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.

National Capital Act

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to speak here in the House of Commons, representing my constituents from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, and today, more specifically, all Canadians, as we debate Bill C-565.

I would like to use this time to address an integral issue at the heart of this debate on Gatineau Park, which is the effective and realistic protection of Gatineau Park, its beauty, biodiversity and ecosystems, as well as its integrity, status, and significance as an integral part of Canada's capital region, a larger region that also requires protection for generations to come.

The government has a record of trying to move forward with proposals to amend the National Capital Act that would offer strong and effective protection to not only the park but also the entire national capital region. This record includes Bill C-37 in 2009 and Bill C-20 in 2010, both of which unfortunately died on the order paper, as well the signalled intention to introduce a similar government bill in the near future.

On the other hand, the latest attempt by the opposition to pre-empt our efforts, as embodied in Bill C-565, comes up short by being too narrowly focused and too short-sighted.

I think we can all agree that the key to ensuring the beauty and vitality of not only Gatineau Park but also the entire capital region for generations to come is by taking concrete legislative and administrative steps to protect the natural gifts that we have.

Recognizing this fact, over the past several years the government has introduced Bill C-37 and Bill C-20, both of which sought to strengthen and update environmental protections for the entire national capital region, including the greenbelt and Gatineau Park.

These bills sought to legislate the national interest land mass, or NILM, concept, a designation applied to both Gatineau Park and the greenbelt, which would offer strong protections and oversight, including requiring project proposals to be reviewed by the National Capital Commission and prohibiting the disposition or transfer of property within these green spaces without Governor in Council approval.

Under these previous bills, the Governor in Council would also have enjoyed the authority to oversee the criteria and process for designating property in the national capital region as NILM land. Additionally, these bills required the NCC to manage its properties in accordance with the principles of responsible environmental stewardship, which would have obligated the NCC to always consider possible environmental impacts when managing its properties in the entire national capital region.

By contrast, Bill C-565 is unnecessarily restrictive as it only applies protections to Gatineau Park. As my fellow colleagues have pointed out previously, there is a lot more to the national capital region than Gatineau Park alone. We are also surrounded by the greenbelt and multiple urban green spaces that fall under federal authority and the NCC's stewardship.

Bill C-565, curiously, unfortunately, and needlessly, introduces measures to protect only one of these parks: Gatineau Park. This approach in Bill C-565 is overly narrow and we must ensure that any re-opening of the National Capital Act enhances the protection of all green spaces in the capital region, including both Gatineau Park and the greenbelt.

With regard to protecting the integrity of Gatineau Park and its boundaries specifically, and in addition to their designation of the entire park as national interest land mass, the previously mentioned government bills sought to legislate defined boundaries for Gatineau Park and the greenbelt. By explicitly defining the boundaries in the National Capital Act, these bills would have ensured that the park was protected and that its boundaries could only be altered by the Governor in Council when absolutely necessary, such as when required for the public benefit, for example. This would combine active protection of the park with a necessary degree of flexibility in recognition of the unique characteristics and location of this natural asset.

Let us talk about the environment protection of Gatineau Park specifically. Protection of the natural systems and internal integrity of the park figured prominently in the previous government bills in this area, and I can assure the House that these imperatives remain a priority for this government.

As already emphasized during our previous debates on this issue, the government remains fully committed to the protection and maintenance of the park as a destination of natural beauty and recreation for all Canadians as well as for international visitors to our capital. This commitment to environmental protection was evidenced in the previous government bills through their application of the concept of “ecological integrity”.

Ecological integrity is a concept used in the Canada National Parks Act and is applicable to all of Canada's federal parks, with a view to ensuring their protection and preservation. Bill C-37 and Bill C-20 both sought to apply this concept to Gatineau Park, including to all of its ecosystems and biodiversity, in order to provide the park with this high degree of environmental protection.

At the same time, one of the key proposals to protect Gatineau Park in the member's bill is the imposition of an obligation on the NCC to purchase all privately owned properties in the park. We are talking about approximately 377 properties in the park with a roughly estimated current market value of $100 million. Furthermore, this $100 million does not take into account the inflation in property prices that would almost certainly materialize as a result of this legislative obligation.

This proposal is also unnecessary. The NCC already has the authority, pursuant to a 2008 order in council, to purchase private properties in the park without seeking Governor in Council approval for each specific purchase. This has permitted the NCC to increase its ownership of properties in the park while also taking into account the availability and prices of the properties, the resources it has available, and the strategic importance of the sites for significant ecosystems, in prioritizing its property purchases in the park. This, in our view, is the most fiscally and environmentally responsible course of action for Gatineau Park and Canadian taxpayers.

Speaking of protecting Gatineau Park for all visitors, I want to address a problematic component of Bill C-565 that seeks to provide hunting rights in the park. Let me say that it is an absolute imperative of this government to protect and ensure the safety of all Canadians as well as international visitors to the park. We are talking about an area visited by over 2.7 million people per year, many of them young children. In light of these facts, it seems rather irresponsible to be proposing such hunting rights in a shared space, which could seriously jeopardize the safety of visitors to the park.

I would suggest that there is little debate that the National Capital Act, enacted 55 years ago, in 1959, could use a significant update. Although the act still effectively governs the National Capital Commission and its activities in the National Capital Region, it is clear that the NCC could benefit from updated enabling legislation in order to even more effectively administer its mandate in the national capital region, including the continued protection of Gatineau Park.

That being said, Bill C-565 does not enhance those protections in an effective or appropriate way and is, at the same time, unnecessarily narrow in its application solely to Gatineau Park. In our view, the bill would have negative consequences for the park, the region, and Canadian taxpayers.

This government has repeatedly introduced legislation in recent years to amend the National Capital Act in order to improve the NCC's transparency and governance structure, strengthen environmental protections, and provide the commission with effective and modernized tools to manage and protect its properties in the national capital region. These legislative proposals are evidence that we are working toward implementing a clear and comprehensive vision tor the continued protection and improvement of the entire national capital region and are seeking to provide the NCC with updated legislation to accomplish this goal.

I anticipate that the next government bill in this area will provide another embodiment of this commitment and our continued perseverance in this endeavour and I look forward to its introduction.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at this stage of our debate on Gatineau Park, it is important to note that all members of the House agree that Gatineau Park is an immensely beautiful treasure that needs better protection. Unfortunately, that is where our agreement ends right now. We do not agree on what kind of legal protection Parliament should provide for that park, which we all love so much.

The member for Hull—Aylmer believes that her bill, which we are debating here today, Bill C-565, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park) and to make a related amendment to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act, is adequate.

The Conservative government would rather focus on its own bill, which it promises to introduce soon and which it claims is very similar to bills it has introduced in the past. The Liberal caucus believes that both the NDP and Conservative approaches are inadequate and do not provide sufficient protection for Gatineau Park while respecting the rights of property owners. However, the Liberal caucus is prepared to support Bill C-565 at second reading so that a committee can examine it and make amendments.

Let us consider the magnitude of the problem. Gatineau Park is the only federal park that is not protected by Parliament. Unlike national parks, this park's boundaries can be modified and its land sold, and roads can be built through it without Parliament's involvement.

Gatineau Park is managed by the National Capital Commission, which does not ban commercial or industrial activities or land development. As a result of inadequate legal protection, Gatineau Park has lost a significant amount of land. When the National Capital Commission redrew the park's boundaries in the 1990s, it severed 48 properties, for a total of 1,508 acres. At the same time, 334 acres were allotted for the construction of roads, which were built in violation of the commitments made in the master plan, bringing the total number of acres severed up to 1,842, or nearly 5 km².

All this was done without Parliament's knowledge, let alone its approval. This would not have happened if Gatineau Park were protected under the Canada National Parks Act, which establishes in subsection 5(3) that the size of the park can only be reduced by an act of Parliament.

In addition, because the land management system is inadequate, the NCC has allowed considerable urbanization within the park. Since 1992, 125 residences have been built inside the park.

Despite repeated NCC commitments to acquire private property, some 296 private properties, consisting of 2,112 acres, remain within Gatineau Park. Moreover, several large private properties remain inside the park that risk being turned into major subdivisions, which would impede the park's evolution as a conservation site intended for public enjoyment.

Gatineau Park must be given the same kind of legal protection and parliamentary oversight as Canada's national parks.

Through amendments to the National Capital Act, the park must acquire the legal status, borders and land management mechanism needed to ensure transparency in its administration and guarantee its long-term protection.

We must give this park the protection framework that various citizens' groups have been advocating for decades and help the NCC fulfill its commitment to gradually acquire the private properties, while respecting landowners' rights to continue to live in the park.

Today, the Conservatives are saying they want to come back to this issue with something equivalent to their Bills C-37 and C-20, which died on the order paper in 2009 and 2011. That is not exactly reassuring.

These bills did not offer Gatineau a proper legislative framework, failed to meet basic park protection criteria, perpetuated developments and road building, and would have impaired the park's ecological integrity.

Under these bills, the park boundaries could be changed by administrative decree, without oversight or parliamentary debate.

Now we have the NDP Bill C-565. This bill establishes but a moral obligation to ecological integrity. Measures to ensure the protection, preservation, and management of Gatineau Park for the benefit of current and future generations are put forth with little framework and no real legislative backbone.

In fact, at least three aspects of Bill C-565 could represent setbacks.

First, although Bill C-565 gives the NCC the mandate of acquiring the real property situated in Gatineau Park, it stipulates that:

10.1 (2) The Commission may not, in pursuing its objectives, infringe upon the property rights attached to any real property...located within Gatineau Park.

By so doing, Bill C-565 weakens the NCC, since the existing National Capital Act allows the NCC to expropriate private lands whenever it becomes necessary for the purposes of its mandate.

Bill C-565 will create a dangerous precedent by removing the NCC's ability to expropriate land. It will allow large landowners to divide their land and build new residences in the middle of the park, which would be completely contrary to the park's public and ecological purpose and all the park master plans.

The problem with Bill C-565 is that it does not include a mechanism for acquiring the land.

This is why there is a need for a right of first refusal. Clear regulations would give the NCC the first chance to purchase private property should the private landowner decide to sell, subsequent to which, parkland may be bought and sold on the open market.

People who own land in Gatineau Park could continue to live there and leave their property to their children through estates and trusts. It is important to note that the NCC supported the use of such a right of first refusal when it appeared before a Senate committee in 2007.

Second, although the most recent Gatineau Park master plan clearly establishes that the park's ecological integrity is a management priority, clause 2 of Bill C-565 simply states that the NCC will “protect Gatineau Park’s natural biodiversity, as well as its underlying ecological structure and environmental processes”.

Simply saying that the NCC is to protect the park's natural biodiversity is not as strong a mechanism for preserving the park's ecological integrity as making that protection the first priority. Let us remember that the Canada National Parks Act considers protecting ecological integrity to be a management priority.

Third, Bill C-565 could open the door to hunting in Gatineau Park. Right now, fishing is allowed in the park, but hunting is prohibited.

It is clear that serious amendments are needed to Bill C-565, to better back the NCC objectives of long-term ecological integrity while respecting the rights of landowners. Many amendments would be required.

Indeed, the bill provides no mechanism for public consultation, completely ignores the issue of Quebec's territorial integrity, and fails to make conservation the first priority of park management, which, as I said, is a cornerstone of the Canada National Parks Act.

Above all, the bill should provide, subsequent to consultations with the Quebec provincial government, a real protective legislation for Gatineau Park via an amendment to the National Capital Act.

Such a legislative framework by Parliament would support the NCC's role as park manager and would give the park the same kind of statutory protection and adequate parliamentary oversight that is given to national parks throughout Canada.

We have our work cut out for us. We need to conduct an in-depth examination of this issue in committee in order to find legal protection that works for our beloved Gatineau Park.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-565.

Gatineau Park has an important place in our national capital region's history. The idea for a park in the Gatineau hills dates back to the 1800s.

In the early 20th century, two reports were commissioned, both of which recommended that the Canadian government create a park in the hills.

On July 1, 1938, the Government of Canada recognized the concept of Gatineau Park and the groundwork was laid with the introduction of a budget for the purchase of land in the Gatineau valley.

In 1959, the government introduced the National Capital Act. This legislation created the National Capital Commission, which was given the authority and responsibility to protect Gatineau Park, as well as many other properties, parks, and green spaces in an extensive area defined in the act as the national capital region.

The act states that the commission's mandate is:

...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.

Gatineau Park is fully subject to this mandate, as it forms part of the national capital region.

Today, the park's millions of annual visitors, who are both residents of the region and tourists, enjoy its trails, forests, and lakes year-round, and I certainly enjoy them myself.

In recent years, there have been numerous efforts made by the government to study and improve the tools and mechanisms by which the commission administers and protects land and properties within the capital region.

In 2006, an independent panel was commissioned to study the mandate, mission, and activities of the 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 that formal protections of these lands be strengthened.

The panel subsequently published its report, which included 31 recommendations regarding the commission's operation, governance, and resources.

One key recommendation was to strengthen the commission's environmental stewardship role with respect to green spaces in the capital region, including Gatineau Park.

In 2009, and again in 2010, this government introduced Bill C-37 and Bill C-20 respectively, both titled “An act to amend the National Capital Act...”.

These bills defined boundaries for Gatineau Park, strengthened the importance of the environmental stewardship role of the National Capital Commission, and defined ecological integrity.

