Transport Committee on Oct. 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 32. Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 5, 2009, we are continuing our consideration of Bill C-37, an act to amend the National Capital Act and other acts.

Joining us today, from the Regional Council for the Environment and Sustainable Development in the Outaouais, is Nicole DesRoches, general director; from the Gatineau Park Protection Committee, Jean-Paul Murray and Andrew McDermott; and from the Alliance To Save Our Greenbelt, Mr. Al Speyers, president.

I've asked Nicole if she'd like to start. I think you know the routine of presentations and then questions.

Ms. DesRoches.

[Nicole DesRoches, General Director, Regional council for the environment and sustainable development in Outaouais]

The Regional council for the environment and sustainable development in Outaouais is one of Quebec's 16 regional environmental councils. Quebec is divided into 17 administrative regions.

It has been in existence since January 1990, and, over the past 20 years, we have worked on a number of issues involving transport, wetlands, education, forests and everything directly or indirectly related to natural spaces and environmental protection.

We've also presented a number of briefs to the National Capital Commission, the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, the City of Gatineau—I won't name them all. We sit on many environmental and sustainable development committees, all to carry out our mandate for joint action and resource conservation.

We were also members of the former Coalition SOS Leamy and the Coalition for NCC Renewal. We were members of the greenbelt coalition and the Gatineau Park coalition. In other words, our agency monitors NCC files quite closely. But we are also partners, since we sit on a number of committees, including the interprovincial transport committee. Over the past five or six years, we have taken part in virtually all the consultations organized by the NCC, concerning both the park and the capital core. We are also partners in certain activities, such as the clean-up of the banks of the Ottawa River. This means that the NCC is an agency that knows us and that we know well.

A commission to manage personal and real property in the territory of a capital and its surrounding areas plays a particular role for citizens of this country. However, it should not be forgotten that actions are being carried out in an area occupied by a local population and that, consequently, an effort must always be made to strike a balance between the two. And this fact should be reflected in the preamble. The protection of the natural environment is desirable in all respects, but the human environment should not be neglected, either nationally or locally. A satisfied population takes part in the development of the capital and assists in extending its reach.

The preamble of Bill C-37 also provides that it is important to ensure that the natural environment of the National Capital Region is preserved for the enjoyment of all Canadians. However, this is quite vague because the environment must be protected based on specific ecosystems, highly developed practices and the laws of the provinces where the lands are located. For example, Leamy Lake Park is a recreational park, with a protection aspect. Mowing the lawn down to the water's edge and preserving large grassy spaces that serve no purpose are part of management from another era. Quebec's policy on shorelines, littoral zones and flood planes requires that a 15-metre band be protected. The City of Gatineau and the RMC of Collines-de-l'Outaouais have adopted regulations to that effect.

NCC staff has made efforts, except that, when this is contracted out, the subcontractors and contractors aren't necessarily aware of the new orientations or are not concerned about them. So there's a problem.

You are also aware of the other problem of the non-migrating geese: they have adopted this type of development and adore the cut grass at the water's edge. At some point, environmental protection will have to be expanded and certain elements added based on ecosystems and recognized practices.

With respect to Bill C-37, we agree on the proposed structure, that is to say that there should be a distinction between the role of chairperson of the board of directors and the head of the NCC. We also agree that public meetings should be held since the Coalition for NCC Renewal recommended that.

I now come to the changes we are proposing. In our opinion, paragraph 10(1)(a) of the National Capital Act should be amended as follows:

[...] prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region, in partnership with local authorities having development authority and in consultation with the public, including in relation to transportation in that region, in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance, the whole in accordance with the environmental targets and consistency among the plans of the various local authorities.

The NCC has played a role in the capital's programming, planning, preservation and development since its inception.

Times have since changed. The development role devolved upon it today overlaps with that of the provinces and municipalities. The cities and RMCs have established development schemes and urban plans, which they did not do 30 years ago. The federal entity that has development powers over a municipal territory creates jurisdictional problems. Everyone would benefit by a better partnership between the cities, municipalities, RMCs and the NCC.

I'm not blaming the NCC, but as regards land use planning, the act could provide for the formalization of meetings to ensure consistency among the plans of all the parties.

There's also the infrastructure question. Some interprovincial bridges are the NCC's jurisdiction, while others fall under that of Public Works. That department has better teams, but its primary purpose may not be the improvement of the capital, judging from the MacDonald-Cartier bridge, which has rusted. It should be seen whether a single manager could facilitate matters for everyone. The bridge patrol is another issue. Sometimes it's the RCMP that takes charge of it, whereas at other times, it's the Sûreté du Québec or the municipal police force of one city or another. Perhaps it should be determined which federal authority takes charge of interprovincial bridges.

