Transport Committee on Oct. 19th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

And it's my position to say that--on your advice. Thank you.

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

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Proulx.

I would like to invite you to Fort McMurray, actually, Minister, if you ever get a chance, because it's a great constituency.

I would invite Mr. Proulx too, if he'd like to come up.

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

I would love to.

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

It looks like you have a guest.

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

Thank you very much. I'd prefer the Minister of Transport and Infrastructure.

The first time I was in the House of Commons was after I was elected, so I never had the opportunity to see what we had in this area, but I've seen since that we do, as Ms. Hoeppner said, have an amazing capital, with, I would suggest, the most beautiful capital buildings in the world, and it's part of our identity. I'm wondering how many visitors we have a year to this area, international and domestic. I invite my constituents in every householder I possibly can to come and see this beautiful place. I can tell you that all of them are very happy with what's going on in this area and very proud of Ottawa and its beauty.

I'm wondering if you have that information and, if you don't have that information, if it could be provided to us, because we are the face of--

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

On behalf of Mr. Dewar, Mr. Proulx, and Mr. Nadeau, the answer is: not enough tourists. But we'll have a lot more after our investments in the Congress Centre. It's a $160 million investment in Ottawa—Vanier, represented by a Liberal member of Parliament. That's in addition to the $40 million building at Ottawa University, and $7 million at La Cité collégiale, and the $32 million on sewer repair work, all in Ottawa—Vanier.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

The light-rail train was cancelled, but--

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

It was going to go to Nepean and now it's going to Ottawa—Vanier. So Peter MacKay would blush if he saw all the money going into Ottawa—Vanier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If I may, I would like to thank the minister for attending today. I appreciate your comments and the people you brought with you. As we move forward, I'm sure you'll get some final advice from the committee.

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

We do appreciate any formal advice. As I say, I do make the offer, as I made to Mr. Dewar, that we would like one person from every party to sit down with us, and the NCC folks and the folks at my department, at the end of this to talk about what we might do to work together to improve the bill. We certainly make that offer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

We're going to take a two-minute break, and we'll bring forward the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Order, please. If I may, I would like to move on to the second part.

Joining us today from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Ottawa Valley Chapter, are Mr. John McDonnell, executive director, and Ms. Muriel How, chair of the Gatineau Park committee.

We welcome you. You know the process, so we'll ask you to make your presentation and then we'll move to questions.

[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.

[Muriel How, Chair, Gatineau Park Committee, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (Ottawa Valley Chapter)]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, as a resident of the constituency that includes Gatineau Park, I'm honoured to have this opportunity to comment on the bill. And I thank my member of Parliament, the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, for establishing the review of the NCC and for following up that review with the introduction of Bill C-37.

We at the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society have studied the bill in great detail, and we have, in fact, concluded that there are several grave deficiencies, and I wish to bring some of them to your attention. I'd like to point out that really, with our recommendations, we believe the park can be managed by the NCC in a way similar to management of a Canadian national park. I think that's the most important part of our recommendations.

Gatineau Park is a park in name only, and this bill does not correct that omission. We therefore ask the committee to formally create and define Gatineau Park as a park, and this can be accomplished by the addition of a clause stating:

There is hereby established a park named Gatineau Park, the boundaries of which are set out in schedule 2.

Now, upon his death, Prime Minister Mackenzie King bequeathed his property at Kingsmere to Canada, in his words, “for a public park for the citizens of Canada...to have the character of a natural forest reserve”. That really became the core element of the park. Thus, because it is a park for all Canadians, we recommend the addition of a clause stating:

Gatineau Park is hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, and it shall be managed, maintained and made use of so as to leave it unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

In fact, those very words can be found in the Canada National Parks Act. Consequently, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, we recommend replacing the word “area” with the word “park”, hence emphasizing its status.

We believe it's vital for legislation governing any protected area to clearly state that the overriding purpose is conserving nature and protecting its ecological integrity. But unfortunately, the bill does not address this sufficiently, nor does it provide a buffer zone around the park.

It also does not provide legal means to control development of private property within the park. Private development in a park belonging to the people of Canada and managed by a national institution—that is, the NCC—must be controlled in a manner that we think should respect this interest.

Now, for many years, the most serious challenge in the park has been the fragmentation by roads, utility corridors, and other infrastructure. This hasn't been addressed. Nor is there a statement that Gatineau Park should be managed to the same standards of ecological integrity and receive the same legal protections as those enjoyed by all Canadian national parks.

We therefore call upon this committee to amend the bill. And we have a suggestion. First, in proposed subsection 10.4(2), which is on page 6, lines 11 and 12, we recommend the replacement of the words, “give due regard to the maintenance of” with “ensure the maintenance and restoration of”, and that makes it stronger.

Now, secondly, we're not advocating legislation calling for expropriation of a residence, because it brings needless hurt and upheaval to families and it causes lifelong bitterness. However, we do recommend there be a clause to enable the commission to manage the park more on the lines of a national park of Canada, a clause granting the National Capital Commission the right of first refusal in the sale or disposition of any private property located within the boundaries of the park.

John.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Proulx.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. McDonnell.

Welcome, Mrs. How.

Mrs. How, I just want to understand the nuance when you refer to proposed subsection 10.4(2) with regard to the ecological integrity. You want to change...? I'm working from the French version. What is it exactly? I can look at it in the blues eventually, but....

[Muriel How]

We were adding the wording “and restoration”. It just said “the maintenance”, but there are parts of the park that need to be restored. Therefore, we were adding that part so it makes the ecological integrity stronger.

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

Is it your intention to bring it up to a higher level in the sense that you don't want to strictly restore or maintain the level at which it is now but rather increase the degree of protection? Is that what I'm understanding from you?

[Muriel How]

I don't know that we need to increase it more than the present standard, because I think the NCC is doing a pretty good job.

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

Right.

[Muriel How]

But certainly there are aspects where I think.... There are parts that have been spoiled, and the NCC is working to improve them. They're looking at different parts of the park, seeing a part that needs to be restored and then closing it for a bit. That is why we're adding only that one word, “restoration”. I'm sorry, but I don't have the French in front of me.

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

That's okay. We'll find it. But it's strictly a question of levelling. Okay.

I want to make sure I understand your intent with the amendments you're bringing. Would you still accept that buses, cars, bikes, hikers, cross-country skiers...? Would you still accept them in the park, or would you rather--