Bill C-20 (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;
(e.1) require the National Capital Commission to provide the Governor in Council with a description of the boundaries of the Greenbelt; 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.

[Vivian Barbot]

I'm here to say what Quebec has unanimously decided. We think the democratic government of Canada, the federal government, should take that into account in its proposals. In that respect, Bill C-20 is unacceptable to Quebec.

[Vivian Barbot]

Look, this isn't a history class, Mr. Dion. We're talking about Bill C-20. I've come to testify here on the position of the National Assembly, which unanimously decreed that this was unacceptable to us. I'm not here for a history lesson.

[Vivian Barbot]

Mr. Dion, your shifting the debate. That's not the issue. The National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion three times, and recently again. It's on that basis that we must discuss the issue of the change proposed in Bill C-20. We're saying that Bill C-20 is unacceptable to Quebec.

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

I've done the calculation for the NDP—I'm disappointed that you haven't done it yourselves. If we add your recommendations to Bill C-20, you don't even reach half of the adjustment proposed by Bill C-20 or the Liberals with regard to Ontario's under-representation.

For example, let's take the case of Alberta. Based on the current formula—I'm saying this for Ms. Barbot because she doesn't know it—there wouldn't be 308 seats, but rather 315 seats following the next election. If we don't amend the current act, there will be 15 seats, that is to say 75 out of 315 for Quebec. Alberta would therefore have 9.84% of the 315 seats based on the current formula. Based on yours, it would have 9.88% of the seats, and the House would comprise 344 seats. So we would be adding 36 seats, and for nothing, since the three under-represented provinces would still be almost as under-represented as they are today. The act would therefore still be unconstitutional. Your motion would condemn the House of Commons to pass an unconstitutional bill.

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

All right.

However, you say the province of Quebec must retain representation of 24.35%, and you say that's constitutional. Have you calculated what that means for the three provinces that are experiencing strong growth, if we follow the premises of Bill C-20 for which we are meeting here today? Have you done that calculation?

[Vivian Barbot, Interim President, Bloc Québécois]

Good morning. I appreciate this opportunity today to outline the Bloc Québécois' position on Bill C-20, which proposes a fundamental change to Quebec's representation in the House of Commons.

The Bloc Québécois, like Quebec's National Assembly, vigorously opposes Bill C-20 because what it proposes is the marginalization of the Quebec nation. The federal government has unilaterally advanced a new formula to amend, but especially to reduce, Quebec's political power in the House of Commons. It is proposing increasing limits on the Quebec nation's influence and ability to defend its values and interests in the Parliament of Canada. It is also another tool to form a majority government without any need for members of Parliament from Quebec.

In fact, with Bill C-20, which essentially constitutes an attack on the Quebec nation, the masks are off. The pseudo-federalism of openness, in which the Conservatives wrap themselves in an attempt to charm Quebec voters, is over. With Bill C-20, that has become a closed federalism, a federalism of break-up and abandonment of Quebec. We see that the principles that led to the creation of Canada, particularly the union of two founding peoples, no longer mean anything for the current government. We also see that the recognition of the Quebec nation by the House of Commons in November 2006 is an empty shell. Nearly five years to day after that acknowledgement, we are now compelled to note that it will never result in real action, as though mere recognition had closed the debate for good.

Bill C-20 dispels the last illusions. The only place that Quebec could occupy in Canada is a place of promises among others in a country that is not like it and does not take that fact into account, in a country that seeks to limit its distinct voice, that wants and is trying to build itself without it. The Bloc Québécois is not the only group that has denounced the bill. On three occasions, Quebec's National Assembly has unanimously spoken out against the federal government's wish to marginalize the Quebec nation in the House of Commons. That was a denunciation by all the elected members of the National Assembly, federalist and sovereigntist, on the left and on the right. The most recent unanimous motion dates back to April 12, 2010. It reaffirms that Quebec, as a nation, must be able to enjoy special protection of its relative representation in the House of Commons and asks the elected members of all political parties sitting in Ottawa to refuse to pass any bill that would reduce Quebec's relative representation in the House.

It is clear that this call has been deliberately ignored by the majority of members in the House of Commons. The Conservatives justify their bill by hiding behind the screen of fair democratic representation. They argue that it is normal for Quebec to lose its influence as its relative population has declined within Canada. They are now pretending to do Quebec a favour by granting it three more seats. That favour obviously conceals the real issue because, even with three more seats, Quebec's influence will be reduced within the House of Commons. Even worse, Quebec will not even retain a percentage representation equal to its demographic weight.

