Governance of Near-Urban Conservation Areas: Lessons from the Conflicts Surrounding Gatineau Park near Ottawa, Canada (Local and Urban Governance) 3030644391, 9783030644390

Citation preview

Local and Urban Governance

Michael Lait

Governance of Near-Urban Conservation Areas Lessons from the Conflicts Surrounding Gatineau Park near Ottawa, Canada

Local and Urban Governance Series Editor Carlos Nunes Silva Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning University of Lisbon Lisbon, Portugal

This series contains research studies with policy relevance in the field of sub-­ national territorial governance, at the micro, local and regional levels, as well as on its connections with national and supranational tiers. The series is multidisciplinary and brings together innovative research from different areas within the Social Sciences and Humanities. The series is open for theoretical, methodological and empirical ground breaking contributions. Books included in this series explore the new modes of territorial governance, new perspectives and new research methodologies. The aim is to present advances in Governance Studies to scholars and researchers in universities and research organizations, and to policy makers worldwide. The series includes monographs, edited volumes and textbooks. Book proposals and final manuscripts are peer-reviewed. The areas covered in the series include but are not limited to the following subjects: • Local and regional government • Urban and metropolitan governance • Multi-level territorial governance • Post-colonial local governance • Municipal merger reforms • Inter-municipal cooperation • Decentralized cooperation • Governance of spatial planning • Strategic spatial planning • Citizen participation in local policies • Local governance, spatial justice and the right to the city • Local public services • Local economic development policies • Entrepreneurialism and municipal public enterprises • Local government finance • Local government and sustainable development • Anthropocene and green local governance • Climate change and local governance • Smart local governance The series is intended for geographers, planners, political scientists, sociologists, lawyers, historians, urban anthropologists and economists. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16129

Michael Lait

Governance of Near-Urban Conservation Areas Lessons from the Conflicts Surrounding Gatineau Park near Ottawa, Canada

Michael Lait Department of Sociology Vancouver Island University Nanaimo, BC, Canada

ISSN 2524-5449     ISSN 2524-5457 (electronic) Local and Urban Governance ISBN 978-3-030-64439-0    ISBN 978-3-030-64440-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64440-6 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

This book is dedicated to my parents.

Preface

In response to the biodiversity and climate crises, environmental organizations and governments must expand parks and protected wilderness areas, not only by enhancing protections for existing parks, but also by establishing new protected  areas. While preserving areas of ecological significance is indispensible for wildlife habitats, countries must also find ways to provide their increasingly urban populations with regulated access to nature. Unlike protected areas that are in remote and rural areas, near-urban parks are used for recreation and conservation purposes, which are difficult objectives to balance. This governance study of Gatineau Park explores a deviant and extreme case as not only recreation and conservation objectives are in conflict, but park managers have to contend with problems arising from privately owned lands scattered throughout the park territory. Through a description of the conflicts surrounding Gatineau Park, this case study provides important lessons as to what can arise when jurisdiction is not adequately sorted, when park boundaries are poorly defined, when legislation is lacking, and when the land acquisition program is inadequately funded and implemented. Whereas most national parks and protected areas in Canada, and throughout the world, have managed to eliminate the private ownership of land, Gatineau Park’s situation is relatively unique, as private lands have not only been allowed to persist, but “residents” have been accommodated by park managers, creating situations where landowners are granted easements on public lands, and their comments and complaints are acted upon by federal authorities against the public interest. Expanding upon the author’s doctoral thesis, which examined the early history of Gatineau Park and identified the role played by the cottager associations in the establishment of this near-urban wilderness, this book documents the myriad issues and controversies around privately owned lands and how the park’s private lands issue has evolved over time until the present. It examines how the park’s development and use have been affected by private landowners, who have limited public access while securing improvements (e.g., roads, infrastructure) and building residential subdivisions. Despite claims by the National Capital Commission that the

vii

viii

Preface

park is governed as a public wilderness for conservation and recreational uses, its central area, Kingsmere Lake and Meech Lake, has been urbanized. Private residents are active collaborators in the park’s governance: they constitute a privileged class of property owners who are accommodated by park managers. In addition to providing the first description of the park’s governance history under the NCC, this book also describes the campaign for legislation, with conservation and environmental activist groups pressuring parliamentarians since 1969. Following the consensus among these groups around the five pillars of legislation, the book makes recommendations specific to the park’s future governance under the NCC. Moreover, as Parks Canada has yet to offer a vision for a near-urban national park system, the book recommends the establishment of a national agency with the singular purpose of conserving near-urban parks and protected areas. As this study reveals, Gatineau Park was supposed to be the point of departure for this system, but was instead turned into a mixed-use/mixed-ownership area inhabited by self-styled park custodians who are unwilling to compromise on issues respecting their property rights. Thus, any organization looking to establish near-urban conservation areas should have a clear mandate to acquire private lands with the powers to ensure the timely completion of the land acquisition program as well as expansion of parklands through the creation of ecological corridors. Nanaimo, BC, Canada

Michael Lait

Acknowledgments

For their valuable comments and criticisms of earlier drafts, I thank my doctoral supervisor, Patricia Ballamingie, and committee members, Bruce Curtis and William Walters, at Carleton University. I would also like thank Jean-Paul Murray, Sheila Thomson, Ted Mosquin, John McDonnell, Ian Huggett, Lorna McCrea, Doug Anions, Bill Gard, Bill McGee, and Scott Findlay for sharing their documents and observations. My thanks to the series editor, Professor Carlos Nunes Silva, and staff at Springer. A debt of gratitude must also be paid to the research staff at the National Capital Commission and Library Archives Canada. Any errors or omissions are mine. I gratefully acknowledge that  Gatineau Park is on traditional and  unceded Algonquin  territory. I also  gratefully acknowledge the Stz’uminus First Nation on whose unceded territory I live.

ix

Contents

1 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.1 Phronetic Research����������������������������������������������������������������������������    2 1.2 Jurisdiction, Territoriality, and Mobility ������������������������������������������    3 1.3 Chapter Contents������������������������������������������������������������������������������    7 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    9 2 National Park at the Doorstep of Canada’s Capital ����������������������������   11 2.1 From Algonquin Territory to Agrarian Settlement����������������������������   12 2.2 Transformation into Ottawa’s Cottage Country��������������������������������   16 2.3 First Park Proposals��������������������������������������������������������������������������   18 2.4 Transformation into Recreation Playground������������������������������������   23 2.5 Parliament Debates a National Park��������������������������������������������������   25 2.6 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   27 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   28 3 The Gatineau Hills Clear-Cutting Controversy������������������������������������   31 3.1 Antecedents to the Controversy��������������������������������������������������������   32 3.2 Establishment of the Federal Woodlands Preservation League��������   33 3.3 Findings of the Lower Gatineau Woodlands Survey������������������������   37 3.4 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   40 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   41 4 The Creation of “Gatineau Park”����������������������������������������������������������   43 4.1 Public Calls for a National Park��������������������������������������������������������   44 4.2 League Negotiations with the Federal Government�������������������������   45 4.3 Sparks Becomes League President ��������������������������������������������������   47 4.4 Parliament Approves Funds��������������������������������������������������������������   48 4.5 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   52 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   52

xi

xii

Contents

5 Park Governance Under the Federal District Commission ����������������   55 5.1 First Park Expansion ������������������������������������������������������������������������   56 5.2 Early Activities of Park Residents����������������������������������������������������   57 5.3 Park Expansion and Development During the Second World War����������������������������������������������������������������������   60 5.4 Planning and Management During the Postwar Period��������������������   61 5.5 Postwar Expropriations in Gatineau Park ����������������������������������������   64 5.6 Creation of the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee������������������������   66 5.7 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   72 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   73 6 Sparking the Private Lands Issue����������������������������������������������������������   75 6.1 A Rift in the Appendix����������������������������������������������������������������������   76 6.2 Reaction to Committee Report����������������������������������������������������������   80 6.3 General Report of the Gatineau Parkway Subcommittee ����������������   85 6.4 Downfall of the GPAC����������������������������������������������������������������������   88 6.5 Joint Parliamentary Committee on FDC Reform������������������������������   95 6.6 Stalled Gatineau Parkway Construction ������������������������������������������  102 6.7 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  104 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  106 7 Park Governance Under the National Capital Commission����������������  109 7.1 Creation of the NCC and (Un)Altered Park Governance�����������������  110 7.2 Parkway Planning and Meech Lake Road Expropriations����������������  113 7.3 Federal-Provincial Land Exchange Negotiations ����������������������������  122 7.4 Expropriation of Domaine du Lac La Pêche������������������������������������  124 7.5 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  131 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  132 8 An Activist Chair Governs����������������������������������������������������������������������  137 8.1 First Attempt at a Master Plan����������������������������������������������������������  138 8.2 Meech Lake Goes Public������������������������������������������������������������������  142 8.3 The Fullerton Ban ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  152 8.4 Successful Federal-Provincial Negotiations ������������������������������������  160 8.5 Failures in Governance Reform��������������������������������������������������������  164 8.6 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  168 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  169 9 Planning, Expropriations, Planning…��������������������������������������������������  173 9.1 Meech Creek Valley��������������������������������������������������������������������������  174 9.2 Sully Woods��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  177 9.3 Interim Land Acquisition Policy������������������������������������������������������  187 9.4 Development Freeze, Park Planning, and Acquisition Policy����������������������������������������������������������������������  189 9.5 Nielsen Taskforce Review ����������������������������������������������������������������  196 9.6 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  198 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  199

Contents

xiii

10 The McInnis Scare ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  203 10.1 Subdivision Approval����������������������������������������������������������������������  203 10.2 Public Protest and Expropriation����������������������������������������������������  209 10.3 1989 Land Acquisition Strategy������������������������������������������������������  219 10.4 Renewed Push for Legislation��������������������������������������������������������  220 10.5 1990 Master Plan Revision ������������������������������������������������������������  224 10.6 Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  225 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  226 11 Protecting the Park’s Status Quo ����������������������������������������������������������  229 11.1 Resident Opposition to the 1990 Master Plan��������������������������������  230 11.2 NCC Privatization and Boundary Rationalization��������������������������  233 11.3 Park Custodians Co-opt NCC Planning������������������������������������������  239 11.4 NCC Acceptance of Private Ownership������������������������������������������  242 11.5 Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  244 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  245 12 Ongoing Campaign for Legislation and Issue Flare-Ups ��������������������  249 12.1 Paquet Panel and NCC on Gatineau Park Legislation������������������������������������������������������������������������������  250 12.2 First Bills Tabled����������������������������������������������������������������������������  252 12.3 Bill S-210 and Subsequent Bills ����������������������������������������������������  254 12.4 Park Governance Under Lemay������������������������������������������������������  260 12.5 Further Acquiescence to Park Residents����������������������������������������  265 12.6 Capitulation to Residents in the 2021 Master Plan������������������������  270 12.7 Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  273 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  274 13 Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  279 13.1 Sort Jurisdiction Early��������������������������������������������������������������������  282 13.2 Clearly Defined Boundaries and Boundary Expansion Mechanisms������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  284 13.3 Timely Completion of Land Acquisitions��������������������������������������  285 13.4 Adopting the Consensus on Gatineau Park Legislation������������������  287 13.5 Protecting Near-Urban Nature��������������������������������������������������������  289 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  290

About the Author

Michael  Lait  is a CMHC-SSHRC postdoctoral fellow and instructor in the Department of Sociology at Vancouver Island University, where he also teaches in the Global Studies program. He obtained his PhD in sociology from Carleton University in 2017.

xv

Abbreviations

BRE CPAWS-OV CEO CEGEP CRO DPW FDC FPC FWPL GPAC GPC GPPC KPOA LAC MLA MPs NCC NCPC NCR NILM NPPAC-OH OIC OFNC OSC ORA POGG SSCEENR

Boundary Rationalization Exercise Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Ottawa-Valley Chapter Chief Executive Officer Collège d’Enseignment General et Professionnel Communauté Régionale de l’Outaouais Department of Public Works Federal District Commission Federal Plan Commission Federal Woodlands Preservation League Gatineau Park Advisory Committee Gatineau Park Commission Gatineau Park Protection Committee Kingsmere Property Owners’ Association Library Archives Canada Meech Lake Association Members of Parliament National Capital Commission National Capital Planning Commission National Capital Region National Interest Land Mass National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada, Ottawa-­ Hull Chapter Ottawa Improvement Commission Ottawa Field-Naturalists’ Club Ottawa Ski Club Outaouais Road Agreement Peace, Order, and Good Government Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

xvii

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 2.3

Map of Hull County from 1810�����������������������������������������������������   14 Map of Meech Lake settlers����������������������������������������������������������   15 Map of Mackenzie King’s estate at Kingsmere Lake��������������������   18

Fig. 3.1

Map of forest conditions surrounding Meech Lake from 1935�����   39

Fig. 4.1

Woodlot near Meech Lake expropriated for Gatineau Park����������   50

Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3

Map of Gatineau Park from 1944��������������������������������������������������   66 Map of Gatineau Park ownership in 1946�������������������������������������   67 Map of projected Gatineau Parkway system���������������������������������   70

Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2

Map of land acquisitions for Gatineau Parkway���������������������������   87 Front page of Ottawa Journal on 12 May 1955�����������������������������   93

Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4

Notice of expropriation to Chrzanowski���������������������������������������  117 Map of Chrzanowski property�������������������������������������������������������  118 Map of Sparks property�����������������������������������������������������������������  121 Map of Bourque Brothers property�����������������������������������������������  126

Fig. 8.1 Fig. 8.2 Fig. 8.3 Fig. 8.4

Petition of the Meech Lake Association����������������������������������������  146 Map of proposed snowmobile corridor�����������������������������������������  155 Map of provincial Crown lands in Gatineau Park�������������������������  162 Petition calling for Gatineau Park legislation��������������������������������  167

Fig. 9.1 Fig. 9.2 Fig. 9.3

Map showing proximity of Sully Woods to Ottawa����������������������  178 Sully Woods master plan���������������������������������������������������������������  179 Map of Brown property�����������������������������������������������������������������  180

Fig. 10.1 Fig. 10.2 Fig. 10.3 Fig. 10.4 Fig. 10.5 Fig. 10.6

Map showing proximity of land to Pink Lake�������������������������������  205 Map of Lot 14��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  206 C & B Vacation Properties plan of subdivision�����������������������������  208 Alexander plan of subdivision at Meech Lake������������������������������  209 Woodhouse plan of subdivision at Kingsmere������������������������������  210 NCC email exchange on Gatineau Park land acquisitions������������  221 xix

xx

List of Figures

Fig. 11.1 Fig. 11.2 Fig. 11.3 Fig. 11.4

Map showing BRE of Meech Creek Valley�����������������������������������  235 Map showing 1990 Master Plan boundary amendment����������������  236 Map showing BRE in Pontiac sector���������������������������������������������  237 Map showing BRE in southern half of Gatineau Park������������������  238

Fig. 12.1

Photo of new residential construction at Meech Lake�������������������  262

List of Tables

Table 8.1

Buildings in Gatineau Park������������������������������������������������������������  140

Table 11.1 Number of residences at Kingsmere and Meech Lake by property size��������������������������������������������������  239 Table 12.1 Gatineau Park Public Advisory Committee members�������������������  270

xxi

Chapter 1

Introduction

Unlike national parks and protected areas in rural, remote, and sparsely populated areas, the governance of near-urban areas requires an ever more careful balancing of conservation and recreation objectives. This study investigates an extreme and deviant case of a the governance of near-urban conservation park. At 36,131 hectares (89,282 acres), Gatineau Park is located adjacent to the Canadian cities of Ottawa and Gatineau. The park has been described by conservationists as a “semi-­ wilderness” (CPAWS 2008), and the park’s governing body, the National Capital Commission (NCC), recently recognized not only that the park’s three main sectors (Lac La Pêche, Meech-Mousseau-Lac Philippe, and Green Wedge) are fragmented ecosystems but also that the park is an ecological island, now completely cutoff from waterways as a result of highways and roads (NCC 2010). Gatineau Park provides an extreme case in the context of Canada’s national parks as the NCC’s park managers are balancing interests of conservation, recreation, and private groups. The park’s governance provides insight into the public-private and territorial conflicts that arise when privately owned lands are intermixed with public parklands. Gatineau Park is a deviant case in that the protected area does not have legislation setting out the NCC’s governance mandate, the park boundaries, or policies, in particular land acquisition policies. This study examines the debates around the various legislative proposals affecting privately owned lands put forward and finds a consensus to have emerged around five pillars. In addition to offering the main lessons to be drawn from this study of the park’s governance history, the conclusion recommends legislators adopt the consensus position and suggests that a national authority is needed to establish, expand, monitor, and conserve regional systems of near-urban parks and protected areas.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Lait, Governance of Near-Urban Conservation Areas, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64440-6_1

1

2

1 Introduction

1.1  Phronetic Research The research is grounded in the phronetic approach elaborated by sociologist Bent Flyvbjerg (2001; Flyvbjerg et al. 2012). Phronesis is the Greek word for practical wisdom. Phronetic research focuses on real-world problems and attempts to find practical solutions to help alleviate those problems. To this end, phronetic case studies are descriptive and prescriptive. This study describes the history of Gatineau Park, from the antecedent events, through to the park’s establishment, and to the present-day governance issues. Flyvbjerg (2001: 156) explains the prescriptive ends of the phronetic research process: “I would deliberately and actively feed the results of my research back into the political, administrative, and social processes that I studied.” As much as this governance case study will be of interest to planners and managers of near-urban parks, it is important for this study’s findings and recommendations to reach federal legislators as well as park stakeholders that have been advocating for protective legislation. This study of Gatineau Park’s governance reveals that private ownership in the Kingsmere-Meech Lake area has been the park’s status quo since the 1950s, when the park’s founding father, Roderick Percy Sparks, clashed with government officials over the question of acquiring privately owned lands in the park. Sparks wanted the park to be brought into full public ownership. He urged the park’s governing body, the Federal District Commission (FDC), to impose a time limit on acquisitions of remaining privately owned lands, and he foreshadowed the governance issues that park managers would later encounter such as residential subdivisions, access roads, and other incompatible uses. Throughout this study, it is shown that property owners in the park have benefitted through increased property values and the restrictions on development in neighboring parkland. Drawing from geographer Robert Sack’s notion of territoriality, it describes how private landowners negotiate the control of the park territory through their organizations, the Meech Lake Association (MLA) and Kingsmere Property Owners’ Association (KPOA). These organizations can be traced back to the early 1920s. Although  questions of park governance have preoccupied the MLA and KPOA, these groups have been mostly ignored in the scholarship on Gatineau Park. This book suggests that private interests have benefitted from, and contributed to, the absence of any legal status; despite claiming that they are co-owners and co-­ custodians, Meech Lake residents know that, in the final analysis, Gatineau Park is a park in name only—it is a “tract of land” (Frank and Frank 1999) owned by the federal government. Despite the numerous political conflicts and planning and management issues linked to private lands, the policy of the NCC with respect to land acquisitions has been to acquire privately owned lands as they become available on the market, that is, on a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis. This book reveals the entrenchment of this policy within the NCC as there have been multiple instances where the policy has been challenged, both from within the federal government and citizen groups, such as the Ottawa-Valley chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS-OV), the Gatineau Park Protection Committee (GPPC), Sierra Club, and

1.2  Jurisdiction, Territoriality, and Mobility

3

general public. The policy of negotiated purchase on a willing-seller basis is at the root of many of the issues and conflicts surrounding the park’s governance. Added to the problems of private lands, Gatineau Park is unlike national and provincial parks elsewhere in Canada. The park does not have enabling legislation, which is a standard practice in the creation of most provincial and national parks. Moreover, the park does not have a legislated metes-and-bounds description of its boundaries, another standard practice for provincial and national parks. Instead, the legal existence of Gatineau Park is contained in an Order-in-Council from the time that the FDC was reconstituted as the NCC (National Capital Act 1985). The Gatineau Park boundary was a “wide shaded line” on a map attached to the Order-­ in-­Council. In addition to this vague description of boundaries, the OIC mandated the NCC to protect and enlarge the park, echoing the earlier recommendations of the French planner, Jacques Gréber (National Capital Planning Committee 1950), who spearheaded the first successful master plan process for the NCR. The Gréber Plan does not provide any specific recommendations concerning Gatineau Park, even though Gréber, having toured the park several times, and observing conditions at Kingsmere and Meech Lake, recognized the need to reduce if not altogether eliminate private  land ownership. As shown in Chap. 12, legislators have considered different strategies for completing the land acquisition program, and these proposals have encountered stiff opposition from the MLA and KPOA as well as the Municipality of Chelsea (formerly West Hull). The Conclusion endorses the consensus view around legislation, proposing to amend the National Capital Act to give the NCC a mandate for protection of ecological integrity, parliamentary oversight, and mechanisms to enlarge park boundaries to consolidate the park territory and establish ecological corridors (e.g. right of first refusal). It also outlines the governance arrangements of a public conservation agency, with a focus on protecting near urban nature and containing urban sprawl.

1.2  Jurisdiction, Territoriality, and Mobility This case study underscores the importance of what legal scholar Mariana Valverde (2009) refers to as jurisdictional sorting—the questions of who governs what, why, and how. Jurisdictional sorting is the notion that, once jurisdictions have been sorted in a territory, the remaining governance pieces fall into place. In the case of Gatineau Park, the Treasury Board designated all lands in Gatineau Park as National Interest Land Mass (NILM), and the National Capital Commission has repeated its intent of acquiring privately owned lands, but these are minimal protections. Legislatively, the park does not exist, and jurisdiction has yet to be sorted. Following a review of the NCC’s governance arrangements (NCC Mandate Review 2006), the late Professor Gilles Paquet concluded that the NCC was a timid and irrelevant organization, with its regional planning powers having been ceded to the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau (Adam 2012). The following chapters reveal how timid the NCC has been with respect to the private landowners at Kingsmere and Meech Lake, who are important territorial controllers (Blomley 2017).

4

1 Introduction

In the administration of Gatineau Park, the federal government contends with municipal and provincial officials, as well as park residents and their property owner associations. Gatineau Park provides an interesting case study because jurisdiction has not been clearly sorted, as the NCC chooses not to exercise its powers, allowing private owners to proceed with their development projects in the park. It refuses to deploy the full range of “legal technologies” (Wideman and Lombardo 2019: 3) at its disposal in order to control what occurs on private lands in the park. This case study also underlines the complexity and heterogeneity in the governance of Canada’s National Capital Region (NCR). The common practice among federated states, like Australia, Brazil, Germany, and the United States, is to give the federal government overriding authority in the planning and development of the national capital region. Capitals like Washington D.C., Brasilia, and Canberra are the most illustrious examples cited by planning historians. In contrast, Canada’s NCR has always been divided among federal, provincial, and municipal jurisdictions, greatly complicating long-term planning as much as the day-to-day decision-­ making of all three levels of government (Rowat 1973). Canada did not follow the so-called Washington model because the fathers of Canadian confederation did not want to deprive Ottawa residents of the franchise (the removal of citizen voting rights was subsequently abandoned in the Washington model). Instead, they left the planning and development of Canada’s NCR to provincial and municipal governments (Knight 1991). From confederation to the turn of the century, Ottawa was derided as an unsightly and inhospitable national capital (Gordon 2015). The NCC is the federal agency responsible for the planning and governance of the NCR. The NCC is, to a decreasing extent, the major player in the governance of Canada’s NCR. Unlike the municipal governments of Ottawa and Gatineau, the NCC contends with the interests of both provincial governments (Ontario and Quebec). As with the municipalities, however, the NCC also deals with diverse governance actors, such as conservationists, real-estate developers, land speculators, and private landowners, both individually and collectively. The geographer Robert Sack (1986) defines territoriality as the conscious attempt to control a geographical area; territoriality is an exercise of power that produces differential effects (e.g., restricting access for some and/or increasing mobility for others), hierarchies, and inequalities. This study of Gatineau Park’s governance illustrates such differential impacts, as the federal government expropriated lands for the purposes of establishing a national park, but the territoriality of Kingsmere and Meech Lake residents prevented the early realization of a national park, and the territorialities of private actors continue to thwart efforts to administer Gatineau Park as a conservation park. Moreover, the federal government constructed parkways to the cottage communities but never extended those parkways to public facilities at Philippe Lake because of resistance from Meech Lake landowners. In addition to revealing how and why park residents have benefitted from preventing the realization of a national park, this study documents the losses incurred by those affected by the land acquisition program, perhaps one of the largest ever undertaken by the federal government in Québec.

1.2  Jurisdiction, Territoriality, and Mobility

5

Sack’s theoretical framework offers a practical analysis of how territory is enacted over area. Sack (1986: 20) is interested in the strategies used “to establish different degrees of access to people, things, and relationships.” Territoriality is thus understood as an exercise of power, and Sack (1986: 26) goes even further by stating: “Territoriality is the primary spatial form power takes.” Crucially, the questions that arise through this phronetic analysis of territoriality are not confined to government actors: private property owner associations and, to a lesser extent, conservation groups are actors that can and do influence the park’s territory and its governance. For Sack, the notion emphasizes the intentionality and creativity implicated in the exercise of human territoriality. He notes that, because territoriality is dependent on the intentionality of the controlling agent, it is something that can be turned on and off. Similarly, territoriality must be continually enacted for it to be effective. As Sack (1986: 19) puts it, “territories require constant effort to establish and maintain.” On this view, territories represent the more or less successful outcome of territoriality, and this process is encapsulated by the term “territorialization” (Blomley 2016: 596) Human Territoriality identifies three “core tendencies” in the exercise of territoriality. The first tendency is classification by area, rather than classification by kind or type. Sack gives the example of a parent keeping their child out of the kitchen while food is being cooked. Instead of being another room in the house, the kitchen is turned “on” as a territory by the parent, one that children must keep out of when food is cooking. Instead of having to enumerate the different types of people, things, and relationships to which one may or may not have access, classification by area, Sack (1986) argues, is a more efficient means of controlling access. Classifying an area as a protected wilderness implies, in the context of the national parks movement, turning on wildlife and habitat conservation. Gatineau Park is administered as the Capital’s Conservation Park. The NCC claims to administer the park as a protected area, specifically as a Category II (National Park) area according to the classification of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). However, this book demonstrates that, in reality, the park is a “mixed-use/mixed-ownership area.” According to Sack (1986: 32), the second core tendency of territoriality is that it offers the advantage of simple communication “because it requires only one kind of maker or sign—the boundary.” Besides communicating territorial limits, boundary markers also make statements about ownership and conditions of access, such as the ubiquitous “Private Property: No Trespassing” sign. As detailed in the chapters that follow, there were numerous instances where the NCC communicated park boundaries, going beyond the posting of signs to communicate the park boundary through clear-cutting swaths of forest. Third, territoriality requires enforcement. Differential access to an area can be enforced through spatial forms such as a fence, wall, or other barriers that restrict mobility (an important concept related to territoriality, one that will be unpacked below). Territorial enforcement also assumes nonspatial forms, such as overt violence or legal punishment. Returning to the example of the “Private Property” sign, the underlying message typically reads “Violators will be prosecuted.” As the threat of legal punishment indicates, territoriality can also be efficient in that enforcement

6

1 Introduction

does not always require the physical presence of the controller within the territory. So the parent doesn’t have to be in the kitchen to keep their child out of the room when cooking is taking place, but they can instead use a marker to indicate when children must stay out, and threats of punishment can be communicated, verbally or written on the marker (e.g., “you will be grounded for two weeks”). In addition to the discussion of classification, communication, and enforcement, Human Territoriality proceeds to identify 7 other “tendencies” of territoriality and 14 “primary combinations” of these tendencies. Rather than detailing the tendencies and combinations here, I argue that, in the context of the present case, the federal government has, on the one hand, exercised limited powers over lands it does not own. As shown below, the government can, through the Governor in Council, expropriate privately owned lands if it needs them, and, according to the National Capital Act, it has the ability to zone privately owned lands in the context of developing Canada’s national capital. On the other hand, zoning powers have never been exercised on privately owned land in the park. When establishing new national parks, Parks Canada requires full title vested in the Crown in right of Canada, such that, with only a couple of exceptions, privately owned lands are prohibited in Canada’s national park system (Bankes 1986). So, if the federal government wanted, the governance of Gatineau Park could be brought more in line with national parks by consolidating territorial control; the NCC denies that it has any power over private lands in the park. One aspect of territoriality that does warrant more consideration is linkages to the “new mobilities paradigm,” associated with John Urry, Mimi Sheller (Sheller and Urry 2006), and Tim Cresswell (2010), among many others. Sociologists working from this paradigm challenge the view of national parks—and territories in general—as fixed or immobile entities. Instead, they would open the black box of travel and movement in parks and protected conservation areas and ask how human and nonhuman mobilities exist within, around, and through such areas. In the case of Gatineau Park, movement has been facilitated to different areas, at different times, through the construction of the Gatineau Parkway, and, later, the extension of Highway A5 to the park’s public facilities at Philippe and La Pêche lakes. As shown below, one major outcome of Gatineau Park has been the extension of automobility in the so-called Parkway Sector comprised of Kingsmere and Meech Lake. It is shown that park residents successfully  advocated for the construction of the Gatineau Parkway along with access roads linking the Kingsmere communities to the parkway. This view was not unanimous among cottagers, however, and Meech Lake residents were ultimately successful in preventing the extension of the Gatineau Parkway past their properties to the park’s only public facilities open at the time. Clearly, mobility is linked to the territoriality of the private cottagers, necessitating closer examination of how (non)human mobilities have been controlled in Gatineau Park. For instance, recent advancements in conservation biology include the concept of ecological corridors and animal road crossings to offset habitat fragmentation; however, the park’s connectivity to nearby waterways has been severely restricted by urbanization in the form of Autoroute A5, a four-lane highway that defines the park’s eastern boundary.

1.3  Chapter Contents

7

1.3  Chapter Contents This study begins by providing a historical overview of the geographic area in which Gatineau Park is situated. As shown in Chap. 2, the Gatineau Hills were the traditional hunting territory of the Algonquin First Nation, before the lands were colonized by aspiring farmers; these farmers were mostly unsuccessful in their agricultural efforts, and many would go on to sell their property to cottagers. Queen Victoria declared Ottawa to be the capital of the United Canadas, The Queen’s Choice, as it came to be known, which was made after Ottawa had experienced several decades of rapid population growth coinciding with the rise of the lumber industry, which led to extensive clear-cutting in the surrounding area. The Gatineau Hills subsequently became a favored summer destination for federal politicians and public servants, including the future Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King. Chapter 2 describes the first proposals for a national park at the doorstep of Canada’s capital and details the early history of the future park residents, the Meech Lake Association (MLA) and Kingsmere Property Owners’ Association (KPOA). Chapter 3 describes the “denudation controversy” that unfolded in the Great Depression, as declining economic conditions prompted farmers to exploit their woodlots in the Gatineau Hills for income. In response, cottagers from Kingsmere and Meech Lake organized a citizen’s group, the Federal Woodlands Preservation League, that successfully pressured the federal government to intervene on what was perceived as excessive clear-cutting, despite the government forest surveyors finding that clear-cutting had not increased to a significant extent. It is shown that cottagers wanted to protect their property values as much as the “scenic values” of the Gatineau Hills. Whereas the existing scholarship on Gatineau Park correctly observes the decisive role played by the FWPL, the connection between the League and Kingsmere and Meech Lake landowners was ignored. Chapter 4 recounts the events that led up to the establishment of Gatineau Park, with the FWPL pressuring a reticent Prime Minister Mackenzie King, himself a former KPOA member, to approve funds for land acquisitions. Chapter 5 turns to the early period in the park’s governance, as woodlot owners were expropriated in the first of several rounds of land acquisitions carried out by the park’s governing body, the Federal District Commission (FDC). It created the Lac Philippe beach and parking lot. At the time of the establishment of the park’s first public facilities, in 1942, the MLA exercised territoriality by protesting “rumors” of a beach at Meech Lake. While the period of the Second World War delayed land acquisitions, the FDC promptly set to work in the post-war era on surveying the first stretch of the Gatineau Parkway to Meech Lake. And, following the war, the FDC resumed the land acquisition program, with the park’s  long-term planning and boundaries still being defined. Chapter 6 describes the events in the conflict between the park’s “founding father” Roderick Percy Sparks (Murray 2003) and the federal government. Sparks, along with French planning consultant Jacques Gréber and several Kingsmere and Meech Lake cottagers, wanted Gatineau Park to be brought completely under public

8

1 Introduction

ownership and FDC control, with differing proposals made for acquiring remaining privately owned lands. As Chairman of the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee, Sparks desired to remedy the governance problems of private lands by implementing a land acquisition program that imposes a time limit on remaining acquisitions. Park residents asserted that the cottage communities are beneficial to the park’s environment and that, while as much land should be brought into the public domain as possible for the purposes of consolidating ownership and control, negotiated acquisition is the sole land acquisition approach that respects the families living in the park; many families have passed on their waterfront properties through inheritance and maintain that they have every right to enjoy the Gatineau Hills as the general public. The arguments for and against private lands in the Gatineau Park have since been repeated many times. Chapters 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 cover the period of NCC governance (1959 to present). The NCC was supposed to be a more powerful planning body than its predecessor, the FDC. The National Capital Act provided the NCC with zoning and expropriation powers in both provinces: the NCC exercising these powers for the purposes chiefly for Ottawa’s Greenbelt but also for the protection of Gatineau Park. Chapter 7 documents how the NCC, in the early 1960s, expropriated residences along Meech Lake Road in order to prevent potential housing and motel developments. It also abandoned plans to extend the Gatineau Parkway; instead, NCC officials focused their attention on the construction of a new provincial highway along the park’s eastern boundary. Chapter 7 also details the first major expropriation of a proposed subdivision in the wilderness section of the park, Lac La Pêche. NCC officials realized that the default acquisition policy of negotiated purchase on a willing-­seller basis meant that other large, undeveloped parcels were threatened by subdivision; despite the realization of this imminent threat, no action was taken. Chapter 8 documents the park’s governance during the tenure of an “activist” NCC Chair, Douglas Fullerton. Although Fullerton was not prepared to expropriate remaining private lands (and he was encouraged to do so by senior NCC staff), Fullerton did, without advance  warning, turn NCC-owned cottages into public beaches and parking lots, much to the outrage of the MLA and dismay of NCC tenants, some of whom had sold their cottage to the NCC. In addition to detailing the controversy that erupted from Fullerton’s decision to open Meech Lake to public use, the chapter reveals that he played acentral role in the park’s governance through the conclusion of the Outaouais Road Agreement and the Gatineau Park land exchange, which turned over provincial crown lands in the La Pêche sector to the NCC, and saw the province turn the park into a provincial fish and game reserve. Chapter 8 then examines Fullerton’s failed attempt to reform the NCC, as the governance of the NCR was further complicated by the introduction of a fourth tier of government. Fullerton’s proposal to (re)sort the jurisdiction of the NCR failed to recruit supporters among Ottawa’s political class, and the question of NCC reform was left in abeyance for several decades. Without NCC reform, the park’s governance continued to be muddled, with ineffectual planning followed by an expropriation of a major residential subdivision. Chapter 9 documents the expropriation of Sully Woods, as the NCC struggled to

References

9

plan and strategize, let alone fund and implement the parkland acquisition program. In Chap. 10, another cycle, wherein the NCC expropriated a proposed development and restarted the land acquisition program, was completed. Chapters 9, 10, and 11 demonstrate that the Municipality of Chelsea (formerly West Hull) encouraged these developments. Chapter 11 shows how the MLA, KPOA, and Municipality of Chelsea have sought to defend the status quo, especially as new residences and roads were built (despite NCC claims that park preservation remained its primary goal). The chapter shows how the NCC’s park policy shifted toward accommodating the interests of park residents, recognized by the NCC as “custodians” even as new residences are built, and unsanctioned docks and boathouses have to be regularized. As Chapter 12 details, federal legislators have responded to calls from conservationists and park activists by tabling several bills, which have generally had four characteristics: (1) mandating the NCC to protect the park’s ecological integrity, (2) defining the park boundaries, (3) ensuring parliament has to approve boundary changes and land disposals, (4) requiring the NCC to acquire remaining privately owned lands, and (5) dedicating the park to present and future generations. However, the bills have differed on the land acquisition policy. On the one hand, several bills would have provided the NCC with right of first refusal over property sales in the park; on the other hand, the most recent bill, tabled by Nycole Turmel, would have entrenched private property rights. Based on the NCC’s poor track record on protecting the park from incompatible development as well as the powerful influence of park residents on park planning and management, I suggest in the Conclusion that future legislation should adopt the consensus view of conservation and environmental groups, which ensures that the NCC remains the park’s governing body but gives it the right of first refusal over property sales in the park and requires it to protect the park on behalf of future generations. The  Conclusion also outlines  the governance structure required for the successful spread of regional near-urban parks and conservation areas, wherein a government agency would have authority to establish near-urban areas in cities and would have  the requisite land acquisition powers, scientific expertise, and public engagement processes to fulfill its mandate of protecting and expanding conservation areas under its control.

References Adam M (2012) ‘Timid’ NCC could become irrelevant, scholar warns. Ottawa Citizen, 3 Jan 2012 Bankes ND (1986) Constitutional problems related to the creation and administration of Canada’s national parks. In: Saunders JO (ed) Managing natural resources in a federal state. Carswell, Toronto Blomley N (2016) The territory of property. Prog Hum Geogr 40(5):593–609 Blomley N (2017) The territorialization of property in land: space, power, and practice. Territory Polit Gov 7:233–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2017.1359107 CPAWS-OV (2008) Gatineau Park: a threatened treasure. Ottawa-Valley chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Ottawa

10

1 Introduction

Cresswell T (2010) Towards a politics of mobility. Environ Plann D Soc Space 28:17–31 Flyvbjerg B (2001) Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Flyvbjerg B, Landman T, Schram S (2012) Real social science: applied phronesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Frank N, Frank C (1999) Report ignores private-property rights. Ottawa Citizen, 16 June 1999 Gordon DLE (2015) Town and crown: an illustrated history of Canada’s capital. Ivenire Books, Ottawa Knight DB (1991) Choosing Canada’s capital: conflict resolution in a parliamentary system. Carleton University Press, Ottawa Murray J-P (2003) Roderick Percy Sparks: Gatineau Park’s forgotten founder. Up the Gatineau! 30:12–16 National Capital Planning Committee (1950) Plan for the National Capital. Ottawa National Capital Commission (2010). Gatineau Park Ecosystem Conservation Plan, Ottawa NCC Mandate Review (2006) The National Capital Commission: charting a new course. National Capital Commission, Ottawa Parliament of Canada (1985) National Capital Act, R.S.C., c. N-4. Ottawa Rowat DC (1973) Ottawa. In: Rowat DC (ed) The government of federal capitals. University of Toronto Press, Toronto Sack RD (1986) Human territoriality: its theory and history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Sheller M, Urry J (2006) The new mobilities paradigm. Environ Plan A 28:207–226 Valverde M (2009) Jurisdiction and scale: legal technicalities as resources for theory. Soc Leg Stud 18(2):139–157 Wideman TJ, Lombardo N (2019) Geographies of land use: planning, property, and law. Geogr Compass:13. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12473

Chapter 2

National Park at the Doorstep of Canada’s Capital

This chapter describes the historical transformation of the Gatineau Hills, starting from the recognition that the entire area constitutes the unceded territory of the Algonquin people. As shown in section one, the Algonquin used the Gatineau Hills mainly for the purposes of hunting; this hunting territory was distributed among Algonquin families through rights of inheritance. Beginning in the 1800s, the first settlers began to occupy the area and over time displaced the Algonquin. Irish and Loyalist farm families found the Gatineau Hills to be marginal, and most of the pioneer families migrated westward. The second section discusses how the Gatineau Hills became a summer retreat for federal politicians and civil servants who sought an escape to nature from the “lumbertown” of Ottawa, the capital of Canada. The third section details the proposals to establish a protected area in the Gatineau Hills, such that the area would be preserved for future generations as a national park. This was the desire of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King who approved funds for the park; above all else, King wanted a national park in the Gatineau Hills. The fourth section recounts how, in the 1920s, cottagers established their organizations which pursued the related goals of beautification and improvement. In addition to pursuing these benign ends, the organizations functioned as quasi local governments with the social goals of maintaining privacy, racial homogeneity, and class exclusivity. Following Evan McKenzie (1994), I argue that the resident associations instituted a “privatopia” in Gatineau Park, where their private property rights are respected and they exercise territoriality to ensure that their private interests are not only respected but abided by the federal government. In the context of the growing recreational importance of the Gatineau Hills, the fifth section describes the earliest exchange in Parliament about transforming the area into a national park, as the government was setting up the FDC, a more powerful planning agency than its predecessor, the Ottawa Improvement Commission.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Lait, Governance of Near-Urban Conservation Areas, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64440-6_2

11

12

2  National Park at the Doorstep of Canada’s Capital

2.1  From Algonquin Territory to Agrarian Settlement Prior to becoming the region’s “recreation playground,” the Gatineau Hills were important hunting grounds of the Algonquin and, for less than half a century (1820–1860s), the farmlands of white settlers, mainly of Irish and Scottish descent (Parson 1975). Although the Algonquin exercised territoriality that included the organization of property among families (Cellard 1997; Hessel 1993), white settlers, through the American Philemon Wright, established settlements and farms in the settlement that would become Hull, in the then Province of Lower Canada (Elliott 1979). Around the same time, on the other side of the Ottawa River, Nicholas Sparks purchased lands from the Crown in the area that became downtown Ottawa, the future capital. In addition to his status as the founder of Ottawa, Nicholas Sparks was the great-grand uncle of Roderick Percy Sparks, the central figure in the creation and planning of Gatineau Park (Murray 2003). From the moment of the first colonization, the Algonquin knew that their territorial control and property relations were threatened  by the newly arrived settlers. Algonquin elders petitioned the Government of Lower Canada to formally recognize their legal and property rights as enshrined by the British Crown’s Royal Proclamation of 1773, which reads that Indigenous peoples “shall not, under any pretense whatever, be deprived of the lands claimed” (cited in Hessel 1993: 69). White settlers “inaugurated” a legal order that envisioned jurisdiction space that proceeded from the doctrine of discovery for so-called uninhabited lands (Pasternak 2014: 160). Not coincidentally, the colonist Wright was the first to “discover” the virgin pine forests of the Ottawa River Valley, and the Wright family became integral in the development and growth of the Ottawa region’s lumber industry (Gaffield 1997a). Ultimately, Wright invoked title not only to claim ownership but also to harvest the rich forest “resources” of the Ottawa and Gatineau valleys. Although historians have credited Wright with launching the region’s forest economy, the founding father of Hull was not, initially, interested in the lumber trade. He was most concerned with agriculture, and placating the Algonquin Chiefs. Wright paid them an amount on an annual basis and offered other tribute while Algonquin Chiefs protested Wright’s colonization to the Government of Lower Canada (Hessel 1993: 63–67). The Chiefs argued, unsuccessfully, that Wright’s ownership papers were invalid because the Algonquin had been in “the peaceable and quiet possession of these lands for generations past” (cited in Gaffield 1997a: 124). As historians have documented, the Algonquin Chiefs regularly issued formal complaints to Crown authorities that the ongoing forest cutting and clearing was driving away their game and directly questioned the authority under which Wright was “cutting down their wood and taking possession of their land” (cited in Gaffield 1997a: 124). An 1837 Order-in-Council acknowledged the presence of the Algonquin “and their claim to a vast territory, although it denied them the right to grant land leases or to sell land they owned” (cited in Hessel 1993: 70). Beyond this limited recognition, however, the Crown neither acted on these protests nor recognized the territorial claims of the

2.1  From Algonquin Territory to Agrarian Settlement

13

Algonquin. Rather than continuing to attempt to exercise territoriality over an increasingly settled area, the Algonquin pursued a different strategy and petitioned colonial authorities for compensation. Instead, in the Act of Union of 1840, the newly established Provincial Government abdicated any responsibility for the Algonquin. In the process it reinforced how colonial governments “forgot the Algonquins” (Cellard and Pelletier 1997: 89; Hessel 1993: 89). As was the case with the French during the fur trade, the government not only ignored Algonquin territory but also their demands for compensation from the theft and exploitation of their lands by settlers. Colonial governments have systematically erased the presence of the Algonquin as part of the genocide perpetrated on Canada’s Indigenous peoples. Thus, “[i]n the first comprehensive census, taken in 1852, only five Algonquins were listed despite the actual presence of perhaps several thousand in the region” (Gaffield 1997b: 108). In 1857, a Crown Lands Agent forwarded the petition of five Algonquin families—the Agent referring to them as “squatters”—to the government requesting that it set aside 632 hectares (1561 acres) near Golden Lake, Ontario, for a reserve, one which remains to this day; the historian Hessel underscores the irony in the creation of the very first Algonquin reserve: “Thus, after an absence of about 200 years, the descendants of the Kichesippirini, Weskarini and other Algonquin bands returned to the Ottawa Valley officially, as ‘beneficiaries of grants’” (Hessel 1993: 85). With the exception of Creelman (1978), previous histories of Gatineau Park have overlooked the fact that the park is situated on unceded Algonquin territory. The Algonquin divided, through rights of inheritance, the Gatineau Hills as hunting territories. Creelman notes that, while game was abundant in the Gatineau Hills, the Algonquin did not carry out much besides hunting and camping there, explaining that “[t]his is likely due to the fact that the park is fairly inaccessible both by land and water” (Creelman 1978: 6). However much the Gatineau Hills were inhabited by the Algonquin, previous histories of Gatineau Park have neglected the presence of the Algonquin ahead of the first settlers to occupy the area encompassed by the park territory. For their part, the Algonquin have been reasserting territoriality over the entire Ottawa River watershed (Tasker 2016; Johnstone 2016). They have been in negotiations with both the federal and provincial governments regarding compensation for the taking of their lands. In the context of these ongoing nation-to-nation treaty negotiations, which could see large swaths of land in the National Capital Region returned to the Algonquin, any discussions concerning the reconfiguration of Gatineau Park must not only include but also obtain the consent of the Algonquin people. This would not appear to be the case in the park’s most recent governance exercise: the Algonquin did not sit on the Public Advisory Committee in the latest master planning process. Needless to say, it would be interesting to know what the Algonquin think of this failed national park and the effect of the privatopia within it, where public use is limited by private landowners. The historical transformation of the Gatineau Hills into a recreational landscape coincided with Queen Victoria’s decision to make Ottawa the capital of Canada; this decision was made by Queen Victoria in response to the petitions from competing Canadian cities (Knight 1991). The “Queen’s Choice” of Ottawa was made; it has

14

2  National Park at the Doorstep of Canada’s Capital

been noted, because of the beauty of the natural environment as compared to the much larger cities of Toronto, Montreal, and Kingston. The Gatineau Hills were initially settled by farmers in the 1820s, mostly American (Loyalist) and Irish immigrants. The first French Canadian settler, Ovide Bélanger, established Ste-Cécile-­ de-Masham in 1837, but Francophones arrived in the Gatineau Hills after the mid-1850s (Creelman 1978). The Mayor of Hull, Philemon Wright, was responsible for issuing land grants in his capacity as Crown Lands Agent for the Government of Lower Canada (see Fig. 2.1). As with Wright, the first settlers in the Gatineau Hills intended to establish themselves as independent farmers. However, Wright knew of the difficulties that the early settlers would encounter, writing of the Gatineau Hills: “the country is

Fig. 2.1  Map of Hull County from 1810

2.1  From Algonquin Territory to Agrarian Settlement

15

very mountainous, rocky and broken and in general unfit for the purposes of agriculture” (cited in Parson 1975: 575). The Reverend Asa Meech was the first settler at Meech Lake (see Fig.  2.2), which was for quite some time incorrectly spelt “Meach Lake” (Elliott 1979). Reverend Meech was an influential figure in the early settlement of Hull, not only providing religious but also medical services to the local population. Kingsmere Lake was then known as Jeffs Lake, after the first settler who lived there. Harrington Lake was the misspelled name used by Anglophones after the first

Fig. 2.2  Map of Meech Lake settlers

16

2  National Park at the Doorstep of Canada’s Capital

family who lived and farmed by the lake, the Hetheringtons, although Francophones insist that the lake is named after the Mousseau family (Lait 2016). Around the 1870s, the Gatineau Hills’ economic base became centered around mining and lumbering. While there are several now abandoned mines in Gatineau Park, the lumber industry, for its part, did not penetrate deeply into the area occupied by the Park, although there were sawmills at Meech, Harrington, and La Pêche Lakes that operated on a cottage-industry scale. The larger mills of the export-oriented forest economy were concentrated along the Gatineau River, where logs were easily transported (Hughson and Bond 1987). The towns of Chelsea and Wakefield developed as stopping points for lumbermen, who were travelling by horseback (Evans 1988).

2.2  Transformation into Ottawa’s Cottage Country In the 1870s, the Gatineau Hills became the favored summer retreat for politicians and civil servants from Ottawa. According to the Dominion Archivist, Gustave Lanctôt (1936), the 1870s marked a “new era” for the Gatineau Hills with the arrival of the first summer cottagers from Ottawa, who purchased land and buildings from the original farming families around Kingsmere and Meech Lakes. Those who were unable to purchase land in the Gatineau Hills “summered” at one of the hotels in Chelsea, or at the boarding houses on Kingsmere and Meech Lakes (Mahoney 1999). Between 1870 and 1872, a public servant in the Department of Railways and Canals, William James Tilley, built the first cottage at Meech Lake. Through the purchase of two additional farms, Tilley expanded his estate to 140 acres; Tilley came to have such a close association with Meech Lake that he chose to be buried there—his remains were later exhumed by his family (Martin 1999: 38). In 1875, a deputy minister in the Department of Interior, Colonel John Stoughton Denis, became the first cottager at Kingsmere Lake (then known as Jeffs Lake). Shortly following this, the chief clerk of the House of Commons, Sir John Bourniot, purchased Jeffs farmhouse and most of the farmer’s lands (von Baeyer 1990: 45). Every summer after Parliament adjourned, the Bourniot family moved their belongings, including a piano and parts of their library, by stagecoach to their Kingsmere cottage (Bourniot 1963: 4). This reflects the inaccessibility of the Gatineau Hills prior to the introduction of the railroad in the 1890s, and the construction of the Gatineau Parkway in the 1960s, which greatly improved access for the cottagers. Prior to the arrival of the cottagers, Kingsmere was sometimes called Loon Lake, but it was more widely known as Jeffs Lake, having been named after the first farming family that originally lived there. Neither of these names proved suitable for the cottagers. The renaming of the lake was recounted in a local newspaper: “in the early 80’s Dr. Bourniot, (later Sir John), Col. Dennis and Mr. H. V. Noel changed it” (Macbeth 1964). As with almost all cottagers, Dr. Bourniot fell in love with the forested hillsides that are dotted with lakes, writing of Kingsmere: “Mere of my heart, I’ve seen you lie Blue as the blue of a summer day. Mere of my heart, I’ve seen you creep Beneath the snows for your winter sleep” (Bourniot cited in Macbeth 1964.) The name change  to Kingsmere was “[i]nspired by the English lakes

2.2  Transformation into Ottawa’s Cottage Country

17

Grassmere and Windermere” (von Baeyer 1990: 46). Following the arrival of the early cottagers, the remaining farmers in the Gatineau Hills supplied food and labor to the growing summer communities at Kingsmere and Meech Lakes (Thomson 1965: 125). However, the farming families were eventually replaced by summer cottagers. As remarked by one of the descendants of the first settlers: “Today [1928], according to Mr. Scott, there is not a descendent of an original settler [at Meech Lake]. The land is all in the hands of strangers. All the east side lake front is in the hands of summer cottagers” (Wilson 1928). Cottages were, at first, simple and rustic structures. According to a local historian, “[m]ost cottages were somewhat primitive, with wood stoves for cooking and heating and a hand pump on the kitchen sink (for the more upscale premises) or the pump in the yard of the farmer from whom you bought the land for the cottage” (Mahoney 1999). Cottages became more elaborate over time, and some were ever made into permanent residences. In the early 1900s, the wealthy industrialist and inventor, Thomas “Carbide” Willson, built an eleven-bedroom house and several small outbuildings on a 460-acre estate at Meech Lake (Roberts 1976). Willson was not the only “millionaire” with a large estate in the Gatineau Hills. However, he is notable as the first automobile owner in Ottawa; Willson brought automobility to the Gatineau Hills, which, as shown in the next chapter, was a central concern of the cottagers involved in the creation of “Gatineau Park.” The most famous cottager in the Gatineau Hills was Canada’s longest serving prime minister, Mackenzie King (see Fig. 2.3). King was immediately drawn to the lakes and forests having first travelled to the Gatineau Hills in 1900 as a young civil servant living in Ottawa. The area was similar to Ontario’s Muskoka Lake region, the cottage country that King had grown up in during (Henderson 1993). The year following his visit to the Gatineau Hills, the future prime minister first contemplated purchasing a lot at Kingsmere from a local farmer for $200 (von Baeyer 1990: 28). King (cited in von Baeyer 1990: 28) wrote in his diary, “this is a valuable summer locality and few places near Ottawa compare with it.” In 1903, King purchased a 1-ha (2.9 acre) lot from Isabelle Bourniot and built his first cottage, “Kingswood.” Over the years, at an estimated cost of $29,650, Mackenzie King’s estate grew to 201 hectares (497 acres) and eventually included five residences as well as the famous stone ruins which he had imported from overseas (von Baeyer 1990: 95). Much has been written about King’s relationship to Kingsmere given its status as his “real home” (King 1950), a fact which King noted in his will. Less attention has been paid to King’s relationship to Gatineau Park, which he, along with others including the park’s chief planner, Roderick Percy Sparks, wanted as a national park. As one commentator noted of Mackenzie King, “his time at Kingsmere is a study in the pursuit of the simple life lived in proximity to nature” (Lay 1999). Linked to the prime minister’s desire to escape the capital to nature, King was concerned about privacy at his Kingsmere estate, writing: “I have purchased, by degrees, adjoining properties in order to secure privacy and to enlarge my own holdings” (King n.d.). As shown in the next chapter, King’s concerns over the loss of privacy of his Kingsmere estate, and his fear of criticism over improving the area around Kingsmere, inhibited him, as Canada’s prime minister, from approving proposals to proceed with land acquisitions in the Gatineau Hills.

18

2  National Park at the Doorstep of Canada’s Capital

Fig. 2.3  Map of Mackenzie King’s estate at Kingsmere Lake

2.3  First Park Proposals In 1899, as a result of pressure from vice-regal authorities who were critical of the federal government for its inability to develop Ottawa as a capital worthy of the nation (Carter 2001), the Wilfrid Laurier government established the Ottawa

2.3  First Park Proposals

19

Improvement Commission (OIC). The new organization, dedicated to the “beautification” of Ottawa as Canada’s capital, proved to be a half hearted measure. That is, the OIC had minimal funds and volunteer employees from other federal government departments. Ultimately, the Commission was an ineffectual body, one which was eventually replaced by the Mackenzie King government with a more powerful agency, the Federal District Commission (FDC). Nonetheless, the early work of the OIC was widely praised, and the federal government’s ambitions for Canada’s capital initially seemed promising with the hiring of one of North America’s first landscape architects, Frederick Todd (Gordon 2002). Todd had trained in the United States under the supervision of Olmsted, the acclaimed designer of New  York’s Central Park and proponent of parks as natural playgrounds for public use and enjoyment (Gordon 2002). As shown below, Todd was also an early proponent toward ensuring public access to nature. Following the tradition of the back-to-nature movement, Todd’s first recommendation in his preliminary plan, submitted to the OIC in 1903, was to establish nature reserves, one at Meech Lake and the other along the Gatineau River. The reserves were to be made accessible by parkways, built by the Commission, from Hull. The landscape architect wrote glowingly of their prospects: “Not only will those reserves be of inestimable value to future generations as an example of the original forest, but they will also provide a place where nature may still be enjoyed, unmarred by contact with humanity” (Todd 1903: 2). Having visited the area, Todd must have seen the cottages along the western shoreline of Meech Lake. Despite this, Todd’s report does not explicitly address the cottage community at Meech Lake. His report does, however, urge the federal government to start acquiring land immediately, cautioning that, in 50 years’ time, the urban area of Ottawa-Hull will have expanded five times in size and that the costs of land acquisitions in the Gatineau Hills would eventually be prohibitive; as shown below, this insight was later reaffirmed by the planner Thomas Adams in the 1920s. Todd (1903: 9-10) questioned in his report: “Will it at that time be possible to secure within reasonable distance of the city large areas of un-tamed forest which can be set aside forever for the enjoyment of people who wish to get away for a day from the crowded city, who wish to wander in the woods, where the wildest birds are at home, and where nature’s mossy carpet is still luxuriant and unworn?” As with the rest of his report, which called for the creation of a regional parks system, the federal government paid no heed to Todd’s recommendations for nature reserves at Meech Lake and along the Gatineau River. Indeed, the government added insult to injury to Todd by giving preference to the proposals of the OIC’s chief engineer (Gordon 2002: 40). Still, the OIC had wanted to implement some of Todd’s recommendations, but the agency was, as an official historian pointed out, “handicapped by insufficient funds, restricted powers, and possibly, by lack of imagination. As it was not created as a town-planning body, and in any event lacked the authority in that field, its remedies were bound to be superficial rather than basic” (Eggleston 1961: 166). Sensing the limitations of the Commission, Ottawa’s City Council set up a special committee to approach the federal government about the possibility of creating a federal

20

2  National Park at the Doorstep of Canada’s Capital

district “along similar lines as the city of Washington” (Carter 2001: 112). In the 1907 election, Ottawa’s City Council ran a plebiscite on the issue of a federal district, but voters defeated the proposal (4431 opposed; 3630 in favor). Prime Minister Laurier clearly recognized the growing public pressure for greater federal involvement in the planning and development of the capital region. In 1910, the OIC received an increase in funding from the Laurier government amidst renewed public pressure for a federal district. Thus, the newly installed Conservative Government of Sir Robert Borden would be approached almost immediately upon taking office by the Royal Canadian Institute of Architects. Alongside of the calls for a federal district and reformed Commission, Todd’s recommendation for a nature preserve would be elaborated into a national park by concerned citizens and scientists. In November 1912, John Macoun (1912) suggested the establishment of “Connaught Park” in the Gatineau Hills as a way to commemorate the Duke of Connaught’s arrival as the new Governor General of Canada. In a letter to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen, the Canadian field naturalist wrote: Your editorial note referring to the naming of insignificant places and things for our Governors-General suggests to me that if Canadians wish to have a lasting memorial of H.R.H the Duke of Connaught nothing could be more appropriate than the setting aside as a national park of that practically uninhabited region of hills, lakes and streams which lies between the Gatineau and the Colonge rivers from Chelsea north and west. As the merchantable timber has practically all been taken off this area and there is little agricultural land the cost of expropriating 50,000 or even 100,000 acres would not be great, and as a game preserve and a national park it could from its accessibility and natural advantages be made the greatest and most attractive national park in [North] America. Some such scheme as this might very well be taken up by those who are advocating the federal district and the extension of the work of the [Ottawa] improvement commission to the north side of Ottawa. (Macoun 1912)

If implemented, Macoun’s Connaught Park proposal, which goes unmentioned in his (auto)biographies (Macoun 1979; Waiser 1989), would have addressed two problems with Canada’s national parks system of the time. First, with the exception of St. Lawrence Islands National Park (now known as the Thousand Islands National Park) established in 1904, Canada’s national parks were all located in Western Canada, making them difficult to access, even for “middle-class” visitors with the necessary leisure time and disposable income (Bella 1987; Lothian 1987). The second problem with the national parks system was related to this imbalanced  geographic distribution. Eastern provinces argued that, while they contributed tax dollars to the national park system, they derived no benefit from them. With the notable exception of Quebec, eastern provinces wanted national parks and the tourist revenues that flowed from them (MacEachern 2001). Documents in the national archives reveal the considerable public response that Macoun’s important letter elicited (Macrae 1912; Seton 1912), a response that, according to an unauthored article in the Ottawa Citizen (1912), was “unanimous.” It added: “There needs nothing now but the transformation of the acquiescent into the active” (Ottawa Citizen 1912). The Chairman of the Commission of Conservation, Clifford Sifton, was quoted in support of Macoun’s Connaught Park. Sifton said: “I

2.3  First Park Proposals

21

think it would be a splendid thing to have a national park near the Capital and though I am not very familiar with the district suggested for the park it would be comparatively near enough to Ottawa to be appreciated by the citizens for a resting place and playground” (cited in Ottawa Citizen 1912). Even though the Gatineau Hills were in Quebec, Ottawa City Council was presented with a motion to “appoint a special committee to take up and forward the proposal recently made to ask the Dominion government to establish a Dominion park up the Gatineau, to be planned on the lines of the one at Banff, such park to be established as a fitting memorial for the sojourn in the Capital and in Canada of His Royal Highness, the Duke of Connaught, as a Viceroy of His Majesty”(cited in Ottawa Citizen 1912). The public discussion around a near-urban national park in the Gatineau Hills captured the attention of officials from the Dominion Parks Branch, the predecessor to Parks Canada. A year following Macoun’s letter, in December 1913, Parks Branch Commissioner, J.B. Harkin, submitted a four-page memorandum to his superiors in the Department of Interior providing the rationale for the establishment of “Gatineau Park.” Commissioner Harkin’s submission attached the newspaper clippings on Connaught Park, including Macoun’s letter to the Ottawa Citizen. It is noteworthy that Harkin’s memorandum has not only been overlooked in the scholarship on Gatineau Park, but, with the exception of Lothian (1987: 132), the failed Connaught Park is neglected in previous studies of Canada’s national parks system, including Commissioner Harkin’s exhaustive biography (Hart 2010). In his memorandum, Harkin positioned Gatineau Park as a solution to the undemocratic and class-exclusive character of the national parks system. Thus, had it been established, Gatineau Park would have not only advanced the eastward expansion of the national park system, it could have been the first national park in the Province of Quebec. Located adjacent to Ottawa-Hull, the park would have been easily accessible to the public. Harkin (1913: 1) wrote: “Today there is an agitation amongst all classes for preservation of park lands in the vicinity of cities to prevent speculators taking up all available land to the detriment of the community.” While insisting on preservation, Harkin envisioned a planned townsite in Gatineau similar to Banff, where the federal government would offer residents renewable, long-term leases at nominal rents. Given the closer proximity of the Gatineau Park townsite to Ottawa-Hull, Harkin (1913: 3) expected that there would be thousands more residents, necessitating the construction of hospitals, schools, lecture halls, and camps for the “extremely poor.” Through this near-urban national park, the Parks Branch would be providing a remedy to “the slum conditions of our cities … [as] people would dwell in the country and be transported each morning to the factories, offices and stores within the city areas” (Harkin 1913: 2). The Gatineau Park memorandum contained an alternate conception of the future of Canada’s national park system. Commissioner Harkin did not intend for Gatineau Park to be unique; rather, he understood it to be a prototype in a series of near-urban national parks. Thus, Harkin (1913: 3) proposed to “[c]reate in the wilderness near each centre of population a National Park which will always be preserved for the people for all time, and in which game and vegetation will be protected.” Harkin’s enthusiasm for the prospect of near-urban national parks could not be contained. He

22

2  National Park at the Doorstep of Canada’s Capital

wrote: “[t]he adoption of such a scheme in relation to the Dominion Parks it is suggested would carry Canada into the forefront of civilization in respect to the care of the health and virility of the people” (Harkin 1913: 3–4).  As with Todd, Harkin urged immediate action as property values would escalate through land acquisitions by private interests. With the approval of the Interior Department, Harkin wrote officials in the Quebec government. In a letter to Charles Devlin, Québec’s Minister of Colonization, Mines and Fisheries, Commissioner Harkin asked “whether the Government of the Province of Quebec would be willing to co-operate in the materialization of such a scheme.” Despite assurances that provincial authorities would consider the DPB proposal, Minister Devlin died of a heart attack before he could reply to Harkin, and negotiations between the Parks Branch and Provincial Government were never carried out (Murray 2003). The proposal for a national park in the Gatineau Hills was, however, taken up by the federal government in what is now referred to as the Holt Plan, named after the chairman of the Federal Plan Commission (FPC), Herbert Holt, a banking executive from Montreal. The FPC was created by the Borden Government in response to criticisms of the Ottawa Improvement Commission’s shortcomings. Given its general failure to implement the Todd Report and close ties to the Liberal Party, the OIC was not made a part of the planning process. Instead, the FPC was packed with supporters of the Conservative Party of Canada, including Holt. The FPC also included the mayors of Ottawa and Hull. This was the first time that the federal government recognized the north side of the Ottawa River as part of the national capital, a decision that was well received, at least initially, by Hull officials. The Holt Plan’s two main recommendations are interrelated: first, it recommended the establishment of a federal district over which the federal government would have eminent domain; and the second recommendation was to establish a national park in the Gatineau Hills. The Holt Plan’s proposal echoes that first advanced by Macoun 3 years earlier: One of the attractions of Ottawa is to be found in the slopes on the north side of the river which stretch away to  a skyline of distant forest-clad mountains. Nature, which has not made this tract of land fertile, has made it beautiful. Much of it is still covered with forest. Since it has little commercial value, it could be acquired at slight cost and a great tract of it, consisting of 75,000 or 100,000 acres, should be secured as a national park. Here, at the very door of the capital, should be preserved, for all time, a great area in the state of nature. It would include lakes and hills. The owners of land, who now occupy it, simple farmer or hunter folk for the most part, need be little disturbed, and could be employed as game and timber wardens. Such a park would have scientific value, both in respect to forestry and wildlife. Its growth of timber might even be made profitable. The Gatineau River, a part of which would be included in the park, flows through one of the best regions for wild game in North America and, under proper restrictions, the park would offer excellent sport for rod and gun. But, above all, it would have priceless value for those who live in or visit Ottawa. Within half an hour they could pass from the bustle of the capital to the seclusion of the forest. Side by side would be seen the beauty of the city, which man has created, and that of nature as it has been for countless ages. It is not proposed that this park should be included in the federal district to be formed, and the carrying out of this proposal need not wait upon other plans for the capital. (Federal Plan Commission 1916: 126-127)

2.4  Transformation into Recreation Playground

23

The Holt Plan was shelved by the federal government because of political opposition from Quebec, and public criticism from prominent planners, notably, Thomas Adams and Noulan Cauchon. With respect to the political opposition, the Holt Plan’s proposal to establish a federal district was viewed by provincial and municipal governments as a malevolent exercise of territoriality by the federal government. They walked away from the Federal Plan Commission and refused to endorse the Holt Plan (Gordon 2015). The planners came to divergent conclusions as to a national park in the Gatineau Hills. Noulan Cauchon, the founding father of Canadian planning (see Gordon 2008), repeated the recommendation that the Gatineau Hills become a national park for the benefit and enjoyment of all Canadians. This statement was made in Cauchon’s capacity as a planning consultant to the City of Ottawa. Thomas Adams (1921), in his capacity as planning consultant to the federal government, recommended against the establishment of a national park in the Gatineau Hills. Affirming Todd’s earlier prediction about increased property costs making the project prohibitive, Adams proposed a much larger national park between the cities of Ottawa and Montreal. Whatever Cauchon and Adams’ plans and recommendations, the Ottawa Improvement Commission lingered on, albeit with periodic funding increases toward the maintenance of the expanding parks and parkways system under its control; still, no major projects or plans were ever carried out by the OIC, which, by the 1920s, was experiencing institutional drift. As mentioned below, the Mackenzie King government would, as part of the PM’s long-term interest in the national capital, pass legislation that reconfigured the Commission, enlarging its funding, staff, and mandate.

