Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 15 - Evidence, March 22, 2007
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 22, 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 8:50 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, which meets this morning to consider Bill S-210, to amend the National Capital Act, which has to do with the establishment and protection of what is commonly known as Gatineau Park.
This senator's public bill proposes to establish and protect the physical boundaries of Gatineau Park by requiring parliamentary approval and consent for future alterations to the boundaries of the park.
Appearing before us today is the Honourable Senator Mira Spivak, who is the author of the bill, and its sponsor in the Senate. Following her presentation, we will hear from The New Woodlands Preservation League. Appearing on their behalf is Mr. Andrew McDermott, a former fellow Albertan, Chair and Jean-Paul Murray, President.
My name is Tommy Banks. I am a senator from Alberta and it is my pleasure to chair this committee. I will introduce the members of the committee with us this morning. Senator Ethel Cochrane from Newfoundland and Labrador is the Deputy Chair. Senator Willie Adams is from Nunavut. Senator David Angus is from Quebec and Senator Lorna Milne is from Ontario. Senator Grant Mitchell is from Alberta. Senator Nick Sibbeston is from the Northwest Territories.
Hon. Mira Spivak, sponsor of the bill: Honourable senators, as you see in the summary of the bill, its purpose is to fix the boundaries of Gatineau Park by statute, to give this park, which many regard as the jewel of the National Capital Region, the same legal protection and the same parliamentary oversight that we extend to our national parks.
This bill would amend the National Capital Act to accomplish that purpose. The bill would give future Parliaments a mechanism to enlarge the park and an assurance that federal land inside park boundaries would never be sold for housing developments or any other purpose. The bill would also encourage the National Capital Commission, the park's legal guardian, to acquire, over the long term, those private properties that remain in the park.
This bill is more substantial than those that parliamentary jargon dubs "housekeeping" bills. In the broader sense of the word, however, this is a matter of good housekeeping.
With this bill, this Parliament would turn into action the good intentions of a long line of governments, a line that spans a century and includes Sir Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior in 1912 and Canada's Father of Conservation. He wrote about the need to preserve the natural beauty of the Gatineau Hills.
In the mid-1930s, then Opposition Leader Mackenzie King broached the idea of preserving land in the Gatineau. It was taken up by Prime Minister Bennett and strongly supported in an editorial in The Ottawa Journal on Monday, August 19, 1935.
I want to read you the final paragraph of that editorial. It is as pertinent today as it was more than 70 years ago.
We in this country have talked much, and perhaps pardonably, of our rich resources of field and mine and forest. We have talked and thought less, and almost unpardonably, of our rich heritage of beauty, of the glorious assets of streams and mountains and valleys which Providence had vouchsafed to us. Happily, there are signs that as we grow older we are coming to a keener realization of what such assets mean, are taking steps for their preservation. It is something for all of us to support.
During the war years, the government understandably had more pressing priorities. In the early 1950s, urban planner Jacques Gréber submitted his report on the park to the NCC's predecessor, describing Gatineau Park as the essential feature of the National Capital Region.
Years of negotiations with the Government of Quebec led to an agreement in 1964. It called for an exchange of title of lands that Quebec owned inside a 1960 description of the park boundary. For its part, the NCC would give Quebec land inside and outside the park. Incidentally, that 1960 description, attached to an Order-in-Council, was long regarded by NCC officials as the legal boundary of Gatineau Park.
With the election of the Union Nationale government in Quebec, the deal was off. In the early 1970s, the agreement was revived and revised. Instead of agreeing to exchange titles, the two governments agreed to exchange management of the lands in question. The caveat in that revised agreement was that Quebec's parkland should remain parkland, and if the NCC decided it was no longer part of the park, management would revert to the Government of Quebec.
That is what we have today, a park comprised largely of federal land, under the control of the NCC. This agency is also responsible for the management of 17 per cent of the lands to which Quebec retains an interest and it tries to accommodate the private property owners, who hold 2 per cent of the parkland. Let us not forget that the NCC has the responsibilities for the Prime Minister's summer residence, Harrington Lake, and the large security zone around it; the residence of the Speaker in the other place; the government retreat at Meech Lake; the Wakefield Mill, a favoured mini-conference centre of public servants; or the Mackenzie King estate with its historic cottage, home, gardens and ruins, the estate that the Prime Minister bequeathed to all Canadians. All of these are within Gatineau Park.
Nothing in that complex mix of ownership, guardianship or responsibilities has prevented the NCC from selling off rather large chunks of what was once considered the Gatineau Park. Four-lane highways, a housing development, a privately owned ski hill and a community hospital now stand on former parkland. Buffer zones have been replaced by a strip mall and potential access to both the Ottawa and Gatineau rivers has been lost to developers.
The NCC conducted a boundary rationalization exercise in the 1990s and, by executive order, set boundaries that complied with its version of the park. There was no parliamentary oversight of that closed-door decision. Without this bill, there would be no parliamentary oversight of any future redrawing of those boundaries.
The NCC, through its master plans for the park, for many years has talked about creating a new legal status for Gatineau Park. Less talk, more action, please.
The NCC, by and large, has been a good custodian of the land it retained, although there have been problems of marijuana grow ops inside the park.
Ultimately it is not the NCC that has failed the park. It is a long line of governments and Parliaments that have not done their duty. Parliament has not provided the statutory protection to the park that it deserves or the parliamentary oversight that is required. This bill will change that.
Why has Parliament not acted? There is a simple answer to that simple question: Politics. For all his love of the Gatineau Hills, Mackenzie King, for example, could not bring himself to act boldly 70 years ago. He feared what today we call "optics." Critics could charge that as a landowner, he stood to benefit.
Thirty years ago, the election of the Parti Québécois put a deep chill on any thought to give federal protection to land in Quebec. The hangovers of the October Crisis and the rise of Separatism apparently still influence the thinking of senior officials at Parks Canada. They raise gauzy barriers to any thought of making Gatineau Park a national park and act as if those barriers were made of steel. Nor are we immune today from the political considerations of taking this step. The region has flourished for decades under federal language and regional development policies. Now municipalities surrounding the park have projects in mind that might clash with fixed boundaries, I am told. Private property owners, small in number but large in influence, also may not be amenable to giving the NCC rights of first refusal on the property when they choose to sell. Then there is the Government of Quebec, whose intergovernmental affairs minister has been quoted as saying the province has never opposed the creation — not just of a park, but of a national park — but it has never been asked. At the same time, the province has failed to register the 1973 agreement that transferred administrative control of the Quebec portion of the parkland to the NCC. Our chairman has spoken eloquently in the chamber about the indivisibility of the Crown and what matters in the transfer of land for parks.
At the end of the day, I hope that honourable senators will find the collective will to end the huge irony of Gatineau Park.
