THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, September 29, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 6:35 p.m. [ET] to study Bill S-229, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park); and, in camera, for consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Mary Coyle (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Before we begin, I’d like to ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for the guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure that your earpiece is away from all microphones at all times, and don’t touch the microphone, please. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operator. Finally, please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. Earpieces should either remain on the ear or be placed on the designated sticker at each set. Thank you, everybody, for your cooperation.
I’d like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
My name is Mary Coyle, senator from Antigonish, Nova Scotia, and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Now I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, an independent senator from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Fridhandler: Daryl Fridhandler, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Chéticamp, Nova Scotia.
Senator Youance: Suzie Youance from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne, an independent senator from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I want to thank you, and I would like to welcome everyone with us today, as well as those listening to us online at sencanada.ca.
Colleagues, before we begin our witness testimony, I would like us to observe a moment of silence to remember our colleague Senator Todd Lewis. Thank you.
(Those present then observed a moment of silence.)
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
I would now like to open the floor to senators who would like to say a few words in tribute to the Honourable Senator Todd Lewis. I will begin with remarks that were shared by our colleague Senator Wells (Newfoundland and Labrador), who is unable to be with us here today.
These are the words of Senator Wells (Newfoundland and Labrador):
The Honourable Todd Lewis was a friend to us all. You couldn’t help but like him because he was straightforward, uncomplicated and loved to laugh. We sat near each other in the back row, with one empty seat between us, so we’d chat every day that we were in chamber. When he came to St. John’s earlier in the year for our study on the Newfoundland offshore, instead of riding in the van that the committee had hired, he’d hop in my pickup with me [and] he’d say, “I’m not built for a minivan, I’m coming with you,” and we’d laugh.
During these times we’d talk about our families, farming, fishing, and the theme was always around how lucky we were to serve our provinces and our country. That’s how I’ll remember the Honourable Todd Lewis — a big smile, an easy laugh and someone dedicated to his family and his country. Rest in peace, friend.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I will say a few words.
I didn’t get to know Senator Todd Lewis very well, but our first encounter on a farm — with Senator Galvez present — immediately revealed to me a very modest and simple man. He shared his experiences with us, but he did not present himself as a hero.
There are a lot of egos in the Senate, and he wasn’t part of that family. I often found his remarks helpful. We’re all here raising our hands to speak. He was often the last to speak, and he was able to summarize what we were saying, to try to find a way to reach a consensus. In short, he was a good man, but also a very intelligent man who did not show off his knowledge.
Senator Youance: I almost committed a crime of treason, and it wasn’t until later that I understood that. I say it jokingly, and that’s how Todd Lewis took it. When he talked about the thickness of his agricultural soil, I teased him and said that it’s the worst thing that could happen. I am a civil engineer. That’s the worst soil you could have. We started talking about all the challenges he had to deal with to build his house on that land. The discussion went on and on with smiles, and we were thinking that, even if we have different ways of seeing things, we will always agree on something. That’s what I remember. That was my first discussion with him. We thought we would have more time, which is not the case.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Youance.
Senator Aucoin: I would compare my small farm of four or five hectares at home to his 14,000 hectares in the West. Every time he came back, I would ask him what he had harvested and what he had worked on at the farm. That was mostly after Newfoundland. That’s where I got to know him better, despite the fact that we were on the same committee and in the same group. That’s where I really got to know Todd Lewis, with all his beauty, his intelligence, his comments and his very insightful questions. For me, he was a kindly giant in every sense of the word, through his intelligence, his friendship, his fraternity, his way of seeing the world and his dedication to his family, the farm and Canada.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Aucoin.
[English]
Senator Fridhandler: I have just a couple of short comments.
I had the good fortune to sit with Todd on flights to the west and talk to him. I can’t remember why he would go through Calgary to get back to where he was going rather than some other route, but we sat together a few times on the flights to the west.
The most memorable thing — and the thing that I will miss — is I often sit on this side of the table, and Todd sat on that side of the table. I’m not a particularly good reader, but Todd wore where he was coming from. He was completely transparent. I could look across the table, and I knew exactly what Todd was thinking on an issue or where he was going to be coming from, because he didn’t try to play games or hide anything. He was just a straight-up guy who I really enjoyed working with, and, certainly, he’ll be dearly missed.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Fridhandler.
