Is Gatineau Park Legislation Necessary

8/10/2019 Is Gatineau Park Legislation Necessary

1/26

Canada

February 16, 2007

O ur file:

A-2006/07-059

Mr. Jean-Paul Murray

17 Kingsmere Road

Chelsea, Quebec

J9B lR7

Dear Mr. Murray:

This is further to your request pursuant to the Access to Information Act (the Act) for the

terms of reference and preliminary report of the committee set up to examine options for

creating a regulatory or legislative framework for Gatineau Park. Your request was received

on January 19, 2007.

You will find enclosed a copy of the requested records. When you examine the documents

you will note some areas where information was removed and replaced with the notations

23, 21(1)(a)

&

(b) . These notations refer to the provisions ofthe

Act

that authorize the

Commission to exempt this type of information. Copies of the relevant provisions of the

Act

are enclosed for your convenience.

This completes the processing of your request. You are entitled to file a complaint with the

Information Commissioner of Canada within the next 60 days of this notice regarding the

processing of your request. If you decide to do so, your notice of complaint should be

addressed to the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, Place de Ville,

Tower B, 112 Kent Street, 22nd floor, Ottawa, Ontario, KIA IH3.

Should you have any questions about the processing of your request, please do not hesitate to

communicate with the undersigned at 613-239-5198.

Yours sincerely,

;

. .

~,.

Gilles Gaignery

Coordinator,

Access to Information and Privacy

Encl.

National Capital Commission Commission de la capita le nation ale

202-40

E lg in S tree t, O t t a w a, C a na da K 1P 1 C7

40,

ru e E lg in, p iec e

202,

Ot taw a , C a na d a K 1P 1C 7

w ww .c a na da scap ital.gc .ca w w w . c a pi t ale duc a n ad a.gc .ca


2/26

Section

23-Solicitor-client privilege

23. The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested

under this Act that contains information that is subject to solicitor-client privilege.

1980-81-82-83, c. 111, Sch. 1 23 .


3/26

ccess to nformation

ct

2 (1) The head of a government

institution may refuse to disclose any

record requested under this Act that

contains

a advice or recommendations

developed by or for a government

institution or a minister of the Crown,

b an account of consultations or

deliberations involving officers or

employees of a government institution,

a minister of the Crown or the staff of a

minister of the Crown,

c

positions or plans developed for the

purpose of negotiations carried on or to

be carried on by or on behalf of the

Government of Canada and

considerations relating thereto, or

d plans relating to the management of

personnel or the administration of a

government institution that have not yet

been put into operation,

if the record came into existence less than

twenty years prior to the request.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in

respect of a record that contains

a

an account of, or a statement of

reasons for, a decision that is made in

the exercise of a discretionary power or

an adjudicative function and that affects

the rights of a person; or

b

a report prepared by a consultant or

an adviser who was not, at the time the

report was prepared, an officer or

employee of a government institution or

a member of the staff of a minister of

the Crown.


4/26

,

..

. : - '.

Annexe B - Gabarit d'enonce des besoins

National Caoital

Commission

Com ;s::;ion

de la capitale nationale Canada

Iuformation relative

a

l'initiative

\om:

Protection realemcntaire et lesale du arc de la Gatineau

Chef C~ projet :

A discuter

Gestior.naire de

En fonction de la structure d e p ro je t a discuter

Dales c.; projet

2005 - 2006

(anorobarion eeN

voir

etape 6 dans Principaux jaions : mars 2006 et

Mise

en

C:U\Te

20

~ de cossier :

GPIOOO-35

But

Icenrifier les options pour arneliorer les a u to ri te s l eg a le s et reglernentaires de la CCN afin dassurer la protectio

ecosysternes et de leurs composantes a i n s i que de p o u v o i r exercer un conrrole approprie des activites h u m a i n e s

m a n i e r e a assurer la protection optimale d u pare dans I i m m e d i a t et pour les generations futures.

Objectifs

1. Identifier les outils reglernentaires et legaux dont dispose acruellement la Commission et en documenter .

1'application, la portee et les lirnites.

2. Identifier les secteurs ou des autorites supplernentaires sont necessaires ou souhaitables pour perrnertre

la realisation du mandat de protection du pare pour lequella Commission sest

engagee.