2.4  Transformation into Recreation Playground Following the First World War, the Gatineau Hills became widely accessible to the masses, specifically for thousands of skiers in the winter (Lanzon 2014). Alongside improved mobility through rail to Chelsea was the construction of new recreation facilities by “local” ski clubs. In 1919, the Ottawa Ski Club (OSC) purchased 127 hectares (315 acres) of land near Fortune and Pink Lakes. The Ottawa Ski Club built lodges and its volunteer members reconverted mining and logging roads into ski trails in what became known as the “Kingsmere-Camp Fortune area.” By developing an extensive trail network, the OSC “transformed agricultural space into recreational territory” (Lanzon 2014: 37). However, the OSC was not acting alone. A rival ski organization, also from Ottawa, the Cliffside Club, purchased lands and repurposed a farmer’s lodge near Fairy Lake. Beginning in the 1910s, the ski clubs attracted thousands of trail skiers, most from Ottawa, into the “recreational territory” of the Gatineau Hills. The ski clubs also took an active interest in improving local roads and public transportation.

24

2  National Park at the Doorstep of Canada’s Capital

Interestingly, the Ottawa Ski Club was a paying member of the Kingsmere Property Owners’ Association (KPOA), which was established in October 1924. Having endorsed the organization of the KPOA “very heartily,” Prime Minister Mackenzie King was made the honorary president. The purposes behind the formation of the KPOA were recorded by its secretary, George Harris (1924): “For the good of all; For the betterment of Kingsmere; For the beautifying of the community.” Had the KPOA been intent only on improving local roads, posting better signage, maintaining building standards, and preventing the pollution of Kingsmere Lake, this property owners’ association would perhaps be laudable. But, as revealed by the document, “Ideas and Schemes of the Kingsmere Property Holders Association” (KPOA 1925: 1), cottagers also desired to “see that only Property holders or their guests fish in the Lake.” More tellingly, the KPOA (1925: 1) sought “[t]o stop all undesirable ones from bathing in the Lake.” Finally, under “Improvements,” the KPOA (1925: 3) proposed “[t]o protect all Property holders from picnickers, poachers, and undesirables.” The question of how the KPOA would protect cottagers was not addressed in Ideas and Schemes. However, the document did indicate one means of keeping out undesirables, by giving KPOA the authority to oversee all property sales and property rentals at Kingsmere. Ultimately Kingsmere cottagers did not relinquish their property rights to the KPOA. The KPOA was intended for the good of some, but this required the exclusion of others. Exactly who those “undesirables” were soon became apparent. In 1925, KPOA Secretary Harris (1925) sounded the alarm to Mackenzie King “that another Jew has taken a Cottage at Kingsmere. This is the third this year….” Harris suggested that any further land purchases by Jews “would be very harmful to the Community [sic]” and wrote to the prime minister in an attempt to “seal our end [of the lake] up” by purchasing the adjoining Cameron property and dividing it between themselves. Although Harris’ letter did not receive a reply, King shared the anti-­ Semitism of other Kingsmere cottagers. Thus, his diary entry of 11 April 1927 reads that “the greatest danger and menace is a sale to Jews, who have a desire to get in at Kingsmere and who would ruin the whole place.” King even acted on his racist beliefs. Following the purchase of another parcel of land adjacent to his Kingsmere estate, he wrote “…if I had not purchased the properties, they might have been secured by Jews or other undesirables” (cited in von Baeyer 1990: 61). Jews were not the only undesirables that the KPOA sought to protect Kingsmere from. Thus, in May 1927, the KPOA secretary learned that Dr. Charles Saunders was going to sell his Kingsmere lands to the Joan of Arc Institute, a Roman Catholic organization that provided residence for young girls and women. Harris (1927a) explained to King that the Institute intended to erect “several small buildings…for the purpose of housing Ladies of the Institution who need a rest… This I think would be detrimental to Kingsmere.” King was asked by the KPOA secretary to try to persuade Dr. Saunders not to sell his property to the Institute. However, as pointed out by the historian von Baeyer (1990: 63), “King wisely did not interfere, perhaps because the founder of the Institute, Sister Marie de St. Thomas d’Aquinas, was King’s friend.” Instead, Dr. Saunders proceeded with the sale, much to Harris’ (1927b) disappointment. Despite having been unsuccessful in moving King to

2.5  Parliament Debates a National Park

25

action, the KPOA secretary tried to raise funds to purchase Dr. Saunders’ property with other Kingsmere residents. On the surface, the KPOA was established for benign ends of local beautification. As shown above, it was also a means of asserting territoriality over Kingsmere Lake, as cottagers sought to maintain their privacy, class exclusivity, and racial homogeneity by denying access and use of the lake to “undesirables,” which included Jews, French Canadians, and the general population at large. Ultimately, the KPOA had no formal powers, since it was a voluntary association. This could have been otherwise: the KPOA, in early Ideas and Schemes, suggested that all property sales and leases be submitted to it for approval. If Kingsmere residents had agreed to this restriction on their property rights, the KPOA would have been a private form of local government, since it would have been able to prevent individuals and groups from purchasing property in the area. In this attempt, however, it was an ineffective exercise of a territoriality dedicated to private ends.

2.5  Parliament Debates a National Park At Library and Archives Canada, Mackenzie King has a meticulously organized file on the KPOA that starts from the association’s approval of King’s membership, through his annual payment of dues, to his correspondence with the KPOA president. The file ends in 1927, when King was reelected as prime minister for his second term in office. There is no record in the archives that King paid his $5 membership dues to the KPOA that year. Perhaps King knew of and wanted to avoid the politics surrounding private land ownership at Kingsmere Lake and nearby Meech Lake in the context of the proposals for a national park. King’s disassociation from KPOA was probably linked to his view that the Gatineau Hills should be protected as a national park for the benefit of all Canadians—and not just cottagers at Kingsmere and Meech Lake. Although King would be a central proponent of the national park proposal, he was not its most important one. As shown below, Roderick Percy Sparks was the park’s founding father (Murray 2003). The first record of King’s views regarding establishing a national park in the Gatineau Hills is found in his diary entry in 26 April 1926. He wrote: I spent some time writing the Chairman of the Rail Road Commission regarding not permitting C.P.R. [Canadian Pacific Railway] in reconstructing the railroad to take the shoreline by the [Gatineau] river and dams, but rather to require the road to go inland so as to preserve water front for summer residences and motor driveway, outlining the possibility of a Federal Park along the Gatineau route. My feeling is this is the time to prevent an impediment to the later development and to begin the National Park idea. I wrote all the Commissioners, also Beatty C.P.P. President, Premier Taschereau, and R. Perron Minister of Roads of Quebec Government. I got consent of our Cabinet as a whole to make headway in the matter. (King 1926a:116)

King’s rationale for supporting  the national park were also expressed in a diary entry from May 1926, where he writes: “It breaks one’s heart, the way the forests roundabout are being thinned out and cut down. Were I a wealthy man I would

26

2  National Park at the Doorstep of Canada’s Capital

purchase them outright. Had I a majority in parliament, I would expropriate them for the State” (King 1926a, b: n.p.). The prime minister appreciated the scenic beauty and uniqueness of the Gatineau Hills and understood that the importance of this area was amplified by its close proximity to Canada’s capital, which, if it were to develop a reputation as a world leading capital like Paris or Washington, D.C., would fully embrace its natural environment. Although King did express concerns about loss of privacy at his Kingsmere estate resulting from a national park, he clearly did not share the same concern with expropriation as other Kingsmere cottagers. In April 1927, King’s desire to establish a national park in the Gatineau Hills was announced during a debate on the Federal District Act. The prime minister rose in the House of Commons to announce the proposal for a national park in the Gatineau Hills. I have seen some mention in the press that this bill would include provision for a national park. That is an idea entirely separate; it has nothing to do with the present measure at all. I want to make that clear. I should like to say, however, that I do think a national park in the vicinity of Ottawa is something that is very much in the public interest, and that provision should be made for it at once, but that has nothing to do with this particular measure. (King 1927: 1978)

A shrewd and cautious politician, Prime Minister Mackenzie King might have anticipated the criticism of the Gatineau Hills national park proposal, which came the following day from Conservative MP, John Edwards, who told the House of Commons: I do not wish to inject anything of a controversial character, but I may say I have heard that certain persons are interested in the other side of the [Ottawa] river through having summer homes there. Is it the idea to make beautiful driveways up to the homes of these persons, some of whom sit in this House and have summer residences on the other side of the river. (Edwards 1927: 1978)

King (1927: 1978) immediately replied: I have a summer home at Kingsmere, twelve miles from here. I say to my hon. Friend that if the [Ottawa Improvement] commission were to attempt to spend any money out of this appropriation for improving any part of a driveway approaching my residence, I would strongly oppose the attempt. The commission itself made the suggestion of a federal district including Hull. I had no thought of the other side of the river being included when I was approached by the commission to allow its work to be given this larger scope. I hardly thought an insinuation such as the hon. Member has made would be voiced, and if he has in mind any other member than myself perhaps he would name him and so give him an opportunity of replying.

Scholars (Gagnon et al. 2004) have argued that the suggestion of a conflict of interest is what prevented Prime Minister King from following through on the national park proposal during his tenure in office. The delay is also attributable to King’s government having only a minority in Parliament—the risk was too great even as his government sought to reinvent the Ottawa Improvement Commission, as it did in 1927 through passage of the Federal District Act. As shown in the next chapter, King did not go so far as to establish Gatineau Park as a national park, even as it was giving approval the Parks Branch to establish national parks in Atlantic Canada (MacEachern 2001). Rather, the Liberal Party lost the 1930 election. Nevertheless,

2.6 Conclusion

27

Mackenzie King continued, as Leader of the Opposition, in ever more forceful advocacy for the immediate protection of the Gatineau Hills. Ultimately, through their property owner associations, Kingsmere and Meech Lake cottagers ensured that the federal government intervened on terms amenable to their interests, wherein a national park was never established given that this would necessitate the removal of remaining privately owned lands in the park territory.

2.6  Conclusion This chapter provided an overview of the historical geography of the Gatineau Hills. This area provided hunting grounds for the Algonquin First Nations, who, beginning in the 1820s, were forcibly displaced by farmers following the arrival of the settler families led by Philemon Wright. A loyalist farmer from New England, Wright was the founder and long-time mayor of Hull. He facilitated the colonization of the Gatineau Hills by other migrating loyalist farmers and Irish immigrants, despite vocal protests from the Algonquin leadership to Crown authorities against the trespass on their lands. Through Wright and Ottawa’s “lumber barons,” the Ottawa and Gatineau Valleys quickly became North America’s most important lumber center. In a twist of fate, Ottawa was selected by Queen Victoria as the Provincial Capital, and, with Confederation a decade later, the small city became the National Capital of Canada. Even though most farms in the Gatineau Hills were unsuccessful in moving beyond subsistence farming, the City of Ottawa’s new status as the political capital made the hills visible from Parliament attractive for recreation purposes, specifically the area became important for cottagers and skiers from Ottawa. This chapter contributes to the scholarship on the park’s history in being the first to focus on how the formation of the cottage communities at Kingsmere and Meech Lake as politicians sought their private retreat to nature away from the capital. The case for protecting parts of the Gatineau Hills as a near-urban wilderness was first suggested by the landscape architect Todd who wanted reserves around Meech Lake and along the Gatineau River. The notion of protecting the Gatineau Hills as a national park was subsequently elaborated by citizens, scientists, and national park administration. The proposal was endorsed by Prime Minister Mackenzie King, the Kingsmere cottager par excellence. As shown in the next chapter, a national park was never established in the Gatineau Hills. Instead, a poorly defined area had been acquired by the federal government, which also constructed a parkway in the Kingsmere and Meech Lake area. That is, history confirms the Conservative MP Edwards’ initial suspicions about the link between the cottage communities in the Gatineau Hills and the developments and improvements that would be made by the federal government on behalf of the park. Indeed, several senior FDC officials owned land in what is now known as the Parkway Sector of “Gatineau Park.” Past studies of Gatineau Park have, quite rightly, given the Federal Woodlands Preservation League (FWPL) the most credit in terms of influence among the groups that were pressuring the federal government to prevent clear-cutting of the Gatineau

28

2  National Park at the Doorstep of Canada’s Capital

Hills. The League’s campaign, successful in its aims, resulted in Parliament approving funds for the Federal District Commission (FDC) in order for it to undertake a massive land assembly program. This chapter provides insight into the question of who founded the League? A previous park historian noted that “[t]he Federal Woodlands Preservation League was born out of the concerted efforts of the Ottawa Ski Club, among others” (Fletcher 2004: 61, emphasis added). Who were these others? Previous historical accounts of Gatineau Park (Apostle 1997; Creelman 1978; Murray 2003), including the study commissioned by the National Capital Commission (Gagnon et al. 2004), have neglected the influential role of the property owner associations at Kingsmere and Meech Lake; instead, they limited their focus to the role of the League, which, as shown in the next chapter, was founded by members of the Meech Lake Association (MLA).  Until now, the scholarship has largely proceeded as if these longstanding groups, the MLA and Kingsmere Property Owners’ Association (KPOA), did not exist. Most of the 120 or so families that now have the privilege to call themselves “park residents” would like it to remain this way, thereby keeping the history surrounding their cottage communities hidden from public view, and concealing the interests of park residents who exercise territoriality through highly competent property organizations. The next chapter details the specifics by which these organizations navigated the complexities and challenges associated with establishing a protected area in the Gatineau Hills, one that protected scenic values and property values. This land acquisition program was carried out by the federal government with neither the consent of the Algonquin nor the Quebec government. Although the federal government does not technically need the permission of either to buy land, it does need their permission to establish a national park. The next chapter describes how Mackenzie King continued, as Leader of the Opposition, in ever more forceful advocacy for the immediate protection of the Gatineau Hills as a national park, even though the federal government came to exclude the option of creating a national park. Instead, cottagers, through the MLA and KPOA, exercised territoriality while invoking the newly established “National Park” in their advocacy for improvements to the area.

References Adams T (1921) Proposal to develop Laurier National Park. National Parks Branch, Ottawa Apostle A (1997) The view from the hill: national park culture and Gatineau Park. MA thesis, Queen’s University Bella L (1987) Parks for profit. Harvest House Ltd, Montreal Bourniot A (1963) Some personal recollections and historic facts about Kingsmere. Paper presented to the Gatineau Valley Historical Society, Ottawa Carter AC (2001) Planning a “Capital Worthy of the Nation”: the federal district controversy and the planning of the Canadian capital. MA thesis, Queen’s University Cellard A (1997) Kichesippi: the great river of the Algonquins (1600–1650). In: Gaffield C (ed) History of the Outaouais. University of Laval Press, Quebec Cellard A, Pelletier G (1997) The Ottawa River: 1650–1792. In: Gaffield C (ed) History of the Outaouais. University of Laval Press, Quebec

References

29

Creelman J (1978) Man and the land: a short history of Gatineau Park. National Capital Commission, Ottawa Edwards J (1927) Federal District Commission. Canada. Parliament. House of Commons Debates. Edited Hansard, 16th parliament, 1st session, vol 2 Eggleston W (1961) The queen’s choice. National Capital Commission, Ottawa Elliott BS (1979) The famous township of Hull: image and aspirations of a pioneer Quebec community. Histoire Sociale/Social History 12(24):339–367 Evans PMO (1988) A tale of two Chelseas. Les Editions J Oscar Lemieux, Ottawa Federal Plan Commission for Ottawa and Hull (1916) Report of the Federal Plan Commission on a General Plan for the Cities of Ottawa and Hull. Ottawa Fletcher K (2004) Historical walks: the Gatineau Park story, 3rd edn. Markham, Fitzhenry & Whiteside Limited Gaffield C (1997a) Land, family, and the origins of colonization. In: Gaffield C (ed) History of the Outaouais. University of Laval Press, Quebec Gaffield C (1997b) A territory transformed 1791-1886. In: Gaffield C (ed) History of the Outaouais. University of Laval Press, Quebec Gagnon S, Filion M, Tessier C (2004) The creation and early development of Gatineau Park: study on the influence of local interest groups and the sociopolitical context of the Park’s creation from 1903 to 1956. National Capital Commission, Ottawa Gordon DLA (2002) Frederick G Todd and the origins of the park system in Canada’s capital. J Plan Hist 1(1):29–57 Gordon DLA (2008) Agitating people’s brains: Noulan Cauchon and the city scientific in Canada’s capital. Plan Perspect 23:349–379 Gordon DLE (2015) Town and crown: an illustrated history of Canada’s capital. Ivenire books, Ottawa Harkin JB (1913) Memorandum re: Gatineau Park. Dominion Parks Branch, Ottawa Harris GP (1924) Letter from GP Harris to WLM King, 22 Oct 1924. LAC MG26J10 vol 28(3) Harris GP (1925) Letter from GP Harris to WLM King, 25 June. LAC MG26J10 vol 28(3) Harris GP (1927a) Letter from GP Harris to WLM King, 5 May. LAC MG26J10 vol 28(3) Harris GP (1927b) Letter from GP Harris to WLM King, 9 June. LAC MG26J10 vol 28(3) Hart EJ (2010) JB Harkin: father of Canada’s national parks. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton Henderson GF (1993) Mackenzie King’s first visit to Kingsmere. Up the Gatineau! 19:8–11 Hessel P (1993) The Algonkins of the Ottawa Valley: an historical outline. Kichesippi Books, Arnprior Hughson JW, Bond CJ (1987) Hurling down the pine, 3rd edn. The Historical Society of the Gatineau, Chelsea Quebec Johnstone H (2016) Quebec Algonquins file title claim to downtown Ottawa.” CBC News, 8 Dec 2016. Available at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/quebec-­algonquins-­title-­claim-­ ottawa-­1.3888427. Last accessed 17 Mar2020 King WLM (1926a). Diary entry of William Lyon Mackenzie King, 26 April 1926. LAC item 9840. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20200317213806/http://www.bac-­lac.gc.ca/ eng/discover/politics-­government/prime-­ministers/william-­lyon-­mackenzie-­king/pages/item. aspx?IdNumber=9840&. Last accessed 17 Mar 2020 King WLM (1926b) Diary entry of William Lyon Mackenzie King, 23 May 1926. LAC item 9882. Available at: http://www.bac-­lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/politics-­government/prime-­ministers/ william-­lyon-­mackenzie-­king/pages/item.aspx?IdNumber=9882&. Last accessed 28 Mar 2016 King WLM (1927) Federal District Commission. Canada. Parliament. House of Commons Debates. Edited Hansard, 16th parliament, 1st session, vol 2 King WLM (1950) Last will and testament of William Lyon Mackenzie King. LAC MG26.J17(1) King WLM (n.d.) Memorandum, re: country residence. LAC MG26.J10 vol 28(13) Kingsmere Property Holders Association (1925) Ideas and schemes of the Kingsmere Property Holders Association. LAC MG26J10 vol 28(3) Knight DB (1991) Choosing Canada’s capital: conflict resolution in a parliamentary system. Carleton University Press, Ottawa

30

2  National Park at the Doorstep of Canada’s Capital

Lait M (2016) A lake with two names: the Harrington Lake (Lac Mousseau) toponymy controversy. Up the Gatineau! 42:39–52 Lanctôt G (1936) Kingsmere in chronology. Dominion Archives of Canada, Ottawa Lanzon Q (2014) From the ground up: the alpine and cross-country sportscapes of Gatineau Park, 1910–1967. MA thesis, Carleton University Lay B (1999) Give Kingsmere back to nature. Ottawa Citizen, 16 June 1999 Lothian WF (1987) A brief history of Canada’s national parks. Environment Canada, Ottawa Macbeth M (1964) Memories of Kingsmere recorded. Ottawa Citizen, 1 Feb 1964 MacEachern AA (2001) Natural selections: national parks in Atlantic Canada, 1935–1970. McGill-­ Queen’s University Press, Montreal Macoun J (1912) National park as memorial. Ottawa Citizen, 7 Nov 1912 Macoun J (1979) Autobiography of John Macoun: Canadian explorer and naturalist, 1831–1920. Ottawa Field-Naturalists’ Club, Ottawa Macrae JA (1912). Commends national park idea. Ottawa Citizen, 1 Dec 1912 Mahoney E (1999) Summer hotels of the Gatineau. Up the Gatineau! vol 25 Martin JCG (1999) In memory of Chelsea’s historic cemeteries: community institutions from pioneer times to the present. MA thesis, University of Ottawa McKenzie E (1994) Privatopia: homeowner associations and the rise of residential private government. Yale University Press, New Haven Murray JP (2003) Roderick Percy Sparks: Gatineau Park’s forgotten founder. Up the Gatineau! 30:12–16 Ottawa Citizen (1912) National park in the Gatineau Hills, 27 Nov 1912 Parson HE (1975) The rise and fall of farming in a marginal area: the Gatineau Valley, Quebec. Cahiers de géographie du Québec 19(48):573–582 Pasternak S (2014) Jurisdiction and settler colonialism: where do laws meet? Can J Law Soc 29(2):145–161 Roberts M (1976) Carbide Willson – 1850-1915. Up the Gatineau! 2:16–22 Seton ET (1912) National Park would be asset to Canada. Ottawa Citizen, 26 Nov 1912 Tasker JP (2016) Historic land deal with Algonquin peoples signed by federal, Ontario governments. CBC News, 18 Oct 2016. Available at http://www.cbc.ca/newspolitics/ ottawa-­ontario-­algonquin-­agreement-­in-­principle-­1.3809876 Thomson SC (1965) Recollections of early days in the Gatineau Hills. Unpublished document, Ottawa Todd FG (1903) Preliminary report to the Ottawa Improvement Commission, Ottawa von Baeyer E (1990) Garden of dreams: Kingsmere and Mackenzie King. Dundurn Press, Toronto Waiser WA (1989) The field naturalist: John Macoun, the geological survey, and natural science. University of Toronto Press, Toronto Wilson GE (1928) Pioneer settlers, Meech Lake, and on Meech Lake Mountain. Ottawa Citizen, 13 Oct 1928

Chapter 3

The Gatineau Hills Clear-Cutting Controversy

The Federal Woodlands Preservation League (FWPL) is the citizen group most widely credited by scholars (Apostle 1997; Gagnon et al. 2004; Lanzon 2014) as pressuring the federal government, through the Federal District Commission (FDC), to intervene on the clear-cutting of the Gatineau Hills, that area with ecological significance and visible from the Parliament buildings. As this chapter shows, the clear-cutting, or as it was then known “denudation” of the forested hillsides near Ottawa, was observed by recreational users of the area, skiers and cottagers. Whereas previous plans and proposals for Canada’s capital called for a national park in the Gatineau Hills, the FWPL neither endorsed nor advocated for this option, one which implied the elimination of privately owned lands at Kingsmere and Meech Lake. This chapter documents how the Meech Lake Association (MLA), incorporated in 1926, became the driving force behind the establishment of the Federal Woodlands Preservation League (FWPL). The MLA, which retains a powerful influence on the park’s governance today, was mandated with “the promotion of good roads and stationing posters at dangerous places; safeguarding of the lake levels and the improvement of the general appearance of the lake; protection, conservation and improvement of fishing in the lake; fostering of sports during the summer; the protection of all property holders from poachers and undesirables; the fostering of a community spirit, etc.” (Ottawa Citizen 1926). The MLA was similar to the property owner association at Kingsmere, with both pursuing the “benign” ends of local improvement. This especially meant the construction of roads in order to accommodate the growing reliance on automobility. As detailed below, cottagers also pursued exclusionary purposes. Woodlot owners who put their financial needs ahead of the scenic beauty of the Gatineau Hills were among the “undesirables” the MLA would seek to exclude. As illustrated in the next chapter where the FDC’s first expropriations are reviewed, the cottagers were successful in this forced displacement of woodlot owners, many of whom were impoverished Francophone farmers.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Lait, Governance of Near-Urban Conservation Areas, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64440-6_3

31

32

3  The Gatineau Hills Clear-Cutting Controversy

3.1  Antecedents to the Controversy During the 1920s, many woodlot properties in the Gatineau Hills were being cleared. The Great Depression only intensified cutting on privately owned lands following the increased demand for fuel wood, which was becoming a cheaper heating source than coal and oil. The expanding fuelwood industry not only brought exploitative clear-cutting in the Gatineau Hills but also exploitative labor practices. Fuelwood dealers paid their workers low wages, and their operation left farmers with land “not worth to him [the farmer] the cost of taxes” (Cameron 1935: 2). The effects of the expanding market for fuelwood during the Great Depression on the landscape was summed up by Herbert Marshall (1973: 111–112), then president of the Ottawa Ski Club, who wrote: The economic depression of the early 30s with its toll of unemployment, and low prices for agricultural products, induced some who owned plots in the Gatineau area to exploit their resources to the utmost. The consequence was wholesale cutting in some areas. One region of the Merry-Go-Round trail is named “Desolation Valley” which is suggestive of its condition at the time of its making. The cutting of timber for firewood was on such a scale that the landscape could be well described as an “Abomination of Desolation.”

The OSC and property owner associations, MLA and KPOA, organized a campaign aimed at preventing any further “denudation” of the Gatineau Hills. The scholarship on Gatineau Park has so far identified only the OSC as agitating for the federal government to intervene on the pressing issue. Further archival research into the park reveals that cottagers played the lead role in the League’s formation and, by implication, establishment of “Gatineau Park”. Harry Baldwin (1933), the MLA secretary and future personal secretary to Prime Minister Mackenzie King, sent out invitations to potential members about the inaugural meeting of the “Capital District Conservation Association”. The MLA also asked J.R. Dickson (1933a), a fellow cottager and official in the Forest Service of the Department of Interior, to contact his provincial counterparts to determine if there were any laws or regulations that could stop clear-cutting near roads and lakes or, at the very least, require selective cutting. Dickson (1933b) then wrote his provincial counterparts: “[t]his matter, as you will readily perceive, is one which very closely touches the financial (real estate) interests and personal enjoyment of the great body of summer residents who own homes in these localities.” Thus, for cottagers, preserving scenic values was tied to preserving their property values, as cottages surrounded by pristine forests sold for more than those situated near clear-­cut areas. This exemplifies the argument of geographers Halseth and Rosenberg (1995) concerning how cottage country is the extension of the urban field, a process that involves the imposition of urban values, cultural and economic values, on the countryside. While waiting for replies from provincial foresters, Dickson (1933c) interviewed George Bleakney, a lawyer practicing in Quebec and Tenaga cottager. Bleakney informed the forester “that there is at present no provision or machinery in Quebec law or procedure for controlling the cutting of cordwood on private lands, regardless of the object sought by such control.” Provincial officials (Piche 1933) confirmed that the Quebec government had no jurisdiction over cutting on private lands. Thus,

3.2  Establishment of the Federal Woodlands Preservation League

33

Quebec’s chief forester expressed a “deep interest in … the preservation of the scenery in the lower Gatineau Valley … [and recognizing] the growing importance of summer resorts in this province and their resulting wealth for the surrounding communities and the public at large,” but he went on to indicate that “the territory in the Hull township has all been alienated since quite a long time, probably most of it before 1884, hence it escapes more or less our ruling” (Piche 1933). Having reached a dead end with provincial authorities, Meech Lake residents once again turned their attention to creating a new citizen’s group dedicated to addressing the Gatineau Hills denudation issue. Meanwhile, the Ottawa Ski Club (OSC) took direct action on the denudation issue by purchasing woodlots in “club territory,” that is, the Camp Fortune-­ Kingsmere area. In December 1933, the OSC founded a Forest Preservation Society to raise funds toward the purchase of the woodlot properties adjacent to OSC lands. But ski club members knew that this was only a stop-gap measure. In a letter to the editor of the Ottawa Ski Club News, the president of the Forest Preservation Society, George McHugh (1933), called for “[t]he expropriation by the Federal Government of the entire ridge lying northwest of Old Chelsea … as a National Park for the use of all citizens for all time.” In February 1934, Baldwin (1934) wrote Dickson: “I am now trying to interest the [Ottawa] Ski Club in the organization of an Arboreal Beauty Conservation Society and shall be glad to hear from you whenever you can spare time to advise me concerning the very pressing and neglected problem.” Several months later, Baldwin (1934) updated Dickson: “You may be interested to hear that at the annual meeting of the Meech’s [sic] Lake Association held a few weeks ago I was authorized as chairman of a special committee to bring about the creation of an association dedicated solely and specifically to the work of preserving trees in and about the capital.” Baldwin’s letters confirm that the Meech Lake Association was the main impetus behind the establishment of the Federal Woodlands Preservation League, which held its inaugural meeting on 26 October 1934. As noted above, previous scholarship suggested that the Ottawa Ski Club was the driving force behind the League, an interpretation that has the unintended effect of diverting attention away from the link between preservation of scenic beauty and property values. Moreover, the attribution of the League’s creation to the Ottawa Ski Club by previous scholars becomes even more puzzling given that its leadership was almost entirely composed of Kingsmere and Meech Lake cottagers.

3.2  Establishment of the Federal Woodlands Preservation League As the first of two FWPL presidents, Baldwin quickly informed government officials of the pending formation of the League, an organization committed to the protection of the Gatineau Hills from further denudation. The League’s brochure explained that, over the course of another winter, 1000 acres would be lost “in the

34

3  The Gatineau Hills Clear-Cutting Controversy

Kingsmere-Meech Lake District alone.” The League outlined what it knew about the denudation issue, namely, that there was “no legislation” to prevent “whole-sale cutting” on privately owned woodlots. It acknowledged that woodlots provide “an important, though uncertain and soon to be exhausted, source of income to many owners … [and that] [i]t is unreasonable to expect the owner to forgo this income in order to preserve for all Canadians the wooded setting of the Capital” (FWPL 1934). The goals of the FWPL (1934) were laid out in the brochure as follows: 1. To attract to its membership all those who are interested in the problem of preserving and protecting the beauty of the woodlands within a radius of twenty-­ five miles of Ottawa, and more especially such woodlands as contribute to the beauty of the prospect of or from the rivers, lakes, hills and highways immediately surrounding the Capital of Canada; 2. To collect and collate facts, figures and plans concerning the problems, and study and discuss them so as to be qualified; 3. To formulate a policy of woodlands preservation, and 4. To initiate, support, and encourage social action as the results of the League’s research may indicate as being practical. The first goal implied that the League had a larger focus than the forests of the Gatineau Hills, but, as pointed out by Baldwin’s letter and confirmed by subsequent FWPL actions, this was not the case. Even though the creation of a national park would have effectively resolved the denudation issue and preserved the forested hillsides for all Canadians, a national park would have proven contrary to cottagers’ interest as it entailed the elimination of privately owned land. The League sought other options, those that would be limited to restricting the woodlot owner. Its pamphlet asked: “WILL YOU HELP US devise a plan which will at once benefit the owner of the woodlands and save the scenery?” (FWPL 1934). As shown in the archival records of the Federal District Commission (FDC), a partnership was established with the Federal Woodlands Preservation League; the FWPL even acquired permission from the FDC to use the designation “Federal” in its name (Bronson 1935). Among the first activities carried out by the FWPL was the acquisition of cadastral and road maps from the province and a list of property owners compiled by the municipality. These data were requested and obtained by the League Vice President Sparks, who headed the League’s Research Committee. At Sparks’ request, the League supplied these critical data to FDC officials. Following this, Sparks (1935) wrote the Minister of the Interior, T.G.  Murphy, requesting assistance with a “general survey of just what the problem is.” Sparks was assured by the Minister (Murphy 1935) of the full cooperation of the Dominion Forest Service: “…in the broader work of the League I think we should be able to help materially for once the preliminary data is [sic] assembled it seems entirely probable that it will be necessary to use foresters in securing data with respect to timber, and also in formulating plans for conservation in use thereof”  (Murphy 1935) As indicated below, the Department of Interior did follow through on this promise through the completion of the Lower Gatineau Woodlands Survey (Robertson 1935).

3.2  Establishment of the Federal Woodlands Preservation League

35

In addition to these early data collection efforts, the League was also engaged in a public campaign to champion the protection of the Gatineau Hills through local newspapers (Ottawa Citizen 1934). Charles A. Bowman was a charter member of the FWPL and an editor with the Ottawa Citizen. The newspaper promoted the League as “a responsible national organization with a Dominion charter issued by the Secretary of State” (Ottawa Citizen 1935a). Bowman ensured that the newspaper reading public was kept informed about “[t]he cutting of trees on the Gatineau Hills, until the whole countryside is denuded….” The Ottawa Citizen (1935a) not only targeted the clear-cutting but also decried the “wage slavery in the woods.” An early editorial read: Much of the stripping of hillsides along the Gatineau ski trails, in the vicinity of Kingsmere and Meech Lake and other communities, is going on without any such meager safeguard about a minimum wage. At the same time, living conditions in some of the shacks must be just about as bad as the forced labor of kulaks in the forests of Russia. It is a blot on Canada at the very front door of the capital, within sight of Parliament Hill. There is great need for an awakening of public opinion to put an end to this slashing of an accusing record on the hillsides. (Ottawa Citizen 1935a)

In May 1935, the League held a public meeting at Ottawa’s most prestigious hotel, the Chateau Laurier. Photographs of clear-cut areas in the Gatineau Hills were put on display in the hotel, and an information booklet was distributed to visitors. Mackenzie King introduced the League’s meeting: “It is difficult to overestimate the importance of preserving for Ottawa the natural beauty of its surroundings. If facts concerning the destruction of woodlands as described tonight were brought home to the public, I am certain the organization would have everywhere good support” (cited in Ottawa Journal  1935a). Following King’s introduction, speeches were given by the FWPL president and vice president, Baldwin and Sparks, respectively. As if the FWPL president were preemptively countering criticisms that the League was only interested in protecting property values, Baldwin insisted that the League’s goals were in the public interest. The League president is quoted as saying: “It was not a question of Summer residents owning cottages in the Gatineau working for something in which they were directly interested. Although Summer residents had a direct interest in the preservation of woodlands, it was a question of general public interest and all should lend their full support” (cited in Ottawa Journal 1935a). Two weeks after the League’s public meeting, Mackenzie King brought the Gatineau Hills denudation issue up for debate in the House of Commons. The Opposition Leader repeated the League’s main arguments: Many acres of beautiful woodland adjacent to the rivers or to the highways have been ruthlessly destroyed. I say ruthlessly, because they have been cut for a mere pittance, the owners receiving very little, and some unemployed men who have done the cutting with a very small amount of pay. There is an obligation on the federal government to have regard not merely for Ottawa to-day as the capital city, but to the capital of Canada for years and generations to come. (King 1935: 3047)

King’s passionate appeal was followed by a practical proposal: that Prime Minister Bennett call a meeting between the Province of Quebec and federal government to

36

3  The Gatineau Hills Clear-Cutting Controversy

study remedial measures. Prime Minister Bennett (1935: 3047) indicated that the federal government had no jurisdiction over cutting on private lands, which, through the British North America Act, fell under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. The Opposition Leader then reminded Bennett of the recommendation for a national park in the Gatineau Hills as put forward in the Holt Plan (1916), a Conservative Party initiative. Prime Minister Bennett responded by putting King on the defensive: why, when he was prime minister, there had been no action on the national park proposal? To which King (1935: 3047) replied, somewhat disingenuously given his 1926 diary entry about how indiscriminate cutting “breaks one’s heart”: “It has been only within the last two years that what has been happening along the roadsides, the river banks and the lake shores has taken place, and it is for that reason that I am saying to my right hon. friend that I am sure another winter will work a degree of devastation that will be completely irreparable.” Out of this exchange, Prime Minister Bennett agreed to take up the issue with the Chairman of the Federal District Commission, W.E. Matthews. Several days later, League members met with FDC officials to discuss potential solutions to the clear-­ cutting issue. President Baldwin explained to FDC leaders that the League “had gone as far as it could with the resources available” (cited in FDC 1935). Through its Research Committee, the League had obtained data concerning the “30,000 acres requiring control.” It was time, Baldwin argued, for either the FDC or Forestry Branch of the Department of the Interior “to assume responsibility,” adding that “[h]e didn’t think it would be necessary to expropriate the lands but to endeavour to get agreements by owners not to sell to ‘cut and run’ wood contractors” (FDC 1935). Notably, as the meeting’s discussion turned to the economic value of woodlots (FDC 1935), Chairman Matthews “questioned what would be the effect of depriving labour of this market.” The economic impact of the project would be repeated as a criticism against the prime minister’s decision to establish a park in the Gatineau Hills. Nevertheless, the protection of the Gatineau Hills was accepted as a given between the parties, which explains League President Baldwin’s (1935) enthusiasm in a thank-you letter to the FDC: “Those of us who have had the privilege of assisting in the genesis of the idea of preserving what we with optimist presumption called the federal woodlands, are relieved beyond measure that our lusty infant has now fair prospect of adoption, to say nothing of illustrious godparents.” Following the meeting with the FWPL, the FDC Chairman drafted a letter to Prime Minister Bennett for the purpose of requesting $12,000 toward the survey of the lower Gatineau woodlands. The draft letter, which was never sent, justified the request on the basis of the meeting with the FWPL, which “disclosed unmistakably that it is a case of now or never” (FDC 1935). Another outcome of the meeting with League officials was that Matthews named two committees. One committee would be formed for the purpose of further collection of data on the privately owned lands that needed protection, and the other committee would be oriented toward project financing, with FWPL President Baldwin estimating that payments to woodlot owners and land acquisitions would require about “$10,000 a year in perpetuity” (Baldwin cited in FDC 1935). As its name implies, the League was planning a

3.3  Findings of the Lower Gatineau Woodlands Survey

37

federal woodlands as opposed to the national park in the Gatineau Hills, which had been advocated for earlier by local citizens and capital planners. The federal woodlands was and is a unique concept, such that “Gatineau Park” continues to be the only large wilderness area administered by the Canadian government that is not a national park. The FDC chairman was not the only one to question the economic impact that the League’s proposal for a federal woodlands was bound to have. At a Conservative Party meeting in Hull, Aimé Guertin, MLA, “strongly denounced” Mackenzie King’s earlier remarks in the House of Commons. He asked: What are the remedies that Hon. W.L. Mackenzie King proposes, to give employment to the hundreds of local residents who now earn their living with the cutting of wood in the district? He had not announced them yet. Hull workingmen are starving and farmers of the district are financially embarrassed, but we must put a stop to the cutting of wood in the district or else the scenery of Kingsmere will disappear. (Ottawa Citizen 1935b)

When the FDC approached the government of Quebec for its cooperation in the preparation of a survey of the forest cover in the Gatineau Hills, Premier Taschereau (1935), who was a member of the League, replied: “We quite realize that such [clear-cutting] practices are prejudicial from a touristic point of view to the aesthetic appearance of that section of our Province. We must, however, call your attention to the fact that the lands on which such practices have been resorted to, being private lands, we could not very well intervene otherwise than through a campaign of education and preservation” (Taschereau 1935). The Quebec Premier added that Hull foresters would offer their services and supply data on land ownership, and this assistance was subsequently provided (Matthews 1935). As shown below, this noncommittal response from the Quebec government did not deter the federal government from proceeding with the survey of clear-cutting in the Gatineau Hills, which was carried out at the request of the League’s Research Committee (Sparks 1935).

3.3  Findings of the Lower Gatineau Woodlands Survey With the FDC “acting in a consulting capacity” (Cram 1935a), the Department of Interior provided staff and equipment to conduct a survey of forestry conditions of the Gatineau Hills. The FDC supplied the maps and other topographical data provided by Quebec officials. Further, to demonstrate the extent of cooperation with the Commission, the Department of Interior assumed the full costs of the survey (Cram 1935a). The surveyors were given permission to camp on Sparks’ property on Meech Lake Road (Robertson 1935; Apostle 1997: 80). The surveyors concluded that, although there were some clear-cut areas that impeded scenic values, the extent of cutting over the lower Gatineau Hills was “not excessive.” The FDC kept both the FWPL and Mackenzie King updated on the surveyors’ progress as the survey work was carried out in the summer of 1935 (Cram 1935b). Newspapers were informed of the survey (Montreal Gazette 1936), and the local

38

3  The Gatineau Hills Clear-Cutting Controversy

newspapers were enthusiastic about the first steps being taken. For instance, the Ottawa Journal (1935b) continued celebrating the creation of a national park: “The day will come – The Journal hopes it will not be long delayed – when the whole Gatineau region will be turned into a national park. In the meantime there is much that can be done to preserve the forest of the district, to guard against the disfigurement of its wonderful scenic beauties; and it is good to see the Government address itself to the task” (Ottawa Journal 1935b). In December 1935, foresters submitted the Lower Gatineau Woodlands Survey: Interim Report to the FDC. They identified the extent of the denudation and proposed remedial measures. As to the critical question of the extent of woodcutting in the Gatineau Hills, the foresters noted: “Within the past five years wood has replaced coal as a fuel to a considerable extent, with a consequent expansion of the fuelwood market. Owing to their easy accessibility from the markets of Hull and Ottawa, the woodlands of the Lower Gatineau region have been subjected to greatly increased cutting activities” (Robertson 1935: 1). The survey found that, over the last 20 years, around 40% of the 6215 hectares (15,360 acres) had been either completely or partially cut over. Contrary to the claims of the FWPL that 1000 acres would be cut in a single winter, surveyors estimated that the annual average cut was 224 acres (Robertson 1935: 7). The crux of the denudation issue rested with farmers affected by the Great Depression: they sold woodlots to fuelwood dealers who, as mentioned above, contracted workers at exploitatively low wages, directing them to cut indiscriminately so as to maximize profits. Surveyors did not consider this amount of cutting to be excessive: “from the purely forestry standpoint no serious criticism can be directed against the practice of the owners in clear cutting” (Robertson 1935: 10). Indeed, the Gatineau Hills were unusually productive in terms of tree growth, such that cut areas would regenerate relatively quickly. However, the surveyors conceded that indiscriminate and irregular cutting was enough to impair the scenic values coveted by “those who wish a more intimate association with the woods…” (Robertson 1935: 10). The effects of clear-cutting on scenic values became more pronounced as “operations have extended up the valleys to the hill tops” (Robertson 1935: 8). Surveyors reviewed a total of eight remedial measures to address the clear-­ cutting problem in the Gatineau Hills (see Fig. 3.1). Education was among the first measures considered by the surveyors. Through education and information, woodlot owners would learn how to practice selective cutting of mature timber stands, thus ensuring a sustainable long-term supply. This measure was advantageous because, compared to the others, it was relatively inexpensive. Education, the surveyors noted, would require several years to have a noticeable effect on the landowners. Another relatively inexpensive measure reviewed was provincial legislation. This would have the Quebec Legislature enact legislation requiring woodlot owners to cut timber “under the direction and control of forest officers” (Robertson 1935: 15). The remaining measures reviewed by the surveyors either gave the federal government direct or indirect control over the Gatineau Hills, as well as the conduct of the existing landowners within the area. With regard to the latter, the Bonus Method

3.3  Findings of the Lower Gatineau Woodlands Survey

39

Fig. 3.1  Map of forest conditions surrounding Meech Lake from 1935

gave the federal government indirect control; the Bonus would pay woodlot owners to follow a selective cutting system prescribed by federal foresters Although it was much costlier than Education,  the Bonus measure was expected to have a more immediate impact in terms of preventing clear-cutting. Similarly, the Stumpage and Ground Rental Method would compensate landowners for allowing the federal government to selectively cut timber. Surveyors noted that both measures cost around the same amount as measures involving land acquisition (Robertson 1935: pp.12–15). Of course, ownership implies direct control over the occupation and use of the property. However, land acquisition programs are generally costlier than the more indirect measures; added to this, land acquisition programs can have unintended consequences. Surveyors reviewed the costs and benefits of the National Park Method, which would see the federal government acquire, whether through purchase or expropriation (or through an agreement with the host province, i.e., Quebec), the entire surveyed area; indeed, surveyors noted that the park territory would have to be enlarged for a national park: “Compared with the average sized national park the lands covered by this report [Meech Lake] are quite small in extent, and to be a success, additional areas would have to be secured” (Robertson 1935: 15). In addition to the prohibitive land acquisition costs tied to establishing a national park, surveyors also cautioned “that following the announcement of such policy there would be a rush of owners to remove as much timber as possible before

40

3  The Gatineau Hills Clear-Cutting Controversy

disposing of the land” (Robertson 1935: 15). Yet another drawback of the national park method was the potential for political conflict, which as shown in Chap. 7.3, would be realized with Quebec legislators condemning Gatineau Park as a violation of Quebec’s territorial integrity.  Under the “protective strip method,” the federal government would purchase land—3 chains wide (198 feet or 60 meters)—on both sides of every highway in the Gatineau Hills. Among the land acquisition measures, the protective strip method would be comparatively inexpensive, but it would not prevent cutting beyond the highways in areas that were still highly visible by skiers and cottagers. Among the different land acquisition programs, the “land purchase method” can be positioned between the ambitious national park and the narrower protective strip methods. Since the surveyors recommended the land purchase method to address the denudation issue, their description of it is quoted here in full: This would involve purchase, parcel by parcel, of land necessary for [the] protection of scenic values with the object of ultimately securing all the lands suitable for inclusion in a federal district. Under such a scheme only such areas as bare merchantable timber and are immediately required for scenic purposes would be purchased immediately. Additional areas would be purchased when conditions were favourable or as the timber approached maturity. Such a method would tend to curb unrestricted cutting, since cutting by the owner would exclude the lands from the present purchase plan. Management of the areas purchased for the removal of timber under [this] selection system would provide financial returns as a partial offset to carrying charges. (Robertson 1935: 14–15)

The land purchase method was strongly recommended for the Meech Lake area where “the ground survey was largely confined.” The surveyor added that Meech Lake “is probably more intensively picturesque by reason of its relatively more mountainous nature than the other sections [of the survey, i.e., Kingsmere]” (Robertson 1935: 30). A subsequent memorandum from one of the surveyors recommended to the federal government that 6220 acres be purchased immediately at an estimated cost of $108,290, approximately $17.40 per acre (Cameron 1936). In order to prevent land speculation, the Woodlands survey was kept confidential. However, the survey was  shared with members of the Federal Woodlands Preservation League; the group had, after all, instigated the survey by the federal government. A newly reelected Mackenzie King government was thus in possession of a survey by foresters describing the extent of the clear-cutting in the Gatineau Hills and one that reviewed and recommended among eight remedial measures. Given the reelected prime minister’s involvement in, and support of the League, the beginning of a land acquisition program—whether for a national park or for a federal woodlands—must have appeared imminent to the League members.

3.4  Conclusion This chapter documented some of the key events leading up to the formal creation of Gatineau Park. It began by tracing  the growing concern, expressed chiefly by local residents and cross-country skiers, that there were more and more undesirable

References

41

clear-cuts in the recreational area. Unlike previous studies documenting the park’s early history, this chapter describes the role of cottagers and their property owner associations: the MLA and KPOA. These organizations wanted to protect the area, but, unlike the planners and citizens interested in setting it aside as a national park, they did not advocate for the national park option, which, as shown in the previous chapter, was the most widely advocated. By documenting the influence of cottagers, this chapter has also shown how the Canadian public was sold a bill of goods. More specifically, the newspaper reading public was informed that the government was establishing a national park, which was not the case. Rather, residents of Kingsmere and Meech Lake, including sitting prime ministers, pressured the federal government, through the FWPL, to intervene on terms that were most favorable to these cottage communities. As shown in the next chapter, Prime Minister Mackenzie King still had reservations which needed to be overcome before agreeing to League proposals to commence the woodland acquisition program. While Mackenzie King continued to view the forthcoming “Gatineau Park” as a national park, the recommendation made by surveyors in the Lower Gatineau Woodlands Survey was carried out, almost to a tee: the Federal District Commission proceeded to assemble the park territory on a parcel-by-parcel basis, albeit with numerous challenging and controversial expropriations, which are detailed in the following chapters.

References Apostle A (1997) The view from the hill: national park culture and Gatineau Park. MA thesis. Queen’s University, Kingston Baldwin H (1933) Letter from H Baldwin to JR Dickson LAC RG39 vol 25.49136 Baldwin H (1934) Letter from H Baldwin to JR Dickson. LAC RG39 vol 25.49136 Baldwin H (1935) Letter from H Baldwin to WE Matthews. LAC RG34 vol 265.190(1) Bennett RB (1935) Public works program. Parliament. Canada. House of Commons Debates. Edited Hansard. 17th parliament, 6th session, vol 3 Bronson FE (1935) Letter from FE Bronson to DK MacTavish. LAC RG34 vol 265.190(1) Cameron DR (1935) Memorandum LAC RG39 vol 25.49136 Cameron DR (1936) Memorandum. LAC RG34 vol 265.190(1) Cram HR (1935a) Memorandum, re: property survey of Gatineau Hills woodland adjacent to Ottawa. LAC RG34 vol 265.190(1) Cram HR (1935b) Letter from HR Cram to WLM King. LAC RG34 vol 265.190(1) Dickson JR (1933a) Letter from JR Dickson to A Bedard LAC RG39 vol 25.49136 Dickson JR (1933b) Letter from JR Dickson to the LA David RG39 vol 25.49136 Dickson JR (1933c) Interim report on question of controlling the cutting of cordwood, etc., on private lands in Quebec, having in view the preservation of scenery bordering lakes and highways, in summer resort districts. LAC RG39 vol 25.49136 Federal District Commission (1935) Meeting re: Gatineau woodlands. LAC RG34 vol 265.190(1) Federal Woodlands Preservation League (1934) Information pamphlet. LAC RG39 vol 25.49136 Gagnon S et al (2004) The creation and early development of Gatineau Park: study on the influence of local interest groups and the sociopolitical context of the park’s creation from 1903 to 1956. National Capital Commission, Ottawa Halseth G, Rosenberg MW (1995) Cottagers in an urban field. Prof Geogr 47(2):148–159. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-­0124.1995.00148.x

42

3  The Gatineau Hills Clear-Cutting Controversy

King WLM (1935) Public works program. Parliament. Canada. House of Commons Debates. Edited Hansard, 17th parliament, 6th session, vol 3 Lanzon Q (2014) From the ground up: the alpine and cross-country sportscapes of Gatineau Park, 1910–1967. MA thesis. Carleton University, Ottawa Marshall H (1973) History of the Ottawa Ski Club. Self-published, Ottawa Matthews WE (1935) Letter from WE Matthews to WLM. King. LAC RG34 vol 265.190(1) McHugh G (1933) Letter to the editor. Ottawa Ski Club News, vol 1. Available from: http://gvhs. ca/digital/gatineau-­park/osc/1933-­12-­01.pdf. Last accessed 28 Mar 2016 Montreal Gazette (1936) Making plans for a national park, 13 Nov 1936 Murphy TG (1935) Letter from TG Murphy to RP Sparks. LAC RG39 vol 379.49170 Ottawa Citizen (1926) Annual meeting of Meech Lake assn, 12 Jul 1926 Ottawa Citizen (1934) Form organization with aim of preserving the woodlands, 15 Dec 1934 Ottawa Citizen (1935a) The hillsides will accuse, 12 Jan 1935 Ottawa Citizen (1935b) Liberal leader’s proposal scorned by Aimé Guertin, 13 May 1935 Ottawa Journal (1935a) Urge protection woodland beauty in Ottawa area, 18 May 1935 Ottawa Journal (1935b) Preserving the Gatineau, 19 Aug 1935 Piche GC (1933) Letter from GC Piche to JR Dickson LAC RG39 vol 25.49136 Robertson WM (1935) Interim report re: the lower Gatineau woodlands survey. Department of Interior, Ottawa. LAC RG34 vol 265.190(1) Sparks RP (1935) Letter from RP Sparks to TG Murphy. LAC RG39 vol 25.49136 Taschereau LA (1935) Letter from LA Taschereau to WE Matthews. LAC RG34 vol 265.190(1)

Chapter 4

The Creation of “Gatineau Park”

The existing scholarship on Gatineau Park (Apostle 1997; Gagnon et  al. 2004; Lanzon 2014; Messier 2007; McFarlane 2016) has, quite rightly, given credit to the Federal Woodlands Preservation League (FWPL) as the primary catalyst in the park’s establishment in 1938, the time when the Federal District Commission (FDC) began purchasing lands in the Gatineau Hills for preservation purposes. Historians (Apostle 1997; Gagnon et al. 2004; Messier 2007) have often pointed to the first president of the Federal Woodlands Preservation League (FWPL), Harry Baldwin, as decisive in overcoming Prime Minister’s Mackenzie King’s reticence, owing to the accusations of a conflict of interest from his political opponents and the potential loss of privacy at his Kingsmere estate. This chapter confirms that the park’s establishment should actually be credited to Roderick Percy Sparks, an Ottawa businessman who owned a residence along Meech Lake Road (Murray 2003). When recounting the creation of Gatineau Park, this chapter will show how, on the one hand, the public was kept apprised of a national park with the construction of parkway to ensure public access. On the other hand, federal officials proceeded by way of the land purchase method; the FDC acquired specific tracts of land in the areas surrounding Kingsmere and Meech Lake. These acquisitions proceeded through negotiated agreement, failing which, the FDC initiated expropriation proceedings despite the objections of farmers and residents. This chapter reveals that the expropriated property owners felt unjustly treated, especially when they were lost their lands even though property owners around Kingsmere and Meech Lakes were unaffected by, and permitted to remain in the new “national park.” As shown below, the mixed-ownership area benefits private residents through the protection of the surrounding natural scenery, and the FDC  did eventually build a parkway. In short, “Gatineau Park” is an  outcome diametrically opposed to  what Prime Minister Mackenzie King and previous planners (Federal Plan Commission for Ottawa and Hull 1916) had envisioned.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Lait, Governance of Near-Urban Conservation Areas, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64440-6_4

43

44

4  The Creation of “Gatineau Park”

4.1  Public Calls for a National Park Previous studies on Gatineau Park have acknowledged but mostly left unexplored the disjuncture between ongoing media coverage concerning a possible national park in the Gatineau Hills, and the administrative and legislative processes that led to the formal creation of “Gatineau Park,” a mixed-ownership area instead of a national park. In her thesis, Alisa Apostle recognized the ambiguity in the public discourse around the clear-cutting issue. As she noted, “[t]he Gatineau preservation plan was sometimes endorsed as a national park project, and other times as a highway or parkway drive through the country” (Apostle 1997: 73). Along with several other researchers, Apostle ignored how the newspaper-reading public was ultimately sold a bill goods on Gatineau Park. In the local media, the national park option was framed as the only solution to the clear-cutting problem in the Gatineau Hills; alternative solutions, like the ones considered by the government surveyors below, were not given consideration in local newspapers such as the Ottawa Citizen and Ottawa Journal. Moreover, Apostle made the mistake of ignoring the pivotal role played by Roderick Percy Sparks, instead casting the tireless park planner as simply among the “privileged few living in the area of the proposed park who did not have to surrender their property to the Federal District Commission (Apostle 1997: 80).  In addition to promoting the national park option, local media also informed readers that a highway would be built from Ottawa-Hull to the Gatineau Hills, with construction funded as an unemployment relief project. The Ottawa Citizen interviewed six members of Parliament (MPs) to get their views on “the proposal for the creation of a national park in the Gatineau Hills round Ottawa and the construction of a modern highway rendering this great scenic district more accessible to the thousands of Canadians and tourists who annually visit the Capital” (Hume 1936). The proposal for a national park with complementary highway received unanimous support from the multi-partisan MPs who were interviewed. As time passed, local newspapers continued to advocate for “a national memorial parkway… into the lovely hill country north of Ottawa” (Ottawa Citizen 1936a). That same Ottawa Citizen article, which had probably been written by the editor and member of the FWPL, Charles Bowman, added that the parkway “would help ensure the preservation of the woodlands as a Canadian place of beauty and a joy forever” (Ottawa Citizen 1936a). The article did not indicate how the parkway would, in fact, preserve the Gatineau Hills; rather, it assumed that the lands adjacent to the parkway would be acquired and preserved. In a subsequent article, Bowman (this time identifying his authorship) went so far as to sketch a route for the proposed parkway, one which would extend from the Champlain Bridge “past Kingsmere to Meech Lake, around by Philippe Lake to Wakefield” (Bowman 1936). He projected that “the national memorial parkway would go past the summer home of Premier Mackenzie King” (Bowman 1936). Statements such as this about the parkways must have reinforced Prime Minister King’s worries about the accusations of a conflict of interest.

4.2  League Negotiations with the Federal Government

45

Notably, Bowman’s article also touched on the territoriality of the cottage community at Kingsmere: The lake is virtually surrounded by the cottages of summer residents. It used to be possible to picnic by the lake shore, but the wayfarer may no longer dip a tea kettle in the lake without a guilty feeling of trespassing in someone’s front garden. Perhaps the day may come when the public, on good behavior, will be again permitted to sit by the lakeside, even in the seclusion of the silver birches so carefully preserved through the years since the present prime minister of Canada – as a young civil servant in the Department of Labor – first built himself a summer cabin in the woods. (Bowman 1936)

As indicated below, the cottagers, through the FWPL, were not advocating for the national park option, which would have superannuated them through the elimination of privately owned lands in the park territory. Rather, they pursued the more modest goal of protecting the natural environment around Kingsmere and Meech Lake. Even this more modest goal would take years for the League to work out, and this would be done in partnership with the FDC. As the years were passing by, and an ever-increasing number of articles on the Gatineau Park and Gatineau Parkway were published, the Ottawa Citizen had to assuage its readers that the national park was forthcoming: “…under the pressure of routine business from day to day, one government after another has passed by without taking the necessary steps to establish the national park in the neighboring hills” (Ottawa Citizen1936b).

4.2  League Negotiations with the Federal Government As newspaper articles were calling for the preservation of Gatineau Hills as a national park, archival materials show that pressure was mounting on Prime Minister Mackenzie King behind the scenes, to intervene on clear-cutting in the Gatineau Hills. In July 1936, the Meech Lake Association (MLA) unanimously passed a resolution reiterating the need to address the clear-cutting issue. The MLA resolution reads: Whereas the indiscriminate cutting of fuel wood continues on the hillsides adjoining Meech Lake, and Whereas this wholesale and indiscriminate destruction of woodlands is destroying the natural beauty of this area, and Whereas the use of heavy trucks in drawing out this wood is very injurious to the highways, and Whereas large numbers of men could be employed in improving this area from a forestry standpoint rather than destroying it, This Association respectfully suggests that the Federal Government should acquire the mountainous sections of this area so as to preserve it as part of a general scheme for the beautification of the Capital of Canada. (Gill 1936)

46

4  The Creation of “Gatineau Park”

In addition to the petition from the MLA, the prime minister received a letter from Charles Mortureux, president of the Ottawa Ski Club and a charter member of the FWPL. Mortureux’s letter explained: ... The Ottawa Ski Club has done what it could by way of purchasing threatened stands of timber, but our resources are now exhausted. Knowing your interest in the trees and hills which should belong to the Capital of Canada, we hope that the excellent survey made during the last administration may enable the present government to arrest the destruction of the Woodlands, at least those of the immediate environs of Ottawa. (Mortureux 1936)

Clearly, the pressure was mounting on the prime minister, but he delayed making a decision. Instead, the prime minister’s office referred Mortureux’s letter to the Minister of Interior, T.A.  Crerar, for reply. Although Minister Crerar gave assurances to the OSC president that the federal government wanted to protect the Gatineau Hills, he also noted that “the matter is complicated by questions of jurisdiction and the fact that the lands involved are all under private ownership…” (Crerar 1936). The first concrete attempt to get parkway construction underway proved unsuccessful. Having received the Lower Gatineau Woodlands Survey, FDC officials approached the National Employment Commission, a depression-era public relief agency dedicated to public works, with the proposal to build 97 kilometers (60 miles) of Gatineau parkway (Hardy 1936). The then President of the FWPL, Harry Baldwin, was also on staff with the NEC to help support the proposal. Specifically, FDC Chair Bronson proposed to the NEC “a National Parkway in the Gatineau district adjacent to Ottawa as an unemployment project.” The proposed relief project would employ 200 workers and cost $380,000 to build a looped parkway from Champlain to Masham. Of course, there was no mention—either by Bronson or in local newspapers—of park facilities or that the parkway would be of immense benefit to existing residents of Kingsmere and Meech Lake. Rather, in the proposal, Bronson (1936: 6) outlined how construction of the parkway would be carried out during the summer. During the winter, he added, the workforce could be employed for forestry operations on the first 12,000 acres of parkland purchased by the FDC, at a cost of $120,000 (or $10 per acre). The total estimated cost of the parkway, unemployment relief program, and initial purchases for the 12,000-acre park amounted to $756,000, a considerable expenditure for the Great Depression era. Eventually, the park area would encompass between 75,000 and 100,000 acres (30,351 to 40,468 hectares), as additional lands were purchased and put under FDC control. Notably, Bronson’s submission suggested that “[a]ny expropriation of lands by the Commission in this area will, it seems, require the co-­ operation of the Province of Quebec” (Bronson 1936: 6). But scribbled in the margin notes: “No FDC [Federal District Commission] act ensures this.” Indeed, a 1928 amendment to the Federal District Commission Act gave the FDC powers of expropriation in Quebec—with or without the cooperation of the provincial legislature (Parliament of Canada 1928). For better or worse, the FDC’s proposal, which Harry Baldwin had worked on extensively, was not adopted by the NEC, and the project was left to languish.