In fact, the Conservative members have conveniently forgotten that the principle of fair representation allows for exceptions to promote real representation. They have also conveniently forgotten that the Constitution of Canada provides mechanisms that enable minorities to have more representatives than their mere demographic weight would permit. We need only consider Prince Edward Island, which has four seats in the House of Commons. If subject to a rule based solely on population, it would likely have three less. Should we therefore reduce the political weight of Prince Edward Island? I don't believe so. The Bloc Québécois believes instead that this situation clearly shows that a democratic institution such as the House of Commons must not be a mere mechanical and arithmetical reflection of relative population size. Other fundamental factors must be taken into account, and recognition of the Quebec nation is one of them.

The Quebec nation has its own language, culture, values and interests, and therefore has distinctive interests that it must assert and specific characteristics that the federal government must take into account. For those reasons, the Quebec nation must have adequate political weight in Canada's Parliament. Reducing Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons violates that fundamental principle; it proves that the Quebec nation can expect nothing further from Canada.

Thank you.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Mr. Chairman, committee members, I'm very pleased to be appearing once again before you. This is the second time that I have made an appearance since leaving my position. I can recall some very interesting exchanges during my previous appearance. As always, I feel that it is a privilege to be able to appear before the people who represent Canadians after an election. This is, in my opinion, a very great honour.

I was eager to accept the invitation that was extended to me on Tuesday at noon. I would like to point out that I may not be able to answer all the questions that you may have. If that is the case, I would like the clerk to note them and I will provide you with a response in writing, if you wish, or in person if that is of greater interest to you.

The documents that I have had the opportunity to read, without doing so on an in-depth basis, obviously include Bill C-20, with its many scenarios, depending on the date of adoption, as well as the testimonies provided last Tuesday when Minister Uppal and Mr. Marc Mayrand, my successor, appeared before you. I also had an opportunity to read my 2005 report and I looked at seat distribution for 2001 and 1991.

I would also like to remind you that when I worked at the office during the 1990s—I do not recall the exact date—the chief electoral officer had suggested that the number of seats be limited to about 300. At that time there were 301 ridings and people were worried about this number rising. Moreover, yesterday, someone quoted Mr. Harper at the time.

In addition, the redistribution exercise was put on hold at one point, effectively disrupting all of the work. This is something to be avoided if at all possible. Once a committee has begun its work, it should continue without interruption, without new data, without any change in data, until everything has been completed.

In my view, with respect to the bill that is before you, with respect to three matters, with respect to the shorter timeframes, the seven months instead of the year to get ready, we did it. I remember well Mr. Martin, the Prime Minister at the time, wanted to do an election within six months. I had to tell him I couldn't do it before seven, even though the law allowed me 12. Seven was the shortest, and we were able to achieve it.

The 30 days instead of 60 and the 10 months instead of 12 came out of presentations, representations made by the commissions themselves, because we had post-mortems and we had questions. The 30-day minimum is a minimum. It does not mean that you've cut everybody else off.

These were ideas emanating from the commissions themselves that we wanted to act on.

I will just mention that one of the reasons why all of this becomes very possible is the very high-performing computers that now exist for cartography, for example, for utilizing StatsCan data, skimming off what you need in order to help the commissions. Whereas it used to take two months to prepare a series of maps, it can now take half a day. With respect to the formula itself, we've heard what the chief statistician said. It's obvious to me that a new number has been designed in order to do the in-between provinces. The way the indexing formula for future redistribution exercises works is that it will be the average of provincial population growth.

That will have the impact of slightly lowering the quotient, compared to if you used the total population, the average Canadian population overall, which means then that the seats will remain slightly higher, which is what is sought by this exercise.

The resulting allocation from Bill C-20, in my view, with Ontario getting 15 seats, Alberta 6, B.C. 6, and Quebec 3, is exceedingly good.

The west, in essence, and Ontario, while not getting exactly what they should, will certainly be much better represented, in terms of what democracy is about. Insofar as Quebec is concerned, Quebec will remain right on, not overrepresented, not underrepresented, based on the total number of seats. This has been one of the objectives for a very long time. I think Mr. Reid was alluding to this in his testimony yesterday. It has been around for a long time that Quebec was a pivotal province. There are those that are underrepresented. There are those that are overrepresented. Quebec is right there. This approach is one, certainly, that I am in agreement with.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Wayne Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address the committee in relation to its study of Bill C-20.