These bills were much more proactive and forward-looking than Bill C-565 and, unlike the chief opposition whip's bill, they also updated the commission's outdated authorities and governance structure and protected other federally owned lands in the region, following closely the recommendations of the panel from 2006.

The intention of these legislative proposals was to provide the National Capital Commission with all the tools it needs to fulfill its mandate.

Unfortunately, both these bills died on the order paper.

I wish to inform the chief opposition whip that I will be opposing her bill, for the following reasons.

First, the government will be introducing, shortly, a bill to amend the National Capital Act, which is far more comprehensive than Bill C-565. The government's bill would modify the governance structure of the National Capital Commission; clarify the commission's responsibilities regarding planning and sound environmental stewardship; establish boundaries for Gatineau Park and the greenbelt; enhance the National Capital Commission's regulation-making powers; as well as reduce some outdated constraints related to real property authorities.

It would be similar, in fact, to the former legislation introduced by the government in the recent past.

Second, Bill C-565 would impose a mandatory and legislative obligation on the National Capital Commission to acquire all real properties in Gatineau Park. This obligation would be extremely costly as there are presently more than 300 privately owned properties in the park. The consequences of legislating this obligation would be to inflate the prices of the properties within the park, and the National Capital Commission would be required to purchase them at any price. This is not a responsible way to spend taxpayers' money. This element of Bill C-565 is neither necessary nor desirable.

In 2008, the government put in place responsible measures through an order in council providing the commission with the authority to acquire any available real property inside Gatineau Park. The National Capital Commission uses due diligence to take into account the availability and the prices of properties, as well as the resources it has available in prioritizing property purchases in the park. These purchases, I think members will agree, must be made responsibly.

Third, although Bill C-565's proposed legislated obligation on the National Capital Commission to protect biodiversity in Gatineau Park would generally align with government policy, the current mechanisms in place, as well as the forthcoming government bill, would accomplish this goal more effectively.

The National Capital Commission is already mandated to protect biodiversity and promote educational and recreational activities in the entire national capital region, which includes Gatineau Park. The commission's 2005 Gatineau Park master plan also establishes priorities for actions in the areas of conservation and stewardship. Moreover, the forthcoming government bill would define and implement the concept of ecological integrity, which more accurately parallels existing government conservation legislation and policy, including the Canada Parks Act, and which would ensure that sound environmental stewardship is a main priority in managing the park.

Fourth, with regard to the boundaries of Gatineau Park, Bill C-565 proposes the same delineations as the previous government bills on the subject, using the 1997 boundaries established by the NCC board of directors. However, Bill C-565 also includes a prohibition on selling or transferring any public lands within the boundaries of the park. The inclusion of this prohibition in Bill C-565 illustrates the lack of knowledge and experience of the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer concerning the flexibility required to ensure effective long-term management of Gatineau Park.

Currently the National Capital Commission has designated Gatineau Park as national interest land mass, or NILM. NILM properties cannot be sold or transferred without Governor in Council approval. This NILM designation enables the National Capital Commission and the government to protect parks and federal lands that are of national interest, but it also provides the necessary flexibility to sell, transfer, or acquire properties when necessary in the public interest and to service communities.

Fifth, Bill C-565 states that the National Capital Commission cannot infringe on real property rights. In my opinion, this amendment is redundant, as real property rights are protected in the Code civil du Québec and are an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Sixth, Bill C-565 states that the National Capital Commission is to take into account the needs of the aboriginal populations and local communities, including the use of subsistence resources. Bill C-565 does not elaborate on whether this is meant to create hunting and fishing rights within Gatineau Park. If so, the National Capital Commission would have to modify or create regulations to ensure proper oversight and monitoring of these activities. This would be costly for the National Capital Commission and could have consequences for visitors to the park. An impact assessment would also have to be done to ensure that this inclusion aligns with government-wide aboriginal policy and treaty rights.

Finally, Bill C-565 would amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to specifically refer to Gatineau Park. The reason is that in September 2013, economic action plan 2013 transferred the activity and event mandate to promote Canada's national capital region from the NCC to the Department of Canadian Heritage, and a corresponding amendment was made to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act. However, since Gatineau Park is already part of the national capital region, there is no requirement to specifically identify this part of the capital region and not others.

Moreover, pursuant to an memorandum of understanding signed in October 2013 between the NCC and the Department of Canadian Heritage, the National Capital Commission continues to assume responsibility for, among other things, the management of activities, events, and promotions for Gatineau Park and the Mackenzie King Estate, while the Department of Canadian Heritage continues to manage activities relating to the urban lands for the capital region.

I am of the opinion that Bill C-565 is not an effective vehicle for protecting Gatineau Park. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the government's commitment to introducing comprehensive legislation shortly, which would ensure the continued long-term protection of Gatineau Park and provide the National Capital Commission with the tools necessary to manage and protect the entire capital region for all Canadians.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the importance of protecting Gatineau Park and why Bill C-565 misses the mark on this important issue.

We can all agree that Gatineau Park is one of the jewels of the national capital region. The park represents 7.5% of the total land area of the national capital region and comprises 361 square kilometres of green space; 200 kilometres of exhilarating cross-country trails; 165 kilometres of breathtaking hiking trails; 50 lakes; a downhill ski resort; multiple ecosystems, such as the Eardley Escarpment and Pink Lake, as well as boasting a great diversity of wildlife.

Remarkably, this pristine natural environment lies within a 15-minute drive of Parliament Hill in downtown Ottawa, a fact that no doubt contributes to its over 2.7 million visitors each year. We, as Canadians, and especially as residents of this region, are lucky to have Gatineau Park but also the greenbelt and other urban parks situated so close to the capital.

The government entrusted the hefty responsibility of protecting the park and all of the capital region's green space to the National Capital Commission through the National Capital Act in 1959. The commission was mandated in that act to prepare plans for, and to assist in the development, conservation, and improvement of, the national capital region, including Gatineau Park, to ensure that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada reflected its national significance. That mandate remains relevant and important to this day and the commission continues to implement it faithfully. Notably, the government reaffirmed the importance of the commission's continued implementation of that mandate of planning, conserving, and improving the entire national capital region, including Gatineau Park, in the first budget implementation act of 2013.

This government understands and shares Canadians' interest in Gatineau Park and continues to support the NCC's efforts, and itself also continues to play a leadership role in taking meaningful action to protect and conserve the park. Our government wants to reiterate to Canadians its absolute commitment to protecting Gatineau Park and other green spaces in the national capital region.

The government has demonstrated its ongoing commitment by twice introducing an act to amend the National Capital Act and other acts in the recent past, once as Bill C-37 in 2009 and then again as Bill C-20 in 2010. Both of these bills contained strong legislative protections for Gatineau Park, including provisions that defined the boundaries of Gatineau Park, strengthened the importance of the environmental stewardship role of the National Capital Commission, and both defined and required the commission to apply the concept of ecological integrity. These bills also sought to comprehensively update the commission's outdated authorities and governance structure to ensure that the commission had the necessary tools at its disposal to truly protect the national capital region's natural spaces and to fulfill its entire mandate.

While both of these government bills unfortunately died on the order paper, I am pleased to note that the government plans to introduce a similar bill in the near future, again illustrating its commitment to protecting the park. In this respect, our government's position is that Bill C-565 does not offer a particularly effective approach to protecting Gatineau Park and is far too restricted in scope.

Need I remind the opposition whip that in the national capital region we live and work in close proximity to many more green spaces than Gatineau Park alone? We are also surrounded by the greenbelt and multiple urban green spaces that fall under federal authority and the NCC's stewardship. Bill C-565 unfortunately only introduces measures to protect one of these parks, Gatineau Park, coincidentally the park closest to the opposition whip's riding.

Our government feels that the approach in Bill C-565 is far too narrow, and we have always taken a strong position, as evidenced by the previous bills just mentioned, that any reopening of the National Capital Act must ensure the enhanced protection of all green spaces in the national capital region, including Gatineau Park and the greenbelt.

Bill C-565's restricted scope also means that it would only focus on one dimension of the National Capital Act concerning Gatineau Park, and in so doing would neglect to address some of the other aspects of the act that could use updating.

While the government strongly believes that the National Capital Commission remains the federal body best placed to ensure the promotion, protection, and conservation of green spaces in the capital region, including Gatineau Park, we also need to provide this crown corporation with a modernized governance structure and updated authorities, in addition to strengthened protective measures for the park, the greenbelt, and other properties held by the commission. This would enable it to better continue to successfully implement its mandate.

As I noted earlier, the government is committed to reintroducing new legislation in the near term, similar to previous Bills C-37 and C-20, which would offer these more comprehensive reforms to the act and provide a more broad-based protection to the green spaces in our capital region.

Its ambit aside, there are also insurmountable and substantive problems with Bill C-565. I will only address one here, that being its problematic imposition of an obligation on the NCC to buy all real estate property in Gatineau Park. We are talking about 377 properties that are privately owned in the Park, with a roughly estimated current value of $100 million. Adopting this amendment in Bill C-565 would clearly cause the market prices of properties in the park to inflate, while concurrently legally obligating the commission to purchase these same properties, regardless of the price. This is far from a responsible way to spend taxpayers' money.

It is important to note that in September 2008, our government sought and obtained an order in council that grants the commission with the authority to purchase private properties in Gatineau Park without seeking Governor in Council approval for each specific purchase. This has already provided the commission with a more efficient and streamlined process for increasing its ownership of property within the park according to the established priorities and resources available.

The National Capital Commission has explicitly identified the acquisition of properties in the park as one of its priorities, and has set aside funds exclusively for this purpose. Our government provided a $10-million increase in ongoing annual funding for capital expenditure to the National Capital Commission in its 2007 budget.

The commission has to date adopted a balanced approach that maximizes the benefits to taxpayers by buying properties based on availability, price, and pre-determined priority. The commission plainly already has the authority, the funds, and the solid policy and planning mechanism to effectively manage acquisitions in Gatineau Park.

I will conclude by reiterating the government's commitment to introducing comprehensive legislation to amend the National Capital Act in the near future. This legislation would protect Gatineau Park, as well as other federally owned green spaces like the greenbelt. It would provide updated tools for the National Capital Commission to continue to deliver on its mandate and to perform its valued work.

The government is committed to protecting Gatineau Park for Canadians, not only in the present, but for decades to come.

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

Mr. Chair, this brings me to a question for the clerk, that I will put through you.

The Government of Quebec had been invited as a witness, if memory serves me, during the consultations or testimony given at the time of Bill C-37. If memory serves me, the Government of Quebec did not deign to come here to testify.

Is my interpretation of the facts correct or were there other circumstances?

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

We discussed all of this, Mr. Chair, in our study of the previous bill, Bill C-37. We had very interesting witnesses, but...I'm having a senior moment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I simply want to point out to my colleague, Mr. Nadeau, that it is no surprise that we are discussing the Greenbelt this morning. On the contrary, it was part of the amendments that were made to Bill C-37. And I would add that it is now the government adding this clarification, which requires us to discuss the issue of the Greenbelt.

In amendment G-1 we clarified the proposed bill by accepting a new definition of ecological integrity. One of the objectives in including the greenbelt in this particular bill is exactly that, to make sure that the ecological integrity within the greenbelt, where possible, will be protected. As you are very right in saying so, as we go along, the definition of the greenbelt will be better known.

Thank you.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, the first question we need to ask ourselves is: Why did no one see fit to include the Greenbelt and all the related legislative provisions in Bill C-37 when it was brought forward in June 2009, in order to lay things out clearly or, at least, ensure that everything was done in accordance with the rules that would have been established.

We heard Mr. Dubé and Mr. Proulx talk about the wide variety of lands that make up the Greenbelt, which, by the way, spans a vast area. This was put to us today without any groundwork having been done, without any evidence from knowledgeable witnesses on the matter, which is one of the National Capital Commission's many responsibilities. Either it was a mistake, or it was not done intentionally to provide an opportunity to gather more sound arguments for discussion down the road, especially in terms of defining the duties and responsibilities related to the famous Greenbelt.

We did it for Gatineau Park, and that is great, but we did not do it for the Greenbelt. It is extremely difficult to accept, even if we say that we will provide an explanation in a schedule. We are required to vote on all the elements contained in the bill before us, not on things that appear out of nowhere in an amendment on a major issue concerning the National Capital Commission.

Mr. Chair, I am not trying to take away from the Greenbelt or diminish its importance. It is just that we did not study the issue, we did not propose it for consideration, we did not set out the necessary parameters to pass legislation on the issue and then clearly identify the corresponding responsibilities.

It is also to protect the Greenbelt. It is important to keep in mind what Russell Mills said before he was appointed chair of the National Capital Commission's board of directors. He said that he did not have a problem with carving up the Greenbelt; he was willing to hand it over to the private sector. Forgive me, but let's define everything first and give the Greenbelt legislative protection, to prevent the Russell Mills of the world from, one day, selling off pieces of the city of Ottawa's environmental heritage.

To do that, we need a piece of legislation. But we do not have that here. We should have done it in due course. It is never too late to do things right, but it would have to be through another motion or another amendment to the current act, in order to ensure that the job is done well and that the Greenbelt is given adequate protection. The boundaries need to be known and established, to be sure that we, as lawmakers, are protecting an area with known and established boundaries. We would also need to ensure the sustainability of this land for future generations of Quebeckers and Canadians alike.

