Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 20 - Evidence - June 5, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 5, 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 6:35 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources is meeting to consider Bill S-210. I want to point out that it is after the appointed time for which the meeting is to start. Present today are Senator Lavigne, Senator Milne, Senator Peterson and me, Senator Banks. I have the honour to chair the committee.
With us today is the Mayor of the Municipality of Chelsea, Jean Perras. Accompanying him is Hélène Couture-MacTavish, President of the Kingsmere Property Owners' Association, and Chris Frank from the Meech Lake Residents Association.
We will hear what you have to say, and then we will ask questions.
[Translation]
Jean Perras, Mayor, Municipality of Chelsea: Honourable senators, I appreciate the time that you have made available to hear our evidence.
Bill S-210 is extremely important for the Municipality of Chelsea. Gatineau Park, in fact, makes up 60 per cent of the municipality's area. As a result, the National Capital Commission is our largest landowner. Any change to its mandate, to its financial structure or to its organization is likely to have repercussions for our community.
The NCC is a corporate citizen with whom we share a number of interests, including the preservation of the park, the maintenance and upgrading of the road system, the protection of the lakes and watercourses, the health and well-being of the residents, and the sound operation of the Camp Fortune ski resort.
We have re-aligned our land-use planning and recently expressed support for the new Gatineau Park Master Plan. The NCC's presence within our boundaries and the activity generated by the attraction that the park clearly is provide the engine that drives most of the municipality's economic development.
For all those reasons, we sincerely believe that the municipality may be considered a stakeholder in Bill S-210. We therefore thank you for inviting us.
The municipality hopes that the recent process of revising the NCC's mandate will result in the organization being brought even closer to the community, to the politicians, to the users, to the residents, to the interest groups, and to the general public. The aim is to maintain the relationship between the residents of Gatineau Park and the NCC. This direct relationship with park authorities is very effective and should definitely be continued.
We feel that stakeholders must be able to provide their own input on the directions set out in the new Gatineau Park Master Plan.
The debate raised by the Honourable Mira Spivak and Mr. Paul Dewar, that is, whether to tighten the management of Gatineau Park along the lines of the provisions in the Canada National Parks Act, fails to deal with the real issue. This is to reconcile conservation objectives with the needs of park residents and the municipalities in which the park is located. The people who live in the park and in our communities share these objectives and act as stewards of the park in the same way as the National Capital Commission.
We provided our comments on Bill S-210 in a letter to the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, our MP, dated last May 29.
Here are the questions it raised. We are concerned about the consequences of this bill on the private property inside the park. There are possible complications for municipalities when land changes hands. We stress the importance of seeking input from all public and non-public organizations — such as the RCM, the Government of Quebec and landowners' associations.
We are opposed to any plan that seeks to limit property rights and especially to expropriate private land inside the park. We emphasize that the owners of this land respect the park environment and conduct themselves accordingly.
The right of first refusal may be a complicating factor. Will this bill have an impact on present park boundaries? Is land considered surplus to be sold? Will the municipality have the right of first refusal? Will the municipality be able to obtain the right of second refusal after the NCC?
We are concerned about the impact of the reduction in the number of private land holdings and about the shortfall in the municipal budget that we will have to make up in order to maintain our infrastructure. We are concerned about the impact of the bill on proposals like road-widening projects or the establishment of separate bicycle paths, as, for example, on the chemin de la Mine or the chemin de la Montagne.
We are concerned about the consequences of the right of refusal and how it will be managed. What happens with existing roads in the park that belong to Chelsea? Will this bill allow Chelsea to buy the land on which our trucks are parked? What about the sales tax? How will the value of the park be calculated? What impact will this bill have on the right to subdivide land, and on the acquired rights to the buildings?
I will not take up your time with all the other points, but, to sum up, I feel that there are important questions like governance, the way in which the commission is organized, and the relationship of the municipality with the park. The mandate is to plan and develop the National Capital Region, which is one of the elements of the regional county municipality's land-use plan.
Finally, finances concern us all. You know that visitors to the park go through Chelsea year round. According to the commission's latest statistics, there are between 1.7 and 2 million visitors to the park, and they all use the municipality's roadways. This has a considerable impact on our municipal infrastructures and creates pressures that often require maintenance work.
In addition, the municipal services that we must provide in the park are not always at the level we would like, but at least we provide them. These are services like police, public safety, fire, high-angle rescues, searches for people who are lost, dealing with complaints, nuisances, peace and order, traffic and parking control, speeding and prevention measures.
This is all part of our day, and we feel that they are important questions, certainly in terms of defining the limits. For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we feel that the bill is premature, because surrounding municipalities like La Pêche, Chelsea and Pontiac have not really been consulted.
The RMC des Collines, of which I am the assistant reeve, has not been consulted at all and has therefore expressed no opinion on the bill. And according to my information, I doubt whether the Government of Quebec has been consulted in connection with the land that, according to our calculations, makes up about 18 per cent of the area, and to which the Government of Quebec still holds title.
The Quebec National Assembly has not been consulted either, and I feel that it is also a stakeholder. In the coming months, we are going to make sure that all these people, whom we feel are all stakeholders, are informed about the steps the Senate is taking. I am now going to give the floor to my two colleagues.
[English]
The Chairman: Before we go to your colleagues, Mr. Mayor, you talked about a brief.
Mr. Perras: Yes, I gave the brief to the clerk.
The Chairman: We have a copy of it. We will have it duplicated and circulated to members.