4.3  Sparks Becomes League President

47

Nevertheless, the NCC-commissioned historian for Gatineau Park, Denis Messier, underscores Baldwin’s involvement in pushing for the parkway unemployment relief project: “He was insistent with the Prime Minister that this opportunity should not be missed. It was not until he was convinced that King was finally resolved to take action, in late 1937, that he passed on the role of League president to Roderick Percy Sparks” (Messier 2007). As shown below, Messier misrepresented the timing of the events leading up to the park’s formal establishment and downplays the role of the new League president in persuading a reluctant prime minister to take action.

4.3  Sparks Becomes League President In October 1937, Baldwin resigned as League president, indicating that he “regretted that the objects of the league had not been fulfilled under his presidency” (cited in Ottawa Citizen 1937). At that same meeting, Vice President Sparks was elected League president. With the League’s approval, President Sparks met with Minister Dunning to (re)negotiate the parkway proposal that had been submitted by the FDC earlier to the Department of Finance. Sparks (1937) convinced Minister Dunning that land acquisition, not construction of the parkway, was the most immediate concern Land acquisitions were the means to prevent further denudation of the Gatineau Hills. Following Dunning’s instruction, Sparks then met with the leadership of the Federal District Commission and had the Commission modify and resubmit its proposal to the Finance Department. Thus, the FDC requested $200,000 ($100,000 in the first year) from the Department of Finance toward purchase of 12,000 acres and preliminary engineering surveys for a “National Parkway” (Bronson 1937). Upon receipt of the revised FDC proposal, the finance minister sought the approval of the prime minister. Mackenzie King’s journal entry from the conversation is quoted here in full as it reveals why the prime minister had not addressed the denudation issue since his reelection in October 1935: I had a short talk with Dunning who seemed pleased with his Toronto visit, and who spoke to me about the Improvement Commission’s [sic] desire to go on with preserving some of the Gatineau wood toward Meech Lake for National Park purposes, etc. He wanted to know what I wished to have done. I told him that the matter had stood over last year because of my feeling that people might think I was seeking to improve property around Kingsmere. I have come to the conclusion this year that I should not let possible misunderstanding of my ownership at Kingsmere stand in the way of a much-needed preservation of the forest. I told him I wished them to go ahead with the work, though personally it meant less in the way of seclusion for myself on the way to and from Kingsmere to have even the Meech Lake district open to tourists. I believe that we owe it to the Capital of Canada to save that part of its environment. I think he will agree to the $100,000 being appropriated for that purpose. (King 1937)

So, contrary to the views of the NCC historian Messier (2007) who wrote that Sparks was a mere “figurehead,” President Sparks’ election was indeed the direct catalyst to the chain of events that culminated in the prime minister’s approval of a

48

4  The Creation of “Gatineau Park”

revised FDC proposal of $100,000 toward land acquisitions of the “Gatineau wood toward Meech Lake.” As shown in the diary entry, King clearly still had a national park in mind,  encompassing Meech Lake. This was  also confirmed in a subsequent diary entry: “This morning, on opening the paper, I saw a reference Sparks had given at a dinner regarding property at Meech Lake, being taken for a national park. I told Dunning, the other day, I hoped he would allow it to be done” (King 1938). As further evidence that Sparks was the driving force in the approval of the park project, the League president submitted a memorandum to Mackenzie King going into great detail about how the FDC should proceed, namely, with acquiring territory first, before moving to considerations related to the parkway and the park more generally, with Sparks suggesting several improvements that are elaborated in the next chapter.

4.4  Parliament Approves Funds Following the request from the Chairman of the Federal District Commission, Parliament was voting on $100,000 in federal funds “[t]o provide for acquisition of land and surveys in connection with the national parkways in the Gatineau Valley adjacent to Ottawa” (cited in Ottawa Citizen 1938a). Once again, local newspapers moved back and forth between reporting on the establishment of a national park and “…a national memorial parkway…” (Ottawa Citizen 1936a, b; 1938b, c; Ottawa Journal 1938). On 1 July 1938, Parliament approved $100,000 “as an initial vote to purchase the more important woodlands from the point of view of forest conservation and to provide funds for surveys to determine the feasibility and cost of constructing a scenic driveway through the park and connecting with the present terminus of the driveway system at the Aylmer road” (FDC 1938a: 6). Unlike Canada’s national parks, Parliament never passed legislation that sets out the purposes, let alone boundaries of Gatineau Park. Rather, as the FDC (1938a: 6) explained in its Annual Report, Gatineau Park was to be “a large natural park of some 20,000 acres in the Gatineau hills adjacent to Meech, Harrington, and Philippe lakes, fifteen miles northwest of Ottawa.” Even before Parliament had formally approved funds, the Commission started preparing for the massive land acquisition program it was about to undertake. The FDC secretary (Cram 1938a, b) obtained an updated list of property owners in the area through the Gatineau Registry Office. The FDC also enlisted the cooperation of the Department of Mines and Resources; in addition to providing aerial surveys of the Gatineau Hills, the Department loaned the FDC the services of a land surveyor, surveying instruments, camp equipment, and two trucks (McLeish 1938). The Commission hired E.S. Richards, a “timber cruiser and land valuator” (FDC 1938b), to survey the woodlots slated for acquisition and to interview owners. In late May 1938, Richards began his survey of that same area covered by the Lower Gatineau Woodlands Survey (Robertson 1935). Richards (1938a) found that “[p]

4.4  Parliament Approves Funds

49

ractically all of these lots have been either logged since that time or are in the process of being cut over now.” When carrying out interviews with owners, he noted that local residents and farmers “do not leap to quick decisions” (Richards 1938b). The affected property owners were asking: “How will we obtain our fuelwood when the Government takes over lands?” Richards (1938c) indicated that the “inability to satisfactorily answer this question is a big hindrance to buying lands directly.” As it was the Great Depression, residents and farmers depended on the woodlots to provide for their basic needs. Recognizing this, Richards, who would go on to become the first and longest-serving superintendent of Gatineau Park, concluded that expropriations were necessary: “After giving the matter much thought I do not believe that it will be feasible to make individual arrangements” (Richards 1938c). The FDC accepted Richards’ view, and no attempt was made to negotiate values with property owners. Thus, besides the preparatory work of data collection and property surveying by Richards, among the first concrete steps in the parkland acquisition program was getting approval for the expropriation of reticent owners. Not surprisingly, there is a historical amnesia within the park’s official history as to this fact. As the park’s current governing body explained of the assembly of Gatineau Park: “By 1939 a total of 6,500 hectares had been purchased. … Land was [subsequently] acquired by negotiated purchase, rather than by expropriation, over a 40 year period” (NCC 1985: 34, emphasis added). The FDC obtained permission to expropriate lands in the Gatineau Hills through three orders-in-council (Privy Council Office 1938a, b, c). PC 2476 approved $80,000 for the acquisition of 5900 acres (see Fig. 4.1). The notice of expropriation read: “As you are doubtless aware, forest lands are now being acquired by the Federal District Commission, Ottawa, in the Gatineau district for the purpose of creating a national park [sic]. Among other lands it has been decided to include [1]…. township of West Hull, containing [2]… acres, more or less, of which, it is understood, you are the owner.” Government officials also misled farmers and other landowners by claiming that the FDC was “making a national park” (Cram 1938c). In the fall of 1938, the FDC (1938a: 6) purchased 1546 hectares (3281 acres) and expropriated another 913 hectares (2258 acres). Expropriation notices were sent to 111 individual property owners; of these, 5 cases were taken to the Exchequer Court (FDC 1939: 7). Among the first people affected by the expropriations were Mackenzie King’s neighbors, the Mulvihill family. In a letter to the prime minister, Richard Mulvihill rejected the $550  in compensation for his 20 hectares (50 acres). Moreover, Mulvihill (1939) noted that the expropriation hurt his family by depriving them of work opportunities for: … 3 boys and myself. We do now know what they [Federal District Commission] mean to do. They have offered us a price which we cannot accept. It is ideal park grounds, and we are satisfied to part with it for some, but must get a price for it. It’s not only for the present time it gives us a living but for years to come. I value it at $50 000.00.

50

4  The Creation of “Gatineau Park”

Fig. 4.1  Woodlot near Meech Lake expropriated for Gatineau Park We would like to get work from the Commission but so far we do not know what they mean to do. We lost our crop last year with the hail storm and cannot afford to remain idle. We are all willing to work four of us if there is something to do.

Notably, following the trial, the Exchequer Court more than doubled the Mulvihill’s compensation for the expropriated property to $1,150, which the judge considered a fairer assessment of the value of the expropriated woodlands.

4.4  Parliament Approves Funds

51

The Exchequer Court Judge doubled Mulvihill’s compensation to $1150 for his 20 hectares of woodlands near Kingsmere Lake. In addition to the directly affected landowners, the Commission’s land acquisition program adversely impacted the Township of West Hull (1939), much in the way that Conservative MLA, Aimé Guertin, had anticipated earlier. As soon as the parkland acquisition program commenced, West Hull (1939) raised its concerns to the Commission: Economic conditions in this municipality have reached a state of emergency which calls for immediate action to avoid distress and practical starvation threatening a considerable portion of the population. These conditions have been brought about by the destruction of crops by hail, and aggravated greatly by the fact that a large area of wooded land has been expropriated by the Federal Government where employment of wood cutters had been in the past a means of livlihood [sic] for numbers of heads of families who are in great distress to-day. (Municipality of West Hull 1939)

Following the complaint, the FDC established, and the Ministry of Labour operated, a $30,000 unemployment relief project for 4 months (FDC 1939: 7). At its peak, 280 workers were employed, “…men of Hull, Deschenes, and other districts in the province of Quebec who with their families are in need of immediate financial assistance” (Cram 1939). One of the relief projects involved the construction of the 4-kilometre Dunlop Road, which connected Meech Lake Road with the Ottawa Ski Club’s Camp Fortune (Ottawa Journal 1939). This road greatly enhanced the accessibility of Camp Fortune to the general public and was the first of many road-building projects in the Kingsmere and Meech Lake area. With the launch of the Gatineau Park land acquisition program, the FDC was not only reacting to complaints from affected landowners and the municipalities but was also actively seeking out cooperation, specifically of the OSC. The existing trail network converged on Camp Fortune, which, as Gatineau Park Superintendent Richards pointed out, made “it difficult for the general public to stay off the land owned by the ski club” (Richards 1940). The FDC approached the private not-for-­ profit ski club about forming a partnership that would include the FDC improving the existing ski facilities as well as the roads leading up to the ski hill. These proposals were contained in a letter from the FDC Chairman Bronson, who proposed that the OSC transfer ownership of its Camp Fortune property—but not the lodges—to the FDC, in exchange for the federal investments in ski tows, lodges, and other facilities required by the Club. Although OSC trails and a ski jump were already located on parklands owned by the FDC, Chairman Bronson’s offer was rejected because “it [the Club] was convinced that to lose the ownership of the land would eventually mean the disintegration of the Ski Club” (GPAC 1952: 11). The Ottawa Ski Club was purchased in 1991 by the park’s current governing agency, the National Capital Commission, as a way of avoiding the dissolution of the Camp Fortune ski hill operations.

52

4  The Creation of “Gatineau Park”

4.5  Conclusion This chapter documented a period of transition wherein differing proposals to protect the Gatineau Hills were promoted in the newspapers and behind the scenes in the federal government. In the newspapers, there was discussion around a national park, which is far more ambitious than what the federal government would actually carry out, namely, land purchases in areas of strategic importance near Kingsmere and Meech Lake. It was the latter proposal that eventually won out, despite the public hearing only about the creation of a national park and accompanying national parkway. After years of persistent campaigning by the Federal Woodlands Preservation League, Parliament approved (July 1938) funds for land acquisitions in the Gatineau Hills. As shown in the last chapter, the League’s establishment was spearheaded by Kingsmere and Meech Lake residents. As early as 1936, the first president of the FWPL and Meech Lake cottager, Harry Baldwin, seemed poised to convince the Mackenzie King government to approve the land acquisitions and parkway construction as an unemployment relief program administered by the National Employment Commission. However, Prime Minister King hesitated to endorse the parkway proposal, due to a perceived conflict of interest and the potential loss of privacy at his Kingsmere estate. It turns out that an even more modest proposal was needed, and the second League president, Percy Sparks, reduced the FDC’s request to $100,000 for land acquisitions alone. Parliament approved funds for this proposal, and “Gatineau Park” was created on 1 July 1938, with three orders-in-council which gave the FDC permission to acquire the necessary lands in the Gatineau Hills, with land acquisitions through purchase or expropriation. Unlike Canada’s national parks, legislation was never passed outlining the park’s boundaries and governance mandate. Perhaps the park had to be established this way, not only for the public and private interests that the park’s creation served but also to avoid possible resistance from the provincial government given what would be entailed by a national park (i.e., federal-­ provincial agreement transferring management and control of a specified territory). A consistent theme found in subsequent chapters is that the province was not consulted in the establishment of this federal woodlands. Further, as shown in subsequent chapters, the governance of Gatineau Park is greatly complicated because of the multiple, conflicting interests it is made to serve, with landowners and local governments exercising influence over areas of the park territory.

References Apostle A (1997) The view from the hill: national park culture and Gatineau Park. MA thesis. Queen’s University Bowman CA (1936) Suggested new link in Ottawa planning will extend to beauty area. Ottawa Citizen, 20 Jun 1936

References

53

Bronson FE (1936) Letter from FE Bronson to AB Purvis, re: proposed development of a national parkway in the Gatineau district adjacent to Ottawa as an unemployment project. LAC RG 34 vol 265.190(1) Bronson FE (1937) Letter from FE Bronson to CA Dunning. LAC RG 34 vol 265.190(2) Cram HR (1938a) Letter from HR Cram to LJ Raymond. LAC RG 34 vol 265.190(2) Cram HR (1938b) Letter HR Cram to LJ Raymond. LAC RG 34 vol 265.190(2) Cram HR (1938c) Letter from HR Cram to F Mulvihill. RG34 vol 269.190-C(1) Cram HR (1939) Letter from HR Cram to WC Ronson. LAC RG 34 vol 270.190(D1) Crerar TA (1936) Letter from TA Crerar to CE Mortureux. LAC RG 34 vol 265.190(1) Federal District Commission (1938a) Annual report for 1938–1939. King’s Printer, Ottawa Federal District Commission (1938b) Minutes of meeting, 20 Sept 1938. LAC RG34  vol 269-A-2(1) Federal District Commission (1939) Annual report for 1939–1940. King’s Printer, Ottawa Federal Plan Commission for Ottawa and Hull (1916) Report of the Federal Plan Commission on a general plan for the cities of Ottawa and Hull. King’s Printer, Ottawa Gagnon S et al (2004) The creation and early development of Gatineau Park: study on the influence of local interest groups and the sociopolitical context of the Park’s creation from 1903 to 1956. National Capital Commission, Ottawa Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (1952) Report on master plan for the development of the Gatineau Park. Federal District Commission, Ottawa Gill A (1936) Letter from GA Gill to WE Matthews. LAC RG 34 vol 265.190(1) Hardy HR (1936) Gatineau national memorial park scheme widely approved. Ottawa Citizen, 22 Aug 1936 Hume JA (1936) Prominent members of house endorse scheme for park in Gatineau. Ottawa Citizen, 20 Jun 1936 King WLM (1937) Diary entry of 20 Dec 1937. Item 18593. LAC. http://www.bac-­lac.gc.ca/ eng/discover/politics-­government/prime-­ministers/william-­lyon-­mackenzie-­king/Pages/item. aspx?IdNumber=18593&. Accessed 24 Jan 2017 King WLM (1938) Diary entry of 19 Jan 1938. Item 18704. LAC http://www.bac-­lac.gc.ca/eng/ discover/politics-­government/prime-­ministers/william-­lyon-­mackenzie-­king/Pages/item. aspx?IdNumber=18704&. Accessed 24 Jan 2017 Lanzon Q (2014) From the ground up: the alpine and cross-country sportscapes of Gatineau Park, 1910–1967. MA thesis. Carleton University McFarlane R (2016) Conflict and conservation: a human history of animals in Gatineau Park, 1938–1958. MA thesis. Carleton University McLeish JW (1938) Letter from JW McLeish to AK Hay. LAC RG34 vol 268.190(2) Messier D (2007) The Gatineau Park chronicle. National Capital Commission, Ottawa Mortureux CE (1936) Letter from CE Mortureux to WLM King. LAC RG34 vol 265.190(1) Mulvihill R (1939) Letter from R Mulvihill to WLM King. LAC RG34 vol 265.190(3) Municipality of West Hull (1939) Letter from Secretary Treasurer to FE Bronson. LAC RG34 vol 265.190(3) Murray JP (2003) Roderick Percy Sparks: Gatineau Park’s forgotten founder. Up the Gatineau! 30:12–16 National Capital Commission (1985) A very special mandate: the story of the National Capital Commission. NCC, Ottawa Ottawa Citizen (1936a) Federal parkway work, 25 Apr 1936 Ottawa Citizen (1936b) For national memorial parkway, 22 Aug 1936 Ottawa Citizen (1937) Urge immediate action to preserve Gatineau’s Hillsides, 11 Oct 1937 Ottawa Citizen (1938a) Provision in estimates for Gatineau Park, 4 Feb 1938 Ottawa Citizen (1938b) Gatineau national park at last taking shape, 4 Feb 1938 Ottawa Citizen (1938c) Support proposal of national park, 25 Feb 1938 Ottawa Journal (1938) 100-mile scenic Gatineau parkway to realize long-mooted project, 4 Feb 1938 Ottawa Journal (1939) Make progress improving road to Camp Fortune, 7 Feb 1939

54

4  The Creation of “Gatineau Park”

Parliament of Canada (1928) Federal District Commission Act. Ottawa Privy Council of Canada (1938a) PC 2193. Government of Canada, Ottawa, 8 Sep 1938 Privy Council of Canada (1938b) PC 2476. Government of Canada, Ottawa, 4 Oct 1938 Privy Council of Canada (1938c) PC 2477. Government of Canada, Ottawa, 4 Oct. 1938 Richards ES (1938a) Memorandum, re: Purchase of Gatineau lands for proposed park. LAC RG 34 vol 265.190(2) Richards ES (1938b) Memorandum, re: purchase of woodlands. LAC RG34 vol 265.190(2) Richards, ES (1938c) Memorandum, re: acquisition of forest lands, lower Gatineau region. LAC RG 34 vol 265.190(2) Richards ES (1940) Memorandum, re: 1. building by the Ottawa Ski Club of a ski tow part of which may be on land owned by the commission, 2. free use by non-members of the Ottawa Ski Club trails at all times in the year. LAC RG 34 vol 266.190(6) Robertson WM (1935) Interim report re: the lower Gatineau woodlands survey. Department of Interior, Ottawa. LAC RG 34 vol 265.190(1) Sparks RP (1937) Memorandum re: activities of the Federal Woodlands Preservation League. Document obtained from Jean-Paul Murray

Chapter 5

Park Governance Under the Federal District Commission

Previous historians (Fletcher 2004; Gagnon et al. 2004; Lanzon 2014; McFarlane 2016) have documented many of the public and private actors involved in the park’s governance under the Federal District Commission (FDC). Nevertheless, these researchers neglected three of the most significant actors in the park’s governance during this two-decade period (1938–1958). First, the private actors consisting of Kingsmere and Meech Lake cottagers and their property owner associations have been entirely ignored; second, the influence of the Quebec government in the park’s expansion has been downplayed in previous studies such that the province’s role in park governance has yet to be fully understood. As described below, cottagers were decisive in the park’s planning, management, and use under the FDC; subsequent chapters document how their property owner associations continue to be influential on the park’s governance under the FDC’s predecessor, the National Capital Commission. Of course, the same is true of the Quebec government, which, as shown in Chap. 7, negotiated with the NCC the park’s governance arrangements. So, despite having its initial objections ignored, the provincial government eventually cooperated with the FDC/NCC in the park’s administration. In addition to documenting the role of these actors in the park’s initial governance, this chapter details the role of Roderick Percy Sparks, the founder of Gatineau Park, as chairman of the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (GPAC) to the FDC. Chairman Sparks wanted to better align the governance of Gatineau Park with Canada’s national parks as regards to the presence of private property. As this chapter details, Sparks had ample evidence of undesirable development occurring in the park territory; his concerns went unheeded by FDC leaders who, instead, appeased concerns of private landowners at Kingsmere and Meech Lakes. The following chapter describes the controversy that unfolded when Sparks realized that the FDC was not going to adopt public ownership as the park’s overriding governance principle; rather, the Commission adopted a position that not only favored private residents in the park but evaded interference from the provincial government.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Lait, Governance of Near-Urban Conservation Areas, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64440-6_5

55

56

5  Park Governance Under the Federal District Commission

5.1  First Park Expansion With the $100,000 voted on and approved by Parliament in July 1938, the FDC (1938–1939: 6) proceeded to purchase and expropriate the first 1328 hectares (3281 acres) of what became “Gatineau Park.” As shown in the last chapter, the FDC could proceed with its land acquisition program right away because it had collected the necessary data and hired a superintendent to negotiate purchases with owners, failing which the FDC would expropriate. The creation of Gatineau Park was announced in the FDC (1938) annual report, which provided a historical overview of the new park that commenced with Frederick Todd’s regional park system, through national park proposal in the Federal Plan Commission, to the eventual approval of funds for land acquisitions by Parliament in 1938 to protect the Gatineau Hills. In that report, the FDC gave the first projection as to the size of the territory: “The park as tentatively delimited will comprise about 20,000 acres [8093 hectares]…” (FDC 1938: 6). Before Canada entered the Second World War, the mood among park proponents and FDC officials was jubilant, whatever frustrations arise from the ongoing expropriations. There was no indication that there would be any damage in relations between federal and provincial governments. Indeed, the Ottawa Citizen, among other media outlets, claimed that “Gatineau National Park” was not “in the least encroaching on Quebec’s jurisdiction” (Ottawa Citizen 1938). In the coming years, newspapers continued to urge the federal government to set aside additional funds for land acquisitions (Ottawa Citizen 1939). Of course, Sparks (1938), as president of the Federal Woodlands Preservation League, was “immensely pleased” with the first parkland acquisitions. In a letter to Finance Minister Dunning, the League President requested additional funds for the FDC’s parkland acquisition program. Sparks (1938) wrote: May I again express the view that no other country in the world would allow these beautiful hillsides so close to the National Capital to be ruthlessly stripped of their beauty to produce fuel wood. The members of the League, while thanking you sincerely for what has already been done, would strongly urge that this work be continued. This undertaking, when initiated, had the support of representatives of all parties in the House of Commons, and I feel sure that should a further amount be included in next year’s estimates, that support would be continued.

Subsequently, in the 1939–1940 budget, the federal government approved another $95,000 for land acquisitions in Gatineau Park (Privy Council of Canada 1939). These funds were spent on acquiring another 3516 hectares (8688 acres) of land, bringing the park’s overall size to 4844 hectares (11,969 acres). Before the outbreak of the Second World War, the FDC spent a total $107,761.94 on acquisitions and $6124 on legal costs, most of which went toward the expropriation court cases. Historians have repeated the claim that the FDC’s parkland acquisition program was discontinued during the Second World War (1939–1945). As shown below, this was not the case. Indeed, in February 1940, as the park was being expanded, FDC officials met with the Premier of Quebec, Adélard Godbout, and provincial ministers to discuss “the establishment of a national park in the Gatineau county” (Ottawa Citizen 1940; see also Quebec Evening Journal 1940). Notably, there are no

5.2  Early Activities of Park Residents

57

meeting minutes in the FDC archived files on Gatineau Park. However, the FDC never obtained the consent of the province to establish and enlarge Gatineau Park, a longstanding point of contention in the subsequent relations between the province and FDC.

5.2  Early Activities of Park Residents While the FDC was expanding the park territory, cottagers sought to consolidate their presence in the new park. As shown here, they acted as a kind of local government intent on improving the Kingsmere and Meech Lake cottage communities. The Meech Lake Association (MLA), at its August 1939 meeting, passed a resolution with several regulations proposed for their community in the “national park.” The MLA (Dodge 1939) resolution reads: Whereas the summer colony of Meech Lake has now grown to the stage where it is desirable that some control should be exercised on the type of cottage to be erected in the future, and Whereas it is to the common advtage [sic] of the municipality of West Hull and to the Federal District Commission administering the Gatineau National Park [sic] that the Meech Lake district should be developed as a desirable summer colony and hence, the erection of jerry-built cottages for rental, and the natural sequence, undesirable tenants, discouraged, Be it therefore resolved that the municipality of West Hull be requested to pass a By-law requiring a building permit from the West Hull Council before any future building operations are carried on, and that The Federal District Commission be requested to do whatever may be in their power to assist the Meech Lake Association in its endeavours to improve the Meech Lake district as a desirable summer colony.

A draft building bylaw (MLA 1939) for West Hull was included with the MLA resolution. The MLA’s (1939) bylaw would require municipal permits for any new buildings within 1000 feet of Meech Lake. The preamble offers justification for the bylaw since “the District of Meech Lake in the Municipality of West Hull adjoins lands which the Federal District Commission are developing as a National Park [sic] and it is desirable for the general welfare and improvement of the said Meech Lake District in the said Municipality and in the interests of the inhabitants thereof to preserve the natural beauty and ensure a sanitary condition of the said district” (MLA 1939). Through the bylaw, the MLA would become involved in the future development of Meech Lake; this document was an exercise of territoriality in the interests of park residents. Reflecting the level of cooperation between the FDC and MLA, the superintendent of Gatineau Park, Richards, extensively revised and substantially expanded the MLA draft bylaw. Richards (1939) extended the area covered by the bylaw to include 1000 feet from Meech Lake, Meech Lake Road, and Kingsmere Road and “[o]ne thousand feet from the centre line(s) of any other road(s) which exists or shall exist in that portion of Hull township lying south of the Meech Lake Road.” Richards altered the bylaw so that FDC approval would be required before the

58

5  Park Governance Under the Federal District Commission

municipality could issue a building permit. Further, the application of the bylaw was extended to control any and all businesses at Kingsmere and Meech Lakes requiring a municipal permit for every kind of business operation, besides farming. Richards also pointed out that, as per Article 392A of the Quebec Municipal Code, municipal governments only obtained the authority to zone private property once their population reaches 20,000 people. Thus, an amendment to the Municipal Code was needed in order for West Hull to be permitted to enact the building bylaw. The MLA subsequently altered the draft bylaw so that responsibility for approving new buildings came under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipality of West Hull. This latter change proved unacceptable to the FDC.  As pointed out by the FDC Secretary Cram, “this draft bylaw creates an absurd position in that the commission, the ranking organization respecting beautification matters, would be required to defer officially to a country municipality for the right to carry out developments on its property particularly with respect to buildings.” The subsequent version of the bylaw exempted FDC lands. The Municipality of West Hull (1940), for its part, amended the bylaw to cover its entire territory. As Richards noted above, the municipality did not have the legal authority to pass such a comprehensive bylaw. Nothing less than an amendment to the Quebec Municipal Code was needed, and the provincial government was only willing to do this through a private members’ bill, which involved a cost of $500 to the municipality. At the behest of the MLA (Connolly 1940) and Municipality of West Hull (Church 1940), the FDC chairman (Bronson 1940) wrote the provincial government to support the legislative amendment and that the province waive the cost to the municipality. Ultimately, the cash-strapped municipality paid the $500, and, in June 1940, the amendment was passed in the Quebec legislature. The purpose of Bill No. 64, An Act to amend the Municipal Code, was “to give every village corporation and to every local corporation the territory whereof adjoins a national park the special power to regulate constructions that section 392A now gives to municipalities adjoining a city of twenty thousand souls” (Legislative Assembly of Quebec 1940). Of course, Gatineau Park was not—and is not—a national park, but such an inconvenient technicality did not deter the Municipality of West Hull. Following the amendment in the Quebec Legislature, the municipality passed Bylaw No. 147. Having negotiated the approval of federal and provincial authorities, the municipality could now control development on behalf of the private cottagers at Kingsmere and Meech Lakes. The MLA secretary, John J. Connolly (GPAC 1952: 23), later reflected on the outcome: “this was a most unusual accomplishment for a local community association…It demonstrates what can be done by people who have an interest in such matters. It also demonstrates that government ownership and control may not be the only method of assisting to preserve beauty.” The remainder of this book challenges Senator Connolly’s optimistic assessment, showing how private landowners have complicated the park’s governance, especially by encouraging urbanization and environmental degradation. The FDC chairman (Bronson 1943) subsequently revealed that, in order to control future development, the municipal bylaw was a necessary, but insufficient, condition. Lacking financial resources, the Municipality of West Hull failed to enforce

5.2  Early Activities of Park Residents

59

it, such that “unsightly structures” and “undesirable tenants” continued to frustrate park residents, including Mackenzie King (Turnbull 1943). In letters to the FDC and municipality, the MLA called for the enforcement of the bylaw and for better cooperation between federal and municipal authorities to ensure its proper enforcement. This was not the only occasion where park residents exercised territoriality during the Second World War. In 1941, the MLA “waited on the commission to protest against the establishing of a public beach [at Meech Lake]” (Ottawa Citizen 1941). In response, the FDC told local media that it was no longer making purchases for Gatineau Park due to the war and that it “has no property on the lake and is not buying any” (Ottawa Citizen 1941). On the one hand, Meech Lake cottagers successfully restricted public access to their cottage community in the park for decades to come—until the NCC, having purchased properties on the open market, decided to establish a public beach. On the other hand, cottagers tried to leverage the new “national park” to their advantage. Having protested against a potential FDC beach at Meech Lake, the MLA wrote to Quebec’s Minister of Roads and Public Works for Quebec requesting that the province pave the highway between Old Chelsea and Meech Lake, a 6-kilometer (3.5-mile) stretch of gravel road. The MLA secretary wrote: “As you know, the road is one of the entrances of the national park established by the Federal District Commission.” Connolly added: This Association of tax payers feels that unless the highway approach to the park is in satisfactory condition, the general public will not patronize the park. In these days when replacement of automobiles and tires is so difficult, it is all the more urgent that the road be improved. The general public, of course, realize that in travelling over this road they are using a highway of the Provincial Government, and the complaints which are made are many, and in view of the condition of the road, are well founded. (Connolly 1942)

There is no indication in the FDC’s archived files that the MLA secretary received a positive response to his letter. As shown below, the FDC was having its own difficulties in convincing provincial highway officials to develop and maintain the provincial highway network in and around Gatineau Park. In addition to cottagers’ attempts to improve the roads in the park, they were also trying to control public use of those roads. The secretary-treasurer of the Township of West Hull, a Kingsmere resident, asked the FDC to reduce the speed limit and enforce a parking ban along “the road that runs along the North side of the Lake…” (Grimes 1945). Offering to obtain a petition of Kingsmere residents, Secretary-­ Treasurer Grimes (1945) concluded his letter to the FDC: “I trust, however, that this will not be necessary because I can assure you that it is in the public interest that action should be taken along the lines indicated.” The FDC could not comply with this request, however, as the highway “does not come under the control of the FDC but, if there is anything that we can do in the matter, we shall be glad to render support” (Cram 1945). If the FDC’s cooperative spirit with the MLA is already in evidence in this letter, then the following chapter confirms the extent of cooperation between government officials and cottagers, as the FDC’s land acquisition policy changed to acquiring all lands but only  as they come on the open market, with expropriation as a last resort.

60

5  Park Governance Under the Federal District Commission

5.3  P  ark Expansion and Development During the Second World War The scholarship on Gatineau Park glosses over the period of the Second World War (1939–1945) even though there were several notable events in the park’s history during that time. Even at the onset of the war, the Federal District Commission continued to expand, maintain, and develop its new park, albeit on a much-reduced scale than would have probably been otherwise. To be sure, officially, the FDC eventually suspended its land acquisition program during the war. Nevertheless, based on agreements entered into the previous year, in the fiscal year 1940–1941, the FDC (1941: 5) spent $33,829.80 to acquire 907 hectares (2242 acres) of land to add to the park territory. In 1941–1942, the Commission reduced its land acquisitions: it only spent $5693 to acquire a further 643 hectares (1589 acres) (FDC 1942: 4). There were no further expenditures on land acquisitions during the war. So, although the land acquisition program was eventually suspended, the FDC still expanded the park during the war, bringing the park territory to 6434 hectares (15,800 acres), out of a projected 10,117 hectares (25,000 acres). In total, the FDC spent $152,600 (or $9.60 per acre) on parkland acquisitions (Cram 1942). As noted by the historian Apostle, this amounted to “significantly less than James Harkin’s valuation of $13.88 per acre of scenery” (Apostle 1997: 85). In other words, the FDC was obtaining good prices for land, but it was not yet acquiring lakefront property. Alongside of land acquisitions, the FDC’s annual war-time expenditure on park administration was $16,480, which covered the salaries of the Gatineau Park superintendent and a small staff. In order to enforce FDC policy, park managers were given the same enforcement powers as police officers, game wardens, and fire rangers (Cram 1942). The Commission also spent funds on park improvements. Work crews were hired on a seasonal basis to carry out a “limited” amount of trail cutting and make “some” improvements to the park’s trail network (FDC 1941: 4). Beavers were re-introduced into the park, having become extinct in the Gatineau Hills as a result of the fur trade. The re-introduction of beaver was done with the cooperation of provincial authorities (McFarlane 2016). Owing to an absence of predators, the beaver population proliferated, much to the consternation of farmers adjacent to the park whose fields were flooded (Cram 1957). Throughout the war, the roads leading into the park were plowed during the winter, with the municipality and Ottawa Ski Club reimbursing the FDC for some of the costs. Given all of these ongoing expenditures by the FDC, its newfound park administration role was denounced by the Department of Finance as “undertakings that are unnecessary and wasteful in wartime...” (Ronson 1942). However, the FDC chairman (Bronson 1942) defended expenditures on the park, stressing the “healthful recreation” which it provided not only to the general public but also to members of the armed forces. Although not mentioned by Bronson in his letter to the Department of Finance, the FDC had developed, the year before, the park’s first public facilities, a public beach and campsite on the south-west shore of Philippe Lake. The northern half of the lake was occupied by cottagers at the time, such as the Heggtveit (no date) family, who built their first cottage during the Great Depression using rejected lumber and stones from the site. As the furthest in the “Chain of Three Lakes,” Philippe

5.4  Planning and Management During the Postwar Period

61

Lake was the last lake to have a cottage community occupy its shores. With Meech Lake “outside” of FDC purview, and the entirety of Harrington Lake owned by the estate of Colonel Edwards, Philippe Lake was the only remaining lake in the chain that could be developed by the FDC.  However, the road leading to the lake was “impassable for automobiles” (Ottawa Journal  1947). Before the first Gatineau Park facilities were opened to the public, the FDC (Cram 1940) tried to convince provincial highway authorities to improve the road leading to Philippe Lake, but their requests met with little success (Cram 1941). That is, the highway authorities made a few repairs to the road (Gohier 1944). Regardless of the poor conditions of the roads leading to Philippe Lake, the beach and campsite proved immensely popular from the outset. In its first year of operation, the new public facilities received 4000 visitors (Richards 1942). Following the war, Philippe Lake would receive 4000 visitors in a single day, with overcrowding becoming such a serious issue that park officials had to turn visitors away on weekends (FDC 1955: 5). The FDC regularly received complaints about overcrowding at Philippe (Cram 1945). Even after the war, the lack of public access to Gatineau Park was, for at least one visitor, an “intolerable state of affairs” (Alsvold 1947). A private citizen wrote to the FDC chairman: Now that the Meech Lake property owners association has succeeded in barring all from the lake but themselves, I thought Pinks lake [sic] might be a substitute and decided to drive up there for a swim yesterday. Several hundred yards from the lake I was confronted by a formidable array of signs reading: “Journeys End, Private Property, No Trespassing, Trespassers will be prosecuted. This means you.” For prudence’s sake I left the car there and proceeded the last piece on foot only to see more signs such as “Final notice, Trespassers will be prosecuted, this means you. The obnoxious property owners appear to be a farmer and a miner. The farm is a frightful eyesore and in an extreme state of decay. It could no doubt be expropriated for a trifle. If there is no money for this, there is room for the road to by-pass the farm. It would be less than 100 yard [sic] and a couple of dozen loads of gravel would do it. It may be that it is the miner that has put up the signs. He has a small shack by the beach and there are signs around, about no trespassing as blasting is going on. I could find no signs of operations nearby though. There is also another new shack built on the North Shore further up and while there I heard a violent commotion going on. It was evidently the owner of the shack who was trying to prevent some people from going in swimming. (Alsvold 1947)

As shown in the next section, there were behind-the-scenes efforts to improve public access. Ironically, this initiative, spearheaded by the planners in the National Capital Planning Committee as well as Gatineau Park Advisory Committee, culminated in the expropriation of cottagers at Philippe Lake and of more farmers in the park’s southern section. The expansion and development of Gatineau Park harmed these social groups while benefitting cottagers and skiers from Ottawa.

5.4  Planning and Management During the Postwar Period With the Second World War nearing its conclusion, the Federal Woodlands Preservation League (FWPL) was reactivated by its president, Roderick Percy Sparks (1944). Although the League’s mandate had seemingly been fulfilled with

62

5  Park Governance Under the Federal District Commission

the park’s creation, Sparks saw that the citizen’s group still had an important role to play: “The saving of the woodlands is not enough in itself. If the public is to receive the benefits which accrue from the public ownership of large wooded areas, it must be made possible for the public to reach such areas, and facilities must be provided for its convenience and pleasure” (FWPL 1945). To this end, Sparks submitted the report, Enlargement and Development of the Gatineau Park, to the FWPL at its September 1945 meeting (Sutherland 1945). Following the League’s meeting, the report was submitted, unrevised, to the FDC. The report recognized the “unsatisfactory” condition of the highway from Old Chelsea to Masham, by means of which the park’s only facilities at Philippe Lake were accessed by the public. It suggested that the FDC approach provincial highway authorities about constructing a two-lane paved highway “from, say Old Chelsea, through to the south end of Philippe Lake to the east side of Meech and Harrington Lakes” (FWPL 1945: 2). The League’s report also urged the FDC to build a new parkway from the Champlain Bridge to the entrance of Gatineau Park (FWPL 1945: 2). Unlike subsequent proposals and the actual construction of the Gatineau Parkway in the mid-1950s, the report did not want roads built in the “mountainous sections of the Park… This should be preserved in all its natural beauty” (FWPL 1945: 3). Through the parkway and highway proposals, this “National Park” would be widely accessible to the public. The League’s 1945 report echoes the 1913 memorandum by Dominion Parks Branch Commissioner Harkin that was discussed in Chap. 2. The report even addressed Gatineau Park as a National Park (FWPL 1945). “Most of the National Parks in Canada are not available to people of low or medium income. The Gatineau Park, being close to large centres of population would offer all the natural beauties, spiritual values, and healthful recreation of the outdoors, which generally speaking are only available to a privileged few, who can afford to visit our National Parks” (FWPL 1945: 7). This statement reflects how, in the immediate postwar period, automobility was becoming more widely available to an emergent suburban “middle class” seeking, like the elite cottagers at Kingsmere and Meech Lakes, a “retreat to nature”. While the Commission would be amenable to proposals for a parkway and highway, the report contained a radical proposal, one that the federal government did not prove ready to accept, namely, the formation of a five-member Gatineau Park Commission (GPC) to administer the park. GPC membership would include the FDC chairman, a representative from the Dominion Parks Branch, and “three independent citizens who will have the time to devote to such a project, and the business experience and vision necessary to make a success of the development of what might in time be one of the finest natural parks in the world” (FWPL 1945: 3). The plan estimated that another $400,000 would be able to acquire  14,164 hectares (35,000 acres), bringing the park’s overall size to 20,234 hectares (50,000 acres). In terms of park boundaries, it would completely take in the Chain of Three Lakes and 20 smaller lakes (interestingly, it did not mention La Pêche Lake, the largest lake in the current park territory). The League report urged that business experience be required for the citizen members of the GPC, as the body would issue bonds of $500,000 (with an annual

5.4  Planning and Management During the Postwar Period

63

interest of 3.5%, or $22,500). This money would be used to enlarge the park and to develop public facilities. The GPC would ensure that the park project was “self-­ liquidating” with income generated through selective woodcutting and land sales. Of course, having deprived farmers and residents of the ability to cut wood, the FWPL was aware that government sales of fuel wood might be found objectionable by those who had their woodlots expropriated. But the report insisted that there was an “obligation” on the part of the federal government to continue to supply Ottawa and Hull with fuelwood, with the FWPL anticipating minimum revenues of $15,000 per year (FWPL 1945: 3). As for land sales, the GPC would allow private cottages “the design and location of which would strictly be controlled by the Park Commission” (FWPL 1945: 4). The report wanted to ensure that lake shorelines were publicly accessible such that cottages were located at least 400 feet away. As President Sparks had approached the railway companies about building a resort hotel before the park was established, it is not surprising that the hotel proposal was reiterated in the 1945 report, with the GPC leasing an area between Meech and Harrington Lakes to a railway company for $5000 per year (FWPL 1945: 5). Income would also be derived from the operation of ski tows, concessions, and campsites. While the report insisted that “natural attractions” would be free, it did concede that even a $0.10 contribution from each of the park’s 200,000 visitors “would have provided an amount almost sufficient to pay the interest and sinking fund on a $500,000 bond issue” (FWPL 1945: 7). In the FDC archived files, there is no indication of the reception of the FWPL report, which was written by League President Sparks. However, FDC Chairman Bronson was sympathetic. In 1946, Bronson appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Tourist Traffic with the FWPL president at his side. Copies of the FWPL report were given to the senators. Bronson urged the park’s expansion to 50,000 acres and told the committee that the $400,000 cost  to acquire parkland would be “a drop in the bucket 20 years from now. If it is purchased and developed as we have been developing the area we now manage, Ottawa will have a hinterland such as no capital in the world has” (Bronson cited in Ottawa Journal  1946). Because the FWPL report seemed to allow for privately owned lands within the park, but also insisted on public use of lake shorelines to 400 feet, Senator Crerar asked President Sparks about residences at Meech Lake. As the Ottawa Journal put it, “Sparks said there was no intention on the part of the League to ask that cottageowners on Meech Lake be interfered with in any way. The FDC, he suggested, would purchase lands surrounding the cottage area but not the cottages themselves” (Sparks cited in Ottawa Journal 1946). The Senate Committee, for its part, “was impressed with the case presented [by Sparks and Bronson], particularly the view that if additional land was to be acquired it should be done now before allowing it to pass into the possession of private parties. It was argued that this park in its close proximity to the Capital, would do much to increase tourist flow from the United States” (Buchanan 1946). The reference to the park’s connection to the capital reflects the ongoing planning of Canada’s national capital region, including Gatineau Park. Just as Sparks was reactivating the Federal Woodlands Preservation League, so was Prime Minister Mackenzie King seeking to transform Canada’s national capital through regional

64

5  Park Governance Under the Federal District Commission

park planning, redevelopment of the downtown core, and federal coordination of transportation networks (Gordon 2015). Once again, the prime minister enlisted French planner Jacques Gréber, who had been working on a plan for Canada’s capital prior to the outbreak of the Second World War (Gordon 2001). Gréber designated himself as the consultant to the National Capital Planning Committee, a committee which had the responsibility of preparing a long-term master plan for the National Capital District. A federal Order-in-Council dedicated the master plan process to the memory of the soldiers who fought and died in the Second World War. Among Gréber’s earliest ideas was for a huge monument in Gatineau Park, overlooking the capital: We found a very fortunate site for this materialization at the end of the Mountain (elevation 525 feet), right above the connecting point of Mountain Road and Old Chelsea Road. A large terrace could be created to overlook the whole city and the back wall of this terrace formed by the rock of the Mountain lends itself for a simple and natural monument reminding us of the efforts and sacrifices given by the nine provinces of Canada during the Second World War. A memorial room could be provided inside the monument with a plan of the region engraved on marble. An outlook at the top, reachable by steps inside the monument and walks on both sides, would show from the elevation of 600 feet a still more extended view of the region. (National Capital Planning Committee 1947)

It turns out that this proposal was met with disapproval from Prime Minister King; it was one of several disagreements they had over the course of their relationship (Gordon 2001: 54). As shown in the next section, Gréber’s first call for land acquisitions in the southern tip of Gatineau Park was acted upon by the FDC. While prepared to made specific recommendations, Gréber generally deferred to the vision and expertise of Sparks in the planning of Gatineau Park. The Gréber Plan (1950) referenced the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee’s ongoing work on a long-term plan for Gatineau Park, which prepared the report that would be the catalyst to the controversy around private land ownership described in the next chapter. When considered overall, the Gréber Plan is relatively unimportant in the park’s history, even though it was pivotal to the creation of the National Capital Region’s second largest conservation area, Ottawa’s Greenbelt.

5.5  Postwar Expropriations in Gatineau Park After the Second World War, the FDC (1946) reinitiated the parkland acquisition program. In November 1946, the FDC expropriated 1300 acres from ten owners, its negotiators having been unable  to obtain a purchase price at $10 per acre (Privy Council 1946). The expropriation included Lot 1A, Range 13, Township of Eardley, which completely surrounded Brown Lake, a lake that had a number of cottages on it. The notices of expropriation were followed by a petition by the newly formed Brown Lake Association (BLA). Having been informed that the expropriation was

5.5  Postwar Expropriations in Gatineau Park

65

carried out for establishing a national park, the BLA petition, accompanied by seven signatures, read: Though we welcome the idea of the area being added to the National Park, we do not wish to part with our respective property, developed after much effort and at great expense. Therefore, we humbly petition the Federal District Commission that we be left in complete ownership of our properties as was done in the case of those located within the Park Area comprising Kingsmere, Meech and Philippe Lakes. We are of the opinion it is in the best interest of the Federal District Commission to retain as owners those who have developed and beautified areas and will continue to do so, so long as they remain owners. (Tetu et al. 1946)

The FDC subsequently backtracked from the expropriation, with officials entering into discussions with the Brown Lake Association about the conditions under which the expropriation order would be lifted, which included right-of-first-refusal on property sales, no commercial developments, and FDC approval ahead of any new structures or alterations to existing ones (Cram 1947a, b). In 1947, the Commission followed through on the NCPC recommendation to acquire lands south of its Gatineau Park land assembly, which was centered around the Chain of Three Lakes. The FDC obtained Order-in-Council approval to spend $200,000 on the acquisition of 2631 hectares (6500 acres) “by direct negotiation or, if necessary, by expropriation” (PCO 1947). Once again, the extension of the park  territory was met with resistance. Henri Papineau was a Luskville farmer whose 50-acre woodlot was expropriated by the FDC.  On behalf of Papineau, another farmer, Marcel Bonnier (1947), met with his local MP, Léon Raymond, about the FDC’s action. Raymond in turn wrote the FDC that “he [Henri Papineau] does not want to sell, absolutely not, and he needs this lot for his professional utility.” Bonnier (1947) condemned the entire Gatineau Park project as unjust, as the FDC did not expropriate privately owned lands in an equitable manner. He wrote: I find that these expropriations smell of dictatorship for miles and are totally anti democratic. This, for a project that could be placed in the category of luxuries. Oh! if it was for a matter where public interest would really be concerned, as for example a telephone line, an electric power house or even a road, I would approve such expropriations provided that the expropriated parties receive an adequate compensation. I know different parties that possess hundreds of acres right in the center of the Park involved, close to Meech and Mousseau [Harrington] Lakes and who have not yet been expropriated. (Bonnier 1947)

To add insult to injury, Bonnier noted that the FDC forms were only in English, and he questioned whether “this law does not violate the liberty of the farmers of my district who, between ourselves, are more and more dissatisfied of the manner in which they are treated by the officers of the Federal District Commission” (Bonnier 1947). The FDC conceded that the English-only expropriation forms were “admittedly insufficient” even though it pointed out that land agents were always accompanied by a bilingual park ranger (Cram 1947b). In response to the accusation that the FDC was privileging Kingsmere and Meech Lake residents, the FDC secretary—who in another letter had said that Meech Lake was outside the park limits—elusively informed the Hull MP that “[t]he Commission is incorporating within Gatineau Park such lands that lie within definite limits that

66

5  Park Governance Under the Federal District Commission

Fig. 5.1  Map of Gatineau Park from 1944

have been carefully considered and approved by it. All lands within these limits will eventually be acquired” (Cram 1947b). What Secretary Cram failed to mention was that the park’s limits had yet to be determined. The 22,000-acre park had no long-­ term plan and no established boundaries (see Fig. 5.1 map of Gatineau Park from 1944). It was a collection of land parcels owned by the FDC and administered for conservation and recreation purposes.

5.6  Creation of the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee The wide mandate assigned to the National Capital Planning Committee (NCPC) prevented it from paying much attention to Gatineau Park, particularly with respect to its day-to-day management and emerging issues. Rather, the NCPC’s lead consultant, Jacques Gréber, focused on the routing of the Gatineau Parkway, which, by this time, had clearly been established as the central component of the park project (see Fig. 5.2 map of Gatineau Park ownership in 1946). Through automobility, the park would be democratized, especially for the residents of the National Capital Region. In March 1947, the FDC established a volunteer, five-member Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (GPAC). While this was not the Gatineau Park Commission

5.6  Creation of the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee

Fig. 5.2  Map of Gatineau Park ownership in 1946

67

68

5  Park Governance Under the Federal District Commission

envisioned in the 1945 FWPL report, Roderick Percy Sparks was elected chairman. As its name implied, the role of the Advisory Committee was to provide the FDC with advice concerning the park’s planning, development, management, and use. This advice was to be submitted to the FDC secretary on a strictly confidential basis and passed to the FDC executive for a final decision. Nevertheless, as Chairman Bronson (1947) explained in Sparks’ letter of appointment as a committee member, “it goes without saying that the Commission would give great weight and consideration to the advice of men whom it had itself chosen to act in that capacity.” The Advisory Committee was “composed of persons living within or near the park for at least part of the year and those who are interested in and active participants in the development of skiing and other activities within its area” (Bronson 1947). The “other activity” to which Bronson referred was “cottaging” in the park. In addition to Chairman Sparks, Secretary John J. Connolly (who was also the secretary of the Meech Lake Association) and Major General Daniel Spry were park residents. The two remaining members, Herbert Marshall and S.  Bernier, were members of the Ottawa Ski Club (OSC); Marshall was the OSC president. Though rifts among members of the Advisory Committee on the issue of private lands were not initially apparent, they eventually rose to the surface and stalled the park’s first planning process, preventing the Advisory Committee from fulfilling its most important task: the preparation of a master plan for Gatineau Park. The GPAC (1947) held its first meeting in May 1947. The very first “matter for consideration” was “[t]he ultimate boundaries of the Park.” Committee members subsequently toured the park area to determine which lands were owned by the FDC. In June 1947, the committee members visited Philippe Lake: It was found that the Commission was the owner of practically the entire shore line of this lake with the exception of certain lots at the north end. … It should be pointed out that unlike Meech Lake, Lac Philippe is not a thickly settled area. It is located reasonably close to the City of Ottawa and the Committee feels that it would be desirable to preserve the facilities which it offers and the beauty which is there, for park purposes. At the present time construction has begun on some new buildings of what appears to be an inferior type and in a place which the Committee feels would be detrimental to the ultimate development of the lake within the park. For this reason the Committee would like to make a firm strong recommendation to the Federal District Commission that the lands detailed above be expropriated by the Commission forthwith. (Connolly 1947)

In November 1947, perhaps having heard rumors of either the GPAC recommendation to expropriate the remaining privately owned lands around the lake or the forthcoming delimitation of the park’s boundaries, the Lac Philippe Cottagers’ Association was formed. It asked that FDC officials attend their next meeting “to give us an outline on the expansion of Gatineau Park as proposed for Lac Philippe” (Merrell 1947). Coincidentally, the FDC (1947) approved the expropriation on the very same day it received this request from the Lac Philippe Cottagers’ Association. Nevertheless, the Gatineau Park Superintendent and GPAC Chairman proceeded to meet with residents. Although no minutes of the meeting were kept, Sparks (1952) later recounted the meeting with cottagers in a memorandum to the Advisory

5.6  Creation of the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee

69

Committee: “At first there was strong objection and indignation. A meeting was held, but, when the situation was fully explained, agreement was reached with 100 percent of the owners.” Sparks’ (1952) assessment of the meeting does not reflect the actual outcome, as 5 out of the 24 owners were “holding out for highest prices” (Cram 1948). For the Heggtveits (n.d.), and many other Philippe cottagers, the expropriation “was a very sad event.” This family of Norwegian immigrants lost their cottages on account of the expansion of the park’s territory. Shortly after the advisory committee’s visit to Philippe Lake, it obtained Gréber’s parkway plans for the proposed war monument. In a 25-point letter written and co-­ signed by the GPAC chairman and secretary, they argued that the proposed parkway: …creates an entirely new situation both in respect to the future development of this area [Kingsmere Lake] and the establishment of land values … A decision should be reached immediately as to what land adjacent to Kingsmere and land abutting Kingsmere Road should be taken over by the Commission. After much consideration, your Committee recommends that notice of expropriation should be given to all owners of land within this area. This recommendation is made, keeping in mind the statement of policy made at a meeting between the Chairman of this Committee and your Commission to the effect that it was the policy of the Commission to purchase land and resell it at higher prices if circumstances justify such action. (Sparks and Connolly 1947)

The recommendation to acquire all remaining privately owned lands at Kingsmere would involve the expropriation of 600 acres, worth an estimated $500,000. Sparks and Connolly were adamant that, should Kingsmere residents be allowed to remain (see Fig. 5.3 map of projected Gatineau Parkway system), the proposed Gatineau Parkway would provide them with “huge windfall profits...” (Sparks and Connolly 1947). This outcome, they added, would leave the FDC “open to the severest criticism” (Sparks and Connolly 1947). As it turns out, this criticism would come from Sparks (see Chap. 6), whose lands were posthumously expropriated on account of increased values from the opening of the Gatineau Parkway! (See the plight of Sparks’ children in Chap. 7.) As indicated in the passage above, the Advisory Committee suggested that, once the Kingsmere area had been acquired by the FDC, it could later be resold for a “large profit” (Sparks and Connolly 1947). Drawing comparisons with Ottawa’s prestigious Rockcliffe Park community with its embassies and mansions, Sparks (1947a) maintained that: …[a] carefully planned area in this beautiful setting overlooking the capital, largely confined to the homes of the representatives of the growing number of foreign countries now represented at Ottawa, would be a feature of great interest to tourists and others who might visit the capital and we suggest would be an important part of the general plan in connection with the development of Ottawa as a great Capital City.

While there was some reluctance on the part of the Advisory Committee to recommend this real-estate proposition to the FDC, it maintained that additional parkland could be purchased with the profits. In this way, Gatineau Park would be a “self-­ liquidating proposition” (Sparks 1947a). The Advisory Committee was aware, of course, that its recommendation to expropriate Kingsmere residents included the estate owned by Prime Minister Mackenzie King. In a letter to the FDC Chairman

70

5  Park Governance Under the Federal District Commission

Fig. 5.3  Map of projected Gatineau Parkway system

Bronson, Sparks (1947b) wrote: “While we recommend that notice of expropriation be given to ‘all owners’ of property in this area, I know that it has been rumoured that the Prime Minister may leave his property to the State as part of the Park … If such were the case of course the problem would solve itself.” The “rumor” was in fact true. As detailed in the next chapter, Mackenzie King’s estate in the park, a 231 hectare (571 acre) bird sanctuary, was bequeathed to the Canadian people. There is no record of the FDC response to the Advisory Committee’s recommendation to expropriate lands at Kingsmere, but it would be reiterated by the Advisory Committee in subsequent communications to the Commission (Sparks 1947c: 5). The implicit disagreement would become apparent as the FDC took steps to delimit the boundaries of Gatineau Park. In November 1947, the following resolution was passed at the executive meeting of the FDC (1947): Whereas it is considered advisable that Gatineau Park be enlarged to include Lac La Piche [sic], Harrington Lake and other desirable topographical conformations within its limits. Therefore Be It Resolved that the approval of the Governor-in-Council be sought under the provisions of Section 13 of the Federal District Commission Act to acquire the property outlined in red on the attached plan by direct negotiation, or if necessary, by expropriation.

This formalization of boundaries highlights the important difference between the front-stage and back-stage representations of the park. On maps distributed to the public, Gatineau Park was represented as a continuous wedge-shaped area. The map attached to the Order-in-Council (see Fig. 5.1) authorizing the FDC to proceed with the Gatineau Park land acquisition program excluded the shoreline of Meech Lake and Kingsmere in its entirety. In effect, the Kingsmere-Meech Lake area was an enclave within the park’s territory for government insiders, but this was never made public knowledge.

5.6  Creation of the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee

71

Indeed, it is unclear whether park residents were aware that the park boundaries had been drawn around them. In September 1948, Kingsmere residents approached the FDC to “enter into an agreement with them to refrain from expropriating their land providing that they undertake to set up certain building restrictions on their property” (Macdonald 1948). The building restrictions would not just apply to Kingsmere Lake but also to the surrounding area; further, the restrictions would apply to both local residents and the FDC.  The Kingsmere Property Owners’ Association (KPOA 1948) proposal was an exercise of territoriality which not only prohibited public access to the lake area but also severely curtailed FDC powers. Thus, under the proposed restrictions, the FDC, in addition to agreeing not to expropriate residents, “shall not construct, permit (so far as it can control the same) or carry on any public parking place, picnic ground, playground, swimming or boating or other public recreation or amusement place” (KPOA 1948). KPOA (1948) territoriality extended to the territory of Gatineau Park as “[t]he Commission shall take all reasonable steps to prevent its facilities outside the district shown in Schedule ‘A’ from constituting a nuisance to the [Kingsmere] Owners.” The KPOA went even further in its final suggestion, essentially having the FDC act against its own interests: In the event of any Owner having occasion to request a fiat to sue the Crown in respect of any act or omission of the Commission, the Commission shall, in every case, regardless of its conception of the merits of such request, recommend the granting, by the Crown, of such permission to sue, but shall not have any obligation to see that such recommendation is accepted by the Crown.

Instead of dismissing this rather audacious request out-of-hand, the FDC took it quite seriously and obtained a legal opinion. The law firm of Clark, Robertson, Macdonald, and Connolly replied: “It is our opinion upon reading the Federal District Commission Act that you cannot validly enter into any such contract or undertaking limiting the powers conferred on your Commission by Parliament” (Macdonald 1948). Clearly, a formal agreement  on these terms could never be reached between the FDC and Kingsmere residents, and it is fortunate that this was never realized, given that the agreement sought would have permanently kept park visitors outside of the residential enclave. It is an irony that, even though Kingsmere remained off limits to park visitors, it was the most publicly accessible area of the park. Accessibility went beyond the private use of the automobile. As pointed out by one visitor, “[u]nlike the other parts of the federal park which can only be reached by one’s motor-car, Kingsmere can be reached by most people. You may cycle, there is a regular service of motor-buses and in the Spring you will find around Old Chelsea and Kingsmere more people than in any other part of the Laurentians” (Saint-Jacques 1948). Nevertheless, with such strong assertions of territoriality by Kingsmere residents, the FDC proved willing to keep park visitors away from the area, even though it owned part of the lake’s shoreline. When the FDC was provided with an “unofficial application,” the FDC asked the Advisory Committee whether “it might prove advantageous to the Commission if the Kingsmere owner’s association were to exercise supervisory control over the use of the land adjoining Kingsmere Lake including the

72

5  Park Governance Under the Federal District Commission

Commission’s lands” (Cram 1949). Given that the GPAC wanted the FDC to have full control over the Kingsmere area, the FDC should probably have anticipated the negative response to the KPOA proposal from the Advisory Committee (Sparks 1949).

5.7  Conclusion From a governance perspective, there were important questions concerning the boundaries of and land ownership in Gatineau Park. Ideally, these questions would have been addressed from the outset. Instead, Gatineau Park was rapidly expanded through expropriation and negotiated purchase by the FDC; as shown above, this land acquisition program began with purchase and expropriation. However, the questions of park boundaries and public ownership went unaddressed by government planners for some time, contributing to the uncertainty experienced by private landowners as to their future. Only a year after the park was officially established, the Meech Lake Association demonstrated its competence and influence by drafting, in collaboration with FDC officials, a bylaw that would have allowed the municipality to exercise control over future development in the new “national park.” The Second World War led to an understandable delay in park planning; the FDC’s parkland acquisition program was slowed, but not suspended as previous scholars had suggested. Indeed, the MLA protested “rumors” to the effect that the FDC was going to acquire land near the lake for public facilities. The expansion of Gatineau Park continued throughout the war, and land acquisitions were accelerated once the war had been concluded. The FDC was not, however, acquiring lands around Kingsmere and Meech Lakes. Their associations were the most influential and successful in ensuring not only their continued presence “in” the park but also that their lakes were restricted from public access. This was not the case for cottagers at Lac Philippe: the FDC needed a lake in the park territory for public use. The anxieties of cottagers were reinforced by the FDC’s expropriation of cottagers at Lac Philippe and the behind-the-scenes discussions between the FDC and Advisory Committee. In actual fact, this was an accommodation to the interests of the Kingsmere and Meech Lake property owners. Because of the politics inherent in the park’s boundary and land ownership questions, it took years for the Advisory Committee to gain traction with respect to the long-term planning of the park. As shown in the next chapter, in 1952, the GPAC released a report that, in addition to providing proposals for the park, contained an appendix with the divided views of committee members on the issue of remaining privately owned lands, in effect, a discussion of what should be done with the growing cottage communities in the center of the park. Sparks, as Advisory Committee chair, was adamant about park preservation for the public good, with complete public ownership and control. In this way, Gatineau Park would be reminiscent of national parks in Canada and elsewhere. As shown in the subsequent chapters, little came in the way of closure on the related issues of privately owned land and park

References

73

boundaries. These chapters explore why there was so much resistance to Sparks’ recommended approach to land acquisitions, and from where this resistance came within the FDC: those officials with close ties to private land owners at Kingsmere and Meech Lake.