Senator Galvez: I had the opportunity to organize an outing to an agricultural regenerative farm, and I told my guys, “Invite all the members of the Agriculture Committee.” Only two of them accepted the invitation. One was Todd Lewis, and the other was Robert Black.
People told me at the time, “Well, these people are big farmers, big soil, lots of acres, just monocultures.” I was, like, “Okay, they are both coming.”
But it was such a wonderful outing. He was so open-minded, and he asked so many questions about how these small, agricultural people were producing a lot of things and taking care, not only of the produce, but all the ecosystem. I think that he was the one who asked the most questions of all.
The other side was his personality, because on the farm that we went to, they used to do events, like weddings. So the owners of the farm received us very well, and we had the opportunity to sit down and laugh and discuss and talk, and he had this big, honest and genuine laugh.
I also crossed his path many times at the airport. He’s a tall guy. I’m a very small person. It didn’t seem to matter, and he was a very nice, humble person, and I will miss him a lot in this committee.
Thank you.
The Chair: Welcome to Senator Cardozo. Would you like to say a word or two about our colleague?
Senator Cardozo: Thank you very much. I’m not a member of this committee, but I’m here out of interest for the bill that you’re going to be talking about. It’s my pleasure to say a few words about our dear colleague, Todd Lewis.
I’m thinking about this very room, and he was on the Transport and Communications Committee, and I was just finishing up my time on that committee. We were dealing with the question of the CBC.
It just reminds me that sometimes too much information is a complicating thing because those of us who know CBC would be talking about the issues and going through it and trying to figure out what to say, and he was sitting right across this room, and he would apologetically say, “I don’t fully understand this, but how about we just say this?” And we would all go, “Yeah, that’s about right.”
He was good at cutting through a lot or too much information and just getting to the point. Some of his words will live on in our report, because I think he took complex issues and simplified them for us. We thought we were the experts, but, obviously, he knew better, and that was a very rich experience.
The Chair: Thank you all for your remarks.
Colleagues, much has been said about our fellow senator and member of the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, the Honourable Todd Lewis. Todd was a leader: A leader in service to community, a leader in the agricultural community and an emerging leader in his new place of impact, the Senate of Canada.
Todd was a proud, knowledgeable, passionate and forward-thinking farmer. Todd was a loving, proud, devoted and fun husband, father, son, brother, uncle, nephew, cousin and friend to many. He was also an exemplary colleague for us here on the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee.
Todd was always collegial and respectful with his fellow senators, and with the expert witnesses we invited to assist us with our review of legislation or our investigations on matters of importance to Canadians.
Todd was intelligent. He was curious, and he was open‑minded. He was fair, grounded and balanced — all the qualities of a very good senator.
He was also a member of Senators for Climate Solutions, a member who very much valued the Canadian Youth Climate Assembly.
To Todd’s family, please know that your kind, engaged, hard‑working loved one — who left us all far too soon — made a significant mark here in our work and in our hearts and that his legacy will live on. My sympathies are with Todd’s family and all who loved him at this time of loss and grief.
Thank you, colleagues.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on April 15, 2026 — some time ago — we are beginning our study of Bill S-229, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park) — that beautiful place.
Today, we are pleased to welcome our colleague, the Honourable Senator Rosa Galvez, the sponsor of this bill, and Sophie Chatel, Member of Parliament for Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi.
Welcome. We look forward to hearing your testimony.
Hon. Rosa Galvez, sponsor of the bill: Honourable senators, I am proud to appear before you today, alongside Sophie Chatel, Member of Parliament for Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, to discuss Bill S-229, An Act to amend the National Capital Act. The aim of Bill S-229 is to finally enshrine Gatineau Park in federal law, just like every national park across our country.
Although Gatineau Park is the second most visited park in Canada, it does not enjoy the same protections as official national parks, such as Banff, Fundy National Park, Gros Morne or Prince Albert National Park. These parks, among Canada’s 37 national parks and 11 national park reserves, enjoy legal protections that prioritize ecological integrity in park management, prohibit resource extraction and limit development.
Gatineau Park, the natural jewel of our federal capital, deserves these same protections. As the representative of the regions, the Senate is well placed to begin studying this regional project, which is of great importance to the citizens of the region.