You referred to interested parties who have not been consulted about the plan. By "the plan," do you mean in the bill?
Mr. Perras: I mean the bill and also the wider question about what we will do with the National Capital Commission. I know we are still waiting for a new director general, a new chair of the NCC. We would like to discuss all that within the new configuration of the mandate of the NCC and not discuss something separate on the side that would tie our hands with regard to the wider picture of the relationship the NCC will have with the municipality, the regional county municipalities, MRC, and the Government of Quebec.
The Chairman: Before we distribute the presentations and briefs to members, they must be translated into both languages. They will then be sent to all members of the committee when we finish that process.
Senator Lavigne: If you give me a copy in French, I will understand well.
[Translation]
Hélène Couture-McTavish, President, Kingsmere Property Owners' Association: Honourable senators, the Kingsmere Property Owners' Association is pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources on the matter of Bill S-210, to amend the National Capital Act.
[English]
For over 50 years, the KPOA has represented the interests of property owners in the community of Kingsmere. All the private properties that exist in the community today were private property at the time Gatineau Park was established. A number are owned by descendents of the owners at the time the park was created. Over the years, the KPOA has been an active participant on issues relating to park and municipal planning. You will note that our initial comments on Bill S-210 were incorporated and reflected in the input provided by the Mayor of Chelsea, Jean Perras, in the municipality's submission to Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport with responsibility for the National Capital Commission.
[Translation]
The association has established a productive relationship with the National Capital Commission, working in cooperation on Gatineau Park matters of mutual interest, such as roadway safety, the annual cleanup of parkland in the Kingsmere community, monitoring the water quality of Kingsmere Lake, investigating invasive species management in the lake, and supporting the ban on salt use on our roads.
These actions reflect the stewardship the KPOA has shown for Gatineau Park's natural environment, recreational features and its historical importance to our community and the National Capital Region.
[English]
Our reading of the bill indicates that it has two main thrusts: the establishment and protection of the boundaries of Gatineau Park, and ceding to the Crown the "right of first refusal" on the sale of private land in Gatineau Park, over and above that of the Crown's established right to expropriation.
The KPOA understands the fundamental importance of clearly defining and protecting the boundaries of Gatineau Park. However, we note that the proposed bill does not contain a clear description of park boundaries. The boundaries of Gatineau Park need to be appended before all implications of the proposed legislation can be understood. Until this information is provided and reviewed, the KPOA cannot support the proposed bill.
As to the second point, the Crown currently has the right to expropriate private property and has exercised that right in the park since its inception.
We note that the acquisition of private property within park boundaries has been a continuing and specific objective of Gatineau Park master plans as developed by the National Capital Commission. To this end, the NCC has, since 1989, acquired 1,050 hectares of private property of ecological significance. In light of this acquisition, the KPOA feels the right of first refusal, outlined in Bill S-210 places an unnecessary restraint on private property rights. Such a market intervention would result in economic costs to the property owners. The extent of these costs is dependent on how the right of first refusal is defined. We note the bill does not clearly define this matter.
[Translation]
We note that under the provisions of section 10.3, property acquisition within the park could take considerably longer than the 60 days suggested in section 13.2.
In closing, the KPOA would like to voice support for the National Capital Commission's commitment to conservation as a priority within Gatineau Park and to the protection of its ecological integrity.
I would like to reiterate the association's support for a legal definition of the boundaries of Gatineau Park that would preserve and protect its many resources. Members of the Kingsmere community deeply appreciate what a tremendous asset the park represents and take an active interest in ensuring that it is preserved for generations of Canadians to come. However, until the concerns that we noted have been addressed, the KPOA cannot support the bill.
Our recommendations to improve the bill are the following. A clear description of park boundaries must be included and the clause ceding first right of refusal to the Crown must be removed, while recognizing its established right to expropriation.
[English]
I would like to leave you with a thought from B. Mitchell's Stewardship and Protected Areas in a Global Context: Coping with Change and Fostering Civil Society:
The foremost principle of conservation . . . is to focus on people's relationship to the land where all conservation starts. Whether called a land ethic, a sense of place, a stewardship imperative or simply a love of nature, conservation is lost without people connecting at a personal level to land and resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues with you.
Chris Frank, Director, Meech Lake Residents Association: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate being here and in view of the hour, I will be as quick as I can.
Our perspective is that this bill is premature and unnecessary at this time. The federal government is conducting a mandate review of the NCC, which could make this bill redundant, and could otherwise compromise the nature and result of the mandate review.
There is no reasonable justification for curtailment of property rights as contemplated by this bill. We, the private homeowners, pose no threat to the federal government's property holdings. As well, we respect and adhere to all provincial and municipal land use, building and environmental rules and regulations. We seek no special status or treatment. We seek only the quiet use of our properties, like millions of other Canadians across this vast country.
The Meech Lake Residents Association represents some 80 families living in proximity to the lake. We are landowners, taxpayers and residents of the Municipality of Chelsea, Quebec. Our members are split roughly fifty-fifty between all-year residents who make a permanent home at Meech Lake, and cottagers who visit seasonally during the year. We believe we make a material contribution to our community in both social and economic terms. Our taxes help fund the municipality's capital and operating budgets including schools, roads, fire, police and other valuable services that most Canadians expect and receive from their local and provincial governments.
Our families are true stewards of the land and help keep the park safe, clean and beautiful. We coexist in harmony with both the NCC's visitors and the natural world. We believe that, in spite of the increasing pressure from the Gatineau-Ottawa access, reasonable, sustainable and cost-effective solutions can be found to protect the natural and historic heritage of our neighbourhood and the park.
