:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Lemay and I are pleased to be here this afternoon and welcome this opportunity to comment on Bill and the likely impacts on the operations of the National Capital Commission.
In my previous career I was editor and publisher of the Ottawa Citizen for many years, and for most of those years the Citizen pressed the NCC to open its board meetings to the public. We were concerned about lack of transparency and a general perception of secret operations. I wasn't surprised when a large majority of witnesses who appeared before the mandate review panel called for open meetings.
[Translation]
The Mandate Review recommended that the board hold at least four meetings a year and that they should be open to the public.
Mr. Chair, we were able to act almost immediately on that recommendation.
[English]
It's given me considerable satisfaction to preside over open meetings since my appointment as chair two years ago--and the sky has not fallen.
Since I've arrived we've addressed some controversial issues. The decision about the environmental assessment of bridge corridors over the Ottawa River comes to mind. Open meetings give us legitimacy when decisions are made. If they're made behind closed doors, they're more likely to be questioned or misunderstood.
We are giving the public an opportunity to observe and to understand how and why our decisions are being made. Our agendas are posted on the NCC website in advance of each meeting, and the meetings are webcast live for those who cannot attend.
[Translation]
We do hold an annual general meeting where the public has an opportunity to address our board as well as an annual meeting where interest groups have the opportunity to address the board. And we have expanded an already active consultative process with stakeholders.
[English]
In board meetings when we're considering matters with commercial sensitivities or cabinet confidences, for example, those matters must still be discussed in camera. When that's necessary we make the in camera agendas public on our website.
We have also undertaken several other initiatives in the interest of greater openness and transparency, and they are in line with the recommendations of the mandate review panel. In some cases they go beyond the requirements of Bill . We have an ombudsman who started her work a year ago. We fostered a culture of openness and transparency and made customer service a priority.
With my appointment as chair of the board and the appointment of Ms. Lemay as CEO, the government moved rapidly to implement the recommendation of the mandate review included in the Federal Accountability Act to separate the responsibilities of the chair and the chief executive.
[Translation]
The NCC was created in a very different era—half a century ago. And while, in spirit, the mandate hasn't changed all that much—modern governance standards certainly have.
[English]
One of the elements I'm particularly pleased about in terms of governance, Mr. Chair, is the repeal of section 15 of the National Capital Act, which places certain constraints on the NCC that do not apply to other crown corporations as it relates to transactions. This measure will have a significant impact on our ability to be open and transparent. It will allow us to treat more of the NCC's business in the public forum, business we were not permitted to do in public in the past--acquiring property, for example.
I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair and ask Ms. Lemay to comment now on how the bill applies to the management of the major responsibilities of the commission's mandate.
Marie.
:
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I have to say I'm very happy to be here this afternoon, and thank you for taking the time to listen to us on a very important subject.
I hope we'll be able to answer the many questions that I'm sure you'll have.
[Translation]
Since January 2008, I have had the privilege of leading an organization that has an extraordinary mandate and dedicated and professional employees that want to instil pride in Canadians by making Canada's Capital Region a place where Canada comes together.
Collaboration and partnership are two words that can be used to describe my approach to leading the NCC. We have worked very hard to renew the collaborative relationships with our stakeholders, our federal partners, various levels of government and the public. This approach is very much in line with the recommendations of the NCC Mandate Review Panel. We initiated meetings of the Tripartite National Capital Planning Committee—a forum where the mayors of the cities of Gatineau and Ottawa and myself, discuss many projects of mutual interest.
[English]
We have four meetings a year with the two mayors, and we are starting to see the results of these meetings.
We have also initiated a round table meeting with the 13 mayors of the national capital region, something that to my knowledge has never been done. Originally I had planned to have one meeting a year, and at the request of the mayors we have two a year, and we're actually holding our third one very soon in December.
These collaborations, in my opinion, are essential to helping us fulfill our mandate. Our efforts and collaborations extend far beyond just the municipal partners. We're working also with our federal partners. To give you an example, at our senior staff level we are having regular meetings with our colleagues at Public Works. We have also established a memorandum of collaboration with Parks Canada, a very important partner for us.