Under the bill, section 10 of the National Capital Act would be amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) The Commission shall furnish, maintain, heat and keep in repair the buildings on the lands described in Schedules 3 and 4 and shall maintain and, from time to time as required, improve those lands.

Since this is 2009, we could add this: “In accordance with recognized energy efficiency standards and practices.”

With regard to the National Interest Land Mass, it is interesting to note that criteria will be established for determining the lands that are part of that mass. However, it would be particularly important, in light of the problems experienced in the early 2000s, that the process of establishing criteria be transparent and that the public have access to the list of lands considered for a period determined in advance of the non-national interest designation.

The problem stems from the grey area between what is of national interest and what is of local interest. The NCC considers land surplus based on its national mandate, but does not have the authority to offer it to local entities, even if that land is of historical importance to the local community. A mechanism should be provided for, as well as a scale of values reflecting the municipality's ability to buy land back. This does not mean, however, that everything should be handed over to the municipalities. The federal government protects structures of local historical importance elsewhere in the country through other authorities such as Parks Canada. The NCC could play that role, together with organizations in the field.

Lastly, it is important to emphasize once again that Gatineau Park is a biodiversity jewel of western Quebec and, as such, is home to the largest number of endangered species appearing on all the lists. The 2005 master plan saw a change in orientation, from being a park for recreational activities to a park for the protection of natural heritage. This led to the preparation of a conservation plan in which the public took part. Protecting the perimeter without granting protection status to what is within that perimeter protects nothing, except the perimeter itself. The Quebec parks system has instituted committees for the purpose of harmonization with the areas where parks are located to ensure transparency and harmonious relations with the community. Gatineau Park could establish a similar committee.

We also consider it incoherent, during this financially difficult period, that funding should be granted to the Commission to buy back lands that are put on the market, rather than resolve the park's status once and for all. If the purpose of the bill was sustainable development and environmental protection, we think the proposals would be different.

In economic terms, what can be said about the amounts necessary to buy back lands in these times of rising prices? We find it utterly incoherent that the government should spend enormous sums to buy back lands when those amounts could be used to move the snowmobile trail the length of the park and be invested in education and awareness or in rebuilding heritage buildings within the perimeter.

Buying properties that have belonged to families for generations rather than leaving them to a single family is, in our view, to care little for the social aspect of sustainable development. It is understood that citizens who are privileged to live in a park must abide by certain development and environmental protection rules.

The major problem related to the presence of houses in the park stems from the fact that, until the park has class 2 national park status, based on the criteria of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, it is the responsibility of the municipalities, which can grant building permits and minor variances that often run counter to protection and conservation criteria.

The buildings along Meech Lake Road are one example among many. It is true that Quebec owns lands in the north sector of the park and that there has been a management agreement between the Government of Quebec and the National Capital Commission since 1993. The park is also on Quebec's list of protected areas. It is therefore hard to believe that it cannot intervene in the pursuit of this kind of agreement in the context of the management of a class 2 park. One can well wonder whether all the efforts necessary to achieve cooperation have been made.

In conclusion, CREDDO can see the efforts that have been made with regard to governance, but also the lack of will to rigorously protect the park in accordance with accepted international practice. This is not a criticism of the NCC's work, but rather a way to provide it with the full toolbox necessary to ensure environmental protection and the implementation of the Gatineau Park conservation plan.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Speyers.

[Al Speyers, President, Alliance To Save Our Green Belt]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee.

My name is Al Speyers. I'm president of the Alliance to Save Our Green Belt, ATSOG.

ATSOG was established in 1993 to help protect and enhance the national capital greenbelt. We are also members of the Greenspace Alliance of Canada's Capital and the Greenbelt Coalition of Canada's Capital Region .

Today I want to focus on a couple of points in the proposed amendments to the National Capital Act. The first point will deal somewhat indirectly with the boundaries of Gatineau Park as they appear now in the proposed act, as found under schedule 2. The other point I would like to raise relates to proposed section 18, as well as to proposed section 10.2, which deals with the national interest land mass. We'd also like to add at this time that my comments today are very consistent with comments made by Minister Baird, who appeared before this committee on Monday of last week.