3. Identifier les options administratives, reg lementaires et / ou legales qui s ' offrent

a

la Commission en identifi

avantages et les contraintes de ces options

4. Associer des experts, ainsi que les groupes dmteret qui ont rnanifeste leurs preoccupations pour le sujet. et

particulierernent dans la poursuite des objectifs 2 et 3.

Contexte

Suite

a

lentree en vigueur du plan directeur (revise) le 4 mai 2005, la Commission a pris l'engagement que dan

l':mm e qui suivra l'approbation

d u

plan directeur elle procedera

aux etapes necessaires pour identifier les op

potentielles pour ameliorer I autorite de la CCNSllr tous les aspects du Pare afin de preserver saperennite ets

mission pour taus les canadiens et les generations futures. (Re( Plan dirccteursection 5,3.6. page 28)

Cene proposition est parmi les quelquesunes qui ont un echeancier identifie au plan directeur. Cet engagement

reitere.par le Conseil d'adrninistration de la Commission lors de la rencontre avec les groupes d'interets en mai

i,

RELEASED under

A T IA / D IV U L G U E

en

vertu

L A I

repare par Jean-Rcn,; Doyon, ebauchc 1. 21 juin 1005


5/26

.l,.iustement aux Prorocoies d'~nrente 2005-2006.

-7 Nous recommandons que ce

projet

fosse I objet

cl

un amendement aux Protocoles d entente de I annee co urcnte

t)

i .ies direction touchees par cette initiative et cue loojeciif suivant sci: ajoute :

.( Prodder aux etapes necessaires pour identifier les options potentielles pour ameliorer I auto rite de la CCV

tous les aspects du Pare afin de preserver sa perennite et sa mission pour tous les canadiens et les generations

:::ec: implique que des ressources additionnelles devront vraisernblablernent erre consennes ou reallouees de la p

Services juridiques

et

des Directions des Communications ciu marketing et des relations

exterieures,

de la

D ir e c ti

; E n viro n n e m e n t

et des tern ins et des

p a res

de la

C a pi ta te

amsi que de la Direction de I' Amenagernent cie la can

de 12 . gestion de limrnobilier.

Estimation d'ordre de grandeur des couts

Aucun budget ou provision n existe pour la conduite de ce

projet.

Une evaluation

preliminaire

des res sources s

Cf e ies ressources suivant es seront necessaires pour la realisation de cette initiative.

o Ressources liumaines

o Expert/s) conseil ?

.0 Consultation et communication

A Discuter

Principaux jalons

(etapes)

Principales etapes du projet :

I, Documentation et analyse des autorites existantes, leurs champs dapplication ainsi que leurs limites ou

contraintes

2. Identification des protection additionnelles requises et souhaitables pour la protection

c l

long terrne d

pare (qualification de c~s

protections additionnelles

)

; a \ \

)(0..) ~ b)

3.

Identifications des omions qui soffrent

a

la Commission pour l'obtention des ces

protections

additionnelles .

4. Validation interne des options

5 .

Consultation externe

6 .

Plan de mise en ceuvre

(approbation par la

eCN)

7.

Communication du plan

d'action

8 .

Mise en ceuvre

2

Preparr par J~an-Rcn : Doyen, ebauche 2. 21 juin 200S

RELEASED under

ATIA / DIVULGUE

en

vertu LA I

0 0 0 0 0 .

..


6/26

C.llendrier preiiminaire de realisation. (:1discuter pour eventuellernent l'inclure dans I'enonce de projet)

.I uillet - Aout

o Planification et mise en place des ressourees

(inclu:lnt formauon

de le q u i pe , e ch e a n c ier d e fi m n f, erapes

duproje

Septernbre - Novernhre

o Les deux premieres etapes pourraient etre rnenees en parallele et devraient pouvoir erre realisees en :2

cornpter de septembre 2005.

(rl.uroriuis e:r:iSlQnles.LiSle des Drolecllons addilionnelles)

)iovembre - Decernbre

o La troisierne et quarnerne etape seront realisees

(Ontions. et Validarion interne)

I Janvier - Fevr ier

I : : En fevrier on pourrait envisager une consultation cublioue. A not er que les gro upes d interet seront

. associes aLL Cetapes 1,::.3 lors de fa realisation de ces phases.

