Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 42 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 11, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:32 a.m., to examine the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003.
Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: This committee always has before it the Main Estimates for a given fiscal year. Having the Main Estimates before us provides the committee with the latitude to inquire into just about anything that comes within the authority of the federal government. In that connection, and on the initiative of the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, Senator Cools, we have invited the chairperson and officers of the National Capital Commission to appear before us today.
[Translation]
We are pleased to welcome Mr. Marcel Beaudry, Chairman of the National Capital Commission for the past ten years. Mr. Beaudry was appointed back in 1992.
[English]
He is a lawyer from Hull, Quebec, who has combined law practice with undertakings in the hotel and restaurant business, residential and commercial construction and real estate development. Mr. Beaudry has been a member of the board of directors of numerous companies, financial institutions and universities. He has chaired numerous fundraising initiatives. He is a former member of the Belanger-Campeau commission, set up by the government of Quebec in 1990. He was the Mayor of the City of Hull, and he has an honorary doctorate from the University of Ottawa. I will not embarrass him or take the time of the committee with a lengthy biography.
We are happy to have him here, together with his officers, Mr. Wood and Ms Dubé. Mr. Beaudry has an opening statement to make, after which I will turn to senators for questions and comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Beaudry, Chairman, National Capital Commission: I welcome this opportunity to discuss the performance and financial operations of the National Capital Commission with you today. The mission of the NCC is to make Canada's Capital Region a symbol of pride and unity for all Canadians. Our mandate has three key themes that guide the NCC's day-to-day activities and its long-term planning. These are: creating a meeting place for all Canadians; using the Capital to help Canadians learn about Canada; and safeguarding and preserving cultural heritage and natural treasures for future generations.
[English]
To accomplish this mandate, every year the Treasury Board provides the commission with approximately $42 million in operating funds, $14 million for payments to municipalities in the National Capital Region in lieu of property taxes and $20 million in capital funds. Special projects, such as the redevelopment of the Lebreton Flats and the revitalization of Sparks Street, are funded separately.
The NCC also raises approximately $22 million per year on its own through rental agreements for more than 700 properties, sponsorships, merchandizing and user fees. These revenues enable the NCC to reduce its dependency, as a Crown corporation, on central funding from government appropriations.
The NCC has an acquisition and disposal fund that enables us to retain the proceeds from selling surplus property that no longer plays a capital role and for acquiring and rehabilitating assets. Through this fund, the NCC was able to acquire environmentally sensitive lands such as the Mer Bleue Bog in the Greenbelt and, most recently, lands along Sussex Drive. Proceeds were also used to rebuild Champlain Bridge and Portage Bridge.
I would like to take a few moments to explain how the NCC makes the most of its resources throughout its day-to- day operations. To fulfil our mandate, we concentrate on four business lines: programming, planning, real asset management and corporate services.
[Translation]
Programming includes activities that promote the National Capital Region as a place to experience and celebrate our Canadian heritage, culture and achievements.
In addition to Canada Day and Winterlude, these programs include skating on our historic Rideau Canada, Fall Rhapsody, Sunday Bike Days as well as outreach programs such as the popular Christmas Lights Across Canada.
[English]
A recent addition to the capital's many attractions is the Canada and the World Pavilion. The pavilion showcases the achievements of Canadians on the international stage. It is a model of successful partnership with both the private and the public sectors. It has recently received top honours from Attractions Canada as the best new attraction in Canada.
Since 1991, NCC programs have earned more than 75 awards from professional associations.
[Translation]
Our second major activity, Planning the Capital, involves creating and maintaining the vision for the Capital, planning for the use of federal lands in the National Capital Region, and designing and guiding their physical development. Planning the Capital focuses on federal interests specific to the symbolic, cultural and administrative functions of a capital - functions that make a capital city and its surrounding region unique.
For more than 100 years, the NCC and its predecessors have played a lead role in planning and building the Capital. The Gréber Plan and subsequent plans have helped transform the region into a vibrant, green Capital that is a source of pride for all Canadians. This planning work continues today.
[English]
Following completion of the plan for Canada's capital in 1999, the NCC has concentrated on preparing a plan for the core area of the capital. This plan will elaborate land use policy and proposals for federal lands in the core areas of Ottawa and Gatineau. Under the umbrella of this plan, the revitalization of Sparks Street and the redevelopment of Lebreton Flats will reach the detailed planning and development stage.
With the two new cities of Ottawa and Gatineau, the NCC is working on various planning projects. Studies of interprovincial transportation, as well as the review of new municipal official plans being developed by the cities, are examples of this collaboration.
[Translation]
The NCC regularly earns awards from a variety of national and provincial organizations in a range of disciplines such as architecture, urban planning and landscape design. Last year, for instance, the NCC received the prestigious Vision in Planning Award from the Canadian Institute of Planners for the implementation of the Gréber Plan.
Other plans, such as the 1996 Greenbelt Mast Plan and 2000 Core Area Concept have received national awards. In total we have received 42 awards since 1990 in the area of planning.
The NCC's real property portfolio includes the properties that are essential to the character of the National Capital Region. Lands such as the Greenbelt, Gatineau Park and Urban Parks form part of the National Interest Land Mass in accordance with their national significance and in keeping with sound environmental practices.
[English]
The NCC is the largest landowner in the National Capital Region. In all we own and manage 53,471 hectares of land. We are also responsible for six official residences, 170 kilometres of recreational pathways, almost 250 kilometres of walking and skiing trails in Gatineau Park and the Greenbelt, almost 500 hectares of capital parks and nationally significant public spaces, and manage approximately 700 buildings and 40 bridges.
Since the mid-1980s, when Treasury Board directed federal departments and Crown corporations to divest themselves of surplus land, the NCC has undertaken a rationalization of its land holdings. I say ``rationalization'' because the commission has been criticized for divesting itself of lands. However, it has never been recognized for increasing its overall property portfolio.
It is important to note that, since 1989, the NCC has acquired 2,330 hectares, of which more than 99 per cent is for open space protection. We have divested ourselves of 1,273 hectares from our total land holdings — of which 680 hectares is for public infrastructure, 304 hectares is for open space, 173 hectares is for development by the private sector and 116 hectares is for development by the municipalities, other federal departments and embassies.
The result is a net gain to the commission and to Canadian taxpayers of 1,057 hectares of national interest lands. It is important to note that the commission and its staff in our real asset management portfolio have earned 13 awards from professional associations since 1995.
[Translation]
Under Corporate Services, I am proud to say that in three of the past five years, the NCC has earned the coveted Award of Excellence in Annual Reporting from the Auditor General of Canada. I consider this an impressive accomplishment and one that is well-earned considering the many challenges facing the Commission in the past few years beginning with Program Review.
The NCC and its staff rose to the federal government's challenge and since has reduced its annual operating budget by some 30 per cent. However there has been no change in our mandate or in the quality of services. We also changed the way we do business.
