THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 1, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8:02 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-229, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park).
Senator Mary Coyle (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents, which have been an issue. Please make sure that your earpiece is away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone. 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 seat. We thank you for your cooperation.
I’d like to begin today by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional, ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation. I’m Mary Coyle, a senator from Antigonish, Nova Scotia, and the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Now I would like to ask my colleagues to please introduce themselves. We have some guests with us and some new senators. Welcome to all of you.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, independent senator from Quebec.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo from Ontario. I live here in Ottawa.
[English]
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, senator from Manitoba, Treaty 10 territory. Welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Welcome to the witnesses. Suze Youance from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Welcome. Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
Senator Tucker: Good morning. Geeta Tucker from Quebec.
Senator Martel: Good morning. Richard Martel from Quebec.
Senator Tucker: From Manitoba. I am not awake yet.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Tucker, it’s no problem. We know that you’re originally from Quebec and you are now representing Manitoba, and we’re glad to have you here with that background. Wonderful. Thank you, colleagues.
I’d like to welcome everybody here today as well as those listening to us online on sencanada.ca. Today, pursuant to the order of reference received from the Senate on April 15, 2026, we’re continuing our study of Bill S-229, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park). This is our second meeting on this bill.
I wanted to first clarify that the specific amendments discussed at our last meeting by Senator Galvez and MP Chatel have not yet been shared with the committee — we had other things that we shared — but they will be once they’re fully available. There is still some finalization going on, and we didn’t want to send you something that wasn’t finalized. We will as soon as we have it. I just wanted to commit that to you today.
Today, we’re really pleased to welcome Maude Marquis-Bissonnette, Mayor of the City of Gatineau; and Brian Nolan, Mayor of the Municipality of Chelsea. Welcome to you both. Very shortly, our other witness Guillaume Lamoureux, Mayor of the Municipality of La Pêche, will be with us. He will just come in shortly and join the table.
Thank you for accepting our invitation, and welcome. Your work will help us today as we study this important bill. We’re ready to hear your opening remarks for a maximum of five minutes, which will be followed by questions from senators. We’ll hear from each witness before we start asking questions. Ms. Marquis-Bissonnette, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Maude Marquis-Bissonnette, Mayor, City of Gatineau: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, senators. It is a pleasure to be with you today. Thank you for your hospitality.
We were invited to share our comments on Bill S-229, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park), co-sponsored by you, Senator Galvez, and a federal MP, Sophie Chatel, with whom we share a lot. We fully support this bill.
Gatineau Park is a gem for us. It contributes to the quality of life of our citizens who use it for entertainment, to stay healthy and to recharge. It is also an invaluable attraction for tourists who come to the beautiful Outaouais region, particularly to enjoy various sports.
We also recognize the ecologically rich features of Gatineau Park, with its many lakes and streams, its diverse fauna and flora. This richness plays a fundamental role in the fight against climate change.
We applaud the fact that the main measures included in the bill are the result of consultations with various stakeholders in our region, such as the Kitigan Zibi Anishinaabeg community, environmental organizations and, of course, neighbouring municipalities where some sections of the park are located.
That is why, in November 2023, our city council adopted a resolution calling on the Parliament of Canada to pass legislation that would ensure the sustainability and integrity of the boundaries of Gatineau Park, in order to guarantee that present and future generations can continue to enjoy this exceptional living environment.
We also welcome the bill’s focus on the park’s preservation. There is definitely a balance to be struck between a park’s recreational aspect and its use in holding events, all while respecting its purpose.
In this regard, we hope the amendments clause 5 of the bill proposes to clause 20 of the National Capital Act — regarding the development of regulations and criteria — will provide an effective and fair framework for holding events. We can discuss this further during the question period if you are interested, but we would like to refer to the Canada National Parks Act and its regulations to provide a framework for holding this type of event, given that we already have the legislative basis to do so.
We would like the regulations limiting activities in the park to take into account the transit routes maintained by the City of Gatineau. I am thinking namely of the Lac-des-Fées parkway and the Gatineau parkway between Gamelin Street and Alexandre-Taché Boulevard, which are integral parts of the park, but remain important routes for our fellow citizens in the city of Gatineau.
Clause 3 of the bill proposes to add subsections 10.05(1) and (2) to the National Capital Act. The City of Gatineau would like to be involved in discussions to develop the future regulations for Gatineau Park, taking into consideration possible uses for events that are aligned with the desire for preservation. The bill talks about ecological integrity.
I would also like to comment on the amendment clause 5 of the bill proposes to paragraph 20(1.1)(b) of the National Capital Act regarding the regulations that govern Gatineau Park. It would allow the Governor-in-Council to determine:
. . . fees, rates, rents and other charges for the use of Gatineau Park resources, facilities and services and the issuance and amendment of permits, licences and other authorizing instruments . . . .
While federal national parks generally impose user fees, I emphasize the importance of Gatineau Park remaining accessible to all residents and organizations in the region, as well as to visitors of all means. We welcome the addition of a paragraph to clause 5 of the bill proposing to cap the user fees for the park at the costs borne by the commission.
If I may, I would like to take this opportunity to raise the issue of payments in lieu of taxes, or PILT. Essentially, these are amounts the federal government pays municipalities to replace the municipal taxes related to all federal buildings and lands. For Gatineau, this represents a significant source of revenue from the federal buildings and lands on its territory, particularly those of the NCC and the Government of Canada. There is a link here, since some sections of Gatineau Park are located in municipalities that border it.
I do not want to talk about cases that went to trial, but rather make senators aware that the shortfall is huge. Between 2018 and 2026, the differences in land value for NCC and federal government properties led to revenue losses of approximately $94 million for the City of Gatineau. That is huge, and the bill is being passed on to Canadians, since the federal government is not paying all of it. In a difficult financial context for all levels of government, this is a significant amount that could have been invested in projects that benefit citizens. We also believe that it would be appropriate for the federal government to modernize, after consultation, the legislative framework surrounding PILT. We hope to have your support in this regard.
In closing, I reiterate our support for Bill S-229. We hope the resulting regulations will maintain a beneficial balance between the fundamental aspect of park preservation and the holding of events.
Thank you also for considering our request regarding PILT.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
That was a very thorough and helpful intervention. You’ve raised issues that we have not yet discussed. Obviously, you are close to the ground, and that is very helpful to us.
Now I would like to ask you, Mr. Nolan, to proceed with your remarks.
[Translation]
Brian Nolan, Mayor, Municipality Chelsea: Members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to share the views of the Municipality of Chelsea on Bill S-229 regarding Gatineau Park.
We also recognize the importance of having the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation take part in discussions about the future of Gatineau Park.
To understand our reality, one must first understand the close connection between Gatineau Park and Chelsea. Over 60% of Chelsea’s territory, meaning more than 70 square kilometres, is National Capital Commission-held land. This means the park is not just a neighbour of Chelsea, it is an integral part of our municipality and the daily lives of our residents. Its trails, landscapes and natural environments give us exceptional access to nature. The park also attracts many visitors who contribute to the vitality of our businesses and community. The residents of Chelsea are deeply committed to the park’s protection.
In our 2022 urban plan, we identified four ecological corridors to help wildlife move between the park and its surrounding habitats. We are also working with Action Chelsea for Respect of the Environment, or ACRE, on the preservation of 30% of the municipal land outside the park. We fully share the objective of protecting Gatineau Park for future generations, but this protection must be done in partnership with the communities that live with the park on a daily basis.