But that is not the case right now, and so we have this grey area referred to earlier. You cannot just cook this up, and come here and tell us that everything is hunky-dory and that we should have confidence in it even though we were not given the slightest opportunity to discuss it or to hear from witnesses on the matter, if only regarding the boundaries of this extremely diverse and significant area.

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

To start with, this is not a new concept. As your witness just said a few minutes ago, the greenbelt is known in the Ottawa region. It's being referred to in all types of different municipal, provincial, and federal uses.

To say that it's a new concept to the bill.... I don't agree with Mr. Nadeau. We had witnesses. When we had hearings on Bill C-37, we had witnesses come and explain to us what the needs were to protect the National Capital Commission's part of Ottawa known as the greenbelt. The greenbelt does exist in Ottawa. It's to pin down what territory it covers.

Now, if we were to accept this way of doing things, does it mean that for schedule 2.1 to be legal or to be accepted eventually it would have to come back to this committee, sir? We would be accepting schedule 2.1, but in fact the schedule doesn't exist, so we would have to create that schedule sometime in the future.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, I agree that this amendment is out of order, primarily because it introduces something that was not included in what was presented to us previously in Bill C-37 or currently in Bill C-20.

Therefore, we will vote against the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, once again, things are being hidden, as was the case when we were studying Bill C-37. A bit further on, we will come to a point when we will want to discuss the description for Gatineau Park. I think the bill has some 37 pages of descriptions.

Right now, we are being asked to endorse a term because the government implied that there was an intention to extend the same protection to the Greenbelt as the protection that will apply to Gatineau Park. So we are being asked to add the Greenbelt without knowing what it refers to.

If you were to ask 10 Ottawa residents to define the Greenbelt, no two people would give you the same answer. It is very unfortunate that the government wants to keep us so in the dark. It would certainly be a first to agree to include a term in a bill without being able to define it. I am very disappointed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll have to interject there.

I thank our guests for being here today. We do appreciate your time and your comments.

For the committee, on October 26 we're going to start with Bill C-509, the Canada Post libraries bill. If we have time, we will start on Bill C-20. I am going to suggest to the committee members that if they have amendments to either of those bills they please have them to the clerk's office by Friday. Before we start Bill C-20, we will be discussing a motion to suggest that the evidence considered in the previous session for Bill C-37 be a part of the Bill C-20 study.

Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I have no difficulty with that. I was only trying to make it simpler to save committee time.

However, I do have, from Transport Canada, in both official languages, the differences between Bill C-37 and Bill C-20. I would like to hand those out to committee, but if this is ruled out of order, we're not going to challenge it. We'll deal with it as the committee deals with it, unless other people have a different desire.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair, I think what the motion was attempting to do was to fast-track Bill C-20—or Bill C-37—to the point at which it was last left by committee members.

Quite frankly, I'm prepared to do whatever is required in respect of the members' wishes, but I would like to have the opportunity to hear from the new members specifically in regard to their position on it prior to any other issue.

I know that Mr. McCallum hasn't had an opportunity to address the issue itself, and I know that Ms. Crombie was here, of course, when we dealt with the previous legislation. But of course, I would like to hear from Mr. Guimond as well.

An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise that my arguments will go along the same line as those presented by the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. My colleague and the hon. member for Gatineau have a deep knowledge of the national capital region. Their ridings are part of, or next to the Outaouais region.

I know that the hon. member for Gatineau delivered a speech in this House on Bill C-37, which was the first version of Bill C-20 now before us.

Even if the Bloc Québécois is in favour of referring this legislation to the committee for review, it is out of the question for us, as my colleague pointed out earlier, to give a blank cheque to the government.

As I said, Bill C-20 seeks to amend the National Capital Act and other acts. It is similar to former Bill C-37, which was introduced on June 9, 2009, but died on the order paper following the latest prorogation by this Conservative government. The bill was reintroduced exactly like it was at first reading, in June 2009. In other words, no change was made. We had raised some issues regarding Bill C-37, but the government did not respond to our concerns in Bill C-20. So this is truly a cut and paste job.

What we have before us is exactly the same bill, and this is why we are again pointing out the issues that had been raised, not only by the Bloc Québécois members who represent the ridings close to the national capital, but also on several occasions by the Quebec government.

Already back in 2007, representations had been made by the Quebec government to its federal counterpart, about the federal government's intentions with regard to the changes to the national capital region.

Gatineau Park is definitely a gem in that region. I had the pleasure of discovering it when I first came here on Parliament Hill. In fact, I even vacationed shortly before the 2000 election, because I thought I was probably going to settle here during the week, when the House is sitting. I then had the opportunity to visit the magnificent Gatineau Park which, as I said, is a gem. However, as with any gem and any self-respecting national park—even though it does not officially have that status—we must be very careful regarding its development and the use that we want to make of it.

I first established myself in the region as a parliamentary assistant and not as a member. That took a bit longer than expected, but in 2000 I had the opportunity, when I was here on the Hill as a parliamentary assistant, to enjoy the beauty and attractions of Gatineau Park. I would even say that I had more time to enjoy it when I was an assistant because now, as soon as the work here ends, I go back to my riding. So I get to enjoy the beauty and attractions of my riding, Richmond—Arthabaska.

We in the Bloc Québécois feel that we must pay close attention to this bill. We obviously recognize the importance of improving the protection and conservation of natural settings. We believe that it is necessary to protect Gatineau Park from property development and to clearly define its function in order to ensure that it is there for the long term, for future generations.

We feel that any National Capital Commission activities involving Quebec should be undertaken with the Quebec government's approval. I believe that my colleagues were able, with their questions and comments, to question my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel about this. It is obvious to us that the Government of Quebec not only has something to say in this, but that it has the last word and the most important word when it comes to its own territory.

Even though an agreement was signed in 1973 with the federal government so that the National Capital Commission would take charge of Gatineau Park—I would say that it was a cross-border agreement between Ontario and Quebec, but let us say it was from the two sides of the river—it must be understood that Quebec never wanted to give up any territory or land in Gatineau Park to the federal government.

As I said, we raised some concerns, particularly with respect to the touchy issue of respect for Quebec’s territorial integrity and protection for its powers. That is often the case with various pieces of legislation, as the hon. members can understand. Be it in committee, in motions that are put forward or in bills, we are always very concerned about the respect shown for Quebec's fields of jurisdiction. Often, when discussing with other colleagues, I realize that it sparks something in them about the situation in their own provinces. They want to defend their provinces' interests and ensure that their fields of jurisdiction are also protected.

No one is as sensitive as we from the Bloc Québécois are with regard to Quebec, because of our sovereignist stance.

The Bloc is in favour of this bill being referred to committee. We will not be giving a blank cheque, as I said. We will discuss several issues, starting with environmental protection, once the bill is in committee.

Gatineau Park occupies 350 square kilometres. It is federal land managed by the National Capital Commission. Unlike other national and provincial parks in Canada and Quebec, Gatineau Park is not protected by legislation and has no official status. We did not say that this did not need to be examined more closely. For national parks at least, these are beneficial in terms of ensuring the protection of the environment and site, and preventing the overdevelopment of that land.

As such, the park is subject to the whims and decisions of the organization responsible for managing it, that is the National Capital Commission, which, according to its powers under the legislation, can sell land.

Several environmental and citizens' groups continue to call for better protection for Gatineau Park. They want the government to add a section to the act to give the park official legal status, clarify its purpose and guarantee its ecological integrity.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes the importance of protecting and preserving natural areas. As such, we believe that the government must protect Gatineau Park from real estate development, clarify the park's purpose, and protect it for future generations.

With respect to Quebec's jurisdiction and the integrity of its territory, Quebec governments have always considered territorial integrity to be inviolable. Regarding National Capital Commission encroachment on Quebec's territory, the Commission d'étude sur l'intégrité du territoire du Québec, the Dorion commission, submitted a very interesting report to the Government of Quebec covering the period from 1968 to 1972. Our position on the inviolability of Quebec's territorial integrity has not changed since.

Through the National Capital Commission, the federal government has chipped away at Quebec's territory to the point that the NCC is now the largest landholder in the Outaouais region. The NCC holds over 470 square kilometres of land, which is about 10% of all of the land in Gatineau and Ottawa combined. On the Quebec side, the National Capital Commission owns much of Gatineau Park.

Not long ago, on May 18, the local media reported that the City of Gatineau, which wanted to redevelop a section of road in the Hull sector to install a standard bike lane, would have to negotiate with the National Capital Commission for control of the land before proceeding.

We see that this situation is unique. A particular municipality has its territory, falls under Quebec jurisdiction, and must go to great lengths with another organization to be able to manage its territory to meet the needs of its people.

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. They are quite different. Both parties have their own interests. We believe that the NCC 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 cycling path I mentioned earlier is a good example of this situation.

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—that is what we will be asking for in committee when the bill gets there—to ensure that neither the government or its crown corporations, including the NCC, can dispossess Quebec of its land. Furthermore, all National Capital Commission activities, decisions and development projects on Quebec territory are to be approved by the Government of Quebec in advance.

I was saying earlier that the Quebec government had made representations and I have letters from two different ministers, at different times, to prove it. I will come back to this point later.

There is another important matter that will be discussed in committee: the amendments to Bill C-20 required to ensure respect for Quebec's territorial integrity and jurisdictions with respect to the “national interest land mass”.

The bill seeks to introduce into the law the concept of a “national interest land mass”, which would permit the NCC to designate any lands—for example, Gatineau Park and other land in the City of Gatineau or surrounding area—and to establish the process for their acquisition.

This concept raises many concerns, particularly among Quebec's elected officials. Already in 2007, following the release of an NCC report entitled “Charting a New Course”, Benoît Pelletier, the minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs and the Outaouais, who was a member from the Outaouais area at the time, had warned the federal government about the “national interest land mass”. He wrote to his federal counterpart responsible for the National Capital Region, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs who was transport minister at the time. Mr. Pelletier informed him of his apprehensions as far back as 2007. This is not a brand new concept.

I would like to quote Mr. Pelletier's letter, which states:

Moreover, despite noting that the Canadian Constitution gives the provinces jurisdiction for land-use planning, the report nevertheless promotes a new idea, that of the “national interest land mass”(NILM): land in the NCC portfolio that is deemed essential to the long-term viability of Canada's Capital Region. This is a remarkably nebulous concept. It could potentially entail a risk of encroachment on Quebec's territorial jurisdiction in the Outaouais, given that a number of important components of the NILM, including the Gatineau Park and other parcels of land in the greenbelt, are located in Quebec. Such an expansion of the NCC's prerogatives is an extremely disquieting prospect.

When the Government of Quebec expresses such concerns, naturally we in the Bloc Québécois share those concerns. The Government of Quebec has every prerogative and every right to protect its land.

Representations will have to be made to the commission. There is a serious imbalance within the members of the commission. The bill introduces some changes to how the NCC works, including some that the Bloc Québécois supports. For example, the bill requires the NCC to hold four open meetings per year. It is hard to be against such transparency. That was one of the demands in the Bloc Québécois' 2006 brief, and it will make the commission more transparent.

The current National Capital Act requires that commissioners be appointed according to predetermined criteria. That is where the problem lies. That is why I wanted to draw everyone's attention to this problem.

Three commission members have to come from municipalities in Ontario, only two from Quebec municipalities and eight from elsewhere in Canada.

This provision has already been clearly disputed by the Government of Quebec. In 2007, Minister Pelletier wrote:

Furthermore, the report suggests less representation for Quebec than for Ontario.... The Government of Quebec is against any such imbalance in Quebec's representation on what may become the NCC's executive body. Since we already know that significant issues of direct concern to Quebec in the areas of land-use planning and territorial integrity would be handled by the new body, Quebec demands equal representation on it.

This urgent request by the Government of Quebec to the federal government goes back to 2007, but it was not heard. Bill C-20 has exactly the same criteria and clauses that were in Bill C-37 and for which we had raised these problems.

In 2009, the Government of Quebec reiterated its request to the federal government:

...Quebec has fewer representatives on the NCC's Board of Directors than Ontario, and this situation is unacceptable given the impact that the board's decisions could have on the Outaouais.

That is crystal clear. The Bloc Québécois is therefore asking that the NCC have as many members representing Quebec as representing Ontario. That makes perfect sense.

Regarding federal government spending, we believe that the federal government and its agent, the NCC, must make a formal commitment to split their spending equitably between the cities of Gatineau and Ottawa, based on population. We have been calling for this sort of thing for a long time now, especially when it comes to various issues in the national capital region.

We have repeatedly called for an equitable approach to the location of federal buildings and public service jobs, and we are doing the same thing with regard to this bill and federal government spending.

NCC investments are not commensurate with Gatineau's demographic weight compared to Ottawa. The bill does not correct this, and the government does not intend to correct it. The Bloc Québécois will be sure to raise this issue in committee.

The area covered by the NCC currently has a population of 1,104,500, including 239,000—nearly 22%—in Gatineau and 865,000—just over 78%—in Ottawa. We had a table prepared showing NCC investments from 2001 to 2005 by region, in millions of dollars. Unfortunately, this is not the first time we have seen how disadvantaged Quebec is, nor is this the only issue where it is true. NCC spending is not commensurate with the population of Gatineau.

