Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 15 - Evidence, March 29, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 29, 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 8:36 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to welcome you to this meeting. Today we continue our consideration of Bill S-210, to amend the National Capital Act for the establishment and protection of Gatineau Park. This private senator 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.
Appearing before us today on behalf of the National Capital Commission are Micheline Dubé, Executive Vice- President and Chief Operating Officer; Michelle Comeau, Vice-President of Environment, Capital Lands and Parks Branch; and Richard Fujarczuk, General Counsel.
Please proceed, Ms. Dubé.
Micheline Dubé, Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer, National Capital Commission: Thank you, Senator Banks and committee members. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you briefly an overview of Gatineau Park, the most important natural asset within Canada's capital region, managed by the National Capital Commission on behalf of all Canadians.
We are pleased that the Senate has proposed a bill that recognizes what an essential role Gatineau Park plays in Canada's capital by clearly enshrining the park within the National Capital Act. Your proposal acknowledges that the NCC has been a good and strong steward of the park, a jewel we all treasure.
Gatineau Park is an integral and defining element of Canada's capital region and of the NCC's mandate to plan, conserve and develop the region. The preservation of this superb natural environment, with its beautiful rolling hills and breathtaking landscapes located 15 minutes from Parliament Hill, is the result of over 100 years of planning by the NCC and its predecessors. One may ask: What other capital benefits from the presence of such a unique green space within an urban environment of over 1 million residents? This is a place where city and nature meet, where natural landscapes and views act as a backdrop for national events and daily life. As renowned capital planner Jacques Gréber observed in the mid-1900s: "It is a magnificent forest. . . a heritage of beauty, joy, and nature walks, . . . a unique combination in the world — right at the door of the Capital."
[Translation]
Gatineau Park is an important nature preserve within the Canadian Shield, stretching over more than 36,000 hectares in the heart of the National Capital Region.
Each year, local residents and Canadians demonstrate their appreciation of the park with some 1.7 million visits.
This four-season destination is known for its vast natural territory comprised of some 200 kilometres of trails, forests containing more than 50 species of trees and some 50 crystal-clear lakes, featuring a rich array of recreational activities.
As well, the park plays a key role in maintaining the vitality of regional ecosystems by providing habitat for many wildlife and plant species, some of which are considered to be endangered.
Not only is Gatineau Park part of our natural heritage, but it is home to a number of other heritage resources. Mackenzie King Estate, comprised of historical gardens and buildings, is the most important cultural attraction in Gatineau Park, attracting some 60,000 visitors per year. Two of the six official residences managed by the NCC are also situated within Gatineau Park. These are the residence of the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the Mousseau Lake residence, known as Harrington Lake, the country residence of the Prime Minister. Both contribute to the park's national and political symbolism.
[English]
With respect to ownership, to give you some visual context, I will refer to two maps throughout my presentation. One map illustrates the original 1960 perimeter of the park, and the other map shows Gatineau Park today, its boundary and ownership. As I mentioned, the total area of Gatineau Park is over 36,000 hectares. The NCC owns or controls 35,276 hectares, or almost 98 per cent of the lands, within the boundaries of Gatineau Park. These lands include 17 per cent of the lands for which Quebec holds title and of which the NCC has management and control.
Approximately 2 per cent of the lands are owned or controlled by other entities for municipal infrastructure, such as roadways and utility corridors, by commercial owners or by private owners. The residential component that remains in the park, serving mostly as permanent residences, is concentrated within the areas of Meech Lake, Kingsmere Lake and Skyridge.
[Translation]
The park has been expanded since the 1930s through the continuous and gradual acquisition of properties within its boundaries. Our 2005 Gatineau Park Master Plan confirms our long-term objective to continue to acquire properties within the park according to prioritized categories that relate mainly to ecological importance.
Based on availability of funding, acquisitions are to be undertaken on a willing buyer/willing seller basis, at market rates. Since 1989, we have added approximately 1,050 hectares of land to Gatineau Park, including the acquisition of the Meech Creek Valley, and we have sold or exchanged approximately 150 hectares. Today, the NCC owns approximately 900 more hectares of land within the park than it did in 1989.
[English]
As to the park boundaries, the area of land managed as Gatineau Park has continually increased over time, making it a true success story when compared to the park initially conceived in the early 1900s. In 1960, an Order-in-Council gave the NCC the authority to acquire lands for Gatineau Park within a rough perimeter, the 1960 perimeter. This perimeter was used as the working boundary of the park by NCC staff until the 1990s, when we undertook an exercise to define the long-term boundary of the park — one that would facilitate its management and protection. This exercise focused on creating a well-consolidated entity from an ecological and management perspective, while taking into account ecological features, natural or built artificial barriers and the location and characteristics of private properties. The work resulted in a boundary that increased the total area of the park by approximately 700 hectares from the 1960 original perimeter.
In 1997, the NCC's board of directors approved this new boundary of Gatineau Park and in 1998, Treasury Board confirmed the area within this boundary as National Interest Land Mass, NILM. The NILM designation confirms the federal government's intent to hold the property in perpetuity because it is essential to the long-term vision of the capital. This boundary definition exercise included the identification of properties to be acquired within the revised boundary and others to be disposed of outside of that boundary. No other modifications have been made since that time.
[Translation]
We manage the park based on these boundaries, but perhaps we should have been more proactive in communicating the new boundaries to the public, so as not to create the misconception that we were selling lands in the park. We would support the establishment of legislated boundaries for the park, as the NCC considers the park's current boundary to be its long-term boundary. This would help to clarify that boundary for all stakeholders.
Also related to the boundaries, I would like to mention that in 1974, an order in council from the Government of Quebec established Gatineau Park as a game reserve to prohibit hunting in the area of the park identified in a metes and bounds description attached to the order. This boundary was somewhat different from the 1960 rough perimeter. It also does not incorporate Meech Creek Valley and other additions made since the 1970s that are within the 1997 perimeter.
[English]
The planning of Gatineau Park goes back as far as 1903 with the Todd report, which proposed that a park be created north of Ottawa to preserve some of the Canadian wilderness as part of the capital. Todd stated that,
the Dominion of Canada is famous over the world for the extent and beauty of her forests and for this reason it would be appropriate that there should be reserved in close proximity to the Capital, good examples of her forests which once covered a great portion of the country. Not only will these reserves be of inestimable value to the future generations as an example of the original forest, but they will also provide a place where nature may still be enjoyed. . . .
In 1934, the Federal Woodlands Preservation League was created to address the problem of clear-cutting. Their continued efforts resulted in the 1938 acquisition of the first few parcels of land by the Federal District Commission, predecessor to the NCC, for the creation of a new park.
[Translation]
Over the years, many important planning documents, such as the 1950 Gréber Plan, have been prepared to guide the preservation and recreational use of Gatineau Park. For the past decades, the NCC has expressed its management philosophy for the park through a series of successive master plans that set the strategic objectives for its preservation, use and management, specifically in 1980, 1990 and 2005.
For years, the NCC has adhered to the highest federal and international standards for the management of natural resources. It is important to mention that we have not done it alone. The last planning process, in 2005, involved extensive public consultations and many meetings with interest groups, culminating in a new Gatineau Park Master Plan that was approved by the NCC's board of directors in May 2005.
We also collaborate with universities and the scientific community as well as neighbouring municipalities, many user groups and an expert advisory committee.