Mars - Avril

o L etape 6 se terrninera par 1'approbation du scenario rete'nu (CHD, CeN)

, :Y I:ii

o Etape 7,

(Communicarion

du olan)

2006 et ..:..

C Etapes S, (Mise en O?Uvrej

Intervenants externes a consulter etJ ou a associer )}a la demarche:

o' '.'CPAWS, CREDDO, Pares C~riada, Environnement Canada, Gouvernement du Qu

caucus regional, ... (Autres

?)

.-\ prendre en consideration:

o Rapport detape vraisemblablernent lors de lassemblee generate annuelle de la CC

(automne 2005)

o

Retraite strategique et plan denrreprise

Les risques (preliminaires)

o L'echeancier serre (vs l'engagement pris)

o La

disponibilite

des ressources specialisees requises (internes et extemes)

o

Les exigencesdu calendrier pour les phases de consultations (interne etexterne)

o Les artentes et les agendas des groupes de pressions (proposition externe d'imposition dun starut

. juridique)

3

P r~ p:lre p a r Jean-Bene Doyon, cb;auche::. Z 1 juin Z O O S

RELEASED under

ATIA

I

DIVULGUE

en vertu

LA


7/26

-------,-_. , .

Services juridiques :

o Responsables des etapes 1 (..Juror/res ssusuuss . 3 ( Ontions ) et appui j1'etane 4 ( Vaildarlon

u us in s en plus d etre associe itoutes les autres eta pes et

d'

assurer la presentation du

conten

technique

de la deCISIOn aupres du CHD.

CCN

et derre en appui lors des consultations puoli

des possibles breffages techniques a L L ' < . medias,

o Responsable de letane S (mise e. ()ellvre) (si sagrt daller chercher des autorites adminisrrat

reglernentaires ou legaies)

Direction des Comrnu?i:~tions_

du

marketin.g et des relations exterie,ulres. ., .

o Appui a 1 etape ;) de i( Consll/[crlon

t?. Clerne

J) en plus d assister cans les consultations specia

en cours d' elaboration

I

o Communication avec les medias en cours de projet et a I 'etape 7 lors de

la

Commllnicc.rzon

d

d aclion retenu par la CCN

Direction de I'amenagernent de la Capitale et de la gestion de l'imrnobilier et

Direction de l'environnement. des terrains et des parcs de la Capit::del

o Gestion du projet

(a

discuter)

o Responsable de l '

etape

2, Id em in ea rio n d es DrOl ec r io n s add il io nne lles

o Appui et suivi aux autres etanes

rre(l~r,;

par .Jean-Rcne Doyon, ebauche 2.

juin ~005

RELEASED under

ATIA / DIVULGU't

en vertu

L A I


8/26

April 7, 2006

Legal Protection of Gatineau Park:

Is legislation necessarv?

1. Tntroduction

The

:W05

Gatineau Park Master Plan approved by the National Capital Commission (the NCC)

proposes a new long-term vision for the park that emphasizes conservation of all key natural

areas and ecosystems, consistent with the policies of the Plan for Canada's Capital for the Park.

The 2005 Master Plan notes that recreational activities will continue to be an important vocation

of Gatineau Park, but will be guided by the new conservation focus contained in the Master Plan.

.

. .

The ~CC is committed to implementing the principles for Gatineau Park set out in the 2005

Master Plan.

Z3,

2~ \) o.).

(b)

As a result, the 2005 Master Plan states that within a

year of the approval of the Plan, the NCe will take the necessary steps to identify the potential

options to enhance its authority over all the aspects of the Park and the activities taking place

within [it], in a way that will provide for the long-term protection and integrity of the Park's

boundary and ecosystems. .

2,3

At the same time that the Nee is working to refine and make concrete its vision for Gatineau

Park, environmental groups are lobbying individual Parliamentarians to introduce bills that

propose new legislative measures with 'respect to Gatineau Park. These groups believe that the

NCe is not committed to preventing fragmentation of Gatineau Park and urban encroachment on

and development of the park land. Environmentalists point to recent construction of new roads

in the Park and the lack of a legal metes and bounds description as evidence that there is nothing

to stop the Nee from selling off partsof Gatineau Park or permitting development in the park.

