Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the
Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 4 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 9, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which were referred Bill C-7, to establish the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, and Bill S-6, to establish a National Historic Park to commemorate the "Persons Case", met this day at 8:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator Ron Ghitter (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: This morning we are starting our examination of Bill C-7, an act to establish the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park.
Mr. Tremblay, please begin your presentation.
Mr. Laurent Tremblay, Executive Director, Quebec, Parks Canada, Canadian Heritage: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the presentation is to provide an overview of Bill C-7 and to outline the key elements that represent another step towards the implementation of the unique 1990 federal-provincial agreement to create a marine park in the area where the Saguenay River and the St. Lawrence Estuary meet.
[Translation]
Further to the federal-provincial agreement of April 6, 1990, with the province of Quebec, legislation is required to establish the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park. Since the governments agreed to co-operate in exercising their respective jurisdictions, to the extent possible, the two governments must, in accordance with their respective jurisdictions, pass legislation that is required to create and manage the park.
The marine park covers a natural and cultural zone whose riches and diversity have long been acknowledged by both the local and international communities as requiring greater protection. This zone serves also as the habitat for several marine mammals, particularly the St. Lawrence beluga, a threatened species, but also a major attraction, making this region an important tourist destination.
The provincial government continues to look after the administration of the seabed and the sub-soil resources, whereas the federal government is in charge of the water column covering these resources and exercises its legislative authority over the marine resources and maritime transportation activities taking place within the territory.
In 1990, the two government levels, namely the provincial and federal governments, agreed to go ahead, within the limitations of their respective jurisdictions, with legislative measures designed to protect the park's resources.
The legislative measures provided for in the National Parks Act and those proposed by the legislation on marine conservation areas are not applicable to this marine park.
Second, the National Parks Act and the legislation proposed for marine conservation areas stipulate explicit control over the lands, seabed and federal marine conservation area resources. In addition, the National Parks Act regulations do not adequately fulfill the conservation and utilization requirements of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Maritime Park.
[English]
The purpose of the legislation is to establish a marine park to increase the level of ecosystem protection and to provide a legislative base for the administration of the park, including regulation-making authority for areas not covered by other federal statutes. It increases, for the benefit of present and future generations, the level of protection of the ecosystems of our representative portion of the Saguenay Fjord and the St. Lawrence Estuary for conservation purposes while encouraging their use for educational, recreational and scientific purposes.
The proposed legislation provides a comprehensive legislative base for park management and will apply to resource protection and park-use activities not specifically addressed by other federal legislation.
This bill will complement existing federal statutes such as the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Migratory Birds Act and the Canada Shipping Act. Together with existing laws, it will enable the federal government both to provide strong and complete protection for the park's ecosystems and to manage access and use.
Since the sea bed is under the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec, but the activities in or on the water column, including fisheries and shipping, are under federal jurisdiction, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park will be established by passing two separate but complementary statutes, one provincial and the other federal. The concept is a single park under two separate jurisdictions based on hand-and-glove legislation.
[Translation]
In the main points of the proposed legislation, there are provisions to define the marine park boundaries and to draw up zone categories within the marine park.
Clause 5 provides mechanisms and guidelines to increase or reduce the area of the marine park; gives the minister appropriate authority in order to manage the park and to enter into agreements with other ministers; provides for the drawing up of a management plan and provides for public consultation opportunities; gives the authority to issue permits for the control of activities; gives the required authority to park wardens, peace officers and enforcement officers; stipulates the implementation of a harmonization committee to provide federal and provincial government managers with a forum to enable them to harmonize their administrative and operational activities; calls for the implementation of a coordinating committee to provide community members with a forum that will allow them to provide advice and counsel to federal and provincial ministers responsible for the marine park; and finally, provides the Governor-in-Council with the legislative authority to make regulations, notably for the protection, control and management of the park.
[English]
Senator Kenny: The area covered by this park has also experienced severe flooding in the past year. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: The floods occurred much further upstream from the territory covered. Obviously, the La Baie area was affected, but outside the park. The park felt the impact during the water runoff. Some debris was carried along the Saguenay and was recovered partially by people who live along the banks of the Saguenay and by park wardens. The impact was not necessarily major.
[English]
Senator Kenny: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I do not understand the chart clearly. As I read it, it goes up as far as Sainte-Rose-du-Nord. It was my impression that on this map the flooding is the dark area covering all of the park. You are telling me that the flood actually occurred in an area not on this map but farther up?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: We talked about a major impact on the region. The most hard-hit regions were upstream of the park and not in the park itself because there are not necessarily any houses in this area.
[English]
Senator Kenny: However, my question was whether the park would take on the responsibility in future of mitigating flood problems in this area? Would it be part of the park's mandate to assist in that mitigation?
Mr. Tom Lee, Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Canada, Canadian Heritage: No, that would not be the case. The flood would come from Quebec lands, tributaries, rivers and so on. This is really a basin that receives flood water. If material came into the park area, we would be involved in the clean-up in that area.
Senator Kenny: The effect of this park is separate from flood mitigation and the two separate issues are being dealt with in separate ways?
Mr. Lee: That is very much so, yes.
Senator Hays: I am encouraged to see the cooperation of the two levels of government in the creation of this marine park and the adjacent conservation area. Putting this issue into the larger perspective of our overall objective of setting aside parks and wilderness areas, this committee did an earlier report under the chairmanship of Senator Carney in which we studied Canada's goal to set aside a certain percentage of land that would represent the various eco-systems in our country. I am wondering whether this issue plays any role in that.
It is my impression that, until recent times, we had not done much in terms of setting aside marine areas as parks, although I was involved with a number of energy companies on the West Coast in announcing the dedication of land for a large marine park.
Can you put this particular initiative in perspective with our overall objective for parks and with the progress being made on setting aside marine parks?
Mr. Lee: It is best to think of this in two different ways. Regarding the land area of Canada, the government, since 1885, has had programs in place to establish national parks. Those parks are essentially established on land. There is an objective, to which Senator Hays has alluded, to complete the land component of the national parks system by the year 2000 if possible. We are advancing on that and working very hard. A number of negotiations are in place at this point in time and I have those details.
The non-land component, the oceans component, involves us here today. This is the beginning of a parallel to Canada's national parks system. Eventually, as many as 29 national marine conservation areas will be set aside. Two years ago we released the national system's long-range plan outlining the composition of national marine conservation areas.
As has been announced by the government, it is the intention to bring in comprehensive legislation for national marine conservation areas somewhat along the line of the comprehensive legislation for our national parks.
A number of areas have been created. The first involvement of the federal government in the protection of water areas was at Fathom 5 in the Bruce Peninsula. We have a national marine park there. We have an agreement to establish a national marine conservation area, as just mentioned by Senator Hays, involving the donation of land by the gas companies. The Saguenay is another piece of the bigger plan. We have begun a long-range program to conserve areas in the oceans and on the Great Lakes.
Senator Hays: You mentioned the year 2000 as a target date for the land portion. I missed the target date on the marine portion.
Mr. Lee: It is only beginning. Our short-term target is to work on six areas to the year 2000. At that point we must evaluate our longer-term plan.
Senator Hays: Clause 16 of the bill establishes a coordinating committee, which is responsible to the federal and Quebec ministers. How will Parks Canada in this case relate to the surrounding community or to the people directly affected by the existence of the park? I am familiar with the new initiative of Parks Canada in Alberta, the Bar U Ranch National Historic Site. Will the relationship of this coordinating committee be anything like the Bar U Ranch relationship to the community?
Mr. Lee: In national parks and national historic sites we have various relationships with communities. Some take the form of permanent advisory committees. For instance, in our relationship with aboriginal people in the Arctic, we have created both standing committees and advisory committees.
In national historic sites like the Bar U Ranch, we have situations that are a little different in that they very much act as co-sponsors of the park and are actively involved in promotion, interpretation, education, fund raising and so on. That is another form. However, the marine park proposed in Bill C-7 is unique owing to the form which the committee takes, because it is a park that involves many communities. That is something that will vary from place to place as we establish new marine conservation areas and marine parks.
To give you a direct parallel, we are also working on one at this time in the Bonavista area, which involves about 100 communities of various types. The relationship with communities in the marine parks system will be quite distinct from the national parks' relationship because of the nature of the program.
Mr. Tremblay, perhaps you could comment on the specific work of committees in this area.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: One of the reasons why we had to develop the coordination structure stems from the fact that the park covers 1,200 square kilometres, including four regional county municipalities, 26 municipalities and some ecological organizations. We were also working on a sector where the scientific community had interests.
Since the bills, in creating the marine park, covered only the water column, it was essential that we find a way to harmonize development outside the park in a manner which would enable us to meet objectives and provide visitors with a variety of experiences while maximizing the potential of all administrative regions. At the same time, a forum would enable us to manage the issues surrounding the creation of the park and to reach a consensus on the way to proceed and on the schedule for creating the park.
[English]
Senator Hays: As a final comment, Mr. Chairman, the development of relationships with those in the vicinity of the parks is a healthy and positive aspect of the culture of Parks Canada. I know it is sometimes a difficult relationship, because inevitably there is a political aspect to it when you are dealing with a larger number of people than simply running a park in the way in which Parks Canada would prefer. This is a laudable objective, particularly because it involves two levels of government and the communities in the way that you describe.
Mr. Chairman, when this process matures a little more in the Parks Canada environment, it might be interesting to do some follow-up to see how it is going.
The Chairman: I should like to pursue that point. I am intrigued by the precedent which is set, in a way, within our parks system. Has each of the municipalities agreed to this? Have they approved this? Have they voted on it? They are very much impacted by what is happening here. I should like to understand how you brought the municipalities, towns and villages into this.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: I should mention that, right from the start, public consultations were held in the area to make everyone aware of the issues. First of all, these consultations were based on the principle that a park was to be created. Given the fact that this was a federal-provincial park, these consultations had to be conducted in accordance with the provincial formula, namely, consultations on the boundaries of the park and on the conservation objectives associated with creating the park.
For several years discussions had been ongoing with the various municipalities and each municipality had an opportunity, through its town council proposals, to support the project as such.
