THE GATINEAU PARK PROTECTION COMMITTEE

LE COMIT POUR LA PROTECTION DU PARC DE LA GATINEAU

The Five Pillars for Gatinea Par! Le"islation# Or $h% C&'(' Fails
)rief on )ill C&'(' An A*t to a+en, the National Ca-ital A*t .Gatinea Par!/ an, to +a!e a relate, a+en,+ent to the De-art+ent of Cana,ian Herita"e A*t Mar*h 01 2340 5ean&Pa l M rra%1 se*retar%

Gatinea Par! Prote*tion Co++ittee

46 Kin"s+ere Roa,1 Chelsea1 7 e8e*1 59) 4R6 Tel:# .;49/ ;26&4;3<= e+ail# GPPC&CPPG>live:*o+

$e8 site# ???:"atinea -ar*:*a

$h% )ill C&'(' Fails

@ ++ar% Introduced on December 10, 2013, Bill C-565 falls short of meeting basic par protection criteria and fails to reflect the consensus on !atineau "ar #1 $ consensus on the par has emerged o%er se%eral decades as a result of public and pri%ate initiati%es, federal-pro%incial agreements, numerous public consultations and parliamentar& debate# It 'as most recentl& e(pressed during the mandate re%ie's of both !atineau "ar and the )CC, as 'ell as before the *enate Committee stud&ing Bill *-210#2 $ccording to that consensus, par legislation must mandate conser%ation and ecological integrit& as top management priorities, enshrine boundaries in legislation and respect +uebec,s territorial integrit&# It must also eliminate pri%ate propert& de%elopment and dedicate !atineau "ar to future generations# In the absence of proper protection, and 'ithout the tools needed to do the -ob properl&, the )CC has allo'ed the par to be urbani.ed, fragmented and ecologicall& imperilled through residential and commercial de%elopment as 'ell as road building# *ince 1//2, 120 ne' houses ha%e been built in the par , along 'ith fi%e ne' roads, 'hile eight s1uare ilometres of its land mass ha%e been remo%ed 'ithout the no'ledge or appro%al of "arliament# Bill C-565 fails to fulfill the ma-orit& of the necessar& par protection criteria, and unless it is amended to pro%ide stronger parliamentar& o%ersight, as suggested in this document, !atineau "ar 'ill continue to suffer 2death b& a thousand cuts3 4 in fact, C-565 'ill accelerate that process# 5ithout a doubt, Bill C-565 is the 'orst legislation e%er tabled on this issue#

6or clear e%idence of that consensus, see Brief Submitted to the NCC Mandate Review Panel, b& the Coalition for )CC 7ene'al, $nne( B, pp# 21-28, 9ctober 2006# 2 *ee Eighth Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, 3/-1, :hursda&, ;une 0, 2000<http=>>'''#parl#gc#ca>3/>1>parlbus>commbus>senate>come>enrg-e>rep-e>rep0?-un00-e#htm@

The Gatinea Par! Prote*tion Co++ittee :he !atineau "ar "rotection Committee <!""C@ is a 'atchdog group 'hich see s to ensure that the public interest pre%ails o%er all other factors in par management# :hrough its %arious campaigns, the Committee has con%inced the )ational Capital Commission <)CC@ to re%ie' its historical interpretation of !atineau "ar and recogni.e its true origins#3 5e ha%e also managed to get parliamentarians from both federal houses to table eight bills to set the par ,s boundaries, pro%ide it 'ith effecti%e land management and guarantee its long-term protection# $s 'ell, the !""C successfull& pressured the )CC to produce the first-e%er technical description of !atineau "ar ,s boundaries 4 those boundaries are included in the schedule to Bill C-565# In 200?, the !""C led the charge in persuading the )CC to stop a 20-house subdi%ision on Carman 7oad inside !atineau "ar 8 and in con%incing the federal go%ernment to adopt 9rder-in-Council "C 200?-1608, 'hich allo's the )CC to ac1uire all par inholdings#5 9n Aarch 20, 200/, 'e inter%ened before +uebec,s $dministrati%e :ribunal, managing to secure rightful federal o'nership of a 61#5 s1uare ilometre patch of land in !atineau "ar # $s a result of our inter%ention, the +uebec Department of ;ustice 'ithdre' its appeal 4 thereb& putting to rest the issue of so-called +uebec lands in the Bac la "Cche sector of !atineau "ar #6

