Evidence of meeting #31 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ncc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
President, Kingsmere Property Owners Association, Municipality of Chelsea
I would agree. I'd support that.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
I'm going to cover another topic, which is more delicate: expropriation. In Canadian national parks, the federal government does not have the authority to expropriate land. The NCC is entitled to expropriate land that is in the territory under its responsibility. You know what is in the act. We discussed this matter with Minister Baird, who met with us two days ago, if I'm not mistaken, and his comments were reported in The Citizen.
Should we wish to remove the National Capital Commission's expropriation power, would you agree that the following aspects should be linked to this decision, namely: that there be no division of private land, making it impossible to subdivide for further construction, and that there be no other development than that which already exists in the park. There would also be other issues, such as the sale of land by a property owner, but that is something else. I do not want to confuse issues.
So, no division, no development, meaning that what we see now—we'll take a photo—is what will remain. Somebody may renovate his house, or cottage, but it couldn't go any further than that. In exchange, we would remove this right to expropriate, because if this authority exists, it can be used.
What is your position on this matter, Mr. MacTavish, Mr. Garand?
Past President, Meech Lake Association, Municipality of Chelsea
I think that we would need to discuss this matter further with our board because this is a new concept. I am not able to answer you at present. On the one hand, this would be good, but on the other hand, this may remove rights from some people. So I am not sure how this compromise would be viewed.
President, Kingsmere Property Owners Association, Municipality of Chelsea
I'm not sure either. There are municipal regulations that cover how you can deal with your property. I would think those are largely sufficient within our municipality. We should have full enjoyment of our homes. If a property has room for another lot, if you own the property, you should perhaps have the right to develop that or leave it to your children, or whatever, as long as it doesn't conflict with municipal regulations.
I would be concerned if there were further restrictions on the enjoyment of our private property rights.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
At the last meeting we had some witnesses who requested that Gatineau Park be a national park. There was kind of an inference that the request was based on the fact that, as a national park, environmental protection would be enshrined, or the integrity of the park would be protected.
I too have been a mayor in my past life. Actually, Parks Canada declared part of our community a national historic site, so there were some challenges with putting in land use regulations, building restrictions, those types of things. There was a balance between the interest of the community and the citizens' rights to their property.
Does your community, Your Worship, have kind of a community plan as to what they want their area to be like?
Mayor, Municipality of Chelsea
We have a master plan for the municipality and we have a land use plan for the regional government. Those two plans must concord; one comes under the other.
Let me try to answer your question in another way. I'm aware of most of the national parks across Canada. I have been to Banff and Jasper and Newfoundland and all that. One thing that I would like to say is that the whole debate about Gatineau Park stems from a perception by certain people that having human beings in the park is not a good thing. I think we are trying to demonstrate today that we've been part and parcel of the stewardship of that park, that if the park exists the way it is now, five or six generations of people, some of whom knew Mackenzie King, have been very good stewards. They have phoned us when they saw fire. They have found people in the park with broken legs. They have done the ski trails. So this whole debate about why people should stay in the park and all that I think is not appropriate debate. The people are there, they are good stewards, they feel for it.
Chelsea is really tough. I keep saying to a lot of mayors across Canada that when you cut a tree in Chelsea, you need to have a consultation, and there are probably 200 people in the room who don't want you to cut that tree. So it's not as if it's a free-for-all and let's kill all the biodiversity. On the contrary. I think we've proven today that with the H2O program, the Nature Chelsea program, the memorandum of understanding we've set, we're quite on top of things. I think the NCC appreciates the cooperation they're getting from the municipality.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
There's a reason you've held office as long as you have, as you are very wise about what you say.
That's the conflict. It is between a passive part and an active part. It is the conflict between people who believe a park should be devoid of human participation and then there are others who feel that public participation brings the park alive. I think there is a balance in that.
I understand you have 1.7 million visitors to this park a year, so obviously there are corridors of activity and other areas that are set aside for environmental stewardship reasons. Is that part of your master plan?
Mayor, Municipality of Chelsea
An example of part of our master plan is that we are now protecting all the wetlands of Chelsea. A lot of those wetlands are close to the park. Some of it is in the park and some of it is around the outside of the park. By protecting the wetlands we're protecting our groundwater, because all of our houses have one well and one septic system. If you don't protect the biodiversity and you don't protect the wetlands and nature's biodiversity and so on, you're shooting yourself in the foot if you live in the park or right next to the park.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Perras, subclauses 2(1) and 2(2) of the bill refer to territorial boundaries or geographic boundaries. The first refers to the National Capital Region and the second to Gatineau Park.
We had asked the NCC to provide us with maps so we could look at any changes with you. Unfortunately, our request came too late and the National Capital Commission provided us with these maps, which are difficult to read. We have managed to determine where we are based on the Outaouais River, but it is quite difficult apart from that.
I think that there are 32 pages of official descriptions in the bill. My colleague, a notary, spent entire nights examining this. Did you get the opportunity to look at these descriptions to see whether there are any changes? Have the boundaries changed or do they remain the same? What has been done is that the official descriptions have been set down in black and white on paper. These boundaries have existed since 1997, in resolutions by the board of administration. They go back to 1960 and were confirmed in 1997. In 2008, they were confirmed yet again. Does the official description, included in the bill, correspond to your knowledge and what you are used to in Chelsea?
Mayor, Municipality of Chelsea
Based on our information, those are the current boundaries. We are able to use them.
Mayor, Municipality of Chelsea
To our knowledge, no. We have talked about it with the NCC. Like you, we have not yet hired a notary or a lawyer to read all the provisions and draw up an inventory. This would cost us a fortune, and we do not necessarily have the necessary budgets.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I relied on the good faith of the National Capital Commission. We must not be doubtiny Thomases, but I am confident. I wanted to know whether, in your opinion, there were any changes.
Do you agree, Mr. MacTavish, with Mr. Perras and Mr. Garand that there aren't any major changes? You're not finding sections of the park not in the park any more or sections of the municipality that are part of the park now?
President, Kingsmere Property Owners Association, Municipality of Chelsea
I've had great difficulty trying to determine that.
Liberal
Liberal
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?
October 21st, 2009 / 4:40 p.m.
Mayor, Municipality of Chelsea
Mr. Proulx, I think we said in our brief that we are in favour of the spirit of the proposed legislation. I believe that my two colleagues really discussed this at length. As they stressed, the only thing that concerns us is the right to first refusal.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
So tell us about how you interpret this right of first refusal.
Mayor, Municipality of Chelsea
Based on our understanding, a property owner who wants to sell his house at Kingsmere or Meech Lake would first have to determine whether the NCC wants to buy it or not under the first refusal clause. But the effect of this is to take the property off the market. I think that our friends and citizens in both neighbourhoods would not agree with that idea. We have clearly stated this.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
In short, they would not agree to giving the National Capital Commission a right of first refusal on private properties already located within the boundaries of the park. Is that correct?
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
You would like it to be left up to the market, if I can put it that way, and that the property owners be able to sell their property to their children, their family, their friends or anyone else without the National Capital Commission having anything to say about it. Is that correct?