Since this was a federal-provincial park, the provincial component also conducted its own consultations and went about seeking the support of the municipalities for the project. First of all, this is a project to conserve and protect the natural environment. It is also an important tourist development project. The objectives contained within the management plan define some more specific objectives for each of the municipalities. Accordingly, it was in the interest of all of the communities to get involved.
Recently I met with a municipality that had not been included as an attraction or hospitality site. For the past six months, this municipality has been making representations to have its name put on the management plan.
It is important that you understand that, right now, the fact that we are talking about the possibility of creating a national park has attracted a great deal of attention. More than 200,000 people visit the region during the summer season. In winter, winter or ice fishing attracts more than 100,000 visitors.
Outfitters, municipalities and the other federal departments have agreed to manage the activity. The process of creating the park is already having an impact on the way that we manage resources and activities within the park boundaries. I think that getting people to buy in to this idea has been an exercise in patience, an exercise in making people aware and of getting them involved.
[English]
The Chairman: To be more specific, let us assume for a moment that you have your zones and you wish to put particular land uses in those zones; let us also assume that there are things you may or may not do. Assume that the municipality disagrees and says to you, as you are going through your zoning, "We disagree with that." What is your expected method of dispute resolution in the event you come into a conflict relative to zones within the area?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: At the outset, you must remember that when you talk about zones, you're talking about zones within the water column. We are not talking about land zoning. Under the current process, zones are determined in consultation with the various departments involved and communities will have their say through the coordinating committee. If someone does not agree with the zone, they can make representations. The message we are receiving right now leads us to believe that we will not have problems.
[English]
The Chairman: We must be dealing with some land masses here, though. Is it strictly all marine areas? Are there no adjacent lands? Are we speaking strictly of the marine aspects? Is that it? You are shaking your head.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: With a few small islands, but most of the islands are private property.
[English]
The Chairman: I see.
Senator Spivak: In our Library of Parliament information, Mr. Chairman, a description is given of the different responsibilities of the Government of Quebec, where they would retain ownership of the seabed and the subsoil resources and the Government of Canada would continue to exercise its responsibility over such matters as navigation and fisheries. However, existing laws would remain applicable in the park.
Further to the chairman's question, what existing laws are there that are not federal or provincial, or are there none? As to the municipalities, are there any laws governing the amount of fishing?
Mr. Jean Rhéaume, Legal Counsel, Department of Justice: First, I would draw the attention of the committee to the last page of the bill, in the annex, where we have the description of the limits of the park. At the end it states what the territory of the park excludes, and the second item is "all islands and islets". So it is really only water that we are dealing with, not land at all. Even the islands within the park are excluded from the territory of the park.
To come back to your question of what other laws apply, only the existing federal and provincial laws apply; so, for example, at present, if somebody were to go into the marine park and put in the water a substance deleterious to fish, that person could be prosecuted under the federal Fisheries Act. If somebody along the Saguenay polluted a river going into the Saguenay, that person could be charged under the Fisheries Act, if it affected fish, or under the Quebec Environment Act, if it affected just the quality of water within Quebec. All the statutes currently in force will be applicable. If we find they are not strong enough to protect the marine park, then we will resort to the federal regulations under this act.
Senator Spivak: Does that cover, for example, run-off, fertilizers, and things of that sort? I know that in other areas there are large disputes about this. If this is to be a park and there is to be deterioration of the flora and fauna or whatever, would that not clash with municipal laws in the land around it or with development, which would involve more population and things like run-off? Again, how would that be resolved?
Mr. Rhéaume: The issues you mention are under provincial jurisdiction, so the provincial government would take care of that. They would enforce their own laws. If we found it was not enough, then we would discuss the situation with the Government of Quebec, because before we make a regulation under this act we have to use the mechanism in the act, which is the committee of organization. Then we have to discuss the issues and say, "Look, this is not enough. We have to do something about it. We have to make a regulation." However, we would always consult with Quebec and the population of the area before making regulations.
Senator Spivak: Do you feel there are benchmarks for all the areas I have alluded to, such as development, run-off from farmers and the use of fertilizers?
Mr. Rhéaume: It would be the existing regulations, yes. If the current regulations dictate so many parts per million of a substance, that is what we apply.
Senator Spivak: I know my friend is thinking of Banff, for example, where development proceeds. Then what do you do? It is that kind of issue.
Mr. Tremblay: I would like to add something on the question of development. The Saguenay Marine Park has on each border a provincial park. When you talk about additional land development, there is no development.
Senator Spivak: It is forbidden?
Mr. Tremblay: There are a few small municipalities, but they are not in an area where you can have big developments. They are surrounded by provincial parks.
Senator Spivak: You have to forgive me. In my province, all kinds of development can take place in provincial parks, but in your province that does not happen?
Mr. Tremblay: No. We have a good opportunity here for the federal government and the provincial government to work together for the overall protection of the area.
Senator Taylor: Is camping allowed? Where the buoys are anchored, do you have boats in which people can stay overnight in either zone three or four?
Mr. Tremblay: Along the Saguenay, there are some marinas but they are all privately owned. They are subject to the regulations that will be passed for the park.
Senator Taylor: Are there regulations on shore or for camping that govern things like sewage?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Sewage water comes under provincial jurisdiction because it comes from the municipalities or facilities on the banks. Since the province is a partner in the creation of the park, it will no doubt make an additional effort to ensure that the surrounding municipalities meet the strictest requirements of existing legislation.
[English]
Senator Taylor: Do you think the present provincial or municipal legislation for sewage and dumping from marinas is sufficient to preserve the park, or could it poison the park?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Right now, I think that the incentives are strong enough to influence all of the partners. You must understand that all of these municipalities are sitting on the coordinating committee. The conservation messages adopted in developing the management plan and the management of park activities will have considerable impact and will be rectified as we go along.
[English]
Senator Taylor: With regard to the approval of the aboriginal or First Nations people, was it the Montagnais?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Yes, the Montagnais.
[English]
Senator Taylor: I notice they are on the joint management committee. Does that mean that they have agreed to the park and that there will be no land claims surrounding it?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: The Montagnais are currently involved in a land claim. Their land claim has not yet been signed. It has always been understood during the course of these discussions, that anything negotiated and signed as the final agreement, mainly the agreement that is being negotiated between Quebec, the federal government and the Montagnais, would automatically be included in the management plan as is done in all other cases.
[English]
Senator Taylor: Is it possible that the Montagnais would have a claim to this area? Have they put forward a land claim to the same park area?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Indeed, when you look at the park, you talk about the marine aspect. The legislation deals essentially with the marine aspect. We can foresee this being negotiated. We simply were not told that they wanted to make any claims with respect to the marine part. The only thing that we have agreed on with them is the following: everything that is negotiated as part of the overall agreement will be automatically included in the management plan. They sit on the coordinating committee and all of their interests are presented. They participate very actively in the activities of the coordinating committee.
[English]
Senator Adams: Mr. Chairman, when I first heard it was a marine park, I was concerned about future fishing. Is there any commercial fishing there right now?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Yes, as we said earlier, we will continue to enforce the existing legislation. However, there has always been an agreement with the departments that commercial activities would be managed so as to conserve and regenerate resources naturally.
The surrounding communities are very sensitive to this issue because they understand that it is the resources of the park that give it its raison d'être and we are asking them to be even more vigilant in managing the activities in order to preserve what is, for the general population, an important attraction, namely, the resources found within the park.
[English]
Senator Adams: I live in the Northwest Territories; there are quotas there for big game and commercial chartered fishing. Is commercial fishing going to be allowed in this new park? If so, who will make the regulations with regard to quotas? In the wintertime, more and more people are ice fishing. Commercial fishers have a quota, but there are also more tourists coming in to ice fish; so who will make the decisions? Will it be the municipality or Parks Canada?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: The federal government has an important role to play; in this case in particular, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. As I said earlier, public awareness was an objective. We therefore developed a method of managing ice fishing, involving: fisheries, outfitters, Parks Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We keep an up-to-date inventory of catches and every year, basing ourselves on the quotas caught, we try to manage this activity based on the reproductive capability of the stocks within the Saguenay.
In my opinion, the arrival of the park has generated some very positive activity. People have realized that by protecting the resource, they are also protecting their businesses.
[English]
Senator Adams: Are there quotas right now for tourists with regard to how many fish they can catch a day? I am referring to sports fishermen in the park. Are there quotas?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Winter fishing is based on a production level set by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Other types of fishing, including salmon fishing in the salmon rivers that flow alongside the Saguenay, come under provincial jurisdiction.
Winter fishing is therefore based on total catch quotas, by the pound, and not necessarily on a per fisher basis. The salmon rivers that border the Saguenay come under provincial legislation and our fishers are entitled to one salmon per day. All of the management activities for the main species are governed either by a provincial or federal law and the park wardens, through the authority that has been given to them, will be authorized to manage these activities.
[English]
Senator Adams: You mentioned natives. I know some places in the territories where natives are allowed to conduct business with the tourists and are allowed at any time to hunt in the park. Can the Saguenay Indians do that, or will they be governed by Parks Canada regulations? How will that work?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: The Montagnais have natural resource-based businesses, however, during peak tourist periods, and particularly when whale excursions are being conducted, they agreed to refrain from any activities that may constitute a danger, such as seal hunting or fishing in accordance with the Fisheries and Oceans Act. They have special permits, they have resource harvesting businesses, but this is all done in a spirit of mutual agreement and in understanding the prerogatives of each party.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Lee, I would like to explore the financial details of this arrangement that has been entered into. It has been estimated that the federal government has spent some $15 million with respect to a park that is not yet a park. First, what were those expenditures? Second, what are the contractual obligations of the two governments relative to this park?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: The park has been financed through various envelopes. Some money comes from the St. Lawrence plan, some comes from the Green Plan and some comes from regular budgets. The first two were used, for the most part, for all the research and all the studies required to create the park. We can easily imagine that a territory comprising 1,200 kilometres, with certain resource management challenges such as the belugas and the various species, does not come for free.
In addition, we had to set up equipment and create reception and interpretation centres within the region because, if you read the management plan, you will see that we had to, in the early days of the park's activities, show what the park was to be about and also explain its resources.
[English]
The Chairman: Has the money already been spent for those things?
Mr. Tremblay: Yes.