It sits as the only large federal park that Parliament has failed to protect. It is threatened by development and, frankly, the economic success that federal actions have brought to the surrounding region. It sits four kilometres from this place, where the nation's politics are played out daily.
Political considerations in taking these steps cannot be ignored. We must work with them. To succeed where other governments and other Parliaments have feared to tread, would send a very good message indeed about the nature and spirit of this Parliament.
Andrew McDermott, Chair of the League, The New Woodlands Preservation League: Senators, we thank you for inviting us before your committee this morning, and we hope our comments in support of Bill S-210 will be helpful to you as you ponder the merits of this timely, much-needed and historic legislation.
We note that this building once housed the offices of The Federal Woodlands Preservation League and its President, Percy Sparks, a man who inspired much of our activity with respect to Gatineau Park. As well, we underline that parliamentary committees have studied this issue several times over the last 60-odd years, namely, the Senate Tourist Traffic Committee in 1946, the Joint Committee on the Federal District Commission in 1956, and the Joint Committee on the National Capital Region in 1976. We have provided your clerk with documents submitted by Percy Sparks and The Woodlands Preservation League, as well as the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada for those meetings.
Before we move on to the substantive part of our presentation, Mr. Murray would like to say a few words.
Jean-Paul Murray, President of the League, The New Woodlands Preservation League: Mr. Chairman, some of your committee members likely know that I have worked for various MPs and senators over the years, and although many parliamentarians have publicly agreed with the idea of giving Gatineau Park better legal protection and with the general principle of Bill S-210, I have to underline that the position expressed in our brief and in our testimony is that of The New Woodlands Preservation League. We are here solely in our capacity as citizens concerned about the park.
[Translation]
Mr. McDermott: Although advocated by the first park agency in the world as the first national park for Quebec — in fact as the first national park outside the Rocky Mountains of the West — Gatineau Park never acquired that status and remains the only large federal park lacking adequate legislative protection and beyond the direct purview of Parliament.
In the absence of legal protection, Gatineau Park's boundaries have changed a great deal in recent years. As a result of a boundary rationalization exercise conducted in the 1990s, the National Capital Commission removed from the park an area 1,842 acres of land, that is almost 3 square miles.
As well, in the absence of a proper land management mechanism, the NCC has allowed 112 new residences to be built inside Gatineau Park since 1992, in the sectors of Chelsea and Hull. Add to this a new superstore, coffee shop, gas station, fire hall, municipal pumping station and five new roads, and the picture becomes even bleaker.
[English]
This residential sprawl, this urbanization from within, this cancer that eats away at the park's core puts a great deal of pressure on the park since most of its infrastructure — trailheads, beaches, boat launches, parkways and trails — is located in the sectors mentioned. To solve this problem, Bill S-210 was introduced in April of last year. We commend Senator Spivak's dedication to this cause, and we underline the remarkable work done by her policy adviser, Ms. Barbara Robson.
Besides addressing property divestitures and residential proliferation, Bill S-210 would go a long way toward solving another serious problem, namely, the unclear nature and location of Gatineau Park's boundaries. Over the last few years, we have been told that those boundaries have been set by a 1960 Order-in-Council, or by Treasury Board, before being told the exact opposite in both cases. As well, we were told the boundaries had been set by everything from the Meech Creek Valley Land Use Concept to the National Interest Land Mass designation, to section 10(2)(c) of the National Capital Act. Although several documents prepared for the NCC's executive committee confirmed that the 1960 Order-in-Council set the park's boundary and that any change to it would require a new Order-in-Council, no new decree has been adopted.
Honourable senators, if ever there were a reason to suggest that Bill S-210 is sorely needed, this is surely it.
Mr. Murray: While Bill S-210 does not create a national park, it offers similar protection. Inspired by various sections of the National Parks Act, the bill would place the letter and spirit of that law inside the National Capital Act. It would set the park's boundaries with legislation and only an act of Parliament could change them. As well, it would provide the NCC with the legislative mandate to fulfil its longstanding commitment to acquire private properties along with a transparent mechanism for changing boundaries.
Although not as popular as the option of transforming Gatineau Park into a national park, which 82 per cent of local citizens favour according to one poll, Bill S-210 enjoys wide support. During second reading, all six speeches supported this measure. As well, during last fall's NCC mandate review, the NCC Renewal Coalition, which includes 15 groups, endorsed Bill S-210. Some participants, however, did oppose the bill, arguing it would either limit property rights or undermine Quebec's territorial integrity. In fact, Bill S-210 does not limit property rights since all it does is take an option of first refusal on any property sales. It does not undermine Quebec's territorial integrity, but gives a voice to the province by allowing it approve or veto any boundary changes, an authority it now lacks.
Mr. Chairman, Bill S-210 offers the best option for giving Gatineau Park legislative protection. It provides the protective framework advocated by environmentalists for decades, compels the NCC to fulfil its commitments to gradually acquire private properties, and respects the rights of landowners to continue living in the park. However, since some groups have suggested the bill might include a stronger ecological mandate for the park, groups that include the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, we propose two amendments, both of which are largely inspired by the National Parks Act.
[Translation]
The first amendment is based on section 4(1) of the National Parks Act and reads:
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.
The second amendment is modelled after section 8(2) of the National Parks Act and is as follows:
Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protectionof natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Commission when considering all aspects of the park's management.
Before I conclude, I would like to quote from the report submitted to the Federal District Commission in 1952 by the French urban planner Jacques Gréber on the Gatineau Park. I quote:
The very potential offered by this magnificent forest reserve on the outskirts of the national capital warrants establishing a permanent protection program. Its natural structure, the infinite variety of its beauty, and the possibilities offered by its attractions make it an essential feature of any plan for developing our nation's capital.
[English]
Honourable senators, by supporting Bill S-210, you have an opportunity not only to provide much-needed protection to the crown jewel of our nation's capital, but you can help complete work started over 100 years ago when the people of Ottawa first imagined a great natural park in the Gatineau Hills.
In closing, since your committee will likely hear from some people interested in preserving the status quo, I leave you with the following thought. Gatineau Park is no place for gated communities or the spirit of apartheid or urban segregation. It is primarily a public space. The time has come to tear down the walls of elite accommodation and exclusion. The time has come to give the park back to the people.
Senator Cochrane: This is a large undertaking. We have come up with the idea of forming a national park. Do you want a national park, do you want a provincial park or do you want the NCC to continue to administer it? Apparently you do not. Tell us what you want. Am I right that you do not want a national park?
Senator Spivak: This is not about setting up a national park. It would be good if we could, but we are not. This bill is offering protection and real boundaries in law. This bill is offering the protection of Parliament.