The central management principle of the 2005 Gatineau Park Master Plan is to improve the health, integrity and natural beauty of the park for present and future generations while offering environmentally respectful recreational experiences to the public.
In order to be able to successfully implement the provisions of the latest master plan, the NCC will require additional tools and mechanisms to manage Gatineau Park, including firm boundaries, more explicit authority for the protection of the environment, and for the control and management of activities taking place within the park.
[English]
In conclusion, the stewardship of Gatineau Park is an integral part of the fabric of Canada's capital region, and of our mandate to foster pride and unity among Canadians. We want to ensure that the park remains a strong symbol of Canadian values in Canada's capital with regard to the protection and enjoyment of the natural environment, healthy living and quality of life.
With our focus first on conservation of the park's natural and cultural resources, and then on the pursuit of respectful recreational activities and experiences, Gatineau Park will remain the capital's conservation park. The appropriate legislative authority would provide the NCC with the necessary tools to pursue its long-term planning for the park.
The Chairman: Thank you. Do others of your company wish to speak before questions? We will proceed with questions.
Senator Cochrane: Ms. Dubé, we have heard many witnesses, of course, so far, and many of them are not happy with the management of the park. First, I want to talk about the boundaries.
Does the park currently have a well-defined boundary? As you know, clause 10.2 (1) of the bill says: "The Governor-in-Council shall, by order, within 60 days after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, set out in Schedule 2 the boundaries of the park."
With this in mind, give us a sense of the size of the task involved in setting out the boundaries of this park.
Ms. Dubé: In answer to the first part of your question, Gatineau Park has a well-defined boundary. It is the 1997 boundary that has been approved by the National Capital Commission's board of directors as a result of the authority that they have under the National Capital Act. It is the red line that you can see on the map behind me.
With respect to the 60 days, the issue surrounding the definition of the boundary has been how to present this boundary. The NCC does not have a metes and bounds survey measurement, a type of boundary definition, which is usually what is attached to legislation. The 1960 perimeter was a line that was traced, and the metes and bounds that existed were attached to the Quebec government Order-in-Council with respect to the réserve de chasse. That is not the park of today. It is not the 1997 boundary.
That being said, we could meet the challenge of 60 days to present a way to populate Schedule 2 of the Act. There has been an exercise of "rénovations cadastrales" in Quebec, whereby the identification by lot number as a result of the review of the lots could serve as a description. Over the last years, the NCC has, with Quebec, completed the rénovations cadastrales, therefore has a lot number for two thirds of the park, and by September this year, for three quarters of the park. We could then do the traditional metes and bounds for the balance of the park. That work could be done within a 60-day period and that would enshrine the 1997 boundary in the legislation proposed.
The Chairman: Sorry to interrupt, but I refer everyone to clause 10.2 of the act. To clarify the question Senator Cochrane has asked, the clause does not say we have 60 days. It says that within 60 days of the introduction of this act "in the 1st Session of the 39th Parliament," which occurred some time ago, within 60 days of the act receiving Royal Assent, the Governor-in-Council will establish the boundaries as they existed at the moment the bill was introduced into Parliament.
We cannot now change it. The question is: Where are the boundaries on the day this bill was introduced into Parliament, given the wording of the bill? Senator Cochrane has raised an interesting question. Is the boundary clearly definable?
Ms. Dubé: Yes, it is. It is the 1997 boundary, the red line on the map.
Senator Cochrane: Are you happy with the boundaries as they are set out within this bill?
Ms. Dubé: The boundaries set out in this bill are not set. There is no description attached to the bill. The 1997 boundary, which is the boundary of the park, would be attached to the bill.
Senator Angus: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, last Thursday morning, it was pointed out in our hearing that Bill S-210, does not seem to have the schedule. There seems to be a blank page. As we were told, there are a series of private members' bills hoping to become law and Bill C-311 to amend the National Capital Act in the House of Commons has a schedule attached to it with a detailed description.
On my point of order, is that particular description in accordance with the 1997 boundary?
Ms. Dubé: No, it is not.
Senator Angus: There is great confusion about it. That is all I wanted to point out.
Senator Cochrane: The bill in the other place is Bill C-311.
Ms. Dubé: It has attached the metes and bounds description of the hunting reserve.
Senator Milne: Is that demonstrated on this map?
Ms. Dubé: On that particular one, no, but we have a map that can show you the three different boundaries, if you wish to see it. You can see that it has not changed significantly. However, the 1997 boundary is important because the park has grown in size since the perimeter in the 1960s. We would like that land to be included in the park. The red line is the 1997 boundary. A grey line represents the 1960 perimeter and a blue line represents the "réserve de chasse et de pêche." That boundary was done by the Quebec government to establish the hunting limits. It is described in metes and bounds and that is what the Member of Parliament, Paul Dewar, put in his bill in the house.
Senator Cochrane: You mentioned management: How is the park currently managed? Would the passage of this bill change the management? We know Quebec has some say in this management and the NCC has a say. There are businesses within the park, we have been told. There are residences in the park.
Tell us about the management of the whole park.
Ms. Dubé: The NCC manages the park in accordance with the 2005 Gatineau Park Master Plan. For us, our management approach is primarily a conservation effort. However, we allow recreational activities in certain zones.
We have established relationships with the adjoining municipalities and with the residents in the park. You may have heard there is one ski hill in the park and it is under lease from us. We also have approximately 25 residences that we own and lease in the park.
Perhaps I could invite Ms. Michelle Comeau, who is responsible for the direct management, to describe the day-to- day management of the park.
Michelle Comeau, Vice-President, Environment, Capital Lands and Parks Branch, National Capital Commission: We have a team of approximately 20 staff who are responsible for managing Gatineau Park. We have biologists on staff, people specialized in recreational activities and contractors who deliver some of the services in our park. We also have a team of conservation officers who are responsible for enforcement.
We are guided by the master plan regarding our decision-making in terms of managing the park, but we have also established, through that process and previous planning processes, various land-use zones within the park. There are certain zones where activities are permitted and encouraged. They are situated in more intensively visited areas. Other areas of the park are more remote, such as the La Pêche area, which serve more as conservation areas.
We rely on our planning efforts, but we also rely on our conservation officers who have a peace officer status. They are able to enforce federal statutes in the park. We also use traffic and property regulations to protect and preserve the park. We operate on a variety of fronts.
We also take great care with respect to the natural environment. From that point of view, we have a well-defined framework in which we protect our natural resources. We use our natural resource management plan as a guide. Within that plan — and I will show it to you — we have a long chart of all the policies, international conventions, federal legislation and regulations to which we subscribe; for example, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. These policies, conventions, laws and regulations are all part of the management framework that we adhere to in the park.
We carry out various studies. We recently carried out a biodiversity study on the park. If you are interested, I can give you more detail and tell you about the results of that study. It has given a clear idea of the natural resources we are managing.
As we speak, a meeting is taking place in Gatineau Park with the scientific community. Every year, we meet with the researchers who conduct research in Gatineau Park, and they assist us. We have a small subsidy program, and universities come to Gatineau Park and conduct research. Today, a group from McGill University will present results of a study they have done on a fresh water mollusc, which is a tremendously important indicator of the quality of the lakes in Gatineau Park.
We have an internal team and we call on external expertise. We also have contracts for delivery of some of our maintenance services within the park and for the management of campgrounds. We have a comprehensive facility life- cycle rehabilitation and upgrade program.
