Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 15 - Evidence, March 27, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill S- 210, to amend the National Capital Act (establishment and protection of Gatineau Park), met this day at 7:20 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I call the meeting to order. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Today we will continue our study of Bill S-210, an act to amend the National Capital Act having to do with the establishment and protection of Gatineau Park. This private senator's public bill proposes to establish and protect the physical boundaries of Gatineau Park by requiring parliamentary consent for future alterations of the park's boundaries.
We have three witnesses appearing before us today: the Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada, Mr. Stephen Hazell; and, on behalf of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Mr. Doug Anions, Vice-President of the Ottawa Valley Chapter, and Ms. Muriel How, Chair of the Gatineau Park Committee.
My name is Tommy Banks and I am from Alberta. I will introduce the other members of the committee.
Senator Cochrane is the Deputy Chair of the committee and represents Newfoundland and Labrador. Senator Adams represents Nunavut. Senator Mitchell and Senator McCoy represent Alberta.
Please proceed.
Doug Anions, Vice-President, Ottawa Valley Chapter, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society: Honourable senators, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society is pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. In our brief, we provide recommendations that fully support the passage of Bill S-210. We believe this is a unique and important opportunity, and we believe it is achievable.
Ours is a national organization. Our head office is in Ottawa. We have 13 chapter offices across Canada and have projects in most provinces of Canada. We presently have more than 17,000 members. At the inception of our organization, we worked mainly on national parks and sometimes on provincial parks. Lately we have been involved in some major landscape-sized projects such as the Yellowstone to Yukon project in Western Canada, of which many of you will have heard. Locally, we have an Algonquin to Adirondacks large landscape project. In addition, we have some smaller campaigns such as for the protection of the Dumoine River in Western Quebec.
Our Ottawa chapter was formed in 1969. A small group of people got together over concerns about Gatineau Park when a development plan was released. An alarming amount of development and roads were going to be built.
CPAWS asked for legislation then, and we are still asking 30 years later. We have found, over time, that the history of Gatineau Park is very complicated and that it is difficult to get protection for it.
At the same time, we have learned a great deal about Gatineau Park. It is a fairly large and significant wilderness area and it has excellent protection potential. It is right on the edge of the boreal forest and has very high biodiversity and very complex and interesting geology. Its history mirrors that of Canada as a whole, with Algonquin Indians, fur traders, logging and settlers. We are convinced that Gatineau Park is a very important area to protect.
We have also seen over the years that the park is widely appreciated by the public. I do not know anyone who does not appreciate Gatineau Park.
A Decima poll conducted in 2006 by the Ottawa Citizen concluded that 82 per cent of those surveyed were interested in protecting Gatineau Park as a national park. In its 2005 master plan, the NCC expressed concerns about fragmentation of the park, loss of habitats and growing pressures from recreational uses.
Our organization shares these concerns. We agree with the NCC that there is a need for greater focus on ecosystem conservation. In the recent master plan for Gatineau Park it was determined that the NCC would manage Gatineau Park as a World Conservation Union IUCN Category II protected area, which is the same as many of our national parks. It is protection for conservation first.
Our vision is to have Gatineau Park managed as an important regional ecosystem, the core protected area in the National Capital Region. However, we have concerns about the NCC's ability to protect the park. They have a large portfolio of built assets; huge responsibilities for land, bridges and boulevards; six official residences and many very large leases. They need a huge amount of money to run their operation. It is sad that the NCC sells off our public land to raise money for their capital works. There is a powerful incentive to sell because they can keep the money for their operations. There is much secrecy around land issues and land sales, and land sales are often made despite strong local opposition.
However, we have some reason for optimism. The recent master plan has shown an interest in conservation. The NCC has been working on a report concerning the state of the park and a conservation plan has finally been started after all these years.
We support Bill S-210. Gatineau Park is in urgent need of protection. Portions of its territory can be removed without the approval of the public or Parliament. Urban encroachment is occurring at an alarming rate. A legal boundary is not a lot to ask for. We want it and the public wants it. Gatineau Park needs our help now. We thank you for hearing us on this matter.
Muriel How will now speak to some of our specific recommendations.
Muriel How, Chair, Gatineau Park Committee, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, while we fully support this bill we are also very interested in seeing that private property within the park is acquired for park purposes. The NCC has made little progress in this area despite numerous planning documents which say they support the idea. We know that various parcels of land at Meech Lake and Kingsmere have not been acquired when available. It seems that the National Capital Commission has collected millions of dollars from the sale of surplus land but none of that money appears to have gone toward acquisitions for Gatineau Park.
Now, it has come to our attention, because I have read the minutes, that in the park there is presently land available on Mountain Road locally known as the Radmore property. Our concern is that, if this land is not bought by the government, it will become the first subdivision within the park boundaries, and I think that is very serious.
A secondary concern is that, while the NCC talks about buying land, we have learned that they have planned to buy only at fair market price. Well, honourable senators, when have you heard people wanting to sell property at fair market price? They always ask for more. Therefore, how is the NCC going to buy land? That is one of our biggest concerns on that aspect.
CPAWS would like to see a specific program dedicated to the acquisition of private lands within the park, but I think it is important that it be not only within but also adjacent to the park. While the southern part of the park is being eaten up by roads and urban affairs, we are really losing so much land that the park should be increased in size not decreased, as is happening.