Whether the NCC continues to administer or not, is not the issue. The NCC will continue to administer it, but decisions will not be made behind closed doors. Decisions will be made with the approval of Parliament. In my opinion, that must be done to prevent further development.
This is a highly valuable piece of property. We need this bill to prevent the park from becoming land for development. Further development will put more roads and houses through the park. The park is a public space for generations of Canadians; it was always intended to be that way.
Mr. Murray: The way the bill was drafted was that it took the National Parks Act as inspiration, specifically sections 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 16. There is a serious impediment to making Gatineau Park a national park. First, there is bureaucratic resistance. The department has repeatedly stated that it is not interested in creating a national park in Gatineau Park.
Second, section 5(1)(a) of the National Parks Act prevents the presence of any private property in the park. There are a few exceptions, but they date back before the Natural Resource Transfer Agreement of the 1930s. In addition, the policy of Parks Canada states that Parks Canada will own all properties within the parks. Therefore, there is no private property in the parks, and the 200 properties that remain within Gatineau Park will be a serious impediment to making it a national park.
This bill takes the spirit of the National Parks Act, puts it within the National Capital Act, and allows the NCC to continue managing it with parliamentary oversight.
Senator Spivak: I am sure you will remember our trips to Banff and the controversy that surrounded that park, which is also a Canadian jewel. That was resolved simply by the minister saying that the area was a national park.
This issue is similar although there is more to it with the
Gatineau Park. I hope that, as those properties come up for sale, Parliament will see fit to acquire them.
As Mr. Murray has pointed out, and I looked at the map, the properties surround Meech Lake and in one place they seem to form a barrier to the park.
Senator Cochrane: I saw the map and I understand what you are talking about with respect to the barrier.
We also have a jewel in Newfoundland, which is the Gros Morne National Park. I know what you are talking about when it comes to housing and development because we are dealing with the same issues there.
Mr. Murray, do you want a federal park?
Mr. Murray: That is correct. The land is owned, I believe, almost entirely by the federal government. We have been told that 17 per cent of the land remains under provincial control, but my analysis, which is backed up by two lawyers, and Senator Banks gave a speech on October 5, to the effect testifying that the land does not belong to the province. The management and control of the land was transferred in perpetuity to the Government of Canada in 1973 according to the two accompanying Orders-in-Council. I believe Senator Banks tabled those, and you can obtain them as a sessional paper.
The Chairman: For the record, Mr. Murray, the management was transferred to the Government of Canada.
Mr. Murray: Yes, and the NCC more specifically. I do not know why this has been misunderstood. I still do not know why people continue to say the province maintains control over that land because the contract and the Orders- in-Council clearly state it has been transferred in perpetuity for the purposes of a park.
Senator Spivak: I think we would want to have the Province of Quebec come before the committee and provide their view.
Senator Cochrane: Have you had negotiations with the Province of Quebec? You say they have never been approached. You say they are not against establishing a national park, but a national park is not what you want. Are they against establishing a federal park?
Mr. Murray: The way I see it, the province does not necessarily understand the structure of Gatineau Park.
First, Mr. Pelletier said the province had never been approached. In December of 1912, James Harkin, the father of Canada's national parks, wrote a letter to Charles Devlin, the Minister of Forestry, requesting that Gatineau Park be created as the first national park for Quebec and the first as part of a national system of parks. It never happened.
You have to get your history right. You can understand why Mr. Pelletier is unaware of this because it did not happen during his time frame, if you will. However, I do not think the province necessarily understands the nature of Gatineau Park. I have been digging into this file for six years, and it boggles my mind how much misunderstanding surrounds this issue. I do not know who is maintaining these half truths and why. All I know is now I understand the park better than most. It still confuses me that officials such as Parks Canada, the NCC or the ministries in Quebec do not seem to understand the nature of the park. By inviting Quebec officials, I think you will be doing a service to the park, the province and the country.
Senator Cochrane: Did you not also mention what the NCC has done has bothered you?
Mr. Murray: Yes. I have to draw a parenthesis here. Before Mr. McDermott and I became involved with the file, the history of the park had been completely out to lunch.
I include in our appendix to our brief a master's thesis from Queen's University, 1997, which states that the history of Gatineau Park has been erased and rewritten. Empirically, I have been able to confirm that statement. The man whose offices were in this building was written out of the story of the park before Mr. McDermott and I resuscitated The New Woodlands Preservation League.
We must commend the efforts of Mr. Beaudry in this regard. He took our work, analyzed it and said we were right. He helped us dedicate the visitors' hall at Gatineau Park in the name of Percy Sparks. The NCC has not been impeccable, but it has done some good work.
Senator Spivak: In spite of their master plans, they have not acquired eight properties that they could have acquired and which were for sale.
Mr. Murray: They were for sale last summer.
Senator Spivak: They did not acquire those properties although they could have. Our hope is that with parliamentary oversight clearly stating the master plan to acquire such lands that will happen.
Senator Cochrane: Do they have the money to acquire properties?
Mr. Murray: They have just been given $30 million. It is beyond the scope of a private bill to create expenditures, but you could compel the NCC to use part of its acquisition and disposal fund to acquire those properties. They say that acquisition of waterfront property is a priority for them, but they are not acting on those priorities.
Senator Spivak: The longer you wait, the higher those properties rise in price.
Senator Angus: Welcome all of you to the committee and thank you for doing this good work; it is obviously a labour of love.
Senator Spivak, what is a nice lady from Winnipeg doing mixed up in this local issue?
Senator Spivak: I am a Canadian.
Senator Angus: We are all Canadians and we are proud of it I know. It seems like a trite question. I know of all the good works you do in environmental issues, that you hold so dear, and now I hold them equally dear, as you know.
Senator Spivak: First, I cannot take credit for this. There is a whole group of people, including these witnesses, who have seen what was happening to the park and could not stand it. I think that is what it is.
Senator Angus: They came to you knowing you are an efficient activist.
Senator Spivak: Yes, and when I saw the story, I thought this was a perfect thing for the Senate to do.
Last week, I gave a speech to some students at the University of Winnipeg. I told the students about the Senate and what we do. I started looking at all the things that that the Senate has done over the years and realized that many people do not know just how much the Senate has accomplished. I will use the example of the hydro bus and our recent Standing Senate Committee on National Defence.
This issue seems tangible and important. Gatineau Park is a physical legacy and I believe it would be wonderful if the Senate could inspire the much-needed changes that will ensure the longevity of the park. It is both a community and national concern and a great job for the Senate. Is that not what we are supposed to do? Okay, so I am not from the Ottawa region.
Senator Angus: I am just asking to find out. I have listened to and read the speech you gave in the house. You told the story very well; I commend you and your staff for the work.
