Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 20 - Evidence - June 7, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 7, 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 clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning, honourable senators. This meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources has been called to consider whether to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill S-210. Could I have a motion that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-210, to amend the National Capital Act (establishment and protection of Gatineau Park)?
Senator Milne: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
The motion is carried.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
The motion is carried.
Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Senator Milne: Agreed.
Senator Spivak: Is this where I make my amendment?
The Chairman: You can make amendments where you like. Is there an amendment to the preamble?
Senator Spivak: There is.
The Chairman: Yes, this would be the appropriate place to make the amendment.
Senator Milne: Or when we move the preamble later on.
The Chairman: The motion is: Shall the preamble stand postponed? We will deal with the amendment when we arrive at the postponement.
Is it agreed that the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
The motion is carried.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
Clause 1 is carried.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
Clause 2 is carried.
Shall clause 2.1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
Clause 2.1 is carried.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
Clause 3 is carried.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
Clause 4 is carried.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Senator Spivak: I move that Bill S-210 be amended in clause 5, on page 4, by replacing line 3 with the following:
"Park to anyone other than the Commission unless the person has given the right of".
Do not ask me to justify this wording. I can only say that I know what the concern was, and the Senate's legal counsel drafted this remedy for that concern.
The Chairman: The background for the amendment is that a reading of this in its original form led to the conclusion by some folks that the wording, in some sort of circumlocutory way, precluded anyone from ever buying anything from anyone else. In order to straighten that out, this amendment has been proposed by the Senate's legal counsel.
Senator Spivak: Yes; he says this is the remedy.
The Chairman: Good.
Has this amendment been distributed to members in French?
Senator Lavigne: I have it.
The Chairman: Are we in favour of the amendment?
Senator Milne: Agreed.
Senator Spivak: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is anyone opposed?
Senator Lavigne: Yes, I am opposed to that clause.
The Chairman: We are voting now on the amendment to clause 5. Are you opposed to the amendment?
Senator Lavigne: If I am against this, I am against the amendment.
The Chairman: Let the record show that the amendment is carried, on division, with Senator Lavigne opposed.
Shall we vote on clause 5, as amended?
Senator Spivak: Agreed.
Senator Milne: Agreed.
The Chairman: Clause 5 is carried, on division, with Senator Lavigne opposed.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
Clause 6 is carried.
Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
Clause 7 is carried.
Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
Clause 8 is carried.
Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
Clause 9 is carried.
Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
Clause 10 is carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
Senator Milne: Do we have to pass the schedule?
Senator Spivak: Wait a minute. I think I missed something. Let us deal with the preamble first and then I will tell you. It may not matter.
I move that Bill S-210 be amended by adding after line 34 the following —
Senator Milne: On which page?
The Chairman: The amendment is in respect of clause 4 on page 2.
Senator Spivak: Yes.
The Chairman: Where it says, "There is hereby established a park . . . ."
Senator Spivak: I guess this is not in the preamble; I thought it was. Can I read it?
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators, that we will return to the question of clause 4 in order to hear the proposed amendment? We have already passed clause 4.
Senator Milne: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
We will revert to clause 4.
Senator Spivak: I apologize.
I move that Bill S-210 be amended in clause 4, on page 2,
(a) by replacing line 32 with the following:
"10.1(1) There is hereby established a park; and
(b) by adding after line 34 the following:
"Gatineau Park is hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and it shall —
Senator Milne: This is subparagraph (2), is it?
The Chairman: Just to be clear, the first amendment has the effect only of adding "(1)" before the words "There is hereby established a park," and we are now looking at what is proposed to be subparagraph (2).
Senator Spivak: Yes, thank you. To read it again in full:
(2) Gatineau Park is hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and it shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave it unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
(3) Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Commission when considering all aspects of the management of Gatineau Park.".
I think the NCC was in agreement with this particular proposed subparagraph.
The Chairman: They were, as I recall.
This refers, in a way, Senator Lavigne, to the issue you and I were discussing before.
Senator Lavigne: Yes, but that is it. Outside of that, in the committee's recommendations, I do not agree with adding the words "close the beach" to "people inside of the park." I do not agree with "close the boat launch facility" either.
I will agree with the recommendation to reduce traffic along the lake. There should be an electric car that shows Canadians the lake because cars bring pollution to the park. The NCC should have an electric car or a bus to show the park to people. Pollution is really harmful. We are talking about the environment, yet we let cars in the park to tour around. This is something we should look at and recommend to the NCC.
Senator Milne: We should think of observations, then.
The Chairman: The appropriate way to do that would be to attach an observation to our report that this should be considered by the NCC. We cannot order such a thing, but we can certainly suggest it.
Senator Lavigne: Thank you.
The Chairman: That door is opened by the amendment that Senator Spivak is now making. Do you agree with that, honourable senators?
We have agreed to revert to the consideration of clause 4. The proposed amendment to clause 4 has the effect of renumbering existing subparagraph (1) and adding subparagraphs (2) and (3), which we have before us and to which, as Senator Spivak has pointed out, the NCC was, if I recall correctly, in general agreement.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the amendment to clause 4, on page 2, as described by Senator Spivak?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
Clause 4 is carried, as amended.
Now we will revert to the preamble. Shall the preamble carry?
Senator Lavigne: I would agree if paragraph 6 of the preamble, which says:
[Translation]
Whereas one of the objects and purposes of the National Capital Commission should be to acquire properties situated in Gatineau Park . . .
[English]
Do you know what I mean? If I object to clause 5, is this part the same thing or not? Is it part of clause 5?
The Chairman: If the bill passes, paragraph 6 of the preamble says that one of the purposes of the NCC will be to acquire properties, including private properties. Under clause 5, proposed section 13.2 of the National Capital Act, to which you are opposed, sets out the means and the process by which that will happen, and that is what we corrected. Yes, those two things are related. Paragraph 6 says that one of the objectives and purposes of the NCC will be to acquire property.