Chelsea has limited financial resources and, like all Quebec municipalities, it relies heavily on property taxes to fund all the services it provides to citizens. Every new land purchase by the NCC can also further reduce our already limited tax base. I don’t want to reopen the Supreme Court case, we’ve gone through it and we’re living with its fallouts. The impact is especially important when it comes to land located within or near our urban perimeter.
An example of this would be the NCC’s acquisition of the former Dunnderosa Golf Club in 2024. Since the NCC now owns the golf club, we no longer collect those revenues. We know the issues we have with the NCC regarding municipal taxes. As a result, we are penalized by the loss of revenues.
I raise the issue, because we support the park’s protection. However, when the NCC acquires land outside the park, as set out in Schedule 2, it creates a major financial issue for us. We do not have equitable resources or annual payments, and that has a significant impact on our budget. An enduring partnership with the NCC must therefore be both ecologically sound and fair for all neighbouring municipalities.
We welcome the objective of Bill S-229 to give Gatineau Park stronger legislative protection and to clearly define its boundaries. However, when defining limits using a federal act, any ambiguity for citizens who own property within the proposed perimeter must be eliminated. As a mayor, I believe a property owner must be able to clearly know whether or not their property is part of the park and what rules apply to it. Legislation to protect the park should not create uncertainty regarding the rights of private landowners or the respective jurisdictions of the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
We therefore recommend that Schedule 2 of the bill be clarified to explicitly exclude private property as well as provincial and municipal lands, except where an appropriate agreement or legal mechanism provides for their inclusion. It’s about protecting the park, but also about giving predictability to the families and owners who have lived on this land for several generations.
I would also like to draw your attention to a significant concern for Chelsea: future land acquisitions by the NCC or by His Majesty outside the boundaries of Gatineau Park. In Chelsea, such acquisitions can have a significant impact on our territory, tax base, urban planning, infrastructure and ability to meet the future needs of our population. We fully respect the NCC’s role and the importance of preservation. However, when a major acquisition is considered outside the park’s current boundaries, particularly when it could eventually lead to an expansion of the park, we believe the municipality concerned should be consulted in advance.
For Chelsea, this consultation is particularly important, as more than 60% of our territory is already made up of NCC properties. We therefore request a clear mechanism for consultation prior to any future changes to the park’s boundaries that would result in new lands being included from a municipality’s territory. Our goal is not to prevent the preservation or acquisition of land for environmental purposes, but to ensure that municipalities directly affected can participate in the discussion before decisions leading to permanent consequences for their territory are made.
We must also ensure that the park’s legislative protection does not compromise the municipalities’ ability to maintain, replace or improve the necessary infrastructure for citizens.
In Chelsea, the park and the municipality are physically intertwined. Our roads, networks, active transportation infrastructure and many municipal services must cross or intersect with federal properties. The bill already recognizes certain exceptions for public infrastructure, and that is important. We want to ensure these provisions allow for effective collaboration where legitimate municipal work is required without creating unreasonable delays or administrative hurdles.
There is also a need to strike a balance between the park’s ecological protection and accessibility. These two goals are not mutually exclusive. For the citizens of Chelsea, the park is both an outstanding natural environment to be protected and a place they visit on a daily basis.
This means decisions about access, trails, parking — especially recently — infrastructure and user rights have a direct impact on our community. Communities that live on the edge of the park should have a meaningful voice when such decisions are made, rather than having these decisions imposed on them.
I recognize that Bill S-229 already provides for consultations with neighbouring municipalities. It’s a step in the right direction. However, for a municipality like Chelsea, where 60% of the territory consists of NCC properties, a one-time consultation is not enough. We need a mechanism for an ongoing dialogue. The mayors of Gatineau and Ottawa sit on the NCC’s board of directors as non-voting members to ensure the voices of their communities are heard. I propose a similar mechanism to allow municipalities directly adjacent to Gatineau Park to have permanent representation, possibly through the mayors or the reeve of the MRC des Collines-de-l’Outaouais.
Madam Chair, I will conclude with three tangible requests.
First, that the bill makes a clear distinction between Gatineau Park and private property and provincial and municipal lands located within the perimeter described in Schedule 2, and that a clear mechanism for consultation with municipalities be established before making any changes to the park’s boundaries that would add new lands from their territory.
Second, that bordering municipalities have access to a permanent consultation mechanism and representation with the NCC.
Third, that decisions regarding land acquisitions, park access and infrastructure take into consideration the financial, territorial and operational impacts on affected municipalities.
Chelsea would like to serve as a partner in protecting Gatineau Park. We share the goal of preserving this exceptional land for future generations. However, a true partnership must be based on four principles. These principles are conservation, collaboration, transparency and fairness. Protecting the park and listening to the communities that surround it are two responsibilities that go hand in hand.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nolan.
Next up is Mr. Lamoureux.
Guillaume Lamoureux, Mayor, Municipality of La Pêche: Good morning. First, I would like to thank all the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources for giving us the opportunity to speak about Bill S-229.
The objectives seem clear. However, the potential impact of these changes on neighbouring municipalities is difficult to determine based on the documents provided.
First, it would be helpful to create a map showing any changes between the park’s current boundary and the boundary proposed in the regulations.
It would also be worthwhile to briefly consider the mechanisms used to, as stated in the regulations, “. . . strengthen consultation and collaboration between the NCC, the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation and neighbouring municipalities . . . .”
In comparison with the municipal context, when we make regulatory changes, it’s helpful to differentiate between the regulatory provisions imposed on us by the province and the ones that we can control, during our discussions with stakeholders.
It’s commendable to make ecological integrity a priority in the National Capital Commission’s management of the park. However, any change in practice related to this objective that could affect municipalities should be assessed with those municipalities in order to take into account all the priorities that they must balance. This includes, for example, the impact on the maintenance of municipal roads, as well as on residents or park users.
To strengthen this collaboration, the NCC should have identified the impact of its proposed changes on the municipalities even before beginning the consultation process, so that there wouldn’t be any surprises for the municipalities, given the power imbalance between the parties.
I would now like to discuss the following excerpt:
The Commission may pay grants to the appropriate authorities . . . not exceeding in any tax year the amounts estimated by the Commission to be sufficient . . .
In La Pêche, we haven’t yet experienced what Chelsea or Gatineau has faced in recent years. However, in certain years, we’ve received slightly less compensation than anticipated or than was customary in previous years. Sometimes, it amounted to 90% of projected revenue. The previous excerpt is difficult to accept. I recommend replacing the words “may pay” with “shall pay.”
Then, the idea that the NCC itself has the authority to determine what constitutes sufficient compensation is unjustifiable. This makes it impossible for municipal bodies to predict the amount otherwise accurately measured and governed by assessment standards. There are clear standards in place established by the Ordre des évaluateurs agréés du Québec, for example.
I would urge the NCC to take a serious look at the province of Quebec’s practices in this area. The compensation that the province provides annually to municipalities for its properties located within municipal boundaries, such as compensation in lieu of taxes, is a fair and predictable system. That’s what we want. The province, just like the federal government, has chosen to pay municipalities for its provincial buildings. However, it has been doing so systematically for a long time, and this approach works. There are currently so many changes taking place in the world. We must deal with so many unforeseen circumstances. There’s no justification for the lack of predictability in the NCC’s compensation to municipalities.
