THE GATINEAU PARK PROTECTION COMMITTEE

LE COMITÉ POUR LA PROTECTION DU PARC DE LA GATINEAU

The Five Pillars for Gatineau Park Legislation:

Or Why C-37 Fails

Brief on Bill C-37An Act to Amend the National Capital Act

Submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

September 10, 2009

Andrew McDermott, co-chairJean-Paul Murray, co-chair

17 Kingsmere Road, Chelsea, Quebec, J9B 1R7

Tel.: (819) 827-1803; (613) 316-1320; email: GPPC-CPPG@live.com

2

Why Bill C-37 Fails Summary

Bill C-37 falls short of meeting basic park protection criteria and fails to reflect the consensus on Gatineau Park.1

A consensus on the park has emerged over several decades as a result of public and private initiatives, federal-provincial agreements, numerous public consultations and parliamentary debate. It was most recently expressed during the mandate reviews of both Gatineau Park and the NCC and before the Senate Committee studying Bill S-210.2

According to that consensus, park legislation must mandate conservation and ecological integrity as top management priorities, enshrine boundaries in legislation and respect Quebec’s territorial integrity. It must also eliminate private property development and dedicate Gatineau Park to future generations.

In the absence of proper protection, and without the tools needed to do the job properly, the NCC has allowed the park to be urbanized, fragmented and ecologically imperilled through residential and commercial development as well as road building.

Stronger parliamentary oversight is urgently needed, and unless Bill C-37 is amended as suggested in this document, Gatineau Park will continue to suffer “death by a thousand cuts.”

1 For strong evidence of that consensus, see Brief Submitted to the NCC Mandate Review Panel, by the Coalition for NCC Renewal, Annex B, pp. 21-24, October 2006.2 See Eighth Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, 39-1, Thursday, June 7, 2007(http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/enrg-e/rep-e/rep08jun07-e.htm)

3

4

The Gatineau Park Protection Committee

The Gatineau Park Protection Committee (GPPC) is a standing committee of the New Woodlands Preservation League and insists that the public interest prevail over all other factors in park management, and that its history be presented fairly and truthfully.

Through its various campaigns, the Committee has convinced the National Capital Commission (NCC) to review its historical interpretation of Gatineau Park and recognize its true origins.3 We have also managed to get parliamentarians from both federal houses to table seven bills to set the park’s boundaries, provide it with effective land management and guarantee its long-term protection.

As well, the GPPC has managed to pressure the NCC, with help from Senators Spivak and Banks, to produce the first-ever technical description of Gatineau Park's boundaries. The government has included those boundaries in its current Gatineau Park legislation, Bill C-37.

In 2008, the GPPC led the charge in persuading the NCC to stop a 20-house subdivision on Carman Road inside Gatineau Park4 and in convincing the federal government to adopt Order-in-Council PC 2008-1604, which allows the NCC to acquire all park inholdings.5

On March 20, 2009, we intervened before Quebec’s Administrative Tribunal, managing to secure rightful federal ownership of a 61.5 square kilometre patch of land in Gatineau Park. As a result of our intervention, the Quebec Department of Justice withdrew its appeal – thereby putting to rest the issue of so-called Quebec lands in the Lac La Pêche sector of Gatineau Park.6 3 “Gatineau Park visionary gets his due: The NCC is finally recognizing Roderick Percy Sparks’ key role in preserving the capital region’s finest piece of greenspace,” The Ottawa Citizen, Saturday, July 9, 2005, p. E3.4 “NCC to buy Gatineau Park property: supporters hail move that stymies planned 18-home subdivision,” The Ottawa Citizen, May 22, 2008, pp. C-1, C-6.5 “NCC cuts out middle man in land purchases; Buying land in Gatineau Park will no longer be lengthy process,” The Ottawa Citizen, September 30, 2008, p. C2.6 See “Watchdog claims victory in spat over portion of Gatineau Park: Disputed land at CÉGEP belongs to province,” The Ottawa Citizen, March 22, 2009, p. A5; and « La fin d’un méli-mélo au lac La Pêche», Le Droit, le 28 mars 2009, p. 22.

5

Our mission also seeks to ensure that laws and regulations related to Gatineau Park are rigorously interpreted and enforced by the various levels of government within their respective jurisdictions.