2!atineau "ar %isionar& gets his due= :he )CC is finall& recogni.ing 7oderic "erc& *par s, e& role in preser%ing the capital region,s finest piece of greenspace,3 he !ttawa Citi"en, *aturda&, ;ul& /, 2005, p# D3# 8 2)CC to bu& !atineau "ar propert&= supporters hail mo%e that st&mies planned 1?-home subdi%ision,3 he !ttawa Citi"en, Aa& 22, 200?, pp# C-1, C-6# 5 2)CC cuts out middle man in land purchasesE Bu&ing land in !atineau "ar 'ill no longer be length& process,3 he !ttawa Citi"en, *eptember 30, 200?, p# C2# 6 *ee 25atchdog claims %ictor& in spat o%er portion of !atineau "ar = Disputed land at CF!D" belongs to pro%ince,3 he !ttawa Citi"en, Aarch 22, 200/, p# $5E and G Ba fin d,un mHli-mHlo au lac Ba "CcheI, #e $roit, le 2? mars 200/, p# 22#

5e ha%e also managed to con%ince the )CC to spend o%er J11 million to ac1uire pri%ate lands in !atineau "ar 4 in fulfilment of its repeated Aaster "lan commitments#

The Five Pillars for Gatinea Par! Le"islation Or $h% C&'(' Fails 1@ Kistor& of Begislation 2@ $nal&sis a@ b@ c@ d@ e@ f@ Boundaries Dcological Integrit& :erritorial Integrit& Inholdings 7eport to "arliament Dedication to 6uture !enerations

3@ 6i%e "illars for a !atineau "ar Bill 8@ $mendments

$dditional information on pre%ious !atineau "ar bills0 ma& be found on the follo'ing sites= 1@ Bibrar& of "arliament= '''#parl#gc#ca>BD!I*I)69? 2@ !atineau "ar "rotection Committee 5eb *ite= '''#gatineauparc#ca

C-888 <3?-1@E *-210 <3/-1@E C-311 <3/-1 L 3/-2@E *-220 <3/-2@E *-208 <80-2@E C-360 <80-2 L 80-3@# :he full address= http=>>'''2#parl#gc#ca>sites>lop>legisinfo>inde(#aspM BanguageNDL*essionN23L1uer&N0002LBistNtoc
?

$h% )ill C&'(' Fails 4: Histor% of Le"islation :hough ad%ocated as the first national par for +uebec, !atineau "ar ne%er ac1uired that status and remains the onl& federal par be&ond the direct authorit& of "arliament#/ Contrar& to national par s, its boundaries can change, its land can be sold or transferred, and roads can be built inside it, 'ithout parliamentar& no'ledge or appro%al# :o deal 'ith problems related to the par ,s status, se%eral parliamentarians ha%e tabled legislation in both the *enate and Kouse of Commons o%er the last fe' &ears# Biberals 'ere first to put the issue of !atineau "ar legislation on the floor for discussion in 2008, 'hen !atineau A" Aar $ssad ga%e notice he intended to table a bill to set par boundaries and protect it from de%elopment# Ko'e%er, Ar# $ssad,s bill 'as ne%er introduced, since he retired from "arliament in 2008#10 In 2005, 9tta'a-Centre A" Dd Broadbent introduced Bill C-888 to pro%ide legal boundaries and a land management mechanism for the par , as 'ell as ensure its long-term protection# $nd, in similar mo%es, the Konourable Aira *pi%a of Aanitoba tabled a bill in the *enate on $pril 25, 2006 <*-210@, 'hile "aul De'ar, 'ho replaced Dd Broadbent as A" for 9tta'a-Centre in 2006, tabled similar legislation in the Commons in Aa& 2006 and $pril 200/#11 *enator *pi%a ,s Bill *-210 recei%ed second reading in the *enate on December 13, 2006# It 'as referred to the Dnerg&, Dn%ironment and )atural 7esources Committee, 'here it 'as studied on Aarch 22, 20 and 2/, and on ;une 5 and 0# 5e underline that senior )CC officials supported Bill *-210 'hen the& testified before a *enate committee on Aarch 2/, 200012 4 as did *ierra Club, the Canadian "ar s and 5ilderness *ociet& and the )e' 5oodlands "reser%ation Beague <!""C@#

*ee Bothian 5#6#, % Brief &istory of Canada's National Par(s, Dn%ironment Canada, 1/?0, p# 132# 2"ar changes 'ould go be&ond entrance fees,3 b& Doug 6ischer, !ttawa Citi"en, Aa& 10, 2008, p# B3 11 2A" see s to protect !atineau "ar = )ational par status a possible result of Broadbent initiati%e,3 :he 9tta'a Citi.en, 9ctober 26, 2005, p# C?E 3*enator pushes to preser%e !atineau "ar = Begislation 'ould pre%ent sale of parts of propert&,3 9tta'a Citi.en, ;anuar& 10, 2006, p# B2E 3*enator,s bill 'ould ta e !atineau "ar a'a& from )CC= "lan is to stop selloff of public propert&,3 :he 9tta'a Citi.en, $pril 16, 2006, p# C1E 2A" Kopes "arliament lands role,3 9tta'a *un, Aa& 1/, 2006, p# 16E 2Be parc de la !atineau serait menacH,3 Be Droit, $pril 22, 200?, p# 6E 2)D" A" challenges :ories to use his bill to protect !atineau "ar = "roposed legislation protects area from de%elopers,3 :he 9tta'a Citi.en, $pril 23, 200/# 12 "roceedings of the *tanding *enate Committee on Dnerg&, the Dn%ironment and )atural 7esources, Issue 15 <7eprint@, Aarch 22, 20, 2/, 2000, p# 0?= http=>>'''#parl#gc#ca>3/>1>parlbus>commbus>senate>Com-e>enrg-e>pdf>15issue#pdf
10