RELEASED under

ATIA / DIVULGUE

ell vertu LAI 000 0 0


9/26


10/26

Legal protection of Gatineau Park: Is legislation necessary?

April 7,2006

of the park and announced a rationalization of the boundaries that did not diminish the overall

area of the park.

In 2005, the NCC approved the new Gatineau Park Master Plan. As part of this exercise, staff at

the NeC and a consultant undertook an exhaustive analysis of the issues pertinent to Gatineau

Park. including the state of the natural environment of the park, actions undertaken in the

previous 10 years in response to the proposals set out in the 1990 Master Plan, and the evolution

of new ways of thinking about the protection ofthe natural environment and the place of

recreational activities in a natural milieu. In addition, the impact on the park of the 1999 Plan for

Canada's Capital was considered. The Plan for Canada's Capital, which represents the principal

document setting out the federal government's policies with respect to the planning, management

and development of the National Capital Region for the next

fifty

years, identifies Gatineau Park

as a natural heritage area managed and protected first for ecosystem preservation and then for

recreation, as a World Conservation Union (Il.K'N) Category

IT

area.

This analysis underscored the necessity to orient actions with respect to the Park toward the

protection of significant ecosystems. This focus for the Park underlies the 2005 Master Plan,

which has as its goal the maintenance of a conservation-oriented park in the National Capital

Region in order to meet the park's mission to welcome Canadians and other visitors and to allow

them to discover Canada's natural environment, to visit sites that bear witness to the country's

history, and to engage in outdoor activities. This conservation-focussed orientation represents a

change from the 1990 Master Plan, which focused on balancing the protection of the .

environment with the fostering of recreational activity in the Park. According to. the 2005 Master

Plan, putting the emphasis on the preservation of the natural milieu will. enable- the NCC to

continue to offer high quality recreational experiences that are respectful of the natural

environment.

B.

Proposed legislation with respect to Gatineau Park

Many special interest groups have displayed an interest in Gatineau Park over the years. Perhaps

the most committed of these groups has been the Ottawa-Hull (now Ottawa Valley) Chapter of

the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), which has been lobbying the NCC with

respect to Gatineau Park since the 1970s. In the intervening years, CPAWS has been

responsible, either directly by making submissions to the NCC or by providing support to the

preparation of private members' bills, for proposing a number oflegislative enactments

concerning Gatineau Park.

i) 1989 CPA WS bill

In 1989, the Ottawa-Hull Chapter ofCPWS issued a document entitled Legislative Protection

for Gatineau Park . In this document, the Society canvassed three legislative options for

Gatineau Park: amendments to the

National Capital Act,

adding Gatineau Park to the national

parks system via amendments to the National Parks Act and a new Act entitled The Gatineau

Park Act. After assessing what, in the Society's view, were the relative advantages and

..

,~..

:/...

RELEASED Ulri.

AT -.~~

.. - .A I D IV U L G

UE

en vertu LAI

0 0 0 0 0 7

. . -

....


11/26


April 7,2006

drawbacks of each option, the Society pr.esented

The Gatineau Park Act

as an appendix to the

d o c u m e n t .

The proposed

The Gatineau Park Act

would establish Gatineau Park, attach a metes and

bounds description of the park as a schedule to the Act and would articulate a general purpose

for the park. The park would consist of both public and private lands. The Governor in.Council

would be given authority to add to the park where the Governor in Council is satisfied that clear

~:tie to the lands to be added is vested in Her Majesty in nght or Canada or where an agreement is

~eached with the province of Quebec that the lands are suitable for addition to the park.

The proposed Act would also establish the Gatineau Park Commission consisting of a

Chairman and six other members. At least three of the members of the Commission would have

professional expertise in areas relevant to park management or other designated specialities and

could not be employees of the Department responsible for the Commission, and two members

would be resident owners of private lands within the Park. The objectives and purposes of the

Commission would be to formulate plans and implement strategies for the conservation,

administration and management of lands with Gatineau Park, as well as overseeing park

operations .

