Post on 03-Jun-2018
8/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
1/17
THE GATINEAU PARKPROTECTION COMMITTEE
LE COMIT POUR LA PROTECTIONDU PARC DE LA GATINEAU
The Five Pillars forGatinea 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 theDe-art+ent of Cana,ian Herita"e A*t
Mar*h 01 2340
5ean&Pal Mrra%1 se*retar%
Gatinea Par! Prote*tion Co++ittee
8/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
2/17
46 Kin"s+ere Roa,1 Chelsea1 7e8e*1 59) 4R6Tel:# .;49/ ;26&4;3live:*o+
$e8 site# ???:"atinea-ar*:*a
2
http://www.gatineauparc.ca/http://www.gatineauparc.ca/http://www.gatineauparc.ca/8/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
3/17
$h%)ill C&'(' Fails@++ar%
Introduced on December 10, 2013, Bill C-565 falls short of meeting basic parprotection 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 publicand pri%ate initiati%es, federal-pro%incial agreements, numerous public consultationsand parliamentar& debate# It 'as most recentl& e(pressed during the mandate re%ie's ofboth !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 andecological integrit& as top management priorities, enshrine boundaries in legislation andrespect +uebecs 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 obproperl&, 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, 12 ne' houses ha%e been built in the par, along 'ith fi%e ne'
roads, 'hile eight suare ilometres of its land mass ha%e been remo%ed 'ithout theno'ledge or appro%al of "arliament#
Bill C-565 fails to fulfill the maorit& of the necessar& par protection criteria,and unless it is amended to pro%ide stronger parliamentar& o%ersight, as suggested inthis document, !atineau "ar 'ill continue to suffer death b& a thousand cuts 4 infact, C-565 'ill accelerate that process#
ithout a doubt, Bill C-565 is the 'orst legislation e%er tabled on this issue#
1or clear e%idence of that consensus, seeBrief Submitted to the NCC Mandate Review Panel, b& theCoalition for )CC 7ene'al, $nne( B, pp# 21-28, 9ctober 2006#2*eeEighth Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural
Resources, 3/-1, :hursda&, ;une , 200>'''#parl#gc#ca>3/>1>parlbus>commbus>senate>com-e>enrg-e>rep-e>rep0?un0-e#htm@
3
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/enrg-e/rep-e/rep08jun07-e.htmhttp://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/enrg-e/rep-e/rep08jun07-e.htmhttp://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/enrg-e/rep-e/rep08jun07-e.htmhttp://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/enrg-e/rep-e/rep08jun07-e.htm8/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
4/17
The Gatinea Par! Prote*tion Co++ittee
:he !atineau "ar "rotection Committee
:hrough its %arious campaigns, the Committee has con%inced the )ationalCapital Commission
8/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
5/17
e ha%e also managed to con%ince the )CC to spend o%er J11 million toacuire pri%ate lands in !atineau "ar 4 in fulfilment of its repeated Aaster "lancommitments#
The Five Pillars forGatinea Par! Le"islation
Or $h% C&'(' Fails
1@ Kistor& of egislation
2@ $nal&sis
a@ Boundaries
b@ cological Integrit&c@ :erritorial Integrit&d@ Inholdingse@ 7eport to "arliamentf@ Dedication to uture !enerations
3@ i%e "illars for a !atineau "ar Bill
8@ $mendments
$dditional information on pre%ious !atineau "ar billsma& be found on thefollo'ing sites=
1@ ibrar& of "arliament= '''#parl#gc#ca>!I*I)9?