Senator Cochrane: Quebec owns a portion of this park. What role does it play in the management of the park?
Ms. Comeau: We manage the park. The authority for managing those areas of the land that are hatched in grey on the chart has been transferred to the National Capital Commission. We manage that whole area as one integral unit. We do not distinguish those lands in terms of our management on the ground.
Senator Cochrane: Yesterday, we heard from witnesses who told us they were not happy with some of the pristine land in the sense that not enough people were supervising there and many things were happening with respect to bikers going into the park. Given that this land is so precious, as you said earlier, what is happening in that respect? What are your views?
Ms. Comeau: In the 2005 master plan, we identified a need to assert greater control over activities going on in the park, and we did take a number of initiatives. One of them was with regard to rock climbing. Our diagnostic was that a lot of activity was being carried out on the Eardley Escarpment, which is a precious and, in some areas, a fragile ecosystem.
We met with the various climbing groups. Initially, the master plan proposed to ban that activity as too detrimental, but the groups came back and said to us in public consultation that they were willing to work with the park to preserve this environment because they, too, believe it is important. We sat down with the group. They laid out the maps of the climbing areas and we laid out the maps of the fragile ecological areas. We came to an agreement with these groups that they would restrict their activities to certain defined corridors to which we both agreed. This measure is an interim one until our conservation plan is formalized in the next two years.
Senator Cochrane: What about the other groups?
Ms. Comeau: We have also worked with a number of mountain biking groups. There is an association called the International Mountain Biking Association, IMBA. We have had discussions with them and we are hoping to have them present a workshop on how to construct mountain biking trails that serve the needs of that group but at the same time are protective of the environment. There are techniques that can be used.
In the master plan, a suggestion was made that we needed, as you mentioned, more surveillance in some of the remote areas. Last summer, we hired additional conservation officers and patrollers who are out on bikes in the park. We will do that again this summer. We have people out there checking that the users are respecting, for example, the protected zones for rock climbing and also that they are respecting the areas they should be in regarding mountain biking.
It has been brought to our attention that on the western area of the park perhaps we need to pay a little more attention. We went out with our conservation officers and made sure the boundary of the park was well defined. We have patrols there on a regular basis, and we encourage all the residents near the park to phone us and let us know. We have a 24-hour service in that regard, and we have officers on call if they are required.
Senator Carney: I want to clarify the activity pattern in the park following Senator Cochrane's examination. Could Ms. Comeau go to the map and show us what parts are conserved? You showed us the residents around the lakes, but what part is classified as heavily intensive use and what part is conserved?
Ms. Comeau: I will refer you to page 23 of the document we distributed. It gives you an idea of the types of zones and conservation areas.
Senator Carney: I am not clear whether the park is heavily used in a majority of the area or a minority of the area.
Ms. Comeau: The park is heavily used in a minority of the area. A large portion of the park, which you see on this map and is identified in a darker grey-green, is what we call integral conservation. There are a few facilities, such as Lac La Pêche, where there are a beach, canoeing and camping, but most of the activities are concentrated in the southern part of the park from Meech Lake down. On the map we have given you, you will see semi-intensive recreation, intensive recreation and extensive recreation. The intensive recreation is a fairly small zone, which is orange.
Senator Carney: What takes place in the orange zone?
Ms. Comeau: That area includes trails for skiing, snowshoeing and mountain biking. It also includes Camp Fortune, Lac Philippe area campground and the southern part of Meech Lake, where beaches and trail accesses are located.
Senator Carney: A majority of the park is still fairly natural.
Ms. Comeau: Yes: We have inventoried a number of wildlife species that exist in the park, in great measure, due to the park's protected status.
Senator Angus: Thank you for coming today. Ms. Dubé. I commend you for your obvious enthusiasm for this piece of real estate.
Ms. Dubé: It is important to us.
Senator Angus: As well, I thank you for your clear description of what we have come to learn in the last few weeks is an extremely complicated situation. If nothing else comes out of this study in terms of legislation, there is a sense that these hearings are beneficial to ventilate the subject so that people know what we are dealing with.
Would it be fair to say, given your testimony on the status quo and the mandate of the NCC, that you do not have the necessary tools and sufficient resources to fulfill that mandate in the way that you would like to do so?
Ms. Dubé: There are certain features that we would like to see added to the legislation so that we are better able to protect the park. These tools were identified historically in our previous master plans as well as most recently in the 2005 plan. We would like to have the tools to enforce protection of the ecological integrity of the park. We would like to see the boundaries set. The proposal today brings us a step closer to that.
Senator Angus: Do you have a comment on the finances?
Ms. Dubé: Finances are always an issue. Like other government departments, agencies and crown corporations, the NCC has been subjected to reductions and cutbacks over the last 25 to 30 years. However, we have always put the necessary resources into the park. Perhaps we have had to implement certain strategies over a longer term. For example, private property is acquired over the longer term rather than immediately. If we had all the money that we needed at our disposal, of course we could work more quickly.
Senator Angus: In that regard, we have heard the concerns expressed that not only does the NCC not have the necessary funding to buy private properties that become available on the market but also that, from time to time when it appeared that the NCC might need more money, it sold off some of the lands in the park. That makes some people really uptight. Can you clarify that for us?
Ms. Dubé: We have not sold off properties in the park to finance activities in the park. The NCC owns 10 per cent of the lands in the National Capital Region. After a rationalization of all NCC holdings in the 1980s at the request of Treasury Board, the lands of national interest, NILM, were identified. At that time the NCC was directed to dispose of lands not within that NILM, for all of our lands. Gatineau Park was the result of the 1997 rationalization whereby some of the lands that were within the 1960 boundary were not within the 1997 boundary. Yet, the 1997 boundary is 700 hectares greater than the original 1960 perimeter; so the park has grown. Perhaps I was not clear before but the NCC disposed of properties that were within the 1960 perimeter and rationalized out. Highway 5 was constructed on the eastern edge of the park and we owned parcels on the other side of it. Therefore, from a management point of view, it became a challenge to manage a piece of land in conservation on the other side of a highway. We moved the boundary to align with Highway 5. By doing so, the boundary increased in certain areas and in other areas it decreased from the 1960 boundary. Over all, between 1960 and 1997, the result of the exercise was a growth in the overall size of the park.
The proceeds of land disposed overall, not only in the park, are deposited in an acquisition and disposal fund. As a Crown corporation, NCC's revenues from disposals do not go back to the centre but are deposited in an acquisition and disposal fund, which we then use for two purposes: the acquisition of land to add to the NCC's ownership of NILM and for rehabilitation of existing holdings. With respect to Gatineau Park, the proceeds from the disposal of properties between boundaries resulting in surplus parcels, we deposited $1.7 million to the NCC acquisition and disposal fund from the sale of those properties but we have withdrawn $16.5 million since 1990 from the acquisition and disposal fund to acquire properties in the park. In fact, properties elsewhere in the National Capital Region have been disposed of to acquire lands in Gatineau Park. The NCC has put much more into the park for acquisition than it has taken out of the park through disposal.
Senator Angus: Ms. Dube, you mentioned NILM this morning, which includes national park, federal park, National Interest Land Mass, Crown lands, and so on. That is part of the confusion. Should Gatineau Park be a national park, a provincial park or a special animal? For example, I understand that there is to be an extensive review of the NCC mandate. Are you aware of that?
