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.
General Director, Regional council for the environment and sustainable development in Outaouais
Well, I want it to be called a national park.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Okay. I thought one of our panellists wanted it at least to be established as a national park.
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
But that's not within the scope of the bill.
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding, various groups have advocated national park status for Gatineau Park over the years—
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
That's correct. It would require expropriation of everyone.
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
—but because this is so difficult in and of itself.... A national park is quite frankly a different ball game. This could perhaps be a prelude to it down the road, but....
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I was going to say that we had CPAWS appear before the committee, and they're advocating as well the creation of Gatineau Park as a national park.
I would agree with you, in that I don't think this is the proper process for establishing a national park; a process exists for that. This is primarily to address what seems to me the problem with the current conversation about a quasi-national park, and that is that the discussion lacks a real national context as well, in terms of other areas that would be competing for a similar or like designation. That's why having such decisions vested within cabinet is actually a good thing. They are charged, of course, with taking a national approach. They also have to balance issues of affordability.
If I read your brief correctly, Mr. McDermott and Mr. Murray, you talk about wanting to give the National Capital Commission legislative tools to acquire in-holdings. Such legislative tools, I think, would also create a budgetary obligation on the Government of Canada, would they not, to the tune of $380 million, which is what I think your brief cites?
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
No. There was a question in the Senate. Senator Nolin raised a point of order arguing that Bill S-204 was a money bill, which as you know cannot be introduced in the Senate or by a private member unless you red-line the bill. The Speaker ruled that it wasn't a money bill.
What it is is a right of first refusal. The NCC can refuse to purchase the property or it can choose to purchase the property, but it already has the budgets to acquire some properties, and it's been doing so for a long time. Most recently it spent quite a few million dollars without having any of those extra budget appropriations.
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
It looks on the face of it to be a large problem, but as Mr. Murray said, it would be up to the commission whether or not they would acquire that particular property—
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
And only when they decide to sell.
October 26th, 2009 / 4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
But you'd like them to acquire all those properties, would you not?
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
Over the long term, we would.
Conservative
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
No, the plan should be on a gradual basis. And there are so many layers to this.
Mr. Speyers alluded to the fact that around the greenbelt, the NCC would sell off lands. I remember that, back in the 1990s, when various agencies falling under the Department of Heritage, of which the NCC is one.... For example, the Canada Council for the Arts received an extra $20 million in funding. All these agencies were receiving extra stipends, but the NCC was still forced to sell its own land. That's the main reason why it shouldn't be given the powers to control the NILM. If they're doing these shady land deals right now, once they get the national interest land mass under their belt....
I know it may sound to some as if people are criticizing the NCC and everybody has a problem with it, but there's so much secrecy involved in what they're doing that it's the reason parliamentary oversight is needed.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Well, I would submit to you that cabinet, which is the Government of Canada.... Ultimately the government is accountable to the public as well for their decisions, so I wouldn't suggest that there's no accountability for what cabinet does.
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
But the NILM right now is controlled by Treasury Board, which as you say is a committee of cabinet. Some of its members are elected. What happens with this bill is that it gives control of the NILM to the NCC bureaucrats, and there's no oversight, there's no accountability, there's no democratic link.
I would also add, to your earlier question, that what we are asking for is exactly what has been in the master plan for decades. The NCC is obligated by Treasury Board Decision 809464, from September 15, 1988, to acquire all properties in Gatineau Park. We're not inventing anything; we're not advocating anything new. All we're asking is for the NCC to fulfill its commitments and obligations.
Conservative
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
It already has that obligation.
Conservative
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
But what we're speaking of is that instead of acquiring the land, they've allowed the building of 119 new houses and have removed eight square kilometres of land from the park.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
So do you want a bill with teeth or a bill with no teeth? What are you arguing for here? I'm not sure I understand your point.
If the bill doesn't give them the teeth to actually go ahead and do it, but you'd like to them to do it, then why not say that? Why not ask us for a bill that will give some real teeth to it?
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
It's because we respect the rights of private owners to continue living in the park. The situation they're facing—
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
So does the Government of Canada, which is why we've put forward the bill the way it is.
Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee
Yes, and I would correct what the press said—