The key word is “predictability.” We need more predictability.
I would like to wrap up by acknowledging the work of my colleagues in Gatineau Park. I’m thinking of Catherine Verreault, who is currently on leave, and Stéphane Wojciechowski. Regardless of the tensions that may sometimes arise between the NCC and the municipalities, I must say that I always enjoy speaking with them. The NCC is fortunate to have them on its team. I would also like to acknowledge Patrick Laliberté, who is filling in for Ms. Verreault during her leave.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.
[English]
Now we will proceed to questions. It will be five minutes each.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’ll start with you, Mr. Lamoureux.
You spoke about a long-standing issue, specifically the compensation that you receive from the NCC for the park. Do you think that this issue should be included in the bill? Because that would be going a bit too far.
Mr. Lamoureux: I had this discussion with Sophie Chatel. She had the same concerns, given the wording of the regulations. She explained that, in some cases, only capital letters were added. However, there were still provisions that clearly addressed the payment situation. At the time, I hadn’t grasped that nuance. I took this opportunity to share my perspective on the matter.
I believe that the NCC would be well advised to amend the excerpt in question and to pay —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: To develop a process for forecasting. Obviously, it’s difficult to forecast, since it’s difficult to forecast revenue.
Mr. Lamoureux: It’s difficult for the NCC to forecast its revenue?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No. It’s funded.
Mr. Lamoureux: I understand. I think that we need to find a middle ground. As I said, some models already exist, such as compensation in lieu of taxes, for example. We may all need to make compromises. However, the predictability issue and the fact that municipalities must suddenly cope with reduced revenue is challenging.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Mr. Lamoureux: You should know that, when this happens in the relationship between municipalities and the province during program funding — as we’ve seen recently with transportation — we know how to take action. We take action for a reason. We do so because this paralyzes us, divides us and breaks us down a bit. Municipal funding is no easy matter. In my view, the key word is predictability.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Mr. Nolan: Can I quickly chime in on this topic?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes, quickly.
Mr. Nolan: It’s as if, as a homeowner, you receive your tax bill. Since your income is lower than it should be, you decide to pay less in municipal taxes. It’s the same principle. The land belongs to the NCC. It has a certain property value. Municipal taxes are calculated based on that value, so the bill should be paid regardless of the income coming in. Otherwise, we would sell off the land. We don’t want that, but every Canadian understands the logic.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I understand.
Ms. Marquis-Bissonnette, you piqued my curiosity about these events. Could you explain what you mean in more concrete terms and what concerns you about the events taking place in Gatineau Park?
Ms. Marquis-Bissonnette: In the past, certain events have taken place in Gatineau Park. I believe that this benefits the entire region. The idea isn’t to put Gatineau Park under a bell jar. Instead, we want to preserve its ecological integrity while giving people the opportunity to enjoy it and ensuring that it remains a regional attraction.
For example, the Tour de Gatineau is a cycling race that took place in Gatineau Park for a number of years. The NCC decided that it would no longer be held in Gatineau Park. From now on, it will be held in downtown Gatineau.
Once again, for us, the challenge lies in ensuring predictability and in understanding which types of events will consistently or never take place in Gatineau Park. To echo Mr. Nolan’s comments, given our close interconnectedness, a sudden decision to no longer hold an event in the region affects our cities.
The bill proposes regulations to govern the types of events that may or may not be held in Gatineau Park. We welcome this idea of establishing predictable criteria for holding events. Obviously, we want to respect the goal of conservation. However, we want to ensure that everyone benefits. To that end, we believe that we should be consulted in the development of these criteria so that we can work jointly with the NCC.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Does this bill increase or decrease the pressure on municipalities, which, I imagine, are expanding? Does converting this park make things more difficult for you in terms of housing pressure? I believe that you have 10 seconds to respond.
Mr. Nolan: The proposed boundaries for Gatineau Park are acceptable to us in the Municipality of Chelsea. The private properties located within the park should be properly identified so that the owners know what to expect.
Mr. Lamoureux: I think that we all have different circumstances. However, in my opinion, the situation isn’t as serious for La Pêche.
[English]
The Chair: We may have time in some other person’s five-minute allotment.
[Translation]
Senator Cardozo: I would like to welcome the mayors to the Senate of Canada. You’re here for the first time, as far as I know. This is a great opportunity.
As a senator from Ottawa, this bill is of great interest to me and many other Ottawa residents. My family and I have been spending a great deal of time in Gatineau Park for many years, in the summer, fall and winter alike.
I fully understand your financial concerns. They require a permanent solution. My question is a bit more general. How can you explain the benefits of this bill to your residents? What are the benefits of this bill?
Mr. Nolan: If I may begin, as I said, 60% of Gatineau Park is located in Chelsea. The park is an integral part of our municipality. It’s our neighbour. It’s important to protect and preserve Gatineau Park.
As a municipality, we have designated four ecological corridors outside the park to protect animals and wildlife so that they can move freely between the river and the park. We’re ultimately doing everything possible to expand the park without actually expanding it — if you will — because our residents care about the environment. As I said, we also have a project with the ACRE organization regarding land conservation outside the park. Gatineau Park is part of our daily lives. We want to protect it. That’s why I have no objection to Bill S-229. However, as I said, the properties must be excluded from the park’s boundaries. That’s all.
Ms. Marquis-Bissonnette: If I may, I believe that the main benefit is conservation for current and future generations. Obviously, we support Canada’s objectives. In particular, the City of Gatineau has signed the Montreal agreement. This agreement seeks to protect 30% of our territory, as well as biodiversity, flora and fauna. We believe that this bill meets the national objectives that we have set for ourselves.
We also welcome the fact that the bill includes provisions to ensure that stakeholders — particularly municipalities and Indigenous nations — are consulted on the park’s future direction.
Senator Cardozo: Do you think that this bill gives us the opportunity to hold more consultations between your cities and the NCC?
Mr. Lamoureux: I think that this is a good idea and that this is the plan, so yes, definitely.
To answer the previous question, I also believe that we see this as part of the province of Quebec’s ongoing approach to conservation. In La Pêche, we used the ecological corridors established by the NCC as a basis for incorporating all this into our bylaws and creating consistency across the municipality. So there’s a general trend in this direction. Some tension always arises when certain activities are slightly restricted. However, overall, I believe that the residents of La Pêche understand the NCC’s efforts.
Ms. Marquis-Bissonnette: I believe that this is the common thread running through our remarks. In other words, while we support the bill’s objectives, we also see it as an opportunity to reiterate the need to collaborate with stakeholders. Each of our areas has its own concerns and challenges. These aren’t barriers. We can overcome them. However, clearly, it’s easier when we work together. We could propose a formal amendment to that end, but the bill already provides for consultation with stakeholders. Perhaps we could include the word “collaboration”. The term “consultation” may be minimal. Yet when we establish the principle that we want to be able to collaborate, we take it a step further and enter into a dialogue that may be a bit more constructive for the future.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Cardozo, if there is a chance for a second round, we’ll come back to both you and Senator Miville-Dechêne.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: First, thank you for your excellent remarks. They show the reality for municipalities in terms of management, as well as the importance of the park and the challenges that it faces.