We applied innovative means to accomplish our mandate, such as partnerships with other governments and the private sector to deliver programs such as Canada and privatizing our realty and land maintenance operations while providing an opportunity for some employees to establish private sector firms.
This resulted in the NCC reducing its staff by over 50 per cent to just under 500 employees.
[English]
The NCC has also addressed a number of governance issues. In April 2000, with the advent of municipal amalgamation, the NCC retained the services of Glen Shortliffe of Sussex Circle to provide an independent assessment of the commission's working relationship with municipalities and to outline ways to enhance the public's access to, and knowledge of, the commission and its activities. The implementation of the Sussex Circle report provides a sound foundation on which to build the NCC's commitment to a renewed consultative approach for future years.
In conclusion, the commission and the country continue to face challenging times. We are optimistic about the future of the region and the nation, and we will continue to aspire to excellence in all our businesses. We will continue to do our part, on behalf of the federal government, in making our capital city symbolic of the greatness of this nation. Thank you very much for inviting me here today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Senator Cools: Welcome to our Senate finance committee. It is a special treat to have you here today because we have not had a chairman of the National Capital Commission since about 1986 or 1987 when Mrs Pigott came before us. I think it is desirable and appropriate that the Chairman of the National Capital Commission be before the Senate committee.
I would like to build on the Senate committee's work, so to speak. I am sure you are very well informed that the Senate and the senators have taken the question of the NCC and its workings into its cognizance and that a number of questions have been raised in the Senate and in the Senate committee about the operations of the NCC. I hope that that you are informed; are you?
Mr. Beaudry: Yes, we are informed that you are interested in what we do.
Senator Cools: I was hoping and expecting that you would have taken the opportunity of your introductory remarks to address some of those concerns. I propose to begin with the Senate committee's report of March 19, 2002, just a few months ago. I would like to read from page 1319 of the Senate Journals, which contains the committee's first interim report on the Main Estimates. This report was in support of the first supply bill, what we call Appropriations Act No. 1. The report states:
Senators expressed an interest in the operations of the National Capital Commission. Specifically, they noted that the Commission was seeking additional appropriations of $34.2 million, most of which is earmarked for real asset management and development. In this connection, Senators require further assurances that the legitimate planning concerns of local governments are given proper weight in the decisions of the Commission.
Perhaps Mr. Beaudry could address the questions raised in the Senate report of March 19 in respect of real asset management and development and the National Capital Commission's dealings with city government, city council and so on. Could you tell us what actions and what steps you have taken to address the concerns as articulated in the Senate report?
Mr. Beaudry: With the municipalities, we have constant contact concerning many different issues. Following the Shortliffe report to which I referred in my opening address, we set up a tripartite committee where the two mayors sit with me, and staff of the three organizations are there to support the work that we do. We discuss transportation issues, development issues of future construction in the National Capital Region and priorities concerning both levels of government.
In the past we have worked very closely with the municipalities — particularly so with the new municipalities of Gatineau and Ottawa concerning official plans, planning of the capital, land use, the role of the NCC in cooperation with both cities should be, and how we should support one another in the different activities of our respective jurisdictions. We have been doing that in the past; we intend to do so in the future.
Of course, we do always have the same lines of thinking in all of the different activities. We at the NCC are appointed by government to develop and manage, to a certain extent, the National Capital Region where the federal government has interest.
On the Ontario side, at the local level, people have been reluctant for three years, on the Quebec side for four years. In providing their own responsibilities in how to manage their municipality, they come with a set program. They come with a set amount of initiatives and priorities that do not necessarily respond, fix or amalgamate easily with the NCC when it is planning for the region on a long-term basis.
In the past three years, we have set out the vision for the National Capital Region. A plan was devised in 1999, on which we are still working, of which six components have been set out for people to appreciate. Each of these components has been discussed with municipalities on both sides of the region.
Senator Cools: I understand most of that, Mr. Beaudry. You can assume that the majority of people on this committee are quite up to date on some of these questions. We are quite thorough readers and have a significant amount of information at our disposal.
The particular question I was asking you to address was that senators, in their report, said that they wanted assurances that the planning concerns of the city governments were given proper weight in the NCC's decision in respect of real estate management and development.
Mr. Beaudry: We receive many appropriations from government. Though I may be mistaken, I believe that, in regard to the $34, million to which you referred, was for the LeBreton Flats development, which is a special project. We did get money for official residences, also, which is not necessarily appropriation for capital expenditure on a regular basis. Last year, what we received $20 million from Treasury Board for capital expenditure. We received $42 million for operations and $14 million for grants or payments in lieu of taxes.
The rest of the credits given to us were for special projects, including the development of LeBreton Flats, which is to take place over the next five years, and the revitalization of Sparks Street Mall, for which we have received appropriation for the first year. We also received money for the maintenance of the official residences.
Senator Cools: I have three more questions, but I shall limit it to two, otherwise, members will not be able to get their questions in. I will put another question and perhaps we can revisit the first question later on, as the committee moves along with its proceedings.
I have observed, Mr. Beaudry, in all your public relations documents — and you seem to have a large number of them — that you refer to the National Capital Commission as a Crown corporation. I have noticed that in, for example, a particular document, ``The National Capital Commission: Summary of Corporate Plan, 2001-02 to 2005- 06.'' I have noticed the reference on your Web site, as well. If we were to look at the summary of the corporate plan, at page 6, we see the heading ``Crown corporation status.'' It says, ``Crown corporation status means that the NCC is subject to ... the Financial Administration Act...'' At the bottom of the same paragraph it reads, ``The NCC is governed by a national board of directors and reports to Parliament through the Minister of Canadian Heritage.''
I have a few problems with the definition of the National Capital Commission as a Crown corporation governed by a board of directors. First, my understanding is that you are not boards of directors, that it is rather a collection of commissioners.
My second understanding is that the NCC is not a simple Crown corporation, that such a description is insufficient to describe it. The NCC, in point of fact, is a commission, and not only a commission, but a special constitutional entity that was developed some centuries ago as a way of organizing in law and in practice what is called a ``body of commissioners'' — that is, a body corporate of commissioners — so that commissioners acting as a body together can perform important public acts of an important public character.
In other words, Mr. Beaudry, is that the description of the NCC as a Crown corporation makes it sound like a huge corporate machine that is entitled to act as a private entity in respect of land speculation and land deals, when the NCC is a commission entrusted with protecting and safeguarding Her Majesty's lands.
Mr. Beaudry: We have done that largely. If you refer to my opening statement again, the NCC owns 47,078 hectares of land. We manage more than 6,000 hectares that are owned by the Province of Quebec, which is situated in Gatineau Park. Over the last 10 years, we have acquired 2,330 hectares of additional land for public purposes, out of which we have sold or divested 1,273 hectares.
The net result of all of this is that you have more land holdings today than you had 10 years ago. If our role is to preserve what has been given to us to manage by the people and the Government of Canada, this board of directors, which has been appointed by the government, is doing its job.