Ms. Dubé: It was performed last year and the report was presented to Minister Cannon on December 21, 2006. He will comment on the results of that review at some time this spring, from what we understand.
Senator Angus: In your opinion, does the review indicate that the NCC is the appropriate body going forward in a rationalized circumstance — to clarify many of these grey areas and bring the legal status of the park more into focus? Would the NCC be the manager of the park?
Ms. Dubé: We would be the responsible manager for the park. The minister has not stated his position with respect to the review. However, that being said, the review recognized the NCC as an organization responsible for promoting Canada's National Capital Region, that the existence of the organization should continue, and that, as such, it should play a coordinating role within the National Capital Region. We have been managing the park for over 100 years. The park has grown under our leadership and management, and the park is an integral element of the National Interest Land Mass, which you mentioned. The NILM is dear to us because it represents the lands that the commission manages for all Canadians. We have been granted the responsibility to acquire and manage these lands in perpetuity.
They are priceless because they are not for disposal. They are for the future generations. Gatineau Park is one of our largest NILM properties on the Quebec side but some of you may be familiar with the greenbelt on the Ottawa side that are also lands of national interest. Through our various planning efforts, we have established management criteria for Gatineau Park. The park and the green image of Ottawa is an internationally recognized symbol. When people come to Ottawa they say this is a green capital, and Gatineau Park is an essential element of conveying that green image.
Senator Angus: It all sounds wonderful if one is completely new and they come in and hear your enthusiasm. On the other hand, as Canadians, we are aware of Banff, Jasper and Forillon, different national parks. We ask ourselves, why would this not be a national park? We have an organization in place, another Crown organization to run them. I am dealing only from logic because listening to you in a vacuum, it is all totally logical. Then we hear about all these other things, and there is a plethora of park management structures, which creates confusion.
Ms. Dubé: The National Capital Commission is a federal Crown land so by its ownership of Gatineau Park, it is a national park. It is not a national park under the management responsibility of Parks Canada. Parks Canada objectives in managing parks are to preserve uniqueness in various regions of Canada and they already have a park that represents the uniqueness of Gatineau Park, La Mauricie National Park. The Gatineau Park for them would be a second park of that type. It has never been their objective to acquire another like park. There are certain barriers to Gatineau Park being a national park: Quebec holds title to 17 per cent of the lands that we manage and control and the private properties. That being said, it was discussed that all kinds of things can be scoped out. However, Parks Canada is not interested in managing this park and we are. It is a key to the capital image. By its nature and by our mandate to promote the capital as a source of pride for all Canadians, the park represents the ecological worth to Canada. I think we need to consider this key piece to a capital.
[Translation]
Senator Angus: Ms. Dubé, your reply is very clear, and helps to clarify the situation and to define the role of the National Capital Commission.
[English]
The Chairman: These two questions will be the last supplementary questions and I will revert after this to the list.
Senator Cochrane: My question is about the property you were talking about, senator. It is the intention of Bill S- 210 that the owners in the Gatineau Park give the capital commission a right of first refusal on the sale of the property. This right means that the owner cannot sell the property to anyone else unless they receive a written confirmation from the NCC that it declines the offer, or the commission does not accept the offer within 60 days of receiving it. We have heard that some property owners are not comfortable with this situation, but what is the position of the NCC? Is the acquisition of property within Gatineau Park a priority for the commission? Do you have any reservations with the approach outlined in this bill? Do you support that and other items in Bill S-210?
Ms. Dubé: Acquisition of private properties within Gatineau Park is a priority of the NCC as stated in the 2005 master plan.
The Chairman: I want to remind members that copies of the master plan are in the hands of all members in the form of DVD.
Ms. Dubé: This summary and the disk give you the full enchilada.
Acquisition is a priority, of course. That being said, we are respectful of the private property owners within the park and they represent 2 per cent. The interference is not significant. We have established a listing of priority criteria by which we would acquire property when it comes on the market. We are interested in the ones that are mostly ecologically sensitive. Those properties are our first priority. Then we move on properties where there is a risk of subdivision, increased ownership and development of the park. Then, we move on to all other properties within the park. When a property comes up for sale we attempt acquire it. That being said, we acquire using taxpayer dollars. Our objective, and the policies under which we must operate, are to acquire at fair market value. In the past, properties have come up for sale where we have not been able to offer the price that the property owner desired as we felt it was too high, much over the fair market value of the property. We consider the assessed value of the property and we do our analysis. We have appraisers on staff. We also have hired appraisers when the property is over $350,000 to determine the worth and make offers. At times we have been successful: At other times we have not.
When we acquire anything over $25,000 the NCC must go to Treasury Board and obtain approval of that acquisition. There, we are challenged that we are acquiring at fair market value. There is a property, the Radmore property, which had been listed for $1.5 million. It was assessed, depending on the year, at $150,000 to $200,000. Obviously, we would not pay the asking price. We put in an offer, it was turned down and the property was re-listed for $1.2 million. We reminded them of our offer and it was turned down and the property is no longer on the market and has not been disposed of yet. That is one property we are interested in because there is a risk of subdivision. That is our view of the right of first refusal. It depends what price they are offering us. If the Radmore property owner came to us and offered the property for $1.5 million, they would have met the obligation of right of first refusal but we would have refused because it would be overpriced.
The Chairman: We need an answer to that question in particular.
If I own that property, and I have a developer willing to pay me $1.5 million for it, in order to subdivide it, is that not the fair market value?
Ms. Dubé: If you had a developer who was willing, it could be close to the fair market value. In this particular case, the property was listed for $1.5 million, then for $1.2 million and never sold so it was not the fair market value. We start with the assessed value, and of course that value is increased based on certain factors. The interest of a development and the additional funding that a developer would like to put on the table would be in our equation, and our offer based on that.
The Chairman: If it has been put up for sale, I am being hypothetical now, offered for sale for $1 million and you think it is worth $250,000, if the property owner is able to sell it to a developer is there any reason that owner should not? If the owner sold, would that property be susceptible to subdivision and development?
Ms. Dubé: In this hypothetical situation, in the past we would have expropriated the property. We are dealing with a hypothetical situation. We have not expropriated since 1989 or 1990 but that would be the approach we would consider. That property is on our priority acquisition list.
The Chairman: Over and above the first refusal concept embedded in the present legislation, the NCC otherwise has, under its current legislation, the capacity to expropriate when it determines that it should.
Ms. Dubé: I will ask Mr. Fujarczuk to explain.
Senator Tkachuk: Before you do that, to me, fair market value is whatever a willing buyer has offered. Let us say someone offered $1.2 million. Do you match that offer, or do you expropriate if you do not like the price? How does that work?
Ms. Dubé: We are dealing with a hypothetical situation.
Senator Tkachuk: This would be a real situation.
Ms. Dubé: If someone offers $1.2 million and the other party accepts that offer, we cannot say, "No." We do not have that power now, so we would not be able to say we will give them $1.25 million to make sure we have the land. In risky situations, we have used our expropriation authority.
Richard Fujarczuk, General Counsel, National Capital Commission: A matching bid provision is different from what is contemplated in the legislation. The legislation contemplates what I would call a pre-emptive right.
The Chairman: When you say "the legislation," you mean your legislation?