Privately-owned homes have existed at Meech Lake since the 1800s. Some of our residents can trace their roots and property deeds back to that century. Others who do not have that longevity pre-date the NCC and its predecessor, the Federal Capital Commission.
We are hardly interlopers, as some special interest groups who have appeared before you and who write in the public press have suggested. We believe, like many millions of other Canadian families across the country, that we belong in our neighbourhood and have acquired the right to live peacefully in our homes without the constant threat of partial or complete expropriation.
These acquired rights come with a responsibility that we readily acknowledge and embrace. We voted for, and support, some of the toughest municipal building and environmental bylaws in the province and perhaps across the country. Chelsea is green and so is our community.
Our forebears have developed the now world-class recreation opportunities in the park such as ski and hiking trails. We help an underfinanced NCC cope with the impact of their visitors to the park. Refuse is routinely cleaned up, and fires and other threats are immediately reported and extinguished. Health and safety is offered to those who encounter danger from the natural forces of the park. Of course, we use our property responsibly and encourage others to do the same during their forays into the park.
We see no compelling reason for the threat or promise of partial or complete expropriation. The NCC's mandate is under review so this bill is, at best, premature and possibly redundant or counterproductive.
As previously stated, our neighbourhoods are green and not expanding. Over the past 50 years, the housing density has been reduced by an order of magnitude. We are neither a threat to the environment nor an impediment to the public's enjoyment of the park. A strong case may be made that we are a boon, not a hindrance.
Most Canadians count home equity as a major part of their hard-earned financial holdings and we are no different. Any law that threatens to impact our current property rights and usage, as well as our ability to resell will undeniably impact our pocket books. This impact is unfair and unreasonable. Some suggested, as a reasonable compromise, to have this right of first refusal. We suggest with respect, as we are the only parties affected, there is no compromise here.
In quick summary, we suggest that the bill is premature. If it stands, it should not contain any wording that limits our property rights, rights that should be congruent with those enjoyed by other Canadians across the country and consistent with applicable laws and regulations from three levels of government.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr. Frank, I want to make sure I understand the point of what you were getting at in respect of expropriation. I do not think, unless you can correct me, that the word "expropriation" appears in this bill. Am I wrong? Expropriation is always a possibility. It exists in the law now, but I do not think that the word "expropriation" or anything to do with expropriation appears in Bill S-210.
Mr. Frank: You could be right that the word does not appear per se, but it is clear in the preamble that there is an intent to acquire private property in the park. The right of first refusal is a form of expropriation and that is why I used the term "partial expropriation."
Many of our members have expressed this opinion and asked me to make this point in whatever venue I have an opportunity to speak. This whole issue of our right to private ownership and free use of our property is constantly under discussion, and to a certain extent under threat. It is not pleasant to live with a sword of Damocles hanging over our head. Some of our families have been in this area for more than 100 years. My kids are the fifth generation of our family to enjoy the wonderful Meech Lake area.
We simply wish to impress upon this committee and those in attendance that we have no interest in being invited to leave, or any interest in having our property rights or the value of our property devalued by artificial fiat.
[Translation]
Senator Lavigne: Mr. Perras, if I have understood correctly, you would like the municipality to be able to buy any property that goes on sale, instead of the government being able to acquire them, or would you prefer that they be sold to private citizens who would continue to pay taxes?
Mr. Perras: We prefer the status quo. The people who are there now have been there for generations. They take very effective care of the forest, the flora and fauna. These are people who are concerned about the environment, and who have sometimes even found people who have become lost in the park. These people are genuine stewards of the park, just as much as the NCC. We want the status quo and we find the bill premature.
But if the NCC wanted to sell land — contrary to what you want — we would like to preserve the park and we would be ready to buy. The NCC has already sold pieces of parkland east of Highway 5. We touched on that in the briefs that we submitted.
Senator Lavigne: Mr. Chairman, did we hear from witnesses who live in the park before we moved to clause-by-clause study of Bill S-210?
The Chairman: No, this is the first time.
[English]
This is the first. Will we hear what other people have to say?
The Chairman: Our guests today asked if we would invite them to come to speak to us. That request was supported by Senator Cochrane, and so we did. We would entertain any other such requests, but none have been forthcoming as yet. It would be up to the committee to decide.
I mentioned that our guests asked if they could appear, and we responded by inviting them. It would be up to the committee to decide whether to hear more witnesses. When our guests today asked to appear, we responded with alacrity.
[Translation]
Senator Lavigne: Mr. Perras, do you know of residents or landowners in Gatineau Park who would like to appear before the committee to make recommendations and to have their views heard?
Mr. Perras: I think that if you extended an invitation, interested people would come forward. I do not know if the Senate ever travels, but let me take this opportunity to invite you to come to Chelsea.
For the past 15 or 20 years, when we make changes to legislation — because we are legislators too — we in the Municipality of Chelsea have been holding public hearings where everyone can come to express their views. You might find it interesting to hear from the citizens of Chelsea. We could even invite the people from La Pêche, because they are affected by this bill, even people from Pontiac. A number of stakeholders would want to welcome you to Chelsea for a public hearing. You would have the opportunity to hear how people feel about the bill.
[English]
Senator Lavigne: Can we call people in Chelsea and hear from them?
The Chairman: The assumption was that the property owners, at least the Kingsmere and Meech Lake property owners, were represented by our guests.