[Translation]
Protecting the park will benefit both local residents and the region’s ecosystems. Only 7.6% of the Outaouais region and less than 9% of the Ottawa River watershed are currently protected — a figure far short of Canada’s target to protect 30% of its land by 2030. The park is home to significant biodiversity, but is at risk, with around 90 plant and 60 animal species under threat.
To ensure optimal protection, the bill establishes the boundaries of Gatineau Park in federal law; provides that ecological integrity must be a priority in the management of the park; prohibits the disposal of public land, except in certain cases; strengthens consultation and collaboration between the National Capital Commission, NCC, the Algonquin Anishinaabeg Nation and neighbouring municipalities; and authorizes the NCC to make regulations to govern activities in the park.
[English]
In conclusion, Bill S-229 is a long overdue legislative effort to provide Gatineau Park with the legal protection, governance, clarity and ecological safeguards that a park of this national significance deserves.
[Translation]
Sophie Chatel, Member of Parliament for Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi: Thank you, honourable senators, for inviting me into your home. It is a pleasure to be here.
I am the member for the Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi region, where almost all of our beautiful Gatineau Park is located. You can see the park is a priority for the people in my riding, but also for the entire National Capital Region, because it is one of our jewels.
Madam Chair, I’m glad that you like this park. I have spoken to many of you over the past few months, and I know you feel the same way.
I would like to share some numbers with you. We already have two petitions signed by nearly 5,000 residents in my riding who have asked us to protect Gatineau Park. There are 2,000 signatures in direct support of this bill and they will be tabled.
A recent poll conducted by a polling firm shows that 85% of people in the Outaouais, and mainly in municipalities that surround the park, support Bill S-229.
The park’s protection is near and dear to the people of the region. The park also has historical significance. I’ll give you a few short anecdotes. It is a historic site because it is home to important residences, including the Prime Minister’s secondary residence located in my riding, which he visits regularly. You can also find in the park the official residence of the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Willson House, which hosted the Meech Lake constitutional talks in 1987.
Today, the National Capital Commission, a Crown corporation, is responsible for managing the park. It is important to understand that 98% of Gatineau Park is located on federal land. Only 1% is made up of provincial or municipal land, including municipal roads, and only 1% represents private property.
The bill before you deals with the 98% of federal lands.
[English]
There have been several attempts to protect the Gatineau Park; to enshrine it into law. In fact, the Harper government, in 2010, attempted to protect Gatineau Park with Bill C-20. You will see that a lot of this bill mirrors the provisions of the Harper government’s former Bill C-20. It did not pass because there was a prorogation, and then the bill fell.
Over the past year, I have had numerous conversations with many groups, whether organizations or residents who live in the park or around the park. Citizens wrote to me, so I know that they really care about protecting the park, as do Indigenous communities. I spent a lot of time with the Kitigan Zibi Anishinaabe.
Also, I spoke to the Barriere Lake community and the Kebaowek community. You will see they have written to you and us, and they really support this bill. Recently, they reaffirmed their support despite a land claim that is in the courts. What they told us is that it is one step in the right direction. They wanted more, but this bill at least protects what is really important, which is to save this park for future generations.
[Translation]
After more consultations, we also proposed three important amendments. Two of those serve to clarify something that may not have been clear. I was talking about the 98% of federal lands. That’s really what the bill is trying to protect, not the 1% of private land or the 1% of provincial and municipal land. We are focusing on the 98%. The amendments in question specify that the regulatory power will only apply to the 98% federal lands.
The schedule was also modified, because the land registry was overhauled, so it had to be redone. The Harper government had tabled an annex, but the lot numbers changed. It is just a technical change.
We also know that our Liberal government supports the bill. Without prejudice, it may make some recommendations or amendments, but it supports this bill.
With that, I thank you for the invitation, and I am available to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, MP Chatel and Senator Galvez.
[English]
Now we will go to questions from my colleagues.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Ladies, welcome to the committee. Thank you for making the trip. You’re lucky to have the government’s support. It always helps with a Senate public bill.
I find this whole issue of ecological conservation interesting. You talk about it in your bill. The National Capital Commission is not an ecological conservation organization. I understand there will be administrative continuity. That said, have you had any discussions? Because ecological conservation is a specialty, and it’s clearly not theirs. How do you see that evolving? You can’t spend money, we can’t allocate supplementary estimates or make promises in that sense, because it’s a public bill. How do you see that? Have you spoken to the NCC?