Mr. Fujarczuk: No, I mean Bill S-210. The provision contemplated in Bill S-210 talks about the vendor putting to us an unconditional offer to sell at fair market value. It is not the same thing as saying, "I have a matching bid provision. I have a ready, willing and able purchaser to buy this property, but I have to give you the opportunity to match that bid." That would be a different thing. In effect, if they have a bona fide offer, the market has been established in a fair way. The challenge with something like this is that someone's take on what constitutes fair market value and what someone is prepared to sign up for is different. If they had a genuine, bona fide third-party purchaser saying, "I am prepared to pay you $1.2 million for that property," speaking personally, I would say that establishes the market. That is not what the draft legislation does. It contemplates putting to the NCC an offer to purchase the property at a stipulated price. It is stipulated to be fair market value in the text, but as I said, it does not require the rigour of the marketplace to actually fix that, whereas a matching bid provision would.
The difficulty with the matching bid provision is that it is onerous on the vendor. I am sure the property owners that you may have had some feedback from would be resistant to that provision because we are very much constraining their ability to divest themselves of their property. We would love it because then the marketplace would really fix the value with that third-party bona fide offer. However, I think it would be onerous on vendors because it would mean they would have to have that offer before they could come to us, which is difficult to do.
Our current legislation contemplates the NCC having the right to call for property to be expropriated, but we are not the expropriating authority. We must engage the Department of Public Works to conduct the expropriation on our behalf. I wanted to clarify that nuance. It used to be contrary to that. In earlier iterations of the expropriation regime federally, the NCC had the direct ability to expropriate and act as the expropriating authority, but it has not been that way since 1970.
Senator Carney: I want to clarify what Senator Angus talked about in the various different tenures regarding national parks and Crown lands. The island that I live on is more than 50 per cent owned by Parks Canada. Living on an island where the majority landowner is Parks Canada, administered under the Canada National Parks Act is extremely frustrating. One reason for that is that the entire management focus of the national park is for off-islanders such as visitors and kayakers. When they present a management plan for the park, they talk about kayakers and visitors. When we say that we are the local residents and ask if we count, we do not.
It seems to me that the focus of Gatineau Park in this bill is for local users. I do not think that people come to Ottawa from Switzerland, China and Japan to ski at Camp Fortune. Instead of being under the Canadian National Parks Act, as my island unfortunately is, this bill gives more flexibility to management, does it not? Under the Canada National Parks Act, whatever we do in the park has to be national. Whatever we do in the park must be the same in New Brunswick, for example. Is one of the reasons you like this legislation because it gives you more flexibility than under the Canada National Parks Act? That is a leading question.
Ms. Dubé: I do not think the legislation would necessarily give us more freedom. Our objectives in managing the park are different than the objectives of the Canada National Parks Act. Of course, we want to share the park with the locals but also with Canadians. I laughed at your comment and thought that no one comes from Europe to ski at Camp Fortune, but they do come to cross-country ski in Gatineau Park. It is an internationally known destination. The park is managed for all Canadians by the NCC. It is still our objective not to be local.
That being said, we work with the adjoining municipalities, with our tenants, with the private property owners, and we want to ensure that the park is accessible.
Senator Carney: In your opinion, is there an alternative to this bill to have Gatineau Park, which is a federal park, administered under the Canada National Parks Act?
Ms. Dubé: We do not see it as an alternative to have the park managed under the Canada National Parks Act. We see the park as a key component of the NCC's role in the capital.
The Chairman: This bill does not contemplate that at all.
Ms. Dubé: There are other barriers to making it a national park.
The Chairman: Chief among them would be that the national parks have no interest and have said so loudly.
Ms. Dubé: That is right.
[Translation]
Senator Lavigne: If we look at that map, you told us just now that the grey areas represent the Government of Canada's part and that all the rest represents the parts owned by the Government of Quebec and private owners. Is that right?
Ms. Dubé: No. The green area shows where the NCC holds most of the titles. The shaded grey area shows where the Quebec government holds title, but, under a 1973 agreement, the NCC has management and control rights.
So 98 per cent of the park is under the management and control of the NCC, which holds 81 per cent of the titles. Quebec holds the remaining 17 per cent.
Senator Lavigne: Why don't we hold them?
Ms. Dubé: The 1973 agreement transferred only management and control, not the titles. That's what people wanted.
Senator Lavigne: So I assume that the federal government pays for the 17 per cent and that Quebec gets the benefit.
Ms. Dubé: I prefer to say that the federal government pays for the entire park and that Quebeckers and all Canadians can get the benefit.
Senator Lavigne: Does the Quebec government reimburse us for managing the park?
Ms. Dubé: No. Under the agreement, we exchanged other management rights. The agreement met our objectives and also brought other responsibilities. It was an exchange.
Senator Lavigne: What are Quebec's responsibilities in the park?
Ms. Dubé: None as such, but there was other land that it now manages. Specifically, here, on the boundary.
Senator Lavigne: So Quebec pays nothing for the 17 per cent of the titles it holds. It holds the titles, we look after the land, we pay everything, and Quebec does not reimburse us?
Ms. Dubé: No, it does not reimburse us. No.
Senator Lavigne: In La Mauricie National Park, does all the land belong to the Government of Canada? Is it run by the NCC?
Ms. Dubé: No, it is run by Parks Canada. I think that Parks Canada's authority means that they own the parks. I could answer, but I cannot confirm that we hold title to all of La Mauricie Park. We would have to ask Parks Canada.
Senator Lavigne: But how is it that you administer this national park, and La Mauricie Park is one too, but you do not run it?
Ms. Dubé: Because the NCC's authority is limited to the national capital region.
Senator Lavigne: But isn't Gatineau the national capital region?
Ms. Dubé: Yes, Gatineau is part of the national capital. This map shows you the national capital region; the NCC's authority extends to Pontiac, Val-des-Monts, l'Ange-Gardien and all these neighbouring municipalities. Since Mr. Trudeau's declaration in 1969 — the capital of Canada was Ottawa-Hull at the time — it is Ottawa-Gatineau, and the NCC is responsible for the national capital region, which includes Ottawa, Gatineau and some neighbouring municipalities.
Senator Lavigne: So this means that we completely look after Quebec, but we do not hold title. Is it your intention to acquire the 17 per cent? Is there something in the works that would give us title to the entire park?
Ms. Dubé: Our first concern is to acquire the 2 per cent that is privately held. Quebec's 17 per cent is less of a concern at the moment because we have the management and the control. That allows us to run the park. Our priority is to acquire the private land.
[English]
The Chairman: If I may, the question of title is not one that obtains because the title in all these lands resides in Her Majesty, such that Her Majesty in right of Quebec owns 17 per cent of these lands and Her Majesty in right of Canada owns the other 81 per cent, leaving only 2 per cent in private hands.
Ms. Dubé: That is right.
The Chairman: Her Majesty cannot grant unto herself. The lands are owned by Her Majesty.
Ms. Dubé: That restriction has not been an issue for the NCC in managing the park.
[Translation]
Senator Lavigne: Yes, it is marked by a red line. Are you looking at expanding the park or is this the boundary that you want to keep? In the immediate future, do you intend to buy land or expand Gatineau Park?
Ms. Dubé: Our goal is to buy the 2 per cent of the land that is in private hands. Those are our intentions for the park boundary, indicated by the red line. It marks the 1997 boundary as confirmed in the 2005 Master Plan. That plan will be updated in ten years or so. We cannot tell what will happen in the future, but at the moment, our plan is not to expand outside this boundary. That is a planning process with public consultation. Identifying other land to add in the future, that is hard to predict.
