Transport Committee on Oct. 28th, 2009

[Marie Lemay]

There is a lot in that question.

I've often heard the Gatineau Park and the greenbelt referred to as the two lungs of the capital region. They are really two very important assets in the region. We consider them both national treasures that we have the mandate to manage and take care of.

In terms of the greenbelt, we certainly have control over the land we own. When a municipality or a city owns land within the park, or when private owners own land within the confines of the greenbelt or the master plan, the Gatineau Park, then you have municipal jurisdictions. That goes to two things. First, that's why it is so extremely important to have that collaboration with municipal governments, and I have to say that so far it's worked very well. Only on very rare occasions would we not agree on a designation of lands within our boundaries. It also goes to acquisition, to the NILM concept. If you consider that lands are essential to the mandate of NCC to build a great capital for Canadians, then you should identify those lands, and when the seller is willing to sell and the money is there from the buyer, you should acquire them, because you've identified that the lands are important, and then you have control over their destiny.

I would like to pick up on the process for the greenbelt master plan review. The greenbelt master plan that we have right now dates from 1996, so it's old, and things have evolved quite a bit. We've started the process; we're at a very exciting stage, the vision stage, which has precipitated a lot of interest. We've had a lot of participation from the public and from the different municipalities. We have an international symposium coming up. I am very hopeful that the result of this review, which is due in 2011, will give us an up-to-date 21st century greenbelt master plan with a strong vision for the future.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

We've invited the Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec to this committee, and they're not going to attend because they're comfortable with the work the NCC has completed and the act that's before Parliament.

There was a lot of collaboration with the NCC on the act. Going forward, are you completely satisfied that the tools are there so that you can do that better job that Canadians can be proud of and buy into, and that you can also protect the natural assets of the national capital region while also having a place for people?

I always feel that there are two aspects to areas like this. There's the passive park and there's the active park. One is focused on participation of the public so they feel as if they're part of this. Then there's also the passive side, which involves protecting habitat for wildlife and preserving the natural setting. With the act the way it is and the work that has been done, do you feel comfortable that you can move forward now with confidence, aside from needing more money?

[Russell Mills]

I'll take on the governance part of it.

First, thank you for your comments about openness. We're very pleased with what's happened. The new tool in the act, as far as that's concerned, is the removal of the spending authority limits. It will make us similar to other crown corporations. Over the past couple of years, it's been a bit frustrating to me that we've had to do a lot of these acquisitions through an in camera meeting because the prices were beyond our spending authority. I think it will be part of building a capital that will allow people to see what we're doing and see that we're very active in acquiring property and building up Gatineau Park. Again, it will be much more open, so I'm very much looking forward to that in the new act.

I'll let Marie comment on the other parts of your question.

[Marie Lemay]

I was just going to say that if you do a search in the act as it was, there's not even a mention of environment, but if you look at the amendments now, there's a lot of environment and ecological integrity in there. For us it is right in line with where we want to go. What it means to us is that no matter who is sitting in these chairs, that's where we're going as the nation's capital. It is a huge step forward.

In terms of the plan for Canada's capital, I think we should not underestimate the importance of government having to approve this. We see it as very important, because it will give it a whole other level of attention. Let's put it that way.

Giving us the tools in terms of regulations is very important too, because although it's nice to talk about the environment, you're stuck if you can't have regulations to enforce your policy. This act addresses that aspect, so the answer would be yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Proulx.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lemay, regarding the 17% area in the Canada-Quebec exchange that you mentioned, the transaction has never been finalized. The land belonging to the Quebec government that was assigned to the Canadian government still belongs to the Quebec government and vice versa. The CEGEP is built on land that belongs to the Canadian government and the land that belongs to the Quebec government that you accepted in the park still belongs to Quebec.

[Marie Lemay]

Actually, the agreement transfers control and management. As far as we are concerned, this agreement has been finalized. The control and management of the land must obviously have been handled because, as you say, the CEGEP was built. We manage the land, but we still have to transfer the deeds of this property. In the registry, the NCC still owns the CEGEP land, and vice versa. That is the only part that remains to be done, and we are working hard with the Quebec government to get it done.

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

All right.