We would also recommend that the sale of federally owned lands adjacent to the park be prohibited. When Bill S- 210 was released, while we agreed with its intent, we felt that it did not go far enough, because if Gatineau Park is to remain viable it must remain healthy. Yet there was nothing in Bill S-210 to that end. We therefore applaud the New Woodlands Preservation League for its two amendments, to leave it unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations and to include ecological integrity. We really hope that these two amendments will be included in the final passage of the bill.
Finally, we are happy to see that Senator Spivak has added the phrase that will at least and at last proclaim this area once and for all ``Gatineau Park,'' because we always say it is Gatineau Park in name only.
We have spent the last six years stressing the need for much that is in this bill, for the need that there has to be legislation to protect the park, when you think it is the only one in the whole of Canada that is not protected and yet it is so important and so close to the nation's capital.
We do sincerely hope that our suggestions will be included.
Stephen Hazell, Executive Director, Sierra Club of Canada: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, I represent the Sierra Club of Canada. I was formerly director of CPAWS and in that association I appeared many times before the National Capital Commission and other bodies trying to get a statute enacted by Parliament that would properly protect Gatineau Park.
Gatineau Park is an incredible place; perhaps most people in Ottawa do not really appreciate how incredible it is. The winter before last I was back-country skiing with some others in the western side of the park. We came across a white tailed deer that had been clearly set upon by a pack of wolves. There was virtually nothing left of it, other than the head, the spine and parts of the legs. We had talked to people who had stayed at the yurt at Taylor Lake. They had heard the wolves that night attack the deer and take it down, but then they were disrupted and ran off. That place is only 40 kilometres from where we are sitting now.
This park is a tremendous natural asset, within sight of this Parliament, and we pay it virtually no attention at all. The National Capital Commission does not know whether or not that pack of wolves is comprised of the threatened Algonquin wolves, or whether they are the more common timber wolves. We have no such information, because there is little science being done in Gatineau Park, unlike in the national parks which have substantial science programs, and yet this is an incredible place.
Gatineau Park is also extremely heavily used by visitors. We all love it. I was skiing there this weekend, fantastic spring skiing, amazing and thanks to the NCC for maintaining the trails so well. It is well maintained, but it is heavily utilized. In terms of annual visits per square kilometre size, Gatineau Park has eight times the number than Banff, which is Canada's most commercialized park. There are a lot of people who go there, luckily most toward the eastern end, toward Aylmer, Hull and Chelsea. It is heavily utilized and yet has no legal protection whatsoever. That is why Bill S-210 is so important.
As a lawyer, I came at my analysis by looking at some of the key elements that one would like to see in a protected areas law. There are all sorts of these laws across Canada. We tend to focus on the National Parks Act, but there are also the Canada Wildlife Act, various provincial laws, marine protected areas laws, et cetera.
What are some of the key elements that one looks for in a protected areas law?
1. Have you defined your park boundaries?
2. Is there a prohibition on the sale of public lands within the park?
3. Is there a process for acquiring private lands that exist within the park?
4. Is there a purpose clause, a dedication so that the public and management authority understand what they are supposed to be doing with that park?
5. Is there some direction to the management authority that stipulates that protecting the ecology of the place is important? In National Parks, that is the first priority in parks management, as it should be.
6. Are there prohibitions or restrictions on different land uses within the park that may be inconsistent with protecting the ecology of the park?
7. Is there adequate regulatory and permitting authority so that the managing body — in this case the NCC — can actually do its job properly and manage the heavy flow of people in the park?
If you go through the bill, you will see that a number of these elements have been covered off while some have not been. With respect to defining the park boundaries, that is there. Prohibition on sales of public lands is covered off fairly well. There is a process here, quite an elegant approach taken in the bill, to ensure that the National Capital Commission would have the right of first refusal on lands that are to be sold. This would ensure that the park is protected against one of the great possible scourges, the subdivision of private lands in the park. It is quite an elegant way of coming at it and we strongly support that.
The bill, as it is written, is not clear on why we are actually doing the bill. There is some language in the preamble, but there is nothing in the act itself. That is why the Sierra Club also supports the two amendments proposed by the New Woodlands Preservation League. We think that the dedication clause, which is virtually identical to the clause included in the National Parks Act, is very important. We would encourage you to amend the bill to include that provision. That is the first proposal. The second one relates to ecological integrity, which is perhaps even more important. The amendment proposed by New Woodlands Preservation League would require the commission to ensure that protecting nature in the park is its first priority — not its only priority, but its first priority.
You can look at other things, but protecting ecological integrity should be its first priority. At the present time the primary mission of the National Capital Commission is to develop land, as well as doing all the good stuff on Canada Day, but its prime mission is developing land. It owns about 10 per cent of the land in the National Capital Region. We feel there needs to be a strong direction to the National Capital Commission that, when you are talking about this special place, Gatineau Park, ecological integrity is the number one priority. That is why that particular amendment is quite important.
In terms of the other criteria that I set out, the prohibitions on inappropriate uses, there are no prohibitions on mining or oil and gas development or forestry included in Bill S-210, and in a perfect world that might be different. Similarly, there are no additional regulatory and permitting authorities in the bill, which in a perfect world we might change.