[English]
This is not the first attempt; it’s like the tenth attempt. It started with Prime Minister Harper’s government trying to give the legal statue of “national park” to this important place.
Thank you so much. I have taken notes, and I’m ready to prepare some observations and amendments with respect to Mr. Nolan about giving you a seat on the committee, which will not only consult but will also listen and will collaborate in any decision taking.
My question is: Some people believe that the National Capital Commission, or NCC, has done a good job, but then, historically, I did my research and I see degradations. Today, it’s important that we really make this bill happen.
Can you please tell us about some of the degradations and the pressures that the park suffers today which are creating obstacles to leaving it in good standing for this generation and future generations?
Mr. Nolan: Thank you for your question. I wasn’t there before. It’s my first year as the Mayor of Chelsea, so I can’t really talk about previous experience. Since we have been there, we have had a good relationship with the NCC. Communication is open again.
Of course, we have roads that cross Gatineau Park that are owned by the municipality. Again, I’m going to come back to money. When we have a lack of payments from the NCC, it’s hard for us to maintain the roads. As an example, Notch Road and Meech Lake are in really bad shape. That’s the way the Prime Minister takes to go to his cottage, and it’s really bumpy. When we’re lacking almost a million dollars in taxes every year, it’s hard to do maintenance and keep the infrastructure going. From what I can see, this is where the depreciation of the park shows, but I guess it’s our road too.
Communication-wise, the staff is amazing. We talk to them. We talk about issues. We always have things. Lately, it’s the parking. Now we have to pay to park at the Visitor Centre. It’s a big issue for the citizens of Chelsea and visitors, but we’ll deal with it. It affects us directly. That’s where the image of the NCC goes down. I’m curious to see how much money they will make from the parking. Was it really worth it to go through this nightmare for parking?
Overall, it’s amazing with the staff, but when there are new projects or new initiatives, that’s when the degradation of the park shows.
Mr. Lamoureux: I recall recent pictures shared by a citizen of La Pêche about Brown Lake. I don’t know if you have seen the images. It’s a woman who says, “I just came back from a bike ride to Brown Lake. Been swimming there for 24 years.” There was a massive algae bloom. I look at this myself and I’m baffled.
I guess your question was focused on the environment. I’m really pleased with what has been done at Philippe Lake. Some of the most important things that have been done are things we don’t really see, such as work that was done on waste water treatment. Hopefully, that will help, but, yes, it has been a concern. I think we have seen greater cases of parasites in the swimming water. It’s a concern.
I really believe that the NCC is doing the right thing by looking at the importance of the northern part of the park as a good vector for resiliency and biological diversity, but, yes, it’s a big concern. It’s one that we share not just with the NCC but also throughout lakes and forests in the area.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your answers.
Senator McCallum: Welcome. Thank you for your presentations.
In other bills that we have studied on the parks, consultation continues to remain a problem. There is a lack of consultation, which continues to surprise me.
You all say you share objectives and support the bill, but it’s going to have an impact on your tax base. Your tax base has decreased. If the park becomes larger, do you know what the financial impact will be? You talked about citizen ownership. What rules would apply? Are you saying you don’t know the impact of ownership and the impact on the tax base if this bill passes? What would happen to the municipalities?
Mr. Nolan: That’s why it’s important to exclude those properties off the park. By excluding them, at least the municipality will be collecting the tax from the taxpayer. If the NCC decides to buy another piece of land that is outside the park, then we will lose that revenue from that property because it will be part of the NCC park.
I can’t give you a number because I don’t know what size of property they are going to buy, but as an example, with the Dunnderosa Golf Course, we probably lost $25,000 or $30,000 of tax there, and that’s every year. We’ll never see that money again.
That’s why it’s important that if the park gets bigger, while we don’t have the right of first refusal, we have to be consulted so that if we want to purchase that property as a municipality, we can do so. In the Dunnderosa example, that was not the case. I wasn’t there at the time, but the municipality couldn’t buy it. The NCC went in and bought it, so we lost revenue.
That’s why, as a municipality, especially when 60% of our territory is the NCC, every piece of property they purchase has a big impact on us. We are only 9,000 people in Chelsea, and people are moving. They are expecting services, and if we lose revenue, then the whole population will suffer.
Senator McCallum: Are there any amendments that you have in mind to give us greater clarity?
Mr. Nolan: The amendment that I have in mind is to make sure that we exclude the properties off the perimeter of the NCC. If there is any acquisition of new property outside the park, we have to be aware of it first-hand so that if we want to buy them, we have the option of buying them. We’re trying to protect our tax base here.
Mr. Lamoureux: If I may, have you seen a map of the park’s current and future property?
Senator McCallum: No. Could you provide that to us?
Mr. Lamoureux: Could you provide that to us? I was referring to that point because, for instance, when we do consultation on zoning changes, that’s the first thing citizens ask: Where is that zone right now and what are the changes? Show me a before and after.
I must say, when I read the description of the boundaries of the park, I’m sorry, but it’s impossible for me to answer that question. I wish I could. It’s not going to happen. I need to show precisely where the changes are.
Senator McCallum: Could we provide them —
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Lamoureux: When I prepared for this meeting, it wasn’t available. I don’t know if you have since provided it.
The Chair: Could we get clarification from Jesse?
Jesse Good, Analyst, Library of Parliament: Senators, in the briefing package, there is a map of the Gatineau Park boundaries, but it does not reflect the boundaries proposed in this bill.
The Chair: That’s just to clarify what we have and what we don’t have. Senator McCallum, did you have any further questions?
Senator McCallum: No.
The Chair: Then it’s my turn. I’m going to ask just a couple of quick questions of you.
One of our colleagues Senator Sorensen is the former mayor of Banff. The park came first and then the town, so this is a very different situation. I can well understand your concerns around expansion and consultation and all of these issues. As you have said, Mr. Lamoureux, we know there will always be compromises, but if we can get ahead of it and have clarity of voice and notice and those sorts of things — I think “predictability” is one of the words that I heard from you.
One of the concerns that I have heard from a couple of you is around accessibility. When I hear about accessibility, I believe some of that is financial access for your citizens. Can you tell us, from your perspective right now, what are the current accessibility issues? There is already parking and things like that. What do you see as reasonable from where things are right now in terms of financially accessing the park? What would your concerns be about future accessibility and the financial burdens on your citizens?
Mr. Nolan: On the financial side, there are two things about accessibility. And as a little side note about Banff and Gatineau Park, they are two different beasts.
The Chair: That’s my point.
Mr. Nolan: Banff is two hours from Calgary, and you have to pay $25 per person to get in. We can’t do this in Gatineau Park. If we did this, people would never go to Gatineau Park because they don’t want to pay and they can go somewhere else. In Chelsea, if we charged people to go into the park, everybody would stay in Gatineau. They would never come to Chelsea. That’s not what we want.
That’s part of the issue of accessibility. We have to make sure it’s free for everybody to have access to the park. It’s our park. It’s the people’s park, not just Chelsea’s park. It’s everybody’s park.
If we look at the financial piece, for us, accessibility is about being able to predict how much money we will get from the National Capital Commission, or NCC. That’s a big deal because it’s hard to budget when we don’t know how much we are going to get. We had a meeting with the NCC, and we’re still waiting for the formulas on how they calculate their tax rate. That’s another topic.