2@ !atineau "ar "rotection Committee eb *ite= '''#gatineauparc#ca
C-888
8/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
6/17
$h% )ill C&'(' Fails
4: Histor% of Le"islation
:hough ad%ocated as the first national par for +uebec, !atineau "ar ne%er
acuired that status and remains the onl& federal par be&ond the direct authorit& of"arliament#/Contrar& to national pars, its boundaries can change, its land can be soldor transferred, and roads can be built inside it, 'ithout parliamentar& no'ledge orappro%al#
:o deal 'ith problems related to the pars status, se%eral parliamentarians ha%etabled legislation in both the *enate and Kouse of Commons o%er the last fe' &ears#
iberals 'ere first to put the issue of !atineau "ar legislation on the floor fordiscussion in 2008, 'hen !atineau A" Aar $ssad ga%e notice he intended to table abill to set par boundaries and protect it from de%elopment# Ko'e%er, Ar# $ssads bill
'as ne%er introduced, since he retired from "arliament in 2008#
10
In 2005, 9tta'a-Centre A" d Broadbent introduced Bill C-888 to pro%idelegal boundaries and a land management mechanism for the par, as 'ell as ensure itslong-term protection# $nd, in similar mo%es, the Konourable Aira *pi%a of Aanitobatabled a bill in the *enate on $pril 25, 2006 /*ee othian##,% Brief &istory of Canada's National Par(s, n%ironment Canada, 1/?, p# 132#10"ar changes 'ould go be&ond entrance fees, b& Doug ischer, !ttawa Citi"en, Aa& 10, 2008, p# B311A" sees to protect !atineau "ar= )ational par status a possible result of Broadbent initiati%e, :he
9tta'a Citi.en, 9ctober 26, 2005, p# C?E *enator pushes to preser%e !atineau "ar= egislation 'ouldpre%ent sale of parts of propert&, 9tta'a Citi.en, ;anuar& 1, 2006, p# B2E *enators bill 'ould tae!atineau "ar a'a& from )CC= "lan is to stop selloff of public propert&, :he 9tta'a Citi.en, $pril 16,2006, p# C1E A" Kopes "arliament lands role, 9tta'a *un, Aa& 1/, 2006, p# 16E e parc de la!atineau serait menacH, e Droit, $pril 22, 200?, p# 6E )D" A" challenges :ories to use his bill to
protect !atineau "ar= "roposed legislation protects area from de%elopers, :he 9tta'a Citi.en, $pril 23,200/#12"roceedings of the *tanding *enate Committee on nerg&, the n%ironment and )atural 7esources,Issue 15 >'''#parl#gc#ca>3/>1>parlbus>commbus>senate>Com-e>enrg-e>pdf>15issue#pdf
6
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/enrg-e/pdf/15issue.pdfhttp://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/enrg-e/pdf/15issue.pdf8/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
7/17
9n ;une , 200, Bill *-210 'as reported bac to the *enate 'ith threeamendments#13
$lthough the go%ernment had originall& e(pressed support for Bill *-210, itproposed 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 "arliamentin *eptember 200# Its successors, Bills *-22 and *-208 'ere tabled b& the Kon# Aira*pi%a on ebruar& 12, 200? and ;anuar& 2, 200/ respecti%el Both bills includedamendments made b& the *enate n%ironment Committee to Bill *-210, along 'ith aschedule pro%iding a full description of the pars 1// boundar
ollo'ing ad%ice from the !""C, "aul De'ar incorporated the same changes tohis bill, reintroduced as C-36 in the Commons# Bill *-22 died on the 9rder "aper as aresult of the 200? federal election, 'hile *-208 and C-36 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-3# Ko'e%er, the Canadian "ars and ilderness*ociet&
*ome peoples first reaction 'ould be to sa& the go%ernments position hadntbeen clearl& thought out, but Im among those more inclined to belie%e the
13ighth 7eport of the *enate *tanding Committee on nerg&, the n%ironment and )atural 7esources,3/-1, :hursda&, ;une , 200= http=>>'''#parl#gc#ca>3/>1>parlbus>commbus>senate>com-e>enrg-e>rep-e>rep0?un0-e#htm#18Dont ban !atineau "ar land sales= CannonE Ainister sa&s *enate bill ties )CCs handsE sell-offs fl&in face of Omaster plan, critic sa&s, 9tta'a Citi.en, ;ul& 13, 200, pp# 1 and #15http=>>'''#parl#gc#ca>!I*I)9#16;ohansen, Da%id, Bill C-3=%n %ction Plan for the National Capital Commission, egislati%e*ummar& *-68/, ibrar& of "arliament, egislati%e $ffairs Di%ision, 23 ;une 200/, pp#10-12E G "roetde loi C-3 portant sur la%enir du parc de la !atineau = les groupes Hcolos promettent de rHagir , #e
$roit, $ugust 25, 200/, p# /#1G oi sur la CC) = e proet de Cannon fortement re%u , par "atrice !audreault,#e $roit, 23dHcembre 200/#
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/enrg-e/rep-e/rep08jun07-e.htm)http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/enrg-e/rep-e/rep08jun07-e.htm)http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/enrg-e/rep-e/rep08jun07-e.htm)http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFOhttp://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFOhttp://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/enrg-e/rep-e/rep08jun07-e.htm)http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/enrg-e/rep-e/rep08jun07-e.htm)http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO8/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
8/17
committee process sho'ed the go%ernment ust ho' badl& maor changes areneeded#1?