Senator Spivak: Forgive me for not mentioning my researcher, Barbara Robson who has done an outstanding job. She should be taking the credit.
Senator Angus: I am curious. This is the National Capital, and obviously, some person in the government decided to hand the park off to the NCC. Is that right? I do not know the boundaries. They seem to have something to do with Meech Lake, Harrington Lake and the House of Commons Speaker's house, Kingsmere. Is there a rule of thumb that governs the park? If the NCC was doing its job properly, I guess you would not have to do this, am I right.
Senator Spivak: They would have to have a clear mandate.
Senator Angus: Do they have a clear mandate on Harrington Lake, Meech Lake, and Kingsmere?
Mr. Murray: The NCC runs those properties. I believe they have mandates. To ask whether it is clear or not is something I would not know because it is probably something bureaucrats do behind closed doors because of the nature of the properties; the executive and Speaker, their presence there. Kingsmere is administered according to the Kingsmere Park Act of 1950 whereby Mackenzie King bequeathed his property to the nation. Kingsmere is 500 acres. It is an enclave within the Gatineau Park governed by its own act but administered by the NCC, et cetera.
Senator Angus: There used to be a building next door to the Chateau Laurier and now there is a fancy condominium building, the Metropolitan Grill is downstairs. The building that once stood there was the Daly Building and the National Capital Commission administered it. There was a tremendous effort made by good people like you, and I might say myself, to try to preserve that wonderful part of the Ottawa landscape. We all tried to deal with this thing called the National Capital Commission, which seemed to have a lot of power. The NCC is an independent body as far as I understand which comes with Order-in-Council appointments; cabinet appoints the commissioner and the people. Even we senators you may recall had to have some dealings with the NCC with respect to 24 Sussex Drive and Stornaway, which are under their aegis, apparently.
Are you folks pro bono? It is not a business. It is a do-good thing and I like that. Therefore you are most welcome here. Is there a geographical boundary for openers of the NCC jurisdiction? Does it go to Montreal or stop at the Manawaki gates?
Mr. Murray: I think it is called the National Capital Region and it includes thousands of square kilometres. It is one of the largest in the world, I believe.
Senator Spivak: It is a hybrid situation. Although they are administrating things, like these houses, which are more of a municipal responsibility, they belong to the nation. Then you have a huge park. It is strange to have the National Capital Commission with sole control over it.
Senator Angus: Yes, and particularly as you say because we have a thing called Parks Canada and we have a thing in Quebec, the department that looks after nature.
Senator Spivak: Why is this park an orphan?
Senator Angus: Whenever I see a private member's bill, I feel it is probably being initiated and pushed because there is a lacuna, an area where the government has failed to exercise its duties. That is why you have done this. It is like one of your other bills.
Senator Spivak: The government has many priorities and maybe it has just overlooked this issue.
Senator Angus: Do you think so? If I read your minds and the motivation for doing this, you have resorted to this only after having tried to approach the government. Am I right?
Senator Spivak: Right.
Senator Angus: And you have been rebuffed.
Senator Spivak: Just a minute. Minister Cannon has not indicated opposition to this bill, quite the contrary.
Mr. Murray: If I may, we heard through the grapevine through Mr. Cannon's office that the Prime Minister has given his green light to this bill. I do not know what that means for an official. That is what I have heard.
Senator Angus: This is a very green Prime Minister. Mr. Mulroney is worried he may not be the most green for long. I was also interested obviously in the alleged reaction of Minister Pelletier who will hopefully be re-elected on Monday. He is a very erudite individual, public spirited and has been recently to a number of committees one on which I was co- chair, Senate reform. I can see the man is highly understanding of legal matters. For example he is quoted in Le Droit as stating that no one has ever talked to him about it. I find that weird.
Mr. McDermott: As Senator Spivak mentioned, it is really a hodgepodge. In many ways, we have to give the NCC credit for what they are doing and what they have done. We should also look at it as they cannot be all things to all people. Here they are trying to manage the Gatineau Park which has an entirely different purpose. Although it was supposed to be a federal park in nature because of circumstances, it did not happen. It ended up being an orphan quite frankly.
We stumbled across many untold stories: Stories of men such as Booth, Bronson, Percy Sparks himself. We told the stories of those men and others such as O'Brien, builder of O'Brien House, who was the Commissioner of the National Hockey League and owner of the Montreal Canadiens. People do not know these stories.
I am glad the NCC has had some effect with others. Years ago, I had a conversation with Hamilton Southam about erecting statues of famous Canadian war veterans. Those statues have been erected. Those steps are excellent and we commend those processes, but with respect to the Gatineau Park, how deep does it go with the NCC? I think the park needs special protection and legislation. It is not really to take it out of the hands of the NCC. I do not want to criticize the NCC too much, but the park needs to be protected. Instead of having ad nauseam master plans that they will acquire public property, we have to make those steps through this legislation.
The Chairman: We must remember that the witnesses have made clear that the absence of a clear understanding of what this park constitutes is not the fault of the NCC; it is the fault of a succession of governments that failed to act.
Senator Angus: The federal government, Her Majesty in right of Canada appears on the deeds as the owner of all these lands; is that correct?
Mr. Murray: Yes.
Senator Angus: Having said that, we do have Parks Canada, which is in the business of doing exactly what you are asking. We have a federal park in Quebec called Forillon National Park, and they are apparently not going a good job. The people in the Gaspé are upset. I do not know how all this works, but my colleague Senator Cochrane is asking what we want. Do we want a federal park, a national park, a Quebec park? It seems we have a lot of land. It is a park owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada, and Her Majesty in right of Canada has Parks Canada that is in the business of running parks. Why would they not administer the park?
Mr. Murray: Philosophically, I am not opposed to making it into a national park. It was supposed to be a national park, but it has evolved differently. If the government chooses to make it into a national park, I will fully support that decision. However, the hurdles are clear. You have two choices if you decide to make it into a national park. One option is you segment and balkanize the park to create boundaries around private property, as they did in Gros Morne. The other option is to boot everyone out, because section 5(1)(a) of the National Parks Act states that there is no private property in national parks. There are 200 people there now, 200 residences. How do we deal with that problem?
This is the Canadian way, I believe. This bill proposes a compromise that allows the residents to live there and the NCC to manage the property and gradually acquire those lands as per its master plan. In 100 years time, when the NCC has dealt with that issue, maybe then the Gatineau Park can become part of Parks Canada. However, there are hurdles. You have to address those problems, and I do not know any other way than through right of first refusal.
The Chairman: When we previously addressed this question to Parks Canada, I think it might have been before your time on the committee, they made it clear what that because of the legal impediments having to do with the property and they had no interest in even going there. The fact is that Parks Canada, as we all know, does not have enough resources to manage the properties they already have, never mind acquiring more.