9n ;une 0, 2000, Bill *-210 'as reported bac to the *enate 'ith three amendments#13 $lthough the go%ernment had originall& e(pressed support for Bill *-210, it proposed 1? amendments 'hich, if adopted, 'ould ha%e denied "arliament the authorit& to appro%e propert& sales in the par or changes to its boundaries#18 Bill *-210 died on the 9rder "aper 'hen the go%ernment prorogued "arliament in *eptember 2000# Its successors, Bills *-220 and *-208 'ere tabled b& the Kon# Aira *pi%a on 6ebruar& 12, 200? and ;anuar& 20, 200/ respecti%el&# Both bills included amendments made b& the *enate Dn%ironment Committee to Bill *-210, along 'ith a schedule pro%iding a full description of the par ,s 1//0 boundar&# 6ollo'ing ad%ice from the !""C, "aul De'ar incorporated the same changes to his bill, reintroduced as C-360 in the Commons# Bill *-220 died on the 9rder "aper as a result of the 200? federal election, 'hile *-208 and C-360 suffered similar fates 'hen "arliament prorogued in December 200/#15 9n ;une /, 200/, the go%ernment of Canada tabled its o'n long-a'aited !atineau "ar legislation, Bill C-30# Ko'e%er, the Canadian "ar s and 5ilderness *ociet& <C"$5*@ and !atineau "ar "rotection Committee <!""C@ 'ere %er& critical of this measure, sa&ing it fell short of offering !atineau "ar a proper legislati%e frame'or and failed to meet basic par protection criteria#16 C"$5* and the !""C also argued that, unless amended, Bill C-30 'ould allo' boundar& changes, inholding de%elopment and road building to continue impairing !atineau "ar ,s ecological integrit&# In all, 81 amendments 'ere tabled= 18 b& the Conser%ati%es= 18 b& the BlocE ? b& the BiberalsE and 5 b& the )D"#10 :hat the Conser%ati%es had to table one-third of the amendments proposed 4 regarding their o'n bill 4 confirms -ust ho' poorl& designed it 'as# :he speech Conser%ati%e *enator "ierre Claude )olin ga%e on December 18, 200/ brilliantl& sums up the issue= 2*ome people,s first reaction 'ould be to sa& the go%ernment,s position hadn,t been clearl& thought out, but I,m among those more inclined to belie%e the
13

Dighth 7eport of the *enate *tanding Committee on Dnerg&, the Dn%ironment and )atural 7esources, 3/-1, :hursda&, ;une 0, 2000= http=>>'''#parl#gc#ca>3/>1>parlbus>commbus>senate>com-e>enrg-e>repe>rep0?-un00-e#htm# 18 2Don,t ban !atineau "ar land sales= CannonE Ainister sa&s *enate bill ties )CC,s handsE sell-offs fl& in face of Omaster plan,, critic sa&s,3 9tta'a Citi.en, ;ul& 13, 2000, pp# 61 and 60# 15 http=>>'''#parl#gc#ca>BD!I*I)69#
16

;ohansen, Da%id, Bill C-30= %n %ction Plan for the National Capital Commission, Begislati%e *ummar& B*-68/D, Bibrar& of "arliament, Begislati%e $ffairs Di%ision, 23 ;une 200/, pp#10-12E G "ro-et de loi C-30 portant sur l,a%enir du parc de la !atineau = les groupes Hcolos promettent de rHagir I, #e $roit, $ugust 25, 200/, p# /# 10 G Boi sur la CC) = Be pro-et de Cannon fortement re%u I, par "atrice !audreault, #e $roit, 23 dHcembre 200/#