Bill C-3 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 $pril 30, 2010# Italso died on the 9rder "aper 'ithout ha%ing been debated 'hen a federal election 'ascalled in 2011#
9n )o%ember ?, 2012, Kull-$&lmer )D" A" )&cole :urmel introduced BillC-865, 'hich the !""C condemned for encouraging residential de%elopment inside thepar, failing to protect its boundaries adeuatel&, ignoring issues related to +uebecsterritorial integrit&, and creating confusion 'ithin the )ational Capital $ct#1/
As# :urmels measure 'as 'ithdra'n and reintroduced as Bill C-565 onDecember 10thfor 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 ofpublic and pri%ate initiati%es, federal-pro%incial agreements, )CC planning andconsultation efforts and parliamentar& debate# $nd its no' generall& felt that parlegislation must meet basic criteria to be reliable and effecti%e#20
Aoreo%er, opinion polls published a fe' &ears ago lend strong support to thisconsensus# or instance, an online poll conducted be $roit in $pril 200/ found that?6P of respondents 'anted the federal go%ernment to gi%e !atineau "ar legislati%eprotection# $s 'ell, in 2006, a Decima-!ttawa Citi"enpoll confirmed that ?2P of thepopulation 'anted !atineau "ar to become a national par#21
$ccording to this consensus, !atineau "ar legislation should at the %er& leastmandate conser%ation and ecological integrit& as a top priorit&, enshrine boundaries,eliminate pri%ate propert& de%elopment, and dedicate the par to future generations#$nd gi%en the precedent established b& the )ational "ars $ct >'''#lapresse#ca>le-droit>politiue>201312>12>01-8203?5-parc-de-la-gatineau-le-proet-de-loi-de-turmel-un-fouillis-legislatif#phpMutmQsourceNdl%r#itLutmQmediumNt'itter#20Brief Submitted to the NCC Mandate Review Panel,b& the Coalition for )CC 7ene'al, $nne( B, pp#21-28, 9ctober 2006#21G e gou%ernement fHdHral de%rait-il lHgifHrer pour protHger le parc de la !atineau M #e $roit, le 28a%ril 200/, p# 8E Aost for nationali.ing !atineau "ar, he !ttawa Citi"en, Aarch 20, 2006, p# C3#
?
http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/pdf/082db_2009-12-14-E.pdfhttp://www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/pdf/082db_2009-12-14-E.pdfhttp://www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/pdf/082db_2009-12-14-E.pdfhttp://ottawastart.com/story/18382.phphttp://ottawastart.com/story/18382.phphttp://ottawastart.com/story/22012.phphttp://www.lapresse.ca/le-droit/politique/201312/12/01-4720385-parc-de-la-gatineau-le-projet-de-loi-de-turmel-un-fouillis-legislatif.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitterhttp://www.lapresse.ca/le-droit/politique/201312/12/01-4720385-parc-de-la-gatineau-le-projet-de-loi-de-turmel-un-fouillis-legislatif.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitterhttp://www.lapresse.ca/le-droit/politique/201312/12/01-4720385-parc-de-la-gatineau-le-projet-de-loi-de-turmel-un-fouillis-legislatif.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitterhttp://www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/pdf/082db_2009-12-14-E.pdfhttp://www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/pdf/082db_2009-12-14-E.pdfhttp://ottawastart.com/story/18382.phphttp://ottawastart.com/story/22012.phphttp://www.lapresse.ca/le-droit/politique/201312/12/01-4720385-parc-de-la-gatineau-le-projet-de-loi-de-turmel-un-fouillis-legislatif.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitterhttp://www.lapresse.ca/le-droit/politique/201312/12/01-4720385-parc-de-la-gatineau-le-projet-de-loi-de-turmel-un-fouillis-legislatif.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitterhttp://www.lapresse.ca/le-droit/politique/201312/12/01-4720385-parc-de-la-gatineau-le-projet-de-loi-de-turmel-un-fouillis-legislatif.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter8/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
9/17
e underline that the consensus on !atineau "ar is supported b& e(pertopinion arguing that protecti%e par legislation in general must meet basic criteria#22
Careful anal&sis of Bill C-565 re%eals its 'oeful inadeuac& in meeting suchcriteria 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 theissue of +uebecs territorial integrit&, and falls short of maing conser%ation the firstpriorit& of par management, 'hich is a cornerstone of the )ational "ars $ct and areuirement en%ironmentalists insist is necessar&