Senator Galvez: Actually, the national park status comes with a series of standards for measuring all kinds of things, including ecological integrity.
The NCC already has a lot of data, but it will have to put it in a Parks Canada standardized format.
As for costs, the NCC already manages the park. It has put a lot of effort into it, but it is not enough. Because the park has no status, it is not protected. The legal national park status will provide several benefits to the park in terms of preserving ecological integrity. It’ll have to get up to speed.
Ms. Chatel: We have had many discussions with the NCC, which manages the park. Ecological integrity has been part of their five-year plan for a number of years. They said that since they already manage the park, they won’t have a lot of activities to add. They are already doing that.
However, as Senator Galvez said, the status will protect the park. The NCC has asked the government for greater clarity on its current mandate. They want to protect the park and have the regulatory tools to do so. In terms of support, they are asking for the support of their existing five-year plan, and that’s what this bill does.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I would like to come back to the issue of private property. As you know, we have received briefs from worried owners of buildings located within the park. Will you provide us with . . . . Obviously, we’d like to see the documents. My understanding is that some people don’t think the bill is very clear. I would like to hear exactly where these properties are located, and also what the new wording is that confirms they will not be part of the bill.
Ms. Chatel: That’s a very good question.
Amendments have already been submitted on the committee’s website. Clause 5 will be amended to ensure the NCC’s power to make regulations applies only to federal public lands, so the commission’s assets, plus certain lands that belong to other departments. It would only be on the 98% I was talking about. That’s very clear. I validated that wording with those who had concerns, and they are satisfied.
There are also provincial and municipal lands involved, it’s important to maintain the status quo for them, so we’re focusing on the 98%. The amendments will clarify that.
[English]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I just wanted them to send that.
The Chair: According to our clerk, we have it. We have distributed it in the spring. But we can redistribute that. No problem. It is very important. Thank you for the answers from our witnesses.
[Translation]
Senator Cardozo: Thank you to Senator Galvez for bringing this important bill forward.
Ms. Chatel, welcome to the Senate. It’s always a pleasure to have a member of Parliament with us.
Can you tell us what will change with this bill?
[English]
I get that it will be a national park. What will change for the territory itself? Another way of putting it: why do we need this bill?
Senator Galvez: I can start, and then Ms. Chatel can continue. There have been over the last few years — I wouldn’t say problems but situations that make the park degrade in various aspects. For example, we don’t want to continue the residential development in the park. The bill will stop that. For sure, we don’t want the fragmentation of ecosystems because in the park there may be some paths, some deterioration, and some degradation that will impact the ecological integrity of the park. So that will stop, too, because now they will have to respect the norms with respect to ecological impact.
There are several pressures, as we just described. Despite the fact that the vast majority of the land — 90% — is federal, there are 1% here and 0.8% there that cause friction and pressure on the park. This bill is going to clarify that.
There will be no room anymore for illegal infrastructure. Everything constructed in the future will have to pass through the process under the statutes of a national park.
One important thing is that the boundaries are not defined completely. So with the bill, we will define it in a permanent way. That’s why we say that this is dedicated to future generations because we dedicate the integrity of the park — 98% of the land and its ecological integrity — to future generations.
Senator Cardozo: Ms. Chatel, maybe you can tell us because you are the deputy. What is the feeling of the residents in the area? Are they in favour of this? Also does having it as a national park increase its attractiveness to tourists and to people in the area?
Ms. Chatel: The main objective of the bill is to protect it by establishing its boundaries in law. In 2024 the park lost 43 acres of land that was transferred by decree by a minister without any consultation. That is an example because the urban pressure from development in Gatineau is such that it is always easier to build in a park. If we don’t protect it, this is what will happen. It will reduce the park. That’s what happened in 2024. We lost 43 acres. So we need to protect it. It is not that we cannot reduce the park, but it will require a change to the annex of this bill. So there will be more transparency and more consultation of citizens.