The following figures are dramatic. In total, between 2001 and 2005, more than 85% of spending went to Ottawa, even though it accounts for roughly 78% of the overall population. About 15% of spending went to Gatineau, even though it represents roughly 22% of the overall population. We are at a clear disadvantage when it comes to spending. This is something we will be sure to bring up in committee.

The government has to understand that by agreeing to send Bill C-20 to committee, we are not giving the government a blank cheque. There are many issues we will have to look at carefully before we support such a bill.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I were watching this at home, I might feel that I was having a case of déjà vu or maybe that CPAC had run out of interesting things to cover and was showing us reruns, because we are dealing with a bill that was already dealt with. We had hours of debate. We had testimony. We had witnesses. We had parties working clause by clause to present a bill that should now be law. Yet the Conservatives, as has become their style, flushed the bill down the toilet because they did not want to answer any questions on the Afghan detainees.

Therefore, what we are living here in the House right now is akin to the extras in the movie Groundhog Day, where we come back every day and usually see the same dumb tough on crime bills and the government denouncing this and that. Yet I have seen this pattern since 2007, where the government has flushed its entire legislative agenda and then started everything from the beginning. It did that just this past January.

A legislative agenda is usually the pride of a government. It is something that it shepherds through the House. It is something it believes in. It does not just rip the bills up, throw out all of the witness testimony, spend millions of dollars and then say, “Wait a minute. Now we are serious. We are going to do it over again”.

We are looking at Bill C-20, which was Bill C-37 previously. We are having to go through the same process for something that should have been done. I have never seen a government with such a meagre standard for legislative results.

My hon. colleague spent many years in a provincial parliament and has seen many governments in action. Has he ever seen a government with such little interest or regard for the fundamental job it has as government, which is bringing through legislation, actually seeing the legislation get voted on and bringing it into law?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to what is now Bill C-20, which started as Bill C-37 last year.

I listened to a number of very good speeches today and some very interesting questions. The discussion appears to be around the creation of the National Capital Commission in 1959. Before the National Capital Commission was created, we have to go back in 1899 when the Government of Canada established the Ottawa Improvement Commission, which was designed to beautify the city, including work on parks and the lands along the Ottawa River.

Unfortunately, a series of incidents occurred in the early 20th century, which had an impact on the region. We all know about the great fire of 1900 and another fire in 1916, which destroyed Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings. Centre Block was rebuilt and successive governments at that point realized how important it was to build a strong capital region and a centre that people from across the country would be attracted to. One of the comments I constantly hear from my constituents is they really enjoy coming to Ottawa for all the historical buildings and the museums. The green space in Ottawa is always mentioned in a positive light across the country.

It is important to establish very strong laws governing development in a capital region. Winnipeg, for example, allowed development to proceed on an old railway yard at the Forks 20 years ago. Originally, certainly during the Filmon Conservative years, the NDP was in opposition and did a very effective job of trying to minimize the amount of development in the Forks area. We wanted people to participate in recreation in the area. There was a walkway along the river. The river, by the way, is the longest skating rink in the free world, which has been well established over and over again.

Nevertheless, there was a concern that we in the opposition had about a greater amount of development. There are always development pressures for commercial opportunities. Because the current opposition in Manitoba is very development-oriented and basically rubber stamps anything the city wants to do, there is no pressure to hold back development.

Compared to 10 years ago, the place has become cluttered with too many things. The human rights museum is being built on that land now and there is hardly a parking lot left. There is a hotel there now and parking lots have been built. This is not what a lot of people thought it should turn out to be some 20 years ago. I believe it is very important for people in Ottawa to get this right and make certain that we keep a handle on any sort of commercial development and actions that would reduce the green space and lead to development that really should not be allowed.

The Bloc member who just spoke expressed a concern, which was also mentioned in last year's debate on this very point, that a high percentage of the development was on one side of the river and a smaller part of the development was on the other. I understand there is tension for development, but on the other side of the coin, there are many people who want those pristine areas of the environment left the way they are and do not want developments that are not done in an orderly fashion.

Some improvements would be brought about by this bill. I guess my only frustration is we cannot seem to get this bill, or a lot of other bills, through the House for no other reason than the Prime Minister, now on two successive occasions, has prorogued the House and forced us to start all over over. Here we are back at square one with this bill. I think some of us are losing track of some of these numbers. It started out as Bill C-37 last year and now we are dealing with it as Bill C-20.

We are aware that when we get the bill to committee, which is bound to happen fairly soon, there will be an opportunity for the Bloc member's questions to be answered, hopefully to his satisfaction, and for some changes to be made at committee. The whole process will start over.

For any members who have been unable to get their amendments passed in last year's cycle of this bill, I have good news for them. They are going to have a new chance to get witnesses before the committee. They are going to have a new chance to survey their constituents, send out some letters, make some phone calls, get them involved and active in this file and, hopefully, get them to influence the committee into making the changes they see as being important to the improvement and betterment of this act.

The NDP supported the legislation even last year. We see some positive things that would come about because of the bill. However, the fact is the government started on this whole process back in April 2006. We are already four years into the process. I think we may be a lot older and greyer at the rate the government moves before we get the legislation passed.

This goes for a whole lot of other bills. We are talking about the whole government agenda that has to be reintroduced every time the government decides it wants to recalibrate or it gets fearful and afraid of its shadow and prorogues the House. We hope the government will not do that again. I think by now it probably more or less has learned its lesson. I will make a prediction and go out on a limb and say that I do not expect we will see another prorogation of the House any time soon. I hope I am not wrong. Maybe I should not put much in the way of bets on that point. However, I really think it has learned its lesson and will not do it again.

I have said many times that I believe strongly in minority governments. They can work. It worked with Bill Davis. It worked with Gary Filmon. It is working in England right now. There is no reason why Parliament has to be so acrimonious. Other than the transport committee, some of the committees are falling into a lot of acrimony right now. We saw it in the House today. Maybe it is just the hot weather. However, I suspect this is an ongoing problem. We have to learn to work this out. Otherwise, we will find ourselves very shortly into another $300 million election, which I can assure members will produce the same results. The government will not get any better result than what it has right now. It should wake up and realize that it has had four years already and it may have another four years doing the same thing. However, if it keeps doing the same thing, it is not going to get results. That is what the government wants to show at the end of the game. Any government that gets into this wants to show results.

Look at what happened in the 1960s, from 1962 to 1968, under Mike Pearson. We had a period of a minority government where we brought in a new national flag, we unified the armed forces, we dealt with pensions and the medicare bill. Imagine the huge initiatives that the Pearson government brought in after coming out of four years of a Diefenbaker majority government. The Liberals came in as a minority government and survived a couple of elections. Obviously there was a different mix of people in that environment. That government managed to survive from 1962 to 1968 and dealt with some very contentious issues.

Anybody who lived through that period knows how contentious changing the flag was. It was extremely contentious, yet they got the job done, and they got the job done with the unification of the armed forces. Why they would do that in a minority government, I do not know, but they did it and they got the job done. As my colleague just mentioned, the pensions and the medicare issues were brought up during that time too.

Thus, there is all sorts of evidence to say that minority governments can work. They work in other countries. As a matter of fact, we do not need a majority to get things done. That is the arguments that governments make, but we have seen government after government not only squandering their majorities but also getting themselves into trouble. Majorities are actually not to their benefit. If backbenchers think they are obscure now, wait till they get into a majority government situation. I have been there a couple of times and when we are in a majority situation, it is not a happy time for a lot of the members. This is the members' best time to get their ideas out, to get their ideas up in caucus, and have some influence on their government. That is what they should be doing and they should be working with the intention of making this place work.

In April 2006, the minister responsible for the National Capital Act launched a review to assess the current relevance of the NCC. As I indicated, the commission had been around since 1959, so clearly there were some changes to be made.

We have heard some of the other members talk about the way it was, because when I first looked at the bill last year, I wondered why the government wanted to make these changes after all of this time. If the commission was working so well from 1959, what was the big reason for burning political capital on something like this? However, one of the things we saw was that the National Capital Commission held private meetings; it did not have meetings open to the public. Changing this is one of the positive things that this particular legislation is about to do.

Once again, the government proposed changes and looked for stakeholder input. It wanted to make certain there was a certain amount of feedback. When the minister launched the review, the purpose basically was to assess the continuing relevance of the National Capital Commission and its activities and level of funding. The independent review panel invited a broad range of stakeholders and interested parties to express their views, in addition to a number of individual participants, including from federal departments and agencies.

I might point out at this juncture that it has been mentioned by others in this House that the members of the commission are not just people from the Ottawa area. This is a National Capital Commission; there are people on the board, as there should be, from other parts of Canada.

Other levels of government were also consulted, foreign institutions, parliamentarians, and local and not-for-profit organizations. In this connection, the Bloc member brought up the whole issue of whether or not Quebec was consulted on this bill. I find it hard to believe that it could not have been at some point in the process, but I take the previous member at his word. Once again, as I indicated, he has opportunities to deal with that issue now and to get whatever input into the bill he wants from his local residents, or from the Government of Quebec, because once again, we are just looking now at getting the bill to committee.

The panel released its report in December 2006, and made a number of recommendations concerning the governance of the commission and its activities and funding. I believe a total of 31 recommendations were made and the government, to its credit, has actually taken some action on some of these.

If I recall the speech by my hon. colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, who has been very involved and very strong on the bill over the last couple of years and who actually had his own bill before the House, he complimented the government and said he had worked very well with the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and he certainly gave the government high marks and credit for that. He said in his speech that he believed in giving the government credit where credit was due. In fact, in working on this particular bill, it was a very positive experience for the member for Ottawa Centre, and he did accept that the government was doing the right thing.

In its backgrounder, the government points out that it has taken several steps consistent with the review panel's recommendation. There was an annual $15 million increase in funding for the National Capital Commission. That was announced in budget 2007. In keeping with the Federal Accountability Act, which received royal assent on December 12, 2006, it separated the chairperson and chief executive officer positions as separate entities.

As well, in September 2008, the Governor in Council approved the acquisition by the NCC of private properties in Gatineau Park. There was some question about what the true size of the park was. I believe one of the Liberal members indicated there was no way of telling how big the park was, yet a Bloc member had it down to the nearest centimetre. Clearly, these two members ought to get together and determine what the actual size of the park is, because we have two divergent opinions on that point.

As I indicated before, the board had private meetings. That is clearly something that has gone the way of dinosaur now. Organizations are being forced through public pressure to open up. We do not have to go any further than the current experiences that all members of the House have in dealing with issues where the public wants to know what is happening. Once again, the board meetings were private and now they will be public. The board will now have to have at least four meetings a year. These will have to be open to the public and there is a requirement that if members need to go in camera, it is logical that their meetings be held in camera if necessary—but only if necessary.

Another really important point is the following. I think I asked a question about this last year, and the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor has also talked it. The National Capital Commission is required to submit a 50-year master plan for the National Capital Region at least every 10 years, including its principles and objectives for approval by the Governor in Council and for tabling in Parliament. That is an extremely important proposition for the National Capital Commission to follow, because this requires it to look ahead and not just to do things on a day-by-day, next-day, next-month basis. Certainly, in terms of any type of commercial activity, this requires it to take the long-term view of that commercial activity. So the whole idea of submitting a plan for the area is something that I think must have been borrowed from someone else, as I do not know if it is original to the board.

I just happened to be in Louisiana a couple of weeks ago at a conference, where we had a briefing on the oil spill. That area is an example of where there is extreme environmental damage and absolutely no plan, no plan at all. They were drilling in huge depths with no previous experience at those depths, and no one seemed to be in charge of the ship. That is hardly a direct comparison, but it still shows us that when we start developing or spending money on development we should have some sort of a plan where we are going. We should not be allowing unfettered, free enterprise development here and allow people to simply develop in any way the almighty dollar tells them they should develop. That is really important.

I really applaud the government for taking the initiative here and doing something that will benefit the national capital region and will, in fact, benefit Canadians as a whole.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Estrie, from the riding of Sherbrooke. We do see the big sticky fingers of the federal government and its habit of playing in the government of Quebec’s flowerbeds. Before the merger into the bigger City of Gatineau, over 10% of the City of Hull was under the authority of the National Capital Commission. Imagine what that means for development in the city.

Before prorogation, before we went back and started over from zero, we were considering Bill C-37, which today is Bill C-20. During examination of that bill, our colleague, the parliamentary secretary from Alberta, was asked whether he would agree to have the federal government expand Jasper Park or Banff Park without consulting the Government of Alberta. He said no, never. So we asked him whether the federal government should not also consult the government of Quebec before expanding the area covered by Gatineau Park and taking land from the Government of Quebec. He said that it was not necessary for Quebec, because the Clarity Act was very complicated: a double standard, in fact.

We see that mindset again in the government today. We see it even in the possible operation of the National Capital Commission. And we have a minister responsible for the National Capital Commission who is a former minister from the Liberal Party of Quebec under Robert Bourassa, and who is not doing more to defend the territorial integrity of Quebec. We in the Bloc Québécois will do that, tooth and nail.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-20, An Act to amend the National Capital Act. I am going to refer to my speech of June 18 of last year on Bill C-37, which was the first legislation introduced by the Conservatives, in June 2009.

But first, I want to inform hon. members that I issued a press release on March 19, to put some pressure on the Conservatives and to condemn the effects of last December's prorogation.