For us, of course, it’s about making sure the park is accessible to everybody and that we have proper infrastructure. To do this, we need money. It all comes back to money. We must make sure that our citizens can use it at any time at no cost because we live in it. It is our neighbour.
I think Chelsea is doing a great deal for conserving the environment because 60% is the park. Plus, we will add another 30%, which is part of the 40%, so that’s 72% of the region that will be environmentally protected. I think we’re doing our part on this pretty well. We make it accessible to all our citizens, and we do it at no cost for the citizens.
Ms. Marquis-Bissonnette: There are certainly some aspects of the park that, currently, you have to pay to access. For instance, parking is one. There is also the Visitor Centre that you need to pay to access.
The goal, on our side at the very least, is to make sure Gatineau Park remains accessible for everyone who wishes to visit it.
[Translation]
We do understand that certain aspects must be subject to a fee. Parking is a public infrastructure. Paid parking can serve as an incentive to encourage people to use other modes of transportation to get to the park. So this is a good incentive for the NCC. We wanted to convey the general principle that anyone who wants to visit Gatineau Park should be able to do so. In Gatineau, we have a social pricing structure for some of our public services to ensure that people with lower incomes can continue to access them. This type of model may be promising for the future.
[English]
Mr. Lamoureux: We have a historic agreement between La Pêche and the NCC. We receive a number of passes for the summer. If this ever stops, there will be riots, and I’m serious. This is so important for the continuing relationship we have with you; that must never change.
Similarly, we have winter passes. A number of winter passes are available at our libraries, which is a good model for working together. I think that number should be increased.
I don’t know if you heard of the recent closure of Pellerin Road. This may not resonate with you, but I’m telling you that this is a big problem in our municipality. There was a sudden closure of an old trail for people who live in the neighbourhood — it’s very small. No one knows about it, but they know about it. It was closed and vandalized afterwards. I believe that if Catherine Verreault had been around, I would have known and we would’ve had meetings about that before it occurred. However, that wasn’t the case, and there has been a big backlash.
The Chair: You’re talking about communication related to access and financial issues related to access, as well as what people are used to. Thank you very much.
For our final two questions, we’ll have the senators ask them quickly and then the responses afterwards.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: How much confidence do you have in the NCC to implement all this? Ecological integrity isn’t its specialty. You spoke about algae in a lake. I know that it’s difficult to get rid of algae. I would like to know your level of confidence in this institution.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: I’ll come back to a couple of financial issues. Mayor Nolan, are you talking about new residences as opposed to the residences within the park? Where does that tax base go? On the road to the Prime Minister’s residence, for example, is it you who repairs that as opposed to the NCC?
[Translation]
Ms. Marquis-Bissonnette: As regards environmental protection, as a park user and an ex officio non-voting member of the NCC’s board of directors, I feel that the NCC is doing a good job of protecting the environment. Some footpaths have been closed for environmental reasons and rerouted. I recognize that there is a challenge, as we have a large region that benefits greatly from this space. I get the impression that they are striking a balance in environmental protection, perhaps particularly in the southern part of Gatineau Park, which is the area most relevant to our territory. It’s no secret that we face a constant challenge in being treated as partners by the NCC and in fostering a collaborative relationship. The arrival of the mayor of Ottawa and my appointment to the NCC Board are steps in the right direction. However, there is still work to be done to ensure that our teams are in constant dialogue and that we are consulted. That said, I recognize that there are some wonderful projects being developed collaboratively. There is still work to be done, though.
[English]
Mr. Nolan: As I said, the property tax we collect from private property in the park goes to the municipality. For all the other property that the NCC might buy — I say “might” because I don’t know if they are going to buy others — that tax money, which we get now, will probably disappear. We will probably get paid 40 cents on the dollar on this.
As for the road that goes to the Prime Minister’s residence, it is municipal property. The roads are municipal property even though the park is on both sides of it, so we’re responsible for the maintenance of this and the tree cutting. That’s another thing.
The Chair: I imagine in each of the other municipalities, there are different answers but answers nonetheless to that question.
Thank you to my colleagues for all of your wonderfully probing questions. Thank you very much to our witnesses, Mayor Marquis-Bissonnette, Mayor Nolan and Mayor Lamoureux, for your excellent input today. Your witness testimony helps us do our job of looking closely at this legislation to ensure it’s the best it can be, so thank you so much.
We’re pleased to welcome our second panel today: We welcome Stephen Woodley, President of Action Chelsea for the Respect of the Environment. And from the Conseil régional de l’environnement et du développement durable de l’Outaouais, we welcome Étienne Parenteau-Mauffette, Project Manager; and Vincent Cameron Trudel, Sustainable Land Use Planning Advisor. Thank you. Mr. Woodley, would you like to proceed?
Stephen Woodley, President, Action Chelsea for the Respect of the Environment: Good morning. Thank you. I’ll keep my remarks brief and focused on Bill S-229, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park).
By way of introduction, I am the President of Action Chelsea for the Respect of the Environment, or ACRE, a land trust based in Chelsea, Quebec. Additionally, this is my research area. I am a conservation scientist who works with the International Union for Conservation of Nature, or IUCN, and I work on conservation effectiveness. This is germane to the question.
First, ACRE is a Quebec corporation and Canadian charity. We work closely with Gatineau Park to protect important lands outside the park for conservation, in particular areas that are identified for ecological connectivity. To date, we’ve been able to secure 14 conservation properties in three municipalities — including two of the ones who spoke earlier — around Gatineau Park, worth over $8 million. So we have a strong interest in the success of Gatineau Park.
Both Canada and Quebec have formally committed to implementing the Global Biodiversity Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, adopted in Montreal in 2022. Target 3 of that framework calls for the protection of at least 30% of land, inland waters and marine areas in a way that’s effective and equitable. As part of this target, we’ve agreed to ensure that we upgrade our protected areas to meet that standard. This is relevant here.
I recently finished an IUCN standard for protected and conserved areas, which is applied globally. If Gatineau Park applied to meet that standard, it would not in its current form. It requires upgrading to meet that global conservation standard.
The scientific literature is very clear that protected areas can work, but to make them work, the strong predictors of success are governance, effective management and ecological design. Those three things drive conservation outcomes.
If I look at how the bill addresses those issues, it addresses key points on those issues and, therefore, is a big step forward for Gatineau Park. What it does is create legal boundaries, and it’s an important part of any global standard to have legal boundaries that cannot be changed easily. Currently, they can be changed by the National Capital Commission, or NCC, and that is not appropriate. This bill would allow them to be changed only by an act of Parliament.
It strengthens Indigenous collaboration, which is always welcome, and, indeed, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, is part of the global standard. It establishes regulatory powers for park management. I know many of the people who work in Gatineau Park, and they do a great job, quite frankly, but they’re working with their hands tied behind their backs because they don’t have the regulatory authority to do that work.
We all know that trying to upgrade Gatineau Park has had a long and checkered history. I believe this is the fourteenth attempt to do it. We know that private members’ bills are challenging. Given the global context for upgrading protected area conservation, the time is right to do it now, and I hope this is the opportunity to do it. Do I think this is the perfect bill? I do not. But this bill has many strong attributes, and I implore you not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this case.
The science is clear. The commitment by both Canada and Quebec is clear, and it’s time to act on that commitment. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Very timely.