References Alsvold A (1947) Letter from A Alsvold to FE Bronson. LAC RG34 vol 267.190 (13) Apostle A (1997) The view from the hill: national park culture and Gatineau Park. MA thesis, Queen’s University Bonnier MB (1947) Letter from MB Bonnier to LJ Raymond. LAC RG34 vol 267.190(13) Bronson FE (1940) Letter from FE Bronson to O Drouin. LAC RG34 vol 266.190(6) Bronson FE (1942) Letter from FE Bronson to WC Ronson. LAC RG34 Vol. 266.190(10) Bronson FE (1943) Letter from FE Bronson to WJ Turnbull. LAC RG34 vol 266.190(10) Bronson FE (1947) Letter from FE Bronson to RP Sparks. LAC RG34 Vol.272.190-G(1) Buchanan WA (1946) Report of the standing committee on tourist traffic. Senate of Canada, Ottawa. LAC RG34 vol 267.190(12) Church, CH (1940) Letter from CH Church to HR Cram. LAC RG34 vol 266.190(6) Connolly JJ (1940) Letter from JJ Connolly to HR Cram. LAC RG 34 vol 266.190(6) Connolly JJ (1942) Letter from JJ Connolly to TD Bouchard. LAC RG34 Vol 266.190(9) Connolly JJ (1947) Letter from JJ Connolly to FE Bronson. LAC RG34 vol 272.190-G(1) Cram HR (1939) Memorandum, re: Meech Lake Association building bylaw. LAC RG 34  vol 266.190(5) Cram HR (1940) Letter from HR Cram to E Gohier. LAC RG34 vol 266.190(8) Cram HR (1941) Letter from HR Cram to E Gohier. LAC RG34 vol 266.190(9) Cram HR (1942) Letter from HR Cram to LA Richard. LAC RG34 vol 266.190(9) Cram, HR (1945) Letter from HR Cram to SE Grimes. LAC RG 34 vol.267.190(11) Cram HR (1948) Letter from HR Cram to LJ Raymond. RG34 vol 267.190(14) Cram HR (1949) Letter from HR Cram to RP Sparks. LAC RG34 vol 272.190-G(1) Cram HR (1947a) Letter from HR Cram to AE Tetu. LAC RG34 vol 270.190-C(4) Cram HR (1947b) Letter from HR Cram to LJ Raymond. LAC RG34 vol 267.190(13) Cram HR (1957) The tale of the beaver in Gatineau Park. LAC RG34 vol 268.190(A1) Dodge CM (1939) Letter from CM Dodge to S Lewis. LAC RG 34 vol 266.190(5) Federal District Commission (1938) Annual report for 1938–1939. King’s Printer, Ottawa Federal District Commission (1942) Annual report for 1942–1943. King’s Printer, Ottawa Federal District Commission (1946). Meeting resolution, 11 Oct 1946. LAC RG34 vol 270.190-C(4) Federal District Commission (1947) Meeting resolution, 12 Nov 1947. LAC RG34 vol 267.190(13) Federal Woodlands Preservation League (1945) Report on the enlargement and development of the Gatineau Park. LAC RG34 vol 267.190(11) Fletcher K (2004) Historical walks: the Gatineau Park story, 3rd edn. Fitzhenry & Whiteside Limited, Markham, ON Gagnon S et al (2004) The creation and early development of Gatineau Park: study on the influence of local interest groups and the sociopolitical context of the park’s creation from 1903 to 1956. National Capital Commission, Ottawa GPAC (1947) Matters for consideration of Gatineau Park Committee. LAC RG 34 vol 272.190-G(1) Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (1952) Report on master plan for the development of the Gatineau Park. Federal District Commission, Ottawa Grimes SE (1945) Letter from SE Grimes to FDC. LAC RG 34 vol.267.190(11) Gohier, E (1944) Letter from E Gohier to HR Cram. LAC RG34 vol 267.190(11) Gordon DLA (2015) Town and crown: an illustrated history of Canada’s capital. Ivenire Books, Ottawa

74

5  Park Governance Under the Federal District Commission

Gordon DLA (2001) Weaving a modern plan for Canada’s capital: Jacques Gréber and the 1950 plan for the national capital region. Urban Hist Rev 29(2):43–61 Federal District Commission (1939) Annual report for 1939–1940. King’s Printer, Ottawa Federal District Commission (1940) Annual report for 1940–1941. King’s Printer, Ottawa Federal District Commission (1941) Annual report for 1941–1942. King’s Printer, Ottawa Federal District Commission (1955) Annual report for 1954–1955. Queen’s Printer, Ottawa Heggtveit R (n.d.) History of the ruins at Lac Philippe. Unpublished document obtained from Bill McGee Kingsmere Property Owners’ Association (1948) Kingsmere building restrictions proposal. LAC RG34 vol 267.190(14) Lanzon Q (2014) From the ground up: the alpine and cross-country sportscapes of Gatineau Park, 1910–1967. MA thesis. Carleton University Legislative Assembly of Quebec (1940) Bill No.64 An Act to amend the Municipal Code. King’s Printer, Quebec. LAC MG 26J10 vol 27 Macdonald A (1948) Letter from A Macdonald to FDC, re: Kingsmere. LAC RG34 vol 267.190(14) McFarlane R (2016) Conflict and conservation: a human history of animals in Gatineau Park, 1938–1958. MA thesis. Carleton University Merrell WJ (1947) Letter from WJ Merrell to HR Cram. LAC RG34 vol 267.190(13) Municipality of West Hull (1940) By-Law 147. LAC RG34 vol 266.190(7) National Capital Planning Committee (1947) Summary of verbal report by Jacques Gréber. LAC RG34 vol 281.211-D(1) Ottawa Citizen (1938) The Gatineau national parkway, 15 Nov 1938 Ottawa Citizen (1939) The Gatineau national park, 21 Nov 1939 Ottawa Citizen (1940) FDC officials, Quebec cabinet, talk park plans. Ottawa Citizen, 1 Feb 1940 Ottawa Citizen (1941) Not establishing public beach at Meech Lake, 14 Oct 1941 Quebec Evening-Journal (1940) La province dottée d’un parc national sans qu’il lui coûte un seul sou, 1 Feb 1940 Ottawa Journal (1946) Would extend Gatineau Park to 50,000 Acres, 27 Jun 1946 Ottawa Journal (1947) Choosing sites in development of Gatineau Park, 5 Feb 1947 Privy Council of Canada (1939) PC1662. Government of Canada, Ottawa, 29 Jun 1939 Privy Council of Canada (1946) PC 4382. Government of Canada, 5 Dec 1946. LAC RG34 vol 270.190-C(4) Privy Council of Canada (1947). PC 1093. Government of Canada, Ottawa, 25 Mar 1947. LAC RG34 vol 267.190(13) Richards ES (1939) Draft building by-law for the Meech Lake and Kingsmere district by the Municipality of West Hull under authority of article 392A of the Municipal Code of Quebec. LAC RG 34 vol 266.190(5) Richards ES (1942) Memorandum, re: visitors to Gatineau Park. LAC RG34 vol 266.190(9) Ronson WC (1942) Letter from WC Ronson to HR Cram. LAC RG34 vol 266.190(10) Saint-Jacques H (1948) Letter from H Saint-Jacques to FE Bronson. LAC RG34 vol 267.190(13) Sparks RP (1938) Letter from RP Sparks to CA Dunning. LAC RG 34 vol 265.190(3) Sparks RP (1944) Letter from RP Sparks to DR Cameron. LAC RG39 vol 25.49136 Sparks RP (1947a) Letter from RP Sparks to JJ Connolly. LAC RG34 vol 272.190-G(1) Sparks RP (1947b) Letter from RP Sparks to FE Bronson. LAC RG34 vol 272.190-G(1) Sparks RP (1947c) Letter from RP Sparks to FE Bronson. LAC RG34 vol 272.190-G(1) Sparks RP (1949) Letter from RP Sparks to HR Cram. LAC RG34 vol 272.190-G(1) Sparks RP (1952) Memorandum to Advisory Committee on Gatineau Park. LAC RG34  vol 272.190-G(1) Sparks RP and Connolly JJ (1947) Letter from RP Sparks and JJ Connolly to Federal District Commission. LAC RG34 vol 272.190-G(1) Sutherland J (1945) Letter from J Sutherland to DR Cameron. LAC RG39 vol 25.49136 Tetu AE et al. (1946) Petition by cottage-owners on Brown Lake. LAC RG34 vol 270.190-C(4) Turnbull WJ (1943) Letter from WJ Turnbull to FE Bronson. LAC RG34 vol 266.190(10)

Chapter 6

Sparking the Private Lands Issue

When establishing Gatineau Park, the Federal District Commission (FDC) did not exercise territoriality by delimiting clear boundaries for the park. Rather, the FDC acquired a nucleus of lands centered around Kingsmere and Meech Lakes, the areas where scenic beauty was threatened by clear-cutting. Subsequently, in a piecemeal fashion, the FDC proceeded to add surrounding parkland, mainly through negotiated purchase, but also through expropriation. The park’s boundaries were determined by planners after the Second World War, but they were not codified until a 1960 Order in Council was adopted, when the National Capital Commission (NCC) assumed control of the park. Gatineau Park is a fragmented territory not only because of its boundaries but also because jurisdiction in the park territory is divided and frequently contested among federal, provincial, and municipal governments as well as private landowners. As shown in the previous chapter, even though FDC officials approached the Quebec Government in 1940 about establishing a national park in the Gatineau Hills, the federal government never obtained the approval of the province, meaning that the creation and enlargement of “Gatineau Park” essentially violated Quebec’s territorial integrity. Added to this, the FDC was acting inconsistently, expropriating lands under the pretense of establishing a national park and removing residents but not others, i.e., residents of Kingsmere, Meech, and Brown Lakes. The Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (GPAC) sought to stamp out these inconsistencies and others by preparing a master plan for the park’s future development and use. This chapter documents the planning process and the ensuing conflict that erupted between the FDC and the GPAC Chairman, Sparks, the park’s founding father. On account of the divergent viewpoints on how to remove privately owned land from the park, Sparks resigned from his position, and the Advisory Committee became inactive. The park’s governance arrangements would not be transformed in the way that Sparks and others on the committee had envisioned, with the eventual public ownership of the park territory. Rather, there was continuity in the park’s governance in the transistion from the FDC to NCC.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Lait, Governance of Near-Urban Conservation Areas, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64440-6_6

75

76

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue

6.1  A Rift in the Appendix As shown in the previous chapter, the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (GPAC) was tasked with giving the FDC recommendations as to what areas should be included in the park. On the advice of the Advisory Committee, the park territory was expanded to include La Pêche Lake, and the FDC consolidated ownership at Philippe Lake. The Advisory Committee also suggested, as part of its plan to make Gatineau Park into a self-liquidating real-estate operation, that the FDC expropriate privately owned lands at Kingsmere. The FDC did not carry out this recommendation. In its initial operations, the Advisory Committee was silent on the question of whether the FDC should acquire privately owned lands at Meech Lake. The expropriation of Philippe Lake residents was justified, in part, on the basis that Meech Lake was “a thickly settled area” (Sparks 1947). Further, the Advisory Committee contended that Meech and Harrington Lakes were unsuitable for public facilities: “The shores … are mostly rocky. There are small sandy areas on both but not suitable as public bathing beaches” (Sparks 1948). While other lakes may have been more suitable, the question of whether the FDC should acquire property at Meech Lake remained. As Chairman Sparks (1948) explained to the FDC secretary in May 1948, this question was often discussed by the Advisory Committee but needed further study. The 1949 General Report of the advisory committee failed to address the acquisition of Meech Lake and promised that a recommended policy on privately owned lands would be addressed in “a future report” (GPAC 1949). Unfortunately, the minutes of GPAC meetings are not filed in the FDC archived documents, but the question evidently concerned the committee. In 1951, the FDC (1951: 18) tasked the Advisory Committee with the preparation of “a Master Plan as a guide for the expansion of the Park….” In May 1952, the GPAC submitted the Report on a Master Plan for Gatineau Park. The confusing title is worth noting, for the document is a comprehensive long-term master plan masquerading as a report. Several recommendations from the 1949 General Report were recycled; these were, in turn, recycled from the 1945 Report of the Federal Woodlands Preservation League. The most significant recommendation implemented by the FDC was the start on parkway planning, discussed below. Ultimately, the committee did not fulfill its role in guiding the park’s expansion. This was largely because some of the committee members rejected the idea of consolidating territorial control with the FDC. The rift in the committee was finally exposed in the Appendix to its 1952 Report. The most entrenched supporter of the park’s status quo as a mixed-ownership area was GPAC Secretary Connolly. Existing public facilities at Philippe and La Pêche Lakes, he contended, were adequate and could accommodate increased public use. Further, Kingsmere, Meech, and Harrington Lakes were unsuitable for public beaches but were ideal for summer cottages. Connolly argued that it is no coincidence that “this area west of the Gatineau River has been a summer resort district for citizens of Ottawa for many years.” He went on to add:

6.1  A Rift in the Appendix

77

This has been one of the very desirable features of life in Ottawa. Unlike the case in Toronto and Montreal, citizens of Ottawa of moderate means have been able to have summer places within commuting distance of their work. This has provided healthful recreation, summer and winter, for them and for their children for generations and the beauty of the countryside has not been damaged thereby. (Connolly in GPAC 1952: 23)

As the secretary of the Meech Lake Association (MLA), Connolly played a leading role in the enactment of the municipal building bylaw which, in principle, regulated development in the Kingsmere-Meech Lake privatopia. For Connolly, the MLA’s role in this proved that residents were responsible stewards of Gatineau Park. While conceding that undesirable new developments had occurred despite the bylaw (and he urged the FDC to take steps to strengthen and enforce the municipal bylaw), other residences “add tremendously to the attractiveness of the landscape and give great additional value to the district” (Connolly in GPAC 1952: 23). Thus, “[t]here would seem to be no reason why the three Lakes in question should ever be returned to a state of nature in a country like Canada which contains so many lakes where nature will never be disturbed” (Connolly in GPAC 1952: 24). Those who advocated for complete public ownership of Gatineau Park, according to Connolly (in GPAC 1952: 23), failed to appreciate the role played by “the Community Associations established or to be established … The purpose of these Associations is to try and develop among the residents a concern for the preservation of the natural beauty of the locality by voluntary effort.” Through trilateral cooperation between the MLA, FDC, and Municipality of West Hull, Connolly argued that the park would be preserved: residents would not subdivide their property, and any and all new developments would meet the “standard set by the Commission…” (in GPAC 1952: 24). In response to claims that the Gatineau Parkway would provide “windfall profits” to adjacent park residents, Connolly (in GPAC 1952: 24) wrote: “I am firmly of the opinion that few, if any people, in the areas discussed herein, will see their property values increased through any new roads which might be built by the commission.” In his view, the park benefitted more from the stewardship of park residents, such that the FDC should only purchase properties when they are put up for sale on the open market. Connolly’s stance on maintaining the park’s status quo as a mixed-ownership area was reinforced by Herbert Marshall, then president of the Ottawa Ski Club (OSC). As the previous chapter detailed, the OSC rejected the FDC proposal to add its lands around Camp Fortune to the park territory in exchange for considerable federal investment in skiing facilities. A corporate property owner, the OSC was a member of the Kingsmere Property Owners’ Association, and President Marshall’s submission generally supported park residents. Thus, Marshall’s  memorandum maintained that private residences at Kingsmere and Meech Lakes “are not painful to aesthetic sensibilities … To remove them would be a meticulous striving after additional aesthetic values.” While understanding the importance of those values, the OSC president emphasized the park’s recreation vocation and even proposed a golf course. Marshall (in GPAC 1952: 25) conceded that some ugly cabins had been erected along Kingsmere Road and expressed concern that Kingsmere could “become a slum area.” So, while Marshall agreed with Connolly about  setting

78

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue

standards and regulations on future building in the Kingsmere-Meech Lake area, the Ottawa Ski Club president did go one step further him by insisting that the FDC should “[s]ecure the right to expropriate property within the Park area.” Marshall (in GPAC 1952: 25) concluded that: “no irrevocable decision should be made now which would stir up opposition on the part of a large number of people and which the future development of the Park may show to be quite unnecessary.” The existing FDC policy of purchasing lands as they come on the market should be continued. Marshall did not give a view on whether privately owned lands should eventually be eliminated. This was, however, the view taken by the memoranda submitted by the remaining committee members. General E.L.M. Burns, a Kingsmere resident appointed to the Advisory Committee on the suggestion of Chairman Sparks, saw the need to eliminate privately owned lands because “such property will, in the long run, cause many inconveniences to the public and in the administration of the Park for the public benefit” (Burns cited in GPAC 1952: 25). General Burns recommended that the acquisition of privately owned lands within the park be carried out incrementally and strategically, with the FDC prioritizing large parcels of vacant lands. Park residents might be encouraged to “sell their lands subject to their retaining rights of occupancy at nominal rentals for the period of their lifetime” (Burns in GPAC 1952: 25). And, if the FDC could not purchase property deemed essential for park purposes, Burns (in GPAC 1952: 25) argued that it should “obtain powers of expropriation by agreement with the Provincial Government.” Chairman Sparks found the incremental approach to be inadequate because it meant that privately owned lands would continue to exist in the park almost indefinitely. His submission elaborated on the problem of divided control, citing the experience of national parks in the United States where privately owned lands “present grave problems of administration and protection” (Sparks in GPAC 1952: 22). While Connolly and Marshall believed that municipal bylaws could regulate future building and land uses within the park, Sparks believed that this would have the effect of homogenizing the class composition of park residents: I think it is generally agreed that a great many of these structures should be removed as they are wholly out of keeping with a national park. It is a fact, however, that the type and condition of these buildings in a general way would reflect the income groups to which they belong. I do not think it is possible or desirable to remove only the buildings owned by people in the lower income group and leave the property of the well-to-do where they are. The removal of the poorer type of buildings would greatly enhance the value of the few buildings of the better type which would remain and I do not think that the Commission can be a party to windfall profits of this character to a select few. (Sparks in GPAC 1952)

Whereas Connolly and Marshall viewed the existing residences as complementing the park’s natural beauty, Sparks conducted a survey of the Meech Lake and found the majority “[d]ecidedly ugly and might properly be described as eye-sores” (in GPAC 1952: 21). Sparks was emphatic that the FDC acquire Meech Lake since “[i]t is the most scenic [lake] and the one which if its shores were open to the public, would be the most used. It is the very heart of the whole park project and yet the Commission does not own one foot of its shoreline” (in GPAC 1952: 21). Lack of

6.1  A Rift in the Appendix

79

ownership would also hinder the construction of the Gatineau Parkway; if it had to be routed to avoid privately owned lands, it would be costlier to build and provide less in the way of scenic values. The GPAC Chairman was adamant that the “national interest” should come before the private interests of residents and, to a certain extent, skiers. To this end, Sparks insisted that the FDC should consolidate ownership and, by implication, control of this “National Park.” In his memorandum, Sparks frequently referred to Gatineau Park as a national park and even obliquely criticized the federal government when he wrote that: It would have been better if, when the decision was made to create a National Park in this area, a policy had been adopted to prevent new buildings on the area which it was proposed to take over. However, this was not done and some building has been continued on land which it was known would be ultimately required for park purposes. Even if a decision had been made when the Gréber Report was finally accepted, there would have been substantial savings. I am convinced that when the time comes to fully develop this magnificent project, it will be found that no proper planning is possible if the park area is cluttered up with privately owned land and buildings. (in GPAC 1952: 22)

To bring Gatineau Park closer in line with Canada’s national parks, Sparks (in GPAC 1952: 22) recommended that the FDC “adopt the policy of no privately-­ owned land within the park boundaries.” Knowing that land values were going to significantly increase following the construction of the parkway, he suggested the imposition of a 10-year time frame for the FDC to take over all remaining privately owned lands, with the expropriation of those property owners who refused to sell by the deadline. While the Appendix revealed that there was a spectrum of opinion, the Report had earlier indicated that “[t]he majority of the Committee have come to the conclusion that ultimately all private property within the park should be acquired by the Commission” (GPAC 1952: 12). Still, the Advisory Committee could not agree on the means through which the FDC would consolidate ownership of the park territory. Following the submission of the Report, Chairman Sparks implored the Advisory Committee members to render a final decision on “whether or to what extent privately owned land is to be allowed within the Gatineau Park area. This problem interjects itself into nearly every aspect in the planning and development of the Park” (Sparks 1952a). He added: “I am convinced that we cannot draft a worthwhile Master Plan until this decision is made” (Sparks 1952a). Despite Sparks’ attempts, the Advisory Committee never reached a compromise on this issue. Two hundred copies of the 1952 GPAC Report were circulated to FDC officials, members of the National Capital Planning Committee, and other government officials such as the mayors of Hull and Ottawa (Cram 1952a). Even as the report was under consideration, the FDC began acquiring remaining privately owned lands through negotiated purchase. In September 1952, the Gatineau Park Superintendent obtained options to purchase several properties at Kingsmere and Meech Lakes. As Richards (1952) explained of the latter, “they are for vacant building sites, or for

80

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue

rather old cottages that are offered cheap. Options were taken in the belief that it would be to the Commission’s advantage to gradually acquire parts of the shore line of Meech Lake when such can be obtained through voluntary sale at prices favourable to the Federal District Commission.” The Advisory Committee was consulted about acquiring the Kingsmere properties as they were located adjacent to the Mackenzie King estate; Chairman Sparks (1952b) was emphatic that the FDC proceed with purchasing the Kingsmere properties. This was another instance where the FDC would have benefitted from having adopted an acquisition policy for Gatineau Park.

6.2  Reaction to Committee Report Amid the mounting conflict from within the FDC around parkland acquisitions and private ownership, the FDC secretary (Cram 1952b) prepared a brief Gatineau Park Land Acquisition Policy. Having worked for the FDC since the park’s inception, Secretary Cram had an intimate understanding of the parkland acquisition policy and its impact on the park’s development. He wrote: The Federal District Commission in 1936 recommended as the initial step in forming Gatineau Park the purchase of some 12,000 acres in the Kingsmere, Old Chelsea and Meech Lake area, where wood cutting was then largely centered. Consideration was given to the method of securing the control needed to protect the forest cover and to make lands freely usable by the general public in the park to be formed. It was decided that land purchasing was the best way to secure the complete control desired, and this policy was adopted and has since been consistently followed by the Commission in subsequent enlargements of the Park. The Federal Government concurred. (Cram 1952b)

Still grappling with the different options presented by the Advisory Committee, the FDC Executive sought out the opinion of Jacques Gréber, consultant of the National Capital Planning Committee. Nevertheless, the preeminent planner welcomed the opportunity to elaborate on Gatineau Park, which he considered “really the essential feature of the whole plan of the National Capital of Canada” (Gréber 1952). He emphasized the park’s intrinsic importance: “Its natural structure, the infinite variety of its beauty and the attractive possibilities of such a Park, are far beyond the needs of an ordinary city park at the service of the population of neighbouring cities” (Gréber 1952). While in agreement with Herbert Marshall that the issue of privately owned lands in Gatineau Park “cannot be solved by a drastic and immediate regulation,” Gréber adhered to the “principle” that the park “should be ultimately prohibited to private ownership” (Gréber 1952). To that end, he endorsed the policy of negotiated purchase, with expropriation as a last resort. Gréber (1952) shared Sparks’ diagnosis of the problem, referring to the “hellish disorder” at Kingsmere and Meech Lakes. Further, he was in complete agreement with the Advisory Committee Chairman about the acquisition policy that should be adopted for Meech Lake:

6.2  Reaction to Committee Report

81

Speaking now of really objectionable structures, either due to their location or by their shabby appearance, there is no other solution except elimination, and what has been ­successfully obtained around Lac Philippe, seems to be possible on the western side of Meech Lake. It is obvious that such elimination cannot be obtained at once, as a certain number of those objectionable buildings will necessitate long and desirable negotiations. The fact that their establishment was tolerated and that families of residents of Ottawa are enjoying there, summer cottages and boat houses, must be handled with a certain diplomacy. Otherwise, the Federal District Commission might be criticized for maintaining country houses of wealthy people and expropriating summer cottages of people of low income, in spite of being fully justified for so doing for the sake of esthetics. (Gréber 1952)

Gréber (1952) concluded: “At any rate, Meech Lake, as very well stated by Mr. Sparks, is the largest and nearest lake to the Capital and must be gradually freed of all obstacles to a fully organized public enjoyment.” As documented in the next chapter, although Meech Lake was the essential part of Gatineau Park, which, in turn, is the essential feature of Canada’s national capital plan, public facilities would not be established at the lake until 1970. Still, the FDC did expand its land acquisition policy to include purchasing property around Kingsmere and Meech Lakes. As the FDC explained in its Annual Report, it had adopted, on the recommendation of Gréber and the National Capital Planning Committee, the 1952 Advisory Committee Report “in principle” (FDC 1954a: 11). Meanwhile, the majority of the park’s territory remained inaccessible to the general public. To remedy this, the FDC set up the Parkway Subcommittee for Gatineau Park, which was a subcommittee of the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (1952). The GPAC Chairman Sparks was appointed a member of the Parkway Subcommittee, which was chaired by a road engineer, Howard Hyman. The activities and report of the Parkway Subcommittee are elaborated below. Although the Report on a Master Plan for Gatineau Park was treated confidentially, park residents, perhaps through Connolly, MacTavish, Sparks, etc., were “aware that the Federal District Commission, in its plans for the Gatineau Park, has an interest in developments in the Meech Lake area” (Worden 1953). In April 1953, the Meech Lake Association (MLA), on behalf of 150 families, submitted a memorandum to the FDC. As shown below, this memorandum set off a chain of events which culminated in Sparks’ removal from the Advisory Committee and its dissolution. The MLA (1953: 3) informed the FDC that it took “vigorous issue” with the “[p]roposals [which] have been made from time to time that all private property in the area should be eliminated at once.” It then conceded that “there are unsightly developments. These should be removed as quickly as possible. But there are many places, in full view of the public, which add to the beauty of the area very greatly. These should not be eliminated. They give life and beauty to the countryside” (MLA 1953: 3). This reflects the class exclusivity of the MLA: they might represent 150 “well-to-do” families, but they do not represent those families residing in unsightly developments. Added to this, the MLA did not want Meech Lake opened to park visitors. As with Connolly’s submission to the 1952 Report, the MLA maintained that the lake’s rocky and steep shores as well as a lack of beach areas along its

82

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue

shoreline render it unsuitable for public use. Based on this evaluation, the MLA predicted that “[i]f all private property was eliminated, there would be no public use made of the lake sufficient to compensate for the loss of private use which would ensue.” Also, there were far more suitable lakes for public facilities, such as Harrington and Philippe Lakes. To deter the FDC from its new policy of acquiring property in the Kingsmere-­ Meech Lake area, the MLA (1953: 3) pointed out the prohibitive cost, estimating privately owned land to be worth $2 million. However, the MLA memorandum does not rely on this negative argument alone, namely, that the new FDC acquisition policy does more harm than good. Rather, it insisted on the positive effects of the park’s status quo as a mixed-ownership area. Once again echoing Connolly’s submission to the 1952 Report, the MLA referred to its pivotal role in the enactment of the municipal building bylaw as an example of its interest in preserving “the natural beauty, not only of Meech Lake, but as well of the entire municipality” (MLA 1953: 2). Like Connolly, it conceded that the bylaw had, through no fault of the MLA, never been enforced. To this end, the MLA suggested that FDC park officials inspect the Meech Lake area “to report on violations and on situations which call for improvement” (MLA 1953: 2). Further, the MLA promised its cooperation with the FDC in ensuring building and aesthetic standards were met and asked for its assistance in molding existing structures to conform with these standards. On the south shore along the existing road there is some overcrowding, some unsightly cottages and unsightly boathouses. We believe that much could be accomplished to correct this situation through voluntary effort within the Meech Lake Association. However, the Association needs advice. If the FDC could delegate one of its officials to go over the ground with officials of the Association, a plan could be formulated to approach a standard set by the FDC. Discussion could cover the purchase by the FDC of certain available lands and buildings. Some cottages are now for sale. The building of others which might be a blight upon the scenery might be prevented. Landscaping and tree cutting should be discussed. Even a programme of painting buildings could be considered. The amalgamation or elimination of boathouses it appears, might well be desirable in some places. (MLA 1953: 2)

It took the FDC almost 3  months to respond to the MLA request. FDC officials knew that they needed to consult with the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee on the matter but were reticent to do so. In June 1953, the MLA memorandum was brought to the attention of the GPAC. The FDC secretary casually wrote Chairman Sparks: “This memorandum may be of interest to you, and the Commission will be pleased to have your comments…” (Cram 1953c). Sparks took the MLA memorandum as an opportunity to meet with the property-owner association, as had been done before with the Lac Philippe Cottagers’ Association. Sparks would have probably informed the MLA that, in the development of Gatineau Park, public and national interests must override private interests. The GPAC Chairman was, however, prevented from meeting with the MLA. Indeed, an anxious Gatineau Park Superintendent urged the FDC that “this be not allowed” (Richards 1953). Perhaps Richards recalled the previous meeting that he

6.2  Reaction to Committee Report

83

and the GPAC Chairman had with Philippe Lake residents, which Sparks portrayed as an unqualified success. The park superintendent was evidently concerned about the outcome of the proposed meeting with the MLA. He cautioned the FDC: Mr. Sparks is responsible to no one and a hornet’s nest will be stirred up. Things should be left just as they are, with the Federal District Commission buying up these lake side properties at a fair price as they become available. Within the last year eleven purchases have been made. There are still some 70 properties on the south west side of Meech Lake and 18 on the north east. Within five years a very different situation will exist if the present and proper policy is continued. (Richards 1953)

The park superintendent then gave his views about the MLA memorandum. He rejected the claim that Meech Lake was unsuitable for public use and that the loss of private use would not be compensated through public use. And Richards (1953) rejected the MLA request for assistance: “I strongly recommend that a letter be sent the Meech Lake Association regretting that the Federal District Commission personnel is not available due to increased responsibilities caused through implementing the Capital Plan. Otherwise the Commission will work against its own interests.” Richards’ recommendation was accepted by the FDC, and Secretary Cram wrote both the MLA president and GPAC chairman to inform them of its decision not to hold a meeting or to cooperate with the MLA. Cram explained to Sparks that while the suggestions by the Association had some merit, and it [the Commission] appreciated the efforts of the Meech Lake people in preparing bylaws, it did not feel that officials or personnel connected with the Federal District Commission should discuss this memorandum with the Association. It was felt that were such done, the Commission might find itself engaged in a policy of improving the properties of Meech Lake owners which it will be ultimately purchasing, thereby increasing the price. (Cram 1953a)

Obviously, Sparks was not going to assist the MLA in improving privately owned lands, such that the FDC secretary was evading the real reason, namely, that the FDC did not want him to meet with park residents. The MLA president was similarly told that “the Commission commends the steps which your Association had taken in the past as being of value to the whole Gatineau Park development” (Cram 1953b). Secretary Cram’s letter to the MLA president continued: The Commission, however, did not feel that it could make its personnel available in the way suggested in the memorandum as arising from the intensive development of the Park, such employees are not available, and also it was considered that the enforcement of the zoning bylaws was the responsibility of the municipality and/or the residents. With respect to the suggestion that the FDC eliminate all private property in the area at once, we might assure you that this is not the policy of the Commission. The Commission is buying and will continue to buy property in the Meech Lake area as it becomes available for sale at reasonable and proper prices. However, it was never the intention of the Commission to eliminate all private property now.

Early in October 1953, the FDC (1953a, b) drafted two versions of its Policy on Land Ownership in Gatineau Park. Citing the policy of national park administrators in Canada and the United States as support, the unused draft indicates that “ultimately private ownership of land within Gatineau Park should cease” (FDC 1953a).

84

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue

It then reiterates the FDC policy of purchasing property at reasonable prices as it becomes available on the market. Acknowledging that, by following this land acquisition method, it could take “50 years or more” to bring the park territory completely within the public domain, the unused draft concludes by indicating the FDC will expropriate “[o]nly in the case where some important development in the park is blocked by privately owned lands, such as for example the construction of the main driveway…which step would be considered in the public interest” (FDC 1953a). In the version that was published by the FDC, complete public ownership of Gatineau Park was not advanced as an objective. Further, although the expropriation policy is the same as in the unused draft, it is worded differently, such that the FDC is made to appear as never having expropriated for park purposes. As shown in the last chapter, the FDC expropriated 3,301 acres and sent notices of expropriation to residents at Philippe Lake to consolidate its ownership there. The Commission’s first official statement is quoted here in full: The Federal District Commission realizing that there is some uncertainty in the minds of property owners within the Gatineau Park area as to the attitude of the Commission toward purchase of private property, wishes to place on record its policy toward acquirement of land within the area. No effort has been made or will be made to expropriate property in Gatineau Park except in cases where such property is required to facilitate the construction of parkways. There is no intention of altering this practice. On the other hand the Commission has purchased and will continue to purchase any property within the Park area which is available at a price which it considers reasonable. Municipalities will be adequately compensated for loss of tax revenue because of acquirement of property by the Commission. In view of the fact that the shoreline of many of the lakes, such as Meech Lake and Kingsmere, within the Park area are privately owned, it is proposed to maintain Harrington Lake, the shoreline of which is wholly owned by the Commission, in its natural state. (FDC 1953b)

The FDC (1953c) Executive adopted this policy statement at its October meeting. The GPAC Chairman was not informed of the FDC’s decision. He found out about it through the local newspapers that had reported on the FDC meeting. Sparks’ (1953) response to the FDC secretary is also quoted here in full: I notice in both of last evening’s papers a statement of policy by the Commission in respect to Gatineau Park. Sometimes these newspaper reports are somewhat garbled or condensed and sometimes they do not give a clear picture of what is proposed. This raises a couple of questions in my mind. The Commission apparently are only going to buy properties which are offered for sale. Did they discuss the question of more building in the area by owners of property who decide not to sell to the Commission? There is a rather cryptic reference to the shorelines of Meech Lake and Kingsmere. Does this mean that regardless of the appearance of structures near these two lakes they are not to be touched and that more of the same type can be built?

6.3  General Report of the Gatineau Parkway Subcommittee

85

Finally, is this a permanent policy for all time or a tentative policy subject to change if expropriation proceedings are facilitated? If you could give me this information I would be very grateful.

Sparks never received a response to his questions. Instead, he only received a copy of the official policy (Sparks 1956). A copy of the FDC land acquisition policy was also sent to the MLA (Cram 1953c). Even though it was now public knowledge that the FDC would not expropriate for park purposes, Redmond Quain, a Kingsmere resident and Ottawa-based lawyer, still launched a campaign against the powers of the FDC to expropriate land in Quebec for park purposes. Quain suggested that the recent public statement by the FDC “was more to lull public uneasiness than to indicate clearly the Commission’s intentions” (Quain cited in Ottawa Citizen 1953) Quain had spoken with GPAC Chairman Sparks, who had expressed his personal views about what the FDC ought to do, namely, “that all private homes in Gatineau Park limits be taken over by the Government” (Quain cited in Ottawa Citizen 1953). The Lower Gatineau Chamber of Commerce appointed Quain as Chairman of a special committee “to inquire into the constitution and activities of the Federal District Commission, to protect property owners and public bodies in the Gatineau area” (Ottawa Journal 1953). Through Quain’s efforts, the Municipality of West Hull was preparing “a resolution objecting to the expropriation of private homes in the area” (Ottawa Journal 1953). Quain was even prepared, as a last resort, to ask Union Nationale Premier Maurice Duplessis to intervene to prevent FDC from adding lands to the park, knowing that Duplessis had, in December 1948, stated that the provincial government would issue a legal challenge against any expropriations by the federal government for capital beautification. Quain, a self-identified member of the Liberal Party of Canada, was quoted as saying: “there seems no way of getting protection except by going to Mr. Duplessis” (Ottawa Journal 1953).

6.3  General Report of the Gatineau Parkway Subcommittee While Redmond Quain was stirring up opposition in Quebec, the Gatineau Parkway Subcommittee submitted its first report (December 1953). The subcommittee members, including Sparks, had travelled around the Appalachian Mountains for 8 days to examine the scenic parkways of the US National Park Service in Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee (Hyman 1953). In the first subcommittee report, Chairman Hyman was already hinting at the differences that had emerged: “Reconciliation of the various viewpoints on the many subjects covered was not simple.” Nevertheless, Hyman added that the parkway report, which prioritized scenic beauty over practical utility, was “a factual recommendation, by a disinterested group, with a conception of National character in mind…” (Hyman 1953).

86

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue

The Subcommittee General Report reiterated much of what Chairman Sparks had already written about privately owned lands in Gatineau Park in the GPAC (1952) report Appendix. Subcommittee members discussed the problems of divided ownership and control with national park administrators in the United States. It detailed the problems with having privately owned lands in a park territory as: Private ownership will involve: complicated boundaries, making the game warden’s job difficult; increased expenditure for grade separations and access roads; construction of unsightly parallel service roads, unreasonable fencing costs; elimination of some of the finest sites from public use. Private ownership will bring uncontrolled subdivision of land, with the probability of jerry-­ built houses, neon signs, plastic palaces, amusement parks, stock car speedways, questionable “Tourist Accommodations.” Subdivision means greatly increased population which leads to organization of pressure groups to request increased services, scheduled bus lines, additional winter ploughing, and many special privileges. Pressure groups inevitably create difficult situations between park authorities and the administrations of the municipalities and the province. Private ownership will be accompanied by disregard for park laws, and vandalism. Weekend visitors will be frustrated when coming across private holdings. Owners will resent infiltration and will resist the construction of Park developments near their boundaries. Fire hazards and fire protection costs will be greater. Dogs cannot be controlled. Conservation of wildlife will be hampered. (Gatineau Parkway Subcommittee 1953)

With the Ottawa Ski Club and property-owner associations at Kingsmere and Meech Lakes, Gatineau Park was perhaps more susceptible than most national parks to “pressure groups.” Thus, the Parkway Subcommittee was emphatic that the FDC acquire all remaining privately owned lands as soon as possible for “[e]very mile of the Parkway which is built increases the value towards which it reaches. Delay can provide no gain” (Gatineau Parkway Subcommittee 1953). Though the Parkway Subcommittee had begun studies of some park areas, these studies were suspended for Kingsmere and Meech Lakes because of the “unsettled question of land ownership in the lower end of the Park” (Sparks 1954a). In February 1954, during a joint meeting of the Advisory Committee and Parkway Subcommittee, Herbert Marshall (president of the Ottawa Ski Club) objected to the Parkway Report for its position on privately owned lands. The GPAC Chairman noted that “[t]he objector thought that if the Report should be made public these references [to eliminating private property] would provoke further controversy over a question which is already an issue and for this reason would reduce the educational and promotional value of a really excellent report” (Sparks 1954a). It is also notable that the GPAC secretary, John Connolly, was absent from the joint meeting of the GPAC and Parkway Subcommittee. As a result, the OSC president seemed the only person at the meeting willing to speak out in favor of the status quo. So, despite the objection raised, the General Report met with unanimous approval. Had Connolly been at the meeting, this might not have been the case. Thus, the Gatineau Parkway Report, produced through the collaboration of disinterested experts, strongly advocated for an immediate policy change, mandating the FDC with acquiring remaining

6.3  General Report of the Gatineau Parkway Subcommittee

87

privately owned lands in the park, ideally before the commencement of the parkway construction of course. In fact, the preparation of the Parkway Report was occurring while construction of the first stage of the Gatineau Parkway was already underway, specifically the first 2-mile stretch of parkway from Aylmer Road at Val Tetreau to Gamelin Street (Mountain Road) adjacent to Kingsmere Lake. FDC surveyors were sent to the Kingsmere-Meech Lake area as the parkway was going to be extended “along the Valley of the Three Lakes to the north end of Lac Philippe” (FDC 1954a). Acting on behalf of a Meech Lake resident, Redmond Quain (1954) threatened to charge surveyors with trespassing. The FDC was also encountering problems in the Kingsmere-­ Meech Lake area with purchasing lands for the parkway right-of-way. As indicated by the FDC (1954a: 30) Annual Report: “Due to some difficulty in acquiring necessary land, the extension of the Gatineau Parkway north of Boulevard Gamelin (sic) was not possible this year.” As shown below, the FDC would never acquire the right-­ of-­way, such that the parkway loop around the three lakes was never realized (see Fig.  6.1 Map of land acquisitions for Gatineau Parkway). Thus, even though its policy was to expropriate for parkway purposes, the FDC did not exercise territoriality in the vicinity of either Kingsmere or Meech Lake. This was due partly to the growing opposition in Quebec that was being mobilized by Quain over the expansion of Gatineau Park by the FDC.  On 19 January 1954, a delegation from the Township of Masham met with FDC officials to discuss restricting Gatineau Park boundaries, increasing FDC payments in lieu of taxes, making payments in lieu of taxes retroactive, and preparing a future master plan with input from municipal government officials (FDC 1954b). Despite the resistance encountered by owners and the Masham delegation, the FDC was blasted in the media for wanting to impose a Federal District on Quebec, even though the 1950 Plan for the National Capital (the Gréber Plan) did not call for one. Aimé Guertin, the former Conservative MLA for Hull, submitted a brief to the

Fig. 6.1  Map of land acquisitions for Gatineau Parkway

88

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue

Tremblay Commission, Quebec’s inquiry on constitutional problems. Guertin (cited in Ottawa Citizen 1954) wanted greater compensation for Quebec municipalities, especially Masham, where the FDC was “systematically tearing away thousands of acres of good land from generations of farmers who found in the plow their only means of existence.” Guertin also repeated the argument made by the Masham delegation, that revenues from potential residents were lost through Gatineau Park. No doubt aware that the Plan for the National Capital did not call for a federal district, Guertin nevertheless argued: “We feel justified in offering resistance to implementation of the National Capital Plan because we fear that Hull and district will be ripe for conquest or systematic absorption at the hands of the Federal District Commission” (Guertin cited in Ottawa Citizen 1954).

6.4  Downfall of the GPAC Despite the growing opposition to the FDC and its Gatineau Park expansion and development in Quebec, GPAC Chairman Sparks continued to try to alter the course of the FDC land acquisition program through insider channels. In early February 1954, Sparks wrote FDC Chairman Kennedy indicating his disappointment with the public statement about expropriations, and requesting a meeting. Sparks saw the policy of non-expropriation as a tactical mistake, since the FDC experience with land acquisitions for the Gatineau Parkway had already clearly demonstrated that property owners could not be expected to sell at a reasonable price. Another tactical mistake, according to Sparks, was that parkway planning was taking place in advance of acquiring the right-of-way. He wrote: I am convinced that this whole park scheme will be wrecked unless you obtain powers of expropriation and exercise these powers. The other alternative is tremendous expenditure of money for the benefit of a few land owners, some of whose property is almost worthless without the parkway. It should be noted that most of this property is in the hands of people who can afford to wait when they see fortunes in sight as a result of FDC policy. (Sparks 1954b)

The FDC Chairman did not have the one-on-one meeting with Sparks; instead, Kennedy (1954) forwarded Sparks’ letter to the entire FDC Executive “to test the feelings of the members as to their attitude on expropriations.” The results of this test were then communicated back to Sparks: With thirteen members present, (a fully representative gathering) the feeling was unanimously in favour of a continuance of the present policy of non-expropriation except as a last resort in eliminating missing links in the chain of properties necessary for the Parkway system. The Commission is still firmly convinced that the vast bulk of the property required for the Parkway may be obtained without resorting to expropriation, a practice which has been, and is, bitterly assailed by an extremely vocal group of residents of the Gatineau area. It is felt that the evil result on public relations would much overbalance any gain which would accrue from a programme of expropriation.

6.4  Downfall of the GPAC

89

Some distress was evident that you, as Chairman of the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee, should continue to advocate expropriation on a considerable scale despite the policy of the Commission as expressed to the public. It has proved embarrassing to several members of the Federal District Commission, including myself, quoting the policy of the Commission to critics like Redmond Quain, to have their reply that it is hard to accept our statements that no expropriations are contemplated in the face of the views that you, as Chairman of our Advisory Committee, continue to express. The Commission has asked me to convey to you its feelings in the matter and to ask you, in discussing the matter with the public, to make it clear that your views on expropriation are diametrically opposed to the unanimous views of the members of the Commission. I am sure that, despite the obvious gap which exists between your thoughts concerning expropriation and those of the Commission members, you will see the necessity for its request. (Kennedy 1954)

In a subsequent letter, Sparks (1954b) defended his record as Chairman of the Advisory Committee, claiming “never since I have been appointed as a member of this Committee have I made any public statement of any kind in regard to policy or plans for Gatineau Park.” Sparks’ letter acknowledged that he had discussed his views on land ownership in the park with Quain, but this was before the FDC had publicly issued its policy. In any event, as a result of the Appendix to the 1952 GPAC Report, Sparks maintained that his views were well known to those interested in Gatineau Park. Sparks concluded by noting that his position has since remained unchanged: “The more I think of the matter the more I am convinced that the opinions which I expressed in our Report of May 1952 are still valid but I have no desire to embarrass the Commission in connection with the controversy which is now being carried on, on expropriation” (Sparks 1954b). There was another exchange of correspondence between Sparks and Kennedy, with numerous corrections on the part of the FDC Chairman. Thus, Kennedy corrected his earlier remark: “It would have been more accurate for me to have said ‘to private citizens’, rather than, ‘to the public’, as I am well aware that you have not spoken to groups on the matter” (Kennedy 1954). Nevertheless, Chairman Kennedy (1954) would again express concerns about public relations, indicating that “[w]e [the Commission] would have been involved in a losing battle with the municipalities and associations involved, as well as with the Quebec Government, if we had not been able to come back with a complete rebuttal of his [Aimé Guertin’s] charges concerning expropriation.” Kennedy reiterated his belief that the Commission would be embarrassed “to have you, the Chairman of our Park Committee, advocating expropriation, even privately.” In April 1954, Kennedy met with Sparks for 2 h to discuss “not only the question of expropriation but the whole question of the development of Gatineau Park.” Following the meeting, Sparks wrote to members of the Advisory Committee: I explained to General Kennedy that the impression left with me by his letters was that I was ‘persona non grata’ with the Commission on account of my views on expropriation and perhaps my resignation would be welcomed by the Commission. I pointed out to him that this would not be necessary as our Committee was appointed on a yearly basis and our tenure of office expired on March 31st. If the Commission wished to reappoint the Committee they could simply eliminate my name as a member.

90

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue [... ] I told him that I wasn’t prepared to resign voluntarily without an opportunity of placing my views before the Commission. This he said he would arrange at some time in the near future. Whether the whole committee will be invited to meet the Commission again I do not know, although I would prefer it so and will so advise General Kennedy. My reason for carrying out this correspondence personally is that I certainly cannot speak for the whole committee. (Sparks 1953)

As Chairman Sparks’ views posed a direct threat to the sustainability of private ownership at Kingsmere and Meech Lakes, the private interests of park residents were, in the end, protected by FDC Chairman Kennedy, whose wife owned a cottage at Kingsmere (Kennedy 1956: 928). Kennedy invited Sparks, not the entire Advisory Committee as had been requested by Sparks, to address the August 1954 meeting of the FDC Executive. Following Sparks’ presentation to the Executive on the Park’s historical development, and his statements that the entire project would fail unless privately owned lands were removed, Chairman Kennedy and FDC Commissioner Caron, then Mayor of Hull, launched a smear campaign against Sparks. That is, in response to Sparks’ presentation, the FDC Chairman “bitterly opposed expropriation proceedings and said that as a property owner at Kingsmere he would fight in court any attempt to expropriate his property” (Sparks 1956). As Sparks (1956) recounted in his testimony to the joint committee on FDC reform, the FDC Chairman had “repeated this statement 3 or 4 times, that he would take the matter to the courts rather than give up his property. He was supported in this statement by one member of the FDC.  The other members present offered no objection to the Chairman’s statement, and from this it might be assumed that they would support him in taking court action to prevent expropriation.” To be sure, this is only one side of the story. In Kennedy’s testimony before that same 1956 joint parliamentary committee, he admitted engaging Sparks over the latter’s proposals for expropriations and developing Kingsmere into a diplomatic community. As recounted by Kennedy (1956): “At the meeting of the FDC when Mr. Sparks was accorded a hearing I informed him that if a proposal such as he advocated was undertaken, I would urge all property owners to resist it.” Surely, it would be a compromising situation for the FDC Chairman to actively encourage resistance against an official government policy, but Kennedy was clearly prepared to side with the park residents on this issue. As Kennedy (1956) put it: “I consider that if there is to be a settlement at Kingsmere then the present property owners have even a better moral and legal right to the property than a colony of foreign diplomats.” While Sparks had probably anticipated Chairman Kennedy’s opposition, he was caught off guard when Kennedy and Commissioner Caron accused him of being “the cause of difficulties with the municipalities” (Sparks 1954d). As Sparks (1954d) wrote in his last letter to Kennedy: “I was so astounded at this statement that I made no reply to it [at the meeting] as it is a long story.” To counter this “completely unfair statement,” Sparks’ letter to Kennedy revisited his role as Advisory Committee Chairman as, in 1951, he urged the FDC to institute payments in lieu of taxes for the municipalities affected by the park’s territorial occupation. In his letter, Sparks

6.4  Downfall of the GPAC

91

enclosed correspondence with the FDC reflecting the extent of his involvement as, previously, “the Commission had ignored the claims of the municipalities” (Sparks 1954d). Thus, Sparks (1954d) had ample evidence to the effect that he was “a friend of the municipalities.” And it was Sparks’ opinion that Kennedy made this erroneous claim because of “…the fact that I, among many others, am opposed to any privately-owned land remaining in Gatineau Park. I think I am within the truth when I say that everyone who has studied this project agrees with me, except the property owners in the park whose opinion of course is prejudiced by their own financial interest” (Sparks 1954d). In addition to having his professional integrity cast into doubt at the meeting, Sparks’ personal integrity—as a Meech Lake Road resident—would be put into question. Thus, after the meeting, Sparks (1954d) wrote Kennedy that he was: …also rather surprised that Mayor Caron and yourself have joined the smear campaign which has been going on for a couple of years. The form it generally takes is that people owning property in the area circulate the story with variations that – “if Sparks’ property was to be taken away from him he would not be so anxious to see all private property within the park taken over.”

Sparks (1954d) defended himself at the meeting, indicating that, if his proposals for the Gatineau Parkway were carried out by the FDC, “I will probably suffer greater financial loss than any of the property owners in the whole 90,000 acres which will constitute Gatineau Park.” Sparks (1954d) concluded his letter to Kennedy by asking that “you and Mayor Caron will discontinue your association with this campaign which has gone on now for some years.” He also requested that the letter be brought to the attention of Commissioners. Thus, following the October 1954 meeting of the FDC Executive, the Commission’s secretary wrote Sparks: During discussion on this item it was pointed out that at no time were any of the comments of the meeting which you attended meant to be derogatory or personal. The Federal District Commission is interested in the development of Gatineau Park and is doing its upmost to proceed with this work. Your co-operation in this project has been greatly appreciated. (Cram 1954)

Without doubt, Sparks’ subsequent actions were not appreciated by the FDC, as his criticisms of the FDC land acquisition policy were made public knowledge through the joint parliamentary committee on FDC reform. Indeed, at the August 1954 meeting of the FDC Executive, Sparks was referred to as the “former” Advisory Committee Chairman. As indicated above, Sparks did not have to formally tender his resignation as the GPAC appointments were not renewed by the FDC. This situation even prompted the resignation of one member, Wilfrid D’Amour (1954), who believed that “the work of the committee is completed.” Although the 1952 Report was supposed to be followed by a master plan, the Advisory Committee never reached unanimity on the issue of private ownership in the park. Thus, the committee ultimately failed to finalize a park master plan. And, following the August 1954 Executive meeting, the FDC (1954c) contemplated

92

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue

a “New Committee on Gatineau Park to be set up by the National Planning Committee.” This replacement for the GPAC never materialized during the FDC’s tenure. After Sparks’ fallout with the FDC, his energies were directed toward the preparation of a memorandum for the joint parliamentary committee, outlining his extensive involvement with the FDC since the very beginning of the park project and his positions on private ownership and implementing the parkland acquisition program. Sparks had the memorandum ready by May 1955, but heavy workloads led to the postponement of the joint parliamentary committee. This delay prompted Sparks to submit his memorandum to the Ottawa Journal (see Fig. 6.2 Front-page of Ottawa Journal on 12 May 1955), with a copy sent to the FDC (Sparks 1955). Without referring to the Kingsmere and Meech Lake area by name, Sparks denounced how “[t]hey [the Federal District Commission] have allowed the selfishness of a comparatively few land owners to interfere with the proper development of this project” (cited in Sykes 1955). The full, front-page article recounted how “[a]s Chairman of the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee, he [Sparks] has repeatedly urged both Gen. Kennedy and former chairmen to use powers of expropriation of lands so that the 80,000-acre park will not be cut into bits and pieces of privately and publicly-owned land” (Sykes 1955). It provided a summary of Sparks’ forthcoming brief: 1. “Certain influential people” [i.e., Kingsmere and Meech Lake residents] have been holding up the Gatineau Park plan by their anti-expropriation attitude. 2. Failure of the FDC to institute expropriation proceedings in Gatineau Park has added and is adding additional expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of the new Parkway from Fairy Lake to the Laurentian Hills. 3. The FDC has turned the lower end of Gatineau Park into “a paradise for speculators.” 4. The FDC has ignored Quebec Premier Duplessis in its planning of Gatineau Park, thus bringing the project into the realm of politics. Full-Time Job Apart from these main charges, Mr. Sparks contends that the office of the Chairman of the FDC should be a full-time job and paid accordingly. (cited in Sykes 1955)

Four days later, the Ottawa Journal (1955a) published the FDC response to Sparks’ public criticism. Readers were informed of the park’s status quo, namely, that “the commission prefers to acquire land by negotiation and purchase [in Quebec], rather than to use extraordinary power to take property away from families which have held it unquestioned for half or three-quarters of a century” (Ottawa Journal 1955a). Another factor preventing the FDC from sharing Sparks’ view was Premier Duplessis (cited in Ottawa Journal 1955a) who “expressed doubts as to whether even the Federal Government has the right to expropriate lands for park purposes.” Finally, the FDC challenged Sparks’ invocation of national park policy on private

6.4  Downfall of the GPAC

Fig. 6.2  Front page of Ottawa Journal on 12 May 1955

93

94

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue

lands: “In many cases sites of the national parks were virtually ready-made for the purpose, and the acquisition of privately-owned lands for park purposes involved few of the complex legal and planning problems which face the Federal District Commission in Gatineau.” Despite these complexities, the Gatineau Park project was successful, according to the FDC, as it had turned “waste land into a centre of scenic beauty … to the credit of the park superintendent and staff of the Federal District Commission, the Government of Canada, and not least to Mr. R.P. Sparks, one of its sponsors” (cited in Ottawa Journal 1955a). The Ottawa Journal (1955b) published an even more elaborate rebuttal of Sparks’ brief the following day, with the Commission reaffirming its policy that “no effort has been made [sic] or will be made to expropriate property in Gatineau Park except in the construction of driveways or other essential works” (cited in Ottawa Journal 1955b). As shown above, this statement is mistaken as the FDC expropriated thousands of acres in the process of expanding the park. The newspaper-reading public, however, was probably not aware of this. As in the previous Journal article, the FDC (cited in Ottawa Journal 1955b) first paid its respects to its opponent, the “former Chair of the one-time Gatineau Park Advisory Committee.” Thus, the first of its ten points, reads: “The Federal District Commission recognizes the great services Mr. Sparks had performed in the creation of Gatineau Park and compliments him on his foresight and the continued interest he has taken in the development of Gatineau Park since its inception.” Sparks’ brief, however, “does not fairly represent the situation” (FDC cited in Ottawa Journal 1955b). The brief did not, for instance, include data on the land acquisition program. Thus, the FDC (cited in Ottawa Journal 1955b) pointed out that, since 1951, another 17,387 acres had been added to the park, at a cost of $1,072,479. Overall, 60% of lands in the park territory had been acquired 17,806 hectares of a projected 30,351 hectares (44,000 acres of a projected 75,000 acres) at a cost of approximately $2,060,000. For the Commission, these data revealed that it had a definite parkland acquisition policy; further, this policy had been effective, acquiring 60% of the total park area in only 12 years of operation, and exclusive of the latter 3 years of the Second World War (see previous chapter). Sparks’ charges about land speculation were also dismissed: “the Commission is not aware that there has been any rush to speculate in properties within the park area as a result of its activities. Furthermore, the Commission has not and does not propose to meet exorbitant offers for properties within the area of its activities” (cited in Ottawa Journal 1955b). The article then refutes this with an example wherein the FDC refused to purchase a Kingsmere property valued at $30,000 an acre. Was this not an example of land speculation? Indeed, Sparks’ warnings about rapidly increasing property values were also confirmed as the FDC tried to purchase Kingsmere properties ahead of the construction of the Gatineau Parkway. The values of Kingsmere properties had risen to $3,000 per acre (Carrolly 1955). It should perhaps not be surprising that, in 1955, the FDC (1955: 25) would once again report that “[d]ue to some difficulty in acquiring the necessary land, extension of Gatineau Parkway north of Boulevard Gamelin (sic) is not yet possible.” As shown below, the FDC would be unable to overcome the resistance of landowners for the Meech Lake

6.5  Joint Parliamentary Committee on FDC Reform

95

stretch of the parkway. The parkway connected the cottage communities to the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau, but it did not connect the public with the park’s only public facilities at Philippe Lake.

6.5  Joint Parliamentary Committee on FDC Reform Having been delayed by a year, the joint parliamentary committee was convened in March 1956 to study the implementation of the Gréber Plan (Joint Committee on the Federal District Commission 1956). Before turning to Sparks’ testimony to the joint parliamentary committee, there are five important preceding and concurrent events to take note of: a Masham delegation proposing a luxury hotel at Philippe Lake; the FDC brief to the joint parliamentary committee; Meech Lake residents criticizing Sparks’ views of the built environment; the Capuchin Brothers, on behalf of all Meech Lake residents, seeking assurance from the FDC of their long-term residency in the park; and the Ottawa Ski Club president’s submission to the joint parliamentary committee. First, early in March 1956, the Chamber of Commerce from Ste. Cecile de Masham (1956) sent a delegation to the FDC headquarters in Ottawa to propose a luxury hotel development at Philippe Lake. The hotel would have been the first of its kind in the region and would be administered on lands that would be transferred from the FDC to the Chamber of Commerce. The Masham delegation believed that the $2-million hotel would provide the boon needed by local businesses and would allay the negative financial consequences which federal acquisitions for Gatineau Park imposed on the municipality and local lumber industry. The Chamber made no mention of possible conflicts between hotel users and park visitors nor did it suggest removing the public facilities already established at the lake. Rather, Masham authorities wanted the hotel to complement the existing facilities, just as the construction of the Gatineau Parkway would, in turn, complement the hotel which would service “visitors to our country and of our federal government. It would be a place for picnics or for conventions or for national or international meetings” (Chamber of Commerce of Saint-Cécile de Masham 1956). In addition to the new hotel offering accommodation and convention space, the Masham delegation proposed boating, fishing, swimming, and winter sports on Philippe Lake. The hotel facility would include tennis courts and a swimming pool, which “would save the visitors of the hotel being inconvenienced by the public on the beach of the lake, that is to say would not change the facilities already planned for a large public beach.” The proposal for a hotel at Philippe Lake received the support of the Metropolitan Council of Western Quebec (1956). However, the FDC did not agree to the hotel proposal as it involved the transfer of park lands to a municipality for the purposes of a private development. Interestingly, the documents related to the Masham proposal were the last ones deposited in the folder on the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee. Having been disbanded, the committee was no longer able to provide the FDC with any advice related to park governance.

96

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue

Second, in April 1956, the FDC submitted its 100-page brief to the joint parliamentary committee, with recommendations oriented toward the creation of an even more powerful regional planning body. The FDC brief sought the power to (re) define the boundaries of the National Capital District (and to have those boundaries described in the new Act). Further, the Commission sought to enhance its powers of expropriation, namely, “without first having to obtain the refusal of owners” (FDC 1956: 95). Also, as the FDC had to request approval from the Governor in Council for property acquisitions over $5,000, it requested that the minimum amount be raised to $50,000 (FDC 1956: 5). The most important recommendation concerned the mission statement, as the Federal District Act did not give the FDC clear direction in this regard. This recommendation for clarity, and most of the others made in the FDC brief were acted upon; thus, Section 10(1) of the National Capital Act states that “[t]he objects and purposes of the Commission are to prepare plans and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance,” and Section 23 of the NCA declares “[a]ll works of the Commission, whether constructed or executed before or after the coming into force of this Act, are hereby declared to be for the general advantage of Canada.” The FDC’s recommendations for greater funds, more personnel, and powers of expropriation in Ontario and Quebec, etc. were endorsed by the joint parliamentary committee and embedded in the National Capital Act. With respect to Gatineau Park, the brief describes the park territory: “Its main sections are the Kingsmere area, including the Mackenzie King Estate; the Valley of the Three Lakes – Meech, Harrington and Philippe – and the western section comprising the Lac Lapêche area. … The objective is to develop its facilities for the use and enjoyment of the public…” (FDC 1956: 28). Although there is no reference in the FDC brief to the problem of divided control arising from private lands around Kingsmere and Meech Lake, it does recognize that landowners had stalled the construction of the Gatineau Parkway: “The Commission has not been successful in acquiring the necessary land for the right of way for the easterly branch of the parkway loop from the Kingsmere-Old Chelsea area around the east side of Meech Lake to Lac Philippe. The owners either refuse to sell or are asking prohibitive prices” (FDC 1956: 31). The Ottawa Journal, having noted that Senators Connolly and Justice Minister Stuart Garson were both Meech Lake residents, reported on how, in the FDC brief, the resistance of property owners had forced the FDC to delay the extension of the parkway to Philippe Lake—the park’s only public facilities (Jackson 1956). The Ottawa Citizen (1956) interviewed an FDC official who confirmed that neither Senator Connolly nor Justice Minister Garson were among the Meech Lake property owners holding up the parkway construction. Third, Meech Lake residents responded to Sparks’ forthcoming brief by criticizing him in local newspapers. Having seen the results of Sparks’ survey, one resident, Corliss Keyes, arrived at the opposite conclusion: 80 of the 100 cottages were attractive (cited in Ottawa Citizen 1956a). Another resident insisted: “Mr. Sparks’ garage on the driveway to the lake is a real eyesore.” The Ottawa Citizen (1956b)

6.5  Joint Parliamentary Committee on FDC Reform

97

subsequently went to Meech Lake in order to corroborate resident opinions of the cottages on the lake. Yesterday a Citizen reporter and cameraman toured the disputed summer resort area to attempt to locate the “eyesores” but came away with samples of “eye appeal.” Very few of the buildings there could be regarded as “ugly” and “eyesores.” Granted some were in need of minor repair and painting, but The Citizen found that the great majority of the cottages were, basically, attributes to the locality. (Ottawa Citizen 1956b)

The contrarian views of Meech Lake residents had thus been reinforced by the Ottawa Citizen prior to Sparks’ testimony before the joint parliamentary committee. Fourth, the Monastery of the Capuchin Fathers (1956) at Meech Lake sought “guarantees” from the FDC, not only on behalf of themselves but also on behalf of the other 283 property owners at the lake. The Capuchin Fathers’ (1956) letter informed the FDC that their Chapel had become “inadequate and decrepit.” Prior to investing the $20,000 to $25,000 required for a new, more spacious chapel, the Capuchin Fathers (1956) asked for the following guarantees, in writing, from the FDC, for a period of 15–20 years: 1) That substantial expropriation or one on a large scale, of private properties, will not be resorted to as regards the private properties of Meech Lake  – which would deprive our chapel of attendance by the public; 2) That Meech Lake, according to plans of the Federal District Commission, will not become during that period of time a site or a place so easily accessible to the public at large to such an extent that it would be undesirable for us to remain there.

