National Capital Act

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading of Bill S-229, An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park). I want to acknowledge our colleague the Honourable Senator Rosa Galvez for sponsoring this legislation and bringing attention to the stewardship of Gatineau Park. My purpose today is to carefully examine this bill and to consider whether its approach balances conservation, public access, fiscal responsibility and jurisdictional clarity in a practical and sustainable way.

Although Bill S-229 is a new bill in this Parliament, similar legislation has been introduced on multiple occasions in previous parliaments. Between 2005 and 2013 alone, at least 13 private members’ bills in the House of Commons and public bills in the Senate aimed at providing statutory protection for Gatineau Park were brought forward, most of which died on the Order Paper following adjournments or prorogations due to elections. More recently, Senator Galvez introduced Bill S-289 in the last Parliament, which reached second reading before meeting the same fate upon prorogation.

These repeated attempts have highlighted some important considerations regarding the bill’s provisions and potential implications that deserve our careful attention today and during the study of this bill at committee.

Honourable senators, allow me to share my perspective from the outset. As a senator proudly representing British Columbia, a province blessed with its own vast array of natural landscapes, from the rugged peaks of the Rockies to the ancient rainforests of the coast, I approach this matter with a deep appreciation for the importance of well-managed natural spaces.

Gatineau Park, with its forests, hills and wildlife, is a valued green space for residents and visitors alike. Spanning roughly 36,000 hectares and drawing millions of visitors annually, specifically, more than 2.6 million visits each year, according to a National Capital Commission visitor and economic impact study from 2017, 90% of them by local residents, it is an important recreational and ecological asset to the National Capital Region. Its stewardship has long been the responsibility of the National Capital Commission, or NCC, which has managed the park for 85 years since the Federal District Commission took charge in 1938 with a proven track record of success without elaborate statutory protections.

To put that track record into perspective, the NCC and its predecessors have quietly and effectively acquired lands, established conservation zones, conducted ongoing species monitoring for more than 100 at-risk species, maintained trails and infrastructure while minimizing environmental impact and welcoming millions of families, skiers, hikers and nature lovers every year.

The park has thrived under this flexible, balanced model that respects both ecological health and public enjoyment. The existing National Capital Act, the regularly updated NCC Master Plan — reviewed approximately every 10 years — and day-to-day operational policies already deliver strong stewardship.

The question before us is whether the statutory changes proposed in Bill S-229 provide meaningful improvements or whether they introduce additional complexity without clear justification.

Bill S-229 seeks to “enshrine” Gatineau Park within federal legislation, meticulously defining its boundaries in a newly minted Schedule 2, and dedicating it ostensibly to all Canadians, including the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation, for their collective benefit, education and enjoyment.

Again, the park has been under federal stewardship since 1938 without these elaborate statutory protections.

This leads me to my first question: Why is this legislation necessary? Early bills from 2005 to 2014, such as Senate Bill S-204 and Bill S-210, focused only on boundaries and basic protections. Despite these repeated attempts, the NCC has continued to manage the park successfully for decades without statutory overreach. Recent versions added explicit ties to international biodiversity frameworks and associated conservation targets, mandatory 10-year master plan reviews and enhanced regulatory powers. The NCC’s existing master plan and operational policies already deliver strong stewardship. No evidence of systemic failure suggests that this new federal legislation is necessary.

The preamble invokes commendable goals, such as preserving ecological integrity, forging connections to Indigenous heritage in alignment with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and honouring our commitments under international biodiversity frameworks. Senator Galvez has even called this bill “low-hanging fruit” for Canada’s biodiversity conservation targets. However, at just 0.0036% of Canada’s land mass, it offers negligible numerical gain while allowing a claim of progress on already-protected federal land.

While international biodiversity frameworks represent a significant global effort to address biodiversity loss, their implementation has prompted thoughtful discussion in Canada and elsewhere about the challenges of translating ambitious global targets into practical, locally responsive action. Observers have pointed to the difficulties of harmonizing one-size-fits-all metrics with sustainable development needs, the risk that numerical goals may sometimes prioritize symbolic reporting over on-the-ground results and the potential for top-down international commitments to limit the flexibility that has allowed proven domestic stewardship models to succeed.

In practice, countries pursuing strict conservation targets have sometimes faced unintended consequences: reduced local economic activity, conflicts with existing land users and administrative burdens that divert resources from actual habitat protection. These aspirations must be weighed carefully against the practical challenges of balancing robust conservation with public access, recreational use and community engagement.

The park is home to 100 species at risk, from the wood turtle to the butternut tree, and while safeguarding them is essential, we should carefully assess whether the current management tools are truly inadequate and if the proposed act achieves this balance without introducing undue complexity. This includes rigid statutory priorities for ecological integrity, exhaustive consultation requirements, expanded regulatory powers and mandatory detailed master plans that could create bureaucratic delays and divert resources from practical on-the-ground conservation.

A closer look at the provisions highlights some potential complexities and additional requirements that should give all legislators pause. For instance, the directive to elevate ecological integrity as the NCC’s paramount priority in park management might seem benign, even virtuous, on the surface. In practice, however, it could risk unintended litigation and decision-making challenges where natural processes and biodiversity could override all other considerations, regardless of cost or common sense.