The Chairman: In anticipation of the park's becoming a reality, those visitor locations were already constructed?
Mr. Tremblay: Yes.
The Chairman: How do you do that?
Mr. Lee: We do that under Treasury Board authorization. As a park of this nature is developing and the idea is developing, certain expenditures have to take place. The resource has to start to be managed in a more intensive way, and there must be recognition of what you are doing.
Having received cabinet approval to proceed toward the creation of this park, then we go to Treasury Board for authorization for the expenditures required to put that in motion.
The Chairman: Even though you have no jurisdiction over the area whatsoever.
Mr. Lee: That is right. Under those circumstances, as indicated, we use existing laws, either federal or provincial. It is the same in the case of national parks. A number of national parks are functioning but are not formally inside the act at this point in time. An example might be Grasslands, where we are still buying land. That park is operating, even though it is not formally established. We use existing laws and regulations outside the National Parks Act in order to regulate.
The Chairman: If this legislation were not passed, where would that leave you?
Mr. Lee: It would leave us without some necessary tools. We do not have the power to zone at this point in time. We do not have powers to regulate boat traffic and users in order to keep them away from whales, and so on. We would be very much hampered in our management. We would be stuck where we are.
The Chairman: Is there documentation as to the respective financial responsibilities between the two governments in the future? Is that something that has yet to be determined?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: We took a different approach for future funding. The federal government is committed to spending 20 million dollars to create the park.
The Quebec government took a different approach and we will proceed on a project-by-project basis because the funding will come through partnership. Participating municipalities will also be included. Accordingly, in most cases, we could say that the breakdown will be 30 per cent from the federal government, 30 per cent from the provincial government and 30 per cent from the municipalities.
[English]
Mr. Lee: In direct answer to your question, there is no regulated formula. It is a partnership wherein people contribute. If it is a project that is fundamentally municipal, they would take the lead on it; if it is fundamentally federal fisheries, they would take the lead on it. The various parties are expected to play their part essentially within their own area of expertise and jurisdiction. It is not a formula-type of financing arrangement.
The Chairman: I do not understand that. It seems to me that the agreement between the two governments would involve sizeable expenditures and therefore there should be some formula for breaking down those financial responsibilities. Are we into a guessing game?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: I could give you an example. They decided that one of the park's reception centres would be in a municipality. It was decided that we would proceed on the basis of existing structures rather than coming up with new ones. Accordingly, we are going to use an existing reception centre. The money from the federal and provincial governments will be used to renovate the existing building so that it is better suited for the new activities connected with the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park. In this sense, everyone pays according to his participation. The existing management plan has determined the vocation of several municipalities. They will either be attraction sites or hospitality centres.
So the municipality makes an inventory of its already existing facilities. Together we will work on the best formula for making the service to be provided in the municipality accessible. The Marine Park Legislation merely protects the water column. Outside development, visitor accessibility must be done on existing land and this is municipal land which comes under provincial jurisdiction.
For example, Quebec and the federal government will share the cost of road signs 50-50. Some aspects have already been quite clearly set out. Based on the municipality's capabilities and its level of development, we already have some proposals; for example, Charlevoix wants a visitors' centre. It has a new building and has asked us to work on an exhibit that will explain the marine park.
[English]
The Chairman: Your notes show that you are anticipating $2 million from the Quebec government over the next few years and an annual provincial allocation of approximately $500,000 proposed for management and operations. What do you propose that the federal financial obligation will be in this regard?
Mr. Tremblay: Could you repeat the last part of your question?
The Chairman: Yes. The notes that I have before me show an expected contribution of approximately $2 million from the Quebec government for the protection of the marine environment. There is also a proposed annual provincial allocation of approximately $500,000 for the management and operation of the park. What is the proposed pro forma future federal obligation? Financially, what are you looking at from the federal government's point of view with respect to the park?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: At present, the current operating budget for the marine park is roughly $2 million per year. That includes everything: managing the park, the office, operating expenditures, equipment, boats, and cars, as well as normal administration.
[English]
The Chairman: I have an observation upon which you may wish to comment. Would it not have been better to have entered into a more definitive agreement so that the respective parties would understand their financial obligations, rather than to have left it open for further discussion or dispute or whatever might occur?
Mr. Lee: I do not think that there will be any dispute. All parties are operating within their own jurisdiction. For example, we will be responsible for patrolling on the water, along with other partners enforcing regulations. We will do that. That involves a cost to the federal government. The lines are quite clear.
On the other hand, there is no relationship between the amount of money spent there and the amount of money that, for example, Quebec might have to spend to operate the park land adjacent to the park. If it cost them $500,000 a year to provide those services, that is what they would spend. We might spend more than that on the water portion, but I think the roles are clear. The federal government is involved in the management of the water resource and all that that entails, including the application of regulations, looking after the visitor centres and interpretation, and helping to promote tourism.
As you move over into things like tourism, some of those roles become shared. Local organizations are involved in putting money into promoting tourism; so are provinces, and those programs will have to be dealt with on their own merits and according to the degree of participation that each partner wants to put into them.
The roles are quite clear in terms of who must do what. That dictates the amount of budget that any party would allocate.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lee.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Yes, you mentioned $2 million earlier: I am going to give you an example that will help you see how this all fits together. Part of the amount will be used to complete a trail on the ridges of the mountains that border the Saguenay River and also to build some lookout points. This is provincial land where we have no jurisdiction to invest money but the projects will serve to enhance the Saguenay River and to complete activities for people who cannot see the Saguenay River by boat. They will be able to see it by using the paths on the ridges along the Saguenay River.
[English]
The Chairman: We could get into a lengthy debate on this, but time does not permit us to do so. This is an interesting subject.
Senator Spivak: When I asked you about benchmarks, I did not get the answer I was hoping for, because I did not ask the question I had meant to ask.
How polluted is the area now? When whales wash up on the shore are they considered to be hazardous waste? How much of that can you clean up? What do you think it will cost?
I know there are different zones, but there are no regulations prohibiting mining, energy exploration or the production and passage of oil, gas and power transmission lines. That is all left in the dark. I do not know whether these two things are related, but you have a very polluted area. I thought that one of the ideas of having the park was to save the whales. Since the area is so polluted, could you enlighten me on that?
Mr. Lee: This may not be clear in the material. The land under the water column, which is provincial land, has been withdrawn. That is to say, mining will not be permitted in there.
Senator Spivak: In the water?
Mr. Lee: That is correct. If there is the need for a pipeline or underwater cable or something else, that would have to be considered and located on its own merits, taking into account the protection of the resource. The lands are withdrawn from exploitation.
The other point is well taken: We do not know the degree to which pollution may already have damaged, and may be continuing to damage, existing particular wildlife resources. As we are all aware, Canada and the United States have a joint problem in the Great Lakes and in the St. Lawrence River. It is a problem which the two governments, over the years, have been working cooperatively to solve.
This is not my area of expertise, but it is obvious that progress is slow. By giving this place special recognition, we hoped that the parties would work harder to try to conserve an important part of Canadian heritage.
Senator Spivak: Some people believe that whales will become extinct. My perception was that a major reason for this park was to try to save the whales. You are saying, "We hope."
Mr. Lee: I am agreeing with you, senator. That is the fundamental intention here. By giving this area special recognition it is intended that we will in fact advert people's minds to this task.
Senator Spivak: What is the federal government doing? What specifically will they do along with this project to try to save the whales?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: As I said earlier, the marine park project was initiated by a government program called the St. Lawrence plan. This plan contained a number of objectives involving businesses. That is one of the reasons why we thought about creating a marine park to protect the environment, which became a natural complement in raising business awareness. This is a huge undertaking, because the St. Lawrence ecosystem starts at the Great Lakes and includes several other tributaries on which we will need to do a lot of work. Studies were conducted on shrimp at the bottom of the Saguenay River. About 15 years ago, the shrimp were not at all fit for consumption and over the past few years, we have noted an improvement in the quality of the flesh of the shrimps. That means that within the next few years, we will probably be able to harvest this resource and market it. Steps have already been taken with a view to raising awareness of this. This is a long-term project, but it is off to a very good start.
To perhaps conclude my remarks on the St. Lawrence plan, we are currently working on a third St. Lawrence plan that should continue to raise awareness and make up for the wrongdoings, if I can put it that way, with respect to managing the environment.
Senator Spivak: Are there rules for businesses and are they in agreement?
Mr. Tremblay: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, gentlemen. You have undertaken an important initiative, and we wish you every success. We will be watching closely, because you may set precedents for similar activities throughout the country. Congratulations, and best of luck with this important work.
Honourable senators, is there any discussion before we vote on whether to report the bill to the Senate? If not, would it be appropriate to deal with this in one vote?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill be reported to the Senate without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.
We welcome Senators Kenny and Andreychuk to our committee. Please proceed with your presentation.
Hon. Colin Kenny: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to appear before this committee. I must say that the perspective is different from this end of the table. I have seen it once before, and I prefer it from your point of view. However, I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak briefly to the bill. Senator Andreychuk will also have some comments on the bill.
Everyone has available to them a small information kit which has been circulated around the room. In it you will find some supporting material which covers a variety of items in relation to the bill before you. The kit includes a schematic drawing which has no particular consequence other than that is how an artist at The Ottawa Citizen visualized the park might look if it ever came to be. It is simply one artist's conception of how a park might look on the Daly site, and it has no significance beyond that.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to address you on Bill S-6, to establish a national historic park to commemorate the "Persons Case". The 1929 "Persons case" was a landmark legal decision of national and historic importance which established that Canadian women were persons under the law and could be appointed to the Senate and other federal bodies. In addition, the "Persons Case" had a positive effect on society in general since it was a victory for any Canadian who has ever been disadvantaged due to race, religion, beliefs, or gender. Despite the great accomplishment of the "Persons Case", little has been done in the way of commemorating the national event. Sadly, few Canadians even know of the "Persons Case".
I should say as an aside that we have in the room Francis Wright, who will appear as a witness here momentarily. She has gone a long way toward acquainting Canadians with the "Persons case", and we applaud her in her efforts.
A national historic park in downtown Ottawa is a suitable place to honour the "Persons Case", and we believe it is time that Canadians heralded and honoured more historic events to reflect the numerous and diverse accomplishments of our citizens.