Now from the Conseil régional de l’environnement et du développement durable de l’Outaouais, I believe Mr. Parenteau-Mauffette and Mr. Cameron Trudel are going to split their time. Who is going to start? The floor is yours, Mr. Parenteau-Mauffette.
[Translation]
Étienne Parenteau-Mauffette, Project Manager, Conseil régional de l’environnement et du développement durable de l’Outaouais: Madam Chair, honourable senators, thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Conseil régional de l’environnement et du développement durable de l’Outaouais, the regional environmental and sustainable development council of the Outaouais. CREDDO has been working for over 30 years to bring together stakeholders in the Outaouais region to address environmental issues. A significant part of our work focuses on the conservation of natural habitats and, particularly today, on their connectivity.
I would first like to state clearly that CREDDO supports Bill S-229. Granting Gatineau Park genuine legal status, enshrining its boundaries in law and placing ecological integrity at the heart of its management are, in our view, significant steps towards ensuring its long-term conservation.
However, today I would like to invite you to look a little further afield. Protecting the park does not simply mean protecting what lies within its boundaries; it also means protecting the ecological relationships between the park and the surrounding area.
Gatineau Park is one of the main conservation hubs in the southern Outaouais region. For flora and fauna, administrative boundaries obviously do not exist. The ability of species to move, reproduce and adapt to climate change depends heavily on the ecological corridors linking the park to the adjacent natural habitats of the Outaouais and Ontario.
We have a very concrete example of this. CREDDO has carried out a study, notably with the support of the National Capital Commission, on road fatalities involving large wildlife around the park. Between 2015 and 2022, 938 wildlife fatalities were recorded on the major roads studied, an average of 116 per year. These collisions also have a human and economic cost. By applying the costs estimated in a study by the University of Sherbrooke to our data — including injuries, loss of human life, damage to vehicles, towing and the disposal of carcasses — our analysis estimates the cost of these collisions at over $11.5 million over eight years, or approximately $1.4 million per year.
These figures provide a very concrete illustration of the consequences that the fragmentation of ecological corridors can have. They also demonstrate the importance of ongoing collaboration between park managers and stakeholders in neighbouring areas in order to tackle shared challenges.
This issue obviously extends beyond wildlife roadkill. It concerns land-use planning, infrastructure development and the conservation of natural habitats around the park.
Vincent Cameron Trudel, Sustainable Land Use Planning Advisor, Conseil régional de l’environnement et du développement durable de l’Outaouais: This brings us to our second point: We must consider, beyond responsibility, the shared leadership surrounding Gatineau Park. The federal government and the National Capital Commission are responsible for protecting the park, but they cannot, on their own, ensure the long-term viability of its ecosystem, which influences and depends on neighbouring areas, as my colleague mentioned.
With this in mind, we propose that a mechanism enabling consultation among the region’s stakeholders accompany the implementation of Bill S-229. It should bring together, in particular, the Kitigan Zibi Anishinaabeg Nation, the National Capital Commission, neighbouring municipalities — as the mayor pointed out — and residents who are registered within the park’s boundaries.
We do not need to start from scratch. In Quebec, mechanisms such as the harmonization committees used by Sépaq make it possible to reconcile land use with conservation objectives. In France, regional nature parks operate under a model based on a territorial charter and, above all, on the idea that the conservation of an area is achieved not in spite of its inhabitants, but together with them. Their involvement in this project helps to foster a culture of conservation.
We have entered a new era in the way we approach land-use planning. For a long time, we destroyed nature; subsequently, we have mainly protected it by drawing boundaries. As Mr. Woodley said, these boundaries remain important from a legal perspective, but they are no longer sufficient. We need to think in terms of comprehensive management.
With all the upheaval surrounding national parks and our neighbours to the south, the need to adapt to climate change, the loss of biodiversity and the neighbourhood issues arising from conflicts between wildlife and humans, it is important not to put nature in a cage. Instead, we must value it as an asset, as it benefits our economy.
Bill S-229 can therefore do more than simply provide legal protection for Gatineau Park; it can help make it the heart of a metropolitan region and of the Outaouais, where all these stakeholders become, to varying degrees, guardians of the park and its conservation, for the benefit of present and future generations.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses for your testimony and for the work that you’re doing protecting these precious natural habitats for our animal and plant friends and for us as well. It’s really inspiring — the work that you do — and thank you for taking the time to be with us here today.
Colleagues, I encourage you to put your hands up if you have any questions.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Mr. Woodley, I am going to ask you a question in French, but please answer in your own language.
I like concrete examples. When you say that, at present, the park is not up to standard in terms of ecological integrity, can you tell me where, specifically, you see shortcomings in the park? Let’s start with that question.
[English]
Mr. Woodley: Thank you for the question. I wasn’t making my comment on whether or not Gatineau Park was in good ecological condition. I was making it vis-à-vis the governance system that Gatineau Park has to protect those natural resources. They do not have sufficient governing authorities to properly protect the area.
Are there challenges with ecological integrity in Gatineau Park? Yes, all protected areas in the world have them. I could go into detail on them if you want.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes, if you could provide an example so that we get it.
Mr. Woodley: There are many invasive species, for example. Beech trees have mostly died in Gatineau Park in the last three to four years, and that’s because of an invasive species. That is a big threat to Gatineau Park.
In order to manage these things, you need to have regulatory authority for moving firewood around and practical things like that to protect disease transmission, which the park currently does not have.
Setting a boundary is the most important thing you can do, according to global standards, but it is also important to have an ecological goal. Putting ecological integrity in this act is a huge step forward. It was previously in as a policy item, but this makes it a legal requirement to manage ecological integrity. That is a big step forward and consistent with the national parks, I might add.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: The sponsors of the bill have told us that, once the bill is passed, and taking into account the NCC’s plans, we will achieve exactly the same level of environmental protection as that found in Canada’s national parks. Do you consider this to be an accurate explanation of what will happen?
[English]
Mr. Woodley: The answer to that is complicated. It goes a long way forward toward meeting what I would call the national park standards in Canada. It doesn’t completely meet it because of something that’s quite arcane. It has to do with federal lands versus federal Crown lands. I don’t know if we want to get into that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Just a bit.
Mr. Woodley: It doesn’t give full authority for management of wildlife. That has to be done in collaboration with Quebec, and they do it now very well and very effectively through a permitting system. But when you own land as private, you don’t own the wildlife; the Crown owns the wildlife. So that’s one important distinction.
The short answer to your question is, yes, it does take a big step forward toward meeting what I would call the national park standards in Canada.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: When I was giving my introductory remarks as the sponsor of this bill, I was asked to define “ecological integrity.”
[Translation]
I’ve done my best, but I’d like to hear the experts’ views, as it’s important to show that it’s not just living organisms, but the entire physical and biological habitat of the area that matters. Can any of you explain this?
Mr. Parenteau-Mauffette: I’ll begin.
If we want a benchmark for the park’s ecological integrity, we need to look at the ecological conditions of intact natural habitats. It is not simply a matter of listing the species present, but of analyzing the entire environment: the presence of deadwood on the ground to provide shelter for wildlife, the soil’s hydrological conditions, and the natural drainage that allows wetlands to form. We need to examine the reference habitat to see whether the ecological conditions are the same as those in the park’s habitats, in order to determine whether they possess all the necessary conditions to support all the plant and animal species that occur naturally in these habitats.