Senator Lavigne: Can people from the Government of Quebec come to the committee to meet with us?
The Chairman: That would be up to the committee to make such a request and, if so, to identify those witnesses. The people who have appeared before this committee speaking to this bill are from the National Capital Commission, the Sierra Club of Canada, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Senator Spivak, the author of the bill, the New Woodlands Preservation League, and Mr. Perras, Ms. Couture-MacTavish and Mr. Frank. Those witnesses have appeared before us so far on this bill.
All these witnesses were invited, according to the determination of the steering committee. The steering committee and the committee entertain any suggestions as to any witnesses from whom we might want to hear.
I suggest it would be important that those witnesses be heard in this context in order that it is the same context as other witnesses, as opposed to, but not exclusive of, a town hall meeting such as the one that His Worship has suggested. We considered that and could not find a time that all the senators could agree on to take a tour of the park.
Senator Lavigne: The way they speak, it is premature to pass Bill S-210. These people have not been heard by the entire committee because all committee members are not here tonight. It is important that they be heard by the committee so that it is understood that these people made recommendations that are valuable that we must look at.
I am from Quebec and I heard these people asking about stopping this bill or passing it later so that changes to it or recommendations can be made. I heard these people.
[Translation]
I think that what these people have to say is important. It is very important to protect the environment of Gatineau Park. I have often been there. I own a piece of land on the Gatineau River in Wakefield, in the Municipality of La Pêche, and I often go to Chelsea to eat. It is a beautiful spot, and it must be protected.
These people are right to want the park and the environment protected. They are right not to want people grabbing all the land and ruining it.
The evidence provided by our guests this evening is important. Very few members are present to hear the kind of remarks they are making. Their desire to protect the environment is sincere and strong. They are very involved in the process that we want to undertake.
As they say, we are moving forward rather quickly with this initiative. Perhaps there have not been enough consultations. Perhaps other residents of Chelsea would like to be heard.
I was supposed to leave at 7 p.m., but I stayed because I think that it is very important both for Quebec and for the environment to protect this beautiful park. If the Municipality of Chelsea is able to take care of the area, I do not see why the government would want to buy it up.
[English]
The Chairman: Although all members, regrettably, are not here today, the testimony of our guests, and questions and answers that will ensue, will be distributed immediately — as minutes of all meetings are — to all members of the committee, in both languages, probably by tomorrow. All members will have an opportunity to read the transcript of what has been said here, including the discussions that we will now have.
Senator Cordy: I would like more information on the right of first refusal that you have mentioned. I read it in the act.
Mr. Frank, you mentioned some of the challenges that would be faced by homeowners. You are right: people count on the equity in their home for their retirement. One assumes that equity in real estate will grow.
Could you expand on the challenges that would be faced by homeowners? What are the stipulations in other national parks in Canada with respect to right of first refusal, or for someone who has lived within the boundaries of a national park?
The Chairman: Senator, there is no private property in any national park in Canada. Gatineau Park is not a national park and this bill does not propose to make it a national park. Gatineau Park is unique. This bill would create a park that is unique. This bill does not propose to make it a national park. It cannot be a national park because the bill contemplates that Gatineau Park will continue for a long time to have private property in it. No national park in Canada has any private property in it.
I want to make sure that you understand the context.
Senator Cordy: I did not understand that. I thank you.
Ms. Couture-MacTavish: Could I answer that, please?
Senator Cordy: Yes.
Ms. Couture-MacTavish: A member of my association works for Parks Canada and she has informed me that there are many, many national parks with communities or residential structures in them. I can give you a list that she has given me, which includes Gros Morne, Terra Nova, Yoho, Banff, Jasper, Prince Albert, Riding Mountain, Gulf Islands, Waterton and Bruce Peninsula.
Senator Cordy: I also thought of the Cape Breton Highlands National Park, which is why mentioned it.
The Chairman: There is a difference. Banff is a big town: it is nearly a city. In many places, it would be a city. My understanding is that the occupants and proprietors of those businesses and houses in Banff National Park are there on the basis of leases.
Senator Cordy: They rent the land.
The Chairman: They do not own it. I may be corrected but I believe that is the case.
Mr. Frank: That is definitely not the case in our neck of the woods. I can assure you that my wife and I own outright the land that our home is built on. That land has been in our family since about 1915. As I said, my children are the fourth generation: my grandchild is now the fifth generation.
There is a lot of history and heritage there. You would be surprised at the number of people who assume — guests and casual friends who visit us — that we do not own the land and are surprised when they are told that we do own it just they own their home, and millions of other Canadians across the country own theirs.
Frankly, we, the association, do not think that it is fair that our private property rights should be fettered in any way, provided that we use our property consistent with municipal, provincial and federal laws that might be enacted at any point in time. We resist the notion of having to offer the property on a right of first refusal to the government. Surely, if one or a number of us wants to sell and the government wants to buy, there is no objection, but we want to be able to sell our property on the open market as other folks can so that we can realize the true value of the property.
The point I was trying to make is that there have been private homes at Meech Lake, and I believe at Kingsmere as well, for generations and generations — for hundreds of years. It seems unfortunate that there is a constant buzz in the press and in political circles about expropriating us. As I said, I did not use the analogy of the sword of Damocles lightly. The thought is on everyone's mind. It is unfortunate because we should enjoy the quiet use of our property, like everyone else.