We believe this is a terrific location for a national historic park. A map is available in the room, although it may be difficult for most members to see. The park area to which we refer is at the intersections of Rideau Street, Sussex Drive, Colonel By, and borderis on Mackenzie Avenue. It is directly across from the National Conference Centre, the national war monument, the Rideau Centre, and the Château Laurier. It is bordered by the Royal Route.
The Daly site is in the core of downtown Ottawa, one of the busiest if not the busiest intersection in the city. The openness of the park would enable Ottawans and visitors to the capital to enjoy unobstructed views of the Connaught building and the Château Laurier. That is perhaps the real value of this coloured chart. You can see the view you would have of the Connaught building and the Château Laurier if this piece of property is not encumbered by a large building.
There is some value added to the location of a national historic park on the Daly site. On that same block, the American embassy is now under construction, and at the far end of the block is the peacekeeping monument. We visualize bookends at either side of that block, one end the peacekeeping monument and the other the "Persons Case" national historic park. We think it provides good balance.
Likewise, the park serves as a bridge from George Street in the market area to Parliament Hill. We see that from the perspective of tourists coming to the national capital. We visualize them going to the market to enjoy the colour, the entertainment and the recreation that area can offer, and we see them coming here to enjoy the history and the architecture of the Parliament Buildings. We see the park as a natural bridge between the two locations.
Having green space in downtown Ottawa is important. Being able to sit outside on a bench or on the grass is something people from all across the country will value and something which is useful to have right in the centre of the city, so we believe it important that the place not be encumbered with an office complex or further development.
I have available, and I would like to circulate it with your permission, Mr. Chairman, a fax which I received from a Mr. Dave Day, a former superintendent of Banff National Park and of Jasper National Park. Prior to that, he was superintendent of the Rideau Canal National Park which runs from the locks you see beside the Château Laurier down to Kingston. He is a retired but very experienced public servant who has worked for Parks Canada for decades. He comments specifically in this fax about the ability of Parks Canada to administer the site, specifically about how it fits with Parks Canada policy, and how it would be a waste if the Daly site were used for yet another office building. I regret that I did not include this in the kit which was distributed earlier for your consideration, but we received it after we had prepared the kit for distribution.
Finally, in your kit are 69 letters of support from parliamentarians in favour of this bill. I should add that we have not seriously approached members of the House of Commons about this bill. If we are successful before this committee and if we are met with favour in the other place, we will endeavour to obtain a corresponding amount of individual letters of support from parliamentarians there. There are several letters from members of the other place in the kit but, principally, they are from senators.
Senator Andreychuk: I thank Senator Kenny for this initiative. Until he approached me to be cosponsor of the bill I was quite unfamiliar with the proposed site for this park.
His request caused me to reflect on the meaning of "National Capital Commission", and I suspect that Canadians who do not live in this city rarely think of that. As I said in my speech in the chamber, I began to see that the National Capital Commission, and particularly the area around the parliamentary precinct, is very special to all Canadians. We should preserve as many sites as possible in this area for all Canadians to enjoy. Therefore, rather than building an office complex or some other building on that site, we should use it to commemorate an historic moment for all Canadians.
Since I arrived in this city I have been impressed with the number of Canadians and other tourists who come here not just for entertainment but to learn about our history. This bill, which would provide that the park be named after the "Persons Case" would establish this area for the enjoyment and education of all Canadians as well as others.
I would hope the National Capital Commission understands this perspective and shares our commitment to that Canadian perspective. I do not see this as an enhancement of the local area for local citizens but rather for Canadians who, once or twice in their lives, come to Ottawa to learn about our history and to reflect on this country.
The Daly site would honour the outcome of the "Persons Case." The Famous 5 Foundation is doing an admirable job in putting forward its view of the five women who took this case to the courts and on to the Privy Council. In many instances, a statue is erected to honour those who have served their community or country.
As a Western Canadian, I have reflected on what the "Persons Case" has meant to me and many other Canadians. The outcome of that case led to true democracy in this country. It signalled for the first time that Parliament was not an exclusive place but an inclusive place, first and foremost for women, to recognize their place, their needs, and their contributions.
The case also opened up a whole host of possibilities for other disadvantaged Canadians or Canadians who, perhaps, were not propertied and not in the mainstream of society. The findings in the "Persons Case" established that there would be no narrow definition of "persons"; that it would be an inclusive definition. As parliamentarians, we must be mindful of the rights of women, minorities and others when we talk about democracy.
If there were a park to remind us and future generations of this inclusiveness, it would enhance our history as Canadians.
Coming from the province of Saskatchewan, I am mindful of the fact that some provinces entered Confederation at a later time than others. However, I am also mindful of the fact that the "Persons Case" was a western initiative.
Visitors and Canadians are drawn to this area. They enjoy not only the architecture of this parliamentary precinct but they also take the opportunity to stroll past our peace monument at Confederation Square, take in exhibits at the National Art Gallery and wander through the Byward Market. It is important that we balance people and the environment. The inclusion of a park in this area, particularly a park with a "Persons Case" theme will only enhance the visitor's trip.
Parks are the result of the initiative and the commitment of Canadians to protect the environment. They are not only places of entertainment and enjoyment, they are also places where we can preserve the resources that we are fortunate enough to have in this country. Many parks, at least those in Western Canada, were built by Canadians who, in many instances, were not entitled to the privilege of enjoying parks.
I would recommend to anyone who has an interest in this subject the book Park Prisoners by Professor Weiser from the University of Saskatchewan. He does not dwell on guilt or recrimination but he points out that it was new Canadians who were interned during the First World War. Those of German background -- in fact, anyone who came from the countries which were at war with Canada -- despite the fact that they were Canadians, were interned in our parks. They, in large part, built our parks.
There were four significant groups of Canadians in Western Canada, including the Japanese, who were interned in parks, and they built this heritage for other Canadians. Any park site can be a tribute to them, if we highlight the contribution disadvantaged Canadians made towards the development of these historic sites. The name to be given to this park, "Persons Case", will recognize that all Canadians who contributed to the parks system in Canada should be honoured.
Finally, that park site could be used to accent other historic events. It is not a large space, but I am sure that attention can be drawn to significant events, perhaps on a rotating basis, or on special-event occasions.
I am mindful of an initiative of "the National Capitals"; an association struggling to draw attention to all of Canada's capitals. I am sure they could use the facilities of this new park to honour the history of, say, Halifax, Regina or Victoria. I see it this park as a place where we can be reminded of important historical events.
Although the area of the National Capital Commission has many parks within it, I think that most visitors only have the opportunity to visit Parliament Hill and the area immediately surrounding it. That being the case I hope that this area is protected as a park which commemorates the historical significance of the "Persons Case."
The Chairman: Senator Andreychuk and Senator Kenny, I congratulate you both on this initiative.
From a jurisdictional point of view, can you settle this question? Clause 2 speaks of the lands described as being "set apart... with like effect as though they had been set apart as a national historic park..." In his letter, Dave Day sets forth a shared concern that the required funds for maintenance are voted along with the bill or at least the source of those funds is identified, perhaps in a "friends" organization.
Is this a money bill? I would like your explanation in that respect.
Senator Kenny: Mr. Chairman, no, it is not a money bill. Backbenchers and senators are included in that regard. Money bills cannot be put forward without a Royal Recommendation. This bill does not require Royal Recommendation; it is not a money bill. There is no funding required in the bill anywhere. In the event that the bill passes, it would simply designate the site and it would indicate what the site could be used for. It would then be up to Parks Canada, in its vote, to take care of the funding.
I should point out that Parks Canada has a budget of $310 million for 1996-97. It is decreasing to $291 million in 1997-98. They currently administer, however, 55.4 million acres. We are asking for an increase to that of 1.1 million acres. We assume that the funding for that would come from the Parks Canada vote. Moneys for this site would be determined by Parks Canada in their future plans.
The Chairman: You say that this is not a money bill, even though passing it will necessitate increasing the budget for the maintenance of the park. I am not sure of the arrangements; who owns the park? Must any funds change hands as between the Government of Canada and the National Capital Commission? We will hear from them too, of course. In any event, you are saying that this is not a money bill.
Senator Kenny: In response to your question, first, the lands are held by Her Majesty. The ownership does not move from the National Capital Commission by virtue of this bill; the administration does. The two organizations do have working arrangements from time to time where they assist one another. You will find that Mr. Day refers to that in his letter. There is no requirement for Her Majesty to purchase something that she already owns. There is no money required there.
If you go through the bill, you will find that there is no requirement for any further spending in the bill. As a consequence, it is not a money bill. If the government chooses to leave it looking as it is, that is fine. That is their prerogative. However, this bill in itself does not require any further spending.
Senator Buchanan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate our two colleagues. In my opinion, this is one of the most unusual bills I have seen since I have been in the Senate. To preserve history and heritage is very important. Senator Andreychuk mentioned Halifax. Halifax is a prime example of the preservation and restoration of heritage, particularly in the most historic part of that city, the waterfront.
From the mid-1970s to the present we have restored, preserved and reconstructed the whole waterfront area, including the privateers' warehouses, the old pirate buildings and, further up from the waterfront, the buildings from 1800 and 1810.
My question is this: The Daly Building was one of the filthiest sights in downtown Ottawa. Now that it is gone, what is the National Capital Commission planning for that site?
Senator Kenny: With respect, Mr. Chairman, we have the chairman of the National Capital Commission with us and perhaps honourable senators could direct that question to him.
Senator Cochrane: Senator Kenny and Senator Andreychuk, I support your initiative. It is a great idea. I certainly would not want to see a highrise building in that particular area. I do not know what is anticipated. I do not want to see a commercial building. The words of Senator Andreychuk that this site should be part of the parliamentary precinct are appropriate. I feel the same way. I agree that events held on the site could demonstrate national unity as well as our cultural heritage. In that respect it could be a remarkable place.
Have you discussed this proposal with the NCC, senators? Could you just tell me, if you have, what their views are. Are they negative or positive toward this approach?
Senator Kenny: I approached the Minister of Heritage; she told me she chose to deal with the NCC at arm's length. We have just recently written to the NCC asking for its support. However, it is appropriate that the NCC speak for itself on this matter.