The Five Pillars for Gatineau Park Legislation

Or Why C-37 Fails

1) Background

2) Analysis

a) Boundariesb) Ecological Integrityc) Territorial Integrityd) National Interest Land Masse) Inholdingsf) Report to Parliamentg) Dedication to Future Generations

3) Five Pillars for a Gatineau Park Bill

4) Amendments 

Additional information on previous Gatineau Park bills7 may be found on the following sites:

1) Library of Parliament: www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO8

2) Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatineau_Park

7 C-444 (38-1); S-210 (39-1); C-311 (39-1 & 39-2); S-227 (39-2); S-204 (40-2).8 The full address: www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Session=22&query=5635&List=toc

6

Why Bill C-37 Fails

1. Background

Contrary to what the Conservative government has claimed, Bill C-37 fails to respond to concerns stakeholders and the public expressed before an independent review panel and ignores several key recommendations made by that panel.9

In April 2006, against a backdrop of increasing public distrust and dissatisfaction over the NCC’s secrecy and mismanagement, the government had set up the NCC Mandate Review Panel to determine whether the agency was still relevant and whether it could be reformed.

When it tabled its report in December 2006, the Panel recommended greater parliamentary oversight of the NCC, to ensure better accountability, transparency and management. In particular, the Panel insisted Parliament be given final say in approving master plans for the nation’s capital, as well as any changes to the National Interest Land Mass (NILM).10 The Panel also urged the government to amend the National Capital Act to include a Charter that would clearly define Gatineau Park’s mandate and guarantee its better protection.

Unfortunately, Bill C-37 fails to provide either the greater legislative oversight the Panel recommended or a Charter defining a vision for the park. Instead, it gives Cabinet authority to approve master plans, and allows the NCC to make changes to the NILM and to Gatineau Park boundaries. This virtually ensures that the process will remain shrouded in secrecy and subjected to public criticism.

In the absence of parliamentary oversight, the NCC has made several significant changes to the NILM and to Gatineau Park boundaries in recent years. For instance, as a result of boundary “rationalization” in the 1990s – as well as major road building – the NCC furtively removed 1,842 acres from the park, or nearly three square miles.11

9 “Government of Canada Presents an Action Plan for the National Capital Commission,” News Release no. HO85/09, Transport Canada, June 9, 2009.10 Report of the Panel on the NCC Mandate Review, Transport Canada, Ottawa, 2006, pp. 5, 29, 30, 31, 32.11 House of Commons, Sessional Paper no. 8555-381-204, November 14, 2005. Additional information obtained from the NCC’s Intergovernmental Relations Branch on August 2, 2006.

7

When pressed by parliamentarians to explain how it had done this, the agency gave several contradictory and misleading explanations – prompting a senator to raise a question of privilege in the Senate on November 22, 2005.12

Moreover, in the absence of a proper land management mechanism, the NCC has allowed the building of 118 new houses in Gatineau Park since 1992. Add to this a new superstore, coffee shop, gas station, fire hall, municipal pumping station and five new roads built in violation of master plans, and the need for stronger parliamentary oversight becomes even more urgent.13

In 2008, the proposed Carman Road development and the muddying of Meech Lake reported in the press were only the latest examples of threats Gatineau Park will continue to face in the absence of the thorough legislative oversight recommended by the NCC Mandate Review Panel and requested by citizens and stakeholders.14

2. Analysis

Over the last decades, a consensus has emerged on Gatineau Park as a result of public and private initiatives, federal-provincial agreements, NCC planning and consultation efforts and parliamentary debate. And it’s now generally felt that park legislation must meet basic criteria to be reliable and effective.15

Moreover, recent opinion polls provide compelling evidence of this consensus. For instance, an online poll conducted by Le Droit last April found that 86% of respondents wanted the federal government to give Gatineau Park legislative protection. As well, in 2006, a Decima-Ottawa Citizen poll confirmed that 82% of the population wanted Gatineau Park to become a national park.16

12 Senate Debates, November 22, 2005, pp. 2132-2134.13 For more details on these developments, see Bill S-210: a Compromise Designed to Protect Gatineau Park, brief submitted to the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, New Woodlands Preservation League, March 22, 2007, pp. 4-6.14 See “NCC to buy Gatineau Park property”, The Ottawa Citizen, May 22, 2008, pp. C-1, C-6, and “Group fears new homes are muddying Meech,” The Ottawa Citizen, July 29, 2008, p. C-1.15 Brief Submitted to the NCC Mandate Review Panel, by the Coalition for NCC Renewal, Annex B, pp. 21-24, October 2006.16 « Le gouvernement fédéral devrait-il légiférer pour protéger le parc de la Gatineau ? » Le Droit, le 24 avril 2009, p. 4; “Most for nationalizing Gatineau Park,” The Ottawa Citizen, March 20, 2006, p. C3.