Senator Angus: I do not want to pursue it much more. I think my questions were probably naïve. I do not know the background like you do.
Mr. Murray: People ask questions because you are talking about two different boxes, Parks Canada and the NCC. Everyone thinks the Gatineau Park is a national park. It is not a naïve question; it is a perfectly legitimate question.
Senator Angus: I have some legal background, an interest in the country, and I am senator and I find this confusing. I have heard these different appellations like Senator Cochrane's of national park, a federal park, a provincial park. It is very confusing, I would think, to Mr. and Ms. Canadian.
Senator Spivak: We are talking about the art of the possible.
Senator Angus: This is why we are here.
Senator Spivak: If we could make it a national park, that would be my first choice too, and then Parks Canada could deal with it but, given the history of this park, this is what seems like a possible solution.
Mr. Murray: I overheard you say you were a student of F.R. Scott's during the Bill S-4 committee meetings. Percy Sparks, who had his offices in this building and was the father of Gatineau Park, worked closely with F.R. Scott in 1934 in the Stevens inquiry into price spreads and mass buying for the royal commission. There is a link with your professor in this story.
The Chairman: We must also remember that there is no such federal park anywhere, which is how I presumed this would come to be designated. They do not exist. This would be, if it were to happen, unique.
There is one other impediment that Mr. Murray has referred to, and that is federal ownership of the lands. In every other national park, negotiation has taken place with the provinces, in the case of Banff and Jasper, for example, with the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, and the provinces have granted the ownership, not management, but ownership of those lands before becoming a national park. In the case of the present property, about 17 per cent of what is now colloquially called Gatineau Park still resides in terms of the title deed with the Province of Quebec, but the management has been transferred.
Mr. Murray: If I may, property is not a consideration when you are talking about ownership between governments; property remains vested in the Crown. The principle is the indivisibility of the Crown in this case. Property is only administered and managed by either the provincial government or the federal government. In the case of Gatineau Park, as far as I know, 100 per cent of the lands, or 98 per cent with the exception of the private property, is administered and controlled by the federal government. That is the principle.
Senator Angus: Somebody must have designated it. You have made an interesting point. All that land, when we fly over and look down at the great forests, whether in the Gaspé Peninsula or in the Lake of the Woods, is Crown land. It gets into private hands through a grant. Who designated this land as a park?
Mr. Murray: We will put the blame on Mackenzie King for the weird nature of this park. In 1935, Mr. Bennett had commissioned the Lower Gatineau Woodlands Survey, which was the founding document for Gatineau Park. It provided eight options for protecting the park, one of which was a national park. Mackenzie King may have felt somewhat beset by his opponents and might have felt somewhat guilty over the creation of Prince Albert National Park in Saskatchewan. He had been attacked by Mr. Edwards, a Conservative MP, in 1927 for wanting to create a park around his private estate. When Mackenzie King was re-elected in 1935, he waited two years before he made a decision with respect to Gatineau Park, and he chose the gradual property acquisition strategy instead of designating it as a park.
The first $100,000 was voted in 1938, on July 1. That is the tentative date of the foundation of Gatineau Park. It was a piecemeal creation. An Order-in-Council provided for the only federal boundary in 1960 based on, among other things, the reports of the Federal Woodlands Preservation League, the Advisory Committee on Gatineau Park and the Gréber plan. It evolved over time, and it is hard to identify precisely the nature of Gatineau Park.
Senator Angus: It is possible that it is not a park, whatever a park may be in the New Oxford Dictionary.
Mr. Murray: I think socially and politically it is recognized as a park. The NCC has administered it. It has a 1960 Order-in-Council designated boundary, plus, and this is the irony and you will understand this as a Quebecer, the NCC does not have jurisdiction over hunting, so it had to ask pretty please to the province, the Quebec government, to create a boundary. Gatineau Park is both a federal park and a provincial park because the boundary, the legal boundary that exists in the Quebec Wildlife Conservation Act 1974 is a provincial boundary that allows the conservation officers to enforce provincial laws.
The Chairman: I wish you had not brought that up. The plan is to invite representatives from the Province of Quebec.
Senator Angus: Benoit Pelletier would be an ideal witness. Senator Spivak has suggested that we invite him here.
The Chairman: We will see who we will invite after the election on Monday.
Senator Angus: That is a good thought.
Senator Spivak: This is like peeling an onion; the more you get into it, the more layers of complexity you find.
Senator Milne: Senator Angus, you referred to the difficulties concerning private property and that it is not allowed within national parks. About 18 months ago, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs had a situation before it where all the parties involved, the province, the Indian bands and Parks Canada agreed on an issue involving an Indian village within a park. The village was surrounded by a national park and abutting a municipal airport. The natives could not put a road into the village because they were trespassing on national parkland every time they drove into their village. They wanted right-of-way for a road to access the village. The only way they could do it was right along the boundary of the airport. It took something like 15 years before they corrected the boundaries of the national park back to where they had originally been surveyed to allow that village to have legal access by road to its own village. All parties were in agreement that the survey was wrong and the boundary was wrong, and they wanted to revert to the proper boundary. It took 15 years of negotiation and coming before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to be able to do it. It was absolutely ridiculous.
The Chairman: Was that in B.C.?
Senator Milne: No, it was somewhere in the Prairies.
I have all kinds of dates running through my head, for example, 1960 when the boundaries were set up, and 1974 when the provincial hunting park boundaries were set up.
Mr. Murray: Based on the survey given to the provincial government by the NCC, it is a mirror of the 1960 boundary, give or take a couple of trees.
Senator Milne: Did you say 1,840 acres or hectares, Mr. McDermott?
Mr. McDermott: The 1,842 acres were removed from the 1960 boundaries. The park has approximately 89,000 acres.
Senator Milne: Even though the master plan says that the NCC will gradually accumulate properties as they come on the market, they sold off these 1,842 acres.
Mr. Murray: The NCC transferred them or declared them surplus. It stills owns some, but they are now outside the park; however, many of them have been sold.
The Chairman: By what instrument are they outside the park?
Mr. Murray: Well, that is the whole deal, senator. We were told that the new boundary was set by everything from section 10(2)(c) of the National Capital Act to National Interest Land Mass designation. The background documents that the NCC has say that any new boundary must be recognized by a new Order-in-Council. There is no new Order- in-Council, so I do not know what legal legitimacy those new boundaries have.
Senator Milne: Was that in 1982?
Mr. Murray: No, the boundaries were changed.
Senator Milne: You said they were removed in 1982.
Mr. Murray: No, they were removed as a result of the boundary rationalization exercise, as they called it, in 1997- 98.
Senator Milne: Where did I get the 1982 from?
