Transport Committee on Oct. 26th, 2009

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

With respect, I don't think they took the land and put it somewhere else. What they did is they sold the land and developed it. It's an active park, just like Stanley Park is an active park, just like many parks across this country are active parks. Indeed, the residents continue to enjoy it. From “shady”, you're just talking about how, in essence, they didn't consult with you or your organization.

[Jean-Paul Murray]

No, they didn't consult with you and Parliament, generally.

What I would say about shady is you build a new residential subdivision in the Lac des Fées area of Gatineau Park. Now, the NCC will tell you that's no longer in the park. Well, I'm sorry, the 1960 order in council, which set the boundaries, which is the only existing legal boundary of Gatineau Park, allowed 68 houses to be built inside Gatineau Park there.

When we say shady land deals, I mentioned earlier the Meech Creek Valley. The NCC will always tell you, “No, we've actually increased the size of Gatineau Park”. Well, they haven't. They've reduced it by eight square kilometres. When they say Meech Creek Valley is inside Gatineau Park, if you ask the NCC when it comes before you, “What is the legal boundary of Gatineau Park?”, it's the 1960 order-in-council boundary. You'll find a copy of the order in council in the Bill S-210 brief that we sent you.

When the NCC says they've expanded the park, they're not being upfront, not being transparent, because the park has been reduced in size. Lands, by a change--

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

Mr. Murray, by a change in classification within the park is what you're suggesting.

[Jean-Paul Murray]

Well, if you build a--

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

A use of the park. The park lands have been changed because people now live there who didn't live there before. There are houses and buildings and Tim Hortons, etc.

[Jean-Paul Murray]

That's right, and that's still in the park, and the NCC will tell you it's not. So that's what we mean by “shady”: it's not transparent, it's not upfront.

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

Are you saying they have a positive obligation on doing that?

[Jean-Paul Murray]

I think they should tell Parliament. If you look at the documents that were put out during the NCC's boundary rationalization exercise, they said they couldn't talk to the public about it because it would increase land speculation. That was their excuse. Well, I'm sorry, it's a national-like park and it should be treated as such. It should benefit from the full debate in Parliament that we are advocating.

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

Do any of the witnesses here today believe that this legislation we're moving forward with as a government is not a positive step in the right direction? Just a yes or no. Is it not a positive step in the right direction?

[Jean-Paul Murray]

No.

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

Other people?

[Andrew McDermott]

No, it's sideways, at best.

[Al Speyers]

As far as it goes, sir, in our opinion it is a positive step forward--as far as it goes.

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

Yes, and that's what my point is. I don't really understand from Mr. McDermott or Mr. Murray how you would like the government to go, because there was consultation. I believe there was something in the neighbourhood of 32 recommendations, and 31 of those recommendations the government is following.

[Jean-Paul Murray]

But there's not parliamentary oversight, and you should be asking for parliamentary oversight. You have a fiduciary and financial responsibility to your electors and all Canadians.

[An hon. member]

It's not a national park.

[Jean-Paul Murray]

No, we don't want it to be a national park. We want it to be managed transparently.

[An hon. member]

It's still crown land.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Order, please.

We have a few minutes left. I'm going to make one more round. I'll give every member, every party three minutes each.

Mr. Proulx.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McDermott or Mr. Murray, there are some tourism and recreation events or uses going on in the park. With these, some bring on user fees, some don't. How would you see the future of these different uses in the park if we were to recognize this as--I'm not sure of the terminology--an “almost” national park? Whether they be bikers, whether they be cross-country skiers, whether they be hikers--call it what you want--how would you deal with that? What would you recommend to the NCC?

[Jean-Paul Murray]

I'm philosophically opposed to user fees because I think Canadians pay for the park already through their taxes. I'm opposed to anything that would limit access or constrict or reduce access of the public to their park.

You see, the fundamental philosophy, if you read what Percy Sparks said about Gatineau Park, he said essentially that they were creating a park close to the capital for the people, because only the rich could go to Banff or to Jasper or to other parks at the time.

Especially considering that it's the cornerstone of a great memorial dedicated to the 42,000 soldiers who died in World War II defending our democratic values, and it's the park of the Canadian capital, I think the park should bend over backwards to be democratic.

Some people want user fees; some people don't want cars in the park. You look at what some of the residential associations are saying, and that's what they want. They want to preserve their private park and keep the people out. So I'm saying make it public first, and user fees if necessary, but not necessarily user fees.

There, that's a good liberal response.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You have one minute.

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

That's it, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Nadeau, it's your turn.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the examples I found in my research is that of Lac Saint-Pierre, near Sorel, which was officially recognized by UNESCO as a biosphere reserve. Citizens had been settled on its islands for decades without any property right. When the island was recognized, the Quebec and Canadian governments had to resolve the issue because the land did not belong to those people. However, they had been living there for one or two generations.

To ensure it was accessible to everyone, the last occupant clause was used, that is to say that those who were living there at the time could stay there. However, once the owner left the house for good, it automatically became the park's property.

Would you be in favour of this kind of approach for Gatineau Park? Ms. DesRoches and Mr. Murray could answer.