8

According to this consensus, Gatineau Park legislation should at the very least mandate conservation and ecological integrity as a top priority, enshrine boundaries, eliminate private property development, and dedicate the park to future generations. And given the precedent established by the National Parks Act (NPA), any federal legislation to protect the park should respect the jurisdictions, sensibilities and territorial integrity of the province.

We underline that the consensus on Gatineau Park is supported by expert opinion arguing that protective park legislation in general must meet basic criteria.17

Careful analysis of Bill C-37 reveals its woeful inadequacy in meeting basic park protection criteria and its failure to reflect any consensus on Gatineau Park. Unless properly amended, Bill C-37 will allow boundary changes, inholding development and road building to continue impairing the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park.

It will also allow the federal government to change park boundaries without consulting Quebec.

The following sections provide a more detailed review of the issues legislation must address to offer Gatineau Park the protection everyone agrees it deserves, and how Bill C-37 fails on all these counts.

a) Boundaries

Bill C-37 does not provide Gatineau Park with any formal status or properly enshrined boundaries. Although Section 23 of the bill describes the park’s boundaries, Section 22.1 stipulates that they can be amended by executive order without any parliamentary oversight or debate. This is much weaker than the protection offered by the National Parks Act (NPA).

In the case of national parks, only an act of Parliament can change boundaries to reduce the size of a park. Section 5.(3)of the NPA says that no amendment may be made by the Governor in Council to remove any portion of a park.

17 See Boyd, David R., Wild by Law: A Report Card on Laws Governing Canada’s Parks and Protected Areas, and a Blueprint for Making these Laws more Effective, Polis Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria, May 2002, http://www.polisproject.org/node/38; and Sierra Club of Canada, Bill S-210: A Reasonable Statutory Framework to Protect Gatineau Park, brief submitted by the to the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, March 27, 2007.

9

Similar protection is needed for Gatineau Park, since the NCC has time and again changed its story on the exact nature of the park’s boundaries. For instance, in response to a written question submitted in 2004, the NCC informed former Manitoba Senator Mira Spivak that “the legal boundary of the park […] had been established by federal Order in Council in 1960.”18 And then, in a complete reversal about a year later, it told then Ottawa-Centre MP Ed Broadbent the exact opposite, that “the 1960 Order in Council did not establish the park boundary.”19

Adding to the confusion, former NCC Chairman Marcel Beaudry said in a letter of April 12, 2005 to senators that Treasury Board had approved the park’s new boundary in 1997. However, in response to a written question from Senator Spivak seeking clarification, the NCC then said that the Treasury Board decision had not established the park boundary...20 And in the wake of these contradictions, the NCC has also claimed that Gatineau Park’s boundary was set by everything from the Meech Creek Valley Land Use Concept, to National Interest Land Mass designation, to section 10(2)(c) of the National Capital Act.21

The only way to eliminate confusion, ensure transparency and limit the likelihood a future government will attempt to cut off some part of the park for short-term political objectives is to submit any proposed boundary changes to full public scrutiny and debate in Parliament. Just like we do for national parks.

b) Ecological Integrity

Canada’s National Parks are governed by the Parks Act of 2000, which has ecological integrity as its guiding principle. The Act is considered “the gold standard” both nationally and internationally for the protection it gives parks.22

Section 2 of the NPA defines “ecological integrity” as characteristics of a natural region that are likely to persist, including native species and biological communities, as well as natural processes like weather, water flow, temperature, etc.

18 Senate Sessional Paper 1/38-368-S, December 14, 2004.19 House of Commons Sessional Paper no. 8555-381-204, November 14, 2005.20 Answers provided to Senator Spivak’s office by the NCC’s Intergovernmental Affairs Branch, February 17, 2006. 21 Ibid.22 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: the State of Canada’s Parks, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Ottawa, 2009, p. 11.

