Transport Committee on Oct. 21st, 2009

[Claude Garand]

That is right. We believe that the property owners should have the same rights as other Canadian citizens and that it should be an open real estate market.

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

You would like property rights to be equal, even if the properties are within the park.

Do you have any further comments, Mr. Perras?

[Jean Perras]

It is inside the park, but it is private property within...

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

I understand what you are saying.

[Jean Perras]

However, we said to the NCC and to the NCC mandate review panel, two or three years ago, that we agreed the commission should buy back a certain number of lands, where there are sensitive areas, lands upon which there is important biodiversity or where there are species in need of protection or at risk, areas where there are marshlands or places where there is significant flora. We are not against the NCC buying them and protecting them. On the contrary, I think it is a good idea. However, it must stop there.

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

It should not necessarily be a question of expropriation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Under its mandate, the NCC may acquire private land within Gatineau Park. For example, it its 2004 master plan, there are properties smaller than four acres that are situated in conservation areas, fenced-in properties that fragment ecosystems or prevent authorized recreational uses, properties that negatively affect a park's facilities, attractions or visitors' welcome centres, properties located in residual enclaves, always bearing in mind the idea that the park must be considered as an area for the public.

You can see that the NCC does indeed enjoy some prerogatives as far as the properties are concerned. What we are discussing are issues that have a long-term effect, the right of first refusal, of mutual consent, donations and purchase with a life-long lease. If the NCC implemented all of these factors, if they were applied to the letter, I have the impression that there would be a lot of negotiations between the residents' associations, the municipalities and the NCC.

[Jean Perras]

During our recent discussions with the NCC in view of preparing the statement of position, we agreed on a plan. The bill addresses this indirectly. In paragraph 13 of our presentation on transparency and cooperation, we specifically address the issue of discussions between the Quebec and federal governments, the NCC, the Regional County Municipality and the three municipalities in order to come to an agreement.

I believe we could come to a consensus that will be to the benefit of all parties around the table. We have been suggesting this for some years, but it has never happened. This bill may pave the way.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

We must not forget that Mr. Baird told us two days ago that it remains a park. Gatineau Park is not a place in which we want to see any development. That at least is what we understood.

More specifically, I would like to talk about the issue of the final occupant being a person who has property rights, with the right to transfer the property to his or her heirs, but in the case of a sale, that occupant is obliged to sell to the NCC at market value. Would you agree with this approach?

[Claude Garand]

I would not agree because it is impossible to establish market value in the absence of a market. In the case of a sale to the NCC, how is market value established? We feel that it should be an open market, and that the NCC is always free to buy the property on that market.

[Malcolm MacTavish]

I would agree with my colleague. Furthermore, the NCC has in the past purchased properties on the open market, even recently, so it's not a difficult process for the NCC to do that. I think over time, when properties become available, if they want to bid on them, then of course the NCC is most welcome to.

But fundamentally--and this is our central fear--we are afraid that our rights as private property owners, as homeowners in the park or surrounded by a park, would be in jeopardy.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

You spoke of territorial integrity. In Canadian national parks, for example in Banff, if we want to increase or decrease the size of the park, the Province of Alberta has something to say about it. If we wanted to increase or decrease the size of Gatineau Park, the Province of Quebec has nothing to say about it.

Would you agree that the bill should have a provision allowing Quebec to have some input in the increase or decrease of the size of Gatineau Park, as is the case for Canadian national parks?

[Jean Perras]

As I said earlier on, given my information, I'm under the impression that the Quebec government is still the owner of 17%, 18% or 19% of the park. I do not see why the Canadian government, the Quebec government and the municipal and regional governments would not sit down together to come to an agreement on the expansion and preservation issues. I think that this is the solution that will allow us to move forward and resolve the series of problems that you have all raised today. We cannot continue to communicate through the media; we must all sit down together.

The Municipality of Chelsea had launched the idea of a consultation process involving all four parties, if we include the RCM des Collines-de-l'Outaouais. We are responsible for the development framework which, according to the Planning and Development Act, is fundamental in terms of land management in Quebec. I do not see why we would not sit down together to discuss it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci.

I'm going to open the floor up for one more round of five minutes.

Monsieur Proulx.

[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?

[Jean Perras]

I would like to point out that the CEO was once a director general at the Municipality of Chelsea.

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

I was aware of that.

[Jean Perras]

So it is difficult for me to take a position on this.

Honestly, I cannot recall a single time when the current mayor or the previous one ever had to sit down with the executive committee or the steering committee. Therefore, I do not believe it will affect our daily dealings in any way.

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

It won't change anything.

[Jean Perras]

It will not.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the witnesses for having met with us and for having done overtime.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Nadeau, you have the floor.

You don't have any more questions? All right.

Then I'll thank our guests for being here today. As we move forward, I'm sure you'll have more interesting comments to make to the committee.

I'm going to ask the committee to stay briefly after our guests leave. We have one budget issue that I want to present. It's being distributed to you as we speak.

Thank you to our guests.

We'll take a two-minute recess.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm going to have to call the meeting back to order, if I may.

I have a couple of memos for the committee. If there are amendments that are going to be brought forward, we will need them as soon as you can get them to us, because we will be doing clause-by-clause next Wednesday.

Monsieur Proulx.

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

On Monday, when Minister Baird was here, he said that one representative from each of the four parties could meet with his officials so that we could look at.... I don't want to say “friendly amendments”—let's call them “friendly accommodations”. Mr. Jean and I were discussing this a little while ago. The problem we have is that we don't have a meeting set up with the minister's officials. At the Wednesday meeting you are talking about, there's going to be a very important witness, the NCC's executive director, Madame Lemay.

Until we are able to see what can be arrived at with Minister Baird's officials, it's difficult for us to say we will go through the clause-by-clause on a particular date.