My overall message with respect to this bill is that we're extremely pleased that the government recognizes the importance of building a great capital for all Canadians, and we're confident that the proposed amendments give us the new tools to carry out our responsibility to enhance and maintain a world-class national capital region for all Canadians, a region that will make Canadians proud.
If you'll allow me, I'll briefly comment on how the proposed bill is going to affect the NCC.
First, the bill requires us to submit a master plan for the national capital region to the cabinet for approval at least once every 10 years. The plan for Canada's capital is an overarching plan that provides the vision for the capital region for the next 50 years. This is a very important document. l like to say that, with the proposed amendment, it will now be the government's plan for Canada's capital. We expect to have a full revision of the plan for Canada's capital completed and ready for submission to cabinet and tabling to Parliament by 2013.
This seems like a long timeframe, but it's because there are extensive public consultations that are part of this process. One of our biggest challenges is to show to all Canadians the value of this capital, and hopefully we'll be able to call on you to help us do that, because we intend to involve you in that process too.
The review of this overarching plan for Canada's capital is proceeding in parallel with other plans we have: the capital urban lands master plan, the Gatineau Park master plan that you've heard about, and the greenbelt master plan. Those are three plans that also feed into the larger vision.
[Translation]
These plans all have a direct impact on the National Interest Land Mass. The National Interest Land Mass is comprised of lands that are considered essential to the functioning and experience of the Capital. Over time, the composition of the National Interest Land Mass changes through additions and, very occasionally, removals of lands that result primarily from revisions to these plans.
Bill will require us to develop regulations, criteria and a process before lands are designated for addition to, or removal from, the National Interest Land Mass. This bill will authorize us to make such regulations and this will be a public process. We see the incorporation of this concept into the legislation as enabling us to ensure the long-term preservation of the land mass and protection of Canada's “green capital.”
The Bill clarifies and confirms our mandate with respect to transportation in the National Capital Region by explicitly referring to that function. This is helpful because it confirms the leadership role the NCC has played in recent years as the main federal representative for transportation initiatives in the National Capital Region. An excellent illustration is the one Mr. Mills cited with respect to environmental assessments for a new bridge over the Ottawa River. We are also leading an important study on the integration of interprovincial transit.
[English]
The NCC is responsible for coordinating development on federal lands in the national capital region. This is fundamental to our role as a federal planning agency within the capital, covering all planning, design, and development projects as well as proposals to dispose of or acquire lands.
The purpose of the amendment of section 12 of the National Capital Act is to clarify and modernize the language of the law to ensure that the NCC's authority clearly applies to today's types of transactions—for example, long-term leases by the federal government.
Mr. Chair, l'd like to turn now to the provision in proposed subsection 10.4(1) that requires us to manage all real property in accordance with the principles of responsible environmental stewardship. l have to say that in the 22 months since I became CEO, it's fair to say that there is no one issue that has taken more of my time than environmental stewardship. I've personally held more than 10 meetings with different environmental stakeholder groups to discuss their concerns.
We recently adopted an environmental strategy that provides a framework for strong stewardship. The strategy enlists our employees, stakeholders, and the public working together to create a sustainable capital. It centres on five priorities for action and sets measurable objectives for each. These are reducing waste, enhancing biodiversity, preventing pollution, combatting climate change, and positioning our leadership in environmental practices.
Proposed subsection 10.4(1) of the bill is entirely in line with this strategy. We expect it will strengthen our position and enable us to move forward with added confidence and certainty.
[Translation]
Section 10.4(2) requires us to give due regard to the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park. We manage the Park in accordance with the Gatineau Park Master Plan. This plan projects a vision of the Park as the Capital's conservation park, respectful of the environment and preserving it for present and future generations, while welcoming Canadians to visit and participate in recreational activities in ways that are respectful of the environment.
We believe the requirement regarding ecological integrity, together with the strengthened regulatory powers in this bill, will go a long way toward supporting the implantation of the vision in the Master Plan. The bill also provides that the Park's boundaries can be changed only by an Order in Council.
The NCC is actively engaged in buying private properties to further consolidate our ownership of park lands as was identified as a priority in the 2005 Gatineau Park Master Plan.