If these guarantees could not be provided, the Capuchin Fathers indicated that they would negotiate the sale of their property, which they had owned since 1901. This would be done, however, with “deep regrets.” They added: We would regret it if the Federal District Commission should detect in the present request any form of opposition to the projects which it contemplates in [page 2] the public interest, and for the development of our national capital. We do not wish to ignore those points of view, and we have not, ourselves, any objection in principle to the realization of the projected roadway now under construction which may take place, affording the public all the pleasure possible without being in the least bothersome to the private interests of the residents of Meech Lake. It is only because it has seemed to us that the Commission had not adopted definite or unchangeable measures for the utilisation of Meech Lake that we have taken the liberty to express our sentiment and wishes in the matter before undertaking the costly construction of a Chapel for the performance of religious services for a very large part of the residents of Meech Lake. We would request the Federal District Commission kindly to accept our request in the spirit which we had in mind, that of a close co-operation in the conciliation of public and private interests, and to accept the assurance of our highest consideration. (Monastery of the Capuchin Fathers 1956)

98

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue

The FDC did not provide the guarantees sought by the Capuchin Fathers (Handy 1956). In 1968, the Chapel property was purchased by the FDC’s successor, the National Capital Commission. The fifth notable event prior to Sparks’ report to the joint parliamentary committee is the submission by Herbert Marshall, the president of the Ottawa Ski Club (OSC) and former member of the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee. President Marshall (1956: 469) wanted to give the views of the OSC on Gatineau Park “in which, of course, it is vitally interested.” Marshall began by outlining the OSC investment and ownership of land in the park. With 3,600 members, the OSC had invested some $50,000 to purchase 400 acres of land at Camp Fortune; further, the OSC had built four ski lodges, maintained eight ski hills serviced by seven ski tows, and established two ski jumps. As detailed previously, the FDC approached the OSC about forming a partnership, but the OSC refused to transfer its land (not lodges) in exchange for federal capital investment in skiing facilities. As Marshall (1956: 471) explained, “members are convinced that to lose the ownership of the land would eventually mean the disintegration of the Ski Club.” Nevertheless, Marshall insisted that the OSC and FDC enjoyed “happy” relations. The only recommendation to the joint parliamentary committee was to “speed up” the parkway construction program, thus improving the park’s accessibility. Marshall (1956: 834) specified the recommendation: “In particular, the Ottawa Ski Club requests that immediate attention be given to the improvement of the short road from Dunlop’s on the Meech Lake Road to the parking lot at Alexander Hill.” In the follow-up questions, Marshall was asked whether the OSC would have any objection to making Gatineau Park into a National Park administered by the National Parks Branch. To which Marshall (1956: 471) replied: “Oh, it [the OSC] is very much in favour of that, and thinks that this is the only way in which we can really develop the magnificent Gatineau area.” Aware of what the national park proposal entailed for privately owned land, Senator Connolly, a member of the joint parliamentary committee, set the OSC president back on the right course, that is, in support of the park’s status quo: Senator Connolly: I do not want to have Mr. Marshall change his answer, but I wonder whether he understood Senator Reid’s question. The purport of his question was this: do you think that jurisdiction over Gatineau park should be removed from the Federal District Commission and be put under the national parks branch? Marshall: Oh, I am very sorry—I did misunderstand. Senator Reid: See how it all gets twisted! Senator Connolly: Don’t change your answer unless you want to. The witness: I do want to change my answer—very much. We work very closely with the Federal District Commission and we want to see the park developed by them. (Marshall 1956: 471-2)

6.5  Joint Parliamentary Committee on FDC Reform

99

The changes required to transform Gatineau Park into a National Park would have unwelcome consequences for property owners in the park, including the OSC. The MP for Gatineau, Rodolphe Leduc (1956: 472), then expressed his “hope [that] they would not be in trouble with the federal government even if this area became a national park.” Were committee members contemplating giving Gatineau Park national park status? On 26 June 1956, Sparks, the founding father of Gatineau Park and former Chairman of the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee, appeared before the joint parliamentary committee on the FDC. Sparks’ 25-page brief, Land Policy in Gatineau Park, was read verbatim to the committee. After 22 years of voluntary service on the park project, Sparks’ appearance as a witness before the committee would be his last attempt to transform the park’s status as a mixed-ownership area into a national park for, in 1959, Sparks passed away at the age of 79. The central argument in Sparks’ brief is that the FDC never had a land acquisition policy for the park and that planning a parkway through privately owned land greatly inflated the land acquisition costs. He went over the implementation of the land acquisition program, describing the initial outcome of this exercise of territoriality by the federal government: Sometimes a substantial area of privately owned land would be surrounded wholly or partly by land owned by the Commission. In other cases, the Commission would own a section of the area which was partly or wholly surrounding private land. The area owned by the Federal District Commission at the beginning of the war could hardly be described as a public park, because privately and publicly owned land was hopelessly mixed. (Sparks 1956: 833)

Sparks proceeded to argue that, while blanket acquisition would involve a larger initial outlay, piecemeal acquisitions would cost more in the long run as land values increased over time and would increase even more rapidly with the construction of the Gatineau Parkway and other road improvements. The FDC ignored this advice and continued “its haphazard methods without any basic plan or policy” (Sparks 1956: 834). In anticipation of the Gatineau Parkway, the FDC was given the authority to acquire all lands, by negotiation or, if necessary, expropriation, in the southern section of the park; the FDC did not acquire the 6,500 acres of privately owned lands. Even following the formation of the GPAC, however, “nothing was done” (Sparks 1956: 835). In 1950, Sparks was close to resigning from the GPAC. He wrote to then FDC Chairman Bronson that “the FDC has no plan or policy with regard to this project” (Sparks 1956: 835). As this letter is not found in the FDC’s archived files, it is quoted here at length: You have several times told me that all you intend to do at the present time is buy land, but a look at the map, and a visit to the area will demonstrate clearly that you have no co-­ ordinated plan even of buying property. Dozens of cottages, shacks, etc., have been built on property which surely will be required for park purposes. This is still going on. The Kingsmere Road is being turned into a slum. Your failure to anticipate the needs of this project has already cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Land values are being established by building of a few shacks and cottages in vacant areas which will require not only that you buy the buildings but you have permitted higher land values to be established.

100

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue

Despite Sparks’ highly critical views, Bronson asked Sparks to stay on as GPAC Chairman. With the FDC projecting the expansion of Gatineau Park to 60,000 acres, the majority of the Advisory Committee, from the outset, was of the opinion that privately owned lands within the park boundaries should be acquired. Only Senator Connolly, a Meech Lake resident, thought otherwise. In his brief to the joint parliamentary committee, Sparks (1956: 836) points out that, when putting forward arguments to retain privately owned lands at Kingsmere and Meech Lakes, Senator Connolly never mentioned the significance of Gatineau Park in the context of the 1950 Gréber Plan. Sparks’ brief details the controversy around FDC powers of expropriation in Quebec that was sparked by Kingsmere resident Redmond Quain, citing the subsequent release of the FDC Policy on Land Ownership in Gatineau Park which announced that, with the exception of lands needed for the parkway, “[n]o effort has been made or will be made to expropriate property in Gatineau Park.” Sparks then recounts the FDC expropriations at the very beginning of the Gatineau Park land acquisition program. The exorbitant demands of property owners were overcome because the FDC had established land values through negotiated purchase. Following this, the FDC, on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, sent notices of expropriation to 40 residents at Philippe Lake in order to prevent further private development. Sparks juxtaposes the treatment of Philippe Lake residents with those in the Kingsmere-Meech Lake privatopia, which is not only much closer to Gatineau and Ottawa but is also, for Sparks (and Gréber), more important to the overall park project. Some of the people at Philippe Lake felt at the time, and still feel, that they were discriminated against, and that the reason why properties at Kingsmere and Meech Lake were not expropriated at that time was that there were people living in these localities who had great influence with the FDC. I am inclined to agree that they were right. (Sparks 1956)

The second problem with the FDC’s public statement of policy on Gatineau Park was its claim that Kingsmere Lake was entirely privately owned. Sparks pointed out that the Mackenzie King Estate, which the FDC owns, abuts the lake. However, the cottages near the lake had been rented out, turning the Mackenzie King estate into a “real estate proposition” when the former prime minister bequeathed his lands as a public park (King also intended his estate to serve as the official summer residence of the prime minister). According to Sparks, the FDC “wanted to keep the public from the lake shore which would please other owners of lake shore property. On the gate leading to these rented houses a large sign reads: ‘No Picnics Please’ which, in effect means ‘no admittance’ thus shutting off from the public use what is definitely the most attractive part of the King estate” (Sparks 1956: 839). Having shown the inaccuracies of the FDC statement, Sparks turned to its overall inadequacy as it meant that privately owned lands could remain within the park indefinitely. Sparks warned the joint parliamentary committee: “There is danger that if the present policy of the FDC is followed this area will develop into a sort of glorified amusement park with everything from tent shows to souvenir stands … If privately owned land is permitted the FDC completely loses control of the area”

6.5  Joint Parliamentary Committee on FDC Reform

101

(Sparks 1956: 854). In other words, without public ownership, Gatineau Park was not an integrated FDC territory; rather ownership and control were divided among the FDC, municipal governments, and property owners. The park’s status as a mixed-ownership area betrayed its potential significance as the “the finest thing of its kind in the world” (Sparks 1956: 863). That is, the finest near-urban national park. This was Sparks’ vision for Gatineau Park, and he lamented how international visitors were taken to Old Chelsea, which he considered a “shabby locality” (Sparks 1956: 855). His brief concluded by condemning the federal agency responsible for governing the park: “Although the FDC has been working for 20 years on this park area, and have spent millions of dollars, Canadians should not feel that they have to be ashamed of what they have to offer to visitors in this magnificent park land, adjacent to the National Capital. The policy of the FDC is to retain all this ugliness and disorder” (Sparks 1956: 855). Still, Sparks recognized that there “are very powerful forces, that would like to make something second-rate and shabby. The land owners want to make fortunes and I think they are succeeding” (Sparks 1956: 855). Following Sparks’ testimony, FDC Chairman Kennedy appeared before the joint parliamentary committee offering, among other things, a rebuttal of Sparks’ recommendations concerning park governance. Kennedy insisted that the FDC held the same objective as Sparks, that is, acquisition of all privately owned lands within park boundaries. However, the FDC and Sparks did part ways on the means through which this objective was to be achieved: “we propose to carry it out over a couple of decades rather than over a couple of months” (Kennedy 1956: 928). Kennedy argued that the blanket expropriation option endorsed by Sparks would be far costlier than piecemeal acquisitions, as the expropriations would add legal fees and an additional 10% to the appraised value of the lands. Kennedy denied Sparks’ claims that the construction of the Gatineau Parkway or other park developments would inflate property values, lead to land speculation, or encourage a construction boom. Rather, the Chairman took a broader view of the FDC’s projects asserting that funds were needed “for more urgent projects such as the railway [relocation] project” (Kennedy 1956: 927). Even if the funds were available for parkland acquisitions, Kennedy maintained that the FDC would encounter stiff resistance, not only from park residents but also from Quebec Premier Duplessis, who challenged the right of the FDC to expropriate for park purposes. Kennedy clarified that “[a]s a matter of fact Mr. Duplessis is very friendly to the Gatineau park idea, but is jealous of provincial autonomy” (Kennedy 1956: 927). As mentioned above, the joint parliamentary committee recommended sweeping institutional reform of the FDC. It did not, however, recommend any changes to the Gatineau Park land acquisition program (Joint Committee on the Federal District Commission 1956). Thus, the  final report that the joint parliamentary committee submitted greatly disappointed Sparks. With Senator Connolly and Hull MP Caron among its members, the joint parliamentary committee made no reference to the criticisms leveled by the park’s founding father. Rather, the report of the joint parliamentary committee simply reads: “We think that the policy applied to Gatineau Park by the Federal District Commission has been wise and we say so bearing in mind the onerous financial implications involved in the development of the National

102

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue

Capital Plan within the urban sections of the National Capital area.” Sparks’ final attempt at altering FDC land acquisition policy had failed. To add insult to injury, the FDC (1957: 30) started paying Chairman Kennedy a $7,500 honorarium—the only recommendation that Sparks’ brief made which was acted upon. Even though the joint parliamentary committee submitted its final report in August 1956, the federal government passed legislation to reform the FDC 3 years later. To be specific, the Louis St. Laurent government tabled legislation, but it died with the 1957 federal election (FDC 1957: 5). Reflecting the bipartisan support for the Gréber Plan (Gordon 2001), the newly elected Diefenbaker government passed the National Capital Act in 1959. The changes brought about by this legislation will be taken up in the next chapter.

6.6  Stalled Gatineau Parkway Construction As the FDC’s role and responsibility in the planning and development of the National Capital Region and Gatineau Park were under review by Parliament, the FDC, in 1956, completed the first 8-kilometer (5-mile) stretch of the Gatineau Parkway, specifically the Fortune Lake Parkway at a cost of $900,000. This was the first stretch of the projected 80-kilometer (50-mile) scenic parkway system. The Fortune Lake Parkway extended from Meech Lake Road to the Champlain Lookout. Construction of the 16-kilometer (10-mile) Kingsmere-Pink Lake section of the parkway linking Gamelin Street with the Fortune Lake Parkway began the following year. Thus, Jacques Gréber, in one of his last reports to the FDC, wrote about the park in glowing terms: “Nothing should be added to what everyone thinks about the progress in Gatineau Park. In a very short time, the three Parkways – Gatineau, Lac des Fees, and the splendid Lake Fortune Parkway, were built, just a beginning of the improvements planned to develop the unlimited possibilities of Gatineau Park, where the entire population of the various parts of the Capital Region might converge without the slightest appearance of crowding the space.” For the French planner, “[t]he main charm of this natural preserved park … is ‘intimacy,’ due to the great number and the endless variety of its features, from the very small creek and waterfalls, to the romantic or wild lakes, to finally reach the immense panoramas! A national playground, of such size and possibilities, at the very threshold of a National Capital, is unique in the world” (Gréber 1957). Although Gréber was convinced that the FDC was well underway with the enlargement and protection of Gatineau Park, he urged caution: “But our previous report and sketch plans on this particular subject submitted some adequate ways of protecting it against spoiling through exaggerated ‘beautifications’, such as large restaurants, casinos, huge picnic fields and parking deserts. Concentrations of people and automobiles must be avoided in Gatineau Park.” While Gréber may have been impressed by the FDC’s early work, the unfinished Gatineau Parkway system has gone unrecognized in the scholarship on the Gatineau

6.6  Stalled Gatineau Parkway Construction

103

Park and national capital planning. The FDC reported that “[p]rogress on this project had been held up due to the difficulty of acquiring land at reasonable prices; also construction is carried out only to the extent that monies become available for this purpose” (FDC 1957: 14). The FDC’s inability to extend the Parkway to Philippe Lake is attributable to the resistance of Meech Lake landowners, who were opposed to selling to the FDC lands needed for the parkway extension (see Fig. 6.1 Map of land acquisitions for Gatineau Parkway). Even as the FDC was encountering resistance, it still allocated funds to extend the parkway to Kingsmere. This was done at the behest of the president of Kingsmere Property Owners’ Association (KPOA), Redmond Quain, who was granted direct access to the FDC parkway from municipal roads. Quain (1957) told the FDC Chairman: “Such a move might assist the Commission to get from time to time the concessions that it will need from the representatives of property owners in the Municipal Council.” Added to its roadbuilding activities in the cottage communities, the FDC erected a sign prohibiting through traffic along Meech Lake Road, much to the delight of the Meech Lake Association (Duffett 1957; McElroy 1957). The motoring public, attracted by the new parkways, was not supposed to drive to the cottage communities. The importance of the Gatineau Parkway was underscored by Prime Minister Diefenbaker’s attendance at the opening of the Kingsmere-Pink Lake section (NCC 1959: 13). At the opening ceremony, the former FDC Chairman, Kennedy, said: … this new Parkway is not just another road, it is the result of vision and perseverance. It was more than twenty years ago that the Commission commenced the acquisition of land over which the Parkway passes. Three years ago the first link from Meech Lake Road to Champlain Lookout was opened. It is hoped that during the next decade, other sections of Gatineau Parkway will be completed.

Only one section of the Gatineau Parkway was subsequently built. In October 1961, the 8.3-kilometer (5.2-mile) Old Chelsea section was opened, linking Dunlop Road with the Kingsmere section of the parkway. The vision and perseverance evidently did not extend beyond the Kingsmere and Meech Lake area. That is, the 21.7-kilometer (13.5-mile) section of the Gatineau Parkway that extended to the park’s only public facilities at Philippe Lake was never built; it was only planned. The FDC (1957: 30) aptly summed up the situation: “The Commission has not acquired the necessary land for the proposed construction of the easterly branch of the parkway to Lac Philippe.” Initially, the NCC’s new Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (1960) focused attention on the penultimate stretch of the Gatineau Parkway: “it would be advisable to work towards the construction of a main parkway through the centre of the park to Lac Philippe.” Despite the NCC (1961) undertaking some preparatory work (route surveying, forest clearing), the GPAC eventually abandoned the idea of extending the parkway from a nature preservation standpoint (Morse 1967). As shown in the next chapter, federal and provincial governments would plan and eventually build superhighways along, and sometimes through the park’s eastern boundary. The scenic parkways admired by Gréber and Sparks were reserved for the park’s cottage communities.

104

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue

Throughout the period of FDC governance, public facilities at Philippe Lake “were inadequate to cope with the large number of visitors to the area. For that reason, the Commission decided to enlarge existing parking areas, to improve the roadways and to add to the bathing and picnic facilities” (FDC 1957: 14). Thus, the FDC was enabling the crowding and parking deserts that Gréber, Sparks, and others were keen to avoid. As shown above, the FDC’s role in improving (auto)mobility was manipulated by park residents to their advantage, and it is a previously unreported fact that it was Meech Lake landowners who defeated, for better or worse, attempts to extend the parkway to Philippe Lake.

6.7  Conclusion Even though Quebec Premier Duplessis challenged the FDC’s right to expropriate for park purposes in 1948, the Gatineau Park land acquisition program proceeded, albeit with a great deal of uncertainty as well as controversy. As this chapter has shown, the FDC eventually adopted the policy of negotiated purchase on a willing-­ seller basis with the eventual aim of bringing the park under public ownership. The Chairman of the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (GPAC), Sparks, argued that this piecemeal approach to parkland acquisitions did not constitute a policy at all and that it tremendously increased the price of lands the government had to purchase for the parkway. In the Appendix to the GPAC’s (1952) Report on a Master Plan for Gatineau Park, Sparks proposed to impose a time limit for the blanket acquisition of all remaining privately owned land within the park. This approach, he argued, constitutes a rational policy as it provided a calculated means to an end. While this approach might involve a larger initial expenditure than piecemeal acquisitions, Sparks was convinced that it would be cheaper in the long run. Further, what was the cost of not having control over privately owned lands? Having canvassed the experience of national park administrators in the United States, Sparks knew of the threats posed by privately owned lands in unsightly buildings, residential subdivisions, and commercial developments, as well as conflicts between private owners and park visitors. The remainder of this book unpacks the numerous conflicts and crises precipitated by different property owners in the park including cottagers, land speculators, and real-estate developers. This chapter documented Sparks’ attempts to convince the FDC and federal government to adopt a much different policy on private ownership in the park, and to back this more aggressive policy up by giving the FDC powers of expropriation, without requiring it to negotiate first with the owners. Though the Advisory Committee did not reach an agreement on how the FDC should acquire remaining privately owned lands, the committee’s 1952 Report did indicate that there was a consensus on the desirability of eventually eliminating privately owned lands. Sure enough, following the 1952 GPAC Report, the FDC began purchasing lands along the Meech Lake shoreline. Thus, FDC territoriality had been turned “on,” and this move threatened Meech Lake residents.

6.7 Conclusion

105

In 1953, the Meech Lake Association (MLA) submitted a memorandum seeking assurances from the FDC that it would not expropriate, and requesting the cooperation of FDC officials in enforcing the building standards set out in the municipal bylaw enacted earlier. Advisory Committee Chairman Sparks took the MLA memorandum as an opportunity to meet with the MLA to explain that national and public interests must take precedence in the park’s planning and development. Even though the Advisory Chairman had met with Philippe Lake residents prior to their expropriation, Sparks was prevented from meeting with the MLA. The FDC also did not agree to send park officials to meet with MLA representatives. Park residents’ fears over expropriation were soon allayed when the FDC published its first policy statement on Gatineau Park land acquisitions. Its statement—one of two drafted—confirmed the policy of negotiated purchase, with expropriation used only for parkway construction. But the published statement did not indicate whether the FDC intended to acquire all remaining privately owned lands. Moreover, the public statement did not prevent controversy around FDC expropriation powers in Quebec. Having spoken with the GPAC Chairman, Redmond Quain, a Kingsmere resident and lawyer, claimed that the FDC statement concealed its true intentions. While this controversy was unfolding, the Gatineau Parkway Advisory Subcommittee reinforced Sparks’ earlier calls for public ownership. In its December 1953 Report, the Parkway Subcommittee warned the FDC that privately owned lands would not only increase parkway costs but would also delay parkway construction. Despite this, the FDC Chairman, Major-General Howard Kennedy, was unwilling to expropriate, even for the parkway purposes. And, with the prospect of further controversy around Sparks’ views on the necessity of expropriation powers, Kennedy forced Sparks from his position as GPAC Chairman. Following Sparks’ removal, the Advisory Committee ceased meeting. It never produced a master plan even though the Report on a Master Plan for Gatineau Park had all the makings of one. This chapter also recounted Sparks’ final attempt to challenge the park’s status quo as a mixed-ownership area. Through the local newspapers, he made the issue of privately owned lands in Gatineau Park public for the first time. Of course, Meech Lake residents resented Sparks’ claims of unsightly buildings. Through the Capuchin Brothers, they tried, once again, to get assurances from the FDC as to their long-­ term residency. Following the public controversy, Sparks appeared before the joint parliamentary committee set up to examine FDC progress on the implementation of the Gréber Plan. As one of Gréber’s main recommendations was the enlargement and protection of Gatineau Park, Sparks pointed out how the FDC policy of negotiated acquisition without recourse to expropriation, while ostensibly intended to pacify the Government of Quebec, left the park unprotected, as the FDC could not exercise any control over privately owned land. Sparks argued before the joint parliamentary committee that allowing private lands at Kingsmere and Meech Lakes not only financially benefitted park residents, but was also unjust to those who had been at Philippe Lake: residents had received notices of expropriation and, in some cases, were expropriated. But, with Senator Connolly and MP Alexis Caron (who had participated with Kennedy in the smear campaign against Sparks) as members, the joint parliamentary committee  ultimately supported the park’s status quo. Its final report made no recommendations concerning the FDC land acquisition policy,

106

6  Sparking the Private Lands Issue

as if the problems with privately owned lands did not exist. Sparks had failed to convince the FDC and federal government that the entire project would be ruined unless the park was brought under public ownership as in Canada’s national parks. Indeed, the most important park development, the Gatineau Parkway, was thwarted by divided ownership. Even though the FDC was supposed to expropriate for parkway purposes, it never acquired the lands necessary to extend the parkway to Philippe Lake, where the park’s main public facilities were located. Instead, the FDC built only half of the parkway, which was thus concentrated in the area of Kingsmere and Meech Lake, where there were supposed to be no public facilities (only Camp Fortune owned by the Ottawa Ski Club). As Sparks predicted, land values increased, and park residents benefitted from improved access and increased property values. This was not the last of Sparks’ predictions concerning privately owned lands to come true; as shown in the next chapter, proposals for a ski chalet, marina, hotel, and subdivisions threatened to turn Gatineau Park into a “glorified amusement park.” Unlike its institutional predecessor, the National Capital Commission did have to expropriate, reactively and proactively. 

References Carrolly CJG (1955) Letter from CJG Carrolly to ES Richards. LAC RG 34 vol 268.190(A1)-1 Chamber of Commerce of Sainte-Cécile de Masham (1956) Untitled document. LAC RG 34 vol 272.190-G(2) Cram HR (1952a) Letter from HR Cram to multiple recipients. LAC RG 34 vol 267.190(16) Cram HR (1952b) Memorandum, re: Gatineau Park land acquisition policy. LAC RG 34  vol 267.190(16) Cram HR (1953a) Letter from HR Cram to RP Sparks. LAC RG 34 vol 268.190(17) Cram HR (1953b) Letter from HR Cram to AR Worden. LAC RG 34 vol 268.190(17) Cram HR (1953c) Letter from HR Cram to W Duffet. LAC RG 34 vol 268.190(17) Cram HR (1954) Letter from HR Cram to RP Sparks. LAC RG 34 vol 272.190-G(2) D’Amour JW (1954) Letter from JW D’Amour to HR Cram. LAC RG34 vol 272-G(2) Duffett WE (1957) Letter from WE Duffett to RE Edey. LAC RG 34 vol 273.190-N4 Federal District Commission (1951) Annual report of the FDC. Ottawa Federal District Commission (1953a) Policy on land ownership within Gatineau Park (unused draft). LAC RG 34 vol 268.190(17) Federal District Commission (1953b) Policy on land ownership within Gatineau Park. RG 34 vol 268.190(17) Federal District Commission (1953c) Minutes of executive meeting. LAC R1181-0-2-E Federal District Commission (1954a) Annual report of the FDC. Ottawa Federal District Commission (1954b) Memorandum, re: Township of Masham and Gatineau Park. LAC RG 34 vol 190.268(17) Federal District Commission (1954c) Minutes of executive meeting. LAC R1181-0-2-E Federal District Commission (1955) Annual report of the FDC. Ottawa Federal District Commission (1956) Brief. Submitted to the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons appointed to review and report upon the progress and programs of the Federal District Commission in developing and implementing the plan for the national capital of Canada. Ottawa Federal District Commission (1957) Annual report of the FDC. Ottawa Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (1949) General report. Federal District Commission, Ottawa Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (1952) Report on master plan for the development of the Gatineau Park. Federal District Commission, Ottawa

References

107

Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (1960) Minutes of Meeting. LAC RG 34 280.22 vol 1 Gatineau Parkway Subcommittee (1953) General report. Federal District Commission, Ottawa Gordon DLA (2001) Weaving a modern plan for Canada’s capital: Jacques Gréber and the 1950 plan for the national capital region. Urban History Review 29(2):43–61.  https://doi. org/10.7202/1019205ar Gréber J (1952) Report on Gatineau Park. Federal District Commission, Ottawa Gréber J (1957) Report by Jacques Gréber to Alan K. Hay. Federal District Commission, Ottawa Handy JE (1956) Letter from JE Handy to Rev Marie-Antoine. LAC RG 34 vol 268.190(20) Hyman H (1953) Letter from H Hyman to RP Sparks. LAC RG 34 vol 272.190-G2(1) Jackson R (1956) Fight over Gatineau Park land: cottage owners refuse to sell for scenic drive. Ottawa Journal, 7 Apr 1956 Joint Committee on the Federal District Commission (1956) Second and final report. Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Edited journals, 22nd parliament, 3rd session, vol 100(141) Kennedy H (1954) Letter from H Kennedy to RP Sparks. LAC RG 34 vol 272.190-G(2) Kennedy H (1956) Joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Federal District Commission, vol 19. Queen’s Printer, Ottawa Marshall H (1956) Ottawa Ski Club. In Canada. Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Federal District Commission. Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, 10 McElroy MH (1957) Letter from MH McElroy to FDC. LAC RG34 vol 268.190(A1) Meech Lake Association (1953) Memorandum to Federal District Commission. RG 34  vol 268.190(17) Monastery of the Capuchin Fathers (1956) Letter from the Monastery of the Capuchin Fathers to the Federal District Commission. LAC RG 34 vol 268.190(20) Morse EW (1967) Letter from EW Morse to D Audet. LAC RG 34 280.22 vol 3 National Capital Commission (1959) Annual Report of the NCC. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1961) Annual Report of the NCC. Ottawa Ottawa Citizen (1953) Uneasiness expressed over FDC land grabs in Gatineau, 24 Oct 1953 Ottawa Citizen (1954) Oppose federal district, 29 Jan 1954 Ottawa Citizen (1956a) Meech Lake cottagers resent Sparks charges, 9 Apr 1956 Ottawa Citizen (1956b) Lots of eye appeal but few eyesores at Meech Lake, 12 Apr 1956 Ottawa Journal (1953) Battle shapes up over FDC power, 24 Oct 1953 Ottawa Journal (1955a) Despite policy battle Gatineau Park goes ahead, 16 May 1955 Ottawa Journal (1955b) Gatineau Park policy unchanged, 17 May 1955 Quain R (1954) Letter from R Quain to Federal District Commission. LAC RG 34 vol 273.190-N Quain R (1957) Letter from R Quain to H Kennedy. LAC RG 34 vol 273.190-N4 Richards ES (1952) Gatineau options for consideration at Federal District Commission meeting. LAC RG 34 vol 269.190-B(2) Richards ES (1953) Memorandum dated 9th April 1953 from the Meech Lake Association. LAC RG 34 vol 268.190(17) Sparks RP (1947) Letter from RP Sparks to FE Bronson. LAC RG34 vol 272.190-G(1) Sparks RP (1948) Letter from RP Sparks to HR Cram. RG34 vol 272.190-G(1) Sparks RP (1952a) Memorandum to advisory committee. RG 34 vol 272.190-G(1) Sparks RP (1952b) Letter from RP Sparks to HR Cram. RG 34 vol 272.190-G(1) Sparks RP (1953) Letter from RP Sparks to HR Cram. LAC RG 34 vol 272.190-G(2) Sparks RP (1954a) Letter from RP Sparks to H Kennedy. LAC RG 34 vol 272.190-G2(1) Sparks RP (1954b) Letter from RP Sparks to H Kennedy. LAC RG 34 vol 272.190-G(2) Sparks RP (1954c) Letter from RP Sparks to members of the Advisory Committee on Gatineau Park. LAC RG 34 vol 272.190-G(2) Sparks RP (1954d) Letter from RP Sparks to H Kennedy. LAC RG 34 vol 272.190-G(2) Sparks RP (1955) Letter from RP Sparks to HR Cram. LAC RG 34 vol 190.268(19) Sparks RP (1956) Land policy in Gatineau Park. Canada. Parliament. Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Federal District Commission. Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, vol 18 Sykes AR (1955) FDC land policy assailed. Ottawa Journal, 12 May 1955 Worden AR (1953) Letter from AR Worden to HR Cram. LAC RG 34 vol 268.190(17)

Chapter 7

Park Governance Under the National Capital Commission

As shown in the previous chapter,  there was a  widely held vision for Gatineau Park to become a public park that was articulated by the park’s founding father, Roderick Percy Sparks, and supported by planners of the national capital, like Jacques Gréber and Mackenzie King, but this vision was not only ignored by the Federal District Commission (FDC), the park’s governing body, but also rejected by the Commission’s executive leadership, one which included ‘‘park residents’’ at Kingsmere and Meech Lake. Rather, the FDC endorsed a parkland acquisition policy of negotiated acquisition on a willing seller basis, with expropriation used only as a last resort. The last chapter revealed that the FDC’s application of this policy was highly uneven, adversely affecting some farmers and cottage owners, but not  park residents. Notably, the FDC did not expropriate lands for the Gatineau Parkway because of resistance from Meech Lake cottagers. They prevented work on the Gatineau Parkway extension to Lac Philippe, which had the only public facilities at the time. Overall, the FDC was allied with the interests of the property owner associations that petitioned it and other levels of government, in an effort not only to allow private residents to remain in the park but also to make improvements to the surrounding areas, in particular through the construction of roads. Would this governance arrangement continue under the FDC’s successor? The scholarship on Gatineau Park has focused thus far on period of the FDC, without delving into the park’s history under National Capital Commission (NCC). This and subsequent chapters document the park’s governance under the NCC (1959 to present). They will describe the public and private interest groups that have engaged the NCC, federal, provincial, and municipal governments to affect the park’s governance. The chapter’s first section details the powers of the NCC as its governance was restructured by the National Capital Act. The second section describes the activities of the NCC’s Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (GPAC) as well as the NCC’s expropriations along Meech Lake Road. The affected landowners complained to the provincial government about mistreatment by the NCC. Ultimately, the Government of Quebec could only force a pause in the expropriation proceedings, which were concluded in the 1970s (National Capital Commission 1972). The © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Lait, Governance of Near-Urban Conservation Areas, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64440-6_7

109

110

7  Park Governance Under the National Capital Commission

third section details the negotiations between the federal and provincial governments as strategically important lands were exchanged, despite a change in provincial government that stalled the intergovernmental negotiations. The fourth section documents the NCC’s expropriation of 571 acres of privately owned lands in the Lac La Pêche area, the wilderness section of the park. This expropriation, the first of a major subdivision, was one of many: the remaining chapters show a remarkable continuity in the NCC’s land acquisition policy and trace the long-term outcomes of this policy with respect to the expropriations that occurred, proactively and reactively on the part of the NCC.

7.1  Creation of the NCC and (Un)Altered Park Governance As shown in the previous chapter, the establishment of the National Capital Commission (NCC) was a direct outcome of the joint parliamentary committee setup to evaluate the success (or lack thereof) of the Federal District Commission (FDC) in implementing the recommendations of the Gréber Plan, including the protection and enlargement of Gatineau Park (Gyton 1999). The joint parliamentary committee’s membership included Senator Connolly, the Secretary of the Meech Lake Association (MLA). The committee’s report stated that the FDC, having enlarged the park, built facilities and campgrounds, and begun the Gatineau Parkway, had been successful in the administration of Gatineau Park; as a result, the joint parliamentary committee made no recommendations pertaining to the governance of Gatineau Park, even though the contentious policy question around private land ownership remained unsettled. The joint parliamentary committee’s (1956) recommendations did, of course, result in sweeping changes to the FDC, with the aim of ensuing that its successor could acquire lands for Gréber’s Greenbelt in Ontario. That is, in addition carrying out the Gatineau Park land acquisition program, the FDC was expropriating lands in the 1950s, to create a 55,000-acre Greenbelt for Ottawa. As previous studies have documented (Gordon 2015), the FDC’s Greenbelt land acquisition program in the 1950s had been effectively undermined by the resistance of local governments, which demanded and ultimately received payments-in-lieu of taxes for the properties that were acquired by the FDC/NCC for the Greenbelt, a solution modelled on the one that Sparks had negotiated with the Quebec municipalities affected by Gatineau Park (see Chap. 5). Reflecting the cross-partisan support for the Gréber Plan, the joint parliamentary committee’s recommendations were acted upon despite the change in government from Liberal to Conservative. Thus, a newly elected Diefenbaker government passed the National Capital Act (Parliament of Canada  1958) which set out the powers and responsibilities of the reconstituted NCC. Compared to its predecessor, the new crown corporation had a larger staff, more funding, and a territory double in size of what was then known as the National Capital District. The NCC was given jurisdiction over the 1800-square mile National Capital Region (NCR). Despite dropping “District” for the more benign “Region” for which the agency was

7.1  Creation of the NCC and (Un)Altered Park Governance

111

responsible, legislators clearly intended for the NCC to be a more powerful planning body; the National Capital Act gave the NCC powers of expropriation in both provinces, so that it could acquire the lands needed, whether for Gatineau Park, the Gatineau Parkway, or the Greenbelt. However, as an official explained of the two land acquisition programs, “between 1948 and 196 [sic  – date omitted] the Commission did not follow the same land acquisition policy in Quebec as in Ontario, i.e., it did not pursue a policy of expropriations in advance of particular needs related to improvement works such as has taken place for Parkway right-of-way” (Leary 1966). Thus, the federal government took a far softer approach when acquiring lands in Quebec, not only because of the provincial government but also because of the resistance of Kingsmere and Meech Lake cottagers, who were involved in the joint parliamentary committee. They ensured that the cottage communities were simultaneously within and outside of the territory of Gatineau Park. The most significant legislative change that the joint parliamentary committee made is that, unlike the Federal District Act, the National Capital Act defines the purpose of the new Crown Corporation. Section 10 of the National Capital Act defines: The objects and purposes of the Commission are to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance. (Parliament of Canada 1958)

Following on from the NCC mandate, the National Capital Act gives the NCC jurisdiction over the NCR through federal declaratory power. Thus, Section 23 of the NCA stipulates that the works of the NCC are for the “general advantage of Canada.” In this way, the NCC operations fall under Section 92 of the Constitution Act, which gives the federal Parliament residual powers over “peace, order, and good governance” (POGG) in matters of “national interest” (Abel 1969; Hogg 2006). Having the federal declaratory power means that the NCC can grant itself jurisdiction over a public work when it is in the national interest, i.e., the Greenbelt or Gatineau Park. This does not mean that provincial legislation no longer matters but that the NCC does have p.o.g.g. powers over its territory, the National Capital Region. It is no coincidence that NCC properties were eventually designated as National Interest Land Mass (see Chap. 9). In the 1960s, the NCC expropriated, in advance of need, dozens of farming families for the Greenbelt. A farmer whose lands had been expropriated for the Greenbelt took the NCC all the way to the Supreme Court to challenge the legality of the NCC’s powers. Harold Munro challenged the right of the federal government to expropriate his farm property for beautification purposes, arguing that his private property fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislature. The Court of the Exchequer ruled that NCC expropriations for the Greenbelt were legitimate, as NCC authority over the NCR territory fell under the peace, order, and good government clause (Smith 1967). Munro appealed the Exchequer Court’s decision to the Supreme Court, seeking a ruling as to whether the NCC’s mandate could be justified under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, which confers the federal government  its POGG powers. The Province of Quebec was an intervenor in the case,

112

7  Park Governance Under the National Capital Commission

arguing that the National Capital Act interfered with matters of provincial jurisdiction (property) and that NCC powers threatened Quebec’s autonomy and the province’s territorial integrity (Tremblay 1966). The Court applied the test of “national concern” to the NCC’s zoning and by law-­making powers. It determined that the requirements of the test were indeed satisfied. The Court ruled: The subject matter of the National Capital At is the establishment of a region consisting of the seat of the Government of Canada and the defined surrounding area which are formed into a unit to be known as the National Capital Region which is to be developed, conserved and improved “in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance.” That subject matter is not referred to in either s. 91 or s. 92 of the British North America Act (Constitution Act). Consequently, the sole power rests with Parliament under the preliminary words of s.91 relative to “laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada.” It was therefore within the powers of Parliament to authorize the Commission, for the attainment of its objects and purposes as defined in the Act, to make the expropriation of the lands of the appellant [Munro]. (Supreme Court of Canada 1966: 664)

In his decision, Justice Cartwright wrote of the NCC’s enabling legislation: I find it difficult to suggest a subject matter of legislation which more clearly goes beyond local or provincial interests and is the concern of Canada as a whole than the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region in accordance with a coherent plan in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance. Adopting the words of the learned trial judge, it is my view that the Act “deals with a single matter of national concern.”

In confirming the powers of the NCC, the Supreme Court set “a precedent with far-­ reaching consequences for all the municipal and provincial jurisdictions in the 1,800 square-mile National Capital Region. …it can control the use of city or provincial lands and, more far-reaching, bylaws relating to land use” (Ottawa Journal 1966). The Ottawa Journal questioned whether the NCC’s powers were so broad that “the National Capital Region has become a federal district through the back door…” (Ottawa Journal 1966). Despite the ruling of Supreme Court, the following discussion reveals that, with a few notable exceptions, it never proactively exercised its powers of expropriation for the purposes of consolidating the territory of Gatineau Park, nor has the NCC ever imposed any zoning controls or land-use prohibitions on development in the park. Even though Gatineau Park is the largest and most important territory controlled by the FDC/NCC, it is only mentioned once in the entire National Capital Act: Section 15(3) permitted the NCC to pay grants in lieu of taxes to the municipalities “situated in Gatineau Park.” This was a continuation of the program created by Sparks, as Chairman of the FDC’s Gatineau Park Advisory Committee, who ensured that municipalities were compensated for the loss of revenue from taxable lands. The National Capital Act does not define the boundaries of Gatineau Park, nor does it provide the NCC with a specific administrative mandate, i.e., the park protection and expansion envisaged by planner Gréber.

7.2  Parkway Planning and Meech Lake Road Expropriations

113

Instead, the Diefenbaker government passed Order-in-Council 1960–579, which authorized the NCC to purchase lands “within the wide shaded line…indicating the Gatineau Park boundary” (Privy Council of Canada 1960 Without an accompanying cadastral description, OIC 1960–579 did not provide a metes and bounds description of the park boundary. A wide shaded line is not as accurate as a metes and bounds legal description, those which are typically described for the purposes of national parks. Perhaps it was for this reason, the lack of defined boundaries, that the FDC/NCC employed work crews in the 1950s and 1960s to cut down a 20-foot-­ wide swath of forest along the park’s perimeter. This cut-out would serve as both a boundary marker and “fire-break” (FDC 1958; NCC 1959: 28, 1960a: 38). On the one hand, the Order-in-Council put park governance on a stronger footing by delimiting the park’s boundaries; on the other hand, it left the park’s governance arrangements unaltered by ensuring there was continuity between the FDC and NCC in the Gatineau Park land acquisition program. Thus, the Order-in-Council states that the NCC should acquire remaining lands within the shaded boundary on a willing seller basis only. When the NCC (1959: 29) assumed control of the park, the parkland acquisition program was 78.7% complete, with Gatineau Park having been expanded to 24,000 hectares (59,000 acres) out of a projected 30,350 hectares (75,000 acres). As shown below, 5058 hectares  (12,500 acres) of the remaining lands to be acquired within the park territory were provincial Crown lands that would be put under NCC control; the remainder was private lands, owned by hundreds of individuals, which the NCC decided to purchase whenever the current owners put them up for sale on the market.

7.2  P  arkway Planning and Meech Lake Road Expropriations The Order-in-Council was an insufficient statement of policy for the NCC (1960b) Executive, which asked a renewed Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (GPAC) to provide “a detailed statement of policy in regard to property acquisition in Gatineau Park, with particular reference to small holdings, and to policy of Commission in regard to ultimate development around the lakes.” The NCC’s Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (GPAC) has yet to receive mention in the existing scholarship on the park. This is perhaps because, unlike its predecessor in the FDC, the GPAC committee was ineffectual: it neither produced nor endorsed any plans and was disbanded in the late 1960s, when NCC planners initiated the first planning process. The GPAC, the membership of which initially included Howard Kennedy (1960), recommended that the NCC adopt the same acquisition policy for Gatineau Park as its predecessor, wherein land acquisitions proceeded by way of negotiation, with expropriation used only as a last resort. Specifically, the Advisory Committee wanted the NCC to adopt the following for its parkland acquisition policy, beginning with: “No effort will be made to expropriate property in Gatineau Park except

114

7  Park Governance Under the National Capital Commission

in cases where such property is required to facilitate the construction of driveways, other essential works or where necessary to protect present Commission developments” (GPAC 1960a). The GPAC (1960a) acquisition policy went on: b. In view of the fact that the shoreline of a number of lakes such as Meech Lake and Kingsmere Lake within the Park area are privately owned, it is proposed to maintain Harrington Lake, the shore line of which is wholly owned by the Commission, in its natural state. c. The Commission will purchase any property within the Park area which is available at a price which is considered reasonable. d. The following priority is established for the purchase of land in order that the Commission’s development projects may proceed: Parkway, access roads, trails, picnic areas, camp sites, other park amenities, complete land purchase on the shore line of Lac Lapêche, vacant lots on Meech Lake.

The GPAC’s policy statement went on to suggest the permanence of private lands at Kingsmere and Meech Lake, leaving Harrington Lake (Lac Mousseau) in the public domain (even though it would be barred to public access and used on account of its use as the prime minister’s summer residence). As shown below, the NCC would adopt this acquisition policy,  proactively expropriating residences along Meech Lake Road in order to protect the integrity of the parkway. In addition to responding to the request of the NCC executive, the Advisory Committee’s main interest was to resume construction of the Gatineau Parkway. With two of the three sections of the original parkway system completed, the committee wanted construction to proceed with the 16.6-kilometre (10.3-mile) stretch that would connect the existing parkway to Lac Philippe and then loop around to the east side of Meech Lake. As noted by the GPAC Chairman (Wardle 1961), “[at] the present time none of our three large lakes can be reached by a parkway. This situation is not desirable and it is felt that the park road system should be contained and concentrated so that the best points of interest, and use of recreational facilities, can be reached by visitors over our parkways.” At one of its first meetings, the committee recommended: a. That surveys be carried out in 1960-61 (if funds are available) and in 1961-62 of the route of a loop road around Meech Lake to join the existing road at the Champlain Overlook with that at Dunlops. b. That, in subsequent years, surveys be continued up the valley of the lakes to the developed area at Lac Philippe. c. That a study be made of the shoreline of MacDonald Bay at the north end of Meech Lake for possible development as a bathing and day picnicking area. (GPAC 1960a, b)

The extension of the Parkway to Philippe was targeted for completion by 1964. Although the surveys were completed, 2.4 kilometers (1.5  miles) of forest was cleared in the McKinstry Mountain Section, and rough grading is carried out, the parkway extension was never completed. Indeed, the idea of a scenic parkway lost

7.2  Parkway Planning and Meech Lake Road Expropriations

115

favor among GPAC members: “Originally, in the atmosphere of post-war boom, it was planned to extend the Parkway along the Escarpment to opposite Grand View, so it could circle back around Lac Philippe. In the more recent climate of economic retrenchment, the Parkway has come to be thought of as a luxury, or else a public-­ works program for slack employment periods” (Morse 1967). When NCC planners in the Development Concept (NCC 1968d) explicitly abandoned the parkway extension, the GPAC (1968) endorsed this decision: “The Ridge, because of its rugged and forbidding character is useless for any purpose other than to be preserved as a wilderness core.” Thus, the Gatineau Parkway was never extended to Philippe Lake. Rather, Kingsmere and Camp Fortune are located in what is now referred to by the NCC (2000) as the “Parkway Sector” of Gatineau Park. Nevertheless, as the construction of the Old Chelsea section of the Gatineau Parkway was getting underway, park officials recognized that land values were going to be greatly inflated, particularly along Meech Lake Road. The Superintendent of Gatineau Park, Edey (1960), requested that the NCC purchase for $2,000,000 all lands along the road affecting 18 property owners and involving some 981 hectares (2425 acres). The Treasury Board refused Edey’s request for the land purchase “pending submission by the Commission of a programme statement dealing with plans for the Park’s future and operation” (GPAC 1961). As shown above, the GPAC submitted a policy statement aligned with the NCC’s predecessor: negotiated purchase with expropriation as a last resort. In the interim, however, Treasury Board’s refusal prevented the NCC from purchasing lands along Meech Lake Road by the time of the Gatineau Parkway’s official opening ceremony in Old Chelsea. So, it was only after the parkway had been opened that Treasury Board approval was obtained for the expropriation of 7 of the 18 property owners along Meech Lake Road who refused to sell to the NCC or in those instances where “the appraisal value and asking price were too far apart for the Commission to even consider a reasonable offer” (GPAC 1960a, b). The NCC persisted in expropriating these residences because Superintendent Edey (1960) learned that Mrs. J. Chrzanowski, who had inherited her property from her late father, Roderick Percy Sparks, had begun construction of a year-round permanent residence, and that “[s]he also plans a 15 lot subdivision on one-acre lots. Lots could be sold at $2,500.00 each” (Edey 1962). On Edey’s  (1962) recommendation, the NCC requested authority from the Treasury Board to expropriate the lands belonging to Chrzanowski, as well as the six other hold-out property owners along Meech Lake Road. The NCC sought to expropriate in order to “prevent development and commercial exploitation on one or two of them” (NCC 1963). In 1962, the NCC was authorized by  Order-in-Council (P.C. 1962-12/361, Privy Council of Canada 1962) to spend $225,000 on expropriating seven properties along Meech Lake Road, a total of 62 hectares (153 acres). It is ironic and hypocritical of the NCC to have gone on to expropriate Sparks’ lands in the name of protecting the park while ignoring his prescient warnings about the consequences of allowing private ownership to gone on indefinitely. As mentioned in the last chapter, Sparks knew that his advocacy for the public ownership of the park entailed a personal sacrifice, as the value of his property would substantially increase through construction of the Gatineau Parkway. Only a couple years

116

7  Park Governance Under the National Capital Commission

after Sparks’ death, the NCC was trying to prevent the realization of Sparks’ predictions. Perhaps knowing of their father’s failed campaign against the park’s status quo, Sparks’ children fiercely resisted NCC expropriation of their lands. The NCC contravened its own internal policy as it did not attempt to negotiate purchase of the Chrzanowski property. An NCC memorandum reads: Question 3 – Was any action taken on this authority [P.C. 1960-579] to purchase between 21 July 1960 when Mr. Edey wrote to Mrs. Chrzanowski seeking an appointment and 24 April 1961 when an appraisal was sought from Mr. Titley? Answer 3 – Between 21 July 1960 and 24 April 1961, Mr. Edey did not discuss purchase with Mrs. Chrzanowski, since it was reported to us that she was, generally speaking, sick during most of this time. As it was reported to be a nervous disorder, brought on by alcohol, it was considered wise not to bother her. At the same time, he was in touch with F.R. Crawley, a brother-in-law, with respect to Crawley’s property and was getting reports with respect to Mrs. Chrzanowski. There was nothing to indicate any urgency to purchase the property. (McDonald 1963a)

Another reason for Chrzanowski to be upset was that she had indeed begun construction of a year-round residence. Upon receipt of the notice of expropriation in August 1962 (see Fig.  7.1), Chrzanowski was legally required to suspend construction. Following this, another expropriated landowner, Crawley, negotiated on behalf of Chrzanowski, and an agreement was soon reached with the NCC: it would pay the contractor to complete the house and would then lease the property back to Chrzanowski for $152.50 a month (see Fig. 7.2). Chrzanowski would be responsible for paying municipal and school taxes on the property. While the option form was signed, Chrzanowski “refused or neglected to attend at the agent’s office to sign the agreement” (NCC 1963). In February 1963, Chrzanowski told the park Superintendent that “she had been ill since New Year’s and that she would call Mr. Munn [West Hull notary agent] and arrange a meeting in the near future” (McDonald 1963b). The only subsequent contact from Chrzanowski concerned her request, in April 1963, that the NCC pay $150 for the excavation work for her home. The NCC refused the request “and this appeared not to be satisfactory to her” (McDonald 1963b). Indeed, Chrzanowski obtained the legal counsel of Quain and Quain. As shown in the last chapter, Redmond Quain was a Kingsmere resident who had publicly criticized the Federal District Commission (FDC) for wanting to expropriate land in order to expand Gatineau Park, even though the FDC had publicly renounced use of expropriation for park purposes. The expropriations along Meech Lake Road provided Quain with an opportunity to go after the newly-established NCC. Quain evidently relished it, as shown in his July 1963 letter to the NCC: May we say that we are quite surprised to find out that the NCC is starting again the old practice of expropriating in the Province of Quebec. Our recollection is that the NCC abandoned this practice, upon being told by the late Mr. Duplessis that the opinion given him by his legal advisors was that the NCC had no power to expropriate for park lands etc., although it might expropriate for airports, railways, etc.

7.2  Parkway Planning and Meech Lake Road Expropriations

Fig. 7.1  Notice of expropriation to Chrzanowski There must have been some specific action on the part of the Commission as a body to depart from what has been publicly declared to be its policy of non-expropriation in the Province of Quebec and we are wondering if you feel like telling us when this change of attitude occurred … May we also put on record (because if the matter comes before Parliament, it is quite important) that no approach, according to our information, was made to our clients in any way, shape or form, with the object of buying the premises but a Notice of Expropriation was filed clandestinely in the Registry Office, which, if valid, operated as a conveyance to the Commission of the property. It has been repeatedly stated (and I think stated in Parliament also), that the Commission does not have recourse of expropriation unless it has exhausted all efforts to buy on a voluntary basis. (cited in McDonald 1963b)

117

118

7  Park Governance Under the National Capital Commission

Fig. 7.2  Map of Chrzanowski property

In his letter, Quain was clearly equating the NCC with the FDC. The NCC, for its part, had yet to publicly declare its official policy on Gatineau Park land acquisitions, even though, as detailed above, it had adopted the same policy as its predecessor behind the scenes, namely, negotiated purchase with expropriation used for parkway construction purposes only. On behalf of Chrzanowski, Quain organized a vigorous campaign against the NCC expropriations. He began by enlisting the support of the Municipality of West

7.2  Parkway Planning and Meech Lake Road Expropriations

119

Hull  (1963). At its September 1963 meeting, the West Hull Municipal Council (1963) passed a resolution “that Quebec Premier Lesage be petitioned to intervene and prevent the National Capital Commission from expropriating private properties in this Municipality for park purposes (Gatineau Park)” (Clark 1963a). Upon receipt of this petition, the Quebec Premier contacted the federal Minister responsible for the NCC, that is, the Minister of Public Works, Jean-Paul Deschatelets. Following this conversation, Minister Deschatelets ordered the NCC “not to file any further expropriations in the Province of Quebec.” This order struck a major blow to ongoing NCC operations. In addition to having unsettled Meech Lake Road expropriations, it had another 48 unsettled expropriation cases elsewhere in Quebec (Marshall 1963). NCC Chairman Clark (1963b) sought clarification from Minister Deschatelets, asking whether the order required the NCC: (a) Not to seek authority to expropriate any land in the Province of Quebec from now on for any purpose whatsoever, or (b) Not to seek authority to expropriate land from now on in the Province of Quebec for park purposes leaving the Commission free to seek authority to expropriate properties in the Province of Quebec for such things as bridge approaches and parkways.

Thus, the NCC’s expropriations in Quebec were suspended for an indefinite period. Despite this initial success, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Municipality of West Hull (Ryan 1963) wrote the Quebec Premier again to complain about the “serious violation by the Federal Government of the rights of individual property owners of this part of the Province of Quebec.” Ryan (1963) indicated that “[t]hese people wish to live in our municipality and are being pushed out [by the NCC].” His letter pointed out the other implications for the municipality: The National Capital Commission has about one half of our Municipality, and we cannot find out when they will stop. We will be left with only a small strip of land along the Gatineau River. People wish to build in this Municipality but the threat of the National Capital Commission expropriation is discouraging them; some do start to build and their land and buildings are expropriated. This action by the Federal Government should not be tolerated in Quebec… (Ryan 1963)

Unlike Premier Duplessis (who was a provincial “conservative” responding to expropriations by a federal Liberal government), Premier Lesage was a provincial Liberal, who had also been a federal cabinet minister, serving in Parliament from 1945 to 1948. Thus, Premier Lesage was far more diplomatic than his predecessor when addressing the issue of NCC expropriations in Quebec for Gatineau Park and other projects for the national capital. On 26 September 1963, Lesage (1963) wrote the federal Minister of Public Works about “new protests” and asked Deschatelets to “see what could be done to remedy this situation.” Premier Lesage reiterated the policy of the Quebec government vis-à-vis federal expropriations: “When it is a matter of constructing harbours, canals or airports, no person will think of complaining as to the exercise of the right of expropriation but it seems to me it is altogether another matter when it is simply a question of establishing parks” (Lesage 1963). The Premier’s concern was with the welfare of the municipality of West Hull

120

7  Park Governance Under the National Capital Commission

and its residents, but he must also have been worried about the political fallout from appearing weak in protecting Quebec’s territorial integrity. These were Premier Lesage’s concerns, not the purposes of the NCC and Gatineau Park. With the expropriation powers of the NCC in question, the legal advice of the Deputy Solicitor General was requested, who cited Section 13(1) of the National Capital Act as providing the NCC with the authority to expropriate land in Quebec. It read: The Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, take or acquire lands for the purpose of this Act without the consent of the owner, and except as otherwise provided in this section, all the provisions of the Expropriation Act, with such modifications as circumstances require, are applicable to and in respect of the exercise of the powers conferred by this section and the lands so taken or acquired. (Government of Canada 1958)

Having confirmed the legality of NCC expropriations, Minister Deschatelets lifted the ban on NCC expropriations in Quebec. In a memorandum to Cabinet, Deschatelets recommended: a. That Cabinet confirm that it accepts the opinion of the Deputy Solicitor General b. That the National Capital Commission be permitted to continue to exercise its authority under the National Capital Act both in the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario

Deschatelets (1963) would add that “[t]he only occasion that the National Capital Commission considered it necessary to expropriate in Gatineau Park occurred when the Commission was advised that certain properties were about to be subdivided and converted to commercial use.” Cabinet approved both recommendations (Privy Council Office 1963). Following this, Deschatelets (1964) wrote Lesage on the rationale behind ongoing NCC expropriations (e.g., for parkways, bridge approaches, consolidating land holdings) while providing the Quebec Premier with the assurance that “in all cases where the Commission is to expropriate lands located in the Province of Quebec, that a minimum of inconvenience will be caused to the Municipalities as well as to the expropriated owners and that the latter will be treated with understanding, justice and equity.” In reply, Premier Lesage (1964) asked that the NCC prepare a plan of Gatineau Park, showing projected boundaries, existing structures, and topographical details. Lesage (1964) gave his assurance that the plan would be kept confidential. After providing the requested plan to Lesage, Minister Deschatelets (1964) removed the “administrative restrictions” placed on the NCC. NCC Chairman Clark (1964) reflected on the lessons learned by the NCC surrounding the protest from the Chrzanowski case: “[w]e should try to negotiate settlements wherever it makes sense to do so rather than expropriate.” Chairman Clark (1964) added: “However, I realize that situations may arise where protracted negotiations could indicate the full intention of the Commission and as a result speculation in land we wish to acquire could cause a rapid increase in price.” As shown below, this caveat proved prescient, as NCC plans for public facilities at La Pêche Lake were soon disrupted by real-estate developers’ intent on realizing profits from increasing real-estate values.

7.2  Parkway Planning and Meech Lake Road Expropriations

121

The NCC continued to have difficulties in reaching a final settlement with Chrzanowski (Thomas 1971a). She did not pay the NCC rent on her property which, in December 1966, amounted to $7167.50 in arrears (NCC 1968a). The NCC contemplated taking Mrs. Chrzanowski to the Exchequer Court, but, in February 1968, they reached an out of court settlement. The land registry file does not contain the agreement; however, it does disclose that on 7 June 1971, almost a decade after her land had been expropriated, Chrzanowski finally released property QB-0515 to the NCC (Thomas 1971b). The NCC would have to formally initiate court proceedings against Roderick Sparks (see Fig. 7.3). While the administrative restriction on NCC expropriations was in place, Sparks wrote to the NCC (1968b) for permission to keep his home and four or five acres of land, with the NCC assuming control of the rest of the property. Gatineau Park Superintendent Edey rejected Sparks’ proposal and was only prepared to assure him a “five year lease back with option to renew on yearly basis”

Fig. 7.3  Map of Sparks property

122

7  Park Governance Under the National Capital Commission

(NCC 1968b: 786). As the restrictions on the NCC were lifted, the two parties resumed negotiations, and Sparks increased his price from $80,000 to $97,000 for the entire property. The NCC, based on the highest appraisal, was only prepared to offer $62,500 and a lease of $1260 per  annum; further, the NCC would assume responsibility for all taxes and property maintenance. Sparks rejected this counter-­ offer (NCC 1968b). On 12 January 1965, another meeting to discuss compensation was held between Sparks, the NCC Chairman, and the interim Minister of Public Works, Louis-­ Joseph-­Lucien Cardin. Out of this meeting, the parties agreed that, since there was variance in the three appraisals ($51,300, $52,000, $63,500), the appraisers would compare their methods of evaluation. In the meantime, Superintendent Edey informed Sparks that, since the NCC had not taken administrative control of the property, he was still required to pay taxes; Sparks disputed this and became even more incensed with the NCC.  In March 1965, Sparks complained to the NCC Chairman about inadequate compensation offers and mistreatment by NCC staff; Sparks threatened to criticize the NCC (1968b) in the media. This threat prompted the NCC to modify its proposal somewhat, with park officials recommending “a last survivor lease with no sublet. Rent to be 5% of amount paid for house and four to six acres plus taxes and municipal charges. Sparks [will be] responsible for maintenance and acreage be leased to Sparks if he so wishes” (NCC 1968b). The newly appointed Minister of Public Works, George McIllraith, insisted that no special treatment be afforded to Sparks. Minister McIllraith maintained that, should Sparks reject another NCC offer, the case would need to be resolved in the Exchequer Court. And, in January 1967, when Sparks refused the NCC offer of $63,500, the Department of Justice initiated Exchequer Court proceedings (NCC 1968b). Although Sparks was legally required to submit a statement of defense within 15 days, he failed to comply. Finally, on 15 June 1970, Sparks submitted his statement of defense in which he asked for $87,000 as “just and reasonable compensation for the said land and the damages resulting from its expropriation” (Sparks 1970). He claimed to have “suffered serious prejudice and damages by the action of the Plaintiff [National Capital Commission] especially since the Defendant has been deprived of his rights to exploit the said land” (Sparks 1970). Only days before the trial was scheduled to begin, Sparks and the NCC settled the case out of court (Thomas 1971b). It is interesting that, unlike the Chrzanowski case, the offer of settlement was included in the land registry files; the NCC compensated Sparks a total of $80,900 for his 63-acre property along Meech Lake Road.

7.3  Federal-Provincial Land Exchange Negotiations As indicated above, the Meech Lake Road expropriations were among multiple unsettled expropriations in Gatineau Park as the NCC pursued, in the Quebec portion of the National Capital Region, the policy of negotiated acquisition, with expropriation as a last resort. By 1965, the Commission had acquired another 2307

7.3  Federal-Provincial Land Exchange Negotiations

123

hectares (5700 acres), bringing the park’s overall area to  26,588 hectares  65,700 (NCC 1965). Nevertheless, a total 2108 hectares  (5210 acres) of private lands remained in the park (Davis 1966a). As indicated below, even though NCC officials and park administrators had to deal with subdivision threats from local land developers, the default policy of negotiated purchase remained firmly entrenched (NCC 1968c). There was no recorded discussion at the time of a blanket acquisition of remaining private lands in the NCC’s first years of administering the park. Such a decisive move would have surely been denounced by Kingsmere residents, Redmond Quain and Howard Kennedy, as well as frustrated local governments and the Quebec government, which had 5070 hectares (12,528) acres of provincial Crown lands and lake bottoms in the Gatineau Park territory. Federal and provincial negotiations throughout the 1960s happened amid the expropriations and the expropriation freeze that were detailed above. The federal-­ provincial land exchange negotiations reached a climax in the mid-1960s before stopping with the election of the Union Nationale party. In exchange for provincial Crown lands in Gatineau Park, the NCC would transfer 46 hectares (114) acres of parkland to the Government of Quebec which, in turn, would provide these former parklands to a not-for-profit organization for the purposes of an educational facility known as the “Student City.” At first glance, the deal might seem to favor the NCC, which receives significantly more land in the exchange. Upon closer inspection, however, the provincial Crown lands were vacant lots in the middle of a wilderness area, whereas the NCC parklands were valued far higher because they were immediately adjacent to the urban area of Hull. Since the land exchange involved coordination among several federal (Cabinet and NCC) and provincial bodies (Department of Agriculture and Colonization, Department of Lands and Forests), negotiations were orchestrated by Oswald Parent, the MLA for Hull and a central actor in the planning and development of the Quebec side of the National Capital Region more generally (see Gordon 2015: 256). Eventually, with NCC Chairman Douglas Fullerton, Oswald negotiated several major federal-provincial agreements concerning the park, office buildings, highways, and water treatment. In the 1960s, the NCC was anxious to conclude the land exchange as soon as possible, so that it could begin developing public facilities at La Pêche Lake, where, as shown in the next section, it was forced to expropriate the land from local developers. The NCC (1966a: 12) wrote glowingly of the lake in its Annual Report: “[t]he sand beach on the east side of Lac La Pêche promises to be the best in the Park when fully developed by the Commission.” When the NCC assumed control of the park, it immediately encountered problems arising from mixed public-private ownership, with conflicts between park visitors and private owners over access to, and use of, the area. This mixed ownership prompted the NCC to prohibit “indiscriminate camping” (Clark 1961) at the lake, much to the consternation of many park visitors (Keenleyside 1960; MacKay 1960) who preferred “the lack of adequate facilities” (Adams 1960). The absence of park facilities (and NCC supervision) was the rationale provided by NCC officials for imposing a ban on camping. At the time of this ban, the park’s main public facilities at Philippe Lake, which included a restaurant, concessionaries, camping grounds, parking lots, etc., were

124

7  Park Governance Under the National Capital Commission

experiencing severe overcrowding. The Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (1965) pressured the NCC to conclude the federal-provincial land negotiations since “[n]o work in Lac Lapêche area should be started by the Commission before the exchange has been completed.” By 1965, the conclusion of the land exchange seemed imminent as the federal government, through Order-in-Council PC 1964-0/1694, approved the exchange. However, Student City representatives “verbally” requested an additional 189 acres (for a total of 304 acres), forcing NCC officials to review the terms of the land exchange and complicating matters further by necessitating a new Order-in-Council (Thrift 1966). Then, in June 1966, with the election of Premier Daniel Johnson of the Union Nationale, NCC officials realized that the prospect of concluding the land exchange was bleak. Thus, NCC Chairman Clark (1966) lamented: “I am disappointed that we have not been able to conclude our negotiations with the Province of Quebec and I am now wondering whether the change of Government will mean a re-examination and a further delay.” While there were once “very happy relations” (McIllraith 1966) between the NCC and Quebec government (when both were under Liberal leadership), Premier Johnson, despite initially agreeing to hold additional meetings with federal officials, “stopped the sale of a territory of the Province to the National Capital Commission” (Johnson 1966). As Johnson (1967) told the Quebec legislature, the Union Nationale considered the protection of the territorial integrity of Quebec to be of paramount importance. Thus, there was no possibility of the Gatineau Park land exchange going through under Johnson’s administration.