Senator Lavigne: I would like to know how much it costs to run this park each year.
Ms. Dubé: About $5 million.
Senator Lavigne: You say that it costs $5 million and you are telling us that you do not have the resources you need and that you would like more. How much does the National Capital Commission think it needs to run this property you have? What would be reasonable?
Ms. Dubé: The answer is that the mandate review report that was submitted to the minister in December — we are still waiting for the minister's reply — recommended that the NCC receive an additional $25 million annually in order to manage all its assets.
Senator Lavigne: Plus the five million?
Ms. Dubé: The five million is the direct cost of operating Gatineau Park. I am talking about operational costs; I have not added capital costs. By way of explanation, $25 million represents the NCC's shortfall of about 25 per cent. The studies conducted by the Paquet group said that the NCC was underfunded. Does the shortfall apply to Gatineau Park proportionally? Certainly, our answer would be that it is part of our whole operation, so yes, we can say that the shortfall applies too. But our reality is that we have to operate within our budget. So we have adjusted our programs both inside the park and for the NCC as a whole in order to live within our budget.
Senator Lavigne: Are you saying that the budget is presently five million and that in the report it is 25 million?
Ms. Dubé: No, I was talking about the NCC in its entirety. We have not worked out how much money we would like to have to run the park. We have not been asked to, nor do we have the opportunity to come forward and ask for additional funds. When we were consulted as part of the mandate review process, the parliamentary appropriation for the NCC had decreased over the years, and we could not access a cost-of-living adjustment when we should have been able to. For us, that means a shortfall, but we work with the budget that we have been given.
Senator Lavigne: The NCC's budget is how much?
Ms. Dubé: The NCC's budget is in the order of $100 million for all the assets that we have to look after.
Senator Lavigne: And the report says that there should be 25 million, so that is 125 million?
Ms. Dubé: Yes.
Senator Lavigne: Could we have a copy of this report?
Ms. Dubé: Yes, we can provide you with copies.
Senator Lavigne: Yes, I would like to look at it.
Ms. Dubé: I have to explain that the minister has still not made an announcement on the Paquet report, I just want to point that out.
[English]
The Chairman: I have a supplementary question to Senator Lavigne's question. With respect to the $5 million that you spend on daily operations in Gatineau Park, if this bill were to pass, how much money would you need in addition to the $5 million to run Gatineau Park in the way that you think it ought to be run? Would that money be covered in the additional $25 million that you have requested? Did you contemplate this money in the context of the request for $25 million made by the NCC?
Ms. Dubé: The request for $25 million was not put forward by the NCC. The task force reviewing the mandate of the NCC hired an outside consulting firm to review the NCC's financial situation and included this amount.
The Chairman: Did that firm contemplate this bill becoming an act of Parliament?
Ms. Dubé: No, it did not.
The Chairman: One assumes that becoming an act would result in additional requirements for funding.
Ms. Dubé: The bill proposes to set a legal boundary for the park. The NCC has a boundary under which we operate so that provision would not have a monetary impact. The bill proposes that the NCC acquire properties and it is the objective of the commission to do so. The issue is the timing of when that acquisition would be required because the bill does not put forward an obligation to acquire within the next five to ten years, which would create a financial impact for the NCC.
[Translation]
Senator Lavigne: How many parks does the NCC look after? Is it just Gatineau Park?
Ms. Dubé: Our authority is limited to the national capital region. The NCC, the National Capital Commission, is responsible for the land it holds in the national capital region.
Senator Lavigne: That is all?
Ms. Dubé: That is all; our regional office is in Ottawa. We manage about 10 per cent of the land in the national capital region.
Senator Lavigne: And you want a budget of $125 million to manage 10 per cent of the land in the national capital?
Ms. Dubé: We manage Gatineau Park, the greenbelt, Confederation Boulevard. We take care of the maintenance of a number of federal properties, including landscaping. We manage Canada's official residences. We are responsible for the Canada Day celebrations on Parliament Hill. We look after the Rideau Canal skateway.
Senator Lavigne: Do you look after 24 Sussex?
Ms. Dubé: We look after the grounds of 24 Sussex, and repairs to the building located at 24 Sussex. But we do not look after things like preparing the meals in the house.
Senator Lavigne: You were talking about all the things that you manage.
Ms. Dubé: We look after the parkways along the Rideau Canal, the Ottawa River Parkway, the Rockcliffe Parkway. We are responsible for managing Major's Hill Park, Jacques Cartier Park in Gatineau, Confederation Park, the complex of buildings at Dow's Lake. We have about 600 rental properties in the national capital region.
Senator Lavigne: Buildings, you are saying?
Ms. Dubé: Yes, buildings, trails, bike paths.
Senator Lavigne: When you say buildings, do you mean office buildings? For example, Parks Canada is in an office building. Do you look after buildings like that?
Ms. Dubé: Office buildings are more Public Works' responsibility. The NCC looks after some long-term rental properties with a variety of tenants, but we are not involved with federal offices; they are more the responsibility of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
[English]
The Chairman: You have wide ranging responsibilities.
Ms. Dubé: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: How many landowners are there in the 2 per cent of the land that is in private hands?
Ms. Dubé: There are approximately 200 to 300, depending on whether you want to count buildings.
Senator Tkachuk: Where is that land exactly?
Ms. Dubé: It is primarily in the area of Kingsmere Lake, Meech Lake, and around Skyridge. That is where the bulk of the private properties are.
Senator Tkachuk: Private property owners are around the lake. Was that part of the original plan or have they been there forever? How long has the NCC managed the property?
Ms. Dubé: The NCC and our predecessors have been there since the 1930s. Some of these properties started off as summer cottages. The owners liked them and turned them into year-round residences.
The Chairman: Were they owners before?
Ms. Dubé: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Has all that land been held privately, previously?
Ms. Dubé: The land was held privately. We acquired what was available at the time and they would have been established at that time.
The Chairman: That is not entirely true, because the NCC has sold some land that was declared surplus and which is now owned by private owners. Is that correct?
Ms. Dubé: The difference is between the 1960 and the 1997 boundary, but it would not be in those areas particularly.
Senator Tkachuk: Are there any leaseholders?
Ms. Dubé: Yes, we have approximately 25 properties that we own and that we have rented.
Senator Tkachuk: Is that for business?
Ms. Dubé: It is private and one business. The Camp Fortune ski resort is under lease with the NCC.
Senator Tkachuk: You said 25?
Ms. Dubé: There are 25 private residences, homes.
Senator Tkachuk: How were they established?
Ms. Dubé: We acquired these properties as part of our objective to acquire private properties. Rather than demolish a property that was in good condition, the master plan's objective is that we manage them until they reach the end of their life-cycle.
Senator Tkachuk: Is that the buildings or the owners?
Ms. Dubé: Sometimes there is a match. When the property is in fair condition, we continue to rent it.
Senator Tkachuk: Is that as long as that property is kept up?
Ms. Dubé: That is right.
Senator Tkachuk: Is that a 99-year lease?
Ms. Dubé: They are annual leases. They are renewable, subject to the laws of Quebec for tenants. Camp Fortune is the only long-term lease we have.
Senator Tkachuk: Who services them? Do the people around the lakes pay property tax? Who provides municipal services?
