REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE |
Thursday, June 13, 2002 |
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
has the honour to present its
NINETEENTH REPORT
Your Committee, to which were referred the 2002-2003 Estimates, has in obedience to the Order of Reference of March 6, 2002, examined the said estimates, more specifically, the National Capital Commission and herewith presents its fourth interim report.
Respectfully submitted,
Chairman
Original signed by
Lowell Murray
REPORT ON THE NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has turned its attention recently to the activities of the National Capital Commission as the Committee presented its First Interim Report on the 2002-2003 Main Estimates on March 19, and during the testimony of the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, President of the Treasury Board on May 29, 2002. On June 11, the Committee heard testimony given by the Chairman of the National Capital Commission, Mr. Marcel Beaudry.
In the Committee’s First Interim Report on the 2002-2003 Estimates the Committee noted that the National Capital Commission was seeking additional appropriations of $34.2 million, most of which was designated to be spent on real estate management. The Committee also set out the need for assurances from the Commission that the “legitimate planning concerns of local governments be given proper weight in the decisions of the Commission.”
Both of these matters were addressed by Senators during the appearance of Minister Robillard on May 29. Questions were raised regarding the Commission’s dealings with surplus lands including what constitutes justification when a declaration is made by the Commission that certain lands are surplus to its needs. The Committee was told that since 1992, the Treasury Board has allowed the Commission to sell surplus lands with the proceeds being used “to help fund their capital and maintenance requirements and to allow them to acquire other essential property.” Senators expressed concern that the policy placed the Commission under extraordinary pressure to sell property. Senators asked questions regarding the process by which properties are declared surplus. The Commission’s corporate plan does not contain the level of detail necessary to determine the reasoning behind the designation of land as surplus or the methodology used to arrive at the decision.
Senators are concerned about two related aspects of the operations of the National Capital Commission. First, there does not seem to be a requirement for consultation with the public, concerning either the disposition of land by the Commission or when changes are proposed in the use of land held by the Commission.
Second, Senators are concerned
with the policy that permits the disposal of property declared to be surplus
with the result that the proceeds of payment to the Commission go directly to
finance capital maintenance by the Commission.
1.
Public Input
All Canadians have a direct interest in the open lands and assets held by the National Capital Commission. The Committee believes the Commission holds these properties in trust for and, on a fiduciary basis, on behalf of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Decisions of the Commission relating to the disposition of these public lands affect all Canadians. As the Commission points out in its Corporate Plan 2001-2002 to 2005-2006 it acts “as steward and manager of federal lands in the National Capital Region.” Its first strategy is to “protect natural lands.” In fact, in its Annual Report 2000-2001, entitled Towards Renewal, the Commission states that its first objective is “to plan the orientation, use and development of federal lands in the National Capital Region in consultation with other planning jurisdictions, to ensure that their evolution is consistent with the image, character and quality of life in the Capital.” As the single largest landowner in the region, the Commission should set the standard for public consultation when dealing with its real property assets.
Senators are aware that the
Commission’s new overall plan for the National Capital Region was the subject
of four open house presentations and was widely distributed in 1999, but it is
our view that when specific parcels of Commission land are being dealt with,
specific public input should be required. Indeed,
the October 2000, Report completed for the National Capital Commission entitled Enhancing
Relations is quite critical of the Commission’s efforts to involve the
general public in its activities.
Under
a heading entitled The Consultative Process of the NCC, the Report
states:
Throughout the interviews, the
polling and the focus groups, one key issue surfaced regularly – the nature of
consultations carried out by the NCC. A
number of those interviewed observed that while the NCC regularly undertakes
highly-organized “consultations” – with beautiful charts and graphics on
display and experts on hand to explain things – those attending the sessions
often perceive the session as more of “here’s what we want to do” rather
than true consultations.
The single, central message
out of the focus groups was a strong and clear desire for “meaningful
input”. In other words, they were
seeking an opportunity to be heard and, ideally, have influence – something
most participants did not feel was provided in the way NCC currently consults.
What all of this says, in our
judgement, is that much of the concern about the NCC being secretive and
operating from behind closed doors could be resolved by providing interested
members of the public with a “real” opportunity for input through various
consultative mechanisms.
The public has the right to
comment and participate in decisions of the Commission which affect the
Commission’s land holding.
Recommendation 1
We recommend that the National Capital Commission develop a meaningful public consultation process which would apply to either the disposal or change of use of property held by the Commission.
2.
Proceeds
from the Sale of Assets
Senators are concerned, that as a result of the Treasury Board policy which allows the Commission to use the sale of its assets to partially fund its capital budget, undue pressure to dispose of assets is brought to bear on the Commission. The 2000-2001 Annual Report of the Commission illustrates that $15.8 million of its total revenues of $43.0 million came from the disposal of capital assets – mainly land. This is an untenable position for the Commission, which holds its assets in trust for all Canadians.
The Commission should not be selling assets to offset the ongoing capital expenses of the Commission. If the Commission needs money, it should bring its case to Parliament requesting the necessary funds.
The Enhancing
Relations Report, already referred to, says that many people who were
interviewed regarding the Treasury Board policy believed it to be no longer
appropriate. This Report
recommended that the Treasury Board rescind its 1991 Real Asset Management
Funding strategy so that the Commission could decide how it should deal with its
lands without the “major pressure to dispose of land just to raise operating
cash.”
Recommendation 2
We recommend that the Treasury Board rescind its
1991 Real Asset Management Funding Strategy as it relates to the National
Capital Commission and that monies received by the Commission for the sale of
surplus assets be directed to the Consolidated Revenue Fund as these were assets
held for all Canadians.
Recommendation 3
We recommend that the National Capital
Commission approach Parliament through the Treasury Board for the necessary
resources should the Commission require such monies to effectively operate and
manage its real estate assets.
Senators
also discussed the issues surrounding the Commission’s rezoning application on one property known as the
Moffatt Farm. The NCC wants the
Moffatt Farm rezoned to allow for the building of a major housing development.
Ottawa City Council has refused to rezone the land for residential
development, wanting the Moffatt Farm to remain parkland.
The NCC has appealed the City Council’s decision to the Ontario
Municipal Board. Senators believe
that the Commission needs to be more responsive to the views of the Ottawa
community on this matter and consequently, the Committee recommends that:
Recommendation 4
The appeal of the National Capital Commission before the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the rezoning of the Moffatt Farm be withdrawn.