committee process sho'ed the go%ernment -ust ho' badl& ma-or changes are needed#31? Bill C-30 also died on the 9rder "aper as a result of the December 200/ prorogation# $lthough more than 80 amendments had been proposed in committee, the go%ernment reintroduced an almost identical measure, Bill C-20, on $pril 30, 2010# It also died on the 9rder "aper 'ithout ha%ing been debated 'hen a federal election 'as called in 2011# 9n )o%ember ?, 2012, Kull-$&lmer )D" A" )&cole :urmel introduced Bill C-865, 'hich the !""C condemned for encouraging residential de%elopment inside the par , failing to protect its boundaries ade1uatel&, ignoring issues related to +uebec,s territorial integrit&, and creating confusion 'ithin the )ational Capital $ct#1/ As# :urmel,s measure 'as 'ithdra'n and reintroduced as Bill C-565 on December 10th for technical reasons# It remains as fundamentall& fla'ed as C-865# 2: Anal%sis 9%er the last decades, a consensus has emerged on !atineau "ar as a result of public and pri%ate initiati%es, federal-pro%incial agreements, )CC planning and consultation efforts and parliamentar& debate# $nd it,s no' generall& felt that par legislation must meet basic criteria to be reliable and effecti%e#20 Aoreo%er, opinion polls published a fe' &ears ago lend strong support to this consensus# 6or instance, an online poll conducted b& #e $roit in $pril 200/ found that ?6P of respondents 'anted the federal go%ernment to gi%e !atineau "ar legislati%e protection# $s 'ell, in 2006, a Decima-!ttawa Citi"en poll confirmed that ?2P of the population 'anted !atineau "ar to become a national par #21 $ccording to this consensus, !atineau "ar legislation should at the %er& least mandate conser%ation and ecological integrit& as a top priorit&, enshrine boundaries, eliminate pri%ate propert& de%elopment, and dedicate the par to future generations# $nd gi%en the precedent established b& the )ational "ar s $ct <)"$@, an& federal legislation to protect the par should respect the -urisdictions, sensibilities and territorial integrit& of the pro%ince#
1?

*enate Debates, December 18, 200/, p# 2062= http=>>'''#parl#gc#ca>80>2>parlbus>chambus>senate>debe>pdf>0?2dbQ200/-12-18-D#pdf#

1/

26la'ed )D" !atineau "ar Bill Aust be $mended,3 http=>>otta'astart#com>stor&>1?3?2#php# *ee also= 2:he )D",s !atineau "ar Bill is a Begislati%e :rain 5rec 3= http=>>otta'astart#com>stor&>22012#php, and G "arc de la !atineau= Be pro-et de loi de :urmel, un Gfouillis lHgislatifI, http=>>'''#lapresse#ca>ledroit>politi1ue>201312>12>01-80203?5-parc-de-la-gatineau-le-pro-et-de-loi-de-turmel-un-fouillislegislatif#phpMutmQsourceNdl%r#itLutmQmediumNt'itter# 20 Brief Submitted to the NCC Mandate Review Panel, b& the Coalition for )CC 7ene'al, $nne( B, pp# 21-28, 9ctober 2006# 21 G Be gou%ernement fHdHral de%rait-il lHgifHrer pour protHger le parc de la !atineau M I #e $roit, le 28 a%ril 200/, p# 8E 2Aost for nationali.ing !atineau "ar ,3 he !ttawa Citi"en, Aarch 20, 2006, p# C3#

5e underline that the consensus on !atineau "ar is supported b& e(pert opinion arguing that protecti%e par legislation in general must meet basic criteria#22 Careful anal&sis of Bill C-565 re%eals its 'oeful inade1uac& in meeting such criteria and its failure to faithfull& reflect the consensus on !atineau "ar # :he bill fails to enshrine par boundaries properl& b& ensuring the& can onl& be changed b& act of "arliament, pro%ides no mechanism for public consultation, completel& ignores the issue of +uebec,s territorial integrit&, and falls short of ma ing conser%ation the first priorit& of par management, 'hich is a cornerstone of the )ational "ar s $ct and a re1uirement en%ironmentalists insist is necessar& Rnless properl& amended, Bill C-565 'ill encourage pri%ate propert& de%elopment to continue impairing the ecological integrit& of !atineau "ar # It 'ill also allo' the federal go%ernment to change par boundaries 'ithout consulting +uebec or "arliament# :he follo'ing sections pro%ide a more detailed re%ie' of the issues legislation must address to offer !atineau "ar the protection it deser%es, and ho' Bill C-565 fails on almost e%er& count# a/ )o n,aries Bill C-565 does not pro%ide !atineau "ar 'ith properl& enshrined boundaries# $lthough the schedule to the bill describes those boundaries, Clause 6 onl& sa&s that 2the Commission must not modif& !atineau "ar ,s boundaries as described in *chedule 2 or reduce its area#3 :his 'ould allo' the boundaries to be amended b& e(ecuti%e order 'ithout an& parliamentar& o%ersight or debate, offering far 'ea er protection than does the )ational "ar s $ct <)"$@# 5e feel this to be totall& unacceptable# In the absence of parliamentar& o%ersight, the )CC has made se%eral significant changes to !atineau "ar boundaries in recent &ears# 6or instance, as a result of boundar& 2rationali.ation3 in the 1//0s 4 as 'ell as ma-or road building 4 the )CC furti%el& remo%ed 1,?82 acres from the par , or eight s1uare ilometres#23 5hen pressed b& parliamentarians to e(plain ho' it had done this, the agenc& ga%e se%eral contradictor& and misleading e(planations 4 prompting a senator to raise a 1uestion of pri%ilege in the *enate on )o%ember 22, 2005#28
22