Ms. Dubé: Perhaps you want to describe the different municipalities involved, Ms. Comeau.
Ms. Comeau: The private property owners pay taxes to the municipality in which they are located.
Senator Tkachuk: Municipalities have some jurisdiction.
Ms. Comeau: Yes.
Senator Tkachuk: Within all the property?
Ms. Comeau: Yes, they do. It is one of the reasons why a citizen can ask for a building permit on their private land: They are dealing with the municipality and not with the NCC.
Senator Tkachuk: Does the municipality handle the roads, garbage collection and other services?
Ms. Comeau: Yes: Some of the roads are municipal. The parkways are federal, but yes, the services would be municipal there. The NCC make payments in lieu of taxes to the municipality in which the lands are situated as a compensation for our own presence there.
Senator Tkachuk: How do you handle jurisdictional differences? What is the province's role here? There is municipal jurisdiction, and the NCC manages the land. As Senator Lavigne was trying to get at, are there obligations under the leases? What are the obligations? What does it mean to manage the land? Is it to hold title, chop wood, and build cottages?
Ms. Comeau: The province of Quebec has a few roads that traverse the park that are provincial, but other than that, as we mentioned, they are not involved in the daily management of those lands. The NCC manages them.
Senator Tkachuk: Do you have any jurisdiction over the property owners or none whatsoever?
Ms. Dubé: None.
Senator Tkachuk: That responsibility is a municipal one within the park and that is why you want to acquire those lands over time.
Mr. Fujarczuk: As a matter of distribution of powers, private property is not a matter within federal jurisdiction.
Senator Tkachuk: This park seems like a good deal for the city of Gatineau and Ottawa. They have a park paid for by the taxpayers of Canada for their enjoyment. A few tourists might pop over and drive through while visiting the Hill, but this park is really for the enjoyment of the locals, I would say, in a large proportion. Do we have statistics as to who are the visitors? Who uses the park?
Ms. Dubé: I am pleased you mention that Ottawa is lucky to have an organization such as the National Capital Commission that provides parks, parkways and recreational pathways for local use, but the park itself is a tourist attraction. Perhaps Ms. Comeau could describe the types of visitors. We have 1.7 million visitors per year.
Senator Tkachuk: This information is important to the bill.
Ms. Comeau: In past years, we have done a number of surveys to get a handle on who is coming, when they are coming and the volume of visitation. There are 1.7 million visits. We have estimated that approximately 30 per cent of the visitation is from outside the region. It can vary by season but 20 to 30 per cent can be from outside the local area. We have a high level of use by local people and they tend to be repeat visitors. We are a year-round destination. During the fall colours, it is a tradition that people who live in Ottawa get there in their car and bring their guests to Gatineau Park. As Ms. Dubé mentioned, during the winter we have a cross-country ski network but we are also the site of an international ski loppet. There are 3,000 skiers of which a high percentage come from outside the country to participate in that type of event. It is not organized by the NCC but we collaborate with the organizers.
People can reserve sites in the park electronically. They come from other places, such as England, to camp in the park or to take advantage of what nature has to offer.
As I said, the percentage of users from other parts of Canada or from other countries is in the 20 per cent to 30 per cent range, depending on the season, but we have year-round visitation. It is a destination for local residents. They come to the park to showcase to their visitors what is special about the capital region.
Senator Tkachuk: You were talking about purchasing land and its importance. Is the focus on the internal purchase and no longer on the external purchase, or are there plans for future purchases of external properties? Does Crown land surround the park, or is it private property?
Ms. Dubé: We own some land surrounding the park, the bulk of which is private land. The 1997 Gatineau Park boundary, the red line, is deemed to be the National Interest Land Mass, NILM, designation I referred to earlier. Our authority to acquire property is in that area. We would not acquire properties outside of the national interest land.
The NCC and its predecessors in the past acquired a lot of land. In the late 1980s we were told by Treasury Board to rationalize all our land holdings. This red line represents the rationalization for Gatineau Park, but many other properties in the National Capital Region were declared surplus by the NCC.
Senator Tkachuk: It says in your presentation that in 1960 an Order-in-Council gave the NCC authority to acquire land for Gatineau Park with a rough perimeter. Do you have a map showing what it was like previous to 1960?
Ms. Dubé: We have so many maps. Previous to 1960, it looked the same but it was a smaller piece. It started off in 1930 with the original preserve and then moved on, but I guess the first global perimeter was set in 1960.
Senator Tkachuk: What was the focus in 1960?
Ms. Dubé: Acquisition.
Senator Tkachuk: Was that outside or within the perimeter?
Ms. Dubé: The focus was to grow NCC's ownership of lands within that perimeter.
Senator Adams: You mentioned an area where people hunt. We do not want to make a national park out of Gatineau Park because people live in the area of the park. Are they the only ones who can hunt in Gatineau Park?
Ms. Dubé: There are 2 per cent of residents in the Gatineau Park. The whole area, in accordance with the 1974 Order-in-Council of Quebec, restricts hunting in the park. There is no hunting in the park. We also have regulations that prohibit it, but we enforce our regulations and the Quebec hunting reserve.
Senator Adams: Are there hunting reserves in Gatineau Park?
Ms. Dubé: There are none within Gatineau Park. There are areas in the province of Quebec where, during certain times of the year, one can hunt. Hunting permits fall under provincial jurisdiction.
The Chairman: Hunting is not merely restricted but prohibited.
Ms. Dubé: Yes.
Senator Angus: Is fishing prohibited?
Ms. Comeau: You can fish in Gatineau Park, subject to the federal Fisheries Act. If people fish out of season, fish a species they should not fish or exceed their limit, our conservation officers can intervene.
Senator Adams: If I lived on one of the lakes and got up every morning and wanted to catch a fish, would I be allowed to do that or would I need a licence?
Ms. Dubé: You would have to respect the various regulations that are in play.
Senator Adams: If I lived right on the lake, how many fish would my fishing licence allow me to catch?
Ms. Dubé: I will not even guess. I do not know what the limitations are.
Senator Angus: The licence spells it out.
The Chairman: The licence in question would be a Quebec provincial licence under Quebec provincial law.
Ms. Dubé: Yes.
Ms. Comeau: When you can fish, and how many you can catch, depends on the species of fish.
Senator Adams: I have a little difficulty with that. If I live in the park, the licence is controlled by the province. It is not a national park or a municipal park either.
Ms. Dubé: You do not receive special privileges to fish in the park more often than provincial regulations allow.
Senator Adams: Do the fishing officers or conservation officers belong to you or to the province?
Mr. Fujarczuk: Our own conservation officers enforce the regulations. On occasion, I think we also have joint activities with the province when we believe there is poaching.
Ms. Comeau: In some instances, our conservation officers can enforce provincial regulations for the protection of species. For example, certain plants in Gatineau Park are considered rare or endangered. One of them is a form of garlic called wild leek. Under provincial regulations, because it is a protected species, we can give people fines for collecting it in the park. Last year, there were a number of contraventions. One case went to court and the people were fined $8,000, given the volume of this particular plant that they had been trying to extract from the park, which is a protected area. That plant is protected under provincial legislation. We make sure that the conservation officers have an ability to act on the territory to give us the type of protection we require. As Mr. Fujarczuk said, it would be federal statutes, but it could also be provincial statutes.