I was wondering what had happened to the urgent need to pass Bill C-37, which seemed so important to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Indeed, in June 2009, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that, should an election were held in the fall of 2009, the bill would be quickly reintroduced. The previous month, he had stated that he wanted to “proceed quickly”. In December 2009, he added that he was disappointed because the bill had yet to be adopted. Did he want us to pass this legislation without any debate? We were now at the end of March, in the spring, and the bill had not yet been introduced. After exerting pressure to have all the parties reach a consensus, there was still nothing happening. That is when I declared that the whole thing was just pure hypocrisy.

I also made reference to the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party at committee stage. I simply believe that the Conservatives are not prepared to accept amendments. They want their bill to be approved without any debate. They want rubber-stamping.

That is what I wanted to say on this point.

I am now going to respond to the comments that the parliamentary secretary just made, namely that the minister consulted all the parties. It is absolutely true that I attended a meeting. However, as regards the ideas that we put forward, the minister took them under advisement, if I may use that expression, even though he is not a judge. He told us that he would think about our suggestions. Not one of them was accepted. And I will go even further. To my great surprise, the Conservatives did not accept the amendments that had been voted on and approved by the committee during the review of Bill C-37, and they did not include them in their new legislation. This is the second point I wanted to make.

I will now begin by revisiting Bill C-37, which is the original legislation. One can see how much time was lost because of last December's prorogation. Had it not been for that unfortunate prorogation, this bill could surely have already gone through third reading stage in the House.

I was saying that Bill C-20 uses almost the exact wording of Bill C-37, which was being studied in committee last fall.

This is what we had to say last year about Bill C-37.

First, we had questions about changes to the governance of the National Capital Commission and Gatineau Park.

At the time, we planned to support Bill C-37 in principle, so it could be referred to committee for further study. That continues to be our position.

The national capital is the symbol of our country. It is important to ensure that it communicates this vision to visitors from around the world. The national capital region is one of the most beautiful in the world and we are very proud of it.

To oversee the national capital region, legislators established the National Capital Commission. This organization works well and the employees who support it care about the development of our region. I would like to thank them for their dedication and loyalty. Having said this, I believe that it is appropriate to maintain transparency at the NCC and to continue improving it as much as possible. An open and transparent society is a reflection of Canadian values.

This update reflects the current political reality. People want to participate in discussions about their living environment. The decisions made have a great impact on them. It is also a question of principle.

Therefore we have questions about the administrative changes proposed for the NCC.

I should point out that the NCC is an independent corporation whose mission, according to its website, is 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; and”

“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 NCC's job is to develop the National Capital Region's lands and to promote our region. Bill C-37, which is now Bill C-20, follows up on recommendations from the ad hoc committee chaired by Gilles Paquet in 2006.

Bill C-20 specifically 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.

That last point is absolutely right.

I would now like to comment on the part of Bill C-20 that deals with Gatineau Park. Together with the green belt on the Ontario side, Gatineau Park on the Quebec side is one of the jewels in the crown of Canada's capital. Born of the Greber plan, they purify the air in Canada's 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.

I will not read the description of the lots that follows the list I just read. There are pages upon pages of numbers that mean very little to people like us. However, it establishes the park's boundaries.

But let us be clear, when we look at this bill, it is obvious that the matter needs to be thoroughly studied. The description of the boundaries I am talking about runs from page 12 through page 34. It is a very detailed description. So we will need briefings, maps, engineers, and even a 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. We need to clarify its functions and accessibility and set the boundaries.

We were not given a detailed map of Gatineau Park when this was studied in committee. Instead, we were given a map on a piece of paper that was 8½ x 11 or 8½ x 14. It was very odd. Gatineau Park is massive. It is bigger than some European countries and, despite that, when we were studying Bill C-37 in committee, we did not receive a map that clearly showed its boundaries. I will say it again, we believe that this issue needs to be studied more closely in committee.

There are many reasons why I do not think that Gatineau Park should necessarily become a national park, but basically it is because there are portions of land inside and around the park that belong to the government of Quebec.

I think that any protection afforded the park should not include prohibiting citizens from having access and engaging in activities there, and the vast majority of residents and visitors would agree. However, there should be some limits set. Some sections of the park, but not all, are open to the public for recreation and physical activity. That is what is so unique about Gatineau Park.

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, now Bill C-20, 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, however, we will have to pay attention to certain concepts included in the bill so that they are fully understood and defined, including concepts such as national interest land mass and the ecological integrity of the park.

The bill raises other questions. Could the NCC continue to charge or increase user fees? Also, is there a possibility of privatizing the park or certain parts of it? In addition, this bill raises the issue of public transit in the national capital region. This whole issue and its local and regional impact must be studied.

The use and disposition of properties in the park must also be very clear, so as to cause prejudice to no one.

That is what we said in the House on Bill C-37 or, should I say, Bill C-20.

Now I want to focus on an amendment to the bill that we felt to be crucial, and that is the amendment on the greenbelt.

The Liberal members from the National Capital Region, the member for Ottawa South, the member for Ottawa—Vanier and myself, are calling for better protection of the greenbelt. There are no serious regulations protecting the greenbelt. Together, the City of Ottawa and the NCC can do whatever they want with this land. We believe this green space must be protected from developers. The greenbelt is a sensitive area that is part of our region's green heritage, and I want to emphasize this concept of green heritage.

The member for Ottawa South, the member for Ottawa—Vanier and I as Liberal members of Parliament in the national capital region have good reason to call for enhanced protection of the greenbelt. There are, as a matter of fact, no major regulations protecting this area. Together the City of Ottawa and the NCC could do what they like with it.

We believe this green space must be protected from developers. The greenbelt is a sensitive area that is part of our region's green heritage, and I would like to emphasize this concept of green heritage.

The national capital region has something that sets it apart from other national capitals: green space in its core. This space is the result of a planning process that dates back many years, to the time of the Gréber plan which I mentioned earlier. But more and more, our green space is facing increased pressure and is being sized up for other purposes.

The national capital region has something that sets it apart from other national capitals: green space in the core. This space is the result of a planning process that dates back many years, to the time of the Gréber plan which I mentioned earlier. But more and more, our green space is facing increased pressure and is being sized up for other purposes.

Given that the greenbelt is completely unprotected, we firmly believe it must be given the same safeguards as Gatineau Park. This type of protection is flexible enough to allow for land exchanges and road access, but would limit residential, commercial and industrial development and, as in the case of Gatineau Park, it would protect the area's ecological integrity.

Given that the greenbelt is completely unprotected, we firmly believe it must be given the same safeguards as Gatineau Park. This type of protection is flexible enough to allow for land exchanges and road access, but would limit residential, commercial and industrial development and, as in the case of Gatineau Park, it would protect the area's ecological integrity.

We want this protection not only for this generation, but also for future generations. We are the trustees and custodians of our region's heritage, and it is our duty to protect the greenbelt. We must also protect it to keep our national capital a green, accessible region on a human scale, because that is what makes the capital unique.

The greenbelt gives great pleasure to tourists, who are a major driver of the regional economy. It also creates many jobs and helps diversify employment so that the region's economic development does not depend solely on Canada's public service.

Although the NCC has begun revising its master plan, we do not feel we should wait for its recommendations. We must not wait for the Conservatives to destroy our greenbelt. We have to develop the tools to protect it immediately. Legislators are elected to make decisions, and we must show leadership and protect the greenbelt. The way to protect it is through Bill C-20.

We in the Liberal Party want to protect our greenbelt right away.

Let us protect the greenbelt immediately.

Here are the main amendments we made to Bill C-37, which we will also put forward for Bill C-20: ensure that 25% of all jobs—not square metres—in all federal organizations in the national capital region are located in Quebec and 75% in Ontario by establishing job hubs in each province; maintain the ecological integrity of NCC properties in Gatineau Park and Ottawa's greenbelt; have the National Capital Commission maintain, build and renovate any existing and future bridge across the Ottawa River in the national capital region; have the House of Commons and the Senate approve the NCC's master plan.

In conclusion, we would like to see changes in the NCC's responsibilities, the inclusion of greenbelt protection similar to the protection for Gatineau Park and the approval of the NCC's master plan by both houses of Parliament.

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

I have two things to say. The first is a question for you, Mr. Chair.

If the friendly amendment is accepted, the motion would read: “... Wednesday, December 9 until 8:30 p.m. and/or ...”—that is where I have a problem—“... and/or Thursday, December 10 from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. or ...” It includes the word “and” because it is in the same sentence, “or other agreed upon time in order to complete clause by clause consideration ...”.

What I am wondering is who would decide upon another time to complete the study. Does that give the government or you, Mr. Chair, carte blanche to call another meeting at an agreed upon time to complete clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-37? Clearly, what the government wants, without putting it in writing, is to complete clause-by-clause consideration tomorrow in order to report to the House on Friday, if I understand correctly. That was my first comment.

It seems that Mr. Jean wants to respond on your behalf, Mr. Chair. My question was directed at you.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the case of Bill C-37, I think all the parties showed their good will; there was a desire to study the bill in a collegial manner. I get the feeling that there is a major lack of understanding, most likely from the government, which, initially, had reached out to us. I remember what the minister came and told us, that they were going to try to introduce a bill that would please everyone, and then, they decided to go it alone.

The government probably has the support of the NDP. I want to warn the NDP members and tell them to make sure that the interests of the National Capital Commission are being protected. I think that wanting to rush through this debate does nothing to protect the interests of the public, the National Capital Commission or elected officials. It is clear: by not allowing the House to study this matter, by not allowing the provinces to be consulted, we are disregarding a democratic principle.

This bill should be debated for however long is available; there is no need to rush through it or to try to study it as quickly as possible for strategic reasons. We owe it to the public to take the time that is necessary.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

Since we've had a vote, I'd like to move my notice of motion, the one that was sent out on Monday, and I would like to read it into the record:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities extend meeting hours on Wednesday, December 9, until 6:30 p.m. and/or Thursday, December 10, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. or other agreed upon time in order to complete clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-37, an act to amend the National Capital Act and other acts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities, meeting number 42.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 5, 2009, we are dealing with Bill C-37, an act to amend the National Capital Act and other acts.

Joining us again today from the Department of Transport are André Morency, Simon Dubé, and Kim Thalheimer.

From the Department of Heritage we have Philippe de Grandpré, legal counsel.

When we last adjourned, we were discussing the subamendment put forward by Monsieur Bélanger to the Bloc for amendment. We have it in writing, and I'm getting it printed so people can actually see it. We replaced the words “submit to the” with the words “lay before each House of Parliament, for approval, a master plan”.

Again, just to refresh everyone's memories, if the subamendment and the amendment as amended are adopted, then amendment LIB-4 cannot be proposed, amendment LIB-5 is immediately adopted, and amendment G-6 cannot be proposed.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay. If I can go ahead, then, with amendment NDP-3, it reads that Bill C-37, in clause 10, be amended by adding after line 10 and before the heading, “MASTER PLAN”, on page 5, the following:

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

10.02(1) The Minister shall provide opportunities for public participation at the national, regional and local levels in the development of policies and management plans for Gatineau Park and in any other matters that the Commission considers relevant.

(2) In carrying out his or her functions under subsection (1), the Minister shall consult with the Government of Quebec.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

My understanding is that this is pulled from the Canada National Parks Act. I'm not 100% certain if that's what took place.

As drafted, actually, the first concern is that the private properties that are owned by Quebec residents would actually be dedicated to the people of Canada and Quebec, and that would obviously impinge upon the rights of the private property holders within the park's boundary.

I'm also worried about the term “unimpaired” because it could be interpreted as to unduly restrict the rights of the property owners and the general public in the park.

Those are a couple of the concerns, but I think this is not necessary, quite frankly, given that Bill C-37 already proposes to introduce a definition of Gatineau Park as the area described within the schedule. So it's not necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay, thank you.

Joining us today as we review and do clause-by-clause on Bill C-37, from the Department of Transport, we have André Morency, Assistant Deputy Minister; Simon Dubé, Director; Kim Thalheimer, Legal Counsel; and Philippe de Grandpré.

Thank you for being here.

(On clause 2)

I have a government amendment, G-1.

Mr. Jean.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I understand a briefing session took place on Bill C-37 for which we are going to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration shortly. I asked our clerk about it, and she did not organize this session. Our party, the Bloc Québécois, was not invited. The briefing session was offered to Liberal and NDP Party members. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether he has anything to say about this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Order, please. Thank you, everyone.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 41. On the orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 5, 2009, this is on Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts.

Before I introduce our guests today, there are two points of order. I have Mr. Watson and Monsieur Laframboise.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'm very pleased to be here again, particularly in the presence of the member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

I'm also joined, as you've said, Mr. Chair, by key members of the Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada team. They've done an outstanding job in this past year in dealing with our infrastructure stimulus. I want to congratulate them and all their officials, who have done a fantastic job.

Our meeting today is to discuss the 2009-10 estimates, part (B). Before I address specific line items, I'd like to thank the members for their cooperation and ongoing work on behalf of Canadians. I appreciate the work the committee has done over this past year. I especially want to highlight discussions that took place this fall among committee members with respect to Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts.

As I noted in my last appearance before the committee, our government is committed to creating jobs, stimulating the economy, and supporting Canadian families through Canada's economic action plan. Earlier this year when I was before this committee, I explained how these actions are contributing to a cleaner environment, safer roads, and more prosperous and livable communities. Through these actions, Canada will emerge from this recession sooner than other countries and stronger than ever.