This points to a second critique: the potential for increased litigation and decision-making challenges. We have already seen this pattern in other Canadian national parks where ecological integrity was statutorily elevated. For example, in Jasper National Park’s Maligne Lake area, a proposed modest commercial development for up to 15 overnight commercial tent cabins by Maligne Tours was challenged in Federal Court after environmental advocacy groups argued it violated the statutory requirement to prioritize ecological integrity as the first consideration. The litigation resulted in prolonged delays, increased costs and uncertainty that ultimately contributed to the project not proceeding, limiting potential public access and local benefits.

The rigid prohibition on reducing the park’s size in the bill, save for rare title disputes under subclause 10.03(2), the reversion subclause that returns misused lands automatically and the enlargement powers via simple Governor-in-Council orders could risk protracted legal battles and administrative gridlock. Every trail adjustment, parking expansion or event permit could become a potential dispute and, perhaps, a court case.

Adding the new subsection 20(1)(1.1) regulatory powers only compounds this risk. The exact wording of the proposed subsection 20(1)(1.1) is as follows:

. . . The Governor in Council may also make regulations respecting

(a) the restriction or prohibition of activities in and the control of the use of Gatineau Park resources and facilities;

(b) the determination of 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; and

(c) the management of ecological integrity of Gatineau Park.

However, the bill also includes additional provisions that add further layers. It mandates a master plan to be developed within 10 years, encompassing a sweeping “. . . long-term ecological vision . . .,” detailed objectives, zoning schemes and an array of performance indicators, all of which must be tabled in Parliament and subjected to decennial reviews.

Far from representing streamlined governance, these provisions could impose an administrative burden that risks diverting resources from tangible conservation to procedural formalities. Imagine the machinery required: endless drafts, revisions, stakeholder wrangling and repeated parliamentary tabling.

While meaningful consultation is necessary, questions remain about whether sufficient engagement took place with all affected parties, particularly residents and private landowners within or adjacent to the park, prior to the drafting of this legislation. Although Bill S-229 now mandates national, regional and local public participation — along with targeted consultations with the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation and adjacent municipalities, such as Chelsea, Pontiac and La Pêche — these provisions do little to remedy earlier gaps and the lack of consultations.

Consultations occurred primarily after the bill was tabled. Private landowners, such as longtime Meech Lake resident Christopher Frank, have publicly expressed frustration that generations of families who have stewarded these lands were not meaningfully engaged. Local media, including The Low Down to Hull and Back, have highlighted concerns that the process was proponent-driven and came too late to address core property rights issues.

Moreover, the detailed boundary delineations in Schedule 2 could inadvertently affect the approximately 296 remaining private holdings, leaving landowners uncertain about the future of their properties and what recourse they may have if affected by park policies or expansions.

As a senator from British Columbia, I have seen the real-world complexities that can arise through legislation such as Bill S-229. With the Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg Nation having filed an Aboriginal title claim in late 2025 that explicitly includes portions of Gatineau Park, Bill S-229’s enhanced Indigenous provisions risk duplicating or complicating ongoing Quebec-Algonquin negotiations and could inadvertently fuel overlapping claims or litigation that slows practical decision making for years.

The bill’s emphasis on Indigenous collaboration is commendable in principle, but it must not duplicate or undermine ongoing negotiations between Quebec and the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation.

Another consideration is the importance of respecting jurisdictional boundaries and the principles of federalism. Gatineau Park lies entirely within the province of Quebec, where constitutional authority over land use planning, natural resource management and property rights primarily resides with the provincial government. While the federal government has a legitimate long-standing role in the National Capital Region through the NCC, Bill S-229’s detailed statutory interventions, including fixed boundaries in Schedule 2, prohibitions on land disposition, mandatory consultation frameworks and expanded regulatory powers, raise important questions about potential federal encroachment into areas traditionally managed through cooperation with provincial and municipal authorities. Municipalities such as Chelsea have had long-standing disputes with the NCC over payments in lieu of taxes for park lands, highlighting tensions in federal-municipal relations.

It is unclear to what extent the Government of Quebec was formally consulted or provided input during the development of this legislation beyond local municipalities. Proper coordination with Quebec is essential to avoid duplicative regulatory burdens or conflicts with provincial environmental and land-use policies.

Senators should examine whether this bill appropriately balances federal stewardship with respect for provincial jurisdiction.

Furthermore, as someone who values public access and inclusivity in natural spaces, I am attentive to how the bill may affect visitor experience. Gatineau Park is an important space for residents and visitors, providing opportunities for outdoor recreation, community gatherings and family engagement. While protecting ecological integrity is important, the bill should ensure that management practices remain flexible and responsive so that the park continues to serve both conservation and public enjoyment objectives.

At committee, when this bill is carefully studied, I urge senators to consider amendments to ensure the park remains inclusive rather than becoming less accessible to the many Canadians who cherish it and the many visitors who may be visiting the iconic park long into the future.

Honourable senators, I recognize the importance of Gatineau Park, its ecological significance and its cultural value.

The National Capital Commission and its predecessors have quietly and effectively managed this cherished park for more than 85 years, acquiring lands, establishing conservation zones, monitoring over 100 at-risk species, maintaining trails while minimizing environmental impact and welcoming millions of people every year under a flexible, balanced model supported by the existing National Capital Act and the regularly updated master plan.

We must, therefore, ask whether introducing additional statutory complexity is truly necessary when the existing framework has been serving and continues to serve Canadians well.

I hope to have given you some questions and food for thought in my initial examination of Bill S-229 at second reading. During committee study at the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, I ask all honourable senators to carefully examine the bill thoroughly and hear from key stakeholders who will be most impacted by this legislation were it to become an act of Parliament.

Thank you.