Senator Cochrane: Two questions arise. One deals with whether we should have a national park commemorating the "Persons Case", and the other deals with the site itself. Are these two questions under consideration, or is it taken for granted that the Daly site will be the site to commemorate the "Persons Case"?
Senator Kenny: The vehicle we have used for this legislation is the National Parks Act, which gives one the opportunity to create more national historic parks. So far, there are 786 national historic sites in Canada, 131 of them administered by Parks Canada, and there are 38 national parks. The act contains a provision for the creation of new parks.
We believe that this is an appropriate site and that this is an appropriate title for it. We have the marriage of a super location with a worthy cause to commemorate. It seemed like a good fit, and it coincides well with the Famous 5 Foundation's effort to erect a statue on the Hill.
Senator Hays: I congratulate you both on the idea of celebrating the "Persons Case" and on the use of this site. You have given a rationale for the site's being set aside as a park, but it is an unusual way of having this come about. Would you comment on how this fits into the overall responsibility of Parks Canada, the NCC and the City of Ottawa in terms of this federal body fingering a particular piece of land and saying, "This will be a park for the rest of time"?
Senator Kenny: In fairness, Mr. Chairman, what precipitated our actions was the well publicized information that the National Capital Commission was proceeding with requests for proposals to develop the area. We were aware that they were interested in having a certain setback. We were aware that they were interested in limiting the height of the development. Having said that, we noted that the height of the development of the American embassy precludes any view of Parliament Hill unless you are standing on top of the American embassy. The most those who live in the market area can see is the top of the flag. We also noted that the density of that area will be significantly increased. A great deal of parking for tourists and Canadians in the area is currently occupied by the American embassy site. Neither Senator Andreychuk nor I would object if parking were created underneath the proposed site, if that were the wish of the Parks Canada.
We chose Parks Canada to administer the site because they already have significant administrative responsibilities running along the Rideau Canal. They have demonstrated expertise in the number of historic sites that they have created and developed. You can see some marvellous sites right across the country. They have a good team of capable people. As well, they are respected and known from coast to coast as being an outstanding institution. We thought they were the appropriate people to proceed with it.
Senator Andreychuk: There are many ways to approach this. I was mindful that we were in times of restraint. The National Capital Commission, which will speak for itself, has a mandate, but not one that is unlimited either in its scope or in the resources it has. The people there are doing their job to the best of their ability. However, as parliamentarians, we have an obligation to take a broader approach; consequently, we came up with the idea of having a Parks Canada initiative, with all its advantages, right in the area where so many Canadians and others visit. We think the idea is unique, innovative, and should be tried. Perhaps there was a different way of approaching it, but that is the one we chose.
Too often Canadians think of parks as something outside cities or green spaces within cities. This is marrying the two ideas and protecting the environment. Perhaps this can be viewed as an educational tool. It will get more attention across Canada.
Senator Adams: I note that there is already a park behind the Château Laurier. Why do we need another park?
Senator Kenny: I believe you are referring to Major's Hill Park, which is behind and north of the Château Laurier. It does not have the same features, such as a bridge from the market to Parliament Hill, but it does provide good open space for viewing the Connaught building, the American embassy and the Château Laurier. This new site would give another perspective of the same buildings. It is on a key intersection. We think it is a far better alternative than an office complex or hotel or motel or something of that sort.
Senator Adams: That intersection handles a great deal of traffic. People often take their children when they go to a park. Will you be required to build a fence in the interests of safety? If so, will that affect the view? I understand the concerns about heritage and providing unobstructed views. Also, the Terry Fox memorial is right across the street. Is that a park too, or is it just a memorial? Is it good to have parks near such heavy traffic?
Senator Kenny: You have made a good point, Senator Adams; however, the park will reduce the density rather than increase it. If you put in office space, there will be more density rather than less. Parks Canada has some of the best parks and historic sites designers in the world. It is certainly within their competence to arrive at a design that will be safe, effective, and useful. I have great confidence in their ability to handle that.
Senator Adams: What does the NCC have to say about this?
Senator Kenny: The NCC's representatives are about to appear as witnesses; you will have an opportunity to question them in a moment, senator. This initiative endeavours to give the NCC the benefit of Parliament's views before they move ahead. I think that they are entitled to hear what parliamentarians have to say about this space.
The Chairman: Senator Kenny and Senator Andreychuk, thank you for your initiative. You have handled it well.
I would ask our next witnesses to come forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Beaudry, Chairman, National Capital Commission: I would like to give you a brief overview of the site that we are discussing this morning. The Daly building was built in 1905 and expanded in 1913. In 1921, the federal government announced its intention to buy the building. In 1977, the Minister of Public Works saw fit to close the building and in 1978 announced it was to be demolished.
The department subsequently changed its mind and issued a call for proposals in 1981. The only proposal involved converting the building into a multiple housing residence, but the proposal was not accepted by Treasury Board.
The National Capital Commission took over the building in 1985 and issued a call for proposals to the private sector to renovate the building. In 1988, the NCC granted a 66-year lease on the land to a consortium called CODEV Inc. that was supposed to propose a way of renovating the building so that it could meet the needs of the time.
Since the company was unable to meet the set objectives, the NCC served a default notice in 1991 and proceeded to demolish the building the same year.
The NCC now has a vacant lot for which it is responsible. The role of the NCC is to promote Canadian pride and unity in various ways. One of these ways is by planning development of the national capital in the short, medium and long term.
The NCC is also responsible for everything regarding the way federal buildings look. In other words, in the National Capital Region, our plans for modification, demolition, changes or construction must be submitted to the NCC for prior approval.
In this context, we are also responsible for 10 per cent of the land in the 27 different municipalities in the National Capital Region, which is enormous. The green belt, of course, is part of this land, which also includes Gatineau Park, the Ottawa Parkway, the Aviation Parkway, as well as the Colonel By and Queen Elizabeth Parkways along the Rideau Canal. Parks, too, are part of the NCC's heritage; they include Major's Hill park, Confederation Park, Jacques-Cartier Park, the Garden of the Provinces, and the Commissioner's Park.
In other words, the NCC owns almost all of the green spaces in the National Capital Region. It is not by chance that this region is considered environmentally friendly.
Over the years, we have tried to do what is best for the NCC. Our Crown Corporation, like other agencies and departments, has faced significant budget cuts over the past few years.
I became chairman of the NCC in 1992, and in the first two years, we faced cuts on the order of 7 to 8 per cent. Then, with program review, our operational budget was cut by another 26 per cent over the past three years. Program review II for 1998-99 will result in another $2.5 million being cut from our operating budget.
It goes without saying that it is our responsibility to continue organizing celebrations like the daytime and evening shows on Canada Day, Cultures Canada, Experience Canada for young people, Families in the Capital, the Quiz Program and Winterlude each year. That requires substantial resources. The NCC is very much aware of that fact and is trying to balance its budget as best it can.
Recently, there was a call for proposals for the Daly site. Why? Since I have been at the NCC, the economic context has never been conducive to doing anything for the Daly site. In 1992, 1993 and 1994, as you all remember well, we were in a recession and no one was interested in building anything; no one was interested in submitting any kind of proposal. At the time, discussions were held between the NCC and the city of Ottawa, Mayor Holtzman, the president of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, the business community, residents in the area around the Daly site, and advisors committees.
[English]
The consultations with these persons all took place at the time so that we could hear about their interests in the Daly site. Twice, a survey was done by The Ottawa Citizen, asking whether people in the area would prefer to have a park or a building constructed on the site. The answer was loud and clear: People preferred a park.
That was not surprising to us. If you ask people whether they want a park behind their home, I am quite sure that the answer will come out as a loud and clear "yes." So we were not surprised by the polls.
There is a "linkage committee" that is very active at the present time in an effort to link the Château Laurier to the Conference Centre, to the Congress Centre, to the National Arts Centre and to the Daly site, in order to facilitate larger conventions coming to Ottawa. There are plans to expand the Congress Centre site to accommodate larger conventions. The Daly site is pivotal and crucial in that linkage project.
We requested expressions of interest back in 1996. Eight responses were received, some from private individuals, others from private companies. Five were retained. In December 1996 we went to proposal calls to see what could be built on the Daly site.
When the Daly building existed, it occupied approximately 250,000 square feet, taking up all of the land on the site. It came up to the edge of sidewalk, blocking the view of the marketplace. When we asked for those proposal calls, we asked for the view of the market to be left open. The setback to Rideau Street would be bigger than the setback that exists at the present time. The view from the market to the Château would have to be preserved so that the Peace Tower could be seen, and the building itself was not to be more than 75,000 square feet. The proposal was for a much smaller building than was previously on the site.
We have also asked the proponents to provide us with underground parking. Originally, Senator Kenny had suggested that there was a parking facility on Sussex Drive of approximately 250 parking spaces. However, because the federal government was interested in acquiring the present American Embassy site in front of the Centre Block, and the NCC owned the parking site on Sussex Drive, which the Americans wanted, the government negotiated a trade with the U.S. In the negotiations between Public Works and the Americans, it was determined that the United States would acquire the site adjacent to the Peacekeeping Monument and that the federal government would acquire the present site of the American Embassy. That took away those 250 parking spaces. That is why, in the proposals we have called for, we have requested that underground parking be provided. It is imperative to replace the parking facilities that have been lost. Consequently, all of the proposals so far submitted have included underground parking. The areas outlined vary from 100 spaces to 450 spaces.
I received a letter last week from the American Embassy stating that, with their employees and the expected traffic, parking is a concern in that area and it would be very beneficial to have underground parking at the Daly site.
An estimate was made some years ago that 250 underground parking spaces would not necessarily be viable unless some activities were to take place over and above ground. That is how the proposal call came about. Within those proposal calls, there were different kinds of activities suggested, from office buildings and hotels to recreational areas and activities that would make the site lively 14 hours a day. That would add to the activities that do take place on Confederation Boulevard, however.
If the NCC were to approve a park on this site, that would represent some $3.5 million to $5 million worth of construction. That includes an amount of more than $500,000 that would be absorbed by the proponents should they be retained, since we are in conjunction with the RMOC proceeding to complete Confederation Boulevard for the year 2000 for its official opening.