As I said, a recent survey shows that 85% of citizens in the area are in support of that. I have several petitions, but a total of 7,000 people wrote their names and addresses to support this bill. So the support is great. Likewise, I have not heard from anyone who does not support it. Even the residents of the park are stewards of the land as well. They protect Meech Lake and Kingsmere, and they are very good stewards. Especially in the case of Kingsmere, I have heard stories about how they saved the lake from invasive species. They want its protection too. What they don’t want is being regulated by the National Capital Commission, or NCC, about what they can do on their land. That is what the amendment clarifies. Otherwise, we had consultations with residents, and they supported the bill as well.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Fridhandler: I’m a little bit confused because, on numerous occasions, you have referred to this as a national park. We have the Canada National Parks Act. I wonder why that is not being brought under the National Parks Act, which would give it uniformity with respect to how we deal with national parks. I think it is a bit of a misnomer. I have looked at the consequential amendments, and I don’t see anything that does anything to the National Parks Act relevant to Gatineau. Why do we need to fragment? Why isn’t it under that act?
Ms. Chatel: That is a very good question. We had a discussion with Environment and Climate Change Canada. The obvious option was to make it a national park under the National Parks Act. However, when they discussed it with the NCC, the two departments came together and decided it was best to take the provision of the National Parks Act — a lot of the bill is built around those provisions — and make it a chapter under the National Capital Act. Why? It is because the NCC was already managing Gatineau Park as a park. In addition to that — and that was the critical point — there is a lot of land that is a corridor that connects the park with the two rivers — the Gatineau River and the Ottawa River. They also own those.
It was important to say that we cannot fragment what is managed as a park by the NCC and the other property that the NCC also owns and manages. To preserve the connectivity and the same management of all those properties, it was a lot easier because if Environment and Climate Change Canada were to make a national park, it would have been delegated to the NCC anyway. So this was more logical in the minds of all the public servants who looked at this issue. It was better to do it this way. The same conclusion was reached under Harper’s government: to make a national park under the National Parks Act or make the amendment, creating that within the legislation already in place for the national capital land. So we took the same decision, basically. We followed what a previous government had done.
Senator Fridhandler: I’m a little skeptical that the NCC has the expertise that Parks Canada has to manage the issues that you would like to see managed: the ecological and environmental issues. I understand physical management, but the NCC is unique and not multi-faceted like Parks Canada, so I’m a little bit concerned about that point.
Let me ask you this: On the private owner consultation, we still have private owners who exist there. I don’t think I read in the act that this will attempt to limit what they can do with their land. So if there are a few private owners who are contiguous and want to put an apartment building there, is it anything that limits it here? Or is it the municipality under their development rules that will control the use of the 1% private land?
Senator Galvez: As Ms. Chatel said, it is the status quo for private land. They will have to respect whatever regulations are there for private land. If it is the municipality or the province, or if part of their land is Hydro-Québec’s or the train rails, they will have to keep respecting those things because, for them, it is the status quo. So you are asking about whether they want to construct a condominium or a high rise. If the municipality allows for that, maybe they will be able to do it, but I doubt it.
Ms. Chatel: The municipalities of Chelsea, Wakefield and Pontiac are those that are around the park, and they have strong bylaws that would prevent the building of condominiums. In fact, they have rigorously regulated those properties within the park even if they want to make an addition and extend their house or even for building a garage, because they have also included the park in their own zoning that is protected. Hence, we didn’t think it was necessary. There was already strong protection to that effect.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Thank you to Senator Galvez and MP Chatel for joining us. This is really very interesting.
I’m from Chéticamp in Cape Breton, where you can find the entrance to the Cape Breton Highlands National Park. I know what a national park is, and I have visited others. I don’t want to take too much time with my question, but I skied, biked and walked through this park.
You talked about the 1% private, municipal or provincial, but that 1% seems to be concentrated in the section near the city of Ottawa. Am I wrong? Could this cause pollution problems? Because there are a couple of fairly significant highways, hydro lines and more. Did you take that into consideration?
Ms. Chatel: When a park is created near an urban area, there are certainly private properties involved. It’s like that in the Rouge National Urban Park in Toronto. Of course, we are in an area where Gatineau Park impacts urban planning. Private properties are not concentrated in the Gatineau area — because these properties are at the edge of the park — but around the two main lakes, Kingsmere Lake and Meech Lake. The properties in these two sections are surrounded by trees and are not very visible. But they’re on the edge of the park, not in the park itself.
Senator Aucoin: I congratulate you on the work you have done.
There is a high school in the national park that was built after the park was created. Have you considered including in the exceptions, in sections 10.02 or 10.03, for example, the possibility of a delegation where we could give land or allow a building, a hospital or something for health care to be built? Could a school be built in the park? Not according to the bill I read, but have you thought about that?