10

Unfortunately Bill C-37 falls short of reaching the gold standard set by the NPA. Instead of making the ecological integrity of all Gatineau Park lands a priority, Bill C-37 only requires that the NCC give “due regard” to maintaining the ecological integrity of its own lands exclusively (Section 10.4(2)). This wording, besides being fuzzy, conflicts with the NCC’s latest master plan for the park, which clearly establishes ecological integrity as its primary goal. 23

Will “due regard” ever prove as effective as a “top management priority” when it comes to protecting Gatineau Park’s ecological integrity? If the past is any indication of the future, then the answer is most likely no.

Moreover, Section 10.4 (1) creates two categories of lands in Gatineau Park. Those that belong to the public and those that belong to inholders. According to the bill, only NCC park lands are to be managed in accordance with “responsible environmental stewardship,” since no mention is made of applying that criterion to private inholdings. Besides, the term “responsible environmental stewardship” is nowhere defined in the bill.

Without stronger legislated protection, subdivisions and dubious shoreline constructions, like those widely reported in the press in 2008, will likely continue to inflict more ecological damage on Gatineau Park.24

c) Territorial Integrity

Respect for territorial integrity presupposes that the federal government will obtain provincial consent before making any changes to the boundaries of a park submitted to its specific authority, as in the case of Gatineau Park. Unfortunately, Bill C-37 completely ignores the issue.

Although Quebec’s territorial integrity refers primarily to the province’s external boundaries with Canadian provinces or American states, it also applies to internal boundaries, given the presence of land parcels under federal jurisdiction. Such lands include airports, military and communications installations, native reserves, public ports and harbours as well as national parks. Strictly speaking, those

23 The preamble to the 2005 Master Plan for Gatineau Park provides a succinct expression of the NCC’s commitment to this principle.24 Supra note 6.

11

lands are submitted to broader federal jurisdiction than lands in the remainder of the province.25

Moreover, it’s often difficult to monitor changes made to internal boundaries, since they tend to lack clear demarcation and fluctuate more easily than federal-provincial boundaries, which are enshrined in legal documents. 26 Accordingly, mandating provincial participation in boundary changes to expand the park would secure greater transparency, guarantee more open public discussions and solidify federal-provincial relations.

There is one notable area where the federal government respects the internal dimension of territorial integrity: national parks. Section 5(1)(b) of the NPA stipulates that no changes will be made to boundaries for the purposes of enlarging a park, unless the government of the province involved has agreed. An amendment based on this principle would be necessary, not only to respect territorial integrity, but also to help the NCC implement its policy of maintaining strong ties with its provincial partners. Without such an amendment, the Bloc Québécois will likely oppose Bill C-37.

It’s also worthwhile mentioning that Section 43 of the Constitution Act 1982 stipulates that any changes to a province’s boundaries require the consent of that province.

d) The National Interest Land Mass

The National Interest Land Mass (NILM) consists of lands in the National Capital Region which the federal government has designated as essential to the integrity, development and purpose of the capital. They include monuments, public parks, heritage buildings, waterfront and green spaces like Gatineau Park and its inholdings, as well as the Green Belt. Most of the lands belong to the federal government.

The NILM was created in 1988 as a result of the Nielsen Task Force to rein in the NCC and impose management discipline on its land dealings. The Treasury Board Decision creating the NILM

25 See « La notion d’intégrité territoriale et les problèmes des régions frontières du Québec »,Henri Dorion et Jean-Paul Lacasse, in « Cahiers de géographie du Québec », vol. 18, n° 43, 1974, pp. 137-158.26John Robert Victor Prescott, Boundaries and Frontiers, Taylor and Francis, London, 1978, p. 167.

12

directed the NCC to get rid of its excess lands and place a moratorium on land acquisitions.27

All lands in Gatineau Park, including private properties, were declared part of the NILM, and the NCC was directed to acquire, over the long term, those it does not yet own or manage. However, by not actively acquiring properties put on the market, and allowing subdivisions in the park, the NCC has dramatically increased the cost of eventual acquisitions.

Section 10.2 of Bill C-37 would authorize the NCC to include or exclude lands from the NILM, with Cabinet approval, provided it has made regulations setting the criteria and process for doing so. This poses a considerable threat to Gatineau Park, subjecting its land and boundaries to the passing whims of different administrations and to changes made behind closed doors. As worded, Bill C-37 could even allow the NCC to remove Gatineau Park inholdings from the NILM, thereby further fragmenting and balkanizing the park.