Honourable senators will be aware that much work has been done on Wellington Street. As of 1998, Sappers Bridge and Plaza Bridge will also be rehabilitated. That will take a couple of years. Confederation Boulevard should be completed on Sussex Drive and on the Quebec side also so that the official opening takes place at that point in time.
It is in the proposal document that the successful proponent would be responsible for the whole area surrounding the Daly site.
We have received five proposals. They have been under study and were submitted to our advisory committee in November of this year. The committee went back to all five proponents with questions, because they were not satisfied with the details provided. The proposals are due back at the commission on January 13, 1998, and are expected to be resubmitted to the advisory committee in February; possibly, then, they will go to the board of the NCC by late March.
I must point out that no final decision on the site has been made. No proposal has been retained as such. We have questions on each and every one of those proposals. One thing is clear: if a building is built on this site, it will eventually provide for ample space for any monument that one would want to have on the site itself. It would provide an opening from the upper part of Rideau Street toward the market and it would certainly well serve the community that is there.
Senator Meighen referred to a resolution by the City of Ottawa saying that there was unanimity of desire for a park. I believe that was for a temporary park until such time as a building could be provided on the site. Mr. Émard-Chabot is here and he may have some comment on that.
I wish to reassure this committee that the NCC is very much interested in whatever idea will be brought forward to enhance Confederation Boulevard and that site. We are working towards further improvement to the capital. We have received many compliments on the way the capital looks, the way it has been maintained and the fact that it is environmentally friendly. There is that interest in the capital.
I must, however, stress the fact that, should a park be developed on the site, maintenance money will have to be found. We have recently done significant work to Major's Hill Park as well as Confederation Park. The rehabilitation of those parks cost more than $3.5 million to the commission. Surely we are not in a position on the capital budget to assume additional responsibility. If money were made available, it would be a different story; however, the NCC does not have that kind of money at the present time.
As a last word, we have met with the Mrs. Frances Wright. I met with her personally and I understand that the NCC met with her a couple of times. We provided her with five different site options on Confederation Boulevard for the monument that is promoted by this foundation. We do recognize the important issue of the "Persons case". That case has made, and will continue to make, history in Canada.
Some of the sites that were provided to the foundation were found to be very interesting although their first choice was still Parliament Hill.
I told Ms Wright that we were in possession of a document dated in 1988 which indicated that statue sites on Parliament Hill were to be reserved for Prime Ministers, Fathers of Confederation and the Queen. However, if Parliament decided that that is the place for the monument to go, who are we to say it should not go there?
At present, however, we have gone with the document and the study that we have. The sites that we have offered to the foundation for establishing this monument are prominent sites on Confederation Boulevard. Even if they chose to have it on the Daly site, it would be done in such a way as to ensure that the monument would be in plain view and would be exposed positively on Confederation Boulevard.
I wish to thank you for your attention, Mr. Chairman and honourable senators. I would be pleased to answer any further questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Émard-Chabot, Municipal Councillor, Bruyère-Strathcona Ward, City of Ottawa: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to clarify that although I am appearing at the same time as the NCC, I do not always fully agree with their positions on various issues affecting the capital and especially my ward. On the future and potential of the Daly site, I do agree with Mr. Beaudry.
Since I am not as well known as the other witnesses who have taken the floor this morning, I will quickly introduce myself. I was elected municipal councillor for the city of Ottawa in the ward where the Daly site is located. I represent 25,000 residents in the city of Ottawa. As part of my duties, I am a member of the board of the Rideau Street and Byward Market merchant groups. These groups are called business improvement areas and are made up of more than 600 merchants who also have substantial interests in the ward. I represent both the ward's residential and business components.
So at the start of my second mandate, I can say that the Daly site has caused much ink to flow, and it has attracted a lot of interest in the city. The site is of national interest because of its geographic location. It is next to the Château Laurier and a stone's throw from Parliament Hill.
The perspective I want to share with you this morning is the following: The Daly site is a key downtown location, in an urban setting that happens to be the national capital. It plays an important role, but also a very important urban role. This morning, I would like to talk about the street and the urban environment. In your debate on the Daly site, on the park to commemorate the "Person's Case", you must not forget the urban setting in which the site is located. The three topics I am going to cover are very short, as you have a very busy schedule.
First of all, I will address the idea of a park, or a public square, and indicate why, in my view, the site is not at all appropriate for that type of development, if you consider the site as a whole. I am referring to the entire lot and to why a public square is not an option.
Second, I will address the real, day-to-day requirements of merchants and residents in the ward where the site is located.
In conclusion, I will give you some suggestions that might answer your questions. I am not pretending to be able to put myself in your shoes, but I can offer you some avenues to explore.
Why won't a park work on the site? Instinctively, when we have a choice between a park and a building, our hearts lean towards the park. We want trees, grass, a healthy environment and the ability to feel comfortable in the city.
If you think about the size of a park, you will realize that a park is a place where people go to get away from it all. Major Hill's Park, on the banks of the Rideau Canal and the Ottawa River are places people go for walks, to ride a bicycle, and forget about their day-to-day routine. The Daly site is very small and surrounded by three of Ottawa's busiest main arteries. There are tens of thousands of cars and buses, and hundreds, if not thousands, of trucks using those arteries on peak days. This site, regardless of where you are, cannot easily let you forget about its urban setting. The Daly site does not fit the traditional definition of a park, where you expect grass, trees and an environment where people can relax with a book on a nice day. The environment is not suitable on that level.
Moreover, there are scores of people in the area on peak days. If you plan to put in grass, I can assure you that in a very short period of time, all you will have left will be weeds, if not mud. Because of the salt used during the winter, vegetation will have great difficulty surviving. Residents in the area have trouble seeing a park there.
Do we really need a site in that spot where people can go to escape their daily routines? Major Hill's park is barely a hundred metres away; Parliament Hill, the banks of the Ottawa River, the Rideau Canal, and Confederation Park are all within walking distance. For someone who wants to escape from the city and ends up there, in the middle of three major intersections, there are much better choices than that small plot of land.
If we set aside the idea of a park that simply won't work, let us examine the other option, if we want to keep the site open. A square, in my opinion, would have to be like a square in Europe. Europeans design them well. There has to be something else on the ground, you cannot put in vegetation.
For a square to work, there has to be a focus point and a framework. Let's look at the Daly site.
To the west, you have the side wall and the service entrance for the Château Laurier, which is closed after 6 p.m.
To the north is the very beautiful Connaught building, where the view is protected on the Major Hill's side. There is also the service entrance, the parking lot and the loading bay for the Connaught building. Here again, as a backdrop for a public square to commemorate something as important as the "Persons Case", it is not so hot.
To the east, you have the side wall of Chapter's and the Bank of Commerce, with no doors and only a few windows.
On three sides, there is nothing to attract attention and focus on the site. There is simply a vacant lot that reflects what the site used to be: a department store for more than a century.
So on that level, is a square an option? In my opinion, we need a better setting if we want to commemorate the "Persons Case" and other events that have made their mark on Canadian history. There needs to be a building in the background that serves as a framework and provides a setting for what we want to commemorate. At present, there is no setting. There are service entrances on each side, blank walls and three main arteries.
In your deliberations, try to think about what is going to happen there at midnight, at one o'clock, two o'clock or three o'clock in the morning, if we make the site an open public square. I can assure you that from a public safety perspective, an unplanned public area generally becomes a source of concern. The city has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on renovating and restoring life to the public areas like the mall on William Street. Now there is talk of redoing the mall on Waller Street for the same reasons. Will we be creating a refuge for the homeless? The number of homeless people has shot up over the past year and a half. This is a huge debate in the city. Many homeless people spend the night in Byward Market, because there is no room in the shelters. Are these people going to end up at the Daly site, sleeping on or under benches, or under trees? Is that the image of the capital we want to project?
As for the real requirements of Rideau Street and the business community, Mr. Beaudry, the Chairman of the NCC, talked about the "linkages" initiative.
[English]
The linkages initiative would connect the proposed Congress Centre to the current Rideau Centre in order to provide access to hotel rooms so that it could be marketed better during the winter months. We have good summer trade and convention business, but the winter months in Ottawa are not all that hospitable. If people organizing a conference have a choice between Ottawa and Texas, they unfortunately often pick Texas. We want to convince them that there is much to be said for having a conference in Ottawa. The linkages initiative is part of that, and this site is key to the that.
From a "streetscape" point of view, in the past, a building on that site provided access between the central area, Confederation Square, the Parliamentary Precincts, Rideau Street and the Byward Market. You could walk by as a pedestrian. It was a department store. In most of my days on this planet, and probably most of your days in this office, the building was vacant and derelict, but it did have life in the past. If you look at pictures, it created an amazing pedestrian link between the Hill, the Château Laurier, and the rest of the older city.
I think it would be a shame to waste that role and the potential of creating a space with an adjacent building, where you could have outdoor cafés and live events in the streets, connecting two parts of the city which right now are disconnected physically.
I do take some relief in hearing Senator Kenny mention that he is open to the idea of underground parking. The need for parking is more and more a pressing issue. The construction of the U.S. Embassy has taken away a great deal of parking in the area. The NCC has leased to a developer another piece of land which had been used for parking; so we are losing that site. A third NCC location is also up for development.
While we welcome the new construction, we do have to deal with the loss of parking. Going underground is something on which the city has been very keen. In fact, former Mayor Holtzman and I in meetings with Mr. Beaudry made it clear that we would support the City in investing funds in a facility to provide parking for that area. We would do that from our parking reserve fund.
In closing, I cannot argue with the intent of this bill. Senators Kenny and Andreychuk wish to commemorate something of great importance to us as Canadians. I am a lawyer by trade. I was a law professor before being elected to public office in 1994. I would always take great pride in teaching the "Persons Case" and the advances it had made in our history. From that point of view, I certainly cannot argue with its merits.
Wearing my city councillor hat, I have, for the reasons I have stated, great concerns about seeing that entire site being left open. There are two questions before you. As Senator Cochrane asked, do you as parliamentarians wish to have the "Persons Case" commemorated in a public fashion in the national capital? On that, I would wholeheartedly support you. Should it be done on this site? Certainly, it can be done on this site. Should it be done on the entirety of site? I would differ with that suggestion.