Mr. Murray: You probably remember April 17, the wonderful day that the Constitution was brought home.
Senator Milne: No, no; 1982 is what I wrote down when you were making your remarks, Mr. McDermott.
Are there gated communities within the park?
Mr. Murray: Senator, thank you for asking that question. I thought that would be the first question.
I have done a bit of research on gated communities, which are either cognitive or de facto. In this case, it is both. On August 7, 1989, the Municipal Council of Chelsea passed a unanimous resolution to place a gate at Meech Lake and to close the road on weekends.
As well, there is another characteristic of the gated community, which means the homeowners' property associations, which affect policy, processes et cetera. There are two at play in Gatineau Park, the Kingsmere Property Owners Association and the Meech Lake Property Owners Association.
I believe the Kingsmere Property Owners Association is well-intentioned because it advocates legal protection for the park, whereas the Meech Lake Property Owners Association advocates maintaining the status quo. It does not want anything to change and thinks that everything is hunky-dory.
One can say there is a cognitive gated community within the park and the potential for an actual gated community because of municipal resolution 263-89. Municipal council passed that resolution to close the road. Municipal resolution 265-89, gave the municipality permission to buy the materials to put up a gate; therefore, there is a de facto and cognitive gate.
Senator Milne: Are they restricting public access?
Mr. Murray: They are not, but they have the power to do so.
Senator Milne: They obviously have plans as well if they are out buying materials.
Mr. Murray: I would not say they are planning on putting it up in the short term. This is another instance where the NCC did very good work. Ms. Piggott intervened and said no to the gate. She insisted that the park is primarily a public park. Again, the presence of private property in the park creates such conflicts, and it is not in the public interest.
Senator Milne: When you speak of gated communities, you are not speaking of what we normally think of as gated communities, namely, new developments surrounded by a wall with a gate in front of it, sort of a condominium type of property.
Mr. Murray: That is correct.
Senator Milne: You are not speaking of that. You are speaking of residences and cottage areas already there that are trying to mentally restrict access to that area.
Mr. Murray: Basically, and I also highlight that the residents' associations actively lobby the municipality to close the beach and boat launch at Meech Lake. If that is not a clear case of cognitive gated communities, I do not know what is. I do not think that is in the public interest. The municipality, as well, has repeatedly made representations with the NCC to close Blanchet Beach at Meech Lake, so there is definitely a cognitive gated community.
Senator Spivak: It is reminiscent of what happened in the Banff situation where people who lived there were opposed to anything that might restrict further development, et cetera. You can understand how that happens.
Senator Milne: We are here, we like it and we do not want it to change. I know.
In the bill, Senator Spivak, it says, "There is hereby established a park named Gatineau Park, the boundaries of which are set out in Schedule 2."
Of course, there is no Schedule 2.
Senator Spivak: What are you referring to senator?
Senator Milne: I am speaking to clause 4 of your bill. Schedule 2 refers to a blank page.
The Chairman: Yes, I think it is sections of the NCC act; is it not?
Mr. Murray: As for the other two cousins to this bill, from the House of Commons, we used the 1974 boundary, the provincial boundary, which was created at the request of the NCC. However, that boundary has changed and Senator Spivak's office felt that because the new boundaries had been put in effect through whatever mechanism, we should try to recognize those new boundaries.
The NCC does not have a metes and bounds description of the park as is included in Bill C-444 or Bill C-311, which detail the park boundaries. We felt it was a more judicious approach to recognize the new boundaries because the NCC has acted already in that regard and to restore the boundaries to their 1960 configuration might create a lot of upheaval. You might have to tear down the Loblaws.
Senator Milne: That might not hurt.
This presents a problem, though, if we are passing a bill which specifically says the boundaries are set out in schedule 2 and we do not have a schedule 2.
Senator Spivak: Right. We do not have it.
Senator Milne: What do we do to fix this problem?
Mr. Murray: You ask the NCC, and if you do, I am sure they will provide you with a metes and bounds description. I have tried for years and have not been able to find it. They say they have a description, but it is a compilation of surveys that might take up 15 feet of wall space.
The Chairman: Senator Milne, the NCC will be appearing before us next Thursday and you can ask them this question.
Senator Milne: That will be my first question.
Mr. Murray: Very good point, senator.
Senator Milne: Schedule 2 might be as described before the committee on such-and-such a day by the NCC.
Senator Spivak: This may be a problem.
Senator Milne: Yes.
Mr. Murray: That is probably Bill C-311.
Senator Milne: Bill S-210, on page 6.
Senator Angus: Would you mind my saying something?
Senator Milne: I was good. Senator Angus, you be good.
Senator Angus: This will be good. I have just been informed — for the people, as you say, in television land — that there are other companion bills that have not been drawn in the lottery in the House of Commons. They are not moving ahead, but they are in the same terms and style as Senator Spivak's bill. These bills do have the schedule attached and it is here. That is all I wanted to point out.
Senator Milne: This may be something we want to table.
Senator Angus: We call it mutatis mutandis.
Senator Milne: We can table the boundary descriptions for the information of the committee.
Senator Spivak: We will get it.
Mr. Murray: The map remitted to Senator Spivak contains a description of the 1960 boundaries with a dotted line and a straight green line for the new boundaries and it might help the committee in addressing this issue. I will read the number of the sessional paper into the record. It is Sessional Paper 1/39-514S, October 18, 2006.
Senator Milne: Sessional paper of what?
Mr. Murray: Sessional paper of the Senate. You have the map.
Senator Milne: Thank you.
Mr. Murray, I believe you spoke about the Natural Resource Transfer Agreement of 1930.
I know that Ontario landowners do not own the resources underneath their properties, so if there is sand, gravel, gold or diamonds under your property, anyone can come in and stake it out and they cannot prevent them from doing so. Is the situation the same in Quebec?
Mr. Murray: I believe the province maintains the right over resources. I believe in Gatineau Park, many of those rights have been transferred. The lake bottoms have been transferred to the federal government and the province has guaranteed it would issue no mining exploration permits in the La Pêche section of Gatineau Park, which is to say the 12,500 acres it transferred.
However, there is a debate going on now up in the hills, as it were. There are some uranium miners staking out properties. They have permits from the province and they can come to your doorstep and stake your land. I believe that is the case.
Senator Milne: Is that in the La Pêche area?
Mr. Murray: In the La Pêche area, the Order-in-Council provides that the government will not issue any mining exploration permits on those 12,500 acres. I do not know about the rest of the Gatineau Park plan.
Senator Milne: Are the permits in the La Pêche area?
Mr. Murray: They are much talked about in the local papers. I think the Wakefield area, perhaps up around Low in the West Quebec area.
Senator Milne: Not in the area that the province has guaranteed they will not do?