We are responsible to Parliament and we are responsible to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who answers for us in the House. We are at arm's length from the Department of Heritage. We operate as a Crown corporation, 15 members, including the chair, having been appointed through Orders in Council. We act as any other Crown corporation that has been created by the government.
Senator Cools: Mr. Beaudry, my understanding is that it is not a board of directors that you have; it is a board of commissioners. We can debate these points, because this is an area of law and I have been doing some research. My understanding is that the National Capital Commission has its origins in the ancient concept of Crown lands commissioners. We can pursue that point later on.
We are talking about Parliament. I am sure most people here understand that I see life through the eyes of being a Member of Parliament and a parliamentarian. I would like to ask you a question that is not as profound as the previous two questions, but is nonetheless important.
The National Capital Commission has in its employ a person by the name of Laurie Peters, who is described as a spokesperson for the NCC and is quoted regularly in the media. On May 23, 2002, in an interview on CBO-FM, with Senator Kinsella, Laurie Peters answered Senator Kinsella in respect of what I consider to be public policy questions.
My question to you is the following: First, what are the credentials or authority that Ms Peters possesses to publicly engage senators or elected politicians on public policy questions? Second, in the parliamentary system of responsible ministerial government, what is a ``spokesperson''?
Mr. Beaudry: Laurie Peters is the Director of Communications at the NCC. I do not what Ms Peters has said concerning Senator Kinsella. I cannot comment on that. She is certainly authorized by the National Capital Commission to answer and speak on behalf of the commission on issues that concern the commission.
Senator Cools: Does that include public policy questions?
Mr. Beaudry: I do not know what Ms Peters has said in that regard. I should like to hear what comments she has made in that regard. I do not know.
Senator Cools: I could put one item on the record. However, she makes many statements of this nature on a regular basis. If you look through the news coverage, you will see that Laurie Peters is frequently quoted on what I consider to be very important public policy issues.
For example, the document I am looking at is from Bowdens Media Monitoring about an interview on CBC Radio, May 23, 2002. The headline was ``NCC Acting as a Realtor'' and the interviewer was Ms Hallie Cotnam, who began:
Members of the Senate of Canada say they want to stop the National Capital Commission from selling all Federal lands to developers. They say too much land has been sold over the past decade to subsidize other projects.
But NCC officials say they are only doing what is necessary.
Ms Barbara Brunzell of CBC Radio spoke and quoted Senator Kinsella. Then, she said that Ms Laurie Peters, a spokesperson for the National Capital Commission, said that if the ability to sell land were taken away, there would have to be one heck of budget in its place.
Ms Peters said: ``We would have a very difficult time completely and entirely fulfilling our mandate to reconstruct a heritage bridge or to maintain a beautiful Gatineau Park. It all takes funds.''
It is my understanding — and I may be a little old-fashioned — that in our system of government, when it comes to responding, especially to members of Parliament, it is usually done either by ministers or certainly representatives at the highest levels. It is certainly not done by staff. My understanding is that staff can give reports about the time of day or about the conditions on the canal, for example. In respect of engaging Parliamentarians or members of city council on public policy issues, it is my understanding that staff do not do those kinds of things. I could be old-fashioned and outdated now.
Mr. Beaudry: I do not exactly know how to address this, to be honest. There is an individual responsible for speaking on behalf of the National Capital Commission to questions that concern the commission. She is responding to the reporter who is questioning her about the impact of a change of policy, whereby the NCC would not be allowed to sell lands in order to provide the necessary revenues to maintain its capital assets. Ms Peters responded that if this policy were modified and if Treasury Board provided no money, there would be a shortage of some $6 million per year in our capital budget, just to maintain the assets that we have. She was saying that it would create a huge problem for us and that something else would have to be done about it. I do not think she was questioning the statement or opinion of Senator Kinsella, but rather she was stating a matter of fact.
Treasury Board provides us with $20 million on a yearly basis. We need $25 million to $26 million to meet our capital expenditures. Treasury Board told us in 1991 that, following rationalization in the policy that was adopted by the federal government in the mid-1980s, federal corporations, departments and agencies should get rid of the surplus land that they have. We have been following this directive. In 1991-92, Treasury Board told us that to meet our needs on capital budgets, we would have to sell surplus land because they are not providing all of the funding that we need. That is where the $6 million comes from and that is the issue that Ms Peters addressed. If we do not sell land, we will not be able to meet our budget for capital obligations. Therefore, we need the $6 million and so we have been selling land. We are not the exception: Every department in the federal government has been doing this. The Canada Land Corporation has been active since 1995, especially for that purpose, with all departments that have declared surplus land. Treasury Board has asked them to turn it over to Canada Lands Corporation so that they can sell it.
Senator Cools: Thank you, Mr. Beaudry, for that clarification.
[Translation]
Senator Bolduc: In preparation for this meeting, I familiarized myself with Treasury Board's policy respecting the disposal of surplus land. As a Crown corporation, are you covered by this policy, or are you subject to your own regulations?
Mr. Beaudry: As a Crown corporation, we are not directly subject to Treasury Board's policy.
Senator Bolduc: That policy only applies to departments?
Mr. Beaudry: Pursuant to part two, it applies to departments and corporations.
The NCC, as a Crown corporation, is not subject to the policy as such. However, we try to follow Treasury Board directives and policy as much as we possibly can, since the Board did request in 1988 and again in 1991 that the NCC rationalize its land holdings.
Working with Treasury Board and the Minister of Public Works, we determined that a number of our land holdings should be considered of national significance. Some of our land holdings were thoroughly analysed to determine how they should be classified. If found not to be of national significance, we decided if they should be declared surplus and sold either to other levels of government or to the private sector.
Treasury Board subsequently asked us, as it did other departments, to dispose of some of our holdings.
[English]
Senator Bolduc: In other words, even though Treasury Board does not cover you in the disposal of surplus property, your board strives to be in the spirit of, or in the same vein as, the federal government.
Mr. Beaudry: Yes, that is correct. Treasury Board is fully aware that the $20 million that we are given is not enough for us to maintain the asset. We do not necessarily sell $6 million worth of land every year. Some years, we run short; some years, we sell more and we try to take advantage of the high peak of the market and obtain the best possible zoning for the lands so that we get the highest possible price to benefit Canadians.
[Translation]
Senator Bolduc: Within the National Capital Region, does the NCC act in the same capacity as the Department of Public Works? Does PWGSC have the authority to act on NCC land?
Mr. Beaudry: It does. However, if PWGSC needs to dispose of some of its land holdings, its instructions are to transfer these holdings to the Canada Lands Corporation which in turn, oversees disposal arrangements for the government. The proceeds of the sale are poured back into Treasury Board's coffers.
Senator Bolduc: We have established the nature of your relationship with Treasury Board. What kind of relationship do you have with PWGSC?