Rnless properl& amended, Bill C-565 'ill encourage pri%ate propert&de%elopment to continue impairing the ecological integrit& of !atineau "ar# It 'ill alsoallo' the federal go%ernment to change par boundaries 'ithout consulting +uebec or"arliament#
:he follo'ing sections pro%ide a more detailed re%ie' of the issues legislationmust address to offer !atineau "ar the protection it deser%es, and ho' Bill C-565 failson almost e%er& count#
a/ )on,aries
Bill C-565 does not pro%ide !atineau "ar 'ith properl& enshrined boundaries#$lthough the schedule to the bill describes those boundaries, Clause 6 onl& sa&s thatthe Commission must not modif& !atineau "ars boundaries as described in *chedule2 or reduce its area#
:his 'ould allo' the boundaries to be amended b& e(ecuti%e order 'ithout an&parliamentar& o%ersight or debate, offering far 'eaer protection than does the )ational"ars $ct node>3?E and*ierra Club of Canada,BillS-./* % Reasonable Statutory 0ramewor( to Protect +atineau Par(,brief submitted b& the to the *enate*tanding Committee on nerg&, the n%ironment and )atural 7esources, Aarch 2, 200#23Kouse of Commons, Sessional Paperno# ?555-3?1-208, )o%ember 18, 2005# $dditional informationobtained from the )CCs Intergo%ernmental 7elations Branch on $ugust 2, 2006#28Senate $ebates, )o%ember 22, 2005, pp# 2132-2138#
/
http://www.polisproject.org/node/38http://www.polisproject.org/node/388/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
10/17
:he onl& 'a& to eliminate confusion, ensure transparenc& and limit thelielihood a future go%ernment 'ill attempt to cut off some part of the par for short-term political obecti%es is to submit an& proposed boundar& changes to full publicscrutin& and debate in "arliament# ;ust lie 'e do for national pars#
In the case of national pars, onl& an act of "arliament can change boundaries toreduce the si.e of a par# *ection 5#
8/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
11/17
include airports, militar& and communications installations, nati%e reser%es, public portsand harbours as 'ell as national pars# *trictl& speaing, those lands are submitted tobroader federal urisdiction than lands in the remainder of the pro%ince#2
Aoreo%er, its often difficult to monitor changes made to internal boundaries,
since the& tend to lac clear demarcation and fluctuate more easil& than federal-pro%incial boundaries, 'hich are enshrined in legal documents#2?$ccordingl&,mandating pro%incial participation in boundar& changes to e(pand the par 'ouldsecure 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 internaldimension of territorial integrit&= national pars# *ection 5
8/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
12/17
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%ertime as more people 'ant greater access to their par, and begin to e(press frustrationo%er being cro'ded out b& residential inholdings#
:he cost of acuiring these pri%ate properties 'ill escalate, as the )CC
continues to allo' construction and gentrification along the laes and other scenic andcultural locations# $t present, the estimated cost of acuiring all those properties is,according to our calculations, about J31 million#33hat 'ill it be ten &ears from no'M
Aoreo%er, in the absence of a proper land management mechanism, the )CChas allo'ed the building of 12 ne' houses in !atineau "ar since 1//2# $dd to thisfi%e ne' roads built in %iolation of master plans, and the need for strongerparliamentar& o%ersight becomes e%en more urgent#38
In 200?, the proposed Carman 7oad de%elopment and the mudd&ing of Aeechae illustrated the e(tent of this problem#35Aore recentl&, massi%e construction in the
par, and %iolation of shoreline protection b&la's perpetrated b& 80P of Aeech aeresidents, 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 theone hand, it sa&s that the )CCs obecti%e is to acuire the real propert& situated in!atineau "ar,'hile, on the other, it stipulates that the Commission ma& not, inpursuing its obecti%es, infringe upon the propert& rights attached to an& real propert&WXY 'ithin !atineau "ar# :his latter amendment, in Clause 3 of C-565, contradictssection 18 of the )ational Capital $ct >'''#archi%e#org>stream>nationalpars00hartrich>nationalpars00hartrichQd%u#t(t#33)CC Aisrepresents Cost of Bu&ing "ri%ate ands in !atineau "ar=