The Chairman: I am sorry for the sidebar, senator. We should return to your question, but it is important to note that this bill does not create a national park. The bill creates something that is unique, as Gatineau Park is now. There is nothing else like it. It is not like Gros Morne or any other national park. Let us return to your question.
Senator Cordy: If it is within the National Capital Region, would it not be considered a national park?
The Chairman: It can only be made a national park if it is, by virtue of the provisions of the National Park Act, brought in to be a national park, and no one is proposing that.
Senator Cordy: That would be proposed through Parliament.
The Chairman: It would also require agreements different from the ones obtained now with respect to the lands and resources in the park. In any case, Parks Canada said they have no interest in Gatineau Park being made a national park. They do not want it because it is different. It has always been different. It is different now, and it will be different under the terms of this bill.
Senator Cordy: I am glad I came tonight.
Ms. Couture-MacTavish: Indeed, the issue of the right of first refusal is not clear in the bill. I am not an expert on it but I think that matter needs to be clearly defined. Even if it is clearly defined, it comes at some cost to the private property owners because any interested purchaser would need to waive all conditions of purchase, for example, financing and building permits, according to the research I have done, and wait up to 60 days to see if they had a binding agreement. These conditions would require either the vendor or the buyer to spend monies, and all this work would then be for naught if the NCC decided to buy the property.
It becomes another issue that makes it impossible to establish a fair market value for the properties, which comes back to what Mr. Frank said earlier.
It is a can of worms. I know that in other national parks there has been a willing-buyer, willing-seller approach, which I understand to be what you are talking about. That is, if I want to sell my house and the NCC wants to buy it, fine, but there are no conditions on that. They must come to me as any other buyer would.
Mr. Frank: It has been my experience in business that anything that creates uncertainty tends to lower either share value or equity value. I and our members do not think that is reasonable in the current context, given the history of the park. You cannot wipe out 200 years of history because a relatively small group of people wants to create something that has never existed before.
Ms. Couture-MacTavish: Our family is four generations at Kingsmere as well, on my husband's side.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
Senator Lavigne: I think what you say is true.
[Translation]
If a private citizen who owns property in the park wanted to sell it, the government would offer $200,000 even though it is worth double. He would then have to hire a lawyer to try and get the true value of his property.
At that point, he would be forced to spend a lot of money getting new certificates. I know that these situations are rather difficult for an owner who wants to sell, especially when the government has the right of first refusal on a building. It is easy for a government to use taxpayers' money to pay lawyers. But the owner has to take the money out of his own pocket. Even if he gets $300,000 for his property by spending $100,000 in legal fees, he is still just left with $200,000.
I think that Mr. Frank is right when he says that this bill looks expropriation by any other name.
[English]
The Chairman: I want to pursue Senator Cordy's question further. Mr. Frank, if you wanted to sell your land today to anyone, you could. Is that correct?
Mr. Frank: Absolutely, sir.
The Chairman: Ms. Couture-MacTavish, let us assume right of first refusal means what we all assume it to mean, which is that I would make you an offer of X dollars and the government would have the right to match that offer, failing which I would buy your property, if I read this correctly.
For the record, if this bill were to become law, tell me how its application would reduce the value of your property. I assume that private property in the park would increase in value as it becomes scarcer. The law of supply and demand will apply. If you owned the last piece of private land in that park, it would be exponentially valuable.
How would that operate from the standpoint of the real estate market?
Mr. Frank: As I said before, the government's right of first refusal creates an air of uncertainty and complication which, in many situations, reduces the value of homes and other assets. When you complicate the process and make it uncertain, people are hesitant to become involved. Then you do not have an open buyer-and-seller arrangement.
Second, right of first refusal raises the spectre of more government activity. As I said to you earlier, there is a widely held belief that there is no private property at Meech Lake. We in this room know that is not true. Having that belief out in the public domain probably removes a great number of buyers from any potential property transfer. I would answer the question in that way.
I hate to answer any question with a question but I would ask simply: What is different about us and our property from all other Canadians across the country? There is not this right of first refusal by the government in other communities in the National Capital Region or elsewhere. Our families predate the park, as I said in my presentation. We have earned certain acquired rights, and those rights go to the heart of our full enjoyment and use of our properties, consistent with all applicable laws. Certainly we are doing that now.
I feel strongly that this artificial restraint puts a real damper on the whole economic environment around our neighbourhood, and it is not fair.
The Chairman: As we have discussed, it is not right to compare Gatineau Park with any national park; it is not the same animal. However, folks who owned property in national parks either willingly sold those properties to the federal or provincial government, or they were expropriated. That is the short answer to your question. Most folks do not live in anything that is called "park," whatever words precede it.
Ms. Couture-MacTavish, I ask you the same thing: Would you prefer the certainty of expropriation, if that were to be determined to be the best thing, to make Gatineau Park a definable park in the sense that is contemplated in this bill, bearing in mind that expropriation already exists?
Ms. Couture-MacTavish, as you said, it is already there. Is that better than the right of first refusal in this act? Should this act refer to expropriation? That is, when the land comes up for sale, there will be only one possible buyer. Would that be better?
Ms. Couture-MacTavish: No, I do not think it would be better. In any case, the Crown has always had the power to expropriate so it is redundant.
The Chairman: You prefer that situation to this one?
Ms. Couture-MacTavish: No, I would not prefer that. In any case, I am saying expropriation already exists, so I would not see any need for it to be put into this piece of legislation.