Mr. Beaudry: We work closely with PWGSC. We are responsible for land use throughout the National Capital Region. We are also responsible for short- and long-term planning and for the design and appearance of buildings erected or demolished in the National Capital Region. Consequently, if PWGSC is planning to erect a building — for instance, the recently announced new Federal Court building — it must consult with the NCC on the building site.
[English]
Senator Bolduc: In terms of land use policy, you have the jurisdiction of the overall territory. Now, with the CLC Ltd, what is your relationship? Is there one?
Mr. Beaudry: It is a good relationship and they would like to help us sell land whenever it would be useful.
Senator Bolduc: Does the NCC sell the land itself.
Mr. Beaudry: Yes, we do but, theoretically speaking, it would not be under Treasury Board policy.
Senator Bolduc: I understand.
Mr. Beaudry: We could, theoretically ask CLC to sell for us.
Senator Bolduc: If CLC has management responsibilities for selling land, why do you sell it yourself instead of asking them to do it for you?
Mr. Beaudry: Treasury Board policy allows the National Capital Commission to sell, divest, develop or do as they wish with their land.
Senator Bolduc: Has the city of Ottawa itself been stripped of its power in land-use management?
Mr. Beaudry: Not the city. We are talking about lands under federal ownership, and ownership of the commission. We would not be able to sell land for Public Works or Agriculture Canada. Those would go to CLC. We have the authority to sell the land that we own. However, we go back to Treasury Board every now and then to get authority.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Who authorizes the sale of land? Are your actions dictated by legislation, or do you receive your orders from Treasury Board?
Mr. Beaudry: The legislation authorizes us to sell, purchase, develop or transfer lands.
The Chairman: And policy is set down by Treasury Board?
Mr. Beaudry: Exactly. Other departments must turn to the CLC when they wish to dispose of their land holdings. The NCC can go ahead and do this on its own.
[English]
Senator Kinsella: I must say, Chairman Beaudry, I take no offence with what your communication officer is saying. I found it rather helpful as it allowed us to zero in on an important issue that you have underscored. Namely, the fact that there seems to be a dynamic at play, that in order for the NCC to raise their budget as the commission determines, if they do not get the funds from the Treasury Board through appropriation steps with this policy of the early 1990s, they need to sell assets to pour back into their capital activities. I want to talk about that in a moment to try to get some explanation of it.
Let us turn to the estimates for 2002-03. In your presentation, you said that Treasury Board is providing about $42 million for operations. In the estimates for this year, it is $48.8 million, so that is an increase of some $7 million. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Beaudry: I will ask Ms Dubé to answer this.
Senator Kinsella: Actually, it is not $42 million but $49 million for operating expenditures. Then you said that the payments for grants and contributions, which covered things like tax, seem to remain the same. You mentioned $14 million, and I see the estimates are providing $13.7 million. Let us turn to Vote 75, which is for capital expenditures. You cited some $20 million for capital. However, in the estimates Vote 75 is $56 million. That is an increase of $36 million.
Mr. Beaudry: That was for the special project, LeBreton Flats.
Senator Kinsella: In the budget preparation process, when you negotiate with Treasury Board do you have to table before them your plan of selling properties and the revenue that you anticipate receiving? Does Treasury Board factor that in and therefore reduce the budget allotment, which they would have recommended, in accordance with the plan to sell assets?
Mr. Beaudry: The negotiations that we have had in the past with Treasury Board have been modified to some extent since the Shortliffe report.
We told Treasury Board that we needed some $25.5 million for capital expenditure. Out of that, for a long period, we got $18.5 million. Last year we got $20 million. However, Treasury Board has agreed to provide us with additional funding should we not be able to sell surplus land to the cover our $6 million shortfall. They would be lending us that money for a period of three years, and it would be reimbursed to them whenever the market is ready to buy these properties.
We do not want to sell surplus land under any kind of conditions. We want to make sure we are getting the highest possible price for the land we consider surplus, and get the proper zoning on it before we sell it. Otherwise, I do not think we would be managing the assets of government the way we should. Treasury Board is fully aware of that.
For a period, we had many problems in trying to reach the $6 million mark because we were more or less in a recession. Government was undergoing program review and, therefore, Treasury Board agreed they would lend this money to relieve us of the pressure to sell land under less than favourable circumstances
Senator Kinsella: Under the Treasury Board policy that applies to departments, should a department wish to sell a surplus asset, the proceeds from that sale go into the consolidated revenue. In addition, there is the process of how lands are determined to be surplus.
I know the act provides for the authority to dispose of lands. Where is the policy base? Is there a document, that has been approved by Treasury Board, generated by the NCC that lays out the steps to determine, first, what constitutes ``surplus,'' and second, the steps in putting that surplus land on the market?
Mr. Beaudry: Surplus land is determined after a long analysis by the people at the NCC. They take into account the circumstances that have taken place, and look into whether this land is needed for the NCC's operations, programs or symbolism. We decide afterwards what land should be declared surplus.
If a roadway has been called for — Highway 16, for example — that cuts through the Greenbelt in some places, a piece of land may no longer be connected to the Greenbelt. In other instances, an area might have been converted from agricultural to commercial use and a piece of land has been separated from the larger agricultural area. Following rationalization of its operations and needs, the NCC may declare that land ``surplus.''
In this case, Treasury Board decided back in 1992 that the NCC could sell its surplus land and keep the proceeds to create an acquisition and disposal fund that could be used down the road to pay for infrastructure, maintenance of infrastructure, or acquisition of additional land. That fund has been used for that purpose since then. That is how we funded the construction of the Champlain Bridge at a cost of $30 million, the Portage Bridge for $9 million, acquisition of the Mer Bleue Bog, or acquisition of some land in other areas of the National Capital Region.
Senator Kinsella: Are the national capital area members of Parliament consulted during the process you go through in determining what constitutes surplus lands?
Mr. Beaudry: Yes. The members of the riding in which the land is situated are consulted and the mayor, councillors and municipal staff are made aware.
We also go through a consultation process. For instance, when we went for the Greenbelt official plan, there was a three and one-half year process of consultation with the people of the National Capital Region concerning the Greenbelt. We examined what it should be and what kind of activities should take place there.
We did the same thing for the plan for Canada's capital that was adopted in 1999. That process started in 1995 and 1996. Consultation took place in 1997 and public consultation took place in 1998. The city staff, the city politicians and representatives of the then Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, RMOC, were all informed of this process and what we were considering at that point for surplus land. We discussed what should be divested, developed or sold.
Senator Kinsella: It is your testimony then that the Member of Parliament relevant to Moffatt Farm was part of the consultation process?
Mr. Beaudry: Yes, the Member of Parliament was aware of it. The Member of Parliament made many declarations concerning that. It was Mac Harb in this case. He said that he was favourable to this development. He was consulted beforehand. Local politicians were also aware of that.
Senator Kinsella: You referred to members of the council of the City of Ottawa?
Mr. Beaudry: Members of the council of the City of Ottawa were aware of it. The city amalgamated in 2000. The members of RMOC and the mayor were also aware of it.
