municipality's ability to buy land back. This does not mean, however, that everything should be handed over to the municipalities. The federal government protects structures of local historical importance elsewhere in the country through other authorities such as Parks Canada. The NCC could play that role, together with organizations in the field.
Lastly, it is important to emphasize once again that Gatineau Park is a biodiversity jewel of western Quebec and, as such, is home to the largest number of endangered species appearing on all the lists. The 2005 master plan saw a change in orientation, from being a park for recreational activities to a park for the protection of natural heritage. This led to the preparation of a conservation plan in which the public took part. Protecting the perimeter without granting protection status to what is within that perimeter protects nothing, except the perimeter itself. The Quebec parks system has instituted committees for the purpose of harmonization with the areas where parks are located to ensure transparency and harmonious relations with the community. Gatineau Park could establish a similar committee.
We also consider it incoherent, during this financially difficult period, that funding should be granted to the Commission to buy back lands that are put on the market, rather than resolve the park's status once and for all. If the purpose of the bill was sustainable development and environmental protection, we think the proposals would be different.
In economic terms, what can be said about the amounts necessary to buy back lands in these times of rising prices? We find it utterly incoherent that the government should spend enormous sums to buy back lands when those amounts could be used to move the snowmobile trail the length of the park and be invested in education and awareness or in rebuilding heritage buildings within the perimeter.
Buying properties that have belonged to families for generations rather than leaving them to a single family is, in our view, to care little for the social aspect of sustainable development. It is understood that citizens who are privileged to live in a park must abide by certain development and environmental protection rules.
The major problem related to the presence of houses in the park stems from the fact that, until the park has class 2 national park status, based on the criteria of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, it is the responsibility of the municipalities, which can grant building permits and minor variances that often run counter to protection and conservation criteria.
The buildings along Meech Lake Road are one example among many. It is true that Quebec owns lands in the north sector of the park and that there has been a management agreement between the Government of Quebec and the National Capital Commission since 1993. The park is also on Quebec's list of protected areas. It is therefore hard to believe that it cannot intervene in the pursuit of this kind of agreement in the context of the management of a class 2 park. One can well wonder whether all the efforts necessary to achieve cooperation have been made.
In conclusion, CREDDO can see the efforts that have been made with regard to governance, but also the lack of will to rigorously protect the park in accordance with accepted international practice. This is not a criticism of the NCC's work, but rather a way to provide it with the full toolbox necessary to ensure environmental protection and the implementation of the Gatineau Park conservation plan.
Thank you.