7.4  Expropriation of Domaine du Lac La Pêche While the NCC was still waiting on the completion of the exchange for provincial Crown lands, it was acquiring privately owned lands around Lac La Pêche. Between 1954 and 1964, the NCC  (1966c) and its predecessor, the Federal District Commission, were the sole purchasers in the 19 property sales carried out in the lake area. However, another flaw in the policy of negotiated purchase emerged: not every property owner was a willing seller to the NCC for park purposes (Dumoulin 1972). George Steele, one of the largest private landowners at La Pêche, “refused to sell to the NCC...” (Dumoulin 1972: 15). The FDC/NCC policy of negotiated purchase failed to recognize that some landowners would simply reject the idea of selling to the federal government. In the summer of 1966, George Steele sold 231 hectares (571 acres) of La Pêche lands for $91,500 to real-estate developers Paul and Edouard Bourque (NCC Land Committee 1966). The Bourque Brothers enjoyed recent success in developing cottage subdivisions at Perkins-sur-le-lac and St-Pierre-des-Monts. On a down payment of only $11,000, the Bourque Brothers acquired their “Domaine du lac La Pêche” for a variety of purposes:

7.4  Expropriation of Domaine du Lac La Pêche

125

a. To develop a year-round and/or summer and/or winter residential vacation area b. To develop a year-round recreation center c. To develop a commercial center to serve the said area d. To carry on lumbering operations e. To work the two gravel pits located there (Dumoulin 1972: 1)

Soon after their purchase (see Fig. 7.4), the Bourque Brothers undertook steps in the preliminary development of their La Pêche lands. They hired a land surveyor to define the limits of their property and obtained the services of Roger Gagnon, an engineer and town planner, whose plan for the Domaine included a 60-lot cottage subdivision, hotel, and marina. At a cost of $20,000, the Bourque Brothers built a 5-mile access road to La Pêche Lake and began clearing lots and developing the beach area (NCC 1967). Having done this preliminary work and received subdivision approval from the Township of Onslow, the Bourque Brothers advertised cottage lots on the radio. They soon sold 12 lakeshore lots. They subsequently claimed, during the compensation trial at the Exchequer Court, to have refused 72 written applications (Dumoulin 1972: 5). At the August 1966 meeting of the NCC Land Committee, Gatineau Park Superintendent Edey informed members about ongoing developments at La Pêche Lake. Edey observed that “the Bourque Brothers have at least one agent working in this area with the aim of buying up more Gatineau Park land, presumably for the purposes of development or speculation…” (cited in Land Committee 1966). To make matters worse, Edey was aware that Frank Jordan, an Ottawa lawyer, was intent on forming the Onslow Township Properties Association, which would, in Edey’s (cited in Land Committee 1966) view, lead to further “speculative activities.” He recommended that the Bourque Brothers’ property “be acquired with or without the consent of the owners” (cited in Land Committee 1966). The NCC Land Committee subsequently consulted the Planning Department, which promptly replied that “[i]t is of extreme importance to the Commission to protect from private developments the total shoreline of presently undisturbed lakes within the Park” (McDonald 1966). The Planning Director added that “Lac La Pêche is the largest single water resource in the Park, and its designation for specific recreational and/or conservation purposes within the Gatineau Park Master Plan is imminent.” In his letter to the Land Committee, McDonald noted agreement with the main recommendation contained in the 1953 Report of the Gatineau Parkway Subcommittee, namely, to acquire all remaining privately owned lands. He emphasized that the 1953 Report identified the “disastrous effects…which inevitably follow upon subdivisions and privately-owned property development” (McDonald 1966). The NCC was experiencing this first hand with the Bourque Brothers’ “Domaine du lac La Pêche” as well as other privately owned lands in Gatineau Park. Indeed, the park project was simultaneously threatened by subdivisions in its core and peripheral areas. Thus, in October 1966, the NCC had to obtain approval for two expropriations: the Bourque Brothers at La Pêche and Mrs. H.J. Dunne on Kingsmere Road (Privy Council of Canada 1966a, b). As was the case with the Bourque Brothers, Mrs. H.J.  Dunne was intent on subdividing her property and selling individual lots at a profit. Her property was located adjacent to the Mackenzie King estate, one of the main visitor attractions in Gatineau Park. Dunne refused to

126

7  Park Governance Under the National Capital Commission

Fig. 7.4  Map of Bourque Brothers property

7.4  Expropriation of Domaine du Lac La Pêche

127

sell to the NCC, forcing it to expropriate her 73-acre property, which was valued at $110,000 (NCC 1966b). With so many unsettled expropriations in Quebec (including that of the Sparks children) and Ontario, the NCC did not have the necessary funds to carry out the Dunne expropriation (O’Brien 1966). In November 1966, with the Bourque Brothers’ plans threatening to undermine the future development and use of the entire La Pêche sector, the NCC announced its intention to expropriate. When officials met with the Bourque Brothers the following month, compensation could not be discussed since the land appraisals had still to be carried out. Nevertheless, the Bourque Brothers requested and received an advance payment of $70,000 from the NCC (1967). Another meeting was scheduled for January 1967, but one of the appraisers withdrew, and the NCC encountered difficulties obtaining a second appraisal. Prior to the next meeting, in June 1967, “many phone calls were received by the staff of the Commission from Mr. Paul Bourque. He took these opportunities to use extreme and on occasion improper language in his discussions [with NCC officials]” (NCC 1967). Unfortunately for the NCC, there was “further activity by the Bourque Bros. within the boundaries of Gatineau Park” (Clark 1967). First, in June 1967, the NCC erected a gate at the entrance of the access road built by the Bourque Brothers. This prevented removal of lumber that had been cut during construction of the access road; it amounted to 12 cords and 53 poles. Upon finding the NCC gate, Paul Bourque visited the home of park warden Campbell “demanding that he be given access to the wood…” (Edey 1967). Bourque took photographs of a park warden behind the fence with a rifle. In a letter to Prime Minister Lester Pearson, Bourque wrote that the photos “show quite well how little respect NCC officials held towards private property. The road block was finally removed – only after a harsh exchange of words” (Bourque 1967). The NCC received advice from officials in the Department of Justice concerning the rights of expropriated owners; ultimately, the Bourque Brothers were allowed to remove the cut lumber under supervision, thus bringing an end to this “unfortunate situation” (NCC 1967: 355). NCC’s problems with the Bourque Brothers went beyond this incident and their “belligerent attitude.” Since the NCC had already committed its 1967–1968 funds for Gatineau Park acquisitions, they could not purchase additional lands within the park (Marshall 1967). While NCC officials attempted to ascertain the lands acquired by the Bourque Brothers, NCC Chairman Clark (1967) indicated that “[i]t is impossible to identify at this time the exact location of the area purchased and the area being negotiated.” In a telephone conversation between Paul Bourque and the manager of the NCC’s Property Division: Mr. Marshall [NCC] indicated to him that he was quite surprised that after previous expropriation experience with the other lands within Gatineau Park that Mr. Bourque would acquire further lands within the Park boundaries. He [Paul Bourque] stated this was his business, he was a developer, a contractor and a wood dealer. He intended to force the hand of Government by this means. (cited in Clark 1967)

Having obtained the advance from the NCC, the Bourque Brothers could purchase two parcels of land, comprising  46 hectares (113.98) acres in the Township of

128

7  Park Governance Under the National Capital Commission

Onslow. As noted by NCC General Manager Thrift (1976), “[b]oth parcels were eventually to be purchased by the Commission and preliminary negotiations had been undertaken with the owners, but because of the location of the parcels in the extreme northwest end of the Park, and because of the lack of funds no conclusive negotiations had been attempted by the Property Division to acquire” (Thrift 1967). In August 1967, Paul Bourque sent the NCC an offer to sell the two parcels for $34,165, which, Bourque claimed, represented the total cost of acquisition, plus an additional 10% to defray his expenses. The NCC Property Division appraised the two parcels at $20,000 and responded to Bourque that he was asking $68.00 per acre higher than market value (NCC 1967). As the NCC lacked the funds to acquire the property, it deferred negotiations to the following year. Bourque responded by threatening to cancel his offer of sale, informing the NCC “that he has contracted to slash-cut the standing trees on the property. In addition, he indicated that he will be proceeding to the Exchequer Court on the property which was expropriated at Lac Lapêche” (Thrift 1967). The ongoing negotiations with the Bourque Brothers over the expropriated 571 acres failed to reach a settlement, even though, at the meeting on 26 June 1967, “[i]t was fairly well agreed that the Bourques should receive market value of the land plus all out of pocket expenses plus something for being put back a year on their development project” (NCC 1967). While the NCC was prepared to offer $150,000, the Bourque Brothers sought compensation in the order of $350,000 to $400,000. Given the vast difference, the case had to be referred to the Exchequer Court. In the meantime, the Bourque Brothers received another advance of $35,000 from the NCC. In October 1967, the Bourque Brothers took their grievances directly to Prime Minister Pearson, erroneously claiming that “the lands in question have been held in the Steele family for more than three generations and, although these lands have always been for sale, no representation was ever made by the Commission during the seven years which preceded our first approaches with that family” (Bourque 1967). In their letter to the prime minister, the Bourque Brothers explained that negotiations with the NCC and Department of Justice officials “were but a series of insults to our intelligence. This, we feel, is attributable to our racial origin [French Canadian] – we may be wrong about this” (Bourque 1967). NCC officials were difficult to contact. They wrote: “[A]t certain times, it was impossible to get in touch with – even by phone – officials of the Commission who had undoubtedly chosen to ignore us” (Bourque 1967). Knowing that the Department of Justice does not typically get involved in expropriation proceedings (i.e., it is usually carried out between the NCC and owners directly), the Bourque Brothers questioned whether lawyers were even qualified to determine the value of compensation. They concluded that, when considered overall, the NCC had treated them “like second-class citizens” (Bourque 1967). The Prime Minister was even threatened with the specter of provincial intervention, with  the Bourque Brothers suggesting  in their letter that “it would be regrettable to have the Quebec government’s influence involved in this issue” (Bourque 1967). The NCC prepared Pearson’s response letter, which offered a point-by-point rebuttal of the Bourque Brothers’ original letter. It began with the statement of NCC acquisition policy:

7.4  Expropriation of Domaine du Lac La Pêche

129

The policy of the National Capital Commission in acquiring land in Gatineau Park is based on preserving the Park for its intended use and on protecting the interests of the people of Canada against developments which would adversely affect the Park. The history of the Steele family property is well known to the staff of the National Capital Commission, who had received assurances that in the event this property was placed on the market it would be offered to the then Federal District Commission. Officials of the Commission were surprised to find that, in spite of these assurances, arrangements had been made to sell the property to you for developments which were not compatible with the planned use of this part of the Park. (Pearson 1967)

To be sure, in the Exchequer Court, Paul Bourque (cited in Dumoulin 1972: 15) revealed “that the Steele brothers had already refused to sell to the NCC.” Thus, earlier assurance given to the NCC turned out to be nothing more than a delaying tactic, as, when selling his lands, Steele (cited in Dumoulin 1972: 15) indicated to the Bourque Brothers that the NCC “would probably expropriate the property at Lake Lapêche someday or other.” Evidently, the Bourque Brothers did not heed this warning. Rather, they sought to profit from their speculative purchases in the park by exploiting the park’s fragmented territory. Although the Prime Minister’s letter did not offer Bourque details as to why Department of Justice officials were involved in the negotiations, NCC Chairman A.J. Frost (1967) wrote that the reason for proceeding with this case through the Department of Justice was that it was “a most difficult one to cope with.” He elaborated: Because of the wide difference between the opinions expressed by the former owners, and the rather threatening attitude taken by them, the Commission on the advice of the Legal Adviser, conducted the major negotiations in the Board Room of the Department of Justice with the Director of Civic Law Section acting with and for the Commission. (Frost 1967)

Despite this cautious approach, “[t]he threatening attitude of Mr. Bourque to all who have dealt with him, his numerous telephone calls and his resorting to profanity on occasion has made it amply clear to the Commission that this case should be dealt with at the earliest possible date by the Exchequer Court” (Frost 1967). Once the trial date was finally set, the Bourque Brothers would “find it most regrettable and unjust that we should be dragged into court, at the taxpayer’s expense, and forced to waste our time and the NCC’s when we are prepared to negotiate a settlement in this matter” (Bourque 1969). In the period between the negotiations and the trial, the NCC would repeat its earlier offer of $150,000 for the La Pêche lands. In response to this and other NCC offers, the Bourque Brothers consistently raise their compensation claims. From an initial request of $350,000– $400,000, the Bourque Brothers later claimed $649,750 (Thomas 1968a, b). And, during the trial, their compensation claim was further increased to $847,350. Justice Dumoulin (1972: 9) recognized that there was a “gigantic difference” between the Bourque Brothers’ valuation and the offers made by the NCC. As opposed to the NCC, which made its valuation on the basis of land appraisals and development costs, Paul Bourque held the view that “the law stipulates that compensations in cases of expropriation should not be based on the costs [spent on acquisition and development] but rather on the value which it represents to the

130

7  Park Governance Under the National Capital Commission

owners” (Bourque 1967). Given the residential, commercial, and industrial purposes to which the 571-acre “Domaine du lac La Pêche” was intended, the Bourque Brothers justified their claim for $847,350 on the basis of the following: $597,600 for loss of property; $174,750 for loss of timber; and $75,000 for loss of gravel (Dumoulin 1972: 9). Several expert witnesses were called to the Exchequer Court to address the industrial purposes to which the Bourque Brothers’ La Pêche lands could be put. The gravel pits were deemed to be useful only insofar as developing the adjacent property. Because much of the area had already been cut over in the 1950s, the consensus reached by the forestry engineer and lumber dealer was that the property could not be profitably developed as a lumbering operation, since it lacked the timber supply necessary for sustained-yield forestry (Dumoulin 1972: 10). On the basis of the expert testimony, Justice Dumoulin’s decision on the compensation trial “eliminated lumbering and gravel pit operations as radically incompatible with the defendants’ essential objective: the opening of a year-round vacation spot, a rustic retreat on the shores of a beautiful lake in the heart of luxuriant vegetation” (Dumoulin 1972: 31). Dumoulin argued that the Bourque Brothers purchase was, from the start, “manifestly a speculative venture….” Moreover, Dumoulin found that the land acquisitions were poorly financed and hastily carried out; indeed, as Dumoulin (1972: 6) noted, “one of the lots, number 17-B, Range VII, did not pass into the defendants’ hands until April 27, 1967, nearly 6 months after the expropriation on November 3, 1966, somewhat like legitimation by subsequent marriage.” Justice Dumoulin then recognized that “speculation is a normal thing, indulged in every day all the year round; there is nothing to prohibit it, except, in a case such as this, the norms of common sense and the assessment of the contingencies of a special situation, which consist in sifting truth from falsehood, moderation from lack of moderation” (Dumoulin 1972: 16–17). The Bourque Brothers purchased land in Gatineau Park knowing full well that the NCC intended to eventually develop La Pêche Lake for public use as a wilderness area. In order to earn a $300,000 profit, the Bourque Brothers defied common sense as they failed to properly assess the contingencies of the situation, i.e., their inevitable expropriation by the NCC for park purposes. Further, as shown above, the Bourque Brothers’ appraisals of property values lacked moderation, for in their valuation they included land uses which were obviously incompatible. Dumoulin ultimately had little sympathy for the speculators, who were tormenting government officials, verbally abusing them, and going so far as to purchase parklands in advance of NCC need. However, as Justice Dumoulin pointed out in his ruling, the Bourque Brothers were only exploiting a situation that had been created for them. Through its policy of negotiated purchase, the NCC, according to Dumoulin (1972: 17), “had left this breach open, this bait for greedy speculators, a breach in which, in the final analysis and by rebound, it found itself caught.” This “breach” refers to how the park territory is riddled with holes, that is, the privately owned lands that the NCC does not exercise control over. Rather private lands are under the jurisdiction of municipalities and provincial legislation. The Bourque Brothers’ episode reveals that the NCC has no special status when privately owned lands are sold in the park. As Dumoulin

7.5 Conclusion

131

(1972: 31) observed, “[t]he sovereign privilege of expropriation is all that differentiates, in law and in fact, the plaintiff from the defendants; in all other respects the plaintiff remains in the position of an ordinary purchaser dealing with an ordinary vendor.” With so many expert witnesses, Justice Dumoulin (1972: 4) found the 10-day trial “too long and tedious.” His final decision aligned, more or less, with the NCC’s offer of $150,000. Thus, the NCC paid the Bourque Brothers $101,500, which covered their purchase price and road costs. Additionally, the Bourque Brothers were to be compensated as per the principle of the “prudent man,” such that the NCC was to pay an additional $40,000, with 5% per annum interest from the date of expropriation (Dumoulin 1972: 33). With the award of compensation in favor of the NCC, the Bourque Brothers appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Canada. On 15 June 1971, they finally relented and filed a notice of discontinuance (O’Connor 1971). The Bourque Brothers took ample advantage of the vulnerabilities caused by the piecemeal approach to land acquisitions, wherein private lands are purchased by the NCC only as they became available on the market and only if funds were available. Having been exposed to aggressive land speculators, NCC officials did not want a repeat of the Bourque Brothers’ episode, which could have ruined an entire sector of Gatineau Park (Davis 1966b). So, the month before the Bourque Brothers were expropriated, Property Division, along with the support of Gatineau Park Superintendent Edey, recommended blanket expropriations of remaining private lands in Onslow Township and along Kingsmere Road. The estimated cost to acquire the remaining 1532 acres of private lands in Onslow was $100,000 to $200,000 (Marshall 1966). The influence of Major-General Howard Kennedy and Redmond Quain continued to be felt, however, as the NCC was reluctant do this even though NCC officials were aware that land values were increasing (in large part because of the Gatineau Parkway). The breaches were left wide open, and, as shown in subsequent chapters, real-estate developers continued to take advantage of them, further impeding the NCC’s land acquisition program. Already in the 1960s, the NCC was encountering resistance from landowners and government bodies in its mission for the “enlargement and protection of Gatineau Park.”

7.5  Conclusion Ostensibly, the NCC was provided by Parliament with greater powers than its predecessor, the Federal District Commission. This was done in order to complete the land acquisition program for Ottawa’s Greenbelt, where the FDC failed to enlist the cooperation of affected municipalities. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the powers invested in the NCC for the purposes of the planning, development, and conservation of the National Capital Region. While the NCC forcefully expropriated lands for the Greenbelt, it continued the Gatineau Park acquisition policy of the FDC: only acquiring private lands on a willing seller basis. Indeed, without adequate funds, the NCC could not even pursue this more passive land acquisition

132

7  Park Governance Under the National Capital Commission

policy of negotiated purchase on a willing-selling basis. Instead, it had committed already allocated acquisition funds to expropriations along Meech Lake Road. As Sparks had predicted and warned against, privately owned lands in the park wreaked havoc on the park’s governance and administration, as entire sectors were not only threatened by development, but some lands were actually developed. The NCC managed to stop the Bourque Brothers’ development, but several subdivisions were carried out, greatly increasing land values as new residences were built at Kingsmere and Meech Lake. The question raised from this study is: why does the NCC choose not to exercise its powers or pursue a more systematic land acquisition strategy? This question becomes all the more urgent given the realization by NCC officials as to the ineffectiveness of the piecemeal approach. I argue that the primary reason the NCC does not exercise its zoning or expropriation powers and pursues a passive land acquisition policy is because of the possible interference from Kingsmere and Meech Lake residents. The NCC might reply that it does not exercise these powers because of possible resistance or interference from the Government of Quebec. As shown above, the NCC suspended expropriation proceedings at the behest of the Province, which was acting in response to complaints and legal threats from affected landowners. However, the Quebec government has been cooperative in the governance of Gatineau Park with both parties clearly benefitting from the land exchange agreement: the NCC gaining control and management of 12,500 acres, the province declaring the park a game reserve, and the lands for the CEGEP campus. So the NCC has been restrained in its exercise of territoriality,  and the park has thus remained vulnerable to development on privately owned lands. As shown in subsequent chapters, there has been extensive construction of year-round residences around Kingsmere and Meech Lake, that is, urban-type development that is incompatible with preservation. This chapter described the controversy surrounding the expropriation of the Bourque Brothers at Lac La Pêche, developers who would attempt to exploit the NCC’s timid territoriality and passive land acquisition program. As shown in subsequent chapter, developers and park residents continued to catch the NCC off guard, with municipal governments approving residential subdivisions in the park. This led to more costly and lengthy expropriations, with the NCC having to acquire hundreds of acres of private lands, now worth over 100 million dollars. In short, the NCC’s policy of piecemeal acquisition through negotiated purchase was and continues to be deeply flawed, and the NCC’s failure has greatly facilitated urbanization processes within the park, but especially in Kingsmere and Meech Lake.

References Abel AS (1969) The neglected logic of 91 and 92. University of Toronto Law Journal vol 19 Adams LJ (1960) Letter from LJ Adams to RE Edey. P-10-02. LAC ATI A201500039/MR, p 41 Bourque PJ (1967) Letter from PJ Bourque to LB Pearson. LAC RG34 1190.10.2  vol 2 ATI A201500039/MR, p 364

References

133

Bourque EA (1969) Letter from EA Bourque to DH Fullerton. LAC RG34 1190.10.2 vol 7 ATI A201500061/MR, p 543 Clark SF (1961) Letter from SF Clark to RK Brown. P-10-02. LAC ATI A201500039/MR, p 10 Clark SF (1963a) Letter from SF Clark to DS Maxwell. LAC RG34 1190.4.2  vol 1 ATI A201500061, p 589 Clark SF (1963b) Letter from SF Clark to JP Deschatelets, re: Expropriation of the Chrzanowski property and proposed expropriation of the Shirley Ann Hope (Johnson) property and expropriations in general in the Province of Quebec. LAC RG34 1190.4.2 vol 1. ATI A201500061, p 585 Clark SF (1964) Memorandum, re: Expropriations in Quebec. LAC RG34 1190.4.2  vol 1 ATI A201500061/MR, p 541 Clark SF (1967) Letter from SF Clark to GJ McIllraith. LAC RG34 1190.4.2 vol 1 ATI A201500061/ MR, p 433 Davis HA (1966a) Letter from HA Davis to SF Clark, re: Expropriation Gatineau Park properties, Lac Lapêche area. LAC ATI A201500061/MR, p 97 Davis HA (1966b) Memorandum, re: expropriation Gatineau Park properties – Lac Lapêche area. LAC RG34 1190.10.2, vol 2 ATI A201500061/MR, p 96 Deschatelets JP (1963) Letter from JP Deschatelets to J Lesage. LAC RG34 1190.4.2 vol 1 ATI A201500061, p 556 Deschatelets JP (1964) Letter from JP Deschatelets to J Lesage. LAC RG34 1190.4.2 vol 1 ATI A201500061/MR, p 553 Dumoulin J (1972) Reasons for judgement. Federal Court of Canada. T-1832-72 Edey RE (1960) Information on properties within the bounds of Gatineau Park that should be acquired at this time in order that values will not increase due to the opening of the Old Chelsea section of the Gatineau Parkway. LAC RG34 280.22 vol 1 Edey RE (1962) Memorandum re: private ownership Meech Lake Road - chair lift Area. LAC RG34 P-10-02 Edey RE (1967) Letter from RE Edey to F Marshall, re: Bourque holdings - Gatineau Park. LAC RG34 P-10-02 vol 1 Federal District Commission (1958) Annual report of the FDC. Ottawa Frost AJ (1967) Letter from AJ Frost to GJ McIllraith. LAC RG34 1190.10.2  vol 2 ATI A201500039/MR, p 352 Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (1960a) Minutes of meeting. LAC RG34 vol 280.22(1) Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (1960b) Minutes of meeting. LAC RG34 vol 280.22(1) Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (1961) Minutes of meeting, Mar 7. LAC RG34 vol 280.22(1) Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (1965) Minutes of meeting. LAC RG34 vol 280.22(2) Gatineau Park Advisory Committee (1968) Memorandum to executive committee. LAC RG34 vol 22(3):280 Gordon DLE (2015) Town and crown: an illustrated history of Canada’s capital. Ivenire Books, Ottawa Government of Canada (1958) National Capital Act. LAC RG34 1190.4.2 Vol.1. ATI A201500061, p 571 Gyton G (1999) A place for Canadians: the story of the National Capital Commission. NCC, Ottawa Hogg PW (2006) Constitutional law of Canada, 5th edn. Carswell, Scarborough Johnson D (1966) Letter from D Johnson to G McIlraith. LAC RG34 1190.10.2  vol 6 ATI A201500039/MR, p2834 Johnson D (1967) Motion de M.  Roy Fournier. Quebec. Legislative Assembly. Debates of the Legislative Assembly. Edited Hansard. 28th Legislature, 1st Session, pp 2834–2835 Keenleyside EWI (1960) Letter from EWI Keenleyside to DJ Walker. P-10-02. LAC ATI A201500039/MR, p 35 Kennedy H (1960) Letter from H Kennedy to JM Wardle. LAC RG34 vol 280.22(1) Land Committee (1966) Minutes of meeting. Ottawa: National Capital Commission. LAC RG34 P-10-02 vol 1, p 5 Leary RM (1966) Gatineau Park: policies and development. NCC, Ottawa. AIT A201500058, p 138 Lesage J (1963) Letter from J Lesage to JP Deschatelets. LAC RG34 1190.4.2  vol 1 ATI A201500061/MR, p 582

134

7  Park Governance Under the National Capital Commission

Lesage J (1964) Letter from J Lesage to JP Deschatelets. LAC RG34 1190.4.2  vol 1 ATI A201500061/MR, p 553 MacKay JR (1960) Letter from JR MacKay to National Capital Commission. P-10-02. LAC ATI A201500039/MR, p 34 Marshall FS (1963) Memorandum to General Clark, re: settlements of expropriations – province of Quebec for the preceding three years. LAC RG34 1190.4.2 vol 1 ATI A201500061, p 560 Marshall FS (1966) Memorandum, re: acquisition of land in Gatineau Park, Onslow township. LAC RG34 1190.10.2, vol 2 ATI A201500061/MR, p 478 Marshall FS (1967) Letter from FS Marshall to A Ede, re: Bourque Brothers. LAC RG34 P-10-02 vol 1 McDonald DL (1963a) Memorandum, re: Parcel QB-515  – Mrs. Chrzanowski. LAC RG34 1190.4.2 vol 1 ATI 201500061/MR, p 589 McDonald, DL (1963b) Memorandum, re: Parcel QB-515 – Chrzanowski. LAC RG34 1190.4.2 vol 1 ATI A201500061/MR, p 599 McDonald DL (1966) Letter from DL McDonald to FS Marshall, re: Gatineau Park property acquisition recommendation re Curley Lake, Lac Lapêche. LAC RG34 P-10-02 vol 1 McIllraith G (1966) Letter from G McIllraith to D Johnson. LAC RG34 1190.10.2  vol 6 ATI A201500039/MR, p 512 Morse, EW (1967) Letter from EW Morse to DA Audet. LAC RG34 280.22 vol 3 Municipality of West Hull (1963) Resolution. LAC RG34 1190.4.2 vol 1 ATI A201500061, p 593 National Capital Commission (1959) Annual report of the NCC. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1960a) Annual report of the NCC. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1960b) Minutes of executive committee meeting. LAC RG34 280.22 vol 1 National Capital Commission (1963) Parcel QB-515 Chrzanowski: summary of NCC actions. LAC RG34 1190.4.2 vol 1 ATI 201500061/MR, p 587 National Capital Commission (1965) Annual report of the NCC, Ottawa National Capital Commission (1966a) Annual report of the NCC, Ottawa National Capital Commission (1966b) Parcel QB-583: Authority to acquire land. Ottawa: Submission to Treasury Board. LAC ATI A201500061, p 473 National Capital Commission (1966c) Expropriation for additional land – Gatineau Park. LAC ATI A201500061/MR National Capital Commission (1967) Summary of Bourque expropriation. LAC RG34 1190.10.2 vol 2 ATI A201500039/MR, p 356 National Capital Commission (1968a) Resume QB-515  – Mrs J Chrzanowski. LAC RG34 1190.4.2 vol 2 ATI A201500061/MR, p 774 National Capital Commission (1968b) Précis on Roderick Sparks. LAC RG34 1190.4.2 vol 2 ATI A201500061/MR, p 786 National Capital Commission (1968c) Property acquisition in the park – present policy. LAC RG 34 P-10-28 ATI A201500061/MR National Capital Commission (1968d) Gatineau Park development concept. NCC, Ottawa National Capital Commission (1972) Précis of proposed exchange of administration of certain lands in Gatineau Park and in Hull, Quebec, NCC - Québec Government. LAC RG34 1190.10.2 National Capital Commission (2000) Gatineau Park Parkway sector plan. NCC, Ottawa O’Brien TW (1966) Letter from TW O’Brien to HA Davis, re: Expropriation Gatineau Park – Mrs HJ Dunne. LAC ATI A201500061/MR, p 447 O’Connor A (1971) Affidavit of Austin O’Connor. Federal Court of Canada. T-1832-72 Ottawa Journal (1966) Are we a federal district?, 4 Jul 1966 Parliament of Canada (1958) National Capital Act. Elizabeth II, chap. 37. Ottawa Pearson LB (1967) Letter from LB Pearson to PJ Bourque. LAC RG34 1190.10.2  vol 2 ATI A201500061/MR, p 349 Privy Council of Canada (1960) Order-in-Council 1960–579, Ottawa Privy Council of Canada (1962) Order-in-Council 1962–12/361, Ottawa

References

135

Privy Council of Canada (1966a) Order-in-Council 1966-19/2013, Ottawa Privy Council of Canada (1966b) Order-in-Council 1966-18/2106, Ottawa Privy Council Office (1963) Record of Cabinet decision, re: National Capital Commission expropriations, province of Quebec. LAC RG34 1190.4.2  vol 1 LAC ATI A201500061/ MR, p 557 Ryan EJ (1963) Letter from EJ Ryan to J Lesage. LAC RG34 1190.4.2  vol 1. LAC ATI A201500061, p 584 Smith P (1967) Parks and wars: the Munro case. Western Ontario Law Review, vol 6 Sparks R (1970) Statement of defence. In Federal Court of Canada, National Capital Commission v Roderick Sparks. T-307-71 Supreme Court of Canada (1966) Harold Munro and National Capital Commission on appeal from the exchequer court of Canada. Government of Canada, Ottawa Thomas EM (1968a) Letter from EM Thomas to EW Thrift, re: NCC expropriation from Bourque Brothers, Lac Lapêche, Parcel QA-177. LAC RG34 P-10-02 vol 1 Thomas EM (1968b) Letter from EM Thomas to M Carrière, re: NCC expropriation of parcel QA-177 from Edouard Bourque and Paul J Bourque. RG34 1190.10.2 vol 2 ATI A201500061/ MR, p 770 Thomas EM (1971a) Letter from EM Thomas to DH Fullerton, re: Cecily Philips Chrzanowski – QB-515. Land registry file QB-515 Thomas EM (1971b) Letter from EM Thomas to JWN Delorme. In Federal Court of Canada, National Capital Commission v Roderick Sparks. T-307-71 Thrift EW (1966) Letter from EW Thrift to SF Clark, re: exchange of lands – province of Quebec. P-10-04, LAC ATI A201500039/MR, p 527 Thrift EW (1967) Memorandum to AJ Frost, re: Paul J Bourque. LAC RG34 1190.10.2 vol 2 ATI A201500039/MR, p 358 Tremblay A (1966) The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Munro case is laden with risk for the future of Quebec autonomy. Le Devoir, 15 July 1966 Wardle JM (1961) Future development of Gatineau Park road system. LAC RG34 vol 280.22(1)

Chapter 8

An Activist Chair Governs

This chapter recounts the governance of Gatineau Park during the tenure of NCC Chairman, Douglas Fullerton. Fullerton is the NCC’s most significant leader, as he changed not only the park’s governance to a great extent but also for his wider impact on the region as a whole. Whatever brash and aggressive characteristics he might have had, Fullerton has been remembered as the NCC’s “activist” Chairman (Woods 1980: 312). He was regarded as “an idealist who was not just satisfied with having ideals, but putting them into effect” (Leaning 1997). What were Fullerton’s ideals with respect to the governance of the park, the NCC, and the National Capital Region? The first section follows the events leading up to Fullerton’s decision to restart the NCC’s planning process for Gatineau Park. It is shown that Fullerton ignored recommendations for the NCC to expropriate remaining residences at Kingsmere and Meech Lake. This recommendation was made in the context of the NCC’s struggles in the 1960s to prevent urbanization, which were documented in the last chapter (with further NCC struggles described in subsequent chapters). Already in the late 1960s, NCC planners were convinced that, unless a different land acquisition policy was adopted, further urbanization would occur throughout the park, and park managers would be forced to deal with problems from private lands in the future. Although Fullerton did not act on this recommendation, the second section details his decision to open Meech Lake to public use, converting NCC-owned cottages into beaches and parking lots. This section documents the protests of Meech Lake residents against Fullerton’s decision, one which ultimately prevailed. The third section describes how, after meeting with conservationists, Fullerton imposed a ban on snowmobiles in the park and all NCC lands. Fullerton’s ban was a complete reversal of previous NCC policy, wherein snowmobiles were not only permitted but also encouraged  by park managers in certain areas. Snowmobilers found support in the provincial government, which convinced Fullerton to rescind the ban. As shown in the fourth section, Fullerton, in collaboration with Oswald Parent, concluded federal-provincial negotiations that would profoundly impact the park’s governance and future development and use. The fifth section details Fullerton’s © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Lait, Governance of Near-Urban Conservation Areas, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64440-6_8

137

138

8  An Activist Chair Governs

failed push to reform the NCC and NCR governance as well as conservationists’ proposals for Gatineau Park legislation.

8.1  First Attempt at a Master Plan As shown in Chap. 6, the NCC’s predecessor, the Federal District Commission (FDC), never adopted a master plan for Gatineau Park that sets out the park’s long-­ term vision and policies. From the discussion of how the controversy unfolded within the FDC’s planning process, I argue that the FDC’s inability to adopt a master plan was linked to the controversy around private land ownership in the park; the related questions of whether to eliminate private lands altogether and how to acquire remaining private lands were and remain highly divisive ones. Thus, in addition to the difficulties that the NCC was having with landowners, municipalities, and the province in the 1960s, the NCC was undoubtedly put at a disadvantage by its predecessor, as it could not administer and develop the park according to any detailed plan. As shown below, the NCC’s first attempt at a master plan fared no better than the FDC’s Gatineau Park Advisory Committee. The NCC’s attempt was also an example of a top-down, insider-only planning process, with NCC officials preparing an initial vision that was then elaborated by consultants in a comprehensive master plan, which, as most master plans do, needed several years for an entire consultant team to prepare (Lambert et al. 1970). Because of the proposed shift in the NCC’s mandate from conservation to recreation entailed by the Gatineau Park Development Concept (NCC 1968a), a citizen’s group organized to protest the planning process. At the time of the Development Concept’s internal release, the NCC was meeting members of the Ottawa Field Naturalist Club (OFNC), which had organized a Gatineau Park Committee to advocate for the protection of rare plants and areas of biological interest (Lait 2013). The Development Concept would be kept from the OFNC, even though its members were told that the Park’s planning process was underway. At the request of the NCC, the OFNC submitted a three-page brief in 1968, providing several recommendations on policy, management, and zoning, all aligned with the objective of park preservation. With respect to private ownership of lands in the park, the OFNC recommended: “As opportunity and funds permit, private property within Gatineau Park should be eliminated, and with it all agriculture and lumbering. No doubt that is already NCC policy” (OFNC 1968: 80). Subsequent discussions of the OFNC brief with NCC officials were “very favorable and arrangements have been made for a continuing exchange of information pertaining to the future development of the Park” (OFNC 1968: 83). Nevertheless, the information exchange proved to be one sided, with the withholding of the Gatineau Park Development Concept (NCC 1968a). In the intervening years between the OFNC brief and development of the master plan by the planing consultants Lambert et al. (1970), OFNC members grew increasingly worried that the NCC was going to transform the park into a regional recreation hub, in the process urbanizing the park. When copies of the Development Concept were leaked to OFNC members, the rumors about bias within the NCC

8.1  First Attempt at a Master Plan

139

towards “development” were confirmed (Lait 2013). While recognizing that, in previous national capital plans, “the dominant concept of Gatineau Park was that of a conservation area,” NCC planners argued that their predecessors had been unable to “foresee the later establishment of extensive public domains [i.e., other wilderness parks] surrounding the Capital Region and lying within a radial distance of 100 miles … These events, together with the great improvements of travel and travel speed have now rendered this dominant theme (conservation) for Gatineau Park less important for residents of the Capital Region” (NCC 1968a: 31). The Development Concept partitioned Gatineau Park into three zones, consisting of a “Reserve” (comprising 43% of total parkland), an “Active Recreation Area” (48%), and an urban park, known as the “Green Wedge” (9%). Following this zoning scheme, the Gatineau Park Overall Development Plan reflected an emphasis on recreation as it “contains the development proposals aimed at the establishment of a recreation network in the National Capital Region” (Lambert et al. 1970: 1). Many OFNC members recognized the need to prevent the NCC from adopting any plan based on the Development Concept. An organization already with a long history, the OFNC’s purposes had been scientific and educational: criticizing public institutions and making demands were political activities that it did not engage in. Thus, when two members of the Executive Council, Dr. Ted Mosquin and Sheila Thomson, put OFNC intervention on the Gatineau Park planning issue to a vote in the winter of 1968–1969, the “lets-not-get-involved corps” remained in the majority (Lait 2013). This proved only to be a minor setback as Mosquin and Thomson, while the remaining OFNC members established a new organization that would go on to become the Ottawa-Hull chapter of the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada (NPPAC-OH), now known as the Ottawa-Valley Chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS-OV), with the immediate goal of preventing the NCC from endorsing the master plan then under preparation by consultants (Lait 2016). Mosquin and Thomson drafted the organization’s constitution and mandate and began recruiting members, mostly from the OFNC. The concerned emergent group held several organizational meetings to discuss the NCC’s next steps as well as the park’s myriad problems. At one of the first executive meetings on 29 October 1969, 20 members were present, 6 holding PhD’s in the biological and natural sciences (GPCA 1969). Notably, at this early meeting, there was a “Mr. Ritchie, representing the Meech Lake Property Owners’ Association [sic], expressed his organization’s concern lest NCC expropriate private property on Meech Lake” (GPAC 1969). The conservation group noted at the outset that the  NCC policies guiding park management and planning could be changed without notice and that there is often a disconnect between official policy and what is happening on the ground: thus, the NCC has, on several occasions, been unable to prevent residential subdivisions and other urban developments in the park. To remedy the shortcomings in the park’s governance arrangements, conservationists sought protective legislation for Gatineau  Park. As detailed in Chap. 11, legislation remains CPAWS-OV’s ultimate goal. On 26 September 1970, the conservation group’s leaders, Mosquin and Thomson, held a meeting with the new NCC Chairman, Fullerton. The long-anticipated meeting between conservation group and Fullerton received wide media coverage and

140

8  An Activist Chair Governs

public endorsement (Ottawa Citizen 1970b). However, while the article reporting the meeting’s outcome was “No change in store for Gatineau Park” (Ottawa Citizen 1970c), it did lead to the restart of the NCC’s planning process as Fullerton promised public hearings on Gatineau Park  planning in the future. When considered overall, the conservationists’ intervention on the planning process can be viewed as an early achievement in preventing the NCC’s “radical policy reversal” (NPPAC-OH 1970) of emphasizing the park’s recreational vocation ahead of its conservation role. Moreover, subsequent to the meeting with conservationists and on account of this conservation role, the NCC imposed a ban on snowmobiling in the park; the controversy this decision elicited is unpacked in Sect. 8.3. The planning process could have resulted in another radical policy reversal too. Unlike the FDC’s controversial planning process, there was widespread agreement among planners and consultants on the issue of acquiring the remaining private lands in the park. In the summer of 1967, the NCC conducted a field survey of summer and year-round residences in Gatineau Park (see Table 8.1). The survey data can be found in the Development Concept, which does not otherwise address private lands in the park, other than noting that “a number of properties still in private ownership complicate the issues of expanded development and location of recreation facilities” (NCC 1968a: 2). Rather, the behind-the-scene discussion on changing the NCC’s policy began in September 1968, when an official recommended the NCC adopt a land acquisition program specifically for Meech Lake, the next area slated for public facilities in the park; the preparation and initiation of the Meech Lake acquisition program was urgently needed, the memorandum reads, because “[d]evelopment of the Lac Philippe area has reached a point of near saturation. Unless we are to restrict the use of the Park for campers and picnickers, it will be necessary to open up, progressively, new areas on a planned basis” (NCC 1968b). Since development at Lac La Pêche awaited the completion of the federal-provincial land exchange, Meech Lake was the preferred option because “access to this area is reasonably good via the Table 8.1  Buildings in Gatineau Park Zone Lac Lapêche Ramsay Lake Carman and Brown Lakes Meech Lake Camp Fortune Kingsmere Lake Old Chelsea Area Mountain Road Gamelin Blvd. Others Total NCC (1968a: 52)

Total 33 – 13 149 24 91 27 59 49 17 462

Summer cottages 31 – 11 121 – 30 1 2 – 2 198

All season residences 2 – 2 28 24 61 26 57 49 15 264

8.1  First Attempt at a Master Plan

141

parkways and could be extended with minimum expense to open new areas on the east side of the Lake” (NCC 1968b). The NCC planner added: “It might be desirable at the same time to review the policy for the acquisition of land in private hands on Meech Lake. The present policy does not prevent new construction by private individuals which we will have to acquire at some future date if we are to develop this area in the same way as has been done at Lac Philippe” (NCC 1968b). The month following the appointment of Chairman Fullerton (October 1969), the General Manger of NCC Operations urged the new Chairman to consider a blanket expropriation of all the remaining privately owned lands in the park. In a memorandum, General Manager McNiven needed only to recount the recent expropriations in Gatineau Park throughout the 1960s to make a compelling case against the piecemeal approach to land acquisitions, which is a costly and ineffective policy. According to McNiven (1969), the park’s remaining 3946 hectares (9750 acres) of privately owned land could be acquired for $4,750,000. The existing land acquisition policy, he argued, would incur substantially increased costs, such that “the balance might amount to $10,000,000 spread over a ten-year period. This is not because of accelerated development in the area but would be caused by the scarcity of this type of property close to the urban area” (McNiven 1969). Should the federal government provide the NCC with the authority to expropriate, McNiven recommended holding consultations with the Quebec government and demolishing “all uneconomic cottage properties” (McNiven 1969). Prior to Fullerton’s arrival, the planning consultants went even further than NCC planners. They initially recommended the blanket expropriation of remaining private lands in order to consolidate NCC ownership and control. Having been asked to prepare a master plan based on the three zones found in the NCC Development Concept, the Kingsmere and Meech Lake area was situated in the “active recreation area,” which was designated for intensive use, that is, “high density attendance” (Lambert et al. 1970: 23). In a January 1970 summary of the master plan submitted to the NCC, the consultants made the following recommendations concerning this area: Green Wedge … 5) Expropriate as soon as possible the residences south of Kingsmere Lake  – i.e. between Mooreside and the Lake. 6) Expropriate or purchase all the properties around the lake. 7) Expropriate or purchase the properties between Kingsmere and Chelsea. … Intensive Recreation Sectors 1. Expropriate private residences (particularly at Meech Lake). 2. Move the Prime Minister’s summer residence. (Urbatique 1970)

These specific recommendations are not contained in the Gatineau Park Overall Development Plan. Nor is there any mention in that plan of expropriations for the purposes of consolidating the park’s territory. Rather, the consultants recommended that, for the purposes of the active recreation area, “private residences around Meech Lake should be acquired to provide free access to the lake for general public use”

142

8  An Activist Chair Governs

(Lambert et  al. 1970: 24). In other words, the consultants publicly  endorsed the status quo with NCC land acquisition policy. Fullerton did too, however, he was not prepared to fully accept the park’s status quo.

8.2  Meech Lake Goes Public Fullerton would not act on the recommendation to expropriate parklands; indeed, he was proud that the NCC did not expropriate during his tenure. Nevertheless, during his tenure, Fullerton did pursue the ideal of transforming Gatineau Park into a public park and openly expressed his desire to open the Chain of Three Lakes (Meech, Harrington, Philippe) to public use. However, he was not prepared to expropriate private residences to this end. In line with the suggestion made by the consultants to the NCC (Lambert et al. 1970), Fullerton wrote to Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau suggesting the relocation of the official summer residence of the Prime Minister outside of Gatineau Park; this needed to be carried out, not only in order to open Harrington Lake (Lac Mousseau) to public use but also to give the Prime Minister a purpose-built facility, as the existing residence was not originally built with this state function in mind. Fullerton (1976) later recounted the exchange with Prime Minister Trudeau: “I wrote to him suggesting we look around for a new site, somewhere outside the park, against the day when a move might be necessary. He agreed, although he did not see any imminent need for a shift. A search was undertaken, but although several possible sites were found, none appeared to be a suitable replacement for Mousseau” (Fullerton 1976). Although Chairman Fullerton did not have any success opening Harrington Lake (and he later reversed his position on moving the Prime Minister’s summer residence outside of the park), the NCC did manage to provide, as Fullerton (1972a) put it, “some modest public access to swimming at Meech Lake.” In March 1970, the NCC took the first steps to open Meech Lake by declining to renew leases of its rental properties on Meech Lake. Following this, the NCC proceeded to demolish 27 of the 38 cottages it owned along the Meech Lake shoreline. This move was justified by the NCC (1970a: 12) as a means “to reduce the private use of land in Gatineau Park.” In place of the cottages, the NCC would establish two public beaches at Meech Lake (O’Brien and Blanchet), with picnic tables, toilet facilities, and a parking lot for 100 cars. As indicated in the Ottawa Citizen, “[O’Brien] beach can accommodate 500 people, and will take some of the pressure off the popular Lac Philippe” (Ottawa Citizen 1970d). As the evidence below shows, Fullerton’s decision to open Meech Lake was opposed by cottagers, conservationists, and even Gatineau Park Superintendent Edey. Upon learning that letters had been sent to NCC tenants in February 1970, Edey wrote a 15-point letter to his superior, the General Manager of Operations, James McNiven, requesting that the beach development be delayed. The Superintendent argued that, because of poor road conditions, park residents were in fact useful in keeping the general public out of an ecologically sensitive area:

8.2  Meech Lake Goes Public

143

9. Apart from any benefit they themselves derive, the cottagers at Meech Lake perform a valuable service to the Park in that they are preventing the area from being over-run until we have facilities to take care of the visitors. The whole purpose of the studies carried out by the Planning Branch and the work being done by the Consultants is to prepare a development plan for the Park based on the carrying capacity of the resources. We will negate all the work done to date if we crash ahead now with any further unplanned development. There are already hundreds of thousands acres of ruined parkland in Canada as a result of development without planning and design. Must we add part of Gatineau Park to this sorry total. (Edey 1970)

Although Superintendent Edey did advocate for public ownership in the long run, he believed that the NCC was inadequately prepared to carry out these improvements, regulate public use, and deal with the inevitable quarrels that Meech Lake residents will have with park visitors and vice versa. On 2 March 1970, the Ottawa Citizen announced the NCC’s development program for Meech Lake. It reported that NCC tenants had already held an “informal” meeting with the Meech Lake Association (MLA). The MLA President, Dr. Donald Hogarth, indicated that the MLA wanted to meet with the NCC because “we’re disturbed. Nobody wants to have their properties taken out from under them” (Hogarth cited in Ottawa Citizen 1970e). A Professor of Sociology at Carleton University, Dr. Hogarth was further quoted: “While you can argue that these people [NCC tenants] don’t own these cottages, they have been renting them steadily, some for as long as 17 years. The private owners are worried opening the lake as a public beach will undermine the value of their properties” (Hogarth 1970 cited in Ottawa Citizen 1970e). On the emerging conflict between park residents and the NCC, the editors of the Ottawa Citizen (Ottawa Citizen 1970f) endorsed Fullerton’s decision in utilitarian terms: “The recreation needs of the many must take precedence over the sheltered pleasures of the few in the precious lake areas near any centre of population.” In response to this, a former member of the Gatineau Park Advisory Committee and longtime Meech Lake resident, Senator John J. Connolly, voiced his opposition to the NCC decision, reiterating the argument he made earlier that Meech Lake is unsuitable for park visitors as there is “such a scarcity of real facilities for the public” (Connolly cited in Ottawa Journal 1970a). Instead, Senator Connolly suggested the NCC develop public facilities at Lac La Pêche. Those directly affected by Fullerton’s decision to open Meech Lake (i.e., the 27 former NCC tenants) regarded the decision not to renew leases as “cruel” and were the first to register their protests to the NCC. A 14-year tenant of “Silver Birch cottage” wrote that it was bad practice for a landlord to give less than 2 months’ notice. She then elaborated on the personal implications of such short notice: … Furthermore, I understand tenants are required to remove personal possessions from the premises by April 15. This, in my opinion, is unreasonable in view of having to remove such things as stoves, space heaters, fridges, built-ins like beds, kitchen units, etc. The condition of roads, locations of cottages and inconvenience of time of the year are all things that must be taken into account. Others, like ourselves, have spent years transporting things up to the lake and making improvements that will require considerable time to remove and undo.

144

8  An Activist Chair Governs

Your decision to remove possessions so early in the season will certainly mean a financial loss to those of us who will not have adequate time to advertise and sell redundant items and yet do not have storage space in which to keep them. It will only be a few who will be fortunate enough to find other cottage accommodation on such short notice as this. (McWilliam 1970)

The former owner of Silver Birch asked the NCC to reconsider the indiscriminate razing of cottages, arguing that only those useful for beach purposes should be demolished. While long-term tenants were the most directly affected by Fullerton’s decision, Meech Lake residents responded as a collective. They wrote to former Prime Minister Diefenbaker to see if he could “take some action to protect the rights of we property owners at Meech Lake against the National Capital Commission’s latest threat” (Bearnman and Noble 1970). They also complained about the decision in the local news media, arguing that opening beaches and other public facilities would “eliminate one of the few remaining spots of unspoiled beauty in the region, although such a haven is more than ever needed in this busy, greedy, noisy, over-­ developed world” (Bell 1970). One of the founders of conservation group, Dr. Gray Merriam wrote an op-ed against the decision to open Meech Lake to public use. The letter by the NPPAC-OH Chairman is quoted here in full: The NCC plan to produce public beaches on the south shore of Meech Lake and, later to develop the north shore, carries many implications. Once “developed,” why should we expect Meech (and Harrington) to receive any better fate than Philippe did? Philippe is “overworked” so NCC proposes to open up the other two lakes and turn the half million local residents loose on all three. What will the NCC planners develop next after these three small lakes have been overworked and any original qualities of wildness, beauty or solitude have been eroded by the human traffic? Perhaps the public ought to ask the same question about the long-term fate of the whole Gatineau Park. Does the NCC plan to “develop” other large areas of the park and “open them up” to us? Will they too become overworked and their natural attractiveness destroyed permanently? We would be foolish to accept such plans. In the short term they give us only inadequate playground areas which soon are too crowded to enjoy. In the long term they make us party to the permanent ruination of a beautifully wild piece of Canada which we are fortunate enough to live beside. Neither we local residents nor the NCC have the right to destroy the natural beauty of Gatineau Park; it was set aside to preserve its wild nature for all the people of Canada, not to become municipal swimming beaches for a few of us. Restriction of public access by the cottages along the south shore of Meech Lake is appalling in an area administered as an adjunct to the National Capital for the people of Canada. However, if given the NCC development plan as the only alternative, it might be better to leave the cottages. Has anyone considered removing the cottages and then leaving it alone? (Merriam 1970)

It should be added that the NPPAC-OH later repeated this view in its master plan, Gatineau Park: A Proposal for its Conservation and Use (1972), calling for the acquisition and re-naturalization of Meech Lake.

8.2  Meech Lake Goes Public

145

As the NCC was criticized in the media, the Meech Lake Association (MLA), knowing the views of Fullerton, held an emergency meeting on 20 March 1970; out of this meeting, they petitioned the Government of Canada through the Minister responsible for the NCC, Jean Marchand, to request that the NCC delay plans for Meech Lake, “so as to afford all interests, both public and private, an opportunity to study the short and long term effects of the said plan to enable representation and to inform the public thereon and thusly assure the public interest involved in the said plans are truly and wisely protected” (Hogarth 1970a). The same day that the MLA issued its petition (see Fig. 8.1 Petition of Meech Lake Association), the local media once again editorialized in utilitarian terms: “The cottagers deserve sympathy for having been abruptly told to vacate buildings and land that in many cases hold long, arduous and dear associations. But the development of parks must go ahead for the good of all, and by nature this development will always work hardship on some” (Ottawa Journal 1970a) Jean Marchand was similarly unsympathetic to the interests of park residents. Since it is representative of the view of the Trudeau government, Marchand’s reply to the MLA petition is quoted here in full: I understand that the Chair of the Commission has met with you about the Meech Lake situation and has written to you. I gather that he has indicated that a good deal of thought has gone into current Meech Lake policies, and that the Government’s intention to bring the lake into the public domain has been established for many years. Unfortunately, the long period which has been taken up in acquiring private holdings in Gatineau Park has, I believe, been misunderstood by some of those who have long benefited from the rather special circumstances enjoyed by private cottage owners in this public park. While this attitude is understandable, I can assure you that it has never been the intention that the federal holdings would indefinitely be used to maintain the status of the lake as a sanctuary for present cottage owners. In effect, it must be recognized that the Commission’s policy of gradual acquisition with a view to eventual total ownership has been somewhat self-defeating. The Commission’s ownership of Meech Lake cottages has served to limit general public use and enjoyment of one of the closest such facilities to the Capital. The NCC’s presence as an ever-willing buyer has inflated acquisition costs. Its cautiousness in disturbing the status quo has encouraged new construction and expansion of existing private facilities. I do not question the motives nor the rights of the private owners to take legitimate advantage of this past situation. However, I agree with the Commission’s present view that public access to the public lands around the lake must be expedited. (Marchand 1970a)

The Minister wrote several individual property owners to reassure them that there was “no immediate (nor, I hope any proximate) danger of your property being expropriated” (Marchand 1970b; see also Marchand 1970c, d). With only weeks remaining before the official opening of Meech Lake, residents wrote to and spoke with Ottawa MPs. Prime Minister Trudeau was kept apprised of the emerging situation (Pittfield 1970). Fullerton’s fiercest critic, Lloyd Francis, even asked for favors on their behalf. The letter from Francis to the NCC Chairman is quoted here in full: I will be away for four weeks in London and shall not be bothering you during this period. There is one thing, however. I had a complaint yesterday from a Meech Lake cottager that it is not possible to get everything out of the cottage by late May. Spring is late this year

146

Fig. 8.1  Petition of the Meech Lake Association

8  An Activist Chair Governs

8.2  Meech Lake Goes Public

147

and there will be some restrictions on loads as the frost comes out of the ground. Some cottages have simply not been accessible because of deep snow. Could consideration be given to extending the period before they have to vacate until the end of June. (Francis 1970)

In response to this mounting pressure, the NCC extended the notice to vacate to 3 months. Despite this concession to NCC tenants, on 25 March 1970, the “issue” of NCC “expropriations at Meech Lake” was brought before the Senate (Flynn 1970). The official land acquisition policy had to be reiterated by the NCC, with officials offering senators a rather vague answer as to the work that the NCC had actually planned: 1. Is it the intention of the National Capital Commission eventually to expropriate all privately-owned cottages on Meech Lake? It is the present policy of the Commission to expropriate property in Gatineau Park only when private developments are planned which are deemed to be prejudicial to the orderly development of the Park. 2. Is only the south shore of Meech Lake to be turned into a public beach and picnic area or are there plans to extend these services at some future date? The pace of development of the shores along Meech Lake is dependent on continuing study of long range development plans for Gatineau Park and continuing assessment of the impact of the changes as they occur. 3. Will the public beach and picnic area on the south shore of Meech Lake result in the need to expropriate private property or are all of the cottages affected the property of the National Capital Commission? Any current plans involve only that land owned by the NCC. 4. How many people will this new public beach accommodate? 5. What is the estimated cost of this development? Any beach accommodation facilities are expected to be quite restricted in keeping with the topography. The major thrust of the development is designed to encourage a general appreciation of the parkland resource. No cost estimates are available. 6. What alternatives, if any, to Meech Lake were considered and why was Meech Lake chosen in preference to these alternatives. Meech Lake was chosen because the first federal purchases of land there were made 32 years ago, initiating a long-term policy. (National Capital Commission 1970b)

No doubt a growing desperation prompted Meech Lake residents to retain legal counsel. The solicitor of the Meech Lake Association, the Honourable Leo Landreville, first wrote to the NCC Chairman on 13 April 1970, in response to “announcements made by the Commission” (Landreville 1970a). He wanted to know whether the Commission intended that: “[t]his lake would become a Public Park and open to the public. The press report did not define nor explain the project of this Public Park. …” (Landreville 1970a). After several letters between Fullerton and Landreville (1970b), the NCC Chairman’s final answer to the MLA lawyer was that: “[i]t is our intention to have a modest development on the south shore of Meech Lake, including a beach at the lower end, which will accent particularly the passive enjoyment of the natural setting” (Fullerton 1970a). As their exchange was ongoing, the NCC began bulldozing cottages at Meech Lake. The Ottawa Citizen hyperbolically claimed that NCC actions had resulted in “an influx of hundreds of motorists to the area [which] has aroused Meech Lake

148

8  An Activist Chair Governs

property owners to the boiling point” (Finn 1970). The article proceeded to note the residents’ position: “Charging that the National Capital Commission has prematurely opened the door to the public without first providing adequate roads and other requirements, the Meech Lake (property owners) Association will, if necessary, take to the courts to seek an injunction” (Finn 1970). One month before the new beach was opened, the Meech Lake Association threatened to seek an injunction against the NCC.  The Ottawa Citizen published excerpts of a letter from the MLA lawyer, Hon. Leo Landreville, detailing the “nightmares” experienced by residents because of the “auto invasion” brought to the area by new park developments. Landreville argued that Meech Lake Road, as a narrow, dirty road in poor condition, “cannot bear heavy traffic. The series of one-­ lane curves and rises bordering the whole length of the lake and leading to Harrington Lake makes it more hazardous for any greater traffic than that of the owners of cottages” (cited in Finn 1970). The MLA lawyer condemned the NCC Chairman Fullerton: “Your invitation to the public is an invitation to accidents, and fatalities, and the present owners of cottages, as well as taxpayers generally, take objection to your invitation to the general public to travel over a road which you neither own nor maintain.” While not objecting to the “political and philanthropic policy” of the NCC in creating public parks, beaches, and picnic grounds, Meech Lake residents were not prepared to abdicate their rights “to continued peace and the absence of nuisance or noisy crowds, and they are entitled to use their motor boats and to enjoy quiet fishing” (Landreville cited in Finn 1970). Landreville (cited in Finn 1970) added “the premature declaration of ‘public use’ will mean ‘public abuse’ by non-­ resident motor-boat users, leading perhaps to a ban on all motor-boats on the lake.” Meech Lake residents were entitled not only to unlimited access of the lake but also to special privileges. Landreville (cited in Finn 1970) did not believe that Gatineau Park could be “commended as a public project” until the NCC took ownership of most of the cottages. He informed the NCC: “As it now stands our clients (the association) are most apprehensive of your policy. Could it be that you are to create a ‘Coney Island’ occupation that they will be forced to sell at any price to the commission as the only buyer? Your announcement has already all but destroyed the sale value of properties” (Landreville cited in Finn 1970). Meech Lake residents associated the NCC beach with noise, crowds, and garbage. These were characteristics of an urban landscape, those which park residents were escaping by way of their cottages in Gatineau Park. This sentiment was captured in an op-ed, presumably written by a park resident: Editor, Citizen: The Gatineau country is full of lakes much more suitable than Meech Lake topographically for recreational purposes, and probably less costly to develop. There, those who want the portable quiet-busters of radio and record players, who know nothing of and care less for the music of the whip-poor-will, wood thrush, and ­white-­throated sparrow, can congregate, leaving the remnants of their peculiar type of happiness in the form of cans, broken glass, paper, and discarded food, and less mentionables. They destroy the very thing that attracted them in the first place. Meech Lake should survive under control of the residents who have kept it as it is for, I think, something like 70 or 80 years or more, a lovely haven, out of the roar, smells, and push of a day in the city. (Bradley 1970)

8.2  Meech Lake Goes Public

149

Several Meech Lake residents complained in the Ottawa Journal about the deleterious effects of opening Meech Lake to public use. They pointed out that the NCC decision had led not only to increased traffic but also to routine trespassing. While no one interviewed objected to public use per se, they still challenged the NCC’s approach to opening the lake. A former NCC tenant, Bill Zimmerman of the Social Planning Council, said: “The principle’s great – but the way they’re doing it is not. They need signs, better toilet facilities  – and the road’s so dangerous” (Zimmerman cited in Holland 1970). Ivan Jelacic, a Meech Lake property owner of 8 years, was quoted in that same article: “This is a big lake with room for lots of people, but it isn’t logical, particularly during an austerity period, to work on the south side when it would be cheaper on the north” (Jelacic cited in Holland 1970). Jelacic questioned why they should be expropriated, when their cottage on Meech Lake “literally rises up a steep rock embankment” (Jelacic cited in Holland 1970). Another resident, Ken Buck, echoed this in an op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen, arguing that the public interest was undermined by the creation of public beaches. Buck wrote that Fullerton’s policy defeated its proposed aims: There will be no significant increase in man-hours of enjoyment of the area because the “beaches” could scarcely accommodate the number of cottagers who use it in scattered lots around the lake. Wilderness will not be made available to the public because concentrated crowds of picnickers and bathers will destroy that very wilderness. The area’s best protectors, the landowners and tenants, who are concerned because of many monetary and personal commitments to the area, will be removed. (Buck 1970)

Buck concluded with the positive suggestion that the NCC should rent out its cottages, on a first-come first-served basis, to individual families for 2- to 4-week blocks of time. In the op-ed, Buck’s criticism is somewhat muted for, in a letter to Chairman Fullerton, he wrote in the most scathing terms: …for minimal gains and with maximum expense, you are destroying the beautiful homes of 33 permanent residents and homesteads which have been built by generations of one family; you are defeating your own policy of keeping the Gatineau Park a wilderness area, and finally and most important, you are destroying this most beautiful body of pure water which is most valuable to our community as it now stands – private and protected.