First, while we clearly see the need to delineate the boundaries of Gatineau Park in order to enhance the long-term protection of the park against future erosion by development, unfortunately Bill C-37 offers no such protection for the national capital greenbelt.

It may be of interest to you that when the Diefenbaker government decided in the 1950s to implement one of the key recommendations of Jacques Gréber's report on a plan for the national capital, moneys were released by Treasury Board to the NCC specifically to begin the expropriation of land needed for the national capital greenbelt. Approximately 350 farms were thus obtained through this painful process, which eliminated the livelihoods of hundreds of people as well as those of their descendants. However, in spite of funds being released specifically for the creation of a greenbelt, today, more than 50 years later, the greenbelt remains unmentioned in any federal statute or regulation. It is, instead, rolled into the more general NILM, or national interest land mass, without any special protection of this very valuable national treasure.

We support and share Minister Baird's concerns that the greenbelt should not be whittled away and serve as a land bank for municipal projects. In our more enthusiastic moments, we had hoped that perhaps a new statute protecting the greenbelt could be enacted, such as a National Capital Greenbelt Act or something similar, to give it more recognition, more protection, more permanence. However, nowhere in the proposed amendments do we find a direct reference to our greenbelt and nowhere do we find what the Gatineau Park now enjoys, a definition of its boundaries.

At a minimum, we had hoped that the greenbelt's boundaries could be enshrined in either the new National Capital Act or in some other federal legislation to help elevate this significant land mass and preserve it for posterity. In fact, a number of years ago we met with some senior representatives from Parks Canada to explore the possibility, the concept of providing for the greenbelt the same level of protection Canada's national parks enjoy under the National Parks Act. However, if this is perhaps not feasible at this time, we would urge that an important outcome of the current NCC review of the 1996 greenbelt master plan would be to ensure that there are adequate legislative protections for the greenbelt. This would be consistent with recommendation 8 of the panel on the NCC mandate review, which appears on page 31 of their report.

Mr. Chair and honourable members, I cannot overemphasize the need to codify our greenbelt in a federal statute. As recently as 1989, as a follow-up to recommendations made by what was then the Nielsen task force, the NCC's budget was cut significantly, and the NCC was then told to in effect sell land under its jurisdiction to make up the shortfall. To accomplish this, the National Capital Act was then amended to eliminate what is currently found under section 15 of the act, which provides the conditions under which the commission can buy, lease, and sell land. In addition, the commission's requirements under the Financial Administration Act were then also lifted so that the commission could keep all the proceeds of its land sales.

These changes to the National Capital Act had a profound impact on the character of the commission, which instead of being the traditional judicious steward of all our green spaces was now put in the position of having to sell off some of these lands to make ends meet. In short, the commission was transformed from the custodian of these lands to their outright owner, and now these lands are completely without protection.

The Nielson task force amendments to the National Capital Act in 1989 coincided with the need for significant areas of greenbelt land that the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton required for a Blackburn Hamlet bypass and a Hunt Club Road extension. The greenbelt should not be a land bank for municipal projects. We are basing this observation on real events and painful experiences, of which there are more.

My second point refers to the proposed section 18 in the amendments, which states that the “Commission may expend for any purpose of the Act any money appropriated for its use by Parliament, received by it through the conduct of its operations or received by it by bequest, donation or otherwise”.

It is the phrase “received by it through the conduct of its operations” that gives us some pause. Although it appears that the conditions under which the commission can buy, lease, and sell land under its jurisdiction are defined under section 15 of the current and proposed acts, that's assuming there are no deletions or changes. The commission is the National Capital Region's largest landowner, and land transactions, which are normally outside the scope of Crown corporations, are an integral part of the NCC's operations, .

Although “conduct of its operations” can be narrowly regarded as money generated from its day-to-day operations, such as admissions to special events, a broader interpretation of this phrase could easily include income generated from the sale of lands, including greenbelt lands. To avoid the possibility that section 18 could be interpreted as nullifying, or perhaps diminishing, section 15, either the “conduct of its operations” could be more clearly defined or a special clause could be added to exclude the possibility of land sales as part of those operations.

Our concern also focuses on section 10.2, which speaks to the national interest land mass, where the commission appears to have unilateral and arbitrary powers to “revoke such a designation”. In short, the commission under this proposed amendment has the power to reclassify downward any lands it deems necessary, including greenbelt lands. Already, significant sections of our greenbelt are classified as having higher or lower ecological significance. Our concern is that the ecologically less significant lands, although part of the whole, may lose their greenbelt designation to satisfy some development proposal. Under no circumstances should there be any perception that the commission might have a personal incentive to sell lands under its jurisdiction.