Today, I am accompanied by two officials from Statistics Canada who are experts in census and population estimate methodologies, namely Mr. David Dolson, Director of Social Survey Methods, and Ms. Johanne Denis, Director of the Demography Branch.

As I think you know, Statistics Canada's role in the readjustment of electoral boundaries is in the supply of population data to support, first, the application of the formula for allocation of seats to the provinces and territories, and, second, the delineation of electoral districts within provinces and territories. For the purpose of delineation of electoral districts within provinces and territories, there is only one source of population data that provides the necessary detailed geographic breakdowns, and that is the census of population, which is conducted every five years.

For the purpose of allocation of seats between provinces and territories, there are two alternative sources of population data that could be employed. The first source, and the one that has been used in the past, is the unadjusted population counts from the decennial census of population. Statistics Canada will publish counts from the 2011 census of population on February 8, 2012. The second alternative source is Statistics Canada's population estimates program. This program produces annual and quarterly estimates of the populations of the provinces and territories. Estimates in this program reflect at any given point in time all of the information that Statistics Canada possesses in order to provide the best possible evaluation of those populations.

Bill C-20 proposes, in a departure from previous practice, to use the currently available estimates of provincial and territorial populations at July 1, 2011, for purposes of calculating the allocation of seats between provinces and territories. These estimates reflect results of the 2006 census adjusted for net undercoverage, augmented by births and immigration since the census date and reduced by deaths and emigration.

Given that the objective of Bill C-20 is to launch the readjustment process at this time, the relevant statistical issue for consideration by the committee is which of the two alternative measures of the populations of the provinces and territories is likeliest to be the closest to the true value: the currently available population estimates or the unadjusted 2011 census of population counts that will be released in February. To answer this question, the census counts and the current population estimates need to be compared to the definitive estimates of the 2011 population that Statistics Canada will produce in 2013. These will reflect estimates of net undercoverage of provincial and territorial populations from the 2011 census of population to be generated by studies that are currently under way but not available.

Let me explain briefly the key notion of net census undercoverage. Official statisticians in all countries know that a census of population, however well conducted, will miss some people while counting some others twice. Statistics Canada, after each census, conducts a statistical study of these two effects.

Estimates from the 1996, 2001, and 2006 censuses indicate that net undercoverage, because we miss more people than we double count, is typically on the order of 2% to 3% of the population counts in the Canadian census. We cannot know at this time what the level of net undercoverage will be for the 2011 census of population—the necessary study, as I said, has not yet been completed—nor can we definitively know whether estimates of natural increases and migration that underlie the population estimates will be confirmed.

The best guide, therefore, to answer the question of which of the currently available population estimates or the unadjusted 2011 census population counts will be closest to our definitive estimates is to look at what has happened in previous censuses. Having done this work, I can inform the committee that the population estimates for the provinces and territories available at the time of the release of the census counts have typically been substantially closer to the definitive estimates than the unadjusted census counts themselves.

To demonstrate this, I have prepared a table, which I think you have in front of you, based on the 2006 census, that looks essentially at the situation as it unfolded for the 2006 census. The table compares the unadjusted 2006 census population counts and the population estimates published in September 2006, which is essentially the same generation of estimates that we're talking about right now for 2011, to the adjusted 2006 census population counts that were published in September 2008.

At the Canada level, the population estimates published in September 2006 were 0.3% higher than the definitive population counts, while the unadjusted counts were 2.8% lower. As at the Canada level, at the provincial and territorial levels, the population estimates were invariably significantly closer to the definitive population counts than the unadjusted counts were.

In summary, even with the release of the 2011 census unadjusted population counts on February 8, 2012, it is Statistics Canada's view that the currently available estimates of population at July 1 represent the best available evaluation of the population of the provinces and territories that is available at this time or that will be available on February 8. It is therefore appropriate, in our view, that they should be used for the purposes of Bill C-20.

Thank you.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

I would hardly call it offensive when I said before that the Bloc Québécois was going to vote against your bill. It is certainly not what we would do—and that is what our party was trying to tell you in the beginning—despite your position on Bill C-20 regarding the change to the development of Gatineau Park. Quebec would have really liked to be able to count on your support when the committee you were on was dealing with that bill. That being said, clearly, we will be supporting your bill. We asked our Bloc Québécois colleagues to respect your position, which we do not share, on Bill C-20. However, Bill C-530, which you put forward, is extremely important, and we will of course support it.