My other question is about the park boundaries. I asked the committee for a map showing the details of the park. We were given an 8.5 x 11 sheet showing the National Capital Region, which did not help us very much. Then we asked for a bigger map and they sent us the same one, except that it could be projected on a wall, which did not help us either.

Are we right to say that the 36 pages of the bill that give the local description—that only my lawyer friend can understand—really represent the boundaries as determined by the board of directors? I believe that this happened on three occasions: 1960, 1997 and 2008.

[Marie Lemay]

Actually, the 1960 and 1997 boundaries are not exactly the same, but the 1997 and 2008 boundaries are.

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

They have evolved over the years.

[Marie Lemay]

The 1997 and the 2008 boundaries are the same and they are set out in the technical description that is attached. The description was prepared by land surveyors; I did not do it myself. One of the reasons why the process is so long is that there is a part of the Pontiac region that has not yet had its cadastre updated. We are still discussing portion of lots, and it gets very complicated. This is why you have all those pages.

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

Proposed subsection 10.4(2) begins as follows: “The Commission shall give due regard to the maintenance of the ecological integrity ...”. If we changed that to: “The Commission shall give priority to the maintenance of the ecological integrity [...]”, would you agree?

[Marie Lemay]

I will give you the same answer as before. Our only concern is for the management of the Park. Priorities must be determined. Does that mean that there will be no investments in physical facilities for the park, such as the visitor service centre and other places, and that all the funds will be devoted to environment stewardship?

However, we do agree on the definition of park maintenance or restoration.

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

Mr. Mills, speaking of ecological integrity, how will you react when we come forward and suggest very strongly that maintaining the ecological integrity of the Gatineau Park must also be applied to all other NCC properties, such as the greenbelt in Ottawa, and all lands of national interest?

We have been talking about a master plan for the greenbelt. We've had witnesses in front of us saying that the greenbelt for the longest time hasn't had an official standing as such, and residents of Ottawa would appreciate knowing that the greenbelt is--I can't use the words “poured in concrete”, but basically that's what they're looking for. How would you react if we were to say to you, in the bill, that this ecological integrity must also be applied to the greenbelt and other properties?

[Russell Mills]

This has been studied in detail by the NCC staff, so I'll let Ms. Lemay comment on it.

My comment would be that the greenbelt is a much more diverse area than Gatineau Park. It contains many different things. There's leased agricultural land. There are very environmentally sensitive lands, a wetland called Mer Bleue to the east of the city. There's an international airport. Nortel has a leased property there. So applying one standard like that to the entire greenbelt would pose great difficulties, I believe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll have to ask Ms. Lemay to comment. We're way past the time now.

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

Really, it's so interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Lemay, do you have any comment on top of that?

[Marie Lemay]

It's a really tough question, Monsieur Proulx, because we do have some very important sensitive areas in the greenbelt, like Mer Bleue, which has an international designation, a Ramsar designation, that we do maintain with the highest level of protection of the ecosystem. But, again, to apply that ecological integrity concept to the greenbelt, in our mind, is not feasible, because of....

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

There's nothing now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like you to clarify the situation further. The CEGEP is on NCC land, that is, federal territory. In consideration for this, the Quebec government exchanged land with the NCC. Is that correct?

[Marie Lemay]

We have to be careful what words we use.

An agreement was signed in 1973 governing the transfer of land control and management. This agreement included an exchange of management and control responsibilities. The NCC owned land situated among other places, on Mont-Bleu Boulevard, and the Quebec government owned land in Gatineau Park. The agreement provided for an exchange of the control and management of these lands. That was done, and that is the situation today.

In practice, it's as if we were owners. We manage that land. If an accident occurred there, we are the ones that people would probably come to. I suppose that the Quebec government does not consider itself our tenant, and indeed, we charge very little rent. So for us, it's a fait accompli, we simply have to finalize the paperwork.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

As concerns what Mr. Proulx said earlier, I think we agree. It's just a question of wording, but God knows how important wording is in legislation.

Our intent was to ensure that the Commission ensures preservation and—this is a word that did not appear in the text—restoration. This concerns the proposed section 10.4(2). The aim is to place special emphasis on ecological integrity. So this is an additional obligation. It's simply motherhood and apple pie. That's why we expect everyone to agree. However, the money needs to follow.

[Marie Lemay]

If you want to add the words "or restoration," we would agree.