While we are seeing signs of recovery here in Canada, it's important that we continue our course of action and our ongoing work, much of which is outlined in these supplementary estimates. I'd like to highlight a few of the line items of note.

Transport Canada is requesting a net increase of $27 million to the 2009-10 main estimates. This funding is for vital programs and policies that will enhance safety and security, ensure environmental protection, improve Canada's infrastructure, and much more.

For example, we're requesting $10.3 million to strengthen Canada's air cargo security system. This money was announced in budget 2009. We plan to use this to introduce new screening technologies and processes, which will help make air transport safer and more secure. Not only will it improve security and keep Canadians safe, it will help businesses to transport goods more efficiently, which gives us an economic advantage.

Another important project Transport Canada has been working on is the redecking of the Honoré-Mercier bridge in Montreal. I am sure that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois are very familiar with this major project. It is nothing less than the largest redecking project in Canadian history. The project is progressing well. Today, I’m requesting a re-profiling of funds to continue this important work.

We are requesting $3.3 million under the gateways and border crossings fund for the Blue Water and Peace bridges. These are key elements in the government's efforts to enhance our gateways and corridors.

Turning now to infrastructure, at no other time since the Second World War have investments in Canada's infrastructure been more important or, I believe, more significant. Guided by Canada's economic action plan, almost $12 billion in new infrastructure stimulus funding is now available and is funding projects primarily over the next two years. Our ongoing commitment is reflected once again here in the supplementary estimates.

Infrastructure Canada is seeking $547.3 million to support contributions to infrastructure projects across Canada and to manage its progress. This request will address both new and ongoing funding requirements. For ongoing items, the funds requested are for projects under our existing funds, such as the building Canada fund. We work in partnership with the provinces, territories, and municipalities to match our funds, and our funding is being provided as projects get built—in other words, funding flows in accordance with our partners' construction schedules. As big projects across the country come to life, funds flow.

You will note the $547.3 million in additional funds requested. Infrastructure Canada is seeking $9.3 million in operating expenditures. This funding will go towards implementing new programs announced in the action plan and will continue to ensure appropriate resources are invested for oversight and management of existing funds.

Honourable members, you've seen in your own backyards that we are making good progress on the commitments under Canada's economic action plan. Just 10 months into our two-year plan, our government has already committed 97% of the economic action plan. This adds up to 12,000 projects across the country, 8,000 of which have already begun.

From the $4-billion infrastructure stimulus fund alone, we've committed more than $3.6 billion. We've announced $2.85 billion of federal spending on 96 major projects across Canada, and under the communities component, $1.375 billion in federal dollars has been announced for 1,255 projects.

I'll now ask my colleague, Rob Merrifield, to say a few words.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

On a point of clarification, the minister had asked this committee to defer further discussions on Bill C-37 until such time as he and his department had compiled an acceptable list of amendments for the committee's deliberation and consideration.

Would you be so good as to write back to the minister on behalf of the committee and say we appear to have already accorded you this request, but we assume this means the rest of the committee can also submit amendments?

I don't see any objection by the government side, so I'm assuming that everybody is in agreement.

[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.

[Nicole DesRoches, General Director, Regional council for the environment and sustainable development in Outaouais]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 32. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 5, 2009, we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-37, an act to amend the National Capital Act and other acts.

Joining us today, from the Regional Council for the Environment and Sustainable Development in the Outaouais, is Nicole DesRoches, general director; from the Gatineau Park Protection Committee, Jean-Paul Murray and Andrew McDermott; and from the Alliance To Save Our Greenbelt, Mr. Al Speyers, president.

I've asked Nicole if she'd like to start. I think you know the routine of presentations and then questions.

Ms. DesRoches.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Perras, your municipality probably carries out more transactions and has more talks and discussions with the National Capital Commission than any other, because of the park. Obviously, the municipalities of Gatineau and Ottawa also have discussions, but you have a very particular and special relationship with them because Gatineau Park is in your municipality.

Bill C-37, in subclause 3(1) and in clause 8, confirms the abolition of the commission's executive committee. Currently, there is a board consisting of members. From this board are drawn the members of the steering committee. Let's call it an executive committee, if you will. Bill C-37 abolishes this executive committee. I feel this has advantages and disadvantages. In our opinion, this would lead the CEO—who could be male or female—to take on more power between board meetings. Decisions must be taken in certain situations. These decisions were quite easily made by the executive committee. With the new situation, there would only be a board, including 14 members.

Furthermore, yesterday I commented to the minister that the new number of 14 members could be somewhat awkward. They have yet to answer me as to how they would make a decision in a potential situation where the votes were seven to seven, but that is another problem.

Does the fact that there would no longer be an executive committee change anything for you in your dealings and almost daily discussions with the NCC? Does it suit you that the CEO have more power and initiative?

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

Mr. Perras, Mr. Garrand and Mr. MacTavish, are there any aspects of Bill C-37 that you do not want to see amended or, inversely, are there any changes you want to see, but do not? Perhaps this is the last opportunity I will have to ask you questions, this afternoon. Therefore, I want to know whether you want to share any recommendations or expectations with us.

Mr. Perras?

[Jean Perras]

Not really. It all depends on what will happen to the private properties. But I don't see any.... On the contrary, we have supported this bill since it was written. We've said so to the NCC, we've said so to the government, we've said so to several of you around the table. I think our brief clearly established that we are supportive, with the one exception that my two colleagues have mentioned, that we need to conserve the property rights as they are established.

You should also understand that there is a good portion of that park--17% or 18%--that the Government of Quebec still considers as the property of the Quebec government. So in the development of that bill, I hope that the chair will also have the wisdom to sit down with the Government of Quebec and ask them how they feel about the whole evolution of this file so that we make sure that all three levels of government work together on the future of that. As I've mentioned, we signed a protocol last year with the NCC that clearly talks about the same issues that are in there.

It is an issue of promoting an awareness of the environment; of ensuring better cooperation in the planning and management of the environment for habitats and species; of increasing the participation of the various partners in this environment; of improving the quality of life of the residents in the region and of sharing the data and information so that we have a better common understanding. These are objectives that we set for ourselves working from the NCC plan, but they also reflect Bill C-37 very well.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Perras, Mr. MacTavish, Mr. Garand, good afternoon. As you know, we are studying Bill C-37. You must certainly have looked at the bill itself. When I ask you questions, it is to provoke debate in order to ensure that when we take the next steps, we will be able to improve this bill to ensure that it respects the mandate we wish to give it as legislators.

Having said that, I have in my possession a letter from the Meech Lake Association from 2004. This residents' association is asking that parking lot 12 be closed, so that the public could no longer have access to Blanchette Beach because there were too many people using it, to the detriment of the people of Chelsea. That being said, it is still in the park.

Is it part of your philosophy, of your approach as far as Gatineau Park is concerned, and in the eyes of your residents' associations, that private enclaves should exist?

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

Thank you.

Mr. Perras, thank you for having come here today to meet with us.

I also thank you, Mr. Garand.

Thank you, Mr. MacTavish.

Mr. Perras, we are taking advantage of your presence while you are in the dying days of your mandate as mayor of the municipality. You have been the mayor for many years, and I congratulate you for that.

I would like to be able to discuss the principles of the bill that has been tabled with you. I would like to know, as a municipal authority and as a person who has knowledge of this, if you agree with us. Subclause 9(1) of Bill C-37 adds to the National Capital Commission's mandate because it includes the concept of transportation in the region.

We believe we should be much more specific in order to clearly establish the presence of the National Capital Commission in the planning of interprovincial highways and public transportation, and we are going one step further. We believe that, since the National Capital Commission would be involved in interprovincial transport—which includes the bridges, the management of existing bridges and future crossings over the Ottawa River within the territory of the National Capital Region—that this should be transferred and be overseen by the National Capital Commission.

The Champlain and Portage Bridges are already managed by the National Capital Commission. It would be a question of transferring the Chaudières Bridge, the Interprovincial Bridge and the federal part of the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge, which are currently managed by Public Works and Government Services Canada. There would obviously need to be a budget to go along with that.

I would like to hear your opinion on this issue. Even though your municipality does not reach as far as the banks of the Ottawa River, it benefits from interprovincial transportation within the municipality of Ottawa. In fact, the STO services cater to a Québecois clientele made up of your residents. The STO is held up more often than in the past by the lack of interprovincial links, by problems on the roads network, etc. I would therefore like to hear what you think about the mandate that should be given to the National Capital Commission in terms of transportation in the National Capital Region.

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 31.

Our order of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 5, 2009, is Bill C-37, an act to amend the National Capital Act and other acts.

Joining us today, from the Municipality of Chelsea, is the mayor, Monsieur Jean Perras. Also with us are Claude Garand, past president of the Meech Lake Association, and Malcolm MacTavish, president of the Kingsmere Property Owners Association.

We're ready to go. You know the format, so I will ask you to begin, please.

[John McDonnell]

We do not see why that would not be possible. It is quite simple, all we have to do is take the National Parks Act and copy a relevant part of it into Bill C-37. Gatineau Park has a biodiversity that is just as important, if not more so, as the biodiversity we find in certain national parks. We believe that priority should be given to the protection of ecological integrity above everything.

[John McDonnell]

While Bill C-37 describes the park's boundaries, it allows these boundaries to be modified arbitrarily by Governor in Council, without the requirement for parliamentary approval. Canadians have every right to expect that the boundaries of Gatineau Park be enshrined in law in the same way as the boundaries of our national parks are legislated. It is imperative that changes to the boundaries of Gatineau Park be permitted only by statute, as is the stipulation for the national parks of Canada.

It's also unclear in Bill C-37 to what extent the bill and act apply to private property within the park. We would ask the minister whether private property is considered to be inside the park. If you look at proposed subsection 10.4(2), it's unclear whether this applies to private property. We would, therefore, call upon the committee to amend.... It's not only looking to the private property issue; also we would call upon the committee to amend clause 19 of Bill C-37 by replacing the words “Schedules 1 and 2” with the words “Schedule 1” so the boundaries cannot be modified by Governor in Council.

In conclusion, Gatineau Park is a national treasure. It's a beautiful wilderness of extraordinary biodiversity. Sadly, the park's ecological integrity is seriously threatened by various forms of development both inside and outside the park. Examples include new highways, houses, various commercial developments, and the list goes on and on.

We also take issue with Minister Baird's earlier statement that Gatineau Park could not have the same level of ecological integrity or the same level of protection as national parks due to the fact that parts of the park may be needed for roads and other development in the future, the idea of nip and tuck. We would argue that no portion of Gatineau Park should be used for roads, utility corridors, or any other development. The park is already too fragmented to perform its ecological functions, and every effort must be taken to restore the park. Therefore, we feel that Bill C-37 in its current form does not provide Gatineau Park with the protection it deserves. The amendments we are proposing are crucial to ensuring a basic measure of protection for Gatineau Park for the people of Canada and for future generations.

Consequently, we ask you to please accept our suggestions and comments with regard to wordings concerning Gatineau Park. Thank you.

[John McDonnell, Executive Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (Ottawa Valley Chapter)]

Mr. Chairman, ladies, gentlemen, it is my pleasure to submit to you our comments on Bill C-37.

Before I begin, I would like to give you a little more information about our organization. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the CPAWS, is the best known organization in the country when it comes to the protection of natural sites. We have been in existence for 45 years. This national organization, through its powerful network of regional branches and thousands of advocates for nature, has played a leadership role in the protection of numerous important natural areas covering more than 4 million hectares of exceptional wild environments. We are talking about a territory that is bigger than Nova Scotia and represents two-thirds of Canada's protected natural heritage.

More particularly, we have played a very important role in the expansion of the Canada Nahanni National Park Reserve in the Northwest Territories and also in the establishment of an important area along the Dumoine River which is very close to the national capital.

The Outaouais Valley Section was created in 1970 by a group of local citizens who were alarmed by major development projects in Gatineau Park. Very quickly, the section grappled with several problems affecting west Quebec and eastern Ontario. We are working on establishing new protected areas and ensuring the sound management of existing parks which explains our great interest in Gatineau Park.

CPAWS was ranked as one of Canada's top 10 charities by the Tides Canada Foundation and is considered among the 10 best-managed charities in the country; we have more than 45,000 donors and supporters.

I invite my colleague, Ms. Muriel How, to share with you our comments on Bill C-37.

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to the 30th meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, with the orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 5, 2009, being Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts.

Joining us to introduce the bill, speak on it, and take some questions from the committee members is the Honourable John Baird, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Welcome.

Joining him today from the Department of Transport are André Morency, assistant deputy minister, and Simon Dubé, director, portfolio management, crown corporation governance.

Thank you for your attendance again today, Minister. If you would like to open with some comments, we'll move forward.

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.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, in response to the last point raised by my hon. colleague, we discussed this between us earlier. I indicated to him then that we believed opposition days were the appropriate time to hold such debates. Indeed, today would have been a great opportunity to have the debate about the fisheries industry. I would think that it should have been done today rather than try to bring forward an opposition motion to force an unnecessary election onto Canadians. That is what we have been spending all day debating.

In reply to the fact that if our government does survive this reckless and unnecessary motion that the official opposition has brought forward today and the House were to continue, then obviously today we will continue to debate the opposition motion.