Senator Kinsella: When the National Capital Commission determined that the Moffatt Farm was surplus, a decision was then taken as to how to dispose of it. Would you describe that process?
It is my understanding that there is an interest by DCR Phoenix Development Ltd. in the property. Would you describe the process that was involved in identifying DCR Phoenix Development Ltd. as a potential developer for that property?
Mr. Beaudry: The document was very specific for the official plan for Canada's capital in 1999. I will read from the plan:
Lands considered Capital parks in the 1988 Federal Land Use Plan, but are no longer considered to fulfill this role as a result of the 1995-99 review, include the following:
Prince of Wales site is not considered to be of Capital significance, except for the shore lands.
Shirley's Bay was redesignated as a Natural Heritage Area.
Gatineau Park south of Gamelin Boulevard has been redesignated to Natural Heritage Area.
The Prince of Wales site is the Moffatt Farm. In the 1988 plan, these areas were considered capital park areas. In the Moffatt Farm case, the National Capital Commission already owned the Vincent Massey Park in that area. We owned Hog's Back Park in that area, which we manage and control. Over and above that, we own and control the Mooney's Bay Park, but it is under lease to the City of Ottawa. That deal was struck in 1995 on a 49-year lease.
There were already three parks in that area. We have also begun developing LeBreton Flats. You may have noticed that work has started on the cleanup of the site. There will be a large park for the use of Canadians for festivals and different kinds of activities on LeBreton Flats. Eleven acres will be set aside there for that purpose.
After a program review, we concluded that the Moffatt Farm area was not useful to the NCC. There has never been any programming in that area. It was never a park in the same sense as Major's Hill, Vincent Massey or Hog's Back parks. It is an open field. We decided to concentrate our efforts in the core areas of which LeBreton Flats is one.
For the Moffatt Farm, a proposal was made to us for an exchange of the Montford Woods property. We are considering this because this area is right next to the Aviation Parkway, which belongs to the NCC. It is right next to the Rockcliffe Base, which is now owned by the National Defence but may be turned over to the Canada Lands Corporation. There has been discussion on that for three or four years. That may become also a development of the federal government or the private sector, if it is turned over to the CLC.
We felt that that Montfort Woods, which we did not own, was a piece of property that should be protected along the Aviation Parkway. When the proposal came to us, we said that we would exchange equivalent parks to Moffatt Farm with DCR Phoenix, subject to them doing all the renegotiations for the redevelopment. We felt that the Moffatt Farm land was worth more money than the Montfort Wood. DCR Phoenix would be responsible for the rezoning, arranging services and hiring the planners in order to make that subdivision be created and they would pay all those costs. That would balance out what we would be acquiring in comparison to what we would be turning over. That was approved by Treasury Board.
Senator Kinsella: You testified a few moments ago that the NCC attempts to work hand-in-glove with the regional governments in the area. It is my understanding that the City of Ottawa does not agree with the transferring of that property from open space into a real estate development. Am I correct that that is the decision of the City of Ottawa? Am I correct that the NCC is appealing that decision to the Ontario Municipal Board?
Mr. Beaudry: Let us say that City of Ottawa staff support the proposal. The ``smart growth'' policy adopted by the City of Ottawa supports that development. It does not support specifically that land, but the policy philosophy of smart growth supports the plan. Developing land on this side of the Greenbelt also is in accordance with the smart growth policy of Ottawa.
It is true that city council has opposed the development of that property. With the exception of one, the members of council voted against the development of that property. It is true also that the matter is now before the OMB and we are awaiting a decision.
Senator Kinsella: You mentioned a moment ago that the Treasury Board approved something?
Mr. Beaudry: The transaction between DCR Phoenix and the NCC.
Senator Kinsella: Do you have any idea what criteria Treasury Board used?
Mr. Beaudry: I will leave that to Treasury Board.
Senator Mahovlich: A few years ago, Prime Minister Chrétien visited Australia. He was very impressed with Canberra, the country's capital. Someone said that he looked out his window and saw a vision.
Is there anything in your plans for the future comparable to this beautiful city of Canberra?
Mr. Beaudry: I visited Canberra about two and one-half months ago. Canberra was easier to develop than Ottawa or any other capital in the world is, except perhaps Brasilia. They also started from scratch. We have not.
Senator Mahovlich: It is more expensive.
Mr. Beaudry: It is more expensive and more problematic.
Prime Minister Mackenzie King retained Jacques Gréber in 1950 to develop a plan for the nation's capital. The Gréber Plan provided for more parks in the region and a relocation of the train station from the core area to Alta Vista. He also contemplated two grand alleys leading to Parliament Hill: One from the Museum of Nature, the other alongside Colonel By Drive starting from the train station. It was to have been a six-lane boulevard leading on an angle to the Hill.
Gréber choose the one on Colonel By Drive. He did not retain the idea of the large alley along Metcalfe Street. Of course, the boulevard along Colonel By Drive was never built because Ottawa University expanded and the National Defence headquarters and Rideau Centre were built. In addition, the National Arts Centre blocked the view.
In 1998, the NCC contemplated returning to the Gréber plan. We thought we should open the vista to Parliament Hill instead of coming up Metcalfe Street and seeing only the Peace Tower. We tabled four options: to build a square on the Sparks Street Mall and have a vista from Queen Street, or down to Albert Street or Laurier Street, or return to what Gréber contemplated as a possibility at the time, right down to the Museum of Nature. The media reported it would cost $5 billion to expropriate the property. They did not mention the three options, only the grand option, which was abandoned by the National Capital Commission a year after consultations took place.
We are now concentrating our efforts on revitalizing the Sparks Street mall. While we were considering the four options, people in the area told us more residences were needed to make the core area livelier, that we needed more activities on the mall.
The mall is 35 years old, and it has been slowly dying. The NCC is responsible for the beautification of the capital, for making Canadians proud of their capital, and we feel it is necessary to do something about the Sparks Street mall. That is where we have been directing our efforts. We are now funded for the first year to undertake studies. We are hopeful that the re-development of Sparks Street mall will begin this year.
The grand alley boulevard is not in the plan at this point. Years from now it may become an idea to be pursued.
Senator Mahovlich: I know that you must make some big decisions. I think you have to look 50 or even 100 years down the way. What happens if you refurbish Sparks Street and it still does not attract people?
Mr. Beaudry: We would like to demolish some of the buildings on Sparks Street, those that have no significant interest. I am speaking of the Hong Kong Bank and Montreal Trust buildings. We would like to create a large square.
We are trying to address the problems in the core area. Because of security measures following September 11, tour buses are no longer allowed on Parliament Hill. These buses now park along Wellington Street, and the tourists have to walk to Parliament Hill — quite a walk for seniors and those in poor physical condition. It is also a problem for traffic flow. There are two lanes of traffic on Wellington Street. If one lane is blocked, that leaves only one lane of traffic in each direction.