This bill, with the amendments, has most of the elements that one would look for in a good protected areas law. There are other ways of coming at this that have been explored, mainly by CPAWS people. We could establish a national park; we could have a stand-alone statute and call it the Gatineau Park Act; we could create a wildlife area under the Wildlife Act. There are other vehicles that could be used. We have this bill in front of us. I understand there is some possibility that it might actually pass, so I think the Sierra Club's perspective is to take advantage of this opportunity. It does have most of the elements we are looking for and for that reason we would support it and would encourage this Senate committee to support the bill with the amendments that the New Woodlands Preservation League have proposed to you as well.
Senator Cochrane: Could you just tell me the current legal status of this park?
Mr. Hazell: My understanding is that the park has basically the same legal protection as the tulip beds out on Confederation Square.
Senator Cochrane: That is not very helpful.
Mr. Hazell: There is no legal protection. The land is protected by virtue of the fact that the National Capital Commission owns or controls most of the land, and in its wisdom the National Capital Commission, by and large, has done a reasonable job in not allowing a lot of development there. However, as my colleagues have stated, development is encroaching. We have the McConnell-Laramée Road; there is the possibility of Autoroute 50 going through; subdivisions are developing; there is increasing tourist use; there are rock climbers on very sensitive ecosystems; and there is just the pressure of numbers. The population of Ottawa and Gatineau continues to increase so the pressures on the park will continue to increase.
The answer is that there is very little protection there right now. There is none in the National Capital Act, which is the governing legislation for the park. Gatineau Park is not even mentioned in the act; I do not believe it is. There is one mention? However, there are no specific regulations dealing with Gatineau Park. There are some traffic and property regulations, but the whole regime, the statute and regulatory regime, is, in my view, entirely inadequate.
Senator Cochrane: When did Gatineau Park become a park?
Mr. Hazell: They call it a park, but it really is not a park. In 1960 there was an Order-in-Council passed that purported to define the boundaries of the park and there was a map that Senator Spivak's staff discovered, I think with the help of Jean-Paul Murray. Lines were drawn on a map back in 1960, which is an attachment to this Order-in- Council, but there is some dispute and it is unclear, even within the National Capital Commission, what the status of this Order-in-Council is. Does it define a boundary or does it not? There is a lot of confusion around this subject and I think Jean-Paul Murray, when he was here, talked about that. It is a problem. It is a mess. Perhaps the Senate could fix it?
Senator Cochrane: It is easier said than done. We will try to visit this park. I have never been there. National parks are my pet peeve; I love them; but this is not a national park or a provincial park or a municipal park. What the heck is it?
Mr. Hazell: The question is, senator, what can we make it to be? Some of my colleagues at CPAWS really know the park and would be delighted to be a guide for you on a tour. We could identify a few people who would love to take you out and show you places other than just Camp Fortune.
Senator Cochrane: We will do what we can.
You said it is something like a national park because of the beauty and the attractiveness of the park. Do you think it should be a national park?
Mr. Hazell: In a perfect world, yes; but I would encourage you not to go down that road. Under the Canada National Parks Act, the federal government must have clear title to the land in the park. Gatineau Park is unique in that there are all sorts of private lands all through that park. In addition the provincial government has an interest, although I think there is a dispute again there. Exactly what is the nature of that 17 per cent in which they have interest? Do they own that or not? I think you have heard some testimony on that already.
Parks Canada does not really want it. I just would not go down that road. At this point let us go with this bill and let us give the National Capital Commission a shot at running it, and if we include that ecological integrity directive then that will put legal constraints on what they could do. That would be my suggestion.
Senator Cochrane: Constraints they do not already have.
Mr. Hazell: That is correct.
Senator Cochrane: Do you all agree.
Mr. Anions: This bill goes a long way toward what we want. We have been asking for legislation for 30 years. We are behind this bill because we think it will make a significant move ahead that we have not seen for a long time.
Senator Cochrane: Do you agree that the NCC should be given control over this area?
Ms. How: In the circumstances, yes, because to go for national park status, as Mr. Hazell said, is a very difficult road. We would get nowhere for years and years. This is the right way to go for now. Perhaps in five or 10 years time there will be a need for another act. At the moment, I think this is the way to go and that it should remain with the NCC. Certainly, controls must be brought in. Even the NCC admits it is the most fragmented park there is. It is far too fragmented, yet they carry on building roads, selling off property and making it even more fragmented. It is very frustrating when you are trying to get something done to preserve it for the future.
Senator Cochrane: I have a question for Mr. Hazell. How would the inclusion of protection of ecological integrity as the first priority of managing the park affect your ability to continue enjoying the use of the park?
Mr. Hazell: Under the Canada National Parks Act, there is this direction that Parks Canada must treat ecological integrity as a first priority in management. It does constrain how the park is managed. It means that in all the activities that the management undertakes, they are always thinking about how it will affect nature in the park. It requires them to do lots of science to really understand what they are proposing to do. If you want to build a road, which is sometimes necessary, or if you want to build a camp ground, which is sometimes desirable, you must look at how it will affect nature within the park. That is our number one priority: Does it have an impact?
In all of its park system, Canada Parks has been encouraging people to go there in order to experience nature. You can go shopping in the town of Banff and you are not really appreciating nature at all. The whole idea behind this clause is to try to get people to come to that place in order to appreciate nature in that place. They are looking for a different sort of visitor. People who want to go shopping can go to Calgary or wherever. It does have an impact and it is intended to have one.
Senator Cochrane: Would you keep doing what you are doing with regard to the activities that you are presently doing?