Tomorrow, provided the opposition motion of today is defeated, we will begin debate on Bill C-51, the second budget implementation bill, which has all sorts of great things in it to help Canadians even further.

Following that, we will schedule for debate Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, Bill C-37, the national capital act and Bill C-44, the Canada Post Corporation Act. All these bills are at second reading and have a long way to go.

We will continue with this lineup of economic legislation next week and add to the list any bills that are reported back from committee.

If I could, I would like to end this week's reply to the Thursday question by paying tribute to someone who I considered a very close personal friend.

It was little more than a year ago, July 2008, while in my riding, that I received an email from Rick Wackid explaining he had been diagnosed with ALS. The news hit like a blow below the belt. That a young man, so healthy, so active and so full of life could leave us so quickly serves as a wake-up call to all of us of how fragile our existence can be.

Although Rick Wackid, like Jerry Yanover, was always a very worthy political adversary, he was also a passionate believer in this, our House of democracy. When one party loses someone of his quality and integrity, we are all the poorer for it. He is and will continue to be greatly missed.

On behalf of the Prime Minister and our entire Conservative government, I offer my sincere condolences to Rick's wife Danielle, his daughter Stephanie and all of his friends and family.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

It would be nice if members would demonstrate a little bit of respect for me as we did for the hon. House leader from the official opposition when he was making his statement a few moments ago, if he would not mind.

Whether it is the issue of the NAFO deadline, which I am sure the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is seized with, as she is with all fisheries issues, or whether it is trying to negotiate a way forward to expedite the passage of Bill C-50, we need to ensure that we do it right. We need to ensure that that particular bill, which is so important to workers and their families, is passed. However, we need to ensure that the help we are all seeking to provide unemployed people across the country is done in a proper and expeditious manner.

I believe that we will be successful. I am certainly hopeful. I called a special meeting after the two motions from the two opposition parties that made motions this morning. I called a special meeting of the House leaders in my office some two hours ago. I was hopeful that we would have an agreement by now on how to proceed with Bill C-50. That has not happened. One of the parties is still taking a look at a compromise that I have suggested to wrap up debate by tomorrow on this bill and then see it sent off to the committee. I am hopeful that we can perhaps arrive at such a compromise.

That addresses my hon. colleague's issue with Bill C-50. Obviously, as he noted, the House is currently debating second reading of Bill C-50. That will continue after question period.

Tomorrow, pursuant to a special order adopted yesterday, the House will vote on ways and means Motion No. 9 that implements certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009, and to implement other measures.

Following the vote, we will continue and hopefully complete second reading stage of Bill C-50, so that it can move on to committee as quickly as possible. Backup bills for tomorrow, should they be needed, are Bill C-37, the National Capital Act, and Bill C-44, the Canada Post Corporation Act.

When the House returns after the constituency break, I have planned to call, but not necessarily in this order, Bill C-37, the National Capital Act; Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement again; Bill C-44, the Canada Post Corporation Act; Bill C-13, the Canada Grain Act; and the Budget Implementation Act, No. 2, that flows from the ways and means motion that will hopefully be adopted tomorrow.

Action Plan for the National Capital Commission

[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.

[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.

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.

An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

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.

Action Plan for the National Capital Commission

[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.

[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.

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 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—

[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?

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.

[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.

[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.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Thursday question, and I will not suggest that it was a little bit crazy for the hon. member to suggest that this is the last Thursday, because even if the House would be sitting Monday and Tuesday, it would still be the last Thursday of this session, if I have read my calendar properly.

I will get to his two specific questions later. First, I would like to inform the House that we will continue debate today with Bill C-36, our serious time for the most serious crime bill, and then Bill C-37, concerning the National Capital Act.

Tomorrow is the last allotted day for this supply period. Pursuant to a special order made earlier today, government business will begin one hour earlier than normal, at 9 a.m., and conclude at 1 p.m., which, for a normal Friday, is half an hour earlier.

Since there is no private members' business on the last allotted day, the bells to call in the members to dispose of all business relating to supply will begin at 1 p.m. tomorrow. The voting will thus begin at 1:15. When the votes are concluded, the House will adjourn for the summer, pursuant to the opposition motion.

I note that there is an opposition motion dealing with the business of opposition days, allotted days for the fall session. There was, I understand, some extensive discussion and consultation between the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition in that regard. Of course, if that opposition motion tomorrow passes, I will give careful consideration to the first opposition day and when it will be in September. I will think about that long and hard over the summer.

With respect to the other question, about the honorary citizenship for the Aga Khan, I will be circulating a motion to that effect to the other parties, and perhaps we can do that tomorrow. On the last day, I think that might be suitable, and hopefully everybody will agree to that.

Finally, since this will be my last response to a Thursday question before we adjourn for the summer, I would like to thank all hon. members for their co-operation during this session. I think we achieved a great deal during our spring sitting. This afternoon, Her Excellency, the Governor General, will be granting royal assent to eight additional bills. Next week we expect to add to that list, and 12 bills have already received royal assent during this session.

Politicians often talk about how they want this Parliament to work, and what they are referring to is the co-operation I just mentioned. However, as the hon. House leader for the official opposition mentioned, and I want to add my words of praise, the true folks who really make Parliament work are the hard-working, professional, dedicated staff of the House of Commons. You, Mr. Speaker, and Madam Clerk should be very proud of them, because, and I think I can speak for all members, we here in the House certainly appreciate everything they do for us every day, every minute of every day, in fact.

Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not specifically single out our pages for the exemplary work they did throughout the session. They will be leaving us, I know, with great sadness. Tomorrow will be their last day. We will certainly miss them. On behalf of the government, I would like to extend our very best wishes for a terrific future on whatever paths their future takes them.

[Rick Stewart]

I'm going to turn to my colleague to talk about the practice of other countries in terms of limits on citizenship by descent and the communication strategy. This is with respect to your question about the provisions to meet the increased demand for proof applications that might emerge from Bill C-37.

Given the significant uncertainty at the time, when we were drafting the bill and putting into place the operational plans, regarding the number of individuals who would actually come forward to avail themselves of the provisions of Bill C-37--the uncertainty about just how many are actually out there in the world who might meet the criteria of Bill C-37--the decision was taken that rather than seeking dedicated additional resources, we would closely monitor the take-up of the provisions of the act.

We are committed to managing a certain increase within existing resources, as we do on our day-to-day business in managing the pressures of the business. If we find that the demand for proofs that emerges out of Bill C-37 is placing an undue hardship on the department, then we will take the appropriate measures to seek the additional resources we need to be able to keep up with the demand. For now, we're managing within our existing resource base, to the best of our ability, and so far we have not seen a surge in demand related to Bill C-37. But it is early days.

With respect to your comment about the lost Canadians and the provisions we have if they're not eligible under the provisions of Bill C-37, unfortunately, I will go back to the special discretionary grant of citizenship in subsection 5(4) under the act. That is the means in which we will consider the merits of individuals' cases who do not have the opportunity to avail themselves of the normal legislative provisions.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you very much.

And I do ask this question on behalf of the chair, who has directed me to ask this question in the spirit of cooperation. Let me just say very quickly that I'm sure you've already clearly identified the two points that the committee is concerned with, but I do have to ask these questions. These questions were written by our very capable researchers, who do a fine job to provide us with information.

What communication plan has Citizenship and Immigration Canada implemented to inform people about the changes of Canadian citizenship? As a result of the implementation of Bill C-37, CIC can expect an increased demand for certain services--for example, the volume of applications for proof of Canadian citizenship could rise and more inquiries could be made to CIC offices. What measures has the department put in place to prepare for increased demand for citizenship-related services?

Finally, the situation of certain lost Canadians will not be resolved by Bill C-37. What other solutions are available to these groups?

As a result of Bill C-37, citizenship by descent is now limited to the first generation born abroad. How does this provision compare to citizenship laws of other countries?

I think you understand that this is a really important issue. At the human level, you're talking about something very fundamental in the sense that citizenship gives individuals a sense of belonging. In our lives, it's very important as human beings to belong to a group, to a family, to a community. The highest form of expression of belonging to a country is actually through citizenship. So that is of concern.

On a lighter note, but deep down I think it's important, you say here, “The video features a man who literally wakes up Canadian”. My question is, do dreams qualify you as a Canadian citizen?

[Andrew Griffith, Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

My name is Andrew Griffith. I am the director general of citizenship and multiculturalism branch at Citizenship and Immigration Canada. As the chair noted, I am accompanied by my colleagues Rick Stewart and Nicole Girard. We appear in connection with your study of the subject matter of Bill C-37.

As you know, Bill C-37 was passed unanimously by both Houses of Parliament, received royal assent on April 17, 2008, and was implemented a year later on April 17, 2009.

In the past, the committee had expressed concern about implementing the law within a year and raising awareness about the new law. Today, I would like to take a moment to briefly describe the legislative amendments, the implementation efforts and steps taken to communicate those changes to the public.

I'd also like to address the situation of individuals who did not obtain citizenship and whose situation merited special consideration.

Because of the demonstrated need for stability, simplicity, and consistency in citizenship status, what follows is the basic outline of the amendments provided in Bill C-37.

Mr. Chair, these amendments restore or give Canadian citizenship to many who never had it or who lost it due to previous laws; limit Canadian citizenship to the first generation born to Canadian parents outside Canada; and allow people adopted outside Canada by Canadian parents between January 1, 1947, and February 14, 1977, to apply for a grant of citizenship. This expands on the provision implemented in December 2007 to allow children adopted outside Canada by Canadian parents since February 15, 1977, to apply directly for citizenship without first having to become permanent residents, also known as Bill C-14.

Under the old rules, it was possible for Canadians to pass on their citizenship to endless generations born outside Canada. To protect the value of Canadian citizenship for the future, the new law limits citizenship by descent to one generation born outside Canada, similar to rules in other countries like the UK and New Zealand.

This means that children born to Canadian parents in the first generation outside Canada will be Canadian at birth only if one parent was born in Canada or one parent became a Canadian citizen by immigrating to Canada and was later granted citizenship, also known as naturalization.

Canadian citizens who have children born outside of Canada who are not eligible for automatic citizenship may be eligible to sponsor them for permanent residence, and once in Canada they can apply for citizenship. This of course includes children who are stateless. Stateless children who are unable to obtain a travel document may be issued a single-journey travel document by the department to enable them to come to Canada.

As an additional safeguard against statelessness, Bill C-37 contained a provision for a grant of citizenship for children who were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent, who were born stateless, and who have always been stateless. These persons are not required to become permanent residents; however, three years' residence in Canada is required in order to access a grant under this provision. This provision meets Canada's obligations under the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

While Bill C-37 restored or granted citizenship to the majority of those who lost citizenship or who never had it due to outdated provisions in past legislation, there may be individuals who did not obtain citizenship and whose situations may merit special consideration. Individuals who lost citizenship and who do not qualify under Bill C-37 may either apply for permanent residence and then for citizenship, or request consideration for a discretionary grant of citizenship without going through the immigration process.

I understand that concerns were raised by witnesses at last week's standing committee meeting about the use of the discretionary powers under section 5(4) to resolve citizenship anomaly cases not covered by Bill C-37.

On May 29, 2007, when announcing her intention to table legislation to deal with lost Canadians, then Minister Diane Finley acknowledged that the legislative proposals would not resolve all cases. She said, “Those rare cases where the facts turn on circumstance of birth outside Canada prior to January 1, 1947, and where citizenship is in doubt, would remain”.

She went on: “Given the variety of individual circumstances in these cases, I believe that we must continue the current approach—to judge each case on its merits, and as warranted, use the powers available to me as minister to bestow special grants of citizenship under subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act.”

The section 5(4) provision of the Citizenship Act addresses exceptional cases. Each of these cases is considered on its own merit. Since decisions to grant citizenship rest with the Governor in Council, there is no guarantee that an application will be approved.

Since 2007, 184 lost Canadian cases have been approved by the Governor in Council for a discretionary grant of citizenship. This includes 104 in 2007, 69 in 2008 and 11 in 2009. The total number of 5(4) grants for 2009 is 21 to date—this includes lost Canadians as well as all others.

We are aware of concerns that this exceptional authority is not being used enough. However, generally speaking, anyone who has never been Canadian, who has not lived here for many years, or who has never lived here and has a citizenship of another country in which they have resided most of their life likely does not have a strong case for the exceptional use of this discretionary authority to grant citizenship. However, where appropriate, given the facts of the case, an exceptional grant of citizenship has been made or we have made other arrangements, such as issuing temporary residence permits.

The department has taken numerous steps to prepare for the implementation of Bill C-37, including the development of regulations, policies, and procedures; manual updates; new application forms and kits; and changes to the global case management system to enable processing, training for staff, and the implementation of an innovative and cost-effective communications strategy to promote awareness of the changes.

CIC staff, including case officers and call-centre agents, have been trained in the new law. As part of its communications strategy, CIC has taken steps to ensure that the new rules are reaching Canadians inside and outside Canada.

The CIC has used a wide variety of channels to spread the word on the new law, including building a web landing page, www.cic.gc.ca/citizenship; reaching out to federal partners such as Passport Canada, Service Canada, and DFAIT; and getting the provinces and territories to use their channels to inform clientele of citizenship changes.