I agree with Mr. Frank. I do not see why we should be obliged to give this right to the government. Normally, a right of first refusal is something that a property owner decides to give to someone else. It is not something that is imposed upon property owners by another party. This turns everything upside down.
Clause 5 and the proposed section 13.2 of the act states that an unconditional offer must be made to the commission. To me, that provision stands everything on its head. Gatineau Park is not a national park. As you said, it is a different entity.
We are in the municipality of Chelsea: we pay taxes. Our money fixes the road to bring up those two million people to enjoy the park. It is all backwards. I do not see why that condition would be imposed upon me, as a property owner in the park.
I see a big problem with the establishment of the fair market value, given that any prospective buyer will come in and say, "I really like your house. I would like to give you X dollars for it." Then I must say to them, "That would be great, but first I must offer it to the NCC, and maybe come back in a couple of months to see if they want it or not." It skews the whole market. It is not fair.
The Chairman: In the scenario you gave, if you received a bona fide offer of whatever dollars, and if you went to the National Capital Commission if time permitted and they said they do not want to buy your property, then you could sell it to the prospective buyer. Is that correct?
Ms. Couture-MacTavish: Yes.
The Chairman: I want to make sure we understand your preference. There are only two ways for the NCC to acquire property, if it decides to do so. One is by some mechanism having to do with the market somehow and an offer. The other is expropriation, which also, of course, takes into account the market. The NCC cannot say they will pay you $3 for it, because that would not obtain under the law. I want to make sure we understand that your members prefer that process if property is to be acquired for the purposes of a park — whatever kind of park it is — to the process that is set out in this bill. Do I understand that correctly?
Ms. Couture-MacTavish: I prefer the status quo. As the mayor has said, the NCC can come to me now and buy my house on the open market. If they turn to expropriation, they have always had that power and can still do that.
Mr. Frank: That power is not unfettered.
Ms. Couture-MacTavish: No.
Mr. Frank: I am not a lawyer, but the power of expropriation is not unfettered. There are principles in law. There must be a compelling public policy reason to expropriate someone from their home. Heavens above, we are talking about a right and privilege that — and I have used this expression many times — millions of Canadians enjoy. The right of home ownership is something near and dear to all Canadians. The government does not go around willy-nilly and expropriate property. Of course, you can contest that expropriation in the courts. It is not an unfettered right.
We are talking about an artificial constraint here. Ms. Couture-MacTavish has put it very well. It is all turned around; it is convoluted. It is not the normal way that real estate business is conducted.
The Chairman: Is there anything in this will bill that would or could compel you to sell your land?
Mr. Frank: No.
The Chairman: In other words, this bill would only come into force when and if you decide — on your own and without any compunction — to sell your land?
Mr. Frank: That is the way I understand it. It requires me, then, to jump through a number of extra hoops that my neighbour in Chelsea, outside the boundary of this "park" does not need to jump through. I am wondering why the members of our association, Kingsmere and other private property owners in the park, have been singled out for special attention. In many cases, that property has been in private hands or the family's hands since before the NCC, its predecessor and, in some cases, before Prime Minister Mackenzie King.
I have trouble with the whole equation here, sir.
The Chairman: That is understood. I wanted to make sure that your intent and the representation that you make of your members is on the record.
Senator Lavigne: I think Mr. Frank is right. If I want to sell my land in La Pêche I do not ask the city whether I can sell my land. If someone offers me $500,000 for my land, do I ask the city if I can sell my land? It is unfair for the people who want to sell their house to have to ask the permission of the NCC. It is tough to understand. As the mayor of Chelsea says, it is as if they need permission to sell their land. They may want to sell to madam and not to the Parliament of Canada.
When I worked with Sheila Copps at Canadian Heritage, everyone had "vestige." One day, Ms. Copps said, "We have enough 'vestige'; stop that." The government would take a rock and say it is "vestige." Everything was a "vestige." We have to stop because the way government is going now, we cannot sell anything without asking the government: "You want $400,000? No problem: We give you $400,000 and we take the land."
Tomorrow, it will be a national park for sure, because that is the way government is going. If the government does not match the price the seller wants, then the government will negotiate the value of the market. The guy last offered $800,000 but the market is $500,000 so we will have a fight. The government takes the people's money and hires a lawyer. There is no problem there. It is the way it works. However, I think do not think it is the way to do things to say, "You have a knife to your neck. If you want to sell, you must ask me first. As a buyer, say I will match the asking price but it is not the value of the market. I say, I will buy your land and I will give you double your price but the government will say no, that is not market value and we have the first refusal. The government says, we will fight in court. As the seller, I do not want to fight in court so I will sell to the government and I will lose money.
I think what Mr. Frank says is right, and I think, Mr. Chairman, we must understand what these people are asking. We need to look at that issue more. That is what I think. Maybe I am wrong.
The Chairman: We will certainly consider that issue when we consider this bill further. To make sure we understand, though, senator, I do not think the scenario you have talked about would arise because the offer from a third party must be an unconditional offer. If this bill were to become an act, there will not be any discussion because, if I offer Mr. Frank $2 million for his property, the offer must be unconditional so that if the NCC were to say, "We do not think it is worth $2 million," that is too bad for the NCC because I have then bought the property for $2 million. I may be wrong, but I do not think the fight in court would happen. The fight would happen but it would be over the question of market value for the property.
Senator Lavigne: It is not easy to fight with the government because they have a lot of money in their pocket. To fight with the city, they fight with their own money. They pay the tax and the government takes the tax to fight them. They do not win anyway. They would be better to sit and talk with the government than to fight.
