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
8/10/2019 Is Gatineau Park Legislation Necessary
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 .
8/10/2019 Is Gatineau Park Legislation Necessary
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.
8/10/2019 Is Gatineau Park Legislation Necessary
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
8/10/2019 Is Gatineau Park Legislation Necessary
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 .
..
8/10/2019 Is Gatineau Park Legislation Necessary
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
8/10/2019 Is Gatineau Park Legislation Necessary
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
8/10/2019 Is Gatineau Park Legislation Necessary
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
8/10/2019 Is Gatineau Park Legislation Necessary
9/26
8/10/2019 Is Gatineau Park Legislation Necessary
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
. . -
....
8/10/2019 Is Gatineau Park Legislation Necessary
11/26
Legal protection of Gatineau Park: Is legislation necessary?
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
8/10/2019 Is Gatineau Park Legislation Necessary
12/26
Legal protection of Gatineau Park: Is legislation necessary?
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
.
.',
8/10/2019 Is Gatineau Park Legislation Necessary
13/26
Legal protection of Gatineau Park: Is legislation necessary?
April 7, 2006