Senator Adams: Do you check on people living in the park every day? It would be hard to do that. If you go to the park, there is no gate that people pass through so they can be checked when they go home. You have regulations against people taking flowers from the land.
Ms. Comeau: Our conservation officers adhere to a work schedule such that there is coverage seven days a week. Conservation officers are always available in the park. They have worked for a long time in the park, so they know the times of year when it is busy or when they need to watch for certain things. We can adjust the work schedule and we have people on standby. Their vigilance is greater in the spring when we know that people will collect the plants. Greater vigilance also occurs around Christmas when people want to cut down Christmas trees, and in the fall when the poachers may be out. We also conduct special operations with the local police forces for certain things they are aware of that may go on in the park.
Senator Tkachuk: I was unclear in my point. I wanted to reference municipal jurisdiction but I asked about provincial jurisdiction instead. At one time, I thought that only the NCC and the federal government were involved in our parks. Now, I find that the Quebec Provincial Police have some jurisdiction in parks in Quebec and not the RCMP, who have jurisdiction in Banff National Park, for example. Is that right?
Ms. Comeau: It depends on the area. On federal land, the RCMP can intervene and the NCC works with the RCMP on special —
Senator Lavigne: That is not true. The Sûreté du Québec must give permission to the RCMP. If the SQ denies that permission, then the RCMP cannot intervene. I know this because I was involved in a case before.
Ms. Comeau: The NCC also works with provincial police and the MRC, or regional county municipality.
Senator Tkachuk: Are park conservation officers from the federal or provincial level?
Mr. Fujarczuk: The conservation officers are employees of the NCC.
Senator Tkachuk: Do they look after provincial jurisdiction as well?
Mr. Fujarczuk: The conservation officers are NCC employees. They are named as supernumerary constables by the RCMP. We have an agreement with the RCMP to provide training and those appointments. The RCMP has interagency agreements on both sides of the river with local policing agencies. They have arranged respective spheres of operation. For example, if we talk about traffic control on the federal parkways in Gatineau Park, they are patrolled by the RCMP. However, if we have criminal activity, the MRC might well be the first responder. That matter is arranged by the RCMP with its companion agencies at the provincial level.
Senator Tkachuk: Locals know who to call.
Mr. Fujarczuk: The fact that the land is owned by the federal Crown does not erect a barrier that excludes any provincial jurisdiction if matters are validly within provincial jurisdiction. That is still the case even if it happens on federal land. There used to be a theory of a federal enclave with a magical barrier erected whereby a province had no valid jurisdiction. That is not the reality when the matter is validly within provincial jurisdiction, such as occupational health or safety. Often federal and provincial legislation prevails. If provincial legislation is valid, the fact that the matter is on federal land does not oust the jurisdiction of the province.
Senator Milne: In 2002, Mr. Marcel Beaudry, then Chairman of the NCC, appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. He admitted that the NCC sells land to cover its shortfalls in operating expenses. Does that still happen?
Ms. Dubé: Yes, and I described how that works. In 1988, the NCC was asked to rationalize its land holdings by Treasury Board for the overall National Capital Region. The lands of national interest that the NCC has established are owned in perpetuity for all Canadians and are not disposed of but the lands that we owned that were not deemed NILM, are disposed of. We have not been actively disposing of those properties over the last 10 years. We retain the proceeds and use them to acquire other lands that are to be included in NILM, or to pay for the rehabilitation of existing assets.
Senator Milne: Are you selling lands to pay for the operation of Gatineau Park?
Ms. Dubé: No, the proceeds from the disposals do not go to operations but to acquisition or capital expenditures.
Senator Milne: In the federal land use plan, if properties are no longer considered to fulfil such a role as a result of the 1999 review that you talked about, would that include any area in the Gatineau Park south of Gamelin Boulevard? Is that area still part of Gatineau Park?
Ms. Dubé: In the area south of Gamelin Boulevard, the NCC has lands still within the red line. There has been some boundary rationalization but the area is still part of the Gatineau Park and is owned by the NCC.
Senator Milne: None of that land has been sold to cover operating expenses. Is that correct?
Ms. Dubé: The lands have been sold to cover acquisitions or capital expenditures. "South of Gamelin" is a broad definition so it is possible that a property within the red line boundary on the map might have been owned by the NCC but might not have been of national interest. The area south of Gamelin Boulevard crosses the map horizontally. Lands might have been sold that was not within the 1997 boundary. An appropriate answer is that the NCC has not sold lands within the 1997 boundary south of Gamelin Boulevard.
The Chairman: On the map, there are two bits that say "NCC lands under the control and management of Quebec." What does that mean?
Ms. Dubé: Those lands are part of the 1973 management agreement with Quebec, and part of the 17 per cent that we manage and control for Quebec but do not hold title to.
The Chairman: It says "under the control."
Ms. Dubé: It is under the management and control of the NCC.
The Chairman: No, it says "under the control and management of Quebec."
Ms. Dubé: Senator Lavigne asked about what we receive in exchange. Quebec manages those pieces of land for us in exchange for the NCC managing areas within Gatineau Park.
The Chairman: Those areas are not included in the land contemplated in the agreement as a result of the two Orders- in-Council between the Province of Quebec and the NCC. They are not "parkland."
Ms. Dubé: Are they outside the red line?
The Chairman: No.
Ms. Dubé: They are lands that the NCC wants to hold in perpetuity and they are subject to the agreement, thereby managed by the Province of Quebec.
The Chairman: We will pursue that and find out why it is so.
Senator Milne: The NCC is selling extraneous land in part to fund expenses and to buy other lands that are essential inside the park. I understand that several properties within the park have been sold within the last year and the NCC did not buy them.
Ms. Dubé: Yes, the NCC will approach when a property comes up for sale and try to buy it at what we deem to be a fair market value. We have been able to acquire all those lands that have been for sale. The commission has purchased some properties over the last few years but has not been lucky enough to put our hand on others.
Senator Milne: Has the commission put offers on all the land for sale within the park's proposed boundaries?
Ms. Dubé: I am not sure about that because the priority is to put offers on lands where there is a significant environmental risk or a risk of subdivision. Private properties within the park coexist with the NCC, so we would not necessarily go after every private property that comes up for sale. The acquisition plan of the commission is over the long term. The NCC owns 98 per cent of Gatineau Park and will acquire the remaining 2 per cent over a period of time following the set priorities to acquire strategically the most important pieces of private property. On some properties the NCC has not put in an offer.
Senator Milne: We heard evidence that some of this property that was sold has been used for construction of roads, a fire hall with which I have no problem, and also a shopping centre.
Ms. Dubé: Particular lands have been used for a Loblaws and a Petro-Canada and I know there was a difference. We have one boundary for Gatineau Park, which is the 1997 boundary but there have been other boundaries or perimeters identified for the park. The Loblaws and PetroCan properties are not within the 1997 red boundary line, or within the 1960 perimeter, where we were authorized to acquire. They are within the Quebec metes and bounds description of the "réserve de chasse et de pêche." They are in that particular definition. For the purpose of NCC management they were never in the 1960 or the 1997 boundary.
Senator Milne: If the bill in the other House passes, then you are in trouble?
Ms. Dubé: Yes, the metes and bounds description attached is not the appropriate one.
The Chairman: Is the NCC in favour of the passage of the bill that is presently before us?
Ms. Dubé: I think we have indicated to our minister that we support the proposals put forward in this bill.
The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you.
The committee adjourned.