Tewksbury (1970), a resident of West Hull, echoed this verdict. In an op-ed to the Ottawa Journal, he denounced the decision, going so far as to demand that Fullerton and the NCC Commissioners responsible for approving Meech Lake plans be fired. Tewksbury (1970) argued that the NCC’s “trial and error” approach occurred at the expense of Meech Lake residents, displacing families and ruining perfectly good cottages. Having condemned Fullerton and government officials, he concluded with a quote from the debates of the Senate: Maybe its [sic] time we all listened to Senator Rhéal Belisle who states in Hansard of March 3: “The record of expropriation should be studied meticulously for I have a lurking suspicion that what is being done in the so-called public interest is not benefitting the public as much as it is a number of self-seeking public figures. There is no doubt in my mind that more can be achieved by private enterprise, without the coercive force of expropriation, than can be achieved by government and all its agencies with the hoary monster of expro-

150

8  An Activist Chair Governs

priation in its arsenal. The argument that what governments do with your property after they have expropriated it is invariably in the public interest is absolute tripe.” (Tewksbury 1970)

Incidentally, only a month before, the NCC Chairman was called on to resign due to the growing controversy around his unilateral move to build the Portage Bridge between Ottawa and Hull (Fullerton 1978: 127). Despite the flurry of cottager protests and threat of legal action from the MLA lawyer, Fullerton managed to weather the storm. Demolition crews continued work into the month of June, while land surveys were conducted of NCC-owned properties (Chief of Surveys 1970). With the imminent arrival of park visitors, the Municipality of West Hull, citing the “influx of the public at Meech Lake in July,” requested (and the NCC agreed to) funds for an additional police constable (Chapman 1970a). According to the West Hull Mayor, Jean Chapman (1970a), “[a]lready the Municipal police have experienced this [need for more policing] in many extra calls concerning vandalism, the speed rate of demolition trucks, the noise of demolition trucks, the noise of demolition crews working at night and on Sundays.” In addition to assisting with policing costs, Chairman Fullerton also agreed to assume 50% of the costs of paving Notch Road, as per NCC policy. This major road cuts across Gatineau Park. With the NCC having agreed to the Municipality’s terms, Mayor Chapman thanked Fullerton for his “cooperation and assistance” (Chapman 1970b). Given that NCC plans were going ahead regardless of their vocal protests, the Meech Lake Association (MLA) submitted a questionnaire to Fullerton, wanting him to put on record the NCC’s immediate and long-term plans for Meech Lake. Nowhere in Fullerton’s reply letter does he mention the possibility of future expropriations at Meech Lake. Indeed, in his response letter to the MLA, Fullerton avoids any mention of his actual plans. His letter is quoted in full: Thank you for your long questionnaire of 22 June 1970, in which you sought very detailed information from the National Capital Commission about our proposed developments at Meech Lake. With regard to our plans for improving the Meech Lake area for use by the public this year, this has been virtually completed and the evidence is before you and your Association. We have received excellent co-operation from the Municipality of West Hull in the matters of road maintenance, traffic control and police protection and these will be under constant review during the remainder of the summer while improvements are in use. With regard to our long-term plans for Gatineau Park and for Meech Lake in particular, we are just now receiving a revised land use plan from our consultants. I would have no objection to a presentation by the staff of the Commission to your Association after the plan has been reviewed by the Commission and the Government of Canada. You will, of course, appreciate how difficult it is for us to release plans to the general public before they are adequately considered by the Government and how impossible it is to provide a timetable for the implementation of the plan. I can say, however, that it appears from the recommendations of the consultants, and from the views of our own officers, that the major developments around Meech Lake will be on the north side. As I indicated to you in my letter of 23 March 1970, we have attempted to make the transition from private to public as painless as possible for the cottage owners. I hope you will agree that we have managed to achieve this goal. (Fullerton 1970b)

8.2  Meech Lake Goes Public

151

In July 1970, Fullerton’s goal of opening Meech Lake had been accomplished, as the first public beach was opened. In addition to the beach accommodating 500 people, the NCC made other improvements, adding picnic tables, toilet facilities, and a parking lot for 100 cars. As reported by the Ottawa Citizen (1970d), “[t]he beach … will take some of the pressure off the popular Lac Philippe.” Contrary to the expectations of the Meech Lake Association, initial visitor rates were disappointingly low. As described by the Ottawa Journal (Tost 1970), “[w]ith little fanfare, the National Capital Commission has opened a sandy beach at the south end of Meech Lake.” The article went on to add that “[c]omplaints from lake cottagers who opposed the NCC action, have gradually declined during the past month while NCC workmen have cleared the beach site” (Tost 1970). It was reported that “sporadic weather” meant that there were “never more than 30 people on the new Meech Lake public beach at any one time when it opened on the weekend” (Ottawa Citizen 1970d). While Chairman Fullerton aroused the condemnation of Meech Lake residents by razing cottages and establishing a new public beach, there was little in the way of other incidents involving park residents or even issues with privately owned lands in Gatineau Park during Fullerton’s term of office. Without doubt, Fullerton challenged the park’s status quo, permanently disturbing the privacy of Meech Lake residents. Still, Fullerton was clearly not intent on completely toppling the park’s status quo as a mixed-use/ownership area. In a letter to an interested citizen, he wrote of the NCC approach to land acquisitions at Meech Lake, the long-term outcome of which would be the renaturalization of the shoreline and concentration of facilities on the other side of the lake: As for Meech Lake, I should explain that Gatineau Park was formed by first establishing the boundary line and then acquiring the land within the boundary. This process has been going on for some years but there is still some freehold land remaining. Included in this freehold land are a number of cottage lots along the shores of Meech Lake. These the National Capital Commission is acquiring as they come on the market. Some two dozen or so have been acquired over the past few years and the NCC now operates three small public beaches on the lake. The road serving Meech Lake is constructed to a very low standard and was intended primarily to serve the cottage owners. It remains the responsibility of the municipality. The public beaches are marked with signs but the changes are that because of the standard of the road you were concentrating your full attention on driving and hence missed the signs. For the future, when all the freehold land along Meech Lake has been purchased by the NCC, in all probability the present road will be abandoned as the best areas for public development are on the opposite side of the lake. (Fullerton 1972b)

The NCC Chairman made his views about park residents perfectly clear when, before a parliamentary committee, he referred to them as a “privileged and subsidized group” (Ottawa Citizen 1972). Not surprisingly, there continued to be “unnerving” rumors that the NCC was going to expropriate remaining Meech Lake residents. Fullerton dismissed them. Indeed, Fullerton later recounted with pride that “no land was expropriated by [the] NCC while I was Chairman” (Fullerton 1978: 130; see also Gibson 1974). Instead, the NCC continued its policy of negotiated purchase, albeit more intentionally, as a total of 24 Meech Lake cottages were acquired, inching forward the NCC’s ownership of the park territory parcel by parcel, with another 1619 hectares (4000 acres) of private lands still for the NCC (1974: 21) to acquire.

152

8  An Activist Chair Governs

8.3  The Fullerton Ban Fullerton’s disruption of the park’s status quo was not limited to the issue of private lands. Four days after meeting with the conservation group (30 September 1970) about park planning, Fullerton announced a ban on snowmobiles in Gatineau Park (Ottawa Citizen 1970a). Fullerton’s decision to ban snowmobiles encompassed all NCC lands, including Ottawa’s Greenbelt. Contemporaneously referred to as the “Fullerton ban,” this exercise of territoriality by the NCC was second only to the NCC’s expropriations in Ontario for the Greenbelt. In wanting to impose a complete ban on snowmobiling on NCC lands, territoriality was at the forefront of Fullerton’s decision-making process. He reasoned that with “so many thousands of snowmobiles, so swift, so powerful, so noisy and so completely mobile through deepest snow and bush, it’s impossible to control them selectively” (Fullerton cited in Jackson 1970a). As shown below, the NCC’s ban on snowmobiles encountered significant resistance, not only from snowmobile associations but also from municipal and provincial politicians; because of this public protest and resistance, the snowmobile ban ended up only being applied to certain areas of the park territory. Indeed, the outcome was that snowmobiling was permitted in the Lac Lapêche, the main wilderness section of the park. The Fullerton ban was also a complete reversal of previous NCC policy, which had not only permitted snowmobiling in designated areas, but actively encouraged public uptake of the sport. As indicated in the Commission’s annual report of 1966, While skiing remains the most popular winter sport in the Park, the use of motorized over-­ snow vehicles has gained in popularity. Some 5,200 acres of parkland were set aside for these vehicles last winter. On December 29, 1966, the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Works and the National Capital Commission, was pleased to amend the NCC Traffic and Property Regulations to provide for operation of over-snow vehicles in Gatineau Park and other designated areas, under certain conditions and controls. The rules were given wide publicity. (NCC 1966: 3)

In the winter months, the NCC (1965: 23) opened the Gatineau Parkway to snowmobilers, who enjoyed a total of 35 kilometers (22 miles) of cleared trails in the park (NCC 1964: 13). In later annual reports from the 1960s, the NCC would repeatedly attest to the growing popularity of “over-snow vehicles” (NCC 1968: 8). Fullerton’s ban triggered a prolonged and heated public debate on snowmobiling in the park specifically and on the vocation of Gatineau Park more generally. In the context of the controversies around park planning and the snowmobiling ban, one concerned citizen implored the authorities “to have the park designated as a [protected] wilderness area” (Doxtater 1970). A mechanical engineer wrote in favor of the ban: “No matter how sanely or reasonably the machines are used, they are noisy and somewhat smelly and cannot help but disrupt the peace and tranquility of a winter day in the park. In my opinion the Gatineau Park should be first and foremost a sanctuary where one can temporarily get away from the ubiquitous machine” (Kind 1970). Another citizen supportive of the ban explained the philosophical underpinnings of the debate over snowmobiles’ environmental impact: “While I

8.3  The Fullerton Ban

153

sympathize with the snowmobiler’s disappointment, I feel we are seeing just another example of our selfish attitude towards nature. We are selling our souls for a brief moment’s leisure” (Averill 1970). The NCC justified the snowmobile ban using a four-point argument, which was supported and, to a certain extent, elaborated by the conservation group, then known as the Ottawa-Hull chapter of the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada (NPPAC-OH) and now the Ottawa-Valley chapter of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS-OV). The thrust of the argument against snowmobiling is that it is incompatible with a wilderness area because of (1) air pollution, (2) noise pollution, (3) destruction of vegetation, and (4) damage to wildlife habitat (Le Droit 1970a). In addition to referring to snowmobiles as “the greatest menace to the park yet” (Fullerton cited in Ottawa Citizen 1970g), Chairman Fullerton (cited in Jackson 1970a) expanded on the environmental and administrative problems with having snowmobiles in the park: “[t]he machines pound down and impact the snow or shrubs and low growth, clip off the leader-tops of young spruce, pine, cedar and hemlock, and the roar of their motors is pollution itself – noise pollution – driving away wildlife. Then there’s other damage to property, and litter.” The conservationists supported the ban on behalf of existing park users, contending that “[m]ulti-use doesn’t work very well when one group of users destroys the enjoyment of all the others” (Hanes 1970). Thus, the NPPAC-OH applauded the ban: “It becomes necessary at some point to restrict an activity of one sector of the public when it becomes so large that it tends to encroach upon the rights of others to enjoy the park” (Ottawa Citizen 1970g). It added: “The association deplored the increasing hazard to skiers and the destruction of vegetation caused by the yearly influx of snowmobiles into the park” (Ottawa Citizen 1970g; see Hart 1970). As the debate unfolded, the Ottawa Citizen claimed that it was “deluged [with] correspondence on the NCC ban on snowmobiles in Gatineau Park” and that it received 20 letters in support of the snowmobile ban for every 1 letter it received against the ban (Ottawa Citizen 1970h). Le Droit (1970a) described the hostile reaction of the snowmobilers to the ban, with their intention to “violently” protest the ban by holding “mass meetings” and launching a “countercurrent” (Le Droit 1970a). Eventually forming an advocacy organization, the Association des Clubs de Motoneiges de L’ouest du Quebec (ACMNOQ), snowmobile representatives claimed to represent between 4000 and 6000 snowmobilers in the National Capital Region (Ottawa Citizen 1970g). The snowmobilers’ spokespersons were President Guy Morin, Jim Williams, and Mike Parent, the latter an owner of a snowmobile dealership (Le Droit 1970a). With 47 members representing 8 clubs in attendance, an emergency summit was held in Luskville on the day after the NCC’s announcement of the snowmobile ban in the park (Ottawa Journal 1970c; Le Droit 1970b). While claiming that he would disobey the ban even if it was enforced, Morin presented himself as a “moderate” because he recognized that snowmobilers did on occasion “abuse their privileges” (Le Droit 1970b). What Morin was referring to were the incidents of fleets of snowmobilers harassing and running down park users, that is, a pregnant woman and

154

8  An Activist Chair Governs

children (Jackson 1970b). Another spokesperson claimed that these were simply “unorganized Sunday snowmobilers” (Ottawa Citizen 1970g). Despite the weight of public opinion in support of the snowmobile ban (Ottawa Journal 1970b), there were many vocal opponents urging the maintenance of the status quo. One commentator took issue with the claim that snowmobilers were destroying a wilderness park. Mellor argued: “Gatineau Park is not now, has not been for a long time, and never again will be a wilderness area … It is interlaced by roads, farms, developments such as Lac Phillipe, and both the Ottawa Ski Club and Vorlage ski areas intrude on park property” (Mellor 1970). Another opponent of the ban wrote that the environmental damage of snowmobiles is minimal, especially when compared to the automobiles of park visitors: The NCC has given one of the finest winter sports in Canada another setback. ... Some of the reasons given are to prevent pollution, stop littering and to preserve young forest growth. In defence, I ask how the pollution effect of a tiny snowmobile engine can be compared to the giant V-8 engine in hundreds of the cars that will be travelling through this area, not to mention pop cans, beer bottles and assorted garbage from drive-in restaurants that is continually tossed from automobiles. … Damage to young trees is practically nil as snowmobiles keep on established trails and only venture from them on frozen lakes or fields. Some damage occurs along the parkway but cannot be compared to that which will be suffered by trees both large and small when subjected to the heavy salt spray raised by cars. (Ottawa Journal 1970d)

The leaders of the snowmobile associations arranged a meeting with the NCC Chairman Fullerton later that week. The announcement of this meeting was put in dramatic terms: “Area snowmobilers today faced Mission Impossible as their spokesmen prepared to enter the lion’s den of Douglas Fullerton …” (Ottawa Citizen 1970g). Once in the “lion’s den” of Fullerton’s office, they were informed in a “friendly manner” of the NCC’s reasons for the ban, and the Chairman even extended an offer for an 11.5-mile east-west corridor. According to the NCC’s proposal, snowmobilers could cross Gatineau Park at its narrowest point, still keeping the trails around the city of Hull linked to the rural countryside of the municipality of Pontiac (Ottawa Journal 1970e). NCC officials met with the spokespersons of the snowmobilers on at least two more occasions (5 October 1970 and 8 October 1970). Having had the opportunity to study the NCC’s proposal for an east-west corridor, the snowmobilers rejected it and proposed an alternative of their own (see Fig. 8.2 Map of proposed snowmobile corridor). Knowing that the NCC had earlier encouraged snowmobile use in Gatineau Park, snowmobilers wanted the NCC to provide them with a “limited access” trail network for snowmobile use, meaning there be “no deviations to local bushland or to other trails” (The Sunday Reporter 1970). The snowmobilers proposed that the activity of snowmobiling is self-regulated by the snowmobile clubs. The clubs will hold strict control over their members and maintain surveillance over non club Snowmobilers. In this way the problems of “policing” will be minimized. The clubs will supply and erect sufficient signs so that even the Snowmobiler travelling the corridor for the first time will have no difficulty following the trail. There will be no excuse for anyone to ‘wander’. The clubs will maintain strict control over the muffler systems of their members’ machines. All Snowmobiles must be equipped with standard exhaust systems in working order so as to give maximum noise suppression. The clubs will co-operate with the NCC in Spring clean-up of the corridor. (The Sunday Reporter 1970).

8.3  The Fullerton Ban

155

Fig. 8.2  Map of proposed snowmobile corridor

Following the second meeting with the snowmobilers: “NCC spokesmen accepted the snowmobilers’ corridor idea for study. For now, the ban stands and the battle shifts into the area of influence and persuasion – the political arena” (Ottawa Citizen 1970h). For his part, Fullerton would not be the one to lift the ban, citing the “overwhelming” support he received via letters, telegrams, telephone, and even conversations in the street. The snowmobilers excelled in the local media arena which, in turn, helped them recruit political allies. They launched a regional petition that would obtain several thousand signatures. Columnists in the local media wrote in support of the “snowmobiles [which] have every bit as much right to use the park as anyone else…” (Sarsfield 1970). They had a wildlife expert working with the Ontario government’s department of forests and lands give credibility to the claim that snowmobiles are beneficial to wildlife (Heward 1970). The expert, Baker, made his statement in support of the development of snowmobile trails, with the qualification that further research was needed to confirm the paradoxical benefits, namely, that the trails allow deer to move more freely during the winter. Nevertheless, the snowmobilers used the expert’s opinion as support for their proposed corridor network (Heward 1970). Of course, there were peer-reviewed scientific research articles documenting

156

8  An Activist Chair Governs

the deleterious effects of snowmobiles on wildlife habitat, including one commissioned by the NCC (Ottawa Journal 1970f)—not to mention the government research pointing to the damaging effects of snowmobiles on human hearing as, at the time, “[t]he average machine, when cruising, can be as noisy as a dump truck at highway speeds” (Ottawa Journal 1970g). At the political level, Ald. Paul-Emile Poulin of Hull Council, a snowmobile dealer, introduced a recommendation to Hull Council to protest the snowmobile ban in Gatineau Park, which was unanimously endorsed by Council (Ottawa Citizen 1970i). Poulin chided the NCC for bowing to pressure from “a group of Ottawa nature lovers” (cited in Ottawa Citizen 1970i) and registered his disappointment in the NCC Chairman: “I am afraid Mr. Fullerton, whom I admire, has bowed to pressure put on him by some bird watchers’ association in Ottawa and I resent pressure coming from across the river. I wonder what Ottawa residents would say if some Hull organization decided the NCC wasn’t doing the right thing with Island Park Drive or some other NCC property on the Ottawa side of the river” (Poulin cited in Lemieux 1970a). Fullerton shot back at Poulin and other snowmobile spokespersons, questioning whether their activities were, in fact, motivated purely by recreational interests, that is, whether their commercial interest in ensuring the continuation of the status quo was also motivating them (Ottawa Journal 1970f). With winter approaching, the snowmobilers ratcheted up the pressure on the NCC. Their representatives sent a letter to the NCC requesting another meeting in late October (Heward 1970). At the meeting, they would submit a modified proposal, continuing with their north-south proposal, but a corridor even more modest in scope. The NCC was still only prepared to offer an east-west corridor for snowmobiles to cross the park. Given the snowmobilers’ continued rejection of this NCC proposal, officials withdrew their offer, informing the snowmobilers that “[t]here appears to be no point of further negotiations in this matter” (cited in Ottawa Citizen 1970j; Ottawa Journal 1970h). Having failed to negotiate with the NCC directly, snowmobilers continued to engage with political officials. They sent letters to local MPs urging them to pressure Fullerton to reverse the ban (Ottawa Citizen 1970j). The snowmobiler’s efforts in obtaining political allies were assisted by René Villeneuve, alderman in Hull’s Tetreau Ward, which is adjacent to the southern tip of Gatineau Park (Ottawa Citizen 1970k). Villeneuve became a spokesperson for the snowmobilers; he helped organize mass meetings, attended by 200 people, and boldly suggested that snowmobilers “demonstrate in front of Mr. Fullerton’s home” (Ottawa Journal 1970i). Hull Council reached out to Hull MLA Oswald Parent, the Quebec minister responsible for federal-­provincial relations to intervene on the snowmobilers’ behalf. Another Hull councilor, Seguin made the NCC’s ban a question of “justice”: It’s not only a matter of snowmobiles. It goes farther than that. That NCC has become a vise in which we’re caught. These people are doing what they want with our land without consulting us. I admit that relations between the NCC and our region have improved greatly with Mr. Fullerton, but I’m wondering if this is not just an underhand [sic] way to make us swallow the idea of a federal district. Is that why there is so much federal spending for new construction in our city? (Ottawa Journal 1970i)

8.3  The Fullerton Ban

157

At one of Villeneuve’s mass meetings, a letter from the Parti Québécois was read aloud, echoing Councilor Seguin’s concerns about the NCC’s failure to consult Quebec on matters pertaining to Quebec territory. The Parti Québécois announced its intention to support the snowmobilers’ planned demonstration and suggested that it be held in Gatineau Park. The letter read: “It is on Quebec territory and by Hull people that a solution must be found. It’s up to Fullerton and MPs to come and meet us on our property” (Ottawa Journal 1970j). Snowmobilers rejected this suggestion: their “parade” route would begin in Hull and move to Parliament Hill, “a peaceful and quite demonstration” (Ottawa Journal 1970j). The proposed demonstration in front of Fullerton’s home had been dropped (Lemieux 1970b). The demonstration proceeded on Saturday. It was no longer a parade but a procession of cars. As a snowmobiler explained, “the motorcade won’t stop and there will be no demonstrations on the Hill. The motorcade will not be a parade and there will be breaks in it to allow for normal traffic flow” (Ottawa Citizen 1970l). On the decision to no longer pass by Fullerton’s home, Williams said, “there’s no point in it. It’s out of his hands, he’s adamant. He doesn’t care what anybody says. The people we have to get to change the policy are the MPs” (Williams cited Ottawa Citizen 1970l). Eventually, Oswald Parent, on behalf of the Quebec government, weighed in on the issue, decrying the ban as “absolutely unacceptable” (Parent cited in Cleroux 1970) given that snowmobiles were permitted in Quebec’s provincial parks. Parent wrote Fullerton and Robert Andras, the federal cabinet minister responsible for the NCC, to demand that the ban be rescinded. In reaction to the growing political momentum of the snowmobilers, conservationists continued to make impassioned pleas in support of the ban. Our senses are positively reeling from all those insistent jingles as the oversnow vehicle manufacturers spend millions to get a bigger piece of this new market. Just when they are bringing winter alive for the sedentary machine operator, why should a single piece of public land be denied them? Isn’t Gatineau Park for people? Yes, indeed, surely it is for people, not machines. That slender sliver of semi-wild land can absorb 500 or more snowmobiles a day at the expense of making it a treed racetrack and no longer a park. The NCC chairman has shown leadership in attempting to direct more people toward healthful recreations such as snowshoeing, skiing and hiking. The park can absorb a great many more people enjoying these sports, without much harm to the landscape, than it can take people on or in machines. The outcries of snowmobilers are already a terrible bore. (Cameron 1970)

While another conservationist wrote in the Citizen: I am furious about your article, “Ban the ban on snowmobiles” (Citizen, Nov. 20). Why should a few hundred pleasure-seekers destroy our natural environment bringing noise and air pollution to one of our few places to enjoy some real peace and quiet? Why shouldn’t the Gatineau Park be a sanctuary for animals and humans alike without having to bear the noise of machines and the smell of carbon dioxide? Three cheers for Mr. Fullerton! (Zeitler 1970)

Despite the conservationists pleas and Minister Andras’ acknowledgment that Gatineau Park was mainly for the public’s “quiet and enjoyment” (Andras cited in Nichols 1970), a meeting between Andras, Fullerton, and Parent concluded that the

158

8  An Activist Chair Governs

ban on snowmobiling in Gatineau Park would not be carried out until the federal-­provincial land exchange agreement was concluded. That is, as federalprovincial land exchange negotiations were underway, Quebec at the time still retained full ownership and control of some 40% of the park territory. The province’s area of ownership occupies the “Reserve” area, which, as mentioned above, was intended to be the most conservation-oriented zone. The Overall Development Plan (Lambert et al. 1970) did not include snowmobiling use anywhere in Gatineau Park, let alone the Reserve area. So, instead of imposing a ban on snowmobiles, the NCC opened 12,141 hectares (30,000 acres), “the western third of Gatineau Park to snowmobilers this winter” (Nichols 1970). As Fullerton (cited in Nichols 1970) explained, “[t]he province would not go along with the ban.” However, as shown below, this statement was a bit misleading, as Parent would not go along with the ban at that very moment. Once the land was transferred, however, the NCC could exercise stronger controls over the park territory at La Pêche Lake, including the elimination of snowmobiling. Minister Andras, as the most important arbiter, explained the position of the federal government: “We want the park preserved and yet not exclude those who like to engage in snowmobiling. ... It would have been extremely difficult for the NCC to enforce any regulations against snowmobiling in this area” (Andras cited in Connolley 1970). Ironically, this statement was contradicted earlier by a snowmobile advocate who said the NCC could have easily enforced the ban through hefty fines, vehicle seizure, and threat of imprisonment. The idea was to catch one or two snowmobilers, and getting wide publicity, snowmobilers would have been deterred from violating the ban: “It would take only one conviction to convince others of the advisability of seeking safer snowmobile territory” (Williams cited in Ottawa Citizen 1970g). Having suddenly received access to 12,141 hecatres (30,000 acres) by the NCC, the snowmobilers “appeared surprised” (Ottawa Citizen 1970m). Even though the outcome was portrayed in the media as “not total victory” (Nichols 1970), it really was a decisive victory for the snowmobilers. As Williams said (cited in Ottawa Citizen 1970m), “[w]e asked for government action, and if this is their decision, then we’ll go along with it.” Williams took this decision without consulting his constituents, because it was such a self-evident victory for the snowmobilers. In an article summing up the controversy, “A place to vroom,” The Ottawa Citizen (1970n) described how: Snowmobilers and non-snowmobilers have been of two different minds over National Capital Commission chairman Doug Fullerton’s decision to ban the vehicles from Gatineau Park. The instincts of this newspaper slid rather to the hard line, and the devout if fruitless wish that people would find a quiet, safer and less destructive way of having fun, a wish so pious it was never stated in so many words. Now, through the co-operation of federal and Quebec officials, a compromise has been worked out granting snowmobile enthusiasts access to 30,000 acres as the western end of the park. It seems a reasonable saw-off.

The snowmobilers’ enlistment of municipal, provincial, and federal officials proved too powerful for Fullerton to honor his earlier agreement with the conservation group to block snowmobilers’ access to the park.

8.3  The Fullerton Ban

159

In the winter of 1970, NCC officials made accommodations to the snowmobilers so as to ensure their access to the park. The NCC opened three parking lots and plowed the parking lots (Ottawa Citizen 1970o). In an early meeting between snowmobilers and the NCC’s Director of Quebec planning Andre Bonin, discussions centered on policing snowmobilers. As Williams recounted, “[w]e agreed in principle that opening this area of the park was a reasonable compromise. But we emphasized we don’t want ‘carte blanche’ in this area” (Williams cited in Ottawa Journal 1970k). There was a concern, even among the snowmobilers themselves, as to the conduct of their fellow riders. As Williams noted, “[a] few irresponsible persons ruin the reputation of all of us. Some don’t even realize that a deer chased may later die of exhaustion, or cattle may get hurt stepping on broken pop bottles or run away because the wrong gate has been opened” (Williams cited in Chagnon 1970). As it turns out, the local media were correct in describing the fact that Gatineau Park was opened to snowmobiles that winter as only a partial victory for the snowmobilers. With the conclusion of the federal-provincial land exchange imminent, Chairman Fullerton reimposed the snowmobile ban on all NCC lands. Nevertheless, the Fullerton ban was once again applied only momentarily. Following Fullerton’s departure from the NCC, it was lifted amid much controversy within the NCC Executive. The internal conflict was described by Jackson (1974): There is one group in the executive taking the position that because the order to “bow to the pressure of the snowmobilers” came from what is described as “a very senior authority,” there is no choice but to comply. Opposed is even a larger faction of NCC opinion which not only would resist the order but try countering it with a full and outright ban of snowmobiles everywhere on Commission property. But obviously, for the trails tell the story, the majority opinion for the ban is on the losing side. (Jackson 1974)

As detailed below, the NCC would orient park planning toward conservation to an even greater degree before. Thus, the Conceptual Plan for Gatineau Park (1976: 70) identified snowmobiling as an incompatible use with the park’s conservation vocation, arguing that “motorized vehicles such as snowmobiles and motorboats should be prohibited in the Park, except where they are used to patrol and maintenance; access by automobile” (NCC 1976: 70). Through the years, the NCC would hold a contradictory stance on snowmobiling. In the 2005 master plan, for instance, the NCC (2005: 14) maintains that “[s]nowmobiling is properly supervised in the Park” and that “[s]nowmobile infrastructure should be preserved in the Park, given the positive economic impact of the sport on the region’s communities” (NCC 2005: 14). Nevertheless, the plan goes on to elaborate the NCC position: “In view of the Park’s mission, the importance of its conservation function, the choice to give priority to recreational activities that are respectful to the natural environment, and recent trends in Canada to ban snowmobiling in conservation parks, the NCC has decided to maintain the proposal to gradually eliminate all motorized recreational activities from the Park” (NCC 2005: 36). Currently, the Commission allows snowmobiling in the park, specifically along the Eardley Road. When considered overall, the snowmobile controversy reveals the fragility and reversibility of NCC policy in Gatineau Park, as a new leader imposes a ban only for his successor to reverse it. As shown below, the unpredictability and reversibility of NCC park policy, alongside

160

8  An Activist Chair Governs

of the fact that NCC decision and policy-making occur behind closed doors, formed the foundation for the first proposal for Gatineau Park legislation submitted to parliamentarians.

8.4  Successful Federal-Provincial Negotiations As mentioned in the previous chapter, the National Capital Commission has, from the outset, sought to consolidate its ownership and control of the park territory. In order to do so, it must not only acquire the remaining privately owned lands but also had to acquire control and management over the 5059 hectares (12,500 acres) of provincial Crown lands that are scattered in checker-board fashion throughout the Lac La Pêche sector, that is, the park’s wilderness section. Although federal-­ provincial negotiations involving an exchange of these lands for the Student City lands were held throughout the 1960s, a change in the terms of agreement delayed the negotiations, and the 1966 election of Premier Johnson of the Union Nationale party put an end to the negotiations. Premier Johnson’s victory was linked to the rise of Quebec separatism. The separatist movement gave impetus to the political will within the government of Prime Minister PE Trudeau to develop the Outaouais region, that is, the Quebec portion of the National Capital Region. This was reflected in the construction of bridges as well as office towers for federal government departments in Hull, with the goal of having half of the federal workforce in the NCR based in the Outaouais. The political will to raise the profile of Quebec and Quebecers was also manifested in Trudeau’s policy of the “bilingual and bicultural” capital, with the eventual goal of having the federal workforce fully bilingual. Added to this, the federal government signed three federal-provincial agreements, which were, in the main, negotiated by NCC Chairman Fullerton and Oswald Parent, now the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. As shown in the last chapter, during the initial negotiations for the Gatineau Park land exchange in the 1960s, Parent was heavily involved and was a rising provincial politician, then as the Parliamentary Secretary. Negotiations between the NCC and the Quebec government resumed in May 1970 when both governments were once again Liberal. The first agreement to be reached did not concern the Gatineau Park land exchange. Rather, the Trudeau government, in addition to increasing NCC funding, decided that “the Commission enter into a general agreement with the Government of Quebec for the construction of a road network to serve the Quebec part of the National Capital Region” (Privy Council Office 1971). In addition to equally sharing the costs of the $130 million highway network, the NCC would contribute $10 million toward land acquisition and construction costs for roads and highways around Hull and in the southern end of Gatineau Park. On 7 January 1972, the NCC and provincial officials finalized the Outaouais Road Agreement (ORA). According to this agreement, which is still in effect, the federal government shares costs, on an equal basis, with Government of Quebec in the planning and construction of a regional highway network for the Outaouais.

8.4  Successful Federal-Provincial Negotiations

161

Transport Canada (2020), the agency that oversees the federal government’s financial contributions to the ORA, explains its overarching purpose: “The Outaouais Roads Agreement makes contributions to the Government of Quebec for highway improvements made to enhance overall efficiency and promote safety, while encouraging regional and industrial development and tourism in the National Capital Region” (Transport Canada 2020). The highway network bisected the southern tip of Gatineau Park through the construction of arterial roads, including a four-lane provincial highway, Autoroute (A50), which was never completed, and the four-lane McConnell-Laramee highway, the eventual construction of which cost $8.6-million, required clearing over 110 hectares of forested parkland (Rogers and Laucius 2001) and involved the mass expropriation of a long-established  neighbourhood in Hull in the mid  1970s  (Ramlakhan 2019). The original agreement did not contemplate the northwards extension of Autoroute A5 along and through the eastern boundary of Gatineau Park to the village of Wakefield. However, this proposal was first raised in the Gatineau Park Overall Development Plan (Lambert et  al. 1970), and it was evidently carried forward by Chairman Fullerton, who wrote to a concerned citizen: First, as regards that portion of Autoroute A5 from Tenaga to Lascelles, and more particularly that section of it from Tenaga to Wakefield, admitedly [sic] much of it will be located within Gatineau Park mainly along its eastern boundary. However this location of the autoroute is in line with a recommendation made by consultants retained by the NCC some years ago and fully endorsed by NCC staff and management. As you will appreciate one of the problems in administering Gatineau Park is the great difficulty in controlling access. Fires, poachers, snowmobiles are constant threats to the quality of the natural environment we all prize so highly in the Park. A limited access autoroute with a fenced right-of-way approximately paralleling and following the eastern boundary will go a long way in solving this problem. (Fullerton 1972b)

Despite the enormous significance of the Outaouais Road Agreement to the park and the region as a whole, the agreement, like the other federal-provincial agreements, was made behind closed doors. It has not been discussed in the scholarship on either Gatineau Park or the NCC. Nevertheless, conservationists did learn early on about the plans to build a highway along the park’s eastern boundary, even though, as they noted in their brief, “[v]ery little if any information has been made public about the exact location of these new highways” (NPPAC-OH 1974). With the conservation group having earlier supported the idea of improving the access roads that were peripheral to the park (NPPAC-OH 1972: 33), it urged the NCC to reconsider the plan for the A5 extension to Wakefield. As observed by the conservationists, the routing of Highway A5 is most critical not only from the point of view of its capability to meet the transportation and other economic requirements of the region but also because of its potentially adverse impact upon Gatineau Park. Site clearing for this highway has proceeded from Mont Bleu into the Gatineau Park on the west side of the Scott Road, and an overpass is being constructed over the Old Chelsea Road, so it would appear that this highway is slated to proceed rapidly. (NPPACH-OH 1974: 2)

In a brief to the NCC, the conservationists proposed that the new highway be routed to the other side of the Gatineau River and that any new roads be kept outside of the

162

8  An Activist Chair Governs

park. Needless to say, with work having begun, NCC officials, including Fullerton (1973a, b), would politely dismiss the conservation group’s recommendations to reroute Autoroute A5. As it turns out, the construction of Autoroute A5 would be intermittent; the latest section of the highway was completed in 2011–2012, despite public opposition and direct action protests (see Chap. 11). As shown in Chaps. 9 and 10, the ORA tormented conservationists and park activists with arterial roads slicing through the southern end of the park, fragmenting wildlife habitat, and urbanizing the park’s perimeter, especially since power lines were built alongside many of these roads (Barrigar 1973). Although the ORA has been highly detrimental to the park’s ecological integrity and would, as some argue (Spears 2012), have been vigorously opposed by Jacques Gréber, Fullerton and Parent also finalized the federal-provincial agreements that have benefits for not only the park’s ecological integrity but also its governance under the NCC. The Gatineau Park land exchange was the second of the agreements to be concluded during Fullerton’s tenure, even though it was concluded after Fullerton had left, with “Acting Chairman” Jean-Claude LaHaye as the representative signatory for the NCC. The agreement commits the Government of Quebec to five undertakings, but foremost is the land exchange itself. Thus, Quebec agreed to “[t]ransfer to the Commission the management and control of the rights of Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of Quebec in the public lands located in the townships of Onslow, Eardley, Masham and Aldfield…” (NCC and Quebec 1973: 2). According to the final terms of the agreement (National Capital Commission and Government of Québec 1973), the province transferred management and control of approximately 5070 hectares (12,528 acres) of Crown lands (see Fig. 8.3 Map of provincial Crown lands in Gatineau Park). In exchange, the NCC transferred 46 hectares (115 acres) of parkland along Hull’s Boulevard de la Cité des jeunes to the Collège d’enseignment general et professionnel (CEGEP) and other rights of way, for a total of 101 hectares (250 acres). An NCC briefing note from the time explains why the terminology of “control and management” was used instead of a transfer of title:

Fig. 8.3  Map of provincial Crown lands in Gatineau Park

8.4  Successful Federal-Provincial Negotiations

163

It is to be noted that the proposed agreement covers the exchange of control and management only. Title to the land is still vested with the Province of Quebec or the NCC for their respective lands. Where land is exchanged the party becomes the manager or trustee for the management of the lands. The reason for this approach is that the several governments of Quebec have preached the preservation of the integrity of Quebec territory. Premier Johnson in his day stated to the Provincial Legislature that he held the integrity of the Quebec territory as precious as the sight of his eye. Politically the exchange of title would have been abhorrent. This exchange of management is similar to the other exchanges carried out by Quebec and the Federal Government for national parks or park purposes. From a practical standpoint there is little difference between vesting title and management and control. (NCC n.d.)

The agreement not only transferred control and management of the provincial Crown lands around Lac La Pêche to the NCC “in perpetuity” but also transferred control and management of the lake bottoms in the entire  park territory to the Commission. Moreover, the agreement stipulates that control and management would only revert back to Quebec “in the event that the said lands not be required for the purposes of Gatineau Park” (National Capital Commission and Government of Québec 1973: 2). NCC officials were following the principle in Canadian law known as the indivisibility of the Crown. Professor Mundell explains the legal principle: Lands held by the federal and provincial governments are both vested in Her Majesty but … the administration of the lands is carried out on her behalf through different representatives. It follows that no conveyance of title can be made by one government to another. Title remains throughout in Her Majesty. All that need be transferred is the authority and duty to administer the lands on behalf of Her Majesty … by complementary Orders-in-Council … No further conveyance is necessary nor would it be proper. (Mundell 1960: 71–72)

On account of the principle of the indivisibility of the Crown, the agreement was accompanied by corresponding Orders in Council (Privy Council Office 1973; Quebec 1973), such that titles to the exchanged lands did not have to be registered in the land registry office as they were always vested in the Crown. As shown in the briefing note, NCC officials were, understandably, cautious about the reception of the land exchange in Quebec. Sure enough, there was bad publicity for the land exchange agreement in the Quebec media, which framed the NCC as the main beneficiary, with the exchange framed as Quebec giving the NCC a “horse for a rabbit” (Fullerton 1973b). Chairman Fullerton (1973b) resented this, given that the near-­ urban lands transferred by the NCC were valued at $1.7 million whereas the remote Crown lands in Lac La Pêche were valued at $1.2 million (NCC n.d.). Although the 1973 federal-provincial agreement skirted, more or less, the controversy around Quebec’s territorial integrity, it did not take long for both provincial and NCC officials to contemplate a new federal-provincial agreement involving a transfer of title because of the uncertainty surrounding the legal validity of the 1973 federal-­ provincial agreement (Bonin 1977). The federal-provincial agreement also changed the park’s governance by having Quebec designate the park territory as a game reserve. From the perspective of the NCC, the province’s designation as a game reserve would assist park managers when patrolling for poaching:

164

8  An Activist Chair Governs

The NCC finds it difficult to enforce its ban on hunting on its own properties because of the substantial bush lands which belong to others, Quebec lands included. If a game reserve is established within the Park as defined, no hunting will be permitted anywhere in the Park. Control would then be easier, although poaching is difficult to control, law inforcement [sic] would be facilitated. (NCC 1972)

The agreement made the game reserve boundaries follow “[t]he limits shown on a plan and description prepared by Marcel Ste-Marie, Quebec land surveyor, dated September 20, 1965…” (NCC and Quebec 1973: 2). As shown in the previous chapter, the NCC commissioned Marcel Ste-Marie for a cadastral survey of the park during the initial rounds of federal-provincial land exchange negotiations, which were suspended following the election of the Union Nationale. Finally, as part of the land exchange agreement, the Government of Quebec agreed to no longer issue mining exploration permits in the park. Formerly, the NCC was unable to prevent the province from approving of mining exploration permits, a situation which resulted in numerous management problems for the NCC, not to mention the dangers that open and abandoned mine shafts posed to park visitors (NCC 1972). Through these federal-provincial agreements and Fullerton’s bold decisions on park policy, the park’s governance arrangements were radically transformed: Gatineau Park was no longer simply a land assembly owned by the federal government, but the park was established, in 1974, as a provincial game reserve, one that is uniquely administered by the NCC; the park also became more accessible to the general public at Meech Lake. Despite these gains, Fullerton’s unfortunate penchant for roads and highways, common in the automobile era, cannot be denied, and as subsequent chapters detail, the Outaouais Roads Agreement had a devastating impact on the park’s ecological and territorial integrity. There were, as conservationists proposed, alternative routes to consider, but the NCC and Province of Quebec were not interested in, perhaps not capable of, public consultations. The federal-provincial agreements still remain relevant to the present-day governance of Gatineau Park. As shown in the next chapter, Quebec’s use of the park’s boundaries drawn by Marcel Ste. Marie would complicate the Gatineau Park boundary rationalization exercise that the NCC conducted in the 1990s, such that parts of the park are outside of the provincial game reserve, while former parklands remain classified as a game reserve. In other words, the park’s territory remains fragmented.

8.5  Failures in Governance Reform Having negotiated federal-provincial agreements and taken on the park’s status quo through a trial and error approach, Fullerton was growing increasingly concerned by what he saw, correctly, as the declining influence of the NCC in regional governance, that is, the National Capital Region’s (NCR) planning and development. Given the importance that  he and many others attached to the NCC’s mandate, namely, ensuring the NCR is worthy of the nation as the seat of government (Carter 2001) and that the NCC remained the only planning body in the NCR with a regional

8.5  Failures in Governance Reform

165

scope, Fullerton became so alarmed by the evolving jurisdictional landscape that he abruptly left his leadership position with the NCC (Jackson 1973) and, at the request of Prime Minister PE Trudeau, initiated a study of the NCR’s governance arrangements (Fullerton 1978: 117). Fullerton’s arrival at the helm of the NCC coincided with the formation of regional governments in Ontario and Quebec, respectively, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa Carleton (RMOC, established 1968) and the Communauté Régionale de l’Outaouais (CRO, established 1970). As confirmed by planning historian Gordon (2015), these new governments effectively overrode the authority of the NCC in regional planning decisions, such that Fullerton’s tenure did, in fact, coincide with the zenith of NCC’s influence in regional planning. With the added complexity brought by “upper-tier” municipal governments (RMOC and CRO), and mounting criticisms of the NCC, the Trudeau government announced, in the fall of 1974, another joint-parliamentary committee to review the NCC and its ability to govern the NCR. In Fullerton’s report to the Prime Minister and joint-parliamentary committee, the former NCC Chair observed the governance of the NCR as an “increasingly confused and tangled web of jurisdictions…” (Fullerton 1974: 212). He famously characterized the National Capital Region as a “jurisdictional swamp.” In this context, the possibility of coordinated, let alone cooperative, regional planning had become remote, as evidenced by the NCC plan for the NCR; Tomorrow’s Capital: An invitation to dialogue (NCC 1974) made proposals concerning regional development and targeted population growth that directly contradicted those found in drafts of the RMOC and CRO regional plans. According to Gordon (2015: 274), “Tomorrow’s Capital became simply a footnote marking the point at which the NCC’s regional planning power evaporated.” To address the jurisdictional issues, Fullerton’s study proposed abolishing the NCC and municipal governments in order to install a “supraregional council.” Half the membership of the supraregional council would be elected by local residents, while the other half would be filled by appointments made by federal and provincial governments. For better or worse, Fullerton’s proposal for a supraregional council met with widespread disapproval of municipal, regional, provincial, and federal politicians (Francis 2000). It was openly ridiculed in the Ottawa Citizen with cartoons satirizing Fullerton’s plan, who included them in his autobiography (Fullerton 1978). The hearings of the joint-parliamentary committee provided a platform for the municipal, provincial, and regional governments to bemoan the continued existence of the NCC. As with the 1956–1957 joint-parliamentary hearings out of which the NCC was born, the 1975–1976 iteration had many of the same government actors, including the NCC, which submitted briefs. Thus, NCC Chairman, Edgar Gallant, testified before the committee: “The NCC believes that the need for a strong national planning and development agency, vested with responsibility to plan for the national interest in the capital region and to carry out development projects in accordance with such plans, is even greater now, greater today, than it was when the commission was virtually the only planning agent in the region” (cited in Parliament 1975).

166

8  An Activist Chair Governs

Municipalities and regional governments in Quebec especially but also in Ontario wanted to decrease the federal presence and influence on local affairs. There was, however, a notable new group that appeared before the joint-­ parliamentary committee. The conservation group that had mobilized around the NCC’s controversial plans for Gatineau Park, the Ottawa-Hull chapter of the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada submitted a brief to the 1976 joint-parliamentary committee; it scrutinized the NCC’s mandate and function, observing the NCC policies are made internally, that is, without parliamentary oversight. Further, the NCC leadership can change, leading to new policies. Last, as evinced by the establishment of another joint-parliamentary committee, the permanence of the NCC is not assured. Despite the possibility the NCC could be dissolved and replaced by a new agency (as had been done in the establishment of the NCC from the Federal District Commission), conservationists maintained that “[t]he germane question is whether the NCC’s short and long term policies will constitute viable protection of the Park in the face of the inevitable economic and political pressures for increased development. The Ottawa-Hull Chapter of the NPPAC believes they will not” (NPPAC-OH 1976: 7). They wrote of the park’s legal status: “Gatineau Park is barely mentioned in National Capital Act (Section 14, subsection 3), and is not even provided with a modicum of protection. This vulnerability is distressing and for this reason, we are confident that the Joint Committee will see the logic of our case and will act to rectify the situation” (NPPAC-OH 1976: 3). While there is, to be sure, a lack of direct reference in the National Capital Act, Gatineau Park is nevertheless, as per Section 25 of the NCA, among the works of the NCC being carried out for the general advantage of Canada, as such giving the NCC exclusive jurisdiction. The conservation group’s brief, having recounted their chapter history and campaign for park legislation, including the 12,000-signature petition for legislation (see Fig. 8.4 Petition calling for Gatineau Park legislation), suggested two possible legislative solutions, either a special Act of Parliament or a significant rewriting of the National Capital Act. Whatever path the committee chose, the  conservation group wanted legislation to contain three articles: One, acknowledgement of Gatineau Park as area of national significance, thus “dedicating the Park in perpetuity to the people of Canada for their enjoyment as a natural environment parkland.” Two, the creation of a Park management agency, “with the powers to maintain and manage the Park, to acquire adjoining lands to the Park as may be considered necessary or desirable for the conservation of the presently-constituted Park, and to eliminate non-­ conforming uses in the Park as expeditiously as possible.” Three, “Full public participation before land-use changes in the Park or changes in management philosophy are implemented … Implicit in this proposal is the necessity for publicizing all such proposals to make them available for public scrutiny. (NPPAC-OH 1976: 10–11)

While the first article would bring Gatineau Park closer in line with Canada’s national parks (and protected areas more generally), the second and third articles were even stronger than the extant approach of Parks Canada, which was not

8.5  Failures in Governance Reform

167

Fig. 8.4  Petition calling for Gatineau Park legislation

required, at the time, to engage in public consultation ahead of approving long-term master plans for its national parks. Following the election of the sovereigntist Parti Québécois, the joint-parliamentary committee never submitted a report on the NCC and its National Capital Act. Having received dozens of briefs from public and private actors, the 1976 joint-parliamentary committee was the first instance of failed

168

8  An Activist Chair Governs

NCC reform. As shown in Chap. 11, the most recent attempt, known as the Paquet Panel (Paquet et al. 2006), similarly ended without any legislation.

8.6  Conclusion In describing the decisions, successful and unsuccessful, made by NCC Chair Fullerton in the park’s governance, this chapter provides insight into the extent to which the NCC, under an activist chair, can be aligned with park’s public and ecological vocations. Fullerton’s decision to restart the Gatineau Park planning process, part of a response to the opposition mounted by conservationists, was important in this respect, as Fullerton promised that the NCC would hold public hearings ahead of any park master plan. As shown in the next chapter, this promise was ultimately kept by the NCC (1980) as it prepared a master plan grounded in a conservation philosophy (NCC 1976). Fullerton’s decision to open Meech Lake was the most significant challenge to the park’s status quo. Formerly, public access and use of the lake was discouraged. The Meech Lake Association (MLA) organized a vocal protest in response to Fullerton’s decision; however, the NCC Chair received support from Federal Cabinet ministers, who insisted on the park’s public vocation and that the federal government’s plan was to eventually acquire Kingsmere and Meech Lake, i.e., consolidating the park territory under NCC ownership. Fullerton’s decision thus aligned with the park’s public vocation; however, he could have gone further as NCC planners, outside consultants, and conservationists all recommending the NCC proceed with eliminating private lands from the park, so as to prevent any further environmental degradation and urbanization in the park territory. Fullerton was not prepared to do this, and he was proud of the fact that the NCC did not expropriate during his tenure. Turning to the policy failures, Fullerton imposed a ban on snowmobiles in the park and all NCC lands. This was a complete reversal of previous NCC policy; however, snowmobilers found powerful allies in municipal and provincial governments, forcing the NCC to step back from imposing the snowmobile ban. Indeed, while convinced that the snowmobile ban was justified, Fullerton’s main concern was in ensuring the successful negotiation of the Gatineau Park land exchange and the Outaouais regional highway system. Whether the “failure” to enforce the Fullerton ban was a bargaining chip in these negotiations is beside the point. The episode underscored the fact that the park’s governance was not still clearly set out at the time and that NCC policy was made internally, and without public consultation. It could be easily reversed. More than anyone else, Fullerton saw the limits to the governance arrangements in the National Capital Region, which relied on cooperation among (too) many levels of government. He proposed bold institutional reform in a supraregional council, a model for federal intervention in planning that Fullerton believed could eventually be applied to other Canadian cities. Fullerton’s proposals for governance reform

References

169

went unheeded. As shown in the next chapter, the NCC went into an extended period of institutional drift. Although NCC planners and conservationists were well aware of the park’s vulnerabilities in the absence of legislation, they could not prevent private lands from being exploited by developers and municipalities but also, to a certain extent, the NCC and Outaouais regional government as plans were made for a national zoo in the Meech Creek Valley that conservationists and directly affected landowners would, of course, oppose.

References Averill S (1970) Letter to the editor. The Sunday Reporter, 11 Oct 1970 Barrigar RH (1973) Letter from RH Barrigar to DH Fullerton, re: incursions upon Gatineau Park by proposed highways and other facilities. NCC ATI A-2013-00010 Bearnman GM, Noble ME (1970) Letter from GM Bearnman and ME Noble to JD Diefenbaker, re: taking over Meech Lake area by National Capital Commission FOR PUBLIC USE. LAC 2014–0607 vol 65.810–4(2) Bell C (1970) Save Meech. Ottawa Citizen, 18 Mar 1970 Bonin A (1977) Ententes du 1er août 1973, Québec-CCN, échange d’autorité et de gestion de terrains, parc de la Gatineau et Chemins. NCC ATI A-2016-00073-QC-AB, p 623 Bradley NE (1970) Meech Lake privacy urged as peace haven. Ottawa Citizen, 8 June 1970 Buck K (1970) Meech policy queried. Ottawa Citizen, 13 June 1970 Cameron JF (1970) Park for people. Ottawa Journal, 25 Nov 1970 Chapman JM (1970a) Letter from JM Chapman to DH Fullerton, 22 June 1970. LAC 2014-0607 vol 65.810-4(2) Chapman JM (1970b) Letter from JM Chapman to JA MacNiven. LAC 2014–0607 vol 65.810–4(3) Chief of Surveys (1970) Letter from Chief of Surveys to MM Outhet, re: Meech Lake development program account 235–14-00. LAC 2014–0607 vol 65.810–4(3) Chagnon D (1970) Safety and litter-conscious snowmobilers display signs and trail markers. Ottawa Citizen, 14 Dec 1970 Cleroux R (1970) Ban the ban. Ottawa Citizen, 20 Nov 1970 Connolley G (1970) Western end of Gatineau Park opened to snowmobiles by NCC.  Ottawa Citizen, 27 Nov 1970 Doxtater JM (1970) Don’t spoil the park. Ottawa Citizen, 3 Oct 1970 Edey AR (1970) Letter from AR Ede to JA MacNiven. LAC 2014–0607 vol 65.810–4(1) Finn J (1970) Meech Lake chaos has cottagers up in arms. Ottawa Citizen Flynn J (1970) Meech Lake: expropriations by National [Capital] Commission – Notice of Inquiry. Canada. Parliament. Senate Debates. Edited Hansard, 28th Parliament, 2nd Session, vol 1, pp 800–801 Francis L (1970) Letter from L Francis to DH Fullerton. LAC 2014-0607 vol 65.810-4(1) Francis L (2000) Ottawa boy. General Store Publishing House, Burnstown Fullerton DH (1970a) Letter from DH Fullerton to LA Landreville. LAC 2014-0607 vol 65.810-4(2) Fullerton DH (1970b) Letter from DH Fullerton to DD Hogarth, 14 July 1970. LAC 2014-0607 vol 65.810-4(3) Fullerton DH (1972a) Letter from DH Fullerton to WJ Thurlow. NCC ATI A-2013-00010, p 175 Fullerton DH (1972b) Letter from DH Fullerton to undisclosed recipient. NCC ATI A-2016-00073-QC-AB Fullerton DH (1973a) Letter from DH Fullerton to RH Barrigar. NCC ATI A-2013-00010 Fullerton DH (1973b) Letter from DH Fullerton to G Martineau. LAC RG34 1190(10):2 Fullerton DH (1974) The capital of Canada: how should it be governed? Information Canada, Ottawa

170

8  An Activist Chair Governs

Fullerton DH (1976) Protect Gatineau Park from the people. Ottawa Citizen, 29 Sep 1976 Fullerton DH (1978) The dangerous delusion: Quebec’s independence obsession. McClelland and Stewart, Toronto Gatineau-Carleton Parks Association (1969) Minutes of organizational meeting. Ottawa Gibson P (1974) Expropriation an issue for National Capital panel. The Montreal Gazette, 11 Nov 1974 Gordon DLE (2015) Town and crown: an illustrated history of Canada’s capital. Ivenire Books, Ottawa Hanes GR (1970) Polluted logic. Ottawa Citizen Hart JS (1970) Snowmobiles. Ottawa Journal, 10 Oct 1970 Holland C (1970) NCC’s ‘trial and error’ leaves Meech Lakers aghast. Ottawa Journal, 8 June 1970 Jackson R (1970a) Battle looms on ban. Ottawa Journal, 1 Oct 1970 Jackson R (1970b) One of the reasons for the ban: says snowmobilers chased pregnant woman in park. Ottawa Journal, 9 Oct 1970 Jackson R (1973) Fullerton quitting; clash with Basford. Ottawa Journal, 30 Jan 1973 Kind RJ (1970) Keep it quiet. Ottawa Citizen (10 Oct 1970) Lait M (2013) Struggles and negotiations over the future of Gatineau Park and the OFNC, 1965–1970. Trail & Landscape 47(2):106–118 Lait M (2016) Preserving Ottawa’s metropolitan nature: how the 1970 Gatineau Park planning controversy transformed the National Capital Commission and its conservation park. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 25(1):63–79. Available at https://cjur.uwinnipeg.ca/index.php/cjur/ article/view/27 Lambert V et  al (1970) Gatineau Park: overall development plan. National Capital Commission, Ottawa Landreville LA (1970a) Letter from LA Landreville to DH Fullerton, re: A.  Amyot estate and Meech Lake project. LAC 2014–0607 vol 65.810–4(2) Landreville LA (1970b) Letter from LA Landreville to DH Fullerton. LAC 2014–0607  vol 65.810–4(2) Le Droit (1970a) En accord avec la CCN contre les motoneiges. Le Droit, 2 Oct 1970 Le Droit (1970b) Apres un sommet a Luskville: les clubs de motoneige iront voir Fullerton. Le Droit, 2 Oct 1970 Leaning J (1997) Douglas Fullerton—in memoriam. Glebe Report, 17 Jan 1997 Lemieux C (1970a) Snowmobile ban protested by Hull. Ottawa Journal, 7 Oct 1970 Lemieux C (1970b) Snowmobilers plan Saturday parade to hill. Ottawa Journal, 20 Nov 1970 Mellor B (1970) Only a dream. Ottawa Citizen, 21 Oct 1970 Merriam HG (1970) Preserving Meech Lake. Ottawa Journal, 18 Mar 1970 Mundell DW (1960) Legal nature of federal and provincial executive governments: some comments on transactions between them. Osgoode-Hall Law J 2(1):71–72 Marchand J (1970a) Letter from J Marchand to DD Hogarth. LAC 2014-0607 vol 65.810-4(1) Marchand J (1970b) Letter from J Marchand to GM Bearman and ME Noble. LAC 2014-0607 vol 65.810-4(1) Marchand J (1970c) Letter from J Marchand to M Ménard. LAC 2014-0607 vol 65.810-4(1) Marchand J (1970d) Letter from J Marchand to L Brault. LAC 2014-0607 vol. 65.810-4(1) McNiven JA (1969) Land acquisition in Gatineau Park. LAC RG 34 P-10-03 ATI A201500060/MR McWilliam DL (1970) Letter from DL McWilliam to JA MacNiven. LAC 2014-0607  vol 65.810-4(1) National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada Ottawa-Hull (1974) Hull-Maniwaki: alternative highway routes. NPPACOH, Ottawa National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada Ottawa-Hull (1972) Gatineau Park: a proposal for its conservation and use. NPPACOH, Ottawa National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada Ottawa-Hull (1976) Protective legislation for Gatineau Park. NPPACOH, Ottawa National Capital Commission (1964) Annual report of the NCC. Ottawa

References

171

National Capital Commission (1965) Annual report of the NCC. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1966) Annual report of the NCC. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1968) Annual report of the NCC. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1968a) Gatineau Park development concept. NCC, Ottawa National Capital Commission (1968b) Property acquisition in the park – present policy. LAC RG 34 P-10-28 ATI A201500061/MR National Capital Commission (1970a) Annual report of the NCC. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1970b) Parliamentary Returns. Question No. 9  – Honourable Senator Flynn. LAC 2014–0607 vol 65.810–4(2) National Capital Commission (1972) Answers to certain questions raised by the Honourable Ron Basford, Minister for Urban Affairs regarding the proposed exchange of administration of lands – NCC – Quebec Government. Quebec lands folder National Capital Commission (1974) Annual report of the NCC. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1976) Concept plan for Gatineau Park. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1980) Master plan for Gatineau Park. Ottawa National Capital Commission (2005). Master plan for Gatineau Park. Ottawa National Capital Commission (n.d.) Brief notes re the proposed mutual exchange of control and management of lands  – Quebec and NCC largely affecting Gatineau Park. LAC RG34 1190.10.2 National Capital Commission and Government of Québec (1973) Agreement regarding the transfer of control and management of certain public lands in the Quebec portion of the National Capital Region. LAC RG34 File 1190.10.2 Nichols M (1970) NCC bows to Quebec: snowmobilers get use of park area. Ottawa Journal, 27 Nov 1970 Ottawa Citizen (1970a) Snowmobiles ban, 2 Oct 1970 Ottawa Citizen (1970b) Govt interest in area a good sign says Francis, 24 Sep 1970 Ottawa Citizen (1970c) No change in store for Gatineau Park, 26 Sep 1970 Ottawa Citizen (1970d) Meech beach: all it needs now is people, 20 July 1970 Ottawa Citizen (1970e) Cottages to go: NCC turns Meech Lake to public use, 2 Mar 1970 Ottawa Citizen (1970f) Meech goes public, 4 Mar 1970 Ottawa Citizen (1970g) Snowmobilers to battle NCC, 5 Oct 1970 Ottawa Citizen (1970h) Blizzard of petitions: snowmobilers start push, 9 Oct 1970 Ottawa Citizen (1970i) Bird-watchers Hull council pins blame for snowmobile ban, 7 Oct 1970 Ottawa Citizen (1970j) Snowmobiles fail to hurdle NCC: Gatineau Park ban stands, 6 Nov 1970 Ottawa Citizen (1970k) Snow riders plan strong NCC protest, 16 Nov 1970 Ottawa Citizen (1970l) Snowmobilers plan protest motorcade (23 Nov 1970) Ottawa Citizen (1970m) Snowmobilers put foot in park’s opened door, 28 Nov 1970 Ottawa Citizen (1970n) A place to vroom. Ottawa Citizen (1970o) Snowmobile issue—a partial answer, 10 Dec 1970 Ottawa Citizen (1972) Meach Lake cottagers ‘subsidized’, 2 May 1972 Ottawa Field Naturalists’ Club (1968) A brief on the future of Gatineau Park. The Canadian Field Naturalist 83: 78–80 Ottawa Journal (1970a) Why Meech Lake is opening up, 23 Mar 1970 Ottawa Journal (1970b) Gatineau Park banned to snowmobiles, 30 Sept 1970 Ottawa Journal (1970c) Snowmobilers to meet Fullerton, 2 Oct 1970 Ottawa Journal (1970d) NCC ban, 3 Oct 1970 Ottawa Journal (1970e) May open Gatineau, 6 Oct 1970 Ottawa Journal (1970f) Snowmobiles: NCC chief wonders if dealers are pressuring clubs on ban, 30 Oct 1970 Ottawa Journal (1970g) Snowmobiles said hazard to hearing, 6 Nov 1970 Ottawa Journal (1970h) Snowmobile ban to stand, 6 Nov 1970 Ottawa Journal (1970i) Hull, snowmobilers allied in NCC feud, 18 Nov 1970 Ottawa Journal (1970j) Separatists support area snowmobilers, 20 Nov 1970 Ottawa Journal (1970k) Snowmobilers ask policing in park, 10 Dec 1970 Paquet G, Farber BL, Benoit G (2006) The National Capital Commission: charting a new course. NCC Mandate Review, Ottawa

172

8  An Activist Chair Governs

Pitfield PM (1970) Letter from PM Pitfield to D Fullerton. LAC 2014-0607 vol 65.810-4(1) Privy Council Office (1971) Record of cabinet decision, re: National Capital Commission program and fiscal requirements to 1982. LAC RG34 1190.10.2 Privy Council Office (1973) Order-in-Council 1973-4/437. Ottawa Quebec (1973) Order-in-Council 3736-72. Quebec City Ramlakhan K (2019) ‘It was really alive’: remembering the razing of McConnell-­Laramée. CBC News. Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lost-community-mcconnelllaramée-hull-gatineau-western-quebec-expropriation-1.5013131 Rogers D, Laucius J (2001) Road will kill whole ecosystem. Ottawa Citizen, 18 Apr 2001 Sarsfield T (1970) Snowmobilers still seek right to use park. Ottawa Citizen, 8 Oct 1970 Spears T (2012) Gréber wouldn’t OK highway 5 extension. Ottawa Citizen, 3 Jan 2012 The Sunday Reporter (1970) Counter plan for ban, 11 Oct 1970 Tost J (1970) New Meech Lake beach now ready for use—NCC. Ottawa Journal, 16 July 1970 Transport Canada (2020) Outaouais road agreement. Ottawa. Available at https://www.tc.gc.ca/ eng/corporate-­services/planning-­1427.html Tweksbury DL (1970) Fire them. Ottawa Journal, 13 June 1970 Urbatique (1970) Gatineau Park: summary of proposed basic development policies. RG 34 280.11 vol 6 Woods SE (1980) Ottawa: the capital of Canada. Doubleday Canada Limited, Toronto Zeitler H (1970) Back the ban. Ottawa Citizen, 25 Nov 1970

Chapter 9

Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

Under Fullerton’s leadership, the National Capital Commission (NCC) maintained its default Gatineau Park land acquisition policy, that of negotiated purchase on a willing-seller basis; thus, the NCC only acquired properties as they were put up for sale, and did so at a fair market value. The NCC put this highly selective policy in place, despite its obvious drawbacks  and recommendations from NCC staff to expropriated remaining residences at Kingsmere and Meech Lake. During Fullerton’s tenure, the NCC acquired properties at Meech Lake, and the Commission managed to open the lake to public use, despite considerable resistance from the Meech Lake Association. This chapter reveals that Fullerton’s successors at the NCC would not be so fortunate in evading issues with privately-owned lands in the park. In a period of increased development activity throughout the Outaouais, Fullerton’s successors became mired in expropriations, not only from residential subdivisions inside Gatineau Park but also from the government’s own initiatives, namely, a national zoo and the Autoroute A5 extension along the park’s eastern boundary. This chapter begins by describing the expropriations of landowners in the Meech Creek Valley by the Outaouais Development Corporation (ODC) in the mid-1970s, as part of intergovernmental plans for the zoo and highway, the actual route of which was as highly contentious as the zoo. Although the NCC did not carry out expropriations for the zoo, the Meech Creek Valley did go on to  become part of Gatineau Park, and NCC officials supported the zoo and highway plans as well as the land acquisition plans that went along with them. The second section turns to a controversial expropriation inside the park territory, as local developers obtained approval for a residential subdivision in lands adjacent to the Meech Creek Valley. As shown in the third section, this costly and time-consuming expropriation spurred NCC officials to attempt to change the Commission’s land acquisition policy. As early as 1978, the NCC indicated its intention to expropriate residences at Meech Lake as the first phase of its land acquisition program, and the Commission received approval and funds from the Treasury Board (TB). While the NCC appeared, in light of the latest expropriation, © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Lait, Governance of Near-Urban Conservation Areas, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64440-6_9

173

174

9  Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

determined to eliminate private lands, a change in government led to a moratorium on land purchases. The fourth section reveals that the  NCC policy of negotiated purchase became entrenched through the NCC’s second planning process. The fifth section details the federal task force that reviewed NCC operations and suggested transferring the park’s governance from the NCC to Parks Canada.