*ee Bo&d, Da%id 7#, )ild by #aw* % Report Card on #aws +overning Canada's Par(s and Protected %reas, and a Blueprint for Ma(ing these #aws more Effective, "olis "ro-ect on Dcological !o%ernance, Rni%ersit& of Sictoria, Aa& 2002, http=>>'''#polispro-ect#org>node>3?E and *ierra Club of Canada, Bill S,-./* % Reasonable Statutory 0ramewor( to Protect +atineau Par(, brief submitted b& the to the *enate *tanding Committee on Dnerg&, the Dn%ironment and )atural 7esources, Aarch 20, 2000# 23 Kouse of Commons, Sessional Paper no# ?555-3?1-208, )o%ember 18, 2005# $dditional information obtained from the )CC,s Intergo%ernmental 7elations Branch on $ugust 2, 2006# 28 Senate $ebates, )o%ember 22, 2005, pp# 2132-2138#

:he onl& 'a& to eliminate confusion, ensure transparenc& and limit the li elihood a future go%ernment 'ill attempt to cut off some part of the par for shortterm political ob-ecti%es is to submit an& proposed boundar& changes to full public scrutin& and debate in "arliament# ;ust li e 'e do for national par s# In the case of national par s, onl& an act of "arliament can change boundaries to reduce the si.e of a par # *ection 5#<3@of the )"$ sa&s that no amendment ma& be made b& the !o%ernor in Council to remo%e an& portion of a par # 8/ E*olo"i*al Inte"rit% Canada,s )ational "ar s are go%erned b& the "ar s $ct of 2000, 'hich stipulates that conser%ation and restoration of ecological integrit& are the first priorities of par management# :he $ct is considered 2the gold standard3 both nationall& and internationall& for the protection it gi%es par s#25 *ection 2 of the )"$ defines 2ecological integrit&3 as characteristics of a natural region that are li el& to persist, including nati%e species and biological communities, as 'ell as natural processes li e 'eather, 'ater flo', temperature, etc# Rnfortunatel& Bill C-565 falls short of reaching the gold standard set b& the )"$# Instead of ma ing the ecological integrit& of all !atineau "ar lands the first priorit&, Bill C-565 onl& re1uires that the )CC 2protect !atineau "ar ,s natural biodi%ersit&, as 'ell as its underl&ing ecological structure and en%ironmental processes3 <Clause 2@# :his 'ording conflicts 'ith the )CC,s latest master plan for the par , 'hich clearl& establishes ecological integrit& as its primar& goal# 26 5ill 2protect natural biodi%ersit&3 e%er pro%e as effecti%e as a 2top management priorit&3 'hen it comes to safeguarding !atineau "ar ,s ecological integrit&M If the past is an& indication of the future, then the ans'er is most li el& no# */ Territorial Inte"rit% 7espect for territorial integrit& presupposes that the federal go%ernment 'ill obtain pro%incial consent before ma ing an& changes to the boundaries of a par submitted to its specific authorit&, as in the case of !atineau "ar # Rnfortunatel&, Bill C-20 completel& ignores the issue# $lthough +uebec,s territorial integrit& refers primaril& to the pro%ince,s e(ternal boundaries 'ith Canadian pro%inces or $merican states, it also applies to internal boundaries, gi%en the presence of land parcels under federal -urisdiction# *uch lands
25

he +ood, the Bad and the 1gly* the State of Canada's Par(s, Canadian "ar s and 5ilderness *ociet&, 9tta'a, 200/, p# 11# 26 :he preamble to the -//2 Master Plan for !atineau "ar pro%ides a succinct e(pression of the )CC,s commitment to this principle#

