MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief

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


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/


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.htm


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


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


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.pdf


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/LEGISINFO


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=twitter


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/38


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#


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


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-137-09


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#


14/17

subdi%isions, etc#

18


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=


16/17


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

MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief

Documents

Transcript of MPs Must Amend NDP Gatineau Park Bill C-565--brief