All activities of the Commission would have tobe in keeping with the general purpose of the

park, which is to be for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada, subject to

the conservation and protection of all lands contained in the park, the protection and conservation

of indigenous flora and fauna, and the maintenance and preservation of the park so as to leaveit

unimpaired for future generations. The Commission would be responsible for the zoning-of all

public lands within the boundaries of the park, but would be required to establish at least four

land use zones: primary conservation zones, secondary conservation zones, extensive

development zones and intensive development zones. A description of the zones would form

part of the description of the park contained in the schedule and the Governor in Council, on the

advice of the Minister, would be given the authority to revise the zoning designations set out in

the schedule. Maintenance of ecological integrity through the protection and preservation of

natural resources would be the first priority when establishing park zoning designations.

The proposed Act would put limits on the disposal of public lands in the park, would require the

Commission to enter into negotiations to purchase private lands within the park when those lands

came up for sale and would authorize expropriation of land where the owner does not consent to

dispose of it. The proposed Act would also limit the uses to wfiich private land within the park

could be put and would require private land owners to give the Commission right of first refusal

on the sale of those private lands. The limitations on the use and sale of private lands would not

apply to private lands that were subject to a trust agreement approved by the Commission ..

The proposed Act would permit decisions of the Commission and trust agreements made under

the Act to supplant the application of provincial laws to private lands. The rights of the owners

of private lands with the park could also be supplanted by decisions of the Commission or trust

agreements made under the Act. Finally, the proposed Act would permit the Governor in

Council to make regulations respecting the park, would require the Commission to prepare

annual reports for the Minister on the state of the park and would require the Minister to table in

4

RELEA5D under

ATIA / D[VULGUE

en vertu L A l

8


12/26


April 7, 2006

Parliament a management plan for the park or amendments to an existing management plan every

five years.

ii) the 2004 Marc Assad private member's bill

CPAWS was also involved in a private member's bill that was drafted at the request of Liberal

Member of Parliament Marc Assad in 2004, but was never introduced in Parliament. This bill

takes much of its policy from the 1989 CPA WS bill and fleshes it out with provisions copied

directly from the

National Capital Act

( heNCA). So, for example, the Assad bill establishes a

Gatineau Park Commission with the. same requirements for membership as the CPAWS bill and

appiies to that organization the provisions from the NCA relating to the appointment and salaries

of members, meetings of the NCC and rules with respect to the operation of the NCC

(subsections 3(3), (6) to (8), sections 4 to 8 and section 9 of the NCA with some modifications).

Sections 11, 12 and 12.1 from the NCA relating to the development of public lands and

subsection 10(2) of theAct which sets out the powers of the Commission are also repeated in the

Assad bill with the words National Capital Region replaced by the words Garineau Park .

The Assad bill differs from both the CPAWS proposed Act and the NCA in that it contains

provisions with respect to the powers and duties of a superintendent of the park and of park

wardens, sets high maximum limits for fines for breaches of the Act or regulations, permits

offences under the Act or regulations to be summary conviction or indictable offences and sets

upa ticketirigscheme. The bill also establishesavharmonization committee for the purposes of

ensuring harmonization and implementing' the activities and programs. of the Government of

Canada and the Government of Quebec with respect to the park, in particular with respect to the

protection of ecosystems, planning, management, issuance of permits and other authorizations,

. consultation, the programming of activities, communications and the ways in which

infrastructures, installations and equipment are to be shared . Finally, the bill contains an

extensive regulation-making authority that permits, among other things, zoning regulations and

the establishment of a permit scheme.

iii) the 2005 EdBroadbent private member's bill

Unlike the 2004 Assad bill, which would have created a new Act, the Gatineau Park Act, a bill

introduced in 2005 by NDP Member of Parliament Ed Broadbent would amend the National

Capital Act. According to the summary published with the

bilf

This enactment amends the

National Capital Act

to

(a) establish the boundaries of Gatineau Park;

(b) provide a mechanism f(5 rchanging the boundaries of Gatineau Park;

(c) recognize that one of the objects and purposes ofthe National Capital Commission is to

acquire privately owned real properties or provincial properties situated in Gatineau Park; and

5

. RELEASED under'

ATA I

DIVlJU'~;-'

~.~

en vertu LAI

9

.

.',


13/26


April 7, 2006

Documents

Is Gatineau Park Legislation Necessary