http=>>otta'astart#com>stor&>1?01#phpE G a CC) achUte des terrains ,#e $roit, le 22 mai 200?, p# 11#38or more details on these de%elopments, seeBill S-./* a Compromise $esigned to Protect +atineauPar(, brief submitted to the *enate Committee on nerg&, the n%ironment and )atural 7esources, )e'oodlands "reser%ation eague, Aarch 22, 200, pp# 8-6=http=>>'''#gatineauparc#ca>documentsQen#html#35*ee )CC to bu& !atineau "ar propert&, he !ttawa Citi"en, Aa& 22, 200?, pp# C-1, C-6E !roupfears ne' homes are mudd&ing Aeech, he !ttawa Citi"en, ;ul& 2/, 200?, p# C-1#36Chipping $'a& at !atineau "ar, b& Aohammed $dam, he !ttawa Citi"en, ;une 1?, 2012EInspection des berges du lac Aeech, rapport prHliminaire, AunicipalitH de Chelsea, HtH 2013=http=>>'''#scribd#com>doc>20/18303>Aeech-7apport-A7C-13-0/
12
http://www.archive.org/stream/nationalparks00hartrich/nationalparks00hartrich_djvu.txthttp://ottawastart.com/story/18071.phphttp://www.gatineauparc.ca/documents_en.htmlhttp://www.gatineauparc.ca/documents_en.htmlhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/209143703/Meech-Rapport-MRC-137-09http://www.archive.org/stream/nationalparks00hartrich/nationalparks00hartrich_djvu.txthttp://ottawastart.com/story/18071.phphttp://www.gatineauparc.ca/documents_en.htmlhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/209143703/Meech-Rapport-MRC-137-098/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
13/17
bills Clause 3 stipulation regarding infringement on propert& rights 'ould ha%e ne%erbe 'ritten into it#
ntrenching pri%ate propert& rights in a public par, as does Bill C-565, is adangerous precedent and a recipe for disaster# It 'ould allo' large land o'ners to
subdi%ide and de%elop properties inside the par, in direct contradiction to the parspublic and ecological mandate 4 not to mention e%er& planning document e%er 'rittenon the subect#
e belie%e this clause of As# :urmels bill 'ould be a death sentence for thepar, since it 'ould strip the )CC of po'er to stop construction of 100-housesubdi%isions on an& of the %arious large pri%ate lands remaining in the par#$ccordingl&, this part of Clause 3 must be deleted#
e/ Re-ort to Parlia+ent
:o ensure accountabilit&, transparenc& and sound management, legislationshould reuire the go%ernment to report to "arliament on its !atineau "ar acti%ities, inparticular on its ecological integrit& protection efforts and real propert& acuisitions#
Rnfortunatel&, Bill C-565 maes no pro%ision for rigorous reporting to"arliament# $lthough the )CC alread& submits an annual report, it has remo%ed hugeparcels of land from the par and changed its boundaries 'ithout properl& informingparliamentarians in those reports#
e 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 onpropert& acuisitions#
f/ De,i*ation to Ftre Generations
:here is a 'idel& held %ie' among legal e(perts that dedicating pars to futuregenerations creates a trust-lie obligation upon the go%ernment to manage pars in amanner that maintains their ecological integrit
$gain, the )"$ sets the gold standard in this regard, since *ection 8#
8/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
14/17
subdi%isions, etc#
18
8/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
15/17
0: A+en,+ents to )ill C&'('
:o meet the fi%e criteria listed abo%e, and to better reflect the consensus on theissue, Bill C-565 must include the amendments listed belo'# :hose amendments reflectthe letter and intention of !atineau "ar Bills *-22, *-208, C-311 and C-36# 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 amendedas follo's#
Private Pro-ert% Ri"hts
4::hat Bill C-565, in Clause 3,be amended b& deleting lines 3 to onpage 8#
P8li* Use an, E*olo"i*al Inte"rit% Clase
2::hat Bill C-565, in Clause 3, be amended b& adding after line 16 onpage 5 the
follo'ing=
8/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
16/17
8/12/2019 MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief
17/17
(::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 reuired to submit under section 150 of
the0inancial %dministration %ct must include information respecting the Commissionsacti%ities 'ith regard to !atineau "ar and the !reenbelt, including the acuisition b&the Commission of real propert& located in the !reenbelt or an immo%able located in!atineau "ar#
1