CIC has also used an innovative approach, disseminating the message on the changes through social marketing, including designing and implementing a YouTube video called Waking up Canadian. The video features a man who literally wakes up Canadian on April 17, 2009, and directs people to CIC's website for more information on the changes. The video has had over 185,000 hits.

CIC partnered with the Canadian embassy in Washington to raise awareness of the changes among Canadians living in the United States. The embassy helped us spread the word through organizations like Connect to Canada, a virtual network of more than 43,000 people who share a link to Canada, many of whom are Canadian expats.

CIC has also implemented an online self-assessment tool on its website to give people an idea, through a series of questions and answers, whether they are likely citizens under the new law. Close to 110,000 people have used the self-assessment tool.

Because we do not know exactly how many individuals will be affected by these changes, nor where they live, the video is proving to be an effective and low-cost way of drawing people to the CIC website for more information.

Thank you. That concludes my statement. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to respond to not just the regular Thursday question about the business of the House for the next week, but indeed to respond to all the questions from my colleague across the way.

In the order that we will dealing with it, today we are debating a motion from the New Democratic Party, which has its supply day today.

Tomorrow we will continue, and hopefully conclude, the third reading stage of Bill C-6, product safety, followed by Bill C-36, the faint hope bill. The backup bill tomorrow will be Bill C-19, the anti-terrorism bill.

Monday, June 15 and Friday, June 19, 2009 shall be allotted days.

On Monday, we will be introducing a bill regarding the Maa-nulth First Nations agreement. It is my intention, provided that I have an agreement from all the other parties, to call and complete that bill on Tuesday. On behalf of that first nation, I express my appreciation to all hon. members and all the parties in the House.

Next week, I will also call Bill C-26, auto theft, for report and third reading. My hope is that we will get that down the hall to get it dealt with at the Senate.

In addition to Bill C-26, we will also consider Bill C-36, the faint hope bill; Bill C-37, National Capital Act; Bill C-38, Nahanni; and Bill C-31, modernizing criminal procedure. All of these bills, as we know, are at second reading.

I am hoping that Bill S-4, identity theft, can be sent over from the Senate expeditiously. If and when it arrives, I will be seeking the cooperation of the opposition to try to expedite that bill in our Chamber.

I might add that despite the assurance of the hon. opposition House leader last week, after we had passed Bill C-33 at all stages, the bill that will extend benefits to allied veterans and their families, I expected the Senate to quickly follow suit. Although sad, it is true that time is running out for some of these veterans and their families. They are waiting to receive these benefits. This bill is not controversial, but the delay of this bill by Liberal senators will become controversial very quickly.

Last week I also mentioned Bill C-29 in my Thursday reply, which the hon. member for Wascana mentioned a minute ago. That is the agricultural loans bill, which will guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and cooperatives. Today the Liberal senators did not grant leave to even consider the bill, let alone agree to adopt it.

Another week has come and gone. I am not sure how the member for Wascana intends to return to farm families in Saskatchewan and explain why his senators in the other place are delaying the passage of Bill C-29.

[Sandra Forbes]

The issue here, though, is that in Bill C-37, adopted persons are identified specifically.

[Sandra Forbes]

That's the problem with Bill C-37.

[Andrew Bilski, Concerned adoptive parent, As an Individual]

Good morning.

I'm an adoptive parent and a past board member of the Children's Bridge Foundation, which is the charitable arm of Children's Bridge.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak here today on a subject that's very important to me, my family, and thousands of other Canadian families with adopted children from other countries.

Canada, of course, is a nation of immigrants. Haitian-born Michaëlle Jean came here as a child refugee some 40 years ago, and now serves as Canada's 27th Governor General. Countless other immigrants, whether famous or not, have made significant contributions to their adopted country. They've served in Parliament, started companies, taught in schools, created art, policed our streets, grown our food and infrastructure, and raised civic-minded families.

I too immigrated here from the United States in 1976. To me, Canada represented multiculturalism, equality, justice, multi-party democracy, progressive social policy, and a voice of reason in an increasingly hostile world. I worked as a journalist here for nearly 30 years, and in that time I have never regretted my decision to become part of this great country. But lately I have been troubled by some aspects of Bill C-37, which ostensibly and laudably restores citizenship rights to so-called lost Canadians, but also perhaps unintentionally creates two-tiered Canadian citizenship.

My Canadian-born wife, Pamela, and I have two daughters. Bridget, born in Toronto in 1990, who will be entering her second year at the University of Western Ontario this September, and Nina, born in Zhangjiagang, China, in 1998, who is a grade five student at Clinton Street Junior Public School in Toronto. Nina, thankfully, is not subject to Bill C-37, and has the same citizenship rights as her Canadian-born sister.

I'm here today to speak for the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of other children who will not be so fortunate.

When Canadians adopt internationally, they give their children their surname, their love, their emotional and financial support, and their citizenship. With the passage of Bill C-37, however, thousands of foreign adopted children become second-class citizens. Unlike their Canadian-born siblings and friends, they've been stripped of the right to pass on Canadian citizenship to their own children born or adopted abroad.

To make matters worse, this deplorable situation seems to hinge on the mere method by which these foreign adopted children acquire Canadian citizenship in the first place. One group of children who come to Canada on a permanent resident visa and subsequently obtain citizenship through naturalization are not subject to Bill C-37. In other words, they're considered first-class citizens with the rights that most of us here enjoy. However, a second group that acquires citizenship by grant through direct route, the most popular method since December 2007, are subject to Bill C-37. In other words, they become second-class citizens with no right to pass on their Canadian citizenship to future generations born or adopted abroad.

My question is, why? What possible reason could the framers of this bill have to distinguish between these two groups of adopted children? Commenting on the intent of the bill, Canada's Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney, has stated that the government wants to limit the right of citizenship to “those people who have some kind of enduring presence or commitment to Canada”.

If so, what's the evidence that the second group of children, the foreign adopted ones who acquired citizenship through the direct route, will not have an enduring presence or commitment to Canada? Are they more likely than other Canadians, such as Liberal Party of Canada Leader Michael Ignatieff, to live abroad for vast periods of their lives? Are they less likely than other Canadians, such as the 40% or so who don't even both to vote in federal elections, to be committed to this country?

I'd like to remind the committee that many countries, including China, revoke the citizenship of a child upon foreign adoption. If these adopted children are not Canadian, then what are they? Their only national allegiance is to their adopted country.

I've come here today to respectfully ask you to right this injustice. In attempting to bolster the value of Canadian citizenship, Bill C-37 diminishes the rights of many foreign-adopted children. In so doing, it tarnishes Canada's international reputation as a champion of human rights.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Completely. That served its purpose very well, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask you, though, Mr. Noorani, about your thoughts. You were going to give some further thoughts, and of course, because of the time limit, it was cut down. What are your thoughts on the second-generation born-abroad provisions of the Citizenship Act and Bill C-37?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Let's get back to Bill C-37, Mr. Dykstra.

[Jacqueline Scott]

If I had been born two years later, I would be covered by Bill C-37, but I was born in 1945.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I have here speaking notes from Mark Davidson, director of legislation and program policy, citizenship division, regarding a study on Bill C-37. That was given to us on February 11, 2008, and it said, “the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will still have the authority, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to grant citizenship under subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act in special cases”.

These special cases are the 71. That would then deal with all the problems, putting aside second generation. Let me ask Jacqueline Scott and Marcel Gélinas: in both of your situations, upon granting through this subsection 5(4), would you be proud Canadians? Even though in your hearts you're Canadians, now, on paper, you will be proud Canadians. Am I correct in that?

[Don Chapman]

Thank you.

We're going back to the year 1868, when the first form of Canadian identity came into play. It was called the Canadian Nationals Act. It was written by the British, and almost all British colonies had the same language. This is the language that we're working on today: “married women, minors, lunatics, and idiots, shall be classified under the same disability for their national status”.

Now, I want you to remember that citizenship didn't actually begin until January 1, 1947. It was the first time that women had the right of citizenship, but they had less rights than men.

You're seeing this with Mr. Neal and all of these cases of major gender discrimination, things that have been through the Supreme Court of Canada and are currently being ignored by the citizenship minister. These were unanimous Supreme Court decisions, saying that you can't do this—and we're doing it. In the case of Mr. Neal, his mother was not recognized as a Canadian for 44 years.

In testimony before the Senate five years ago, I mentioned the Benner case, which was Benner v. Canada. I mention this case in particular because it dealt with gender discrimination.

It said that the 1947 Citizenship Act was blatantly discriminatory and contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that all foreign-born children of a Canadian parent had the right of Canadian citizenship. What was being done was that Canadian women could not pass citizenship on to their children, while Canadian men could. That is what happened to Mr. Neal.

So I made the comment that, based on the Benner decision, a unanimous Supreme Court decision that said all foreign-born children of a Canadian parent had the right of citizenship, therefore, had I been born outside of Canada, I would be a Canadian and so would my children. Every senator sat scratching their head, saying, “This makes no sense, because now we're discriminating against Canadian-born children.”

A week after I made that testimony, Patricia Birkett, acting director general of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, came to the Senate. She said they were terminating the Supreme Court decision.

That's something that's really interesting to me. For five years, you've gone completely contrary to the Supreme Court.

There was another court case, Babcock v. Canada, that came in after this. They upheld the Supreme Court decision.

At the same time, we have major gender discrimination going on today. So not only was he denied citizenship, but now his daughter is being denied citizenship based on gender. Jacquie's case is based on gender. Marcel was born in Canada to a Canadian mother and a U.S. father.

Now, we can go back to gender discrimination. The mother of Joseph Volpe, who was immigration minister, was stripped of her status because she married an Italian. That used to be the law. If we go around this table, I can tell you that in the 1940s, Asians, Indo, and native aboriginals couldn't vote in this country. There were a lot of bad laws, and we're operating right now with one.

Bill C-37 is a wonderful bill. I'm sorry I don't have the time to go into it. I'm the head guy behind this bill. I know all the ins and outs. I know where you have to go and how you can correct this bill, very simply, for second generations born abroad and everything else, but we don't have the time go into it.

Right now, this government and, in particular, this immigration minister, are not doing justice to the reputation of this country.

This magazine is two years old. It's the Refugees magazine. It comes from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. It talks about the strange, hidden world of the stateless and the countries that make their people stateless. And every country in here is a third world country, except for this country, dead centre, called Canada. Did you know they compared Canada's human rights record with that of Zimbabwe, Vietnam, and Bangladesh?

We are the lost Canadians, and there are 10,000 of us. The Department of Homeland Security just came out and said there were 240,000 of us just in the U.S.—and that doesn't count the children produced by lost Canadians, or the children of children.

We know as a fact that there are upwards of 200,000 just in Canada. Marlene Jennings—I see her name over there--got questioned on whether she was a Canadian, and, I can tell you, probably she was not. She took out an Italian passport in January of 1977. That would cancel her citizenship.

What Ken was trying to say is that there are two little girls here, cousins. His daughter is being denied citizenship because his daughter's connection is through his mother, a woman. The cousin is being welcomed into Canada because the connection is through a man.

Marcel Gélinas was born in Canada in 1922. As I say, he took, if you will, his father's identity. The United States gave him citizenship. He didn't know this. He was a soldier in World War II. Although he happened to be in the United States, he went to war. He didn't care; he just signed up and went to war and fought. Apparently, today they're denying him citizenship, based on the fact, saying “You're not Canadian”.

This man, Guy Vallière, died just two or three months ago. He was a Canadian soldier born in Canada. He fought for Canada, and he was denied citizenship. He died disenfranchised from his own country, despite the fact that on camera with the CBC on April 10, just over a year ago, Diane Finley said we will grant subsection 5(4) citizenship grants to all these lost Canadians. She said, “It is the right thing to do for the right reasons.”

We have Jacquie, who's about to go to judicial review against the Government of Canada. Yet we have the Conservative government saying that in the Taylor case, which is the exact copy of Jacquie's case—we've already won it, and ended up settling before a Supreme Court decision—it would cost tens of billions of Canadian taxpayer dollars to settle this case. She's about to go to judicial review.

I've tried to meet with this minister; he won't call me. I tried to call Mr. Dykstra; no return phone calls.

I'm an airline pilot. We go into accident investigation, such as Air France's, as to why something happened. The minister or Mr. Dykstra need to meet with me. We can fix this in a matter of weeks.

One person, and only one person, was granted a subsection 5(4) citizenship grant as promised, and that was the last remaining World War I veteran. The reason he got it is that I met with one of the leaders...the former leader of the opposition, at the time the Conservatives, and he went to the Prime Minister and said, “This could really hurt us”, because, see, the Prime Minister took a lot of flak for not flying the flag at half-mast over Parliament when soldiers died.

Well, the last remaining World War I soldier is an American. He left Canada in 1920. When Bill C-37 was passed, so that this man would have a state funeral, there were 90,000 signatures from the Dominion Institute.

To make sure this would not be a black mark, with a Prime Minister saying we cannot give this man a state funeral, they did every bit of paperwork in 21 days.

In the meantime, we have 71 people remaining, of whom 65 were the wrong religion, so they were denied citizenship based on the religion. We were promised that these people would get in. I'm here to hold you accountable, to say, “Come on, folks.”

If you ever want the real history of this bill, I've been at it since I was 18, and I'm going to be turning 55. I am the guy behind this. I have worked with ministers all over the place in this, and I have never worked with a minister of this low quality.

An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)