[Translation]
In conclusion, it is possible to commemorate the event that you are considering this morning. I think we can respect the spirit of the Act that will be debated in the Senate and eventually in the House of Commons. It can be done by respecting the city's requirements -- I am not talking about the city in the sense of the municipal structure, but on the urban fabric level -- and by creating a plaza in front of a building that could remind us of certain people and that could also commemorate, and I am throwing this out as an idea, Terry Fox, whose statue is presently hidden in the pedestrian underpass across the street from the Daly site. That space will be renovated and the statue will have to be moved. Where are we going to relocate Terry Fox, who is one of our national heroes? Why not make this plaza a place to pay tribute to Canadian heroes and heroines, and also erect a building that would meet the city's environmental requirements?
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, councillor, for your presentation. What is the size of this site?
Mr. Beaudry: It is 1.1 acre.
Senator Buchanan: Senator Kenny mentioned that you would be open to suggestions about parking. Both of you talked about the need for parking. There is no question that, with the American embassy opening, there will be a real need for parking in that part of Ottawa. Have you considered the idea of having a park with underground parking, using private entrepreneurs to develop and operate the underground parking? That would give the NCC revenues for the park, also including possible revenues for maintenance of the park.
There is a prime example of that in the city of Boston. Many of the people who enjoy the Boston Common, as I and my family have over the years, are unaware of the fact that it covers a huge underground parking garage. The only way to know the garage is there is to see the cars entering and exiting at the south end of the common. It brings in a lot of revenue. Much of that revenue is used for maintenance of the whole common.
Mr. Beaudry: As I stated before, there is a document proposing 250 underground parking spaces. That proposal makes no provision for any profit for the NCC because the cost of putting a parking lot there, in the solid rock, would be too high even to make it feasible, unless it were largely subsidized. It would become feasible if there were a building on top of it to ensure that the parking spaces would be used by the people occupying the building. I am not sure at this point in time that anyone would be interested in building only a parking garage on the site.
Senator Buchanan: Would the City of Ottawa give it any consideration as a municipal parking area?
Mr. Émard-Chabot: We have looked at it and we have had discussions about it at the political level with former Mayor Holtzman and Mr. Beaudry. The city's parking mandate is not to make money. We have a different perspective. Our reserve funds, when we build parking structures, are there to provide short-term and usually cheap parking for shoppers and people who come on business to the central area. The financial imperative from our end is certainly not the same as the NCC's. If we were to be a partner in this venture, our expected return would certainly be much lower. We lose money on some of our parking structures because we want to provide parking to our business constituents downtown.
Senator Buchanan: You are considering it, though?
Mr. Émard-Chabot: We are willing to entertain the possibility of investing money. We have spoken about a couple of million dollars at some point. However, as I said in my presentation, for other reasons I would have difficulty with the notion of keeping the whole space open.
Mr. Beaudry: Mr. Chairman, I think it was provided in the proposal call that the City of Ottawa could possibly look into subsidizing. That is why one of the proposals provides for 450 parking spaces underground. A parking structure of that magnitude would have to go underneath Mackenzie Avenue and would, of course, be costly to build. Surely, the proponents have taken that into account.
Senator Hays: Well, 1.1 acres and 450 parking spaces is a rather ambitious project; so is 250 spaces.
Mr. Beaudry: It is. I did not say we need 450.
Senator Hays: You did a study supporting 250 if you put 75,000 square feet of development on the site. I am wondering what it would look like. You would have to go down quite far.
Mr. Beaudry: You would have to go down quite far and it would have to go underneath Mackenzie Avenue up to the wall of the Château Laurier. It would not be done by us but by the proponent. Whatever the proposition or whatever the project is for the Daly site, it would not involve any money from the National Capital Commission or the government. It would be the builder's total responsibility, but it would be so under a long-term lease, because the possession of the property would remain with the commission. We are not interested in selling that site. It is on Confederation Boulevard and it has to be kept in the heritage of this country.
Senator Hays: You did a study that concluded that a 75,000-square-foot development, compared to the 250,000-square-foot Daly building, would support 250 parking spaces. Was that before the American embassy or after?
Mr. Beaudry: We did not make a study of this. We simply stated in our proposal call that the magnitude of the building should not be more than 75,000 square feet, with whatever amount of parking would come with the proposal. As I said before, one came in with 100 spaces underground. Another came up with 450 parking spaces underground. It was not a study by us but the proposals submitted to the commission that came in that fashion.
Mr. Émard-Chabot: We do periodic inventories of supply in the area. So far we have seen the disappearance of the parking area on the site for the U.S. embassy and we have lost two other parking lots which belong to the NCC, because they are going up for development. We are not yet at a critical stage, however. There is still a supply of spaces in the parking structures in the area, including the private structures there. There is room in the National Gallery. The Rideau Centre-Congress Centre still has some room. However, we are looking down the road perhaps five years. If there is a convention facility built nearby, the need will be there. That is the point at which this situation will become critical.
Senator Hays: Would the city participate in the development of parking? Do you have a reserve for that purpose that arises out of development fees set aside for parking?
Mr. Émard-Chabot: We do have a reserve. The city's finances are in tough shape currently, but the parking reserve fund is quite healthy. As far as being able to provide funds, that is one area where there is not much of a difficulty. Off the top of my head, we have about $2 million to $3 million in the reserve fund.
Senator Hays: As to your concerns about the site, not wanting it misused in a social sense, but wanting it to be a connecting link, park options can be fairly imaginative and can involve some of the things that private development might do, and might even be done in combination with private development. We did not ask Senator Kenny or Senator Andreychuk anything about that; we did not ask about places to eat or such things. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Émard-Chabot: If there is on-site activity, that helps from a safety point of view. The space should be programmed, that is, controlled and used for something specific as opposed to being left open. From that angle, certainly if even a low building or something were incorporated, I would feel more comfortable with that.
The point is that, whatever is done to the site, when you are there you want to feel that you can linger, relax and enjoy the surroundings; but if you went to the Daly site now and stood in the middle of that location and looked around you, would you feel that it was a comfortable place to be, somewhere you might wish to linger, relax and enjoy the urban environment? I would suggest it might not be the best place, if left open.
However, with some sort of building, it would be possible to create a very dynamic esplanade in front of the building and have the urban space with the building work well. Of course, 1.1 acres is only two suburban lots; it is not a huge piece of land.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Beaudry, I also wish to comment on the beautification of Ottawa with which you have been involved. I have received nothing but positive remarks about that. Everybody I speak to who visits this city tells me that the city of Ottawa is just beautiful. I certainly commend you for that.
If you have made or if you are about to make a decision about this site, how will that be affected by Bill S-6?
Mr. Beaudry: If this bill is passed, our decision will not go very far. I am fully aware of that. That is why I say that no final decision has been taken yet. We started this process more than a year ago. At that point in time we were not aware of the "Persons case" coming forward and we were not aware that this bill would be tabled.
The NCC has a responsibility to manage its real estate property and we are trying to manage it in the best way we can. We do not get enough money from Treasury Board in appropriations to provide for all of the capital expenses that we incur each year. We follow what we call our "Three-D plan" for the development, divestiture and disposal of whatever property we have. Those that are of no use to us any more we try to sell, or divest to other levels of government, or we try to develop, as is the case with the Daly site.
We do not necessarily sell such sites; in this case we will lease it on a long-term lease, as we did with 489 Sussex Drive, which is another building we rehabilitated recently. That was done in conjunction with the private sector. It was the same idea as that which we wish to incorporate with the Daly site, and was done in order to provide some revenues. Revenues are important.
Should one of the proposals prove to be acceptable to us, it would represent to the NCC a present value of anywhere between $4 million and $10 million. That is not negligible.
With respect to our meeting our mandate, we have to take into account that for a long period of time we will not be required to maintain the site; moreover, after the lease terminates the property will continue to be in the ownership of the NCC. All of that must be taken into account.
Senator Cochrane: If this bill is passed in the Senate before Christmas but is not passed in the House of Commons until February or March, how do you stand?
Mr. Beaudry: If it is February or March, I am okay. Our next board meeting is at the end of March. Let us hope it is in February or March. That would make it easy for me.
Senator Cochrane: How much commercial revenue will the NCC be losing if the site is turned into a park?
Mr. Beaudry: Well, first, I am not sure that any of these proposals are acceptable. We have gone back to the proponents and have asked for more information. We want security. We do not want to be stuck with something that will not fly. Should the proponents be able to answer all of our questions and should we retain one of them, the present value of the site represents $4 million to $10 million, depending upon the project.
The Chairman: Your proposal calls are based on a long-term lease?
Mr. Beaudry: Yes, over 66 years. One of the proponents came in with $500,000 in lease money for the first year up to a certain amount of money afterwards.
The Chairman: Your losses are substantially more than $4 to $10 million.
Mr. Beaudry: I am talking present value.
The Chairman: With present value starting at $500,000 and increasing over the next 60 years, you put a present value on that of only $4 million to $10 million?
Mr. Beaudry: That would be $10 million.
The Chairman: What interest rates are you using in that calculation?
Mr. Beaudry: I believe we are discounting it at 6 per cent.
The Chairman: I suggest your loss may be a little higher than that.
Mr. Beaudry: I did not make the calculation, Mr. Chairman. The money in 66 years will not worth the same as it is today.
The Chairman: That is what present value is all about.
Senator Spivak: I wish to ask Mr. Émard-Chabot if the City of Ottawa and the National Capital Region have a definitive or specific plan? If so, what does the plan say about the use of land around the Parliament buildings and so forth?
Mr. Émard-Chabot: There are four levels of planning. There is a regional official plan, which is very broad; I will not address it except to say that in that plan the area is designated as a general urban area. It is quite broad.
In the city's official plan, that area is certainly designated to become commercial, because of its history and the relationship with the Château Laurier and the rest of Rideau Street. The Daly building was a department store. The wish in the policies of the city is still to have that site regain some commercial use.
I say "commercial", but not necessarily in the sense of money-making; a museum, for example, would fall into the category of things that would be looked at in the policies. Certainly, some kind of destination and public use for that site would be preferable. The zoning does allow for a mix of residential, commercial and public uses.