Mr. Murray: That is correct.
The Chairman: Which guarantee includes, when we come to that question, the lakebeds that are within that territory?
Senator Milne: I believe Mr. Murray said the lakebeds are already protected and have been transferred to the federal government.
Mr. Murray: That is correct, as per the Order-in-Council of 1973, provincial and federal, guaranteed in perpetuity.
Senator Milne: Thank you.
The Chairman: So long as they are used for a park.
Mr. Murray: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: Before going on, I want to continue with that line on this bill that is in the House of Commons. The bill is called Bill C-311. I am sure, you have looked into it Mr. Murray.
Mr. Murray: Indeed.
Senator Cochrane: I thought so. Now that we have Senator Spivak's private member's bill before us, Bill S-210, if and when Bill C-311 is looked at and dealt with in the House of Commons, would that solve your problem?
Mr. Murray: I would prefer Senator Spivak's bill because I think it is a stronger bill. It provides that only an act of Parliament can change the boundaries, whereas Bill C-311, I believe, proceeds with a motion to concur in a committee report. It is parliamentary oversight, but it is weaker oversight. I believe Senator Spivak's bill is stronger. I think Bill C- 311 sits at number 200 or some such thing and might not show up this Parliament.
Senator Cochrane: It deals with Gatineau Park?
Mr. Murray: Yes, it does. It is a close cousin to this bill.
Senator Milne: I am not sure the Senate rules say that two similar bills cannot be introduced in the same session in the Senate. If a Senate bill goes to the House of Commons and is introduced there and it is similar to a House of Commons bill, I do not know what their rules say. Can that happen?
Senator Spivak: I do not know what the rules say, but the rumour mill is that the minister's office prefers this version of the bill. The other thing is that other bill may never see the light of day.
Mr. Murray: It likely will not, because it is way down the line.
Senator Milne: That is true. It may never see the light of day as far as passing, but it has been introduced.
Mr. Murray: Senator, I am suspecting the sponsor of the bill in the Commons may wish to withdraw. We have spoken to him and he is very much in agreement with this bill.
The Chairman: In any case, if the reverse happened, of course, the Commons bill would end up before us regardless.
I have a couple of questions, but I will interrupt the meeting for a moment, with apologies to our witnesses. We have some housekeeping to take care of.
We have discussed the two small budget motions, which we need in order to proceed, and I invite members to make a motion.
Senator Angus: You are referring to the budget of this committee?
The Chairman: Yes, not the budget with which you are otherwise dealing today, senator.
The budget of this committee requires to be applied for now. We need two motions, one authorizing us, as we have discussed, to apply for a budget of $10,000 to complete our CEPA study, and $14,000 to cover our legislative budget in the coming fiscal year.
Senator Milne: I move the CEPA budget.
The Chairman: The CEPA budget of $10,000 is moved by Senator Milne. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Senator Angus moves the motion for the $14,000 legislative budget. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Those two motions are carried. Thank you very much.
We will resume questioning now. I have a couple of quick questions, really an observation more than anything else. In your presentation, the idea of commercial development in a national park was held out as anathema. The fact is that there is very successful and long-standing commercial development in national parks, and in some cases, that commercial development existed before the establishment of the national park.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive, the difference being, as I understand it, that there is no actual ownership involved. I cannot own a house or a business building in Banff. I have a lease on it but that land is the property of the Crown in perpetuity. Do I understand that correctly? Some of the leases are for 99 years, but most are 42 years and often extended.
In the event that this bill were passed and became an act, based on the right of first refusal — and it would be a long time from now — the NCC would, by first right of refusal when a piece of land came up for sale, acquire it. It could eventually own, on behalf of the Crown, all the land in what is now colloquially called Gatineau Park, is that correct?
Mr. Murray: That is correct.
The Chairman: However, this bill does not envisage expropriation.
Mr. Murray: That is correct.
The Chairman: The land would be acquired only on the basis of when it otherwise becomes for sale, for whatever reason.
Mr. Murray: It also stipulates that property can be transferred through trusts. We recognize that some of the people, whose families have been there for 100 years or more, may wish to continue living in the park and we wanted to respect that right. What this bill aims to do is to prevent subdivision. There are many 100-acre properties in the park, and some people may be interested in subdividing; that is anathema to the park.
If I can return to one of the points you were making about properties in Banff, the rules are clear. Paragraph 6.1.1 of the Parks Canada guiding principles and operational policies stipulates that limited land tenure may be granted on national parklands in the forms of permits, leases or licences of occupation for the provision of essential services and facilities for park visitors and for authorized residential use. An example is people who work for the park and who have retired and wish to continue living there.
The Chairman: In fact, if I wanted to acquire a lease on a residential property in Banff, I can only do so — this is by regulation, as opposed to legislation — if I work there or own a business there; I cannot have a resort property.
Mr. Murray: Since 1998 or 2000, the primary purpose of parks is conservation.
The Chairman: You said the NCC has a long-standing policy of acquiring private property when it becomes available; but you also said that 200 new private residences have been established within recent times.
Mr. Murray: Yes, the total is 112 new private residences.
The Chairman: How is that possible? One of those things cannot be true.
Mr. Murray: The NCC, being a Crown corporation and an organization, sometimes acts according to its own internal logic, which has nothing to do with our kind of logic. They have rationalized the boundaries — "severed land," they say, and sold it off to developers. For instance, there are 68 new houses in the Lac des Fées area. In the Chelsea, Kingsmere and Meech Lake areas, 36 new houses have gone up; some were old houses that were rebuilt and some of them were subdivisions.
You have to look at the issue carefully to understand how they have done it. The 68 properties in the Lac des Fées area, the NCC will tell you, are no longer within the park, but they are still within the 1960 boundaries.
Senator Spivak: Just to point out as well, there is a hospital within those boundaries, a grocery store and a private ski hill.
Mr. Murray: Petro-Canada, Tim Horton's.
The Chairman: When the NCC sells those properties, where does the revenue go?
Mr. Murray: Into the acquisition and disposal fund.
The Chairman: Of the NCC, not into the general revenue fund or otherwise. Is it possible the NCC is selling those properties to obtain operating money?
Mr. Murray: That is their mandate and that is the failure of Parliament right there.
Mr. McDermott: When Mr. Beaudry appeared a couple of years ago before the Standing Senate Committee on Banking Trade and Commerce, his statement was to the effect that the NCC would sell off those so-called "surplus lands" to make up shortfalls in their operating budgets. This was at the time when other Crown agencies that fell under the Department of Canadian Heritage were getting new sources of revenue from the government, yet the NCC continued to sell off lands. In other words, they view their real estate holdings as a vehicle to generate revenue.