Mr. Hazell: It would not necessarily affect any of the existing uses, for example the skiing and bicycling. It might not have an impact there, but there might be an impact as follows: there is a lot of vehicular traffic through Gatineau Park and a study has never been done as to whether or not pollution is affecting the ecosystems up there. We might have to think about some other ways of moving people through the park, rather than letting them drive one person per vehicle around the park. You could see that coming as the pressures mount.
The Chairman: Did you say that you are a lawyer?
Mr. Hazell: Yes, I am.
The Chairman: The impression I have is that, with respect to the Quebec land in the park, they own it through Her Majesty in right of Quebec. There exist two Orders-in-Council, one from the government of Quebec and one from the Government of Canada. There is also an agreement between the two in which the management and operation of the 17 per cent portion of the park lands owned by the Province of Quebec are granted to the NCC for so long as their use and purpose is as a park, as defined in the agreement. Is that consistent with what you believe is going on?
Mr. Hazell: That is my understanding, but I have not reviewed all of those documents myself.
The Chairman: I hope that you will, if you get the chance. If you do not have them, our clerk can provide them to you and you can let us know if our opinion is correct, because we are proceeding on that basis.
Senator Adams: I have been there a couple of times. I have been here in the Senate close to 30 years, but I have only gone to Gatineau Park at the request of the Speaker of the House. There is a house within the park that belonged to Prime Minister Mackenzie King. I am not sure if he had that house built in the park or if he owned the property and then turned it over to the NCC. How did that happen between Meech Lake and Canada Parks?
You are talking about concerns about development. The first witnesses have said that about 200 houses have been built there. For how much was the NCC selling the land? Does it belong to the government or to the NCC? How was the park started?
Mr. Hazell: My understanding was that Prime Minister King owned those properties and he bequeathed them to the Government of Canada. Legislation was passed — I think it was the Kingsmere Act — to accept those properties. I am not sure whether or not they were turned over at that time to the forerunner of the NCC. I think that is basically how it got started.
The expert on this, as you all know, is Jean-Paul Murray, who has studied the history of this event. The history goes back a long way in terms of the stated desire of various government officials that Gatineau Park should be protected. The Greber Commission spoke about it as well. This has been an issue that has gone on for well over a century.
Senator Adams: Was it after Mr. King died that the government took over the park?
Mr. Hazell: Yes. In his will, King gave it to the Government of Canada.
Senator Adams: Since then it has been administered by the NCC?
Mr. Hazell: That is right. It has been greatly expanded beyond the properties Prime Minister King once owned. That was just the core property at the extreme eastern end of the park.
Mr. Anions: After 1938, Parliament set aside money for acquisition of lands and to create a park. I think it was $100,000 in 1938. That was done by Mackenzie King and that was when they started to acquire lands for a park. No formal park was created; they just agreed to acquire lands. We then reach today where the park is in its present state. It has still not been proclaimed or established formally in law.
Senator Adams: The NCC is like part of the Government of Canada. You said that millions of dollars were spent by selling the land every year. There should be some kind of public fund for the total amount. Do you have any idea what the land would be worth if a private interest were to buy it?
Ms. How: There is a house in Kingsmere at the moment for which I think they are asking around $500,000 or $600,000. That is where there is a house built. I do not know what it would be per acre, but probably around $100,000.
Senator Adams: It is difficult to make money on it. Presently, you do not have a record. If it becomes a park now, you have no one working right now in the Gatineau Park, do you? That is no one forcing anyone there. Do you have someone working in the park or is it only the NCC that looks after that?
Ms. How: The NCC manages it. They have an office in Chelsea and they manage it from there.
Mr. Anions: They have conservation officers and a small staff.
Senator Adams: How many?
Ms. How: I think it is about 20.
Mr. Anions: The NCC has a core staff, a superintendent, a biologist and couple of staff, plus conservation officers. I would say there are probably fewer than 15 staff. However, they have a lot of contracts.
The maintenance of the park is done by contractors and the visitor centre is run by contractors rather than staff.
The NCC cut its staff a few years ago. They had over 1,200 staff at one time but now have around 450. They had huge cutbacks and now run many of their operations with contracts.
The Chairman: Senator Adams, the NCC is appearing before us on Thursday morning and we can ask those questions of them.
Senator Adams: If it becomes a national park, will Parks Canada control it?
The Chairman: This bill would not make it a national park.
Mr. Anions: We are not recommending that at this time. We see that as a possible long-term goal, but at this time we would like to have this bill passed because it would go a long way toward protecting the park, which is our goal.
Senator Mitchell: I am very interested in this and very sympathetic to your cause. You said that there is privately owned land in the area. If it were made into a park, presumably the NCC would have to buy that land. How much funding would that require?
Mr. Hazell: They would not necessarily have to buy it. It would be desirable over the long run for the National Capital Commission to acquire more of the lands, but the Sierra Club would like to see them spend their money in a smart way. We would like them to spend what little money they have for acquisitions on the protection of nature in the park. We may not want to be buying properties in Kingsmere where they cost $500,000 each. We may want to spend the money buying small isolated parcels in the middle of the park. Who knows how those parcels first came into private hands? We should perhaps buy them to ensure the maximum protection of nature.
There is only so much they will do and it will be a long-term process. Frankly, once the park boundary is established, private citizens who are living there will become tremendous advocates for the park, as a number already are, because it enhances the value of their properties to have this park all around them.