The City of Ottawa has formed a committee, which includes NCC representation, to undertake a study to determine how to resolve the problem. If we had the large square from Wellington to Queen Street, we could have underground parking for 25 to 30 buses and 650 cars.
Senator Mahovlich: How many buses come into Ottawa each day?
Mr. Beaudry: The last sample we took between the hours of 11 and 12 in the summer — peak tourist time — there were approximately 40 buses coming to the Hill.
Senator Mahovlich: It might be 200 buses a day.
Mr. Beaudry: It is more than that, I am sure. This is between May and Labour Day weekend.
Senator Mahovlich: I was in Chicago in the fifties. Skid row was a big problem at that time. Our hockey team would go down through skid row to get the stadium. I wondered how they would solve that problem. They put a four-lane highway right through the middle of it. Now it is a beautiful city. Some big decisions have to be made.
Mr. Beaudry: It is a political decision. I can tell you Washington is also looking at creating a boulevard behind the Capitol. That creates concerns because there are heritage buildings there.
One of the problems we face on Sparks Street is that there are some heritage buildings there. We must also take into account where the most advantages lie: Would they be with the development of Sparks Street Mall the way we think it should go, or would the best decision be to leave the mall in its present state to rot for years to come.
Senator Mahovlich: I have another question about Moffatt Farm. I was out visiting Moffatt Farm the other day. I went for a walk and saw a lot wild birds and animals going through the brush. I saw mallards nesting. This looks to me like a sensitive area. I know that the people around there are worried about development. Has Ducks Unlimited Canada or anyone given you an opinion on this property?
Mr. Beaudry: Not that I know of. I do not know whether you have a copy of the map showing proposed development at Moffatt Farm. If not, we will distribute it to you.
You will see the shoreline of the Moffatt Farm will not be developed. Development is proposed for 18 hectares of land. Seventeen hectares of land will be protected. It is almost 46 to 37. Thirty-seven will remain wild.
Senator Mahovlich: A lot of young trees have been planted there.
Mr. Beaudry: If you walk the land, it is brush. There are very few trees on the plateau. The trees are alongside the shoreline. All of those trees will be protected, so your birds will not be affected whatsoever.
Senator Mahovlich: Birds are attracted to that type of brush.
Mr. Beaudry: The centre of the plateau is proposed for development.
Senator Mahovlich: I was at a meeting a month ago at your office. We were talking about the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame. The ministers have been changed two or three times in the last period. Is that work still in progress? How is it going?
Mr. Beaudry: I can say at this point that Public Works is working with the NCC on a submission that should possibly be ready within a month or so. There are many issues on that site. It is owned by the Museum of Photography. They need to find a home. They need to find money to pay for the reorganization of their museum and the storage that they need. My understanding is that the proposal for the hall of fame includes for a bar, a kitchen, a restaurant and escalators, and they would like to develop an underground bridge. That will cost a lot of money. I do not know exactly where the money will come from.
Senator Mahovlich: It is not a done deal, then?
Mr. Beaudry: In my opinion, it may happen, but it is not a done deal. There are many issues to be addressed by the Museum of Photography, by the NCC and by Public Works. Where will the money come from? Perhaps they will find enough money through sponsors. However, I do not know where it will come from.
Senator Banks: I want to ask questions about the $26 million fund to which you referred. You said you needed $26 million, and you got $20 million.
Mr. Beaudry: For capital expenditures.
Senator Banks: Capital expenditures include things like fixing up the mall.
Mr. Beaudry: The mall is not ours. The mall is owned by the City of Ottawa. Sparks Street Mall is owned by the City of Ottawa. We are revitalizing Sparks Street Mall. We were given $40 million three years ago by Treasury Board to acquire properties alongside Sparks Street Mall between Metcalfe and O'Connor streets. Out of that $40 million, we have already spent $28 million in acquiring properties.
Senator Banks: My question is: Does your accounting concept include fixing up your capital assets as capital expenditures?
Mr. Beaudry: Yes.
Senator Banks: So maintaining capital assets is part of capital expenditures?
Mr. Beaudry: Yes.
Senator Banks: What will happen when you eventually run out of surplus lands to sell?
Mr. Beaudry: That is a good question. Perhaps Treasury Board will change their policy at that point in time.
Senator Banks: Until then, they telling you to sell capital property?
Mr. Beaudry: Surplus land. Not all the land, surplus lands.
Senator Banks: Whatever that means.
Mr. Beaudry: The facts have demonstrated that in the past 10 years we have acquired more lands than we have sold. Out of the 1,273 hectares, we have sold 173 hectares to private developers. The rest of it was either transferred or divested for public infrastructure, for public use, or for other reasons that are in the public domain.
Senator Banks: As you pointed out, there has been a net gain of over 1,000.
Mr. Beaudry: That is right.
Senator Banks: Can that kind of extraordinarily brilliant management continue, in which you are selling land that is surplus and gaining monies from that, which I gather in your policy have to be spent on capital?
Mr. Beaudry: On capital, of course.
Senator Banks: Can you continue to maintain or aggrandize the aggregate land holdings and continue to sell surplus lands to meet the capital expenditures?
Mr. Beaudry: Let us say that at the present time with respect to liailities and capital, we are at zero, theoretically speaking. We were at 92 some 10 years ago because there was a lot of rehabilitation that was to take place. I am thinking, for instance, of the Laurier Bridge which is being redone by the City of Ottawa, the MacKenzie bridge, which we turned over to the RMOC, the Airport Parkway and some infrastructures that we own and could foresee having to rehabilitate.
We were left with the Champlain Bridge and the approximate $30 million that is being spent on this is coming out of the A and D fund. That is because of the land that we have sold and the exchanges and the different deals we made along the way. The Portage Bridge is the same. There was money coming out of that fund for that purpose.
Senator Banks: I have another question that has to do with the Sparks residence. If you wish, you can wait to answer this question. I would prefer, in fact, that you correspond with the clerk of the committee. There are persons who are interested in seeing the police report having to do with the fire that destroyed the Sparks residence in Gatineau Park. Would you please undertake, or let the clerk know if you cannot undertake to authorize, to the extent it is necessary to do so, the release to the committee of the police report having to do with that fire?
Mr. Beaudry: It will be a pleasure.
Senator Bolduc: I am still pursuing my line of thought about the relationships between various organizations in the area in terms of land use planning. Suppose there is a conflict of views between the City of Ottawa and the NCC about the Sparks Street redevelopment. In such a case, the only solution is to discuss it or go to an arbitration board or what have you. I heard earlier the Ontario Municipal Board can decide on things that are local. I thought it only dealt with matters of municipal finance, but apparently they can also deal with matters of zoning and matters like that.
Mr. Beaudry: That is right.
Senator Bolduc: If there is a conflict, what happens?
Mr. Beaudry: That is where we are. The NCC finds this piece of property is surplus land, and we would like to sell it to the private sector in this case.
Senator Bolduc: I am not talking about Moffat; I am talking about Sparks. Suppose there is a conflict in your redevelopment of Sparks with the City of Ottawa.