Ms. Chatel: Yes. Paragraph 10.06(2)(b) provides for the disposal of public land, so federal land, for the benefit of a federal, provincial or municipal authority if the disposal is necessary for the purpose of the development or maintenance of public health care facilities or public infrastructure, including public services or transportation routes.
I think the answer to your question is yes. Could there be an educational institution as such? It’s public infrastructure. However, the bill refers specifically to health care, because in 2024, the transfer of 43 acres by order-in-council without consultation was to build a mega hospital in Gatineau. That was the reason for the transfer, and the bill protects that kind of transfer.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
You say the expression “public infrastructure” could mean “educational institutions,” but it is not specified, and when it comes to governments and regulations, if it is not specified, it remains vague.
Ms. Chatel: Regardless of the situation, the fact that it’s not covered doesn’t mean it’s not possible. We just need to amend the act, amend the schedule and have a public debate. Do we want to build a school? Do we want to build a CEGEP or a university? But as you can see, we are chipping away at the park, because it is easier to build there than to decontaminate land somewhere else. We’ve already seen that it is always easier to build institutions in the park. Perhaps it is still a good idea to have a public debate before building.
I think the “public infrastructure” was more for hydro grids, or a municipal road that needs to be repaired or maybe expanded to add a bike lane or things like that. It is more about public infrastructure. We provided for health care, but I think that if we want to build a school, a university or a CEGEP, it would be worthwhile to come back and make an amendment.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
Senator Youance: Thank you to both witnesses.
We have a bill that covers Gatineau Park, a rather large area. I would like to know if there are parts of Gatineau Park that are of different importance? For example, would there be specific environmental characteristics or biodiversity to protect? Are there exclusive exploration rights, peat bogs or whatever that would justify strengthening the regulations? The bill covers a vast territory. Are there things that should be strengthened in the bill to take into account certain specific characteristics of the park?
Senator Galvez: I mentioned that there are about 90 plants and 50 animal species at risk in Quebec and Canada that live in the park. As I said, the national park status will provide many ways of managing standards — including a rigorous registry of all these species — but it will also bring pressure. We will do a study on the food chain, the various ecosystems, the sand and other things, because ecological integrity means the resilience of the ecosystem to maintain its natural state. Baselines have to be established for species, for ecological functioning. Afterwards, there will be recommendations to specify what should be done.
I also saw that there’s a rodent at risk. It needed a certain amount of food it didn’t have access to. We started planting the native plant it needs to close the food chain.
I would like to add that it is not just about what is alive. When we talk about ecological integrity, we’re also talking about soil, rocks, water, the atmosphere, so a number of things.
[English]
The Chair: Mine is a simple question. I don’t think it will require a long answer either. It is about the province of Quebec in all of this. We know there is an election. Therefore, it is the current government of Quebec. Do we know the position of any of the parties or whether we anticipate the various possible parties to embrace this? Do you expect any difficulties with that?
Ms. Chatel: I consulted the minister in charge of the Outaouais, Mathieu Lacombe. I also consulted the member of the National Assembly and sent him the briefing. They have not raised any issues with me, so I don’t anticipate any friction or opposition.
I would also add that there are three other federal parks in Quebec: le parc national Forillon, le parc national de la Mauricie and le parc national de l’Archipel-de-Mingan. Sometimes there are municipal and provincial areas within the park as well. It works well.
In addition, it’s important to mention that the bill is really for the 98% that are federally owned public lands. The bill will not actually change anything in any municipal or provincial — that 1% I was telling you about. It will not impact them. I don’t think there is an issue. My colleagues at the provincial level also represent the same community I do, and they also want this bill.
The Quebec government itself, through the Minister responsible for the Outaouais region, has not raised any concerns about this bill.
The Chair: Thank you for that. And the fact that it’s the will of the people, as you’ve expressed, that goes a long way, no matter which level of government. Thank you for that.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m going to follow up on my colleague’s question. Your answer left me wanting more. You said officials told you it was better to have a park managed by the NCC than to make it a legal national park. From an ecological standpoint and in terms of expertise, we know the national park is always the best option, because we have them all over the country.
Isn’t the real reason that this public bill doesn’t provide for spending or creating a national park? It is a luxury that costs money. You explained that it was public servants who told you this. That’s what they think. Maybe they prefer the status quo. We can certainly say that creating a national park is the ultimate protection. However, it may not be within your reach either because of what public bills allow.