Moreover, both the Auditor General and the NCC Mandate Review Panel underlined that NCC management of the NILM was inconsistent and shrouded in secrecy, and that the agency needed to be more transparent in this regard.28

Clearly, control of the NILM should be subjected to stronger public scrutiny since past experience confirms the NCC has not been upfront in administering its lands.

e) Inholdings

There is a widely held view throughout North America that private property inholdings are detrimental to the public purpose of parks, since they create gaping holes that shatter park integrity and continuity, making it difficult to protect wildlife, as well as natural and cultural resources. 29 We underline that all Gatineau Park Master Plans express the same view.30

27 Treasury Board Decision 809464, September 15, 1988, NCC ATIP no. A-2007/08-0051, September 29, 2008.28 See Transport Canada, Report of the Panel on the NCC Mandate Review, Ottawa, 2006, p. 31, and Office of the Auditor General of Canada, National Capital Commission: Special Examination Report – 2007, 2007, p. 13.29 See National Parks Conservation Association, America’s Heritage for Sale: a Lack of Federal Funds Threatens Loss of Significant National Parklands, Washington, D.C., April 2008; and Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Wilderness Advocate, Ottawa Valley Chapter newsletter, spring 2009, p. 2.30 New Woodlands Preservation League, Ibid., pp. 9-15.

13

Unfortunately, Bill C-37 creates no legislative commitment for the NCC to acquire those lands, and completely sidesteps this issue, which is fundamental to any understanding of Gatineau Park. The reason it’s the only federal park lacking national park status is because it’s the only one that allows private inholdings inside its boundaries.31

Though inholdings make up only two percent of Gatineau Park – i.e., some 300 properties covering about 2,100 acres32 – the handicap they impose and the problems they cause are way out of proportion with their size.

As a general rule, they cluster around the park’s strategic locations and prime scenic and cultural attractions like Meech and Kingsmere lakes, seriously impeding public access and enjoyment of those sites. Inholdings also create other problems that include the construction of access roads, land subdivisions, fragmentation and damage to habitat, inholder efforts to prevent the building of park facilities near their land, conflicts between owners and visitors, etc.33

And the situation will only get worse over time as more people want greater access to their park, and begin to express their frustration over being crowded out by residential inholdings.

As well, the cost of acquiring these private properties will escalate, as the NCC continues to allow construction and gentrification along the lakes and other scenic and cultural locations. At present, the estimated cost of acquiring all those properties is estimated to be $380 million.34 What will it be ten years from now?

The inescapable conclusion is that parliamentarians must give the NCC the legislative tools needed to acquire inholdings and prevent the further damage they inflict on Gatineau Park.

31 Section 5(1)(a) of the NPA forbids any private lands inside park boundaries. See New Woodlands Preservation League, Ibid., pp.15-21, for more information on this. 32 Johansen, David, Land Management Issues in National Parks and the Gatineau Park, Library of Parliament, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, 22 March 2005.33 For a thorough discussion on this, see General Report of the Parkway Subcommittee for the Gatineau Park, Part I, Advisory Committee on Gatineau Park, Federal District Commission, Ottawa, December 1953, pp. 22-23; and Statement of George B. Hartzog, Jr, Director, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, before the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, January 18, 1968, http://www.archive.org/stream/nationalparks00hartrich/nationalparks00hartrich_djvu.txt.34 La CCN achète des terrains privés, Le Droit, le 22 mai 2008, p. 11.

14

f) Report to Parliament

To ensure accountability, transparency and sound management, legislation should require the government to report on its Gatineau Park activities, in particular on its ecological integrity protection efforts and real property acquisitions.

Unfortunately, Bill C-37 makes no provision for rigorous reporting to Parliament. Although the NCC already submits an annual report, it has removed huge parcels of land from the park and changed its boundaries without properly informing parliamentarians in those reports.

g) Dedication to Future Generations

There is a widely held view among legal experts that dedicating parks to future generations “creates a trust-like obligation upon the government to manage parks in a manner that maintains their ecological integrity.”35

Again, the NPA sets the gold standard in this regard, since Section 4.(1) dedicates national parks to the people of Canada for their “benefit, education and enjoyment,” stipulating that they must be used, maintained and left unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

Unfortunately, Bill C-37 does not include a dedication clause either explaining why the park is being created or what its purpose is.

