Journals of the Senate
51 Elizabeth II, A.D. 2002, Canada
Journals of the Senate
1st Session, 37th Parliament
Issue 124 - Appendix "C"
Thursday, June 13, 2002
1:30 p.m.
The Honourable Daniel Hays, Speaker
Thursday, June 13, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has the honour to present its
NINETEENTH REPORT
Your Committee, to which were referred the 2002-2003 Estimates, has in obedience to the Order of Reference of March 6, 2002, examined the said estimates, more specifically, the National Capital Commission and herewith presents its fourth interim report.
Respectfully submitted,
LOWELL MURRAY
Chairman
REPORT ON THE NATIONAL
CAPITAL COMMISSION
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has turned its attention recently to the activities of the National Capital Commission as the Committee presented its First Interim Report on the 2002-2003 Main Estimates on March 19, and during the testimony of the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, President of the Treasury Board on May 29, 2002. On June 11, the Committee heard testimony given by the Chairman of the National Capital Commission, Mr. Marcel Beaudry.
In the Committee's First Interim Report on the 2002-2003 Estimates the Committee noted that the National Capital Commission was seeking additional appropriations of $34.2 million, most of which was designated to be spent on real estate management. The Committee also set out the need for assurances from the Commission that the "legitimate planning concerns of local governments be given proper weight in the decisions of the Commission.''
Both of these matters were addressed by Senators during the appearance of Minister Robillard on May 29. Questions were raised regarding the Commission's dealings with surplus lands including what constitutes justification when a declaration is made by the Commission that certain lands are surplus to its needs. The Committee was told that since 1992, the Treasury Board has allowed the Commission to sell surplus lands with the proceeds being used "to help fund their capital and maintenance requirements and to allow them to acquire other essential property.'' Senators expressed concern that the policy placed the Commission under extraordinary pressure to sell property. Senators asked questions regarding the process by which properties are declared surplus. The Commission's corporate plan does not contain the level of detail necessary to determine the reasoning behind the designation of land as surplus or the methodology used to arrive at the decision.
Senators are concerned about two related aspects of the operations of the National Capital Commission. First, there does not seem to be a requirement for consultation with the public, concerning either the disposition of land by the Commission or when changes are proposed in the use of land held by the Commission.
Second, Senators are concerned with the policy that permits the disposal of property declared to be surplus with the result that the proceeds of payment to the Commission go directly to finance capital maintenance by the Commission.
1. Public Input
All Canadians have a direct interest in the open lands and assets held by the National Capital Commission. The Committee believes the Commission holds these properties in trust for and, on a fiduciary basis, on behalf of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Decisions of the Commission relating to the disposition of these public lands affect all Canadians. As the Commission points out in its Corporate Plan 2001-2002 to 2005-2006 it acts "as steward and manager of federal lands in the National Capital Region.'' Its first strategy is to "protect natural lands.'' In fact, in its Annual Report 2000-2001, entitled Towards Renewal, the Commission states that its first objective is "to plan the orientation, use and development of federal lands in the National Capital Region in consultation with other planning jurisdictions, to ensure that their evolution is consistent with the image, character and quality of life in the Capital.'' As the single largest landowner in the region, the Commission should set the standard for public consultation when dealing with its real property assets.
Senators are aware that the Commission's new overall plan for the National Capital Region was the subject of four open house presentations and was widely distributed in 1999, but it is our view that when specific parcels of Commission land are being dealt with, specific public input should be required.
Indeed, the October 2000, Report completed for the National Capital Commission entitled Enhancing Relations is quite critical of the Commission's efforts to involve the general public in its activities.
Under a heading entitled "The Consultative Process of the NCC'', the Report states:
Throughout the interviews, the polling and the focus groups, one key issue surfaced regularly – the nature of consultations carried out by the NCC. A number of those interviewed observed that while the NCC regularly undertakes highly-organized "consultations'' – with beautiful charts and graphics on display and experts on hand to explain things – those attending the sessions often perceive the session as more of "here's what we want to do'' rather than true consultations.
The single, central message out of the focus groups was a strong and clear desire for "meaningful input''. In other words, they were seeking an opportunity to be heard and, ideally, have influence – something most participants did not feel was provided in the way NCC currently consults. What all of this says, in our judgement, is that much of the concern about the NCC being secretive and operating from behind closed doors could be resolved by providing interested members of the public with a "real'' opportunity for input through various consultative mechanisms.
The public has the right to comment and participate in decisions of the Commission which affect the Commission's land holding.
Recommendation 1
We recommend that the National Capital Commission develop a meaningful public consultation process which would apply to either the disposal or change of use of property held by the Commission.
2. Proceeds from the Sale of Assets
Senators are concerned, that as a result of the Treasury Board policy which allows the Commission to use the sale of its assets to partially fund its capital budget, undue pressure to dispose of assets is brought to bear on the Commission. The 2000-2001 Annual Report of the Commission illustrates that $15.8 million of its total revenues of $43.0 million came from the disposal of capital assets — mainly land. This is an untenable position for the Commission, which holds its assets in trust for all Canadians. The Commission should not be selling assets to offset the ongoing capital expenses of the Commission. If the Commission needs money, it should bring its case to Parliament requesting the necessary funds.
The Enhancing Relations Report, already referred to, says that many people who were interviewed regarding the Treasury Board policy believed it to be no longer appropriate. This Report recommended that the Treasury Board rescind its 1991 Real Asset Management Funding strategy so that the Commission could decide how it should deal with its lands without the "major pressure to dispose of land just to raise operating cash.''
Recommendation 2
We recommend that the Treasury Board rescind its 1991 Real Asset Management Funding Strategy as it relates to the National Capital Commission and that monies received by the Commission for the sale of surplus assets be directed to the Consolidated Revenue Fund as these were assets held for all Canadians.
Recommendation 3
We recommend that the National Capital Commission approach Parliament through the Treasury Board for the necessary resources should the Commission require such monies to effectively operate and manage its real estate assets.
Senators also discussed the issues surrounding the Commission's rezoning application on one property known as the Moffatt Farm. The NCC wants the Moffatt Farm rezoned to allow for the building of a major housing development. Ottawa City Council has refused to rezone the land for residential development, wanting the Moffatt Farm to remain parkland. The NCC has appealed the City Council's decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. Senators believe that the Commission needs to be more responsive to the views of the Ottawa community on this matter and consequently, the Committee recommends that:
Recommendation 4
The appeal of the National Capital Commission before the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the rezoning of the Moffatt Farm be withdrawn.