Ms. How: They will be custodians.
The Chairman: The bill does not contemplate anything such as expropriation. The bill says that if you own a piece of land in the park and intend to sell it, you must give the NCC the first right of refusal.
Senator Mitchell: There are many historical attributes in that area — Meech Lake, Kingsmere and more. I have been there a number of times with my family and we enjoy it very much. Those are obvious to me.
Pink Lake has the special characteristic of being meromictic. Is there an inventory of ecologically unique areas in that park, and are they particularly unique? Are they a driving factor in wanting to preserve that particular area, or is it more that the area is already almost preserved, so why not turn it into a park?
Mr. Anions: There are a number of unique and important features in Gatineau Park that may not be found anywhere else. It is an amazing park. It is that way because of its terrain and landscape. There are exposures on the Eardley Escarpment. There is a habitat called dry oak savannah, which is a very dry habitat that supports some unique ferns and other plants. There are caves that were formed when the glaciers melted. As well, there are numerous rare orchids; there are over 100 species of rare plants in the park.
We have enough information to say with certainty that Gatineau Park is a very special place, not an ordinary place. That has been documented by the NCC as well as by a number of scientists. There would be no difficulty in demonstrating that.
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Hazell, you mentioned that there is no science in particular being done there, but that there is a science component with the national parks. Would a science program necessarily follow from this designation?
Mr. Hazell: No, it would not. To its credit, under the master plan the National Capital Commission is working toward a conservation plan and working to improve their science capacity. The science that is done there is done by virtue of the fact that there are two or three universities in the area and other people at other universities in other parts of the country who are interested in the park and are doing some science on it. There is no real science program in the sense that Parks Canada has one.
Ultimately, we want to have that. As Mr. Anions said, this is a very special place in terms of its biodiversity and we do not fully understand what we have, so let us protect it before we lose it.
Senator Mitchell: Is there one ski hill or two in the park?
Ms. How: There are ski hills on two sides of one hill.
Mr. Hazell: There is just one operator.
Senator Mitchell: Is that privately owned?
Ms. How: It is leased to Camp Fortune.
Mr. Anions: The Camp Fortune facility is co-owned by a couple of people, but I believe that the NCC has a long- term lease with the owners. Within their lease area they are allowed to do certain things. They are supposed to present an operating plan every year, which I do not think they do.
Camp Fortune is an anomaly in that its owners are allowed to make decisions that are outside the management of the park. National parks would not give up that kind of control. These are some of the things that must be dealt with in some way.
Senator Mitchell: I am an avid mountain biker. Is there some mountain biking being done there?
Ms. How: Yes, there is a lot of it.
Senator Mitchell: Would that be an ecological problem?
Ms. How: It is. They are ruining the trails, and they do not stay on the trails they are meant to be on. They are not policed, so that is one of the big problems.
Mr. Hazell: Ms. How is correct. Ecological damage is caused by mountain bikes. I think they have a right to be there but it must be managed because you can really damage trails. The solution is not to force them all to stay on the No. 1 trail, which is boring from a mountain biker's point of view. Maybe we need to go outside of the park and offer them more opportunities. That is another stress and strain on this park that we need to confront more systematically.
Mr. Anions: Giving the NCC credit, in the last few months or year they have been trying to meet with some of the special groups, like the Alpine Club of Canada and the mountain bikers. They are genuinely trying some new ways to get a handle on some of the pressures. Our group is continually in dialogue with the NCC. We continue to deal with them all the time, year in and year out. We see other ways of approaching this, too.
Senator Mitchell: While they are managing this park, to take it up to the next level would be a further enhancement of their commitment to parks management, which is not their central expertise. Have you discussed with them what that would require and what their capability is to develop a park? Would they subcontract to a national park?
Mr. Hazell: Over the years, we have had some discussions with them about capacity. Once Gatineau Park was really established as some sort of true park with real legal protection, it would be a lot easier to get more resources to do good science and to learn from the experience of other park agencies such as Parks Canada.
Frankly, it relates to the structure of the National Capital Commission, with basically secret decision-making. It is hard to get the public working for you. As you know, in Banff the stakeholders in the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society out in the Calgary-Banff chapter and the Bow Valley Naturalists are working with Parks Canada because it is a more open dialogue. There are also parks management plans. If the National Capital Commission was a more open organization, it would be a lot easier to give them the resources they need to do a better job in the park.
The Chairman: It will require a lot more resources than they have now. For one thing, when the NCC needs operating funds, as you pointed out, Mr. Anions, it sells land to gain those operating funds — at least that is what we have heard. That seems inappropriate in the case of dealing with what is referred to as surplus public land. If it is a park, there cannot be surplus land, can there?
Mr. Anions: No. I worked for national parks for nearly 30 years and we had no such thing. I never recall having anything like surplus lands. Once the park boundaries were surveyed and bounds were set, there were no surplus lands. The park was there. They would occasionally try to acquire more land, but this idea of selling off property to raise capital money to spend on highways, roads, boulevards or other buildings is something Parks Canada does not do. They get their allocation from Parliament and that is what they use.
The Chairman: As does the NCC.
Mr. Anions: The NCC has been required to raise more money because they have a huge liability. They have responsibility for six official residences and bridges and they do not get enough to maintain all these big structures.