2. Five Pillars for a Gatineau Park Bill

To fully address the problems facing Gatineau Park – fragmentation, urbanization and ecological impairment – park legislation should respect the five criteria listed below which represent the broad consensus on the issue.

i) Dedicate the park to the people of Canada for their education and enjoyment, mandating that it be maintained and used so that it be left unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

35 Boyd, Ibid., p. 5.

15

ii) Make the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through protection of natural resources and natural processes, the first priority in all aspects of Gatineau Park management

iii) Provide legislated boundaries for Gatineau Park. Changes to reduce the size of the park must be approved by Act of Parliament, while changes to expand the park must be made only with approval from the Quebec government to ensure respect for the province’s territorial integrity.

iv) Prevent removal of any land from Gatineau Park by Order in Council or other administrative means. Properties must only be removed from the park through Act of Parliament – in the spirit of protection given national parks since passage of the 1930 National Parks Act.

v) Prohibit new residential construction, and equip the NCC to further its master plan obligation to acquire all Gatineau Park inholdings – e.g., by giving the NCC right of first refusal over any property sales/subdivisions, etc.

3. Amendments to Bill C-37

To meet the five criteria listed above, and to better reflect the consensus on the issue, Bill C-37 must include the amendments listed below. Those amendments reflect the letter and intention of Gatineau Park Bills S-227, S-204 and C-367. Accordingly, the National Capital Act should be amended as follows.

National Interest Land Mass

We recommend amending clause 10.2 of the bill to allow for greater legislative oversight of changes to the NILM, either through Act of Parliament or motion to concur in a committee report.

A Clear Acquisition Mandate

1. Subsection 10(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (a), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following after paragraph (b): (c) acquire real property situated in Gatineau Park that is not owned by the Commission.Dedication and Ecological Integrity Clauses

2. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 10:

16

10.1 (1) There is hereby established a park named Gatineau Park, the boundaries of which are set out in Schedule 2.

(2) Gatineau Park is hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and it shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave it unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

(3) Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the Commission when considering all aspects of the management of Gatineau Park.

Boundaries/Territorial Integrity

10.2 (1) Subject to this section and section 10.3, the Governor in Council may, by order, for the purpose of enlarging Gatineau Park, amend Schedule 2 to change the boundaries of the park if

(a) agreement has been reached between the Governments of Canada and Quebec; and

(b) the Commission has consulted with the public.

(2) Before an order is made under subsection (1), the proposed order shall be tabled in each House of Parliament and may be referred to an appropriate committee of that House.

(3) A committee to which a proposed order is referred may, within 30 sitting days after the proposed order is tabled, report to the House that it disapproves the proposed order, in which case a motion to concur in the report shall be put to the House in accordance with its procedures.

(4) The proposed order may be made if no report disapproving the proposed order is presented in accordance with subsection (3) or if, in respect of each such report that is so presented, the motion to concur in the report is negatived.

10.3 No amendment may be made by the Governor in Council to Schedule 2 for the purpose of removing any portion of Gatineau Park.

3. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 13:

17

13.1 (1) The Minister shall provide opportunities for public participation at the national, regional and local levels in the development of policies and management plans for Gatineau Park and in any other matters that the Minister considers relevant.

(2) In carrying out his or her functions under subsection (1), the Minister shall consult with the Government of Quebec.

Prohibiting Sale or Disposal of Gatineau Park Lands

13.2 (1) No person shall sell or otherwise dispose of real property situated in Gatineau Park to anyone other than the Commission unless the person has given the right of first refusal to the Commission by submitting to the Commission an unconditional offer for sale of the property at fair market value, and

(a) the person has received written confirmation from the Commission that it declines the offer; or

(b) the Commission has not accepted the offer within 60 days after receiving it.

(2) Any purported sale or disposition of real property in contravention of subsection (1) is null and void.

(3) This section does not apply to the sale or disposition of real property pursuant to a contract in writing entered into before this section comes into force.

13.3 Despite any other provision of this Act, no public lands situated in Gatineau Park shall be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Report to Parliament

4. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 22:

22.1 The Commission shall, in its annual report submitted under section 150 of the Financial Administration Act, provide information about the Commission's activities with respect to Gatineau Park, including the acquisition of real property situated in the park.

18