Evidence of meeting #32 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.
4:10 p.m.
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
I didn't work with her, I worked in collaboration with her.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
In collaboration with her. So Bill S-210 was much better, in your interpretation, than Bill C-37.
4:10 p.m.
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
That moreover is the position advocated by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society in the letter it sent to members of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Murray, how many members does the Gatineau Park Protection Committee have?
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, madam; good afternoon, gentlemen.
Let's continue along the same lines, Mr. Murray. In your brief, you discuss five major pillars, which illustrate your thinking on Bill C-37. In particular, there is recognition of the park as a national park. Ecological integrity is also fundamental.
There are also other important elements, including Quebec's territorial integrity. I understand the first two pillars, but I would like to understand more about what you mean by the third. There's also the fact that Parliament must have the power, not Cabinet. I would like you to give us a little more information on that point and on the very delicate question of the prohibition against building new residences.
To summarize, there's the question of Quebec's territorial integrity and the fact that Parliament should have the last word, not the Governor in Council—
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
The other aspect is the prohibition against construction. I hand over to you.
October 26th, 2009 / 4:15 p.m.
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
Thank you very much, Mr. Nadeau.
I'll start by mentioning that all the private member's bills that have been introduced to date have drawn on the National Parks Act.
In the first bill that was introduced, we cooperated with Mr. Broadbent on the wording of Bill C-444. First we prepared a preliminary draft by cutting and pasting sections from the National Parks Act. Then we presented that to the legislative drafter to make a bill out of it. Consequently, our five pillars are essentially designed to amend the National Capital Act such that Gatineau Park is managed as a national park. However, Gatineau Park was to be a national park starting in 1912. The process was thus never completed, and the park remained the only federal park that is not a national park.
With regard to the issue of residential construction, regardless of whether it was the Federal District Commission, the forerunner of the NCC, the Greber Report in 1950, the Advisory Committee's Report on the master plan to develop Gatineau Park in 1952 or the master plans of 1980, 1990 and 2005, all the planning exercises of the National Capital Commission have provided that all private lands within Gatineau Park were gradually to be recovered. That has not been done and, since 1992, construction has proceeded on 119 new residences and the park has lost 8 km2 of land. This is real carnage.
With respect to the territorial integrity of Quebec, international law and especially Canadian law acknowledge the existence of the territorial integrity of the provinces. International law also recognizes the internal aspect of territorial integrity. In other words, the federal enclaves in Quebec, such as aboriginal reserves, ports, airports, communications facilities, military bases and other entities, are internal territories with internal boundaries, but, especially where the national parks are concerned, the federal government recognizes the internal aspect of the boundaries of Quebec's territorial integrity. Consequently, the National Parks Act provides that the consent of the province concerned must be obtained in order to change the boundaries of a national park in any province.
In my opinion, if we want to manage Gatineau Park as a real national park, this matter must be considered. Contrary to what Mr. Proulx said, I'm not just criticizing; I'm also proposing amendments. Our amendments propose that the Government of Quebec be involved in the process of preparing a management plan and demand that the Government of Quebec be not only consulted, but also that it give its approval before the boundaries of Gatineau Park are changed in order to expand it.
I hope that answers your questions, Mr. Nadeau.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Another aspect that we were talking about earlier concerns Parliament. How can a decision of this importance be made? Some suggest that it should be the Governor in Council that decides, but that decision does not carry the same weight as that of the House of Commons.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Why does a decision of the House of Commons carry more weight than that of the Governor in Council?
4:15 p.m.
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
Because the boundaries of Gatineau Park have been changed in the past. Its territory was cut in camera without anyone knowing, whereas, as part of a debate in Parliament, there were first, second and third readings, the presentation of a report, two committee studies and the vote in the House of Commons and in the Senate. The entire process took place in public view.
In my opinion, when you talk about a national capital and national issues, the elected representatives of the people, you, ladies and gentlemen, have the opportunity to take part in the debate and to represent your voters, who are all Canadians, all Quebeckers, if we want to change the boundaries of a park that is supposed to have national status.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Thank you.
Ms. DesRoches, you talked about a very hot topic in the region, bridges. We know that we are on the nth study and that, of the three alignments selected in the context of the current study for which the NCC is responsible, very important environmental issues are involved. I'm thinking, for example, of McLaurin Bay, which could be affected if one of the sections is approved.
What is CREDDO's position and what should the NCC's role be in this debate on the bridges?
4:20 p.m.
General Director, Regional council for the environment and sustainable development in Outaouais
I simply wanted to answer Mr. Proulx. I forgot to say that I don't want any new houses, but not that the NCC should buy the old ones.
4:20 p.m.
General Director, Regional council for the environment and sustainable development in Outaouais
I misunderstood your question. I don't want any new houses, but not that the NCC should buy back the old ones.
As regards the bridges, CREDDO is not in favour of the construction of a new bridge. There are wetlands in east Gatineau. I won't outline the entire history of the political decisions to build the bridges where they are now.
However, in 2009, we are convinced that the two provinces, the two cities and the NCC can sit down and discuss traffic, trucking, and find a solution. All parties are currently sticking to their positions, where they have one. Those positions change every day. I believe there is a way to come up with a coherent transport plan that puts the emphasis on public transit. We can't build a bridge simply to address a trucking problem. If a bridge is built, it's obviously that people will use it to travel by car. We can't say that we're going to solve the trucking problem by building a bridge. That will simply cause others.
Furthermore, the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau constitute the fourth largest centre in Canada. It ranks sixth for traffic waiting time. We are therefore not in the worst position with regard to traffic jams and congestion. I believe certain figures have to be studied. With regard to public transit, there is a railway bridge. The only new bridge that CREDDO would agree to would be another railway bridge in the east to link the two highways. I think that, in 2009, you should start thinking in other ways than in terms of cars. Seriously, the fact that we are still talking about new road infrastructure for cars is really an archaic way of addressing the situation.
