Although advocated as the first national park for Quebec in 1912, in fact as the first national park outside the Rocky Mountains, Gatineau Park never acquired that status and remains the only large federal park lacking legislative protection and beyond the direct purview of Parliament.
Consequently, and contrary to national parks, its boundaries can change, its land can be sold, and roads can be built inside it, without the review, knowledge or approval of Parliament.
Since 1992, Gatineau Park has lost 8.5 km2 of its territory. Although the NCC claims that the area of the park has increased as a result of the addition of Meech Creek Valley, that is incorrect. That valley lies outside the only existing legal limit, that is to say the one that was fixed by an order in council in 1960.
As well, in the absence of a proper land management mechanism, the NCC has allowed serious urbanization within the park. Since 1992, 119 new residences have been built there, 43 in the Kingsmere and Meech Lakes areas, as well as 76 in the Hull sector. Add to this a new Loblaws, a Tim Hortons, a Petro-Canada, a fire hall and five new roads. Even though the NCC claims that these facilities were never in the park, its own maps and those of Quebec's environment department prove the contrary. This carnage must stop.
Mr. Chairman, the NCC has shown on numerous occasions that it cannot be trusted to manage Gatineau Park in the absence of parliamentary oversight. It has sold lands in the park, adulterated its history, destroyed its historic buildings and permitted unbridled urbanization. And giving the NCC control of the National Interest Land Mass is tantamount to putting the fox among the chickens.
The government established the National Interest Land Mass in 1988 following a recommendation by the Nielsen Commission that it curtail the NCC and impose a managerial discipline on it and on its real estate transactions.
In addition, the Auditor General and the NCC Mandate Review Panel emphasized that the NCC was managing the NILM in an ambiguous and inconsistent manner and that the agency should be more transparent in this regard.