Mr. Perras: I want to bring forth some ideas from another perspective into this debate. I have a problem with the philosophical underpinnings of this bill, that people in parks are not good and we must rid parks of them by removing their houses and removing people from parks.
For some years now I have travelled around the world and I have seen parks in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Central America. Everywhere, people are in parks, with rare exceptions, and most of them are good stewards, as are most of the people of Chelsea. This philosophy of removing the houses in Kingsmere and Meech Lake has a philosophical underpinning. I want to bring this matter forward.
The other problem I have is that politically and strategically that philosophy is out of sync with the reorganization that is happening, or will happen, with the NCC. With this bill, we are setting the score with regard to certain things such as limits to the park and the right of first refusal, when we still do not know what the government will do with the overall reorganization, as per the public meetings they had over the last year. I think it should wait until we find out about the government's position.
The other thing is, the MRC, the regional county government and the Municipality of Chelsea, would shoot ourselves in the foot because those properties represent a good chunk of our assets and our budget. Every year, we have a small budget of $9 million, the budget from Kingsmere and Meech Lake, because the value of property is 8 per cent. Why should we give this up? Then, what would we have to repair and fix the roads, to send in the police force when needed and all the firemen we send in there to rescue people? I can go on and on. We pick up garbage. We make sure there is security on the road. We do all those things in the municipality and the MRC with our police force and land use planning.
Finally, no other municipality has a better track record than Chelsea. I want to go through some of the things that the residents of Kingsmere and Meech Lake are obliged to respect in terms of bylaw. The first one is the master plan. The last three or four master plans were accomplished through public meetings. For the last one, we had 12 public meetings to come together and agree on the master plan. We conducted reviews and analysis of the land-use planning in the late 1980s with regard to environment and sustainability. We conducted studies on water. We passed bylaws on pumping septic systems. All the septic systems in Chelsea now are pumped every three years. All the property owners around Kingsmere and Meech Lake are obliged to respect that bylaw. Not many municipalities across Quebec or Canada, and I stand to be corrected, have such binding bylaws.
We were also the second municipality in Quebec to ban pesticides. The residents in Kingsmere and Meech Lake do not use pesticides that would go into Meech Lake or Kingsmere Lake. We were the first ones to insist on recycling and composting. We were the first to protect all the wetlands. All the wetlands in Chelsea, including the ones surrounding the park, are now protected. You cannot build within 30 metres of wetlands. They are protected and identified. Many of them are on GPS and the people in Meech Lake and Kingsmere are respectful of that.
Three years ago, we created H2O Chelsea, a program which has started a thorough analysis of the water table, and the quality and quantity of water in Chelsea. That program includes Meech Lake and Kingsmere Lake. The residents of the property association have participated.
The Municipality of Chelsea won an award last year from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the program as a program that stands out among all the programs in rural Canada with regard to quality and quantity of water. We receive calls every day about how to move this program forward. The municipal regional government has asked that the H2O Chelsea program to become the H2O Collines-de-l'Outaouais, which is our regional government.
The people of Kingsmere and Meech Lake are respectful of all those things, and when they are not, we take them to court and they must abide by the rulings. The philosophy is that people can be good for parks. They are good stewards. They have rescued people. They have phoned in to our fire department when a fire has started. Simply to remove the 200 houses would not solve the problem of 2 million or 3 million people walking and driving in the park.
One problem we would like the Senate to solve for us is all the cars that come into the park from Ottawa, Gatineau, Toronto and Montreal. Of the 1.9 million people that visit the park, many come by car. We have talked to Marcel Beaudry and Lawrence Cannon about this. One day, we would like to have fewer cars in the park. That would be respectful of the environment and would preserve the park more than removing the houses.
Mr. Frank: I would like to add to the mayor's comment and to respond to your question of a few minutes ago by saying that I have heard no compelling reason why the resale of our property should be restricted in any way. I firmly believe there is no reason other than a desire to make it more difficult to own private property at Meech Lake. That desire is inconsistent with the history of the area and with the socio-economic makeup of our community, and it is bad public policy.
The Chairman: Do you think there is a compelling national interest in making Gatineau Park into a park that is defined and has boundaries, and is a park in the sense that it is not now? Is that any part of a compelling national interest?
Mr. Frank: That is an interesting question. I do not have an opinion one way or another. As the mayor said, I prefer the status quo. I think the NCC does a reasonable job of maintaining the park. I think it is underfunded. I do not think this tract of land called Gatineau Park is a park per se. If the NCC chooses to deem it a park, I do not think any members of our association would have a significant quarrel with that, but they would have a feisty quarrel with any attenuation of our rights pursuant to private ownership of our land.
The Chairman: You are right that Gatineau Park is not now a park in anything but name. It is not defined as a park in any sense.
Mr. Frank: In my presentation, I went out of my way to point out that we coexist with the NCC's visitors to the park. We, in no way, wish to eliminate or interfere with people's access to this park. We only wish to have our rights recognized in the NCC stewardship of this particular tract of land.
Ms. Couture-MacTavish: I agree with everything Mr. Frank has said. I wish to add that I have been told repeatedly that Parks Canada has no interest in making Gatineau Park a national park. They have La Parc de La Mauricie, a national park that would represent the same kind of land. I respectfully suggest that you might hear directly from Parks Canada as witnesses in terms of their ideas of conservation and people in parks. I think there has been an evolution over time.