Mr. Chair and members, a previous administration also made amendments to the National Capital Act, resulting in significant and permanent loss of greenbelt lands. I'm here today to ask you if you can assure us that the greenbelt is here to stay in perpetuity. It is our opinion that our greenbelt deserves no less than what Gatineau Park received under this new act. Enshrine its boundaries in this act.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. McDermott and Mr. Murray.

[Andrew McDermott, Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. We thank you for calling us today as witnesses and hope that our comments will convince you to amend Bill C-37.

The Gatineau Park Protection Committee is a standing committee of the New Woodlands Preservation League, of which I am co-chair along with my friend and colleague, Jean-Paul Murray. Through our various campaigns we have fought and convinced the NCC to recognize the work of park founder Percy Sparks, persuaded parliamentarians from both houses to table seven Gatineau Park bills, and led a 2008 campaign to stop a 20-house subdivision inside Gatineau Park boundaries. Earlier this year we intervened at Quebec's administrative tribunal and managed to secure rightful NCC ownership of 61.5 square kilometres inside Gatineau park land. I believe, Mr. Chairman, your committee has a letter to this effect to us from the Municipality of Pontiac.

The boundaries included in Bill C-37 were obtained as a result of our efforts and in cooperation with Senators Spivak and Banks.

[Jean-Paul Murray, Co-Chair, Gatineau Park Protection Committee]

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.

[Andrew McDermott]

Over the last decades, a consensus has emerged on Gatineau Park as a result of public and private initiatives, federal-provincial cooperation, NCC consultations, and parliamentary debate. It’s now generally felt that the park legislation must meet basic criteria to be reliable and effective.

Recent opinion polls provide compelling evidence of this consensus. For example, an online poll conducted by Le Droit last April found that 86% of respondents wanted the federal government to give Gatineau Park legislative protection. As well, in 2006 a Decima-Ottawa Citizen poll confirmed that 82% of the population wanted Gatineau Park to become a national park.

According to this consensus, Gatineau Park legislation should mandate conservation and ecological integrity as a top priority, enshrine boundaries, eliminate private property development, and dedicate the park to future generations.

Given the precedent established by the National Parks Act, any federal legislation to protect the park should respect the jurisdictions, sensibilities and territorial integrity of Quebec.

Unfortunately, careful analysis of Bill C-37 reveals that it meets none of the basic protection criteria, and fails to reflect any consensus on Gatineau Park. Moreover, Bill C-37 fails to respond to the concerns stakeholders and the public have raised before the NCC mandate review panel, and ignored several key recommendations made by the panel.

When it tabled its report in December 2006, the panel recommended greater parliamentary oversight of the NCC to ensure better accountability, transparency, and management. In particular, the panel insisted that Parliament be given final say in approving master plans for the nation's capital, as well as any changes to the national interest land mass, the NILM. The panel also urged the government to amend the National Capital Act to include a charter that would clearly define Gatineau Park's mandate and guarantee its better protection. Bill C-37 fails to provide either the greater legislative oversight the panel recommended or a charter defining a vision for the park. Instead, it gives cabinet authority to approve master plans and allows the NCC to make changes to the NILM and to Gatineau Park boundaries. As a result, the NCC's shady land deals and boundary changes will remain shrouded in secrecy and subjected to public criticism.

To fully address the problems facing Gatineau Park—fragmentation because of new roads, and urbanization because of new building—park legislation should rest on the five pillars we propose in our brief. Failure to amend the bill as suggested will allow boundary changes, residential development, and road building to continue to frustrate the public's ability to enjoy their park. Currently, under NCC management, people are left with postage-sized beaches at Meech Lake because of residential proliferation inside what should be a national park.

Also, Mr. Chair, failure to recognize Quebec's territorial integrity in this bill will be a blow to federal-provincial relations.

[Jean-Paul Murray]

We urge your committee to amend this bill to ensure greater parliamentary oversight of the NCC and of the management of Gatineau Park. Legislation to protect Gatineau Park must entrench its limits, require that environmental conservation and integrity be a management priority, eliminate real property development and recognize that Gatineau Park was created for future generations. It must absolutely take Quebec's territorial integrity into account.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we quote the words of Percy Sparks, the founder of Gatineau Park, to a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on June 26, 1956:

The public interest has been largely overlooked in respect to the land policy and in policies generally, of the [...] Commission, in planning Gatineau Park. I suggest that personal, financial and political interests of land owners in the area exercises undue influence in the making of policy in respect to this great project.