Senator Spivak: What sort of public input or flexibility does that plan allow?
Mr. Émard-Chabot: The last city official plan was adopted in 1993. Right now we are about to adopt the new zoning by-law to implement this new official plan on the ground.
Senator Spivak: Will that allow for public input?
Mr. Émard-Chabot: Yes. It had to be approved by the province and the region.
Senator Spivak: The chairman of the National Capital Commission was somewhat dismissive of the response to The Ottawa Citizen poll on what the public would like to see. How much weight do you give to that sort of feeling in the City of Ottawa and to the representatives of the people across the country?
In the Senate, there is a majority view that this site should be a park. That may also be the view of the elected representatives. What value do you place on the wishes of the public, who may feel that the area around the national capital should not be viewed on a strictly commercial basis? I understand your other reasoning, but I would like to hear your views on this.
Mr. Émard-Chabot: The Ottawa Citizen, with all due respect, polled people who probably come downtown once a year, if that. They polled people who live in the suburbs, shop in the suburbs and, on occasion, come downtown. If the choice for them is between a building and a park, they will always choose the open green space.
When I made my presentation, I said that it is important to remember the size of the site and what surrounds it. I know what my constituents are telling me. Certainly, there are two currents of thought. For the most part, people understand the potential for the site to become a catalyst for the area and for it to join in the activities of the Congress Centre and everything else that will be happening in that vicinity.
From a business point of view, the Board of Trade and the BIAs on which I sit as a board member feel strongly that a park is not the best use of the site. From the public safety angle, and from a lot of angles, if we are to go the park route, it cannot be a traditional park with grass and trees, but must have a plaza-type feeling. A grassy park would not survive. As I said, 1.1 acres represents two suburban lots, or just a large one in most cases. Imagine 20,000 people trampling on your grass every day. It would not survive. That is the hard, nuts-and-bolts realities of the location.
Senator Spivak: There are many different kinds of approaches to urban design. I am sure that cannot be the definitive objection.
Do you also subsidize public transit?
Mr. Émard-Chabot: The region does.
Senator Spivak: I am amazed to hear that you subsidize parking.
Mr. Émard-Chabot: When I say "subsidize", I mean that we incur losses on a couple of our structures. At City Hall, parking is a separate program. It pays its own mortgages. When a structure is built, the parking people must pay the mortgage on that structure. They also pay property tax and business tax, like any other taxpayer in the city. If you factor all of that in, some facilities do not make money, but, overall, the program does.
The idea is to provide short-term parking. In the private sector, private-parking-lot operators do not provide cheap short-term parking. They provide cheap all-day parking for commuters, but if someone comes into the city for two or three hours and must park at a private lot, he will pay $1 or $2 or perhaps $3 for 15 minutes. We want to keep the downtown accessible and attractive.
Senator Spivak: What is the size of the regional subsidy to public transportation?
Mr. Émard-Chabot: For the region and the province combined, and it is now the region alone because of the downloading of the responsibility, we are talking in the order of $50 million or $55 million.
Senator Kenny: I should like to address my first questions to Councillor Émard-Chabot.
Are you here representing the City or representing your ward?
Mr. Émard-Chabot: The City of Ottawa. The corporation or the council does not have a "voted on" position on this site. A vote was taken on a temporary park, which was a request made to the NCC until the site was redeveloped. However, if you want a recent vote on the issue, there is none. If I go by the planning documents on which our council approved policy, they call for development on this site.
Senator Kenny: My question was: Are you representing yourself or are you representing the City of Ottawa?
Mr. Émard-Chabot: I am here on my own behalf.
Senator Kenny: Of the 786 national historic sites, how many have you visited?
Mr. Émard-Chabot: That is a good question. Of the smaller ones, I can think of Laurier House, which is two blocks from where I live; to the Plains of Abraham and the Citadel in Quebec City. There are quite a few that I have seen. I have not travelled extensively throughout the country; unfortunately, I have not had that luxury, but I have seen quite a few historic sites.
Senator Kenny: Of the ones you have seen, do you have an opinion on them? Are they well handled? Are they well maintained?
Mr. Émard-Chabot: Parks Canada does a commendable job with the resources they have; there is no doubt of that.
Senator Kenny: Do they have the capability to turn this site into a useful and attractive park?
Mr. Émard-Chabot: The whole site? We will still be stuck with the problems that I mentioned; the site will still be bordered by side walls and loading docks for buildings. It is not like the Citadel, the walls of Quebec City, the Plains of Abraham, or Laurier House or any other location. Here, you are creating a national historic site; the others are national historic sites for historical reasons. There is a big distinction.
Senator Kenny: I understand, but the sort of objections you have brought up are all amenable to landscaping. The problems of crossing the park are amenable to a path.
Mr. Émard-Chabot: Yes, but only if you think pedestrians stick to paths.
Senator Kenny: If you put them in the right places, they do. The problem with paths is that if you do not put them in the right place, people go where they feel like going.
With regard to security, for most Canadians, it is hard to imagine a more security-conscious city. Every cabinet minister's house and embassy is within a three-minute call of a police car. You are at an intersection that has police passing it every five minutes. The likelihood of security developing into a real problem at this location obviously depends, to some extent, on the design of the place.
When creating national historic sites, Parks Canada is very conscious of taking care of security, but in Ottawa we also have three or four times as many police per capita as they have in any other city.
Mr. Émard-Chabot: The RCMP does not respond to any of the local concerns. However, they cover the federal and international responsibilities of the capital.
The reality is that last summer the city, the region and the business community had to partner in hiring street ambassadors -- that is, students -- to go out and deal with aggressive panhandlers. We have had in this city, and, I would surmise in the province generally, a notable increase over the last year or two in panhandling -- and aggressive panhandling. If you go down to George Street, 40 feet from the location in question, you will find people sleeping on the sidewalk, even when the temperature dips to minus 40.
That is a big concern in Ottawa. That site is within five minutes of the three largest shelters for homeless men. If we want to create a legacy and a focal point on that site, I am not sure that this is the best way to do it.
Senator Kenny: Mr. Beaudry, how many of your roads are policed by the RCMP?
Mr. Beaudry: All of them, theoretically speaking. The RCMP, however, owing to budget cuts, had to make deals with the local police forces. In some areas, the local police forces take on that responsibility.
Senator Kenny: There is also a combination of that where they assist each other, is that correct?
Mr. Beaudry: That is right, but the RCMP is responsible as far as our land is concerned. We always address ourselves to the RCMP. They then turn matters over to the appropriate local police force. However, we do not necessarily want to deal with those local police forces.
Senator Kenny: Are you familiar with the firm of Juteau, Johnson and Comba, which did an evaluation of the site? They came up with a value significantly less than your value for the site. They came up with a value of $60 to $70 a foot, or $3 million on the site.
The Chairman: Sold!
Mr. Beaudry: If you were to put it at that price, they would be in line to buy it.
Senator Kenny: Careful, now. What we are talking about here is not a real cost to the city but an opportunity cost. You are talking about a building that is significantly smaller than one might develop if the property were some place else. They also said that it depends on the type of restrictions, how many parking spaces are required to go forward and what sort of restrictions you put on the site when you go to final bid -- that is, if you get that far. I should caution the committee that the valuation of the site, first, is an opportunity cost. It is not real money being spent in advance. Second, a whole lot depends on the final proposal.
Mr. Beaudry, you are talking about 75,000 square feet; is that right?
Mr. Beaudry: The building above ground, yes.
Senator Kenny: Can you tell the committee how high up in the air that goes, if you have the setback that you are discussing?
Mr. Beaudry: If my recollection is correct, it would go up six or seven storeys, but not right up to Rideau. It would be scaled down.
Senator Kenny: I understand. That is why I asked the question about the setback. If you are standing on George Street, will you see anything other than the Peace Tower?
Mr. Beaudry: I think you will see the square. I think Confederation Square will be seen from George Street.
Senator Kenny: If you are going up seven storeys, how many storeys high is the Connaught building?
Mr. Beaudry: It is eight storeys, if I recall correctly.
Senator Kenny: You would allow us to see the eighth story of the Connaught building.
Mr. Beaudry: No. You would see more than that.
It is difficult to answer your question the way it is put, because the building is not necessarily a rectangular or square building. It is a certain design with certain areas where there are not seven storeys. In the front, it is a bit lower than that. The width of it permits one to see the Connaught building coming from Colonel By Drive. If you are going toward the Connaught building, you see some of it. Of course, you do not see it all, because you do not see it the way you see it today. You see all of the Château Laurier on the other side, because the setback from Sussex is also much larger than when the Daly building was there. So there is a setback on Sussex; there is a larger setback on Rideau, and there is a setback on Mackenzie also permitting you to have a full view of the château coming down Colonel By Drive.
Senator Kenny: Mr. Beaudry, in the past 40 years, has any successful commercial development on that site been able to sustain itself?
Mr. Beaudry: A building was closed in 1978. I know that there were a couple of proposal calls, one in 1981 by Public Works, which was not successful. They were trying to turn it into an apartment building. There was a proposal call by the NCC. The NCC leased the land in 1988, and proposals came in to rehabilitate the building in 1990. That did not go through because the main shareholder of that company died suddenly. For some reason, the company could not pursue the proposal they had on hand at that point in time.
Senator Kenny: Would it be fair to say that the department store on that location went bankrupt, that every effort since then has been a failure from a commercial sense, and that your organization has kept the site vacant now for four years?
Mr. Beaudry: It is fair to say that the site has been vacant since the demolition of the Daly building. I do not think it is fair to say that all the proposals that came forward were non-viable, because it is the first time since I have been at the NCC, and I have been there since 1992, that we have gone out for a proposal call.
Senator Kenny: That is a long time.
Mr. Beaudry: As I said before, with the recession in 1992-94, the economy in the country was such that there was no interest for anyone to come up and build anything anywhere. Now that the economy has picked up a bit, there is more interest in building something.
The Chairman: Colleagues, we must vacate this room by 11:30. I have a number of questions to propose, wearing my developer's hat. I think this is a bit of a pipe dream, and I would like to get into it. With that in mind I look forward to having our witnesses back to discuss this issue in more detail.
The committee adjourned.