The Chairman: We have heard from Parks Canada many times. We have specifically asked Parks Canada the question so that we would know about Gatineau Park, and they have no interest in making Gatineau Park a national park now or, as far as they know, ever.
Ms. Couture-MacTavish: On conservation science, I think it would be interesting to hear from them.
The Chairman: We have heard them on the creation of national parks, among other things. We are intimately familiar with the difference.
Mr. Perras: I agree with your question. There is a compelling need to protect the park. I have been involved in municipal politics since 1993. For the first eight years, I was a city councillor representing Meech Lake and Kingsmere. I met several of the senior citizens, some of whom have passed away, who had been there for many generations. Several of them even knew Mackenzie King, and they related much of the discussion they had with him about what a park near a capital should be like.
I think the NCC has done well up to now. Has it been perfect: no. Has all the biodiversity in the park been protected: probably not. There is some loss here and there. However, generally speaking, Mr. King would be happy with the way we have done things.
We have bylaws. We are protecting the park. The citizens in Kingsmere and Meech Lake are good stewards of the environment. As I mentioned, the issue is not necessarily the boundaries or how many houses there are in the park. The issue is the number of cars and the number of incidents we have in the park.
Might I ask you a question? Would the bill you are passing include the Mackenzie King Estate and the residence of the Prime Minister, O'Brien House and Wilson House?
The Chairman: The committee will not pass a bill. We will make a recommendation to the Senate as to whether the bill should be passed through the Senate. Then, the bill will go to the House of Commons and the House of Commons will make all of these same considerations again.
My understanding is that, yes, the bill would include the estate that I believe is known as Kingsmere, which was Mackenzie King's estate. I think that is already included in what is perceived by the NCC to be part of Gatineau Park. That answer is the best one I can give you.
Mr. Perras: If I follow the logic behind this bill, one day we will have no more houses in the park. Would that include the residence of the Prime Minister, if we continue the logic to the end? The residence is at the end of Meech Lake Road, and maybe the bill should include that residence also. I am being a bit cynical here.
The Chairman: I cannot agree that the philosophy behind the bill is that there should not be any houses or even that there should not be any private property, because there are public buildings of some historical note in almost all the national parks in Canada. As you said, there are few national parks in Canada that are not populated. There are only three or four. Most parks need people in them, and the conservationists know that.
Mr. Frank, because you represent the Meech Lake people, I assume you agree that someone who lives in Ottawa or someone visiting from British Columbia should have access to Meech Lake. Is that right?
Mr. Frank: I have no issue there at all.
The Chairman: Has the Meech Lake association, and perhaps the municipality to which it belongs, been lobbying to close Blanchette beach and the boat launch at Meech Lake, or are we misinformed?
Mr. Frank: I will let the mayor speak for the municipality. However, I mentioned a few minutes ago that it appears to us that the NCC is underfunded in terms of maintenance and supervision of the park. Because of this underfunding and the vast number of people who use the Meech Lake area, Blanchette beach and the boat launch have been overused and, in some cases, misused. That has led to deterioration in the natural order of things. This was one solution proffered by our association some years ago. That should not be read to suggest that we are hostile to visitors, or in any way wish to limit the access to the NCC lands. It was a shock when Peter Fullarton did it 40 years ago, but that shock has subsided and all but disappeared. As I said in my presentation, we coexist happily with the visitors.
The only time there is irritation is when visitors believe our properties are part of the public lands, and they feel free to use our property as picnic grounds, our docks for swimming or fishing or our canoes or sailboats as public property. That causes some anxiety, but that is easily remedied. Reasonable people can find reasonable solutions.
The Chairman: When you appeared before the Gatineau Park mandate review, your argument was that access to the lake in respect of Blanchette beach or the boat launch should be improved as opposed to closed.
Mr. Frank: We said there is some disorder in those two areas and without proper supervision and maintenance, the natural order of things was deteriorating.
I take you back to Mr. Fullarton's original commitment to the Meech Lake Association, sir — and I do not think I am misquoting my late father-in-law because he was part of the meeting with Mr. Fullarton. There was the prospect not of constant traffic on the Meech Lake Road to service the public facilities, but rather parking lots at one end of the lake, shuttle buses to move people along, bike paths and walking trails.
Those things never materialized and, as the mayor said, the traffic on Meech Lake Road in the summertime sometimes resembles Yonge Street after one of the few Maple Leaf wins of the season. If you take my point, sir, it is busy. It is late and I thought I would introduce some humour into the evening. I did not want to appear to be a humourless individual.
The Chairman: You have not appeared so.
Your Worship, can you tell us about your representations with respect to access to Meech Lake in particular, when you appeared before the Gatineau Park mandate review?
Mr. Perras: We discussed all kinds of issues related to the parks and surroundings, the roads and so on. We mentioned several times that we find the traffic jams on July 1 or St. Jean Baptiste so bad that we cannot, as a municipality, ensure the security of our citizens. If we needed to send fire trucks into Meech Lake at the end of the road, they would not make it. If we needed to send an ambulance, it would not make it. Our police cars might not make it because the traffic jams are tremendous. We have asked for traffic control from the NCC and, in the last few years, we have managed that with our roads people and police officers. It has always been an irritant. We always mention it at the meetings with the NCC. That has been the history of the relationship between the municipality and the NCC.
The Chairman: Would you like to add anything?
Mr. Frank: Thank you for your time and patience.
The Chairman: Both of them are given with gratitude to you. I am sorry that we started so late.
Thank you for appearing.
The committee adjourned.