Gatineau Park is the cornerstone of a great memorial dedicated to the 42,000 Canadian soldiers who died defending our democratic values in World War II. Yet it is the least “democratic” park in the country, and the only one that doesn't have the benefit of parliamentary oversight.

The time has come to tear down the walls of elite accommodation that surround Gatineau Park. The time has come to give the park back to the people, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Proulx.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. DesRoches, Mr. Murray, Mr. Speyers and Mr. McDermott, I want to welcome you. Thank you for accepting the invitations.

You're aware of how this committee works. We have rounds. The first round is seven minutes, and then we go to another party, so some of the questions might be rather quick.

Ms. DesRoches, is that all right?

[Nicole DesRoches]

Yes, thank you.

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

Ms. DesRoches, I thought you had an opinion on private properties located inside the park.

Do you object to those properties or do you accept the idea that there are private properties inside the park?

[Nicole DesRoches]

I accept the idea that there are properties inside the park if people are aware that there are rules that must be obeyed.

However, even though the park has a boundary, we're still facing a lot of ambiguity. The NCC has been given the means to purchase private properties, but it cannot buy them all because the cost of those properties is phenomenal. Since the park has been given no status, and because it is the responsibility of the four municipalities that surround it—Pontiac, La Pêche, Chelsea and Gatineau—absolutely awful things have been permitted.

For those who know well how the municipal level operates, minor variances are a tool to enable municipalities to relieve certain restrictions. As you know, minor variances—

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

Please excuse me, madam, but we're going to be short of time.

[Nicole DesRoches]

I agree—

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

What is your solution?

[Nicole DesRoches]

The solution is that, if the park becomes a park with a status, the municipality no longer has responsibility for the park. So we avoid all these problems: for example, if someone wants to subdivide his lot because its zoned residential... At that point, the park is the jurisdiction of all three authorities. If the park is at least given a status, municipal authority is ruled out.

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

Okay.

Mr. Speyers, I think we're talking the same language.

In Bill C-37, clause 10.4 deals with environmental stewardship. We want to change the wording. We're saying that the NCC in priority must maintain the ecological integrity of the commission's real or immovable properties in the Gatineau Park, and we want to add that it must be applied to all other NCC properties, such as the greenbelt in Ottawa and all lands of national interest as described in section 10.2.

My understanding of your main beef is that the greenbelt is up in the air without any particular protection. I tend to agree with you, in the sense that if tomorrow morning we were to give protection to the Gatineau Park without touching the greenbelt, the government—although we want to change some of the rules—could turn around and decide to dismantle the greenbelt with only public opinion as a holdback.

Is that right?

[Al Speyers]

Yes. That's how I read it.

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

You agree that we should modify Bill C-37 with an amendment so that the ecological integrity is maintained and respected in all of the NCC's properties, such as the greenbelt.

[Al Speyers]

It would be wonderful if the greenbelt could be added in name. As far as ecological integrity, as you know, the greenbelt is significantly different from Gatineau Park. Several thousand people are employed within the greenbelt. There are roads crisscrossing it, power corridors, farms, reforestation projects, and wetlands.

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

By saying we would maintain the ecological integrity, we would want to see no additional commercial or industrial development. We would maintain the status quo and there wouldn't be additional changes. Otherwise, without dismantling it, a government could simply say let's build an industrial park at this end and another one at the other end, and so on.

We are saying there is a status quo to be established, and the ecological integrity should be maintained at that level.

[Al Speyers]

It would be wonderful if you could find the precise wording to prevent unwarranted development of and within our greenbelt without impacting its ecological integrity. Our concern is that an argument could be made that we are still preserving the ecological integrity if we're allowed to do this and that, because the land is of lower ecological worth, value, or significance.

So perhaps you and your committee could find a wording to enhance protection from unwarranted development, loss of land, and especially its contiguity and wholeness as it is now. The link is very fragile because there are new proposals to break that contiguity.

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

Okay. Thank you, sir.

Mr. McDermott is next, and then Mr. Murray.

I carefully read your brief. I noticed that you had put a lot of energy into it. However, I don't think you have a lot of suggestions, but you do have a lot of criticisms.

I find it hard to constantly look back in the rearview mirror. I prefer to look ahead.

Mr. Murray, you've worked with Senator Spivak.