Senator Cochrane: I wanted to ask a question about mountain bikes. I know why Senator Spivak has this bill, because she would not want mountain bikes to be going all through pristine land.
Senator Mitchell: We are not talking about motor bikes.
Senator Cochrane: It does not matter, senator; these are things that tear up the land.
Are there special trails that these bikes are allowed to go on now? Is there someone to check it out to make sure these bikes go on that land?
Ms. How: They do not have enough enforcement officers and the trails they go on are away from the main area. They are making new trails. I walked along one trail which is off one of the parkways. It is not one generally people know about, but I have walked along that trail and I have come across mountain bikers. They want to go on these trails because they will not be caught and the trails are more exciting. They love going over the roots and various things. They say ``Hey, it is technical.''
Senator Cochrane: Whatever that means.
The Chairman: That also results in a broken collar bone.
Senator Cook: How are the boundaries of the park defined?
Mr. Hazell: How are they demarked? Some of our folks did an audit towards the western end of the park, which is in the Pontiac area. That area is not frequented very much. I understand that, as a result of this little process, better delineation of the park's boundaries has been made. I have not checked that myself. However, at the time of that audit, you could not tell whether you were in the park or not. There are all sorts of wide ruts caused by ATVs through there. I would say the ATVs have been a much bigger problem than the mountain bikes, certainly in that part of the park.
If we can delineate the park more clearly and provide more resources, this can be an economic benefit to the Pontiac area, which does not get much benefit from the park at all. This is an economically depressed area that could use help. If four or five conservation officers were based out towards the west end of the park to divert visitor traffic to that end of the park, that would be good for the Pontiac.
Ms. How: It would not be so good for the marijuana growers.
Senator Cochrane: What about the boundaries? Are they outlined in this bill?
Mr. Hazell: I could not comment on whether they are accurate as described.
The Chairman: If the bill were to be passed, those would be the boundaries. Are they okay?
Mr. Hazell: I still do not understand.
The Chairman: Let me put the question more clearly. There is not now a single boundary to the park upon which everyone now, today, agrees.
Ms. How: Not all around the park, no. That is correct.
The Chairman: If the bill is passed, it will have attached to it a schedule that will describe by means of a map — it is not here now — a specific boundary that will then be a boundary in law. Having looked at it, are you comfortable with the one put forward?
Ms. How: I do not think I would be able to argue the case, because this presumably will be worked out very carefully and it would be the legal boundaries.
Senator McCoy: Yes; depending on where they draw the map.
Ms. How: As far as we know they would be accurate.
Mr. Hazell: I personally have not reviewed the map to see if there are any discrepancies or not.
The Chairman: You might want to have a peek at the map that is presently being used as an example of what would become Schedule 2 of the act and let us know if you agree with the boundaries. If the act passes, we do not want to find out that we have left out a block or missed a road.
Mr. Anions: The original survey done in 1960 was used when they made Gatineau Park a game sanctuary in the province of Quebec. There are some places where the boundary stayed the same, but there are also some places where it changed because the lands were sold. Other lands have been acquired, like the Meech Creek Valley. We are not sure whether the valley will be included in this park.
There is a lot of confusion about this. The NCC owns a lot of land. They own 10 per cent of the National Capital Region and they own land around Gatineau Park.
However, just because they own the land does not mean they include it in the park.
The Chairman: In any event, the NCC will not determine the boundary. It will be parliament that will determine the boundary. If you do not know it right now I want you to take a peek at it when Schedule 2 is nailed and is put forward, which it must be before we pass it, and see if you agree that we have left that part out. You are quite right. This does not say NCC land is in the park. That is not what it says.
Senator McCoy: It is actually cabinet, Governor-in-Council, within 60 days that has to put this forward. That is even scarier in some ways, but in other ways it is more accessible.
I have a question about the Decima Research poll in 2006. Do we have a copy of that? Will you share it with us just so we know how many people were surveyed?
Mr. Anions: There were 400.
Senator McCoy: Were they residents inside the park?
Mr. Anions: I think residents were included, but I think it was a random survey of some kind.
Senator McCoy: It would be useful to know the scientific basis of the poll, especially in light of the current interest in the area. It is quite the hot topic in Chelsea, for example. This does not quite give that side of the story. You may wish or may not wish to comment on the other side, those who are not supporting this bill. If not, it is all right, we can access that kind of information elsewhere too.
Mr. Anions: Although I do not personally know people who are opposed that much, I think some people who would be opposed are those who would like to see more development in the park, like roads. There are probably enough people who would like to see a parkway up through the park which was originally planned. We fought against that. There are people who would definitely like to see more roads but I think they are a relatively small group. I do not know them. I hope they are a small group.
Mr. Hazell: Going back a number of years now, we have had a number of discussions with mayors and counsellors of the various municipalities bordering the park. Some have been sympathetic and some not. We know one counsellor in the Pontiac that was very much opposed to legal protection of the park. He was one of the marijuana growers inside the park, so he was against it. We have met with the mayor of Chelsea and a few of the counsellors there. At the time we were not talking about the specifics of this bill, but about legislative protection. They were moderately supportive of it and he was a bit cautious.
There are tremendous economic benefits from having a national park on your door step. The experience of a community like Canmore for example underlines that. Part of that is a communications job to explain to those living in Chelsea and Aylmer that there are advantages, and these will only increase as time goes by with increasing development pressures.