Senator Galvez: I’ll take this opportunity to ask you a second question.
Some people doubt that NCC professionals possess this expertise. So, now that it is becoming a national park, could you tell us about the support the NCC will receive from all the other professionals at Environment and Climate Change Canada and Parks Canada?
[English]
Mr. Woodley: I could bore you on this topic for a long time. I did my PhD on ecological integrity and how to define it, and then I was the chief scientist at Parks Canada and established the monitoring system for ecological integrity, which Gatineau Park is free to use and has all the capabilities to use. They have some good biologists in Gatineau Park.
It refers to the structure, function and composition of the ecosystem and how those things interact. It brings into account things like the trophic systems. Do you have a full established trophic system in the area so that predators provide the top-down regulation while primary productivity is the bottom-up regulation?
It’s complicated but doable, and it’s being done right now across all the national parks in Canada. The methods, manuals, et cetera, are there. They have already been borrowed to a certain extent by Gatineau Park, so there are no obstacles to implementing this kind of system, in my view.
The Chair: Did you want to add something?
[Translation]
Mr. Cameron Trudel: I would like to answer the second question.
We are proposing a governance system that also involves conservation stakeholders in the sector, who will be able to provide an external perspective to inform decisions regarding the park’s integrity and the well-being of the entire ecosystem.
[English]
The Chair: I have a question about this recommendation regarding a permanent mechanism for various stakeholders, and you’ve referred to a number of different models. Could you dig a little deeper? I’m not sure which of our witnesses would like to dig deeper and explain that to us. You mentioned that the model in France is ideal. Could you tell us whether that’s adaptable to our environment here?
[Translation]
Mr. Parenteau-Mauffette: The model with which we are most familiar is that of the Société des établissements de plein air du Québec, or Sépaq. For each of their parks or wildlife reserves, they have a regional advisory committee. The Conseil régional de l’environnement et du développement durable de l’Outaouais sits on the committee for Plaisance National Park and that for the Papineau-Labelle Wildlife Reserve. These committees meet two or three times a year and invite several members of the public and conservation organizations, such as CREDDO, neighbouring local authorities and indigenous nations, to attend. Park officials and managers present the park’s issues and projects to keep everyone informed about what is happening in and around the park. This is an opportunity to discuss these issues and explore potential partnerships. Sometimes, partners have projects to propose to park managers. It is a good opportunity to hear about local issues and discuss them.
[English]
The Chair: Is that with the Province of Quebec?
Mr. Parenteau-Mauffette: Yes.
The Chair: Is it working well according to all the parties?
Mr. Parenteau-Mauffette: Yes.
The Chair: Is this is a mechanism that you could see as being advantageous to be replicated for the new national park of Gatineau?
Mr. Parenteau-Mauffette: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much. That’s my question.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: There is one clause in the bill about which I have many questions. I am referring to clause 10.04 concerning the park’s master plan. The bill gives the commission 10 years from the date the act comes into force to draw up a management plan.
What is your view on this time frame? I find it very long.
Furthermore, the entire process of drawing up the master plan falls on the NCC’s shoulders. How can Sépaq’s management principle — namely the consultation phase — be incorporated into this process?
Finally, the third part of my question concerns the fact that this master plan must be tabled before each House of Parliament. What is the benefit of this final stage of tabling the master plan, in your experience?
[English]
Mr. Woodley: I can speak to that.
Protected areas represent a constellation of approaches to protecting nature. There are four governance types recognized by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, or IUCN, and there are six protected area categories. That gives you a table containing four times six options to get there.
The question of a management plan is inherent in all the global standards. Global standards are silent on how often it should be renewed. This act mirrors what Parks Canada does for 10 years. Do I personally think that’s too long? Yes, I do. I think it is too long because we’re living in a much more complex and fast-moving world now with things like climate change.
The act says it must be done in 10 years, but you can do it sooner if required. Many protected areas use this umbrella plan and then have a number of sub-planning processes in it, including consultation. That’s what, in fact, happens in reality. So there is a reluctance from the bureaucracy to make this requirement shorter than 10 years for obvious reasons. That’s the realistic answer. But many of the smaller planning processes underneath it, including consultation, can be done at a much more rapid rate and, in fact, are done now in Gatineau Park.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Is the presentation or submission of this plan to the government already happening in practice?
[English]
Mr. Woodley: I believe that’s just good practice. If these protected areas are important, we set them up to be in perpetuity — to be ongoing — and they’re under federal legislation. They should report back to the people’s house on how well they’re doing. That’s what the management plan does, and that’s what Parks Canada does.
Senator McCallum: Welcome and thank you for your presentations. Gatineau Park serves multiple functions, including conservation, recreation and public access. The prioritization of ecological integrity may influence how these objectives are balanced in future management decisions. What trade-offs should be considered when ecological protection conflicts with recreational or infrastructure needs?
[Translation]
Mr. Cameron Trudel: I can begin.
Generally speaking, an environment will not be equally sensitive across its entire area. Priority areas need to be identified; there will be places where ecological sensitivity is higher. It may therefore be worth restricting access or the activities that take place at these sites. Elsewhere, or closer to the city of Gatineau, there may be places with lower ecological value — this is hypothetical — due to their proximity to and the impact of the city. However, these areas provide significant access to nature. Generally speaking, it is not a question of managing everything equally, but of being strategic about accessibility. There should be a charge for access to certain areas, while access to others should be free. It is a matter of taking a strategic view of this.
Mr. Parenteau-Mauffette: Nature is a highly heterogeneous environment, so the park must be managed accordingly. As my colleague mentioned, there could be areas subject to stricter conservation measures around sensitive habitats, such as wetlands or areas affected by drainage or excess sediment. We might also consider Lake Pink, which has been protected and where footbridges have been built to prevent hikers from causing erosion and sediment from entering the lake. In the master plans and development plans, the park’s most sensitive natural assets must be identified and protected. In certain areas, priority must be given to enhancing natural environments in order to preserve them and allow access for all members of the public to continue cycling, walking and cross-country skiing in the park.
Mr. Cameron Trudel: We also need to consider what connects to the park. It is important to continue developing the environment without focusing solely on Gatineau Park. It is a complete ecosystem.
[English]
Mr. Woodley: I think your question is perfect, and it has been played out in so many places around the world. The role of protected areas is to protect nature, first and foremost. When you have a conflict, nature wins. That’s what is meant to happen. There are lots of ways to find accommodation for people, and it’s done all the time, but under the IUCN definition and the Convention on Biological Diversity definition of protected areas, nature wins, essentially.
There are not too many examples, except for big developments, where there is truly a conflict. Having well-managed recreation is relatively easy to do for things like hiking trails and whatnot. The key thing is to keep out large-scale development.
Having ecological integrity in the act is the first priority, as it is with our national parks — and this debate played out for well over a decade before it went into the revised Canada National Parks Act. The decision was made clear that ecological integrity is the first priority which, in public language, means nature wins.
Senator McCallum: When you say “nature wins,” at certain times, it doesn’t. You can look at blue-green algae and at pesticides and herbicides that impact the water. I work with First Nations across the country on environmental racism. When we look at the protection of Mother Earth, that is such a critical action that we need to take. If we don’t take care of her, then —
Mr. Woodley: We are completely aligned on this, madam.
Senator McCallum: Okay.