[English]
Since 2008, I've asked staff to prioritize and pursue acquisitions in the park, and we've acquired 17 private properties, totalling more than 111 hectares of land. As per the Gatineau Park master plan, our priority of acquisition has been for large lots--more than 10 acres, or 4 hectares--that can be subdivided, and lots that are located in ecologically sensitive areas.
We have just completed our conservation plan for the park, and we are now moving to identify ecological corridors outside the park that need to be protected.
The proposed addition to the bill that allows us to make regulations prescribing user fees is an essential element for the future of the capital region. We already charge fees to access some of our lands--for example, we sell daily and seasonal passes for skiing in Gatineau Park. It is certainly not our intention to charge for access to all of our properties. We have no immediate plans--and I repeat, no immediate plans--for specific new fees. This bill tells us that if we were to consider any new fees in the future, we must justify them and receive cabinet approval prior to proceeding with implementation, which we are not required to do at present.
The specific recognition of the special nature of Gatineau Park should not be interpreted to suggest that we are any less diligent with respect to the environmental stewardship of the greenbelt. We apply the same management principles of protection of ecosystems to portions of the greenbelt. However, the greenbelt is not a uniform ecosystem; it is home to an international airport, institutional buildings, as well as environmentally sensitive lands. It is our opinion that the concept of maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity does not apply to the greenbelt entirely. However, the NCC will continue to apply very strict management principles to the natural areas, and we are looking forward to finalizing the review of the greenbelt master plan that is currently under way.
[Translation]
The Report of the Panel on the NCC Mandate Review proposed a comprehensive set of recommendations to give the Commission new tools and a new culture, appropriate for the 21st century. Since then, as much as possible, we have been working hard to implement the detail and spirit of the report.
[English]
will close the loop. It will give us the missing tools to get the job done. We are enthusiastic about it, and we are committed to achieving a capital that Canadians will look to as a model of environmental stewardship--a capital for all Canadians.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. We welcome questions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Mills.
Good afternoon, Ms. Lemay.
The National Capital Commission is an organization that has significant powers. As part of its mandate, it must ensure that the importance of the National Capital is showcased both to Quebeckers and Canadians, and even internationally. It must make the Capital both an attractive and a valued place.
I came to this region in 1979. I've seen the changes made over the years with a view to transforming Ottawa into a forum for the G7, at the time, and today, for the G8.
However, the fact remains that Gatineau Park is crucial to the NCC's planning. I know that it's not everything, but it is important, certainly on the Quebec side of the river. We know that in the past, the NCC bought private lands to ensure that the Park would be more of a public place. We also know that the NCC sold lands under agreements, either because it needed money or because it was obliged to do so for many other reasons.
The expression that comes to mind after your presentation is territorial integrity. There is also the issue of the role that the Quebec government should play in the decisions made by a board—made up of people from all over the place, including certain Quebeckers who are a minority on this board, both previously and now—should the bill be adopted in its current form.
I would like to know your opinion as to the idea of having to secure Quebec's agreement if, for example, the NCC wanted to sell part of the land or make changes to the National Interest Land Mass. This would affect, among other things, 17% of the territory within the Park that belongs to the Quebec government, but for which management was delegated to the NCC in 1973.
That is what is happening in the case of national parks. For example, if Banff National Park was to be enlarged, Alberta would have a say therein. I know that that is not the case currently as concerns Gatineau Park.
Would you be in favour of an amendment to allow Quebec to have a say in this matter?
:
To answer your question properly, I should first explain how we proceed at the moment.
Since I arrived at the NCC, staff have been assigned to purchase land inside the park. We get in touch with people and we go by market value. So the people have to want to sell and we have to have the money. That is how we work.
Since we began, we have purchased 17 parcels of land, totalling more than 111 hectares. It did not work for two properties, I feel, because the owners were not interested in selling their property at market value. We must also consider the interests of the taxpayer. So we were not able to acquire those two lots.
We drew up a list of priority acquisitions based on the Gatineau Park Master Plan, that is to say, large areas of land and sensitive areas. Take as an example a house built on a one-acre lot that is already damaged. The NCC is not really interested in purchasing a damaged house on the shore of Meech Lake for $700,000. I would rather keep the money for land that can be subdivided and where we could do a lot of construction.