Senator Lavigne: It is the only thing I do not like. I have no problem with the rest.
Senator Spivak: I understand that, Senator Lavigne. However, you must understand that historically this has been the mandate of the National Capital Commission all the way through, although they have not always done it.
Senator Lavigne: If the city decided tomorrow that it wanted to sell your house, the place where you live, and they put a knife to your neck, you would have to see them before you sell your house. Would you like that?
Senator Spivak: I do not live in a park.
Senator Lavigne: Live in a park or not, it is the same thing. These people bought these buildings before, and now we are telling them that we are the government, with all the power and lots of money in our pockets to buy those properties. If the government loses money, they increase your taxes and go against you, and that is not right. You never have a chance against a government because you only end up fighting against your money. Do you think that is right? No. We have rights in life. I find this is not our right. These houses have been there for 50 to 100 years. If you do not want them there, then expropriate all of them and it will be finished. Do not do it the way this bill proposes because I think it is not legal and it is not the right way to treat people.
With this bill, the NCC is putting a knife to the necks of the people who own those properties. If they try to fight, they will only fight against their own money, and that is not right, in my view. If the NCC wants to buy someone's house, they should go to see the people and ask how much they want for their properties. If someone does not want to sell, that is their right. Government can take the money of the people to fight against the people. The people have to take the money and not put up a fight because they will have no choice but to sell.
Senator Spivak: I understand what you are saying. The only thing I want to say to you is that people can live in their houses because they have the right to do that. However, when they want to sell for the important ecological integrity of the park, the NCC should have the right to buy those properties.
Senator Lavigne: If I do not want to sell to the NCC because I want to sell to my cousin, the NCC will say, "How much will your cousin give to you?" I might want the property to stay in the family, but if I say that my cousin will give me $400,000, the NCC will say they do not care and that they will give me $400,000. They are spending the money of the people, so it is no problem for them. That is not the right way. Why? Because the NCC is big and the people are small. I do not like it when big people who have a lot of money — your money and my money — spend it like that. That is not an environmental issue.
Cars in the park is an environmental issue. I say that people should park their cars in the parking lot and take an electric bus to go around the park. Then, there would not be an environmental problem and I would agree with that today — right away.
However, I do not agree with something that is like holding a knife to my neck. I do not like it when someone big does what he wants to someone who is small. If the NCC wants 200 properties, they should expropriate the 200 properties and plant grass. Holding a knife to someone's neck because he wants to sell to his cousin is not the right thing to do. I do not like this.
Senator Spivak: I understand your point of view.
Senator Lavigne: I like the environment, and I support you when you talk about snowmobiles and things like that. You know that.
Senator Spivak: Thank you.
The Chairman: I must point out that in the testimony before this committee on Tuesday, the Kingsmere Property Owners' Association told us that they preferred the status quo — which is to say "expropriation" — to the procedure proposed in the bill. I must confess that I do not understand why, but you have described the situation exactly. No one who lives there can ever be forced by anything proposed in this bill to sell their house. However, when they want to sell, they need to receive an unconditional offer because it cannot be a fraudulent offer in order to inflate the price of the property.
The circumstance that you described, Senator Lavigne, is precisely what would happen under the provisions proposed in this bill: The NCC would be provided the opportunity to purchase the property at that price.
Senator Lavigne: Why do we not propose an amendment to say that a member of the family can buy the property?
Senator Spivak: That possibility is in the bill.
Senator Lavigne: Where?
The Chairman: In the past that has usually been done with a family trust arrangement. I do not know the details of it, but it has been done.
Senator Lavigne: I do not like the knife at the neck.
Senator Spivak: May I suggest that if you wish to move an amendment, you should check with legal counsel, and you have a right to do that at report stage and at third reading.
Senator Lavigne: I am opposed only to that paragraph.
The Chairman: We are considering the preamble, and we can assume that Senator Lavigne is opposed to its present form.
Shall the preamble carry?
Senator Spivak: Yes.
Senator Milne: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried, on division, with Senator Lavigne opposed.
Shall the schedule carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
The schedule is carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
The title is carried.
Shall the bill carry, as amended?
Senator Milne: Agreed.
Senator Spivak: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
Carried, on division, with Senator Lavigne opposed.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Senator Milne: Agreed.
Senator Milne: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
Carried, on division, with Senator Lavigne opposed.
Senator Lavigne, I remind you that you can either make an amendment or devise an observation to be added at third reading. Would you like to do that, or do you want to devise an observation now?
Senator Lavigne: No.
Senator Spivak: Will the recommendation about the bus be in the observations?
Senator Milne: If we do observations, they will have to be attached to the report now.
The Chairman: I hate devising observations by committee, but I think we could crystallize it by saying that as an observation attached to the report, the committee recommends, in the interests of the integrity of the park, that the NCC consider the reduction of automobile traffic in the park.
Senator Mitchell: In the park or around the lake?
The Chairman: In the park. That request has been made as well by the home owners associations and by the municipality. We heard that testimony on Tuesday. I do not know exactly what I just said, but there is a record of it somewhere. We will go in camera to discuss how we will make an observation. Is it agreed?
The clerk has reminded me of an important procedural question. Do I have the committee's permission to revert to the question of reporting the bill? Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the Senate as amended but with an observation attached?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried, on division, with Senator Lavigne opposed.
Senator Lavigne: I am opposed to clause 5.
The Chairman: Senator Lavigne, do you agree with the observation?
Senator Lavigne: Yes.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, senators, that staff of senators may stay in the room while we meet in camera?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Opposed?
Hearing none, we will wait until others have left the room.
The committee continued in camera.