The Chairman: We will be inviting the mayor of Chelsea, for example, and other landowners to come and speak to us about this.
Senator McCoy: Having been the author of a regional mobility strategy for a significant corridor I believe you are right about gateway communities. There are advantages. In terms of managing, you have made a couple of recommendations, one of which is to make explicit the ecological integrity priority. You endorse the prohibition against the sale of public lands. I understand you support the right of first refusal. What strikes me is the next step. If the NCC did want to use their money strategically, as you suggested, so that they acquired perhaps the lower-cost lands initially to consolidate their holding and decided to pass on the offer of that $500,000 mansion, then it could be sold without more. The next owner, the purchaser could be again a developer, if that land were sufficiently large, and it would be a subdivision. There is no second-step protection here.
Ms. How: I suppose so, but I think you will find that most of the properties are not large enough to be subdivided so I think we are pretty safe there.
Mr. Anions: We are hoping over time that the municipalities like Chelsea might help in this. They can certainly do more in terms of zoning and restrictions that prevent subdivisions and certain kinds of development. We have a long way to go to reach out to these municipalities and get their support for the park.
Senator McCoy: Are you pushing for that kind of protection or overarching statement: Even if we do not buy it, do not do it? Is that what you are telling me? Perhaps that is a more sensible thing.
Mr. Hazell: You raise a very good point and it is a gap. I think it is necessary to have on side these folks who are living in the park. It may be difficult for some of them. We should try to get their support as much as we can. By further infringing on their private property rights I fear we would lose them.
Senator McCoy: This is probably a question one would ask of the NCC. It strikes me that a fairly cost-effective and collaborative approach to managing properties, parks of this sort, is the `limits to acceptable change' approach. I am sure you are familiar with the LAC, as it is known in the trade. It was pioneered by the U.S. National Forest Service which has many multi-use wilderness-recreational properties. In the last 10, 15, or 20 years they have become better at it. It is a collaborative approach between the authorities, the users, and the environmentalists, not all of whom are separate groups. You might want to take a look at that, because it can be a low-cost way of managing and policing your property. It might begin to build bridges into those municipalities and it certainly might extend NCC capacity.
Mr. Anions: At Adirondack Parks there is collaboration going on with support building support. We support that approach.
Senator McCoy: This is out-sourced based. If you are walking on one of those trails and you see Senator Mitchell's tail light in front of you, that might be an indicator that it has gone too far.
The Chairman: I want to ask you to pay particular attention when this bill goes forward because, as Senator McCoy has pointed out, there is a specific trigger with the boundary of this park. The boundary of the park is the boundary that exists in someone's mind, some place as defined on the day on which a bill entitled An Act to Amend the National Capital Act is introduced in the first session of the 39th Parliament. This bill has now been introduced and the boundary that will be established by the Governor-in-Council when this bill passes is the boundary that existed on the day the bill was introduced. What is that boundary?
Senator McCoy: A recommendation might go forward to reword that slightly, if there were big objections.
The Chairman: That is why we are asking everyone to please tell us those things.
I have a couple of questions. First, the right of first refusal might not be taken up on a property that is extremely valuable or strategically important, perhaps joining two pieces of otherwise unjoined park property, if the NCC cannot come up with the necessary funds within 60 days. In such a case, the property owners can sell it to whomever they like. Is that okay with you?
Mr. Hazell: It is not okay, but it is something we probably have to live with. The NCC does have other ways to persuade landowners that it is not in their interest to subdivide a property. There was an example of a property owner who wanted to create a subdivision within the park. However, they required services that would have to cross NCC lands. The NCC was not willing to provide those services, so the subdivision did not happen. They do have other tools at their disposal, albeit not as good as regulatory tools.
I do not see a way around that conundrum, senator. It is a good point.
The Chairman: There is of course, in this whole question, the larger public interest and the fact that everyone agrees that there ought to be, within the confines of the National Capital Region, a park, and there happens to be a burgeoning one sitting there.
Mr. Anions: When there was a decision made to create a national park in the Bruce Peninsula, there were almost no federal lands there. Parks Canada has been trying to assemble a park there for about 10 years. Because they are in the process of creating a park, a special allocation was made that allowed Parks Canada to acquire a certain amount of land when it became available. It was money set aside to make the park. In 1938, Mackenzie King set aside $100,000 to start buying land for a park. The NCC must do the same thing. They have to get some money from Parliament to improve the park. What is lacking is a specific strategy or plan for dealing with private property or creating the park.
The Chairman: Actually there is, and it is set out in this bill.
Mr. Anions: Yes, that is what we are asking for in the bill.
The Chairman: An act of Parliament cannot require parliamentary appropriations to anyone year after year for certain purposes. You cannot bind a future government in an act of Parliament.
The situation I was describing was, one hopes, hypothetical, but if you were a landowner and wanted to ensure that you had the opportunity to sell your land to someone other than the NCC, for whatever reason, the strategic time to put the land up for sale would be February 10, because the likelihood of being able to get a parliamentary appropriation 60 days before the end of the fiscal year is extremely remote. That is the worst case scenario.
We are going to speak to landowners, but I want to get your opinion about this. Assume that I am a landowner and that my land has been in my family for years. There have been a few examples of that. I believe that Radmore Farm is one property where that is the case.