10

include airports, militar& and communications installations, nati%e reser%es, public ports and harbours as 'ell as national par s# *trictl& spea ing, those lands are submitted to broader federal -urisdiction than lands in the remainder of the pro%ince#20 Aoreo%er, it,s often difficult to monitor changes made to internal boundaries, since the& tend to lac clear demarcation and fluctuate more easil& than federalpro%incial boundaries, 'hich are enshrined in legal documents#2? $ccordingl&, mandating pro%incial participation in boundar& changes to e(pand the par 'ould secure greater transparenc&, guarantee more open public discussions and solidif& federal-pro%incial relations# :here is one notable area 'here the federal go%ernment respects the internal dimension of territorial integrit&= national par s# *ection 5<1@<b@ of the )"$ stipulates that no changes 'ill be made to boundaries for the purposes of enlarging a par , unless the go%ernment of the pro%ince in%ol%ed has agreed# Bill C-565 completel& ignores this issue, and it should be amended accordingl&, not onl& to respect territorial integrit&, but also to help the )CC implement its polic& of maintaining strong ties 'ith its pro%incial partners# 5ithout such an amendment, the pro%ince of +uebec 'ill oppose Bill C-565# ,/ Inhol,in"s :here is a 'idel& held %ie' throughout )orth $merica that pri%ate propert& inholdings are detrimental to the public purpose of par s, since the& create gaping holes that shatter par integrit& and continuit&, ma ing it difficult to protect 'ildlife, as 'ell as natural and cultural resources# 2/ 5e underline that all !atineau "ar Aaster "lans e(press the same %ie'#30 :hough inholdings ma e up onl& t'o percent of !atineau "ar 4 i#e#, some 300 properties co%ering about 2,100 acres31 4 the handicap the& impose and the problems the& cause are 'a& out of proportion 'ith their si.e# $s a general rule, the& cluster around the par ,s strategic locations and prime scenic and cultural attractions li e Aeech and Tingsmere la es, seriousl& impeding public access and en-o&ment of those sites# Inholdings also create other problems that include the construction of access roads, land subdi%isions, fragmentation and damage
20

*ee G Ba notion d,intHgritH territoriale et les problUmes des rHgions frontiUres du +uHbec I, Kenri Dorion et ;ean-"aul Bacasse, in G Cahiers de gHographie du +uHbec I, %ol# 1?, nV 83, 1/08, pp# 130-15?# 2? ;ohn 7obert Sictor "rescott, Boundaries and 0rontiers, :a&lor and 6rancis, Bondon, 1/0?, p# 160# 2/ *ee )ational "ar s Conser%ation $ssociation, %merica's &eritage for Sale* a #ac( of 0ederal 0unds hreatens #oss of Significant National Par(lands, 5ashington, D#C#, $pril 200?E and Canadian "ar s and 5ilderness *ociet& )ilderness %dvocate, 9tta'a Salle& Chapter ne'sletter, spring 200/, p# 2# 30 )e' 5oodlands "reser%ation Beague, 3bid#, pp# /-15# 31 ;ohansen, Da%id, #and Management 3ssues in National Par(s and the +atineau Par(, Bibrar& of "arliament, "arliamentar& Information and 7esearch *er%ice, 22 Aarch 2005#

11

to habitat, inholder efforts to pre%ent the building of par facilities near their land, conflicts bet'een o'ners and %isitors, etc#32 $nd the situation 'ill onl& get 'orse o%er time as more people 'ant greater access to their par , and begin to e(press frustration o%er being cro'ded out b& residential inholdings# :he cost of ac1uiring these pri%ate properties 'ill escalate, as the )CC continues to allo' construction and gentrification along the la es and other scenic and cultural locations# $t present, the estimated cost of ac1uiring all those properties is, according to our calculations, about J31 million#33 5hat 'ill it be ten &ears from no'M Aoreo%er, in the absence of a proper land management mechanism, the )CC has allo'ed the building of 120 ne' houses in !atineau "ar since 1//2# $dd to this fi%e ne' roads built in %iolation of master plans, and the need for stronger parliamentar& o%ersight becomes e%en more urgent#38 In 200?, the proposed Carman 7oad de%elopment and the mudd&ing of Aeech Ba e illustrated the e(tent of this problem#35 Aore recentl&, massi%e construction in the par , and %iolation of shoreline protection b&la's perpetrated b& 80P of Aeech Ba e residents, testif& to the urgent need for comprehensi%e legislation to protect the par #36 Rnfortunatel&, Bill C-565 creates a great deal of confusion on this issue# 9n the one hand, it sa&s that the )CC,s ob-ecti%e is to 2ac1uire the real propert& situated in !atineau "ar ,3 'hile, on the other, it stipulates that the 2Commission ma& not, in pursuing its ob-ecti%es, infringe upon the propert& rights attached to an& real propert& WXY 'ithin !atineau "ar #3 :his latter amendment, in Clause 3 of C-565, contradicts section 18 of the )ational Capital $ct <)C$@, 'hich stipulates that the )CC can resort to e(propriation of pri%ate lands 'hene%er it becomes necessar& for the purposes of its mandate# Kad Bill C-565 been properl& drafted, this issue 'ould ha%e been addressed one 'a& or the other, i#e#, either section 18 of the )C$ 'ould ha%e been remo%ed, or the