Furthermore, Mr. Bevington, I would like to know what will happen with the taxes and all the royalties. For instance, who gets the taxes payable by a mining company operating in the Northwest Territories? Does the part of the country you represent, the Northwest Territories, get a share or does it all go to the federal government?

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the member's question, I would like to, on behalf of the government, add my voice to the voices of the member for Toronto Centre and the member for Winnipeg Centre who spoke about the passing of a distinguished member of the parliamentary press gallery, Jim Travers of The Toronto Star. He was a long-time member of the parliamentary press gallery and a former editor of the Ottawa Citizen. Jim would have been just 63 years old next month. His passing in the hospital was completely shocking and unexpected.

Jim was a top national journalist and a columnist who never was afraid to make his views known on the printed page and on the airwaves as a frequent guest on panel shows and talk radio. He was a passionate Canadian. He loved this country and he was incredibly committed to his craft. Canada has certainly lost a legend.

On behalf of all of us in this place, I offer our sincere condolences to Jim's wife Joan, his sons Patrick and Ben, and to the rest of his family and friends, and his colleagues especially from The Toronto Star who, I know, are deeply saddened by this loss, and, indeed, all of his colleagues in the parliamentary press gallery at this very difficult time. The thoughts and prayers of all Canadians are with Jim's family and many friends.

In terms of parliamentary business for the coming week, today we will continue debate on the NDP opposition motion. I thank my NDP counterpart, the member for Vancouver East, after our difference of opinion. We have worked to make Parliament work and we have come to an agreement that has been satisfactory to both sides. I also thank my opposition colleagues from Ottawa South and Joliette for their assistance and agreement in this matter.

Tomorrow, we will resume and hope to complete debate on Bill C-55, the enhanced new veterans charter that our colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, has introduced. Following Bill C-55, we will move to call Bill C-60, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons).

Next week, we will continue with the business on Friday and, in addition, we will call Bill C-20, the action plan for the National Capital Commission; Bill C-54, the child sexual offences; Bill C-8, the Canada–Jordan free trade agreement; Bill C-12, the democratic representation; Bill C-46, the Canada–Panama free trade agreement; Bill C-57, improving trade within Canada, brought forward by the Minister for Small Business; and Bill C-50, improving access to investigative tools for serious crimes, which is an important bill sponsored by our colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

My friend from Ottawa South and the member for Vancouver East mentioned a solicitation for financial funds on parliamentary letterhead.

Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Board of Internal Economy, I think it would be wise for you to place this issue before the Board of Internal Economy. There have been several complaints about opposition members soliciting campaign funds on government websites and perhaps the board could discuss that at the same time.

With respect to Bill S-10 and Bill C-49, we continue to make our case to Canadians and are working hard to convince the Liberal Party of the wrong decision it has made on these important piece of legislation. We will call for further debate in due course.

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill S-10 and Bill C-49, we will call them when the time is right and when we can get these important pieces of legislation passed by the House of Commons.

With respect to accelerated parole, we found the time was right this week to get that bill done. I want to thank all members of the House for their consideration, particularly those members who supported that important legislation to stop fraudsters, who steal $100 million from seniors' retirement savings, from only having to go to jail for one-sixth of their sentence. I want to thank all the members who supported that important legislation, particularly on third reading.

Today, we will continue with the Liberal opposition motion. We heard a great speech by the member for Wascana at the outset of this Parliament.

Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-42, the strengthening civil aviation security; Bill C-46, the Canada-Panama free trade bill; and Bill C-55, the enhanced new veterans charter, on which the Minister of Veterans Affairs has done a phenomenal job. I think there have been consultations with the parties, which is good news. We also will call Bill C-20, an action plan for the National Capital Commission. I know there has been a considerable amount of very non-partisan discussion among all the parties. We will have that bill at report stage and then third reading. There will be a few amendments and we have already had some discussion with some members on this.

Next week, as all members will know, is a week the House is not sitting. When the House returns on February 28, we will simply continue where we left off with the list of bills that I gave.

I am pleased to announce to our good friends in the new Democratic Party that Tuesday, March 1 shall be an allotted day.