No one ever said anything about a park, expropriation or first right of refusal. I only know that I have been on this property since before I was born. I mentioned earlier that there is the large public right, and there should be some concept of a federal park within the confines of the NCC. However, that conflicts directly with the right of the individual property owner — and we must respect property rights — to aggrandize to the largest degree possible what he might realize from the sale of that property.
Ms. How spoke earlier about how we would accurately determine the fair market price. However, if I have 100 acres that I want to sell, is fair market value not the value I would get if I could subdivide it and develop it as a developer? Would I not reasonably expect that I would be compensated for the fact that I have lost this opportunity?
No one told my father about this and no one told my grandfather about this. Is that a fair shake, or do I give up that right in the interests of Canada? Am I required by an act of Parliament to become as generous as Mackenzie King was?
Mr. Hazell: I think there is a balance. To take a slightly different tack, I was rereading the National Capital Act today, and it does give reference to expropriation provisions of the Expropriation Act. I have done no legal research on this, and perhaps you could get your legal counsel to look at. I wonder whether rights of expropriation under the Expropriation Act would apply if this bill went forward. It may be that the National Capital Commission would have less right to take properties than they currently do.
The Chairman: That is entirely possible.
Mr. Hazell: Landowners should be happy; they will not be expropriated. I am not sure how often the Expropriation Act is now used, and I am certain that in national parks they no longer have access to the Expropriation Act.
The Chairman: Nothing can become a national park until all the property is owned by Her Majesty in right of the Crown. There is no such thing as private property in any national park.
Mr. Hazell: I believe there are some leasehold interests though, are there not?
The Chairman: You can lease, but you cannot own property. There is no such thing as private property in a national park.
Mr. Anions: In Point Pelee in the 1970s, they bought out cottages; so they are not there today.
The Chairman: Our information today is that there is no such thing. In Banff, for example, lots of people own a house but they do not own the lands. It is on a 41- or 42-year lease.
Senator McCoy: That is for national parks.
The Chairman: Yes, which this is not. In our recommendation to the Senate we want to be careful that we do not become a party to tramping on personal rights in the interests of a large community and national rights. That is the reason we are asking the questions.
Mr. Hazell: I think the Sierra Club of Canada would say that it is a fair price to pay, given that you will basically be surrounded by a tremendous natural asset and your children and grandchildren can continue to enjoy those properties through establishment of trust arrangements or just through simple provisions in your will. It will not affect your rights, or your children's rights. It is only if you think you can make a buck out of it that you will think we are getting in your way.
The Chairman: If that happens, we want to ensure that you get a fair buck.
In order to cover the costs of operating national parks — because they do not entirely cover the costs from parliamentary appropriations and do not get enough to run the parks properly — they have become obliged to charge entry and user fees, which are quite considerable. If we say to the NCC that we expect the NCC, in its annual report to Parliament, to say, ``Here is what we have done in this federal park,'' and if the public expectation and that of Parliament is that it will be the sort of park that will protect the ecological interests, there will be costs associated with that. That stuff costs money.
Do you think the people you surveyed, who I understand now pay nothing to go into Gatineau Park, would accept that?
Ms. How: There is a fee for cross-country skiing now.
The Chairman: To go into the park presently, there is no charge. How happy will anyone be to pay for these things? In show business this is called a tight gate. That is, you let them in free and then charge the hell out of them inside. National parks operate with a tight gate. You pay money to gain access to the confines of the park. Here is the boundary. When your car is at the gate, you will pay a considerable amount of money to go into the park and more if you are going to stay more than a day. Are the folks who use it now going to be happy at that prospect?
Mr. Anions: Working in Prince Albert National Park, we had gates and all the cars had to stop and pay a fee. For a while there was a vehicle fee and a family fee. When it is instituted, at first there are people who are very unhappy about it and some people cannot afford it very well. Once it has been operational for a while, however, people gradually accept it. After a number of years, it worked quite smoothly. People accept it, especially if they know the money will be used to support and preserve the park. If they think the money is going into doing something for the park, it is even better.
Mr. Hazell: The subject of fees for access to parks is controversial in the environmental community. In British Columbia, they gave some consideration to charging fees for access to the provincial parks. There was quite a debate and quite a bit of disagreement with that. I support imposing fees, but I think they should be grounded in law. My reading of the National Capital Act and the regulations thereunder is that the NCC has no authority to collect the $10 that I pay every time I go cross-country skiing. They have no authority to charge those fees. There are no fees regulations; that is what I am saying. I think there should be.
I think a fee should be charged to people who drive there cars up there and not just a fee for cross-country skiers. There is a certain amount of inequity with regard to how fees are currently charged for park use. You are right: this is a controversial issue. There will be lots of push-back on this. However, this is not part of your bill. Perhaps we could take baby steps here and then pass the regulations on permitting authorities.
The Chairman: Do you know whether the fees that one now pays in Gatineau Park are paid to a private concern or to the NCC?
Ms. How: I think they are paid to the NCC.
Mr. Anions: The sign on the ski trails indicated Lafleur.
Ms. How: I pay my cheque to the National Capital Commission and they collect the money at the visitors centre.
The Chairman: Maybe it is a bit of both.
Witnesses, thank you very much. Do you have any parting shots for us?
Mr. Anions: I just want to thank you for letting us give our briefs; we appreciate it very much.
Ms. How: We hope it all goes through.
Mr. Anions: We are behind you 100 per cent.
The Chairman: We very much appreciate your time.
The committee adjourned.