32

6or a thorough discussion on this, see +eneral Report of the Par(way Subcommittee for the +atineau Par(, Part 3, $d%isor& Committee on !atineau "ar , 6ederal District Commission, 9tta'a, December 1/53, pp# 22-23E and *tatement of !eorge B# Kart.og, ;r, Director, )ational "ar *er%ice, Department of the Interior, before the *ubcommittee on "ar s and 7ecreation of the Kouse Interior and Insular $ffairs Committee, ;anuar& 1?, 1/6?, http=>>'''#archi%e#org>stream>nationalpar s00hartrich>nationalpar s00hartrichQd-%u#t(t# 33 2)CC Aisrepresents Cost of Bu&ing "ri%ate Bands in !atineau "ar 3= http=>>otta'astart#com>stor&>1?001#phpE G Ba CC) achUte des terrains I, #e $roit, le 22 mai 200?, p# 11# 38 6or more details on these de%elopments, see Bill S,-./* a Compromise $esigned to Protect +atineau Par(, brief submitted to the *enate Committee on Dnerg&, the Dn%ironment and )atural 7esources, )e' 5oodlands "reser%ation Beague, Aarch 22, 2000, pp# 8-6= http=>>'''#gatineauparc#ca>documentsQen#html# 35 *ee 2)CC to bu& !atineau "ar propert&3, he !ttawa Citi"en, Aa& 22, 200?, pp# C-1, C-6E 2!roup fears ne' homes are mudd&ing Aeech,3 he !ttawa Citi"en, ;ul& 2/, 200?, p# C-1# 36 2Chipping $'a& at !atineau "ar ,3 b& Aohammed $dam, he !ttawa Citi"en, ;une 1?, 2012E 2Inspection des berges du lac Aeech, rapport prHliminaire, AunicipalitH de Chelsea, HtH 2013= http=>>'''#scribd#com>doc>20/183003>Aeech-7apport-A7C-130-0/

12

bill,s Clause 3 stipulation regarding infringement on propert& rights 'ould ha%e ne%er be 'ritten into it# Dntrenching pri%ate propert& rights in a public par , as does Bill C-565, is a dangerous precedent and a recipe for disaster# It 'ould allo' large land o'ners to subdi%ide and de%elop properties inside the par , in direct contradiction to the par ,s public and ecological mandate 4 not to mention e%er& planning document e%er 'ritten on the sub-ect# 5e belie%e this clause of As# :urmel,s bill 'ould be a death sentence for the par , since it 'ould strip the )CC of po'er to stop construction of 100-house subdi%isions on an& of the %arious large pri%ate lands remaining in the par # $ccordingl&, this part of Clause 3 must be deleted# e/ Re-ort to Parlia+ent :o ensure accountabilit&, transparenc& and sound management, legislation should re1uire the go%ernment to report to "arliament on its !atineau "ar acti%ities, in particular on its ecological integrit& protection efforts and real propert& ac1uisitions# Rnfortunatel&, Bill C-565 ma es no pro%ision for rigorous reporting to "arliament# $lthough the )CC alread& submits an annual report, it has remo%ed huge parcels of land from the par and changed its boundaries 'ithout properl& informing parliamentarians in those reports# 5e underline that e%en the Conser%ati%e go%ernment agreed 'ith this principle, tabling an amendment to its o'n Bill C-20 to ensure proper report to "arliament on propert& ac1uisitions# f/ De,i*ation to F t re Generations :here is a 'idel& held %ie' among legal e(perts that dedicating par s to future generations 2creates a trust-li e obligation upon the go%ernment to manage par s in a manner that maintains their ecological integrit&#330 $gain, the )"$ sets the gold standard in this regard, since *ection 8#<1@ dedicates national par s to the people of Canada for their 2benefit, education and en-o&ment,3 stipulating that the& must be used, maintained and left unimpaired for the en-o&ment of future generations# Bill C-565 does include a dedication clause 4 the onl& e& par protection criteria it fulfills#

30

Bo&d, 3bid#, p# 5#

13

<: Five Pillars for a Gatinea Par! )ill :o full& address the problems facing !atineau "ar 4 fragmentation, urbani.ation and ecological impairment 4 par legislation should respect the fi%e criteria listed belo' 'hich represent the broad consensus on the issue# i/ Dedicate the par to the people of Canada for their education and en-o&ment, mandating that it be maintained and used so that it be left unimpaired for the en-o&ment of future generations# ii/ Aa e the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrit&, through protection of natural resources and natural processes, the first priorit& in all aspects of !atineau "ar management iii/ "ro%ide legislated boundaries for !atineau "ar # Changes to reduce the si.e of the par must be appro%ed b& $ct of "arliament, 'hile changes to e(pand the par must be made onl& 'ith appro%al from the +uebec go%ernment to ensure respect for the pro%ince,s territorial integrit&# iv/ "re%ent remo%al of an& land from !atineau "ar b& 9rder in Council or other administrati%e means# "roperties must onl& be remo%ed from the par through $ct of "arliament 4 in the spirit of protection gi%en national par s since passage of the 1/30 )ational "ar s $ct# v/ "rohibit ne' residential construction, and e1uip the )CC to further its master plan obligation to ac1uire all !atineau "ar inholdings# In our %ie', the best approach for doing this 'ould be b& gi%ing the )CC right of first refusal o%er an& propert& sales>subdi%isions, etc#