Mr. Beaudry: We have no completed the consultation. I am quite sure there will not be any conflict. We will be agreeing to the development of the revitalization.
Senator Bolduc: Your position is that you will discuss it until you agree?
Mr. Beaudry: I hope we will find the right solution. The city has a lot of issues to deal with. I think basically the city is favourable to the revitalization of Sparks Street Mall.
Senator Bolduc: I have been in municipal affairs for a few years, as you know. We had good relationships at the time. I started also in planning at the University of Chicago. The type of street you have here in Sparks cannot be redeveloped on a commercial basis. You are too near the Parliament buildings. It will be very difficult to have the kind of commercial development that you imagine.
Mr. Beaudry: Phase one of Sparks Street has been approved by the city. I refer to the vacant land where there is surface parking at the corner of Queen Street and O'Connor. That piece of property right, up to Sparks Street has been approved by the city for a development of some 240,000 square feet of office space, 34 residential units and retail at the ground level at Sparks and Queen. That has been approved as phase one of the Sparks Street redevelopment mall.
We think that will play a big role in making things happen. We hope to bring more residents to the Sparks Street Mall. We are talking with Public Works about converting a building and putting residences on the site right next to the square.
Senator Bolduc: You have the constraints of the Bank of Canada.
Mr. Beaudry: The Bank of Canada is in the other block.
Senator Bolduc: What about Wellington?
Mr. Beaudry: It is not there.
Senator Kinsella: I want to be perfectly clear: Are you telling us that the City of Ottawa is for or against the re- zoning of Moffatt Farm?
Mr. Beaudry: They voted against it.
Senator Kinsella: That is what you are appealing. The elected members of city council took the position that they do not want to rezone Moffatt Farm according to the plan that was put forward. Is there room for a compromise? Can the NCC come up with a compromise position and work it out with the city?
Mr. Beaudry: We have offered to turn over the land to the City of Ottawa at market price, based on the zoning we think we can obtain from the OMB, which is residential zoning. The City of Ottawa has adopted a resolution offering the NCC $400,000 for 84 acres of land. We struck a deal with the same City of Ottawa nearly two years ago to acquire 2.5 acres of land in the waterway corridor. One is on Sussex Drive alongside the Ottawa River and the other is along the Rideau River. For 2.5 acres of land, we are paying $650,000 to the city. This is a piece of property that is zoned waterway, the same way as the properly at Moffatt.
Senator Kinsella: Let me conclude on a different element of the Estimates. It is the operating expenditures of the $48.8 million. How much of that is for salaries?
Ms Micheline Dubé, Vice-President, Corporate and Information Management Services Branch, National Capital Commission: I would say roughly 60 per cent is for salaries.
Senator Kinsella: Are there 15 commissioners, including the chair?
Mr. Beaudry: That is right.
Senator Kinsella: What is the compensation for each member and who fixes it?
Mr. Beaudry: We recently readjusted the compensation for members. First, they are not paid for their regular meeting as members of the board. They are paid for additional work, if they sit on committees or they hold office. For example, the vice-chair of the NCC has compensation, I believe, of $8,000 a year for this. I am giving estimates of these salaries. I could provide you the right numbers if you wish.
Senator Kinsella: That is determined by the commission and not by the Treasury Board; is that right?
Mr. Beaudry: The Treasury Board approves it.
Senator Kinsella: What is the compensation package for the chair of the commission?
Mr. Beaudry: I think it is around $196,000.
Senator Kinsella: Is that a DM2?
Mr. Beaudry: DM2 or DM3.
Senator Kinsella: Is there a hospitality budget made available out of operating?
Mr. Beaudry: Not as such. There are some expenses. I can tell you that every year the media makes it their duty to check on all the expenses of the chair of the National Capital Commission. They come in and verify everything.
Senator Kinsella: Treasury Board must approve the estimates submission for NCC. Do they deal in a microeconomic manner with the compensation packages or is that done by the commission?
Mr. Beaudry: No, there is a report. The committee makes recommendations to the Treasury Board minister and the minister recommends it. Compensation is given, whether it is approved or not.
Senator Cools: Mr. Beaudry, you referred to an agreement between NCC and DCR Phoenix. Could you give us copies of that purchase of sale agreement, as well as all the other agreements around the proceedings before city hall? Could you make copies of those agreements available to this committee?
Mr. Beaudry: I do not exactly know what you mean by the second part of your question. We do not have any agreement with city hall concerning that property.
Senator Cools: Maybe I misunderstand. Perhaps there is but one agreement. I was thinking of the purchase of sale agreement with DCR Phoenix, as well as the agreements by which DCR undertook to be the NCC's agent before city hall in the proceedings.
Mr. Beaudry: That is in the same agreement.
Senator Cools: That is one agreement. Could you make the agreement between NCC and DCR Phoenix available to this committee?
Mr. Beaudry: Yes.
Senator Cools: My next question allows you to amplify on what you have said in respect of Moffatt Farm: that the city staff agreed with you but city council did not — and city council are the elected representatives. It has concerned many members of the committee that the NCC seems to be on a collision course with city council and with the citizens of Ottawa.
You said as well that Moffatt Farm is not really a park. Yet both official plans — the regional official plan and the city's official plan — clearly show Moffatt Farm designated as waterfront, open space, green space and environmentally sensitive area. In your response to Senator Mahovlich you did not say that the areas you pointed out on the map are environmentally sensitive areas.
I just want to put on the record that in fact all the designations within the entire regulatory frameworks, and all the official plans, have shown very clearly for a substantial amount of time that Moffatt Farm is deserving and needy of the highest levels of protection as a piece of property. In addition to that, Moffatt Farm is also a part of the Rideau Canal waterway system.
Mr. Beaudry, you have been on a collision course with city hall to the extent that you are unhappy with the decision that the city council made, to the extent that you have indicated you are not accepting that decision and that you have appealed that decision to the Ontario Municipal Board, which you appealed before the city hall proceedings was completed. In fact, you did a premature application to the Ontario Municipal Board.
To the extent that you have said all of those things, with all fairness to the record and to the committee, you have to explain to us in terms that this committee can understand, in terms of the planning regulatory framework and in terms of helping this committee why you have placed the NCC — a commission of Her Majesty's lands — as a suppliant before the Ontario Municipal Board, where in fact under the guise of asking the Ontario Municipal Board to overturn a city council decision, you are asking a provincial body to decide the destiny and the use of federal park lands, lands that are vested in Her Majesty's name.
To the extent of all of the things you have related and reiterated before us today, I think, Mr. Beaudry, you owe this committee a firm and sound explanation of why City Hall opposed the rezoning of Moffatt Farm, why city council decided not to grant the NCC its wishes and application, and why the city council — except for one vote — almost unanimously voted down your application to rezone. I would like you to tell this committee why City Hall and city council acted as they did, and why they adopt the position of denying this application.