Ms. Chatel: We talked about costs and what that would entail. Since Gatineau Park is already managed, trails, shorelines, activities — whether cross-country skiing or cycling — events in the park, as well as properties, such as the Mackenzie-King estate, are all well managed. Everything is already managed. There is already a visitor centre. The only cost is to change the display.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m talking about the national park —
Ms. Chatel: There are no additional costs, because it is already managed. In fact, several parks have been created, whether it’s the Rouge National Urban Park or others. I don’t have the whole list, but we’ve looked at it. Parks Canada already delegates management to other entities. Rouge National Urban Park is not managed by Parks Canada, although it was created by Environment and Climate Change Canada. There are many park management models. It is false to think there is only one. The Canada National Parks Act provides for a change in management model, and it’s being done. The important thing is that the bill’s provisions mirror what is in the Canada National Parks Act, and it does.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: The standards are still the same. I think that’s the point.
Senator Cardozo: I have more of a comment, and you can respond if you want. I wanted to say that I’m very excited for this bill, as a senator from the National Capital Region. I know the Gatineau Park very well. I’ve been going there for many years. My family is like many families in the area, and we would go there regularly. We have photographs of our kids from the time they were toddlers to adults. It’s something we would do every year during the fall.
As with many parks, it is a beautiful area at all times of the year. In the winter, it’s stunningly beautiful. There’s cross‑country skiing. In the summer, it’s just a great place to hike. In the fall, right now, the next few weeks, I encourage any of you, if you have an hour, to hop in a car and just drive over to the Gatineau. It’s really just 20 minutes from here, north of Ottawa, and the fall is one of the best times to see it. The fall colours are magnificent, but I also encourage anybody watching us and wondering about the park to think about visiting the park. It’s an incredible area.
It’s like our background, our playground, for all the people who live in this entire area, but it also attracts many people. One of the things I like about it is I think it increases the status of the park by having it as a national park and hopefully attracts more people to come and see it and enjoy nature so close to Canada’s capital. Thank you for doing this.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Cardozo.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I would like to take advantage of Senator Cardozo’s lovely words to ask him if it would be possible, as part of the study of this bill, to visit Gatineau Park. We’re only 20 minutes away.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: I’m happy to coordinate and will drive you there.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Exactly. That’s what I was going to add.
[English]
The Chair: So there is an informal offer.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I’m wondering. There are 70 or 90 species at risk. I always thought that under Parks Canada it would have been managed better. Why hasn’t the National Capital Commission taken action yet? Or has it? I’m wondering if this bill will help or if the status quo means these species will remain at risk.
Senator Galvez: That’s very interesting. I remember when Mr. Guilbeault was here to talk about a national park. I asked him why he did not create national parks where it was known there were species at risk, including the caribou in Quebec. Why not create a national park to protect this species at risk? He said it had to come from the community. At that time, I believe we were talking about the Rouge National Urban Park. The request came from the community, and the community had already set up the park’s management.
I want to emphasize that Environment and Climate Change Canada’s role is to establish protocols for the managing organization so it has information and standards with which it can make future comparisons.
As my colleague said, there are several park management models. To Senator Fridhandler’s point, it is true that the NCC is not Environment and Climate Change Canada. They don’t know anything about ecological integrity. However, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Parks Canada will give it a wide range of rules and protocols to follow. They are the ones who will dictate how to maintain ecological integrity and which species are at risk.
Ms. Chatel: I would add that the standard of ecological integrity as a priority for park managers is the same as what we find in the Canada National Parks Act, with the same regulatory powers. Whether it’s an officer of Parks Canada or an officer of a delegated authority in a park, such as Forillon National Park or Rouge National Urban Park, or whether it’s the NCC within its regulatory power, the same powers and standards must apply. Normally, it should be the same for ecological integrity. They are trying to do it right now, but they don’t have the necessary powers. It’s more difficult; it takes persuasion. We’re bringing back the standard and giving the regulatory powers that go with those duties.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: So that’s the expected outcome.
Ms. Chatel: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you, everyone, for this good beginning on our study of this bill, and I sincerely thank both of our witnesses, Ms. Chatel and Senator Galvez. We will now suspend before we move to an in camera discussion.
(The committee continued in camera.)