18

0: A+en,+ents to )ill C&'(' :o meet the fi%e criteria listed abo%e, and to better reflect the consensus on the issue, Bill C-565 must include the amendments listed belo'# :hose amendments reflect the letter and intention of !atineau "ar Bills *-220, *-208, C-311 and C-360# In fact, these amendments are completel& consistent 'ith all pri%ate members, bills tabled b& )D" members of parliament prior to C-565# $ccordingl&, that bill should be amended as follo's# Private Pro-ert% Ri"hts 4: :hat Bill C-565, in Clause 3, be amended b& deleting lines 3 to 0 on page 8# P 8li* Use an, E*olo"i*al Inte"rit% Cla se 2: :hat Bill C-565, in Clause 3, be amended b& adding after line 16 on page 5 the follo'ing= <3@ Aaintenance or restoration of ecological integrit&, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priorit& of the Commission 'hen considering all aspects of the management of !atineau "ar # )o n,ariesATerritorial Inte"rit% <: :hat Bill C-565, in Clause 8, be amended b& replacing lines 2? to 30 on page 8 'ith the follo'ing= 4':4 *ub-ect to this section and section 15#2, the !o%ernor in Council ma&, b& order, for the purpose of enlarging !atineau "ar , amend *chedule 2 to change the boundaries of the par if <a@ agreement has been reached bet'een the !o%ernments of Canada and +uebecE and <b@ the public has been consulted# <2@ Before an amendment is made to *chedule 2, the proposed amendment shall be tabled in each Kouse of "arliament, and an amendment so tabled ma& be referred to the standing committee of each Kouse that normall& considers matters relating to par s# <3@ :he committee to 'hich a proposed amendment is referred ma&, 'ithin 30 sitting da&s after the amendment is tabled, report to the Kouse that it disappro%es the amendment, in 'hich case a motion to concur in the report shall be put to the Kouse in accordance 'ith its procedures#

15

<8@ $n order ma& be made if no report disappro%ing the amendment has been proposed in either Kouse or if, in respect of each report that has been proposed, a motion to concur in the report has been proposed in the Kouse and has been re-ected# 4':2 :he !o%ernor in Council ma& ma e no amendment to *chedule 2 for the purpose of remo%ing an& portion of !atineau "ar #3 P 8li* an, Provin*ial Parti*i-ation 0: :hat Bill C-565, be amended b& adding at the appropriate place the follo'ing= "RBBIC "$7:ICI"$:I9) <1@ :he Ainister shall pro%ide opportunities for public participation at the national, regional and local le%els in the de%elopment of policies and management plans for !atineau "ar and in an& other matters that the Ainister considers rele%ant# <2@ In carr&ing out his or her functions under subsection <1@, the Ainister shall consult 'ith the !o%ernment of +uebec#3 Prohi8itin" @ale or Dis-osal of Gatinea Par! Lan,s1 Ri"ht of First Ref sal :hat Bill C-565, in Clause 8, be amended b& deleting lines 1/ and 20 on page 8 and replacing them 'ith the follo'ing= 4<:2 <1@ )o person shall sell or other'ise dispose of real propert& situated in !atineau "ar to an&one other than the Commission unless the person has gi%en the right of first refusal to the Commission b& submitting to the Commission an unconditional offer for sale of the propert& at fair mar et %alue, and <a@ the person has recei%ed 'ritten confirmation from the Commission that it declines the offerE or <b@ the Commission has not accepted the offer 'ithin 60 da&s after recei%ing it# <2@ $n& purported sale or disposition of real propert& in contra%ention of subsection <1@ is null and %oid# <3@ :his section does not appl& to the sale or disposition of real propert& pursuant to a contract in 'riting entered into before this section comes into force# 4<:< Despite an& other pro%ision of this $ct, no public lands situated in !atineau "ar shall be sold or other'ise disposed of# Re-ort to Parlia+ent

16

(: :hat Bill C-565 be amended b& adding after line 30 on page 8 the follo'ing= :he $ct is amended b& adding the follo'ing after section 22= 22:4: :he annual report that the Commission is re1uired to submit under section 150 of the 0inancial %dministration %ct must include information respecting the Commission,s acti%ities 'ith regard to !atineau "ar and the !reenbelt, including the ac1uisition b& the Commission of real propert& located in the !reenbelt or an immo%able located in !atineau "ar #

10