This approach has been very successful. I think that a right of first refusal would not have changed anything up to now, at least since I have been here. However, if you decide to include a right of first refusal, please make sure that you include the details, such as what the right of first refusal means, how we proceed, whether market value is an issue, or if it is simply a way to add value. Details like that are very important if you decide to go that way.
Mr. Mills and Madam Lemay, I commend you on the work you have done, the leadership you have provided to the NCC in improving transparency and accountability. I think it is important. I'm sure it functioned well before, but still, I think the openness gives the public confidence in what you do. So I congratulate you on that.
One of the issues that has been brought forward to this committee by other witnesses is the greenbelt, and it's an important issue. As far as the planning of that, it's great that you're dealing with the municipalities on the greenbelt, but there is planning that can be done. If you're on the Trans-Canada Highway and you drive by Banff, unless you really look, you won't see it because there is a treed buffer that separates some of the commercial areas from the natural areas. There are these kinds of things to plan around. The road system, I think, just improves the quality of the park and gives those people wanting to see the corridors for wildlife and more of a natural setting.... It just improves that.
So I'm just wondering, first, if you see that for your greenbelt plan, and secondly.... I'm from British Columbia. We have what we call our “agricultural land reserve”, ALR. The municipality cannot subdivide or do any development on agricultural land unless it has approval from the Agricultural Land Commission. Do you have that kind of authority with the municipality so that if they wanted to build a shopping mall on the greenbelt, for instance, you could say, not necessarily no, but this is what they have to do, they have to comply by putting that shroud of trees, or whatever it is, for the sightscapes of the park?
:
There is a lot in that question.
I've often heard the Gatineau Park and the greenbelt referred to as the two lungs of the capital region. They are really two very important assets in the region. We consider them both national treasures that we have the mandate to manage and take care of.
In terms of the greenbelt, we certainly have control over the land we own. When a municipality or a city owns land within the park, or when private owners own land within the confines of the greenbelt or the master plan, the Gatineau Park, then you have municipal jurisdictions. That goes to two things. First, that's why it is so extremely important to have that collaboration with municipal governments, and I have to say that so far it's worked very well. Only on very rare occasions would we not agree on a designation of lands within our boundaries. It also goes to acquisition, to the NILM concept. If you consider that lands are essential to the mandate of NCC to build a great capital for Canadians, then you should identify those lands, and when the seller is willing to sell and the money is there from the buyer, you should acquire them, because you've identified that the lands are important, and then you have control over their destiny.
I would like to pick up on the process for the greenbelt master plan review. The greenbelt master plan that we have right now dates from 1996, so it's old, and things have evolved quite a bit. We've started the process; we're at a very exciting stage, the vision stage, which has precipitated a lot of interest. We've had a lot of participation from the public and from the different municipalities. We have an international symposium coming up. I am very hopeful that the result of this review, which is due in 2011, will give us an up-to-date 21st century greenbelt master plan with a strong vision for the future.
Mr. Mills and Madame Lemay, proposed section 10.1 deals with the NCC's master plan for the national capital region. The Liberal Party's opinion is that the master plan in the future should consider the potential location of the region's employment polls. Let me explain what I mean by this.
We have all heard of the 75-25 sharing of Government of Canada jobs. As it stands, only the jobs under Treasury Board are calculated or included in the equation. We think that's wrong; it should be all of the Canadian government's direct and indirect jobs.
As an example, now the employees of the museums are not in the equation. The employees of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation are not in the equation. Canada Post is not in that equation. Yet all of those employees are directly or indirectly tied to the Government of Canada. So we have to redo the calculation.
But the important part of my suggestion and the suggestion of the Liberal Party is that the NCC should become, let's call it, the “policing agency” of the federal government to ensure that these employment polls are situated intelligently throughout the national capital region. By this I mean that if you're going to be looking after planning in the transportation sector, if you're going to be looking after bridges, then I think you have an important role to play in saying, okay, in west end Ottawa we should have x percentage of jobs, in east end Ottawa we should have x percentage of jobs, and so on, including in Ottawa south and on the Gatineau side of the river, east, west, and so on.
How would you react to that, sir, if the bill were amended and the responsibility for establishing these employment polls within the national capital region, and the policing of that particular policy, were to end up on the board table of the NCC?