This bill would provide the basis for consolidating what we understand to be the Gatineau Park and stop that process altogether. We will lead to a national park at one point in time, but this will consolidate and rationalize the boundaries and present us with what we have going forward.
At one point, I worked for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and saw a Treasury Board submission by the NCC to dispose of those lands — and there were several. The rationale was also to declare them surplus. There was not any more basis upon which to make a judgment.
Of course, looking into this matter further, what is surplus and what is not? I think I can agree with your point, senator; Mr. Murray and I were having a discussion about there being a fire station or whatever. You need resources like that for public protection, but it has been this willy-nilly sale and disposal of lands. There has been a deal here and there and no one ever knows about it. This bill would protect the lands that belong in the Gatineau Park.
The Chairman: That leads to the conclusion that, again, it is an example of a failure of government to properly provide the NCC with the funds they need; because the idea of declaring public lands in a park surplus is absurd.
Senator Milne: Having grown up in downtown Toronto, I saw what happened to the federal land along the waterfront that was turned over the Harbour Commission. It was promptly sold off to fund activities on the waterfront, and now we have a gated enclave for the wealthy along our waterfront in Toronto. It is appalling, and I am concerned about these sorts of activities by the NCC.
Do you think the new Access to Information Act will open up their books to public scrutiny or will it further protect it? There are some aspects in that act that allow present government departments to keep some things secret forever.
Mr. Murray: I do not know about the provisions of the new Access to Information Act. I know that the old act allowed us to get a lot of very interesting information with respect to the operations of the NCC. Actually, we remember being told that certain activity reports had been tabled with respect to the administration of a ski centre inside Gatineau Park. People at Canadian Heritage and the NCC, who were preparing a response to an oral question by a senator, told us that those five reports had been tabled. We accessed the NCC to get those reports and we found, lo and behold, that those reports had not been tabled.
The old act allowed such access. It prevented such shenanigans by allowing us to look into the operations of the NCC. We must say that the access to information officer with the NCC has been forthcoming and cordial in his relations with us and we commend him highly. However, I am not in a position to comment on the new act. I know some of the provisions were denounced by the former Access to Information Commissioner, Mr. Reid. I am not in a position to talk about the details, but the old act allowed us to build much of this file.
The Chairman: The impression I have, and I invite you to correct it if it is wrong, is that there is a kind of ephemeral view that there is some kind of park over there, but no one is quite sure what sort of animal it is. The purpose of this act is to remove the clouds and make the status of the park clear; to ensure that whatever boundary is drawn around it as a result of the application of this act will be clear, and it will be protected and be subject to the protection of Parliament.
Mr. Murray: In addition, the people will be able to know about it. That is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. That is all we are seeking.
Senator Cochrane: What stakeholders have you been in touch with? Is there a move afoot to find a way to reconcile with all the stakeholders?
Mr. Murray: The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society has been lobbying for this for close to 40 years.
More recently, we had the NCC mandate review exercise. I participated in the NCC renewal coalition meetings, and 15 of the groups involved fully supported the bill. That is to say, the NCC renewal coalition supported Bill S-210; keeping in mind, the amendments we proposed to date that provide a stronger ecological mandate to the park.
I am not sure that you can reconcile the Kingsmere Property Owners Association, the Meech Lake Property Owners Association or the Municipality of Chelsea with the thrust of this bill. They are protecting their turf, and that is understandable; by definition, that is what they are supposed to do.
I think there is a broader national public purpose inherent in this bill, and it is the duty of the government to look carefully at what we are proposing.
Senator Cochrane: What about the Government of Quebec?
Mr. Murray: I do not think the Government of Quebec would be against this bill. That is a good question. The properties can be removed from Gatineau Park without the permission of the Government of Quebec at this time. The boundaries can change.
This bill provides Quebec with an absolute right of veto over any boundary changes. The Government of Quebec must be involved in discussions and accept any boundary change proposed, otherwise those boundary changes will not happen.
In addition, the bill provides that the province will be consulted in the drawing up of any management plan for the park. We are bringing in the province, empowering Quebec's National Assembly and fully respecting the principle of Quebec's territorial integrity, which states no portion of boundaries in or outside will be changed without the consent of the National Assembly. That is, as I understand it, respect for the territorial integrity of Quebec.
Senator Spivak: In addition, you must realize that 80 per cent of people in this area would like it to be a national park. Therefore, you can never reconcile everyone.
The property owners have a sweet deal. Why would they want that touched? However, there is also the public interest, and the public interest is to make this a federal park and to protect it.
The Chairman: If this bill was passed and became an act of Parliament and someone asked you, what is Gatineau Park, what would your answer be?
Senator Spivak: The answer would be, it is a federal park with a different history than other parks, and it has some of the protections that national parks have.
The Chairman: However, it is a federal park, and it will be the only federal park which is not a national park.
Senator Spivak: If the government wants to amend this bill when it gets to the House of Commons and make it a national park, we would applaud.
Senator Angus: Would it then apply under Parks Canada?
The Chairman: Yes, if that were to happen.
Mr. Murray: There are hurdles to this, as I mentioned earlier.
Senator Angus: You were saying earlier, Mr. Murray, that section 4 of the National Parks Act prevents a park from falling under Parks Canada if what occurs?
Mr. Murray: If there is private property inside the park.
Senator Angus: Could we say notwithstanding the provisions of section 4 of the National Parks Act, and then go on? In other words, include a special exclusion?
It seems to me we do not want to set up yet another hybrid. Can we not get it under the organization that is in the business of running parks?
Mr. Murray: You could do that, but there are serious hurdles to doing so. The only solution I can see is you would have to balkanize the park by drawing the boundaries around it. However, if you draw the boundary around private properties, you are denying public access to the heart of the park, which is Meech Lake.
In his last stand before the joint committee, Percy Sparks said that private interests had prevented it from becoming a public park. If you redrew the boundary around private properties to protect their interests, you are only going against the spirit of the 1930 National Parks Act, which prohibits private property within parks. You are going against the interests of the public as well and their unfettered access to the lake.
Senator Spivak: Meech Lake is an historic lake now. It is in the public domain, and it should not have a line drawn around it because some people live there.
Senator Angus: Is there an association of residents involved in this? I would not mind hearing what they have to say. I like protecting private rights more than public rights, as a general principle.
Mr. Murray: That is fine. I am for private rights as well. It is one of the backbones of our country. However, the rights of 200 people in a park cannot deny the rights of 1.5 million Ottawans and other Canadians who visit the park every year.
Senator Spivak: Wait a minute, that figure is 30 million Canadians.
The Chairman: We have regrettably run out of time. However, we will be hearing more from the Province of Quebec on this topic. Thank you very much, Mr. Murray and Mr. McDermott.
The committee adjourned.