It has been my understanding that the NCC is constituted as a peculiar creature in a peculiar public trust for the protection of public lands. One of the expectations, — particularly in a protocol — is that the NCC should defer to City Hall and to the city council on local planning issues. Instead, we are in a major confrontation, which is extremely expensive. No one asked you today about the cost of financing these legalistic, mechanical exercises. I would like you to tell us why City Hall declined and denied the application to alter the zoning from parkland or from green space or from whatever.
I would also like you to explain your statement that you would offer Moffatt Farm to City Hall, but you wish to offer it at market value. That says that you will sell that piece of land to City Hall, but first the city council, as the lawful authority that makes decisions about zoning, must rezone it to obtain a value 20 times what it is currently zoned. Then City Hall or city council should buy that land from the NCC at that very inflated price.
I call that land speculation or distortion of prices. I have a bit of a problem with it because whether it is taxpayers at City Hall or municipal taxpayers or federal taxpayers, at the end of the day, it is the public who owns that land. In point of fact, you are asking one section of the public purse to underwrite and finance a piece of a land as against another section of the public purse.
The Chairman: I hope Mr. Beaudry does not ask you to repeat the question.
Senator Cools: It is very complex.
The Chairman: You have asked Mr. Beaudry to amplify his position. In addition, you have made a number of specific statements to which I think he would want to reply. In all fairness, the committee will have to sit still for this reply, which will, I suppose, take at least as much time as the question took, after which I am going to adjourn the committee, with apologies to Senator Ferretti Barth, because we do have an in camera on future business following this.
Senator Cools: Maybe we should come out of in camera. There are many observers here today who would be awaiting the outcome of our in camera discussion.
The Chairman: Our in camera discussions have to do with an entirely different issue. Although I will ask you to turn over in your minds where we will proceed on this subject. There will be no decision on that today.
Mr. Beaudry, you may proceed.
Mr. Beaudry: I will try to answer that, Senator Cools. First, I do not think NCC has any responsibility whatsoever to the citizens of Ottawa concerning local parks. I believe that we manage federal property and, as such, we have provided for the citizens of Ottawa and the people of the whole of Canada. We manage Hampton Park, Rockcliffe Park, Confederation Park, Major's Hill Park, Commissioners Park, Hog's Back Park, Vincent Massey Park, Kingsview Park, Riverain Park and Rockliffe Park on the Ottawa side only. Those parks, we feel, are of national interest.
The City of Ottawa has a responsibility to provide local parks for its citizens. This piece of property is not a park. The city is aware of that because the veterans acquired it in 1945 for housing veterans coming out of World War II. After 20 years, the veterans decided they would not pursue this housing project, but it was acquired for that specific purpose back in 1945.
That same piece of land was sold to the NCC in 1965. The City of Ottawa, back in the early 1980s, had considered buying the area to make a park. They decided not to pursue this. In 1998, the NCC, in its new plan, in its new law, decided it would leave it protected as a potential capital park for the area. As I explained before, that area is already well served by Hog's Back Park, Vincent Massey and Moony's Bay, which is now managed by the city, but owned by the NCC. We felt that for the purpose of the NCC and national interest that piece of property was not to be developed as a park by the National Capital Commission.
With respect to the value of the land, it is Treasury Board's policy. We would be totally irresponsible towards the people of Canada if we were to sell the land at less than potential value. That is why, having concluded that the property is surplus for our programming and our use, we want to get the best possible price for it because this money will serve the people of Canada — not only the people of Carleton Heights, but the people of the whole of Canada.
When we repair Champlain Bridge, it is for all the people of Canada, not for only one community. When we build Confederation Boulevard, it is for the benefit of all the people of Canada. The money coming out of the A and D fund that we are managing is used exactly for that purpose.
I recognize that the people of Carleton Heights are citizens like every other citizen in the country. They have a right to be served like any other citizen in the country. The people in this area here are using all of the facilities that the NCC has been providing for the past 100 years. All those parks, pathways, parkways and Winterlude, which are supported by federal money, are being used to the extent of 85 per cent by the people of this region. Not too many people in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Riviera de Loup, Quebec, and Norway Bay use these facilities. They are being used by the people in this area and paid for with federal money. We consider that when it becomes a local issue, at that point it is not NCC's responsibility to provide these parks for local issues.
That is why we did not want to sell it at the value of a park. Even at that, Senator Cools, we have agreed to pay the city $650,000 for 2.5 acres of land that has similar zoning on a waterway to which I referred earlier. Yet, the city has offered us $400,000 for 84 acres of land at Moffatt Farm. Do you feel this is reasonable? I do not think it is reasonable.
Senator Cools: I was hoping that we were going to be told the reasons why city council declined the application by NCC and DCR Phoenix.
The Chairman: I do not think the Chairman of the NCC can properly answer that question. He may be able to surmise or he may be able to tell you what is already on the public record. He cannot speak for city council.
Senator Cools: No, but he can tell us what they told him. He can tell us what his position was. We want to know why. I put the question initially.
Mr. Beaudry: I will try to answer this. Generally, the City of Ottawa always likes to keep NCC's land as open land with no zoning. Why? Because they can use it for their own purpose. I do not think this is fair. We have said to the city, ``When we do not feel it is fair, we are going to go to the OMB.''
Amongst other cases that we have taken to the OMB are: Concord and Echo, Innes and Blair, Heron and Walkley, Hawthorne and Walkley and the Lebreton Flats OPAs. Each time we were successful at the OMB, because OMB felt that the city was not being fair to the NCC as far as zoning was concerned.
Senator Cools: In his opening remarks, the Chairman of the National Capital Commission referred to a document written by Glen Shortliffe entitled ``The National Capital Commission, Enhancing Relations: A Report.'' I would like to make sure this document is properly before the committee.
From what I can see, a substantial part of this committee's report concerns the need of the National Capital Commission to enhance relations with local governments and with the citizens of Ottawa.
The Chairman: We will circulate it. We have gone a quarter of an hour over time, and I have lost four senators already.
Senator Cools: My last statement is for the record. I will be continuing with these statements. As far as I am concerned, the fact that the National Capital Commission is before the Ontario Municipal Board as a supplicant is an unparliamentary matter. It is not consistent or consonant with the public character and public purpose that the National Capital Commission is supposed to fulfil as a creature of parliament created by an act of the Parliament of Canada.
More than anything, I am now totally convinced that the National Capital Act needs a total overhaul and a total revision, if not a total rewrite. I was not totally convinced of that at all before but I am now.
Senator Kinsella: If I can ask a supplementary on the map. Is Prince of Wales Highway 16?
Mr. Beaudry: It used to be.
Senator Kinsella: That is one of the main arteries in the city.
The Chairman: This kind of information you can get outside the committee.
Mr. Beaudry: Highway 16 now is the new highway.
The Chairman: I am adjourning the committee. We now have an in camera meeting to hold. We must move on because there are caucuses and other things happening in this town. I will adjourn this meeting. Thank you, Mr. Beaudry and senators.
The committee adjourned.