Mr. Woodley: Ecologists and First Nations have a lot in common in terms of their world view. I rejoice when I see something like ecological integrity as the first priority in an act. I think it’s very consistent with the First Nations world view as well. Does it always play out perfectly? No. We know that.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’d like to ask you a question about ecological integrity, because it’s quite fascinating.
I visited Bic National Park, where a large section of the park was completely closed to visitors to allow for restoration work. Among the criteria to be applied to Gatineau Park, would this be a possibility? You said that nature always wins, and I think that’s a lovely way of putting it. Let’s take the example of Meech Lake, which is very busy and full of private properties. At some point, could the lake be closed off so that it can recover without human intervention? I want to know how far ecological integrity can go, because we’re talking here about an urban park as opposed to a park deep in the wilderness; it’s therefore much more essential for people to visit it, as it’s close to home.
Mr. Woodley: Thank you. Forgive me for replying in English.
[English]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: No, please. It’s like me. I prefer asking my questions in French, so we’re both on the same level.
Mr. Woodley: Yes. If you look at the national parks, where they have been operationalizing ecological integrity for a long time now, are there closures to people? Sometimes. If there is a grizzly bear in an area, the trail is closed, for example. There may be an area of high alpine that has had extensive trail braiding, and it’s closed while the trails are restored. There are plantings done and the ecosystem is restored. There are Zone 1 areas, as has been mentioned by my colleagues here, where there is no human access because they are too sensitive to have human access, but that’s the exception to the rule.
I understand this is an urban park, and it has lots of challenges. I believe — I may be incorrect here, but I think that on a visitor-per-square-kilometre basis, this is the most heavily used park in Canada. I don’t see this bill at all as a threat to recreation or access to the park, and putting ecological integrity does not threaten those resources. There are lots of tools to get around this. Could there potentially be short-term closures or relatively short-term closures? Yes, but that’s the case, particularly in management throughout Canada and globally, including France.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I have asked this question to the mayor, but what is your confidence level in the NCC to apply those pretty strict guidelines?
Mr. Woodley: In my personal interactions with the staff there, they are very qualified people. You heard that from the mayors as well. But they are handcuffed by a lack of ability to do things. I understand the other issues, which are probably not relevant to this legislation on taxation and whatnot. Those are important issues for the municipalities, but in terms of recreational access and continued recreational access, I don’t see this as a challenge whatsoever. In fact, it may strengthen the park’s ability to do this properly. It will strengthen their ability.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’ll put the same question to our two other witnesses. You work in the environmental sector and you believe in these principles. How confident are you that the NCC will enforce these rather strict rules on ecological integrity?
Mr. Parenteau-Mauffette: Having worked with biologists from the NCC on a few occasions, I would agree with Mr. Woodley. They have a large team of highly competent biologists. I would place my trust in them. They are specialists in the field who are already carrying out several studies on the various species, their movements and their habitats throughout the park. They have a thorough knowledge of the area. We must give them the opportunity to apply their knowledge to conservation efforts.
Mr. Cameron Trudel: I would add that, in a more collaborative governance model, trust grows, as there is external expertise and more people on the ground to deal with these issues.
To return to the previous point regarding fears about the closure of certain sites: When a lake experiences a blue-green algae bloom, it is closed. Even if it is not officially closed, it should not be accessible. So, the fact that we have to close off certain areas for people’s safety is not a problem. In fact, it’s better than leaving them accessible —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: And having people get sick.
Mr. Cameron Trudel: Exactly.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: The mayor of Chelsea highlighted the idea of removing private properties from the park’s protected boundaries. How can we balance their financial realities — given that they wish to safeguard their income — with the need for these park boundaries, including the surrounding ecosystem? Currently, the park’s master plan refers to corridors and the possibility that certain private properties might form part of the ecosystem. How can we balance the need to protect local authorities’ tax base with the need to protect the environment and the ecological integrity we wish to ensure for Gatineau Park?
[English]
The Chair: Before our witnesses answer the general question, which you ended with, maybe the sponsor of the bill would like to —
Senator Galvez: I want to make a clarification because what the mayor said is that the NCC may, in the future, want to buy some properties that today are private. They are outside the limits of the park. They are not inside. It’s for future park expansion. What he wants is that we identify these outside private properties so that everybody knows that they are private properties outside so that they are not penalized with respect to the evaluation of the land. I just wanted to make that clarification.
Mr. Woodley: The private property question is important in Gatineau Park. I don’t think it’s the most important issue ecologically. I can’t offer you a scientific perspective on what should be done with those private properties, but I’ll offer you my personal view and maybe a historic view from visiting protected areas right around the world.
This is not the first park with private-end holdings. Lots of people deal with it and solve the issues. This is my personal view: I would rather not see those properties excluded from the park boundary because there may be an opportunity to revert some of those properties — not all of them — back to the park. I think that the park already does this. They have an active program of purchasing private properties within the boundaries to make them part of Gatineau Park. I think we should let that process work out. If we exclude them from the park boundaries, that will make it much more difficult procedurally.
From a practical perspective, I understand the mayor’s concern about taxation, and that is really outside the remit of this bill. I am hopeful that can be solved in another forum.
[Translation]
Mr. Parenteau-Mauffette: I could comment on the stance we are taking towards owners of private properties situated around and within the park. We must treat them as allies, as guardians of the park, and explain to them the importance of their land for ecological connectivity — for example, so that animals can travel from the Ottawa River to the forests further north and towards the park, where they can live, find shelter and feed. We must highlight the importance of their land and then treat them as protectors and guardians, and include them at consultation meetings to talk to them and explain these various issues to them.
[English]
Senator McCallum: You all support this bill? That’s good to hear.
The Chair: Can you say it so that it’s on record?
Mr. Parenteau-Mauffette: Yes.
Mr. Cameron Trudel: Yes.
Mr. Woodley: Yes.
Senator McCallum: So what was my question? Over the past 20 years — and Senator Galvez did bring this up — there have been repeated attempts to bring this bill back. You agree with it. Is there anything, like regulatory powers, that you would like included in there, or is there anything that we need to know that you have concerns about?
[Translation]
Mr. Cameron Trudel: One of the points we mentioned is the issue of governance, which was raised by the mayors right at the start. This is fundamental to this matter. It is also about keeping in mind an ecosystem of solutions, as my colleague mentioned. In Quebec, there are government guidelines on land-use planning. We are working on establishing ecological corridors at the regional level. The management of the site must take into account an ecosystem of complementary solutions.
[English]
Mr. Woodley: As I said in my opening remarks, do I think this bill is perfect? No, I do not. But it’s a huge step forward. I wouldn’t want to get in its way at this point of trying to make it perfect. It’s a big step forward. It makes Gatineau Park a real park in international standards and the international context, and all protected areas need improvements in some way, shape or form and have work to be done. I don’t think there is anything dramatically missing that we haven’t discussed yet already today. This does the best with the situation that is currently on the ground. I think that can be done.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Thank you to my colleagues and thank you very much to Mr. Woodley, Mr. Cameron Trudel and Mr. Parenteau-Mauffette for your excellent testimony today. This has helped us with our work in studying the bill and making sure that it’s the best possible piece of legislation before we hopefully pass it over to the other house. So thank you very much for being with us today.
Colleagues, our next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 6 at 6:30 p.m. We look forward to everybody being back for that. We will move out of the study of this bill and back into our final report on the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)