9.1  Meech Creek Valley As mentioned in the previous chapter, the early 1970s were a time of unprecedented cooperation between the federal and Quebec governments as the PE Trudeau government wanted to make Ottawa-Hull the bicultural and bilingual capital. Through this intergovernmental cooperation, several highways, offices, and other development projects were not only agreed upon on paper but also initiated in Hull and the Outaouais region, that is, the Quebec portion of the National Capital Region (Gordon 2015). This section describes the practical outcomes tied to the proposal for a national zoo with the expropriation of landowners in the Meech Creek Valley. As with the highway proposal, the national zoo proved  very controversial, with considerable publicity  generated in the local media. Despite the protests, mainly from farmers, the expropriations were carried out for the zoo. To add insult to injury, the zoo project was abandoned when the period of intergovernmental cooperation came to an end with the election of the Parti Québécois in 1976, but also with Trudeau’s budget cuts to the NCC. The national zoo idea came directly from the Trudeau government, which, in 1969, requested that the NCC examine the possibility “for a zoo site of approximately 1,000 acres for which $3 million is available” (Archanbault 1969). The NCC, in turn, tasked the planning consultants hired for Gatineau Park to examine potential sites for the national zoo, both inside and outside of the park boundaries. Although NCC-archived files do not contain a copy of the consultant’s site analysis, internal documents do reveal that the consultants found the Cantley site to be the most suitable, “with an alternative at Old Chelsea” (Advisory Committee on Planning 1969). In the Gatineau Park: Overall Development Plan Lambert et al. 1970), there was no subsequent mention of the zoo. As indicated in the last chapter, this master plan was never approved by the NCC due to the public controversy from conservationists, who  were opposed to having a national  zoo in Gatineau Park, although they supported the idea of having one situated somewhere  else in the National Capital Region (NPPAC-OH 1971). Local politicians continued to pursue the possibility of establishing a zoo near Gatineau Park (Ottawa Journal 1972). Indeed, the idea was widely promoted by Dr. Gaston Isabelle, the Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) for Hull, who made it an election promise in 1968 (Lemieux 1974). Dr. Isabelle (cited in Lemieux 1974) said: “The Gatineau Park area is perfect for a zoo, because we have water, forest, and hills, all of which are in abundance there.” Similarly, Liberal MNAs for Hull and Gatineau supported the zoo proposal (The News 1972). In response to this outpouring of support, the Outaouais Development Corporation (ODC) entered

9.1  Meech Creek Valley

175

preliminary talks with the NCC to establish a zoo in the Meech Creek Valley. In January 1974, with the NCC now under Chair Edgar Gallant, the Commission sought approval from Federal Cabinet for the national zoo (Hill 1974). This approval was obtained, and the ODC began assembling the lands in the Meech Creek Valley that were required for Autoroute A5 and the zoo. Having learned of the zoo through the local media, affected residents were quick to register their negative opinion of the proposal. A farmer, Bill Parks (cited in Hill 1974), complained: “I don’t see the value of replacing good citizens with monkeys.” For their part, the Editors of the Ottawa Citizen welcomed the initiative, but they were not enthusiastic about the proposed location of the zoo, as the Meech Creek Valley “would lend itself to development ideally as a public recreation area” (Ottawa Citizen 1974). Still, they concluded that, overall, “a zoo is a delightful and precious attribute for any city, adding a new dimension of activity, and learning experience, for the local populace and tourists alike. And the prospect of putting Canadian wildlife on display in this lush setting, as part of a new NCC effort to develop leisure-­time activities on the fringe of Gatineau Park, is intriguing indeed” (Ottawa Citizen 1974). The NCC (1975a: 38) was adamant that provincial authorities would be responsible for the expropriations necessary to assemble the 1500 acre “Wildlife Park” in the Meech Creek Valley. As with the Outaouais Roads Agreement, the NCC agreed to share the land acquisition costs, estimated at $2.5 million (Karon 1975a). Land acquisitions constituted the first of three phases in the $7.5 million zoo project, which officials initially anticipated would take 3 years to complete (Karon 1975a). Following land acquisitions and construction of zoo facilities, the second phase would involve acquiring Canadian animals; the third and final phase would consist of acquiring “more exotic animals” (Hill 1974). For the second and third phases, government officials were going to consult with a citizen’s group comprised of scientists and animal experts, the National Capital Zoological Society (Lemieux 1974). Agreement had still to be reached between government authorities over whether the zoo would be operated by the federal government or by provincial bodies. This and other unanswered questions between the two levels of government resulted in delays and their failure to reach an agreement for how the second phase would proceed. Given that the Meech Creek Valley remains abandoned farmland, albeit in the Gatineau Park. Regardless of how many times the national zoo idea was resurrected by government officials, federal-provincial talks concerning the zoo never yielded any subsequent results. In the fall of 1974, rumors were circulating about a zoo “somewhere in West Quebec,” and the area residents and farmers organized the Meech Creek Valley Association (MCVA) to protest against any expropriations (Karon 1975b). The MCVA’s elected President was Don Whyte, a Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Carleton University. According to MCVA President Whyte, the Meech Creek Valley residents, farmers, and landowners “wanted to make sure that we were consulted as well as have a say in the future development of our area” (Whyte cited in Karon 1975b). He added: “Not only is the expropriation premature but the whole zoo concept is illogical and ill-conceived. I recognize the state’s right to expropriate for the good of the community, but it should be preceded by a complete disclosure of its intention first” (Whyte cited in Karon 1975b).

176

9  Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

Though public information was scarce at the time, one member of the MCVA clearly recognized the different valuations of property owners and zoo proponents (who estimated expropriation costs at $2.5 million). As Buck (cited in Bigio 1975) explained, “[t]hat amount works out to about $1,700 per acre. Mine is prime agricultural land worth about $10,000 an acre on today’s market. The whole thing is so poorly planned, it’s nothing but a farce.” Another resident with an interest in the “prime agricultural land” in the valley was Bill Parks, whose goal was to turn his 150-acre farm into a beef breeding operation (Hill 1974). Overall, there were 10 farms in operation when, in April 1975, the lands in the Meech Creek Valley were expropriated by the Outaouais Development Corporation (ODC), which issued 48 notices of expropriation to property owners in the Meech Creek Valley (Karon 1975a). An ODC official, Lionel Marleau, explained how the expropriation process would unfold, indicating that those property owners given notices of expropriation did not have to leave immediately; rather, individual meetings would be arranged. Marleau (cited in Karon 1975b) added: “I can assure all the affected property owners that we will strive to give the best possible offers based on actual market values.” With the expropriations getting underway, the Mayor of West Hull, Jim Brown, tried to delay the zoo project. As shown in the next section, Mayor Jim Brown would, in his capacity as a private citizen and real-estate developer, have a subdivision in Gatineau Park expropriated by the NCC in 1976. The year before, however, Mayor Brown was trying to prevent the zoo by arguing that a zoning change was needed and that the Municipality would refuse any request from either the NCC or ODC (Karon 1975b). Mayor Brown’s move delayed the project by at least 2 months, as the ODC would have to force the zoning change through the Quebec Municipal Commission. As Mayor Brown explained of the reasoning behind the delay tactic: “It may not stop the project, but it will bring out the fact that neither the municipality nor the ratepayers’ wishes were considered in choosing the zoo site” (cited in Karon 1975b). Mayor Brown also pointed out that the Gatineau Park occupied over 50% of West Hull’s planning territory, and these projects were only going to further expand the NCC’s presence. Late in May 1975, the Liberal MNA for Gatineau, Michel Gratton, held a 2-h meeting with the Meech Creek Valley Association about the zoo, but candidly told members: “I don’t think the project can be stopped” (Bigio 1975). Valley residents, like Bill Parks, also recognized, at the outset, that the municipality was relatively powerless to prevent regional-provincial-federal plans for the national zoo. Out of the meeting with Gratton, the MCVA drew up a list of questions and statements directed at the project’s rationale and feasibility: What type of a zoo project will be developed – a wildlife reserve or a tourist attraction? Why has neither the NCC nor the ODC prepared a study on the ecological and social affects [sic] of this project? The ODC forecasts 800,000 annual visitors based on a study of the Miami, Florida zoo. But the Miami zoo site is not covered with snow six months a year. Any type of a zoo needs a good water supply. But the Meech Creek becomes a dry bed in the summer. Why expropriate homes at an enormous cost to Canadian taxpayers when a few yards away there are 88,000 acres of land under federal ownership?

9.2  Sully Woods

177

Were there any other sites studied and if so for what reasons were they rejected? Recent experience with developing zoos has not proven to be a success, the prime example being the one in Toronto. Why will this zoo project succeed? (Karon 1975c)

Gratton sympathized with his constituents and admitted that, in light of the finalized agreement between the NCC and provincial authorities, the expropriations were “a bit premature” (cited in Bigio 1975). While Gratton ultimately endorsed the zoo project, citing its potential economic impact to the Outaouais, he proceeded to negotiate with the ODC on his constituents’ behalf. Thus, in December 1975, the ODC gave a 3-month extension to valley residents deciding whether to leave their homes or to remain and pay rent (Ottawa Journal 1975). Another “concession” Gratton obtained from the ODC was that it would submit purchase offers to affected property owners by the end of the year (Ottawa Journal 1975). By that time, 9 of the 48 affected owners had accepted the purchase offers from the ODC. According to Ken Buck (cited in Bigio 1975), “[f]or most of us, expropriation will mean going back to Ottawa.” Following the expropriations, completion of Phase One of the Meech Creek Valley zoo entailed the demolition and removal of houses and barns. Productive farmland was abandoned. As mentioned above, the construction of zoo facilities and the acquisition of Canadian wildlife (Phase Two) would not be carried out. Rather, the federal government eventually backed out of further negotiations with provincial officials as the Trudeau government cut $3.5 million from the NCC’s capital and operation budget (Ottawa Citizen 1975). In 1976, the NCC Director of Quebec Planning, André Bonin, relayed that “[i]t will be at least two years before the project gets underway” (cited in Ottawa Citizen 1976a). Bonin also revealed that no decision had been reached on which government body would assume responsibility and costs for operating the zoo. With the election of the Parti Québécois in November 1976, the national zoo project in the Meech Creek Valley was indefinitely on hold. As late as March 1984, plans for a zoo “resurfaced” in the Outaouais Development Corporation, only to disappear again (Jackson 1984). In the meantime, the Meech Creek Valley had become, as the expropriated farmer, Parks, observed, “almost a wasteland” (Parks cited in Jackson 1984). Chapter 11 documents the negotiations between the NCC and regional government in the 1990s that resulted in the annexation of the Meech Creek Valley to Gatineau Park.

9.2  Sully Woods In the spring of 1974, with expropriations for a national zoo and Autoroute A5 getting underway, the Mayor of West Hull, Jim Brown, approached his uncle, Andrew Newton Brown, owner of a 43 hectare (107 acre) undeveloped property in Gatineau Park located adjacent to the Meech Creek Valley, about a potential development. In addition to being the mayor of West Hull, Brown was also the president of a local

178

9  Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

development firm (Browncrest Farms Ltd.). He convinced his uncle to develop the property as a residential subdivision: “Sully Woods”  was conceived as a 58-lot prestige residential subdivision with spacious 1-acre lots, located in Gatineau Park and in close proximity to the future highway (see Fig. 9.1 Map showing proximity of Sully Woods to Ottawa). Of  course, from the perspective of the NCC, Sully Woods’ impact on the park was bluntly summed up by the new Chair, Edgar Gallant

Fig. 9.1  Map showing proximity of Sully Woods to Ottawa

9.2  Sully Woods

179

Fig. 9.2  Sully Woods master plan

(1975): “A subdivision in this area would destroy the wildlife and natural environment for which the Park was created” (see Fig. 9.2 Sully Woods master plan). As with most privately-owned land in Gatineau Park, the NCC made several offers to the Brown family, which owned the parcel since 1917 (see Fig. 9.3 Map of Brown property). Lot 25A was one of several lots owned by the Brown family and was considered by a land appraiser to be the least desirable of their land holdings for

180

9  Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

Fig. 9.3  Map of Brown property

the purpose of residential development. The appraiser described lot 25A as “a substantially land-locked parcel of typical Gatineau bush with hilly, rough terrain, frequent rock out-croppings and thick bush which has been cut over” (Petry 1964). As bushland in the Gatineau Hills area was valued at $100 per acre in the early 1960s, lot 25A was appraised at $10,768. One appraiser noted of lot 25A that “its most appropriate and profitable use as parkland in adjacency with the Gatineau Park, being, as it is, remote from all lands having market value as farming or

9.2  Sully Woods

181

building sites” (KS Fortune Associates 1964). The appraisals were prepared at the request of the NCC, which, in 1964, offered ES Brown $60,000 for his land holdings in the park, an offer which Brown rejected (Lussier 1975a). Negotiations continued into the late 1960s, when the NCC rejected Brown’s counteroffer of $100,000 (Lussier 1975b). ES Brown passed away in July 1969, and his son Andrew Newton Brown inherited the family’s Gatineau Park lands. Talks resumed with the NCC in September 1970, with a renewed land appraisal valuing Brown’s entire land holdings at $87,000. AN Brown was not interested in selling all the lands to the NCC, but was willing to negotiate for the sale of lot 25A. Of course, the NCC was most interested in acquiring the entire Brown property, but was prepared to acquire lot 25A by itself. Subsequent negotiations were recounted by an NCC official: Mr. Brown was contacted by telephone on several different occasions and on several occasions Mr. Brown was unsure as to whether he would sell or not. A price of approximately $500 an acre was mentioned, however Mr. Brown stated that lots in the area were selling for $4,000 per acre. Because of the uncertainty of the owner to sell the property no further attempts were made. (Lussier 1975b)

Having come to a stalemate with the NCC, Brown was clearly going to be receptive to the proposal, advanced by his nephew, that lot 25A could become among the premier residential subdivisions in West Hull, and bring profit to the family business. Jim Brown established Browncrest Farms Ltd. in 1970 as a natural complement to his construction company, Bestiga Construction Ltd. Browncrest Farms’ very first residential development was the Ridge Group Project, lands in the Gatineau Hills inherited from the family’s original farm. While only eight residential lots had been sold between 1962 and 1969, Browncrest Farms, in the early 1970s, “sold more than one hundred (100) lots on the farm and one hundred and eight (108) houses were built on this development” (Brown 1986). As noted by Brown (1986), this was “an extremely high ratio of houses built to lots sold.” In 1972–1973, before the Sully Woods proposal, Browncrest Farms had also built a three-home subdivision, Maple Woods, in Larriamac, Quebec. Following on from these successes, large and small, the company sought out a new residential development project. As President Brown explained to the Federal Court: “We needed a new project as we were quickly running out of land … It [Lot 25A owned by AN Brown] met all our criteria: good access on municipal road, in a park land setting. By seeing the maps and plans for the four-lane highway, the zoo, and other developments, it was evident that this site would be ideally located, close to an exit and surrounded by 88,000 acres of [Gatineau] park” (Brown 1986). Brown had seen those confidential plans and maps in his capacity as the Mayor of West Hull. As shown in the previous section, these maps were not public knowledge, not to mention the fact that Mayor Brown was highly critical of the highway and zoo projects as well as the expanding federal presence in West Hull. Browncrest Farms contracted a landscape architect to draw up plans for the subdivision. The consultants’ plan proposed a 58-lot subdivision in Gatineau Park, with potential buyers offered four home models to choose from (Browncrest Farms Limited n.d.). Priced from $54,000 to $62,750 per lot, all of the lots had a minimum

182

9  Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

of 150  feet of road frontage and ranged in size “from one acre to larger lots” (Browncrest Farms Limited n.d.). As Brown said in his testimony before the Federal Court: “Sully Woods lots were made large so not to crowd the park-like setting. We could have squeezed 80 lots easily out of 107 acres but by making the lots larger we had 58 total. The idea was that this subdivision would be even more prestigious than the Ridge Group. The subject property was to be the ‘best’” (Brown 1986). Reflecting this ambition, there was more to Sully Woods than attractive houses on spacious lots. A promotional booklet (see Fig. 9.1 Sully Woods plan of subdivision) describes the “Village Core” of Sully Woods, which “will be a small commercial outlet to serve the development … it will have some parking space and be accessible also by the summer and winter trail corridors.” The trail network was to be routed between individual residences and would link them to the Village Core, the “common open space,” and, of course, the Gatineau Park, which would have completely surrounded Sully Woods. To be sure, there was a “protected” wetland area, which meant that roads and structures would be kept “at a distance.” The booklet informed the prospective buyer that, overall, “[a]bout 12 to 15% of the site will remain as common open space for recreation uses, with many off site connections to the Gatineau Park” (Browncrest Farms Limited n.d.). While suggesting that residents would make “use” of the adjacent Gatineau Park, the booklet makes no mention of the impact that the residential subdivision, with its urban infrastructure (waste, water, sewage, electricity), would have on the park. Sully Woods would have not only impacted the park’s ecology; a residential subdivision of its size would have greatly complicated the park’s planning and management. Indeed, Browncrest Farms (n.d.), in keeping with the development company’s past experience and that of community builders in general, wanted to organize the Sully Woods Land Owners Association. Browncrest Farms (n.d.) was prepared to draft the Association’s constitution and by-laws, and it would have probably made membership mandatory upon purchase. The Sully Woods Land Owners Association would set and enforce standards around housing design, fencing, signage, and other “common elements” such as roads, trails, playgrounds, etc. In this way, the Sully Woods Land Owners Association would have been similar to but even more powerful than the Meech Lake Association and Kingsmere Property Owners’ Association. As with existing park residents, the Sully Woods association would have sought to negotiate the planning and use of surrounding sectors of Gatineau Park, in particular, the northeastern shore of Meech Lake, trying to control and limit public access and use. Brown’s plan of subdivision for Sully Woods was submitted to the Municipality of West Hull for approval. In January 1975, the municipality’s Town Planning Committee (on which Mayor Jim Brown sat as an ex officio member) approved the first 12 lots of the proposed subdivision. The approval of Town Council was obtained on 3 February 1975; that same day, AN Brown entered into an agreement with Browncrest Farms Ltd. “regarding how duties and profits should be divided” (Denault 1987: 2). Following this, Browncrest Farms printed sales pamphlets and the sales information booklet discussed above. Before lots could be put up for sale on the market, however, the developers needed approvals from the  CRO and the Government of Quebec’s Department of Lands and Forests.

9.2  Sully Woods

183

In March 1975, West Hull Mayor Jim Brown met with CRO officials, who responded to the subdivision plan by imposing a 90-day development freeze on West Hull. CRO Chair Jean-Marie Seguin (cited in Karon 1975d) expressed his concern in the local media: “The problem with this project is that we don’t know where the route for the highway between Tenaga and Lascelles will be located.” Another regional official indicated that “[i]t is with some regret that we have to take this action but we have been given the power to control the region’s development and we shouldn’t repeat past mistakes” (Karon 1975d). While the Ottawa Journal reported that the Mayor of West Hull accepted the CRO decision, Brown nevertheless revealed his evident conflict of interest when he suggested to the newspaper that “the proposed subdivision plan is not near the route of Highway A-5” (Brown cited in Karon 1975d). This statement, however, contradicts one of Sully Woods’ key selling points! Throughout the summer of 1975, Brown held several meetings with CRO officials to assure them that the subdivision would not affect, in any way, the proposed zoo and highway developments. Even if that were true, Sully Woods would be positively affected by these developments  and therein lies the evident conflict-of-interest of the Brown family. Well before the CRO imposed the development freeze on West Hull, NCC officials in the Land Committee had become aware of Sully Woods (Morin 1975). On 27 February 1975, the NCC Executive approved the acquisition of the Andrew Newton Brown property (Marshall 1975). Several days later, the Director of Planning for Quebec, Andre Bonin (1977), circulated a memorandum stressing that construction of Autoroute A5 was going to increase the development value of the remaining privately-owned land within the park. Director Bonin asked for the views of his colleagues about what should be done with the remaining  1619 hectares (4000 acres) of private lands inside the park. Bonin’s own efforts to change NCC land acquisition policy are documented in the next section. For the moment, it is important to turn to the insights found in the response from the Department of Justice’s Eileen Mitchell Thomas. Having reviewed NCC policy “which has been to buy when possible and expropriate only when necessary,” Thomas (1975), who provided legal counsel to the NCC, then reviewed the historical application of this policy, as it also involved the expropriations of the Bourque Brothers at Lac La Pêche, among others. She concluded: I understand that once again the Commission may be considering the expropriation of two properties within the Park limits where development is being proposed. My comment concerning this piecemeal approach (usually under some threat of possible development) is that it is an expensive procedure, because once land has become a potential housing development there is a tendency for it to be considered of more value than raw land. (Thomas 1975)

Unfortunately, the expropriation of Andrew Newton Brown, and subsequent expropriations, confirmed Thomas’ astute observation about the NCC’s parkland acquisition policy, the piecemeal approach, and the attendant inflation of land values obtained, not only through park improvements, but also through the municipal approval of residential subdivisions.

184

9  Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

On 21 March 1975, the NCC requested $100,000 from the Treasury Board to proceed with the acquisition of lot 25A, by expropriation if necessary. Nevertheless, in the request, the NCC (1975b) indicated that it would “once more endeavour to acquire this land with the owner’s consent…” On 17 June 1975, Order-in-Council P.C. 1975-4/1414 (Privy Council of Canada 1975) authorized the NCC to acquire these lands. In the months that followed, there is no indication in NCC files that another attempt was made to negotiate the purchase of the lot from AN Brown. Rather, when Browncrest Farms Ltd. registered its plans in Quebec in October, the NCC immediately took the first steps to expropriate lot 25A, advertising its intention to expropriate in the local newspapers. Further the NCC requested an updated appraisal of lot 25A from KS Fortune and, in collaboration with the Department of Public Works, prepared and executed an expropriation schedule, with the notices (intention and confirmation) and offer of confirmation having been prepared and delivered. In December 1975, a Notice of Intention to Expropriate was sent in the mail to AN Brown. The letter stated that: Under the provisions of the Expropriation Act of 1970, the Crown has not expropriated your property but may do so by registering a Notice of Confirmation, whereupon a copy of such Notice will be sent to you. Since confirmation usually takes some time, your normal occupation of the land should continue pending receipt of a copy of an official Notice of Confirmation or notice of any other arrangement that may be made.

In February 1976, the Department of Public Works, having received no objection, issued the Notice of Confirmation of an Intention to Expropriate (Desmoyers 1976a). Public Works then entered into talks with AN Brown to discuss compensation and was “pleased to offer” compensation of $32,000 for lot 25A.  The Department official added: “I wish to emphasize that in accordance with Section 14 (4) of the said [Expropriation] Act, your acceptance of this amount is not conditional upon your providing any release and is completely without prejudice to your right to claim additional compensation in respect of expropriated interest” (Desmoyers 1976b). Having dismissed the NCC’s offer of $32,000, ES Brown obtained the legal counsel of Quain and Quain (Fosteur 1976). This was the law firm of Kingsmere resident Redmond Quain, whose vigorous defense of the Meech Lake Road expropriates was documented in Chaps. 6 and 7. Many of the letters to the government from Brown’s legal representative were, of course, redacted in the access-to-­information request; nevertheless, Quain disputed the compensation offered in the Brown expropriation. I think we are both agreed that the offer of $32,000 is so far off the mark that the matter is not worth discussing, and we might as well proceed directly to court. Prices of $500 prevail 30 and 40 miles up the Gatineau and even in the Lac Ste Marie area, and there is no land for sale at $500 an acre short of Farrelton. Prices were up beyond $1,000 an acre in the whole area of Wakefield two years ago. (Quain 1976a)

Quain suggested that prices for “proper residential subdivision type of land” (i.e., lot 25A) ranged from $8000 to $12,000 per acre. Brown’s lawyer argued that, in their search for “equivalents” to compare with lot 25A, the property appraisals done for the NCC had been completely off the mark: “I have many of the equivalents which the Quebec government is using in their zoo expropriations and some of the

9.2  Sully Woods

185

values which they are accepting. As I mentioned to you I am acting for several people in the general area and it seems incredible to me that appraiser can be so far apart” (Quain 1976b). The NCC had, by the time of Quain’s letter, requested a third appraisal for lot 25A. In February 1977, after further letters with Quain, the NCC legal advisor, Thomas wrote to Brown’s legal representative: “I assure you that, from my knowledge of the activities of the Commission, its Property Section is making every effort to obtain independent and impartial advice and is acting on such information” (Thomas 1977). An NCC memorandum noted the added expense of initiating formal expropriation proceedings: “The NCC estimated settlement price is $82,000.00, not including any court costs (legal witnesses) that may arise out of the action” (NCC n.d.). In January 1977, the NCC, once again, offered AN Brown $32,000, which he accepted without prejudice. Brown then counteroffered with $100,000, an amount which the government rejected. Several months later, in September 1977, the NCC sought to set a trial date at the Federal Court, an action which required AN Brown to submit a Statement of Claim. This statement was never registered, such that the expropriation of lot 25A was left dormant for several years. With negotiations making no progress, a trial at the Federal Court was inevitable. In June 1982, Department of Justice officials pressured Quain for a statement of claim: “Unless something is done relating to this file before the end of July, I will refer the matter to the Civil Law Section of the Department of Justice with a view to taking whatever steps are necessary to terminate the court action, thus your client would be statute barred” (Labonté 1982). Following receipt of this letter, Brown retained the counsel of Marcel Beaudry, a lawyer, real-estate developer, and, as shown in the next chapter, the longest-serving Chairman of the NCC. Out of the October 1982 meeting between government officials and Beaudry (1982), it was agreed to have a reappraisal done by Frank MacIntyre (1986). While NCC appraisers found the highest and best use of the bush lot as parkland, MacIntyre concluded that, at the time of the expropriation in January 1976, when land values had risen to $11,500 per acre, and demand for lots in the area far exceeded supply, the highest and best use of this “surprisingly flat, rolling” area in Gatineau Park “was as a residential sub-division.” MacIntyre added: It is obvious that the Federal Government considers that the highest and best use for lands within the boundaries of Gatineau Park is as public park land. On the other hand, private lands within the park have frequently been subdivided, sold and built upon. The NCC, as one of the buyers in the market, has frequently competed for these parcels and has purchased scores of properties, with or without buildings, in the open market. Thus, while land is acquired within the Park for parkland, it has usually been in successful competition with developers or individuals wishing to buy or build homes or cottages.

MacIntyre estimated the market value of the 107 acre lot 25A at $344,000. This was the land’s value as a residential suburban development, an amount based on the appraiser’s comparison of sales of similar properties in the region. A March 1983 meeting between Beaudry, MacIntyre, and government lawyers revealed the wide discrepancy in valuations and noted that “Mr. MacIntyre was not that comfortable with the appraisal but did feel that it demonstrated the values as obtained within the market [at the time of the expropriation]” (Holland 1983). The

186

9  Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

government increased its offer of compensation from $32,000 to $100,000, but “[t]his was not satisfactory to them [Beaudry] and Mr. Labonté suggested that we might settle the matter in the Court where the trial judge would decide” (Holland 1983). In April 1983, Beaudry indicated to government lawyers that a Statement of Claim would be filed in the Federal Court for $440,000 (Labonté 1983). According to Beaudry (1983), this amount represented $340,000 in compensation for lot 25A and a further $100,000 for damages and other inconveniences. Negotiations between Brown and the NCC had thus come full circle. Once again, there would be more delay as Beaudry did not agree to a trial date. Meanwhile, for the purposes of the forthcoming court proceedings, the NCC spent $8000 on another appraisal of lot 25A (Durrant 1983). Unlike previous appraisers contracted by the NCC who maintained the lot as parkland, Gaetan G.  Roy “concluded that, as of January 22, 1976, the highest and best use of the subject lands was for holding on a speculation basis with a potential for some type of residential development” (Roy n.d.). The NCC’s appraiser valued the lands, “with the knowledge of all the uses which could be made of the said property, would have been approximately $70,000.” With the latest appraisal in hand, the NCC raised its advance payment to AN Brown by $38,000, bringing Brown’s total compensation for lot 25A to $70,000, without prejudice (Saumure 1984). After receiving this payment, the AN Brown expropriation proceedings went dormant for another year (Matte-Richer 1986). Following pressure put on Beaudry from the Department of Justice (Ruelland 1986), a trial date was set for October 1986 (Senzilet 1986). To support his claim of $440,000, the plaintiff, AN Brown, called the developer, landscape architect, and appraiser as expert witnesses. With plans for Sully Woods ruined by the NCC action, Browncrest Farms. Ltd. claimed $53,041 in compensation for the “two (2) years of work expended a great deal of time and expertise to bring into the market what would be the best subdivision in the Gatineau Hills” (Brown 1986). The trial judge, Pierre J Denault, had no sympathy for the President of Browncrest Farms and denied his claim which “covered wages paid to his staff, himself, his brother-in-law and his sister and administrative expenses for a period of nearly two years” (Denault 1987: 16). According to Denault (1987: 16): “Not only was no evidence presented of these damages, but they were not paid by the plaintiff, so that he is not in a position to claim reimbursement for them.” For the Federal Court judge, the greatest difficulty in rendering a judgment on the case of compensation for AN Brown was having to reconcile the substantially different valuations given by the appraisers for the plaintiff ($344,000) and the defendant ($70,000). The appraisers had used different methodologies when comparing lot 25A with the recent property sales in the local area, and the judge even had to overrule an objection to McIntyre’s valuation by the NCC appraiser. Nevertheless, Denault agreed with the NCC appraiser that there were weaknesses in McIntyre’s appraisal. First, he had made comparisons between lot 25A and other lands in the Meech Creek Valley which had been expropriated for the zoo. Denault (1987: 12) argued that it was “dangerous to use expropriated land for comparison purposes, for the amount agreed upon may take into account many factors other than the value of the land.” Second, the objectivity of McIntyre’s appraisal was also

9.3  Interim Land Acquisition Policy

187

cast into doubt since, during the trial, McIntyre had “admitted that he knew Jim and Andrew Brown and their family well. He had an unwritten agreement with Jim Brown that his firm would be given the business selling these lots: it would receive an 8 percent rather than 10 percent commission, which he said was not unusual” (Denault 1987: 7). Denault ultimately sided with the NCC appraiser and valued the subdivided bush lot at $700 per acre. In February 1987, Denault delivered his judgment on the AN Brown case with the Quit Claim Deed for lot 25A submitted in the Land Registry of Gatineau a year later (Program Support Services 1988). At this point, 13 years had elapsed since NCC officials had first learned of Brown’s subdivision plans. The outcome of the Sully Woods expropriation was far from a “win” for the NCC.  In total, Andrew Newton Brown was compensated $80,727.12; of this amount, $75,400 was for land, while the remaining $5327.12 covered Brown’s expenses on lot improvements. With interest calculated on the amounts, the total compensation was $103,071.14, plus the NCC paid another $22,227.68  in legal and appraisal fees, for a total of $125,298.82 (Brown 1987). Thus, in the expropriation of Sully Woods, the NCC paid more than triple its original offer ($32,000) for this  undeveloped 43 hectare (107 acre) woodlot. There would have been no time for the NCC to celebrate this as a win, since there were other ongoing subdivision proposals in the park that it had to contend with. As documented in the next chapter, there was yet another leak, the largest exploited by a local real-estate developer, with the NCC and federal government undertaking more costly and time-consuming expropriations.

9.3  Interim Land Acquisition Policy Behind the scenes, NCC officials were exploring the possibility of changing the policy directing the Gatineau Park land acquisition program. Thus, after 15 years of NCC administration, the Director of Quebec planning, André Bonin, submitted an  “interim” land acquisition policy (Planification Quebec 1974). As mentioned above, Bonin was seeking input from his colleagues in the NCC ahead of preparing this document, and the NCC lawyer, Thomas, wrote that the flaws of the “piecemeal approach” to land acquisitions had become glaringly evident in the Bourque and Brown expropriations. Although the “interim” nature of the parkland acquisition policy precluded Bonin from specifying timeframes and prioritizing properties for acquisition as a final plan would, Bonin’s “interim” policy is particularly noteworthy for its analysis of the economics of remaining privately-owned lands in the park. The long-time NCC planner highlighted the disproportionate valuations of the remaining properties in the park. Kingsmere Lake (57 owners) and Meech Lake (88 owners), comprising some 405 hectares (1000 acres) in total, had an estimated worth of $8 million in total ($4 million for each lakeshore). According to Bonin, the remaining 1215 hectares (3000 acres) scattered throughout the park had an estimated worth of $5.5

188

9  Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

million, which reflected the fact that many of the properties were (and still are) undeveloped bush lots (Planification Quebec 1974). Bonin’s recommendations for a new acquisition policy were premised on obtaining the full cooperation of the Quebec Government, which, up to that point with respect to Gatineau Park, had been forthcoming, with the recently concluded federal-­provincial agreements for the Outaouais Roads Agreement (1972) and the Gatineau Park land exchange (1973). Thus, Bonin’s first of seven recommendation was that “[t]he Government of Québec be approached with a request for establishing certain development controls within the Park area” (Planification Quebec 1974: 3). The development controls Bonin would have applied to private development are not specified in the interim policy, which  nevertheless formed the basis of NCC efforts to obtain Cabinet approval. Of course, with the election of the Parti Quebecois in 1976, provincial cooperation would not be forthcoming to the federal government. Accounting for the lack of provincial cooperation, Bonin’s recommendations— those effectively adopted by the NCC, albeit without confirmation—included that expropriation be used only “if a property is in danger of being developed in such a manner as being detrimental to the proper use and development of the Park” (Planification Quebec 1974: 3). Second, the NCC’s property acquisition and planning departments would continue to actively purchase those “[p]rivate lands that are strategically located [which should] be acquired as they become available on the market. Funds out of the National Capital Fund be allocated on a priority basis for this type of property acquisition” (Planification Quebec 1974: 3). To be sure, the NCC’s archived files on Quebec land acquisitions from the 1970s contain several examples where the NCC successfully purchased large parcels of privately-owned land while acquisitions were permitted, but it was doing so—and continues to do so—almost entirely on an ad hoc basis, an acquisition policy that has not only failed to eliminate privately-owned land but is effectively ensuring the perpetuation of private lands in the park. This reasoning was shared by the NCC lawyer Thomas and others in the NCC and federal government. A “rational policy” on land acquisitions in Gatineau Park was needed, Bonin argued in 1974, because of increased development pressures linked to population growth in the Outaouais region. According to Bonin, the need for a rational policy was amplified by an evolving legal landscape. The NCC planner noted that, with the passage of the Land Speculation Act of Ontario, there was greater demand for waterfront properties in the Gatineau Hills. As he explained, this Ontario legislation has made land in Québec more attractive to the speculator and developer in terms of net return on investment and is causing investment to shift to Québec. This is resulting in an escalation in the price and in the number of parcels held by speculators and developers. This has resulted in pressure being placed on the private lands held on the Park boundary, especially along Mountain Road, Highway 11, Meech Valley, Old Chelsea, and Kingsmere. (Planification Quebec 1974: 2)

The second change in the legal landscape was Quebec legislation mandating the regional planning agency, the Communauté Régionale de l'Outaouais (CRO) with the preparation of a comprehensive development plan for the body’s jurisdictional territory, which included Gatineau Park. This comprehensive plan was to be completed within a 2-year timeframe. Despite the CRO’s 2-year timeframe, Bonin’s

9.4  Development Freeze, Park Planning, and Acquisition Policy

189

interim acquisition policy, as if to demonstrate the overall reticence in the NCC about the Gatineau Park land acquisition program, found it “reasonable” that the NCC would take another 2  years to prepare a “Development Plan for Gatineau Park,” which detailed a finalized acquisition policy and identified the most strategic lands in the park. Indeed, alongside changes in the legal landscape and real-estate market, the NCC was receiving public input for the Conceptual Plan for Gatineau Park, published in 1976, as well as dealing with the frustrations of private owners and local politicians arising from the CRO’s development freeze (which, as noted above, came in response to the Sully Woods and other expropriations carried out by the NCC).

9.4  D  evelopment Freeze, Park Planning, and Acquisition Policy Bonin’s land acquisition policy was an interim one because the NCC, under Gallant, had restarted the planning process for Gatineau Park. The NCC supported several scientific studies on the park’s ecosystems (Waltz 1975), forests and vegetation (Lopoukhine 1974), flora (Aiken and Gillett 1974; Brunton and Lafontaine 1974), and wildlife (Miller 1974; Rubec 1975). In September 1975, the NCC assembled an interdepartmental task force with a membership of park planners, biologists, and wildlife scientists from the NCC, Parks Canada, and the Department of Environment. The task force “was given a mandate to establish the guidelines which would orient the NCC in matters relating to the planning, development and future management of Gatineau Park” (Lauzon et al. 1976: 5). As mentioned previously, while the task force was preparing its report, the NCC requested a freeze on development in the park, with the Communauté régionale de l'Outaouais approving a 6-month development freeze (Karon 1975d). The countdown had thus begun: “If by September 30 the NCC does not take any measures to acquire privately-owned properties, then the regional government will issue building permits to private developers” (Ottawa Journal 1976). The task force’s report, Conceptual Plan for Gatineau Park, was released in June 1976; it was the NCC’s first park planning document to be made public. As a “planning tool” in the preparation of a master plan, the Conceptual Plan (NCC 1976b) adopted a “conservation philosophy” which prioritized wildlife and habitat protection ahead of the park’s recreation potential. The Conceptual Plan provided the focal point for the public consultations held by the NCC; in addition to receiving public input, the NCC obtained comments from governmental bodies, such as the Province, the CRO, and municipalities. Before turning to their viewpoints, it is worth nothing the task force’s recommendations in the Conceptual Plan, which were based on conservation philosophy that prioritizes the natural milieu. The task force’s first recommendation was that the NCC “continue its programme of acquisition of private properties located within the Park boundary—the priorities of this programme aimed at bringing into the

190

9  Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

public domain those lands required to realize the overall objectives of the Plan” (NCC 1976b: 71). Although there are few explicit references to Kingsmere and Meech Lake, some of the subsequent recommendations made by the task force seemed to be indirectly aimed at the cottage communities in the park. Thus, the task force wanted the NCC (1976b: 71) to: take measures to eliminate or restrain non-conforming uses that are incompatible either with the general role of the Park, or with the particular functions recommended for each of the large sectors; [and] to make the Park accessible to everyone, and end the special privileges which permitted particular groups to make exclusive use of certain facilities or resources in the past…

While the NCC would continue its acquisition program in order  to eliminate privately-­owned lands within the park  over time, the Conceptual Plan also envisioned the NCC acquiring lands adjacent to the park to ensure that there “are zones of ecological continuity that provide significant wildlife habitat” (NCC 1976b: 67). In October 1976, the Conceptual Plan was presented at information sessions in Ottawa and, the following month, received public input from conservationists, property owners, as well as local and regional government representatives. Without doubt, the public consultations generated considerable feedback, and an MA thesis (Nortey 1992) has been dedicated to its analysis. For present purposes, it is worth unpacking the views of private landowners and conservationists on the land acquisition program. The NCC planner reviewing the public input neatly summarized the diverging viewpoints, beginning with the former: One of the recommendations of the conceptual plan mentioned how important it was for the Commission to continue its program of acquiring private properties within the park boundaries on the basis of priorities still to be established. This recommendation was criticized by park residents, associations of park property owners (North Lucerne Ratepayers Association, Kingsmere Property Owners Association, a group of property owners in the Skyridge area) and real estate agents. These latter claim that the main consequences of this policy will be that the construction of new residences will be restricted, renovation of existing buildings will be discouraged, and selling these properties on the market will be made considerably more difficult. They feel that the policy results in serious prejudice… On the other hand ecological or naturalist associations at both the national and regional levels (Ottawa Field Naturalists’ Association [sic], National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada) are strongly in favour of this policy. They even propose that future acquisitions should include additional property located outside the current park boundaries. They justify this proposal on the grounds that the park should encompass sufficiently large ecological units which are more autonomous. This subject was by far the most often mentioned by the contributing parties. (Langevin 1977)

Just as there were mixed opinions about the Conceptual Plan from citizen’s groups, so too it drew a mixed reaction from different levels of government. Regional planners with the CRO, for their part, were quite pleased with the direction taken in the NCC’s Conceptual Plan (Service de Planification de la Communauté régionale de l'Outaouais 1976). Nevertheless, they had two reservations. First, the divisions between conservation and recreation of certain areas needed to negotiated. Second, they wanted to discuss the proposed timed closure of part of the road between

9.4  Development Freeze, Park Planning, and Acquisition Policy

191

Chelsea and Old Chelsea (Service de Planification de la Communauté régionale de l'Outaouais 1976). The local government of Hull lent its support to the Conceptual Plan. The most critical governmental actors were from the municipality of West Hull (now Chelsea). Then Mayor of West Hull, Douglas Minnes, criticized the NCC’s Conceptual Plan for its lack of a timetable or cost estimate for the remaining land acquisitions. In a brief submitted to regional authorities, the Municipality of West Hull argued: “Until such time as the NCC comes forth with a fair and just policy regarding disposition of private property within Gatineau Park, acceptable both to this municipality and to the residents concerned, we are unequivocally opposed to any freeze which deprives the owners of these private lands of the same rights as those of other landowners of the Outaouais region” (cited in Bigio 1976). Mayor Minnes (cited in Bigio 1976) explained that private land owners at Kingsmere and Meech Lake paid $28,000 a year in municipal taxes on an assessment roll of $2.9 million, expressed the municipal government’s concern about the grave financial impact of the NCC’s acquisition plan: “If we are forced to give up the municipal revenue, we would like to know how we are going to recoup that chunk of the budget.” Of course, the municipal budget was not going to be affected as the Mayor had suggested in the local media. West Hull would have been compensated by the NCC through the grants-in-lieu of taxes scheme it administers for all municipalities affected by the loss of municipal tax revenue from the park territory. Similarly, Jim Brown (1977) responded to the NCC’s Conceptual Plan in his capacity as Chairman of the West Hull Planning Commission. Chairman Brown, the developer of Sully Woods and former Mayor of West Hull, offered three suggestions: two directly concerning the NCC’s acquisition policy and one with the NCC’s overall planning approach regarding Gatineau Park. The first recommendation was that the NCC continue with the existing land acquisition policy rather than “pursue a policy of putting people out of their homes” (Brown 1977). He added: “We encourage the continuation of an earlier policy of the National Capital Commission to acquire at its discretion privately owned lands only when they become available on the market” (Brown 1977). Brown’s second suggestion was to concentrate access to Gatineau Park outside of the Chelsea and Kingsmere areas. Third, he wanted the NCC to consult with the Municipal Council of West Hull and the municipality’s planning commission “[w]hen planning changes to the main Park entrance…. Insensitivity in this regard could overwhelm this historic village” (Brown 1977). In response, the new NCC Chairman, Pierre Juneau (1977), explained to Brown: One of the recommendations of the Conceptual Plan is that the Commission pursue its programme of acquisition of private properties in the park based on priorities to be established aimed at bringing into the public domain those lands required to realize the overall objectives [of the park]. These priorities are to be established in the next planning phase, now underway, namely that of the Master Plan of Gatineau Park. Our past and current policy is to acquire through negotiated purchase undeveloped lands and other private property in the park and to permit continued occupancy by owners of year round residences who sell their property to the Commission. The Commission has had recourse to expropriation in a few instances to prevent undesirable subdivision and development in the Park. We would expect that it should be possible to maintain this general policy,

192

9  Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

although some exceptions may be proposed by park development priorities in the context of the above-mentioned Master Plan.

The CRO, at the NCC’s request, extended the development freeze. In its request, the NCC promised that the necessary funds for acquisitions would be available starting in 1977–1978 and that a detailed parkland acquisition program would be developed in collaboration with the CRO and the municipalities adjacent to the park (Charron 1976). There was, more than ever, a sense of urgency within the NCC to complete the Gatineau Park land acquisition program. As shown in the previous two sections, government officials understood the weaknesses of the piecemeal approach and policy of negotiated purchase. In November 1976, the NCC obtained approval from Federal Cabinet to complete the Gatineau Park land acquisition program over a 5-year period at a cost of $6 million (Richardson 1976). An NCC spokesperson confirmed the Commission’s intention of acquiring all remaining private property in the park. Although the NCC was given a timeline and funds for parkland acquisitions, it maintained the standard approach to acquisitions, that of negotiated purchase. The NCC spokesperson said: “The commission wants to negotiate the price for each parcel of land. It does not want to hassle owners and will not threaten expropriation” (Robb 1976). The status quo acquisition policy was confirmed in the Commission’s annual report: “the NCC has advertised itself as a willing buyer of any private properties which come on the market. It has set aside $6,000,000 to buy such properties as they become available in the next few years. Eventually, the NCC hopes to control all the land in the park, without resorting to expropriation” (NCC 1976a: 31). Inside the NCC, this acquisition policy was known as “complicit suasion.” The NCC Chairman directed staff to implement this policy, as soon and as far as possible, without direct or implied commitment on the part of the NCC to the exercise of its powers of expropriation. If the local authorities judge it to be to the public benefit to regulate the subdivision and development of the lands in question by measures of “freeze” then that is their affair and only of incidental material assistance to the Commission’s purposes. … You are aware, of course, that the Commission may, when it deems feasible and necessary, expropriate. In order to assure the expeditious and economical fruition of the programme, the Property Division will proceed with expropriation in instances where it judges necessary and timely. (Perks 1976)

Seldom has the NCC leadership been so clear about the Commission’s expropriation powers in Quebec than in this internal memo; however, much of the directive wanted to avoid further expropriations. Despite this internal momentum, the NCC, as mentioned, suffered a budget cutback in 1977, such that “Treasury Board has frozen $6,000,000 of the carryover of the National Capital Fund to finance the cost of properties in and around Gatineau Park (Morley 1977). Despite this setback, the NCC Executive requested that planners work on an acquisition plan, as consultants were going to be contracted to prepare a master plan based on it and the Conceptual Plan. In March 1978, the NCC’s Director of Quebec Planning, Bonin (Planification Quebec 1978), submitted a 12-page policy statement, which included an inventory of the remaining private lands in the park. For

9.4  Development Freeze, Park Planning, and Acquisition Policy

193

the purposes of the inventory, Bonin identified three sectors, the southernmost triangle of the park, Meech Lake, and Kingsmere Lake. In the urbanized triangle section, which is wedged between and divides the cities of Gatineau and Aylmer, there were 52 properties, 8 of which the NCC owned. In addition to 49 residences (with the NCC demolishing its residences), there were 3 commercial establishments: a garage, a body shop, and a scrap yard (Planification Quebec 1978: 606). Bonin wanted the triangle to undergo a complete redevelopment for public recreation purposes, such as hosting the main park reception center, a ski center at Lac des Fées, and providing stops and routes for public transit. Thus, only two buildings would be kept in the entire Wedge sector. Meech Lake is discussed next in Bonin’s acquisition policy, but is the most important. Its importance comes, first, from the fact that the lake is surrounded by the most private properties, with the NCC owning only 26 of the 121 properties on the lake. On the 121 private properties, there were 226 buildings, most of which were seasonal use, but 21 of which were permanent residences—and there has been a steady increase in the proportion of properties that have permanent year-round residents living in them (Lait 2018). Second, and related to widespread residential development around the lake, the acquisition of the remaining private lands had become more pressing given the eutrophication of Meech Lake which resulted from four sources of nutrients: the effluent from residences and cottages, disturbance of lake bottoms by human activities, road dust and calcium during the summer months, and, in the winter months, salt from the road maintenance and plowing (Planification Quebec 1978: 609). Third, public ownership of the lake would put an end to the interminable public-private conflicts between park residents and park visitors using NCC beaches and boat launch. The noise complaints meant that NCC beaches were closed at 8:30 p.m. and that NCC staff had to be stationed at the lake in order to settle conflicts between residents and visitors. According to Bonin’s policy, Meech Lake would be dedicated for “one-off intensive uses” at both ends of lake, with Meech Lake Road converted into a multipurpose trail that connects the remaining buildings. At the southern end of the lake, where the NCC owns the Willson and O’Brien houses, would be accommodations for senior citizens wishing to use park facilities. In the southeast section of the lake where there are existing residences, Bonin envisioned turning them into facilities for outdoor education and the caretaker’s residences. The northern end of the lake would be left as undisturbed wilderness (Planification Quebec 1978: 610). As for the residential enclave at Kingsmere Lake, where there were 115 properties, including the NCC’s Mackenzie King estate, Bonin encouraged the gradual elimination of private properties and the redevelopment of the area for greater public accessibility. Bonin inventory of Kingsmere properties was incomplete because they often had heritage features. Nevertheless, the removal of the residential enclave was necessary because of the maze of provincial and private roads that not only fragment the park’s territory but also prevent the NCC from establishing public facilities at the lake (Planification Quebec 1978: 611). The overall goal of the acquisition program was to bring the park under public ownership and, by implication, NCC control. Bonin observed that this goal has, on

194

9  Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

the one hand, been opposed by park residents through their property owner associations, which are concerned about the effects that this policy will have for them as property owners: limiting the construction of new residences, discouraging renovations, and reducing real-estate prices on the open market. On the other hand, conservationists and the CRO supported the goal of the NCC’s acquisition policy, understanding the importance of public ownership to the NCC’s ability to manage the park as a conservation area. From Bonin’s updated acquisition policy, two options were presented to the NCC Executive. Remarkably, instead of adopting a resolution, the National Capital Planning Committee (1978) could only register a preference for the “second option” which consisted of a 15-year parkland acquisition program carried out in four simultaneous phases. Under the preferred option, the first phase would have taken 0–2 years and involved the “[c]omplete acquisition [of] the properties of the Meech Lake area by way of expropriation.” Phase 2 would take 0–5 years and involve the Complete acquisition of all vacant, private properties in the Park; Complete acquisition of properties in the Centre Street residential area; Complete acquisition of properties along Meech [Lake] Road.

Phase 3 would take 0–10 years and would have involved the “complete acquisition of properties in the Kingsmere sector, including Kingsmere Road” (National Capital Planning Committee 1978). Phase 4 would take 0–15  years and would have the NCC “[c]omplete acquisition of properties not acquired during phase I, II and III. This presupposes the acquisition of the Skyridge residential sector and the Lake Fortune sector (including the Ottawa Ski Club), to mention only two of the larger sites” (National Capital Planning Committee 1978). In April 1978, the NCC Board approved an action list for the Gatineau Park master plan. As part of this, the Board approved the following general policies: “Endorsement of present limits of the Park; principle that all privately owned land within the Park, which does not interfere with the implementation of the Plan would not be acquired, unless it is offered for sale” (NCC 1978). Properties at Meech Lake did, however, interfere with the forthcoming master plan. Thus, with respect to “Meech Lake: Recommend expropriation of properties to the Minister followed by an announcement of acquisitions over a period of 5 years. NCC will limit use of calcium on the road” (NCC 1978). However, with respect to Kingsmere, the NCC Board recommended “No action; consult municipality to freeze development; NCC will buy empty lots; NCC staff and Land Committee will investigate possibility of buying development rights as another means of preventing development” (NCC 1978). Before these investigations could get underway, the NCC had to address two management problems arising from private lands. First, it had to respond to a complaint lodged by the Meech Lake Association (MLA) as to the “thoroughly unsatisfactory and deteriorating situation at the parking lot and canoe-launching facility at McCloskey Road on Meech Lake” (Meech Lake Association 1978). The MLA offered to meet with the NCC to discuss ways to improve NCC supervision, and the frustration of NCC officials is in evidence in an internal memo:

9.4  Development Freeze, Park Planning, and Acquisition Policy

195

We are aware of what goes on; You will remember this is part of the scheme to motivate cottage owners to sell; Signs is not the answer as it will not be policed (like Pink Lake)… (Pilon 1978).

The second management problem was more serious, as the NCC had to prevent the subdivision of a 1.8 hectare (4.5 acre) property at Kingsmere owned by Paul Cardinal (Bonin 1978a). Cardinal had submitted and received approval from the municipality of West Hull for the three-lot residential subdivision, and preparation to develop the land had been undertaken with bush cutting and survey pickets (Bonin 1978b; Holland 1978). In response, the NCC, in August 1978, obtained approval of Federal Cabinet to have the Department of Public Works expropriate the Cardinal property. The NCC only averted having to expropriate the Cardinal property because, in November 1978, the owner agreed on a sale price with the NCC negotiators (Hill 1978). The sense of uncertainty within the NCC around the priorities of the land acquisition  program was reflected in an internal memorandum, with the NCC official calling for the acquisition of properties to the south of Kingsmere, but making no mention of the private lands at Meech Lake (Aquilina 1978). The importance of  planning, initiating, and completing the land acquisition program was further underscored in the 1980 Gatineau Park Master Plan, which recommended that “in order to open up the Park as a whole to the public and facilitate its management, the National Capital Commission must pursue its program for the acquisition of private properties and conclude agreement with the municipalities on the closing of the abandoned municipal roads in the Park” (NCC 1980: 60). Following the election of the Conservative Government of Joe Clark, however, the Treasury Board placed a moratorium on NCC land purchases (NCC 1979: 61). The goal of completing the Gatineau Park land acquisition program resurfaced with the reelected Trudeau government. The Globe and Mail reported that $15 million had been earmarked as “the Government wants to buy and demolish about 250 homes and cottages [around Kingsmere and Meech Lake] to open up the park to wider public use, and a [NCC] spokesman said expropriation may ultimately be used to acquire property (The Globe and Mail 1980). Nevertheless, in August 1982, the moratorium on NCC parkland acquisitions was confirmed by the Trudeau government (Guggi 1982). The result was that several recommendations in the 1980 Master Plan had to be “reconsidered,” especially the closure of Meech Lake Road “to use it as a multi-purpose trail to link Meech Lake, Lac Philippe and Lac Lapêche” (Guggi 1982). Despite protests from the NCC against the moratorium (Sweetman 1982), the federal government did not lift the moratorium until 1988—the time of the McInnis and Woodhouse expropriations that are detailed in the next chapter.

196

9  Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

9.5  Nielsen Taskforce Review In 1984, the Mulroney government established a taskforce to review the organization and expenditures of the federal government. Named after the Deputy Prime Minister, Eric Nielsen, the Task Force conducted its review on an agency-by-agency basis. The Nielsen Task Force elicited, according to one NCC insider, “general paranoia” within the crown corporation (Jones 1987: 25). NCC officials had every reason to be worried as the RCMP was, at the time, investigating senior officials for breach of trust (The Globe and Mail 1985), and the Mulroney government appointed a new Chair, Jean Piggott, an influential local figure and the NCC’s first female leader. One of Piggott’s first acts as “Chairman” was to fire the Director of Gatineau Park, who had been with the NCC for 34 years (Aubry 1985). The Nielsen Task Force recognized that the current role of the NCC in the governance of the NCR was less concerned with regional planning and more to do with property management, as the NCC owned 48,200 hectares (119,105 acres), or 10% of total area of the National Capital Region, with NCC properties having an estimated value of $350 million (Task Force on Program Review 1986: 250). This was the outcome of its land acquisition programs for Gatineau Park, the Greenbelt, sites of national significance, and other smaller parks. Nevertheless, the Nielsen task force viewed the NCC to be institutionally adrift: “… [because] the Gréber Plan has been substantially completed, and the National Capital Commission is an agency in search of a new master plan” (Task Force on Program Review 1986: 250). It identified considerable “overlap and duplication” between the NCC and the NCR’s second largest property owner, the Department of Public Works Canada (PWC). Indeed, the report found “many instances where Public Works Canada maintains the interior of buildings and the NCC maintains the outside grounds” (Task Force on Program Review 1986: 51). Seeking to reduce the annual NCC budget of $100 million by 25%, the Task Force recommended merging the architectural, engineering, real estate, and maintenance services of the NCC with PWC.  The task force suggested that the NCC’s property portfolio needed to be reviewed and, ultimately, trimmed, with the “NCC to transfer ownership of all property that is not central to the NCC mission such as roads, bridges, bicycle paths, to the relevant municipalities” (Task Force on Program Review 1986: 262). However, the task force recognized that custody and control of “symbolic” federal properties (i.e., Parliament Hill, the official residences) should be transferred from the PWC to the NCC (and this was carried out in the summer of 1986). Concerning the NCC’s most important “asset,” the Nielsen Task Force recommended transferring responsibility for the administration of Gatineau Park to Parks Canada: The Gatineau Park has a mixture of potential uses; as a wilderness retreat in an urban environment, as a recreational area and as a federal land bank for future requirements. It contains the residences of the Speaker of the House of Commons and the summer residences of the Prime Minister and Governor General. As part of a review of federal land requirements, the study team suggests that the NCC retain custody of land required for future federal

9.5  Nielsen Taskforce Review

197

plans and transfer the responsibility to preserve the natural park environment to Parks Canada. ” (Task Force on Program Review 1986: 253)

For better or worse, the Mulroney government did not act on most of the task force’s recommendations for the park and their other NCC-related proposals, with two notable exceptions. Overall, despite the anxiety provoked by the Nielsen Task Force within the NCC, one historian astutely observed that “the results were generally positive for the NCC” (Gyton 1999: 94). The first exception was that the Mulroney government implemented Nielsen’s recommendation for the federal government to “review the short and long term objectives of land ownership and the future requirements and provide clear direction to the NCC” (Task Force on Program Review 1986: 252). Following the Nielsen task force report, the NCC undertook this strategic review of federal lands in the NCR, culminating in the Plan for Canada’s Capital: A Federal Land Use Plan (NCC 1988). The primary outcome of this Plan was a new designation, the National Interest Land Mass (NILM). As the NCC (2006) explains, NILM classification “meant, firstly, to keep NILM lands already in NCC ownership and acquire and consolidate non-federal lands identified as part of the NILM.” Gatineau Park would be protected as NILM, including the private lands within its boundaries. Effectively, NILM status was supposed to ensure that the NCC would remain the owner and manager of the Gatineau Park in perpetuity; however, as shown in the next chapter, the NCC’s Gatineau Park boundary rationalization exercise severed NILM lands from the park. Notably, at the same time as the Federal Cabinet approved NILM, it also lifted the moratorium on land acquisitions (Gatineau Park Task Force 1989), so that the NCC could resume the parkland acquisition program, which, as shown in the next chapter, was immediately derailed by subdivision proposals that forced the NCC into costly expropriations. Turning to the second exception, the Mulroney government breathed new life and direction into the NCC, issuing, in 1986, a Statement of Government Intent for the NCC. The Commission’s new cultural mandate is guided by three principles: 1 . Making the Capital Canada’s Meeting Place 2. Using the Capital to Communicate Canada to Canadians 3. Safeguarding and Preserving the Capital for future generations (National Capital Commission 1988: i) This NCC’s cultural mandate was the cornerstone of the Plan for Canada’s Capital (NCC 1988), which was begun in 1986, shortly after the Nielsen task force submitted its final report. In reflecting upon the NCR, NCC planners would “emphasize the green image and open space nature of the capital” (Policy and Research Division 1986: 16). The green capital was connected to “the environmental values traditionally held by Canadians” (NCC 1986: i), in particular, their love of and deep respect for nature. The NCC summarizes the desired outcome of the Green Capital such that “Canada’s Capital is renowned throughout the world as a place of magnificent parks, floral displays and green spaces.” (NCC 1986: i). In the context of the green capital, the importance of Gatineau Park is second to none. Nevertheless, as shown

198

9  Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

in subsequent chapters, NILM status does not offer the park protection and the NCC can only project a green image, that is, there is a disjuncture between discourse and practice in the conservation of Gatineau Park.

9.6  Conclusion The Gatineau Park land acquisition program has maintained remarkable continuity as the NCC’s policy has been to acquire lands on a willing seller basis, with expropriation  used only as a last resort. This piece-meal approach has meant that the government  has had to negotiate the  purchase of thousands of land parcels with hundreds of different landowners. As shown above and in the following chapter, the NCC had varying degrees of success with these negotiations, and Commission’s failure to negotiate an agreed-upon price often results in substantially higher acquisition costs, as property values increase with the passage of time and, especially, if expropriation proceedings are required to stop a subdivision fromg going ahead. The NCC has also encouraged expropriations, endorsing plans for a highway and national zoo. The Commission ignored pleas from conservationists who wanted, at the very least, to reroute the highway to the other side of the Gatineau River, if not altogether abandon both the highway and zoo plans. Despite public protest and political campaigning by conservationists and the Meech Creek Valley Association, and municipality of West Hull, farmers and residents were expropriated by the regional government for a national zoo that was ultimately never built. At the same time, the NCC had to urgently respond to the proposed Sully Woods subdivision on lands in Gatineau Park adjacent to the Meech Creek Valley. The expropriations stirred up local and provincial opposition, such that the Gatineau Park land acquisition program was stopped, briefly started again, and then left in abeyance for over a decade on account of a moratorium on land purchases. In short, the NCC’s acquisition policy for Gatineau Park was poorly implemented in the 1970s. This chapter also highlighted a now-forgotten review of the NCC: the Nielsen taskforce recognized the Commission's inability to protect the park from development on privately-owned lands and recommended transferring responsibility for it to Parks Canada. While this transfer never occurred, the task force’s recommendations to renew the NCC mandate and review NCC land holdings were acted upon. Would the combination of the green capital, new cultural mandate, and NILM designation ensure that Gatineau Park was effectively protected “on behalf of all Canadians” (NCC 1988: iii)? As shown in the next chapter, in the late 1980s, threats of residential subdivisions led to a resurgence of efforts to speed up the NCC’s park acquisition program, as well as renewed calls for the legal protection of Gatineau Park. The status quo remained despite the disputes and expropriations arising from private lands in the park.

References

199

References Advisory Committee on Planning (1969) Gatineau Park master plan progress report. NCC, Ottawa. LAC ATI A201500058, p 1049 Aiken S, Gillett JM (1974) The distribution of aquatic plans in selected lakes in Gatineau Park, Québec. Can Field Nat 88:437–448 Aquilina EC (1978) Letter from EC Aquilina to JR Hill, re: politique visant l’acquisition des propriétes, criteres d’utilisation des propriété et des bâtiments et programme d’acquisition des propriétés—Parc de la Gatineau. LAC ATI A201500060, pp 503–504 Archanbault Y (1969) Zoo task team minutes of meeting. NCC, Ottawa. LAC ATI A201500058, p 647 Aubry J (1985) Gatineau Park director fired by Piggott after 34 years with NCC. Ottawa Citizen, 13 Aug 1985 Beaudry M (1982) Letter from M Beaudry to GJ Labouté. NCC ATI A201500037CS, p 239 Beaudry M (1983) Letter from M Beaudry to Federal Court of Canada. T-3840-76. Federal Court of Canada, Ottawa Bigio M (1975) Lots of sympathy but little hope of blocking zoo. Ottawa Citizen, 3 June 1975 Bigio M (1976) Property owners hurt: West Hull. Ottawa Citizen, 3 Sep 1976 Bonin A (1977) Letter from A Bonin to J Séguin, re: Acquisition des propriétés Skyridge. NCC ATI 201500060, p 300 Bonin A (1978a) Letter from A Bonin to S Knox, re: propriété du Paul Cardinal  – 4.5 acres à Kingsmere. NCC ATI A-2016-00073, p 580 Bonin A (1978b) Note de service, re: parcelle de terrain de 4.5 acres à Kingsmere. NCC ATI A-2016-00073, pp 606–607 Brown AN (1987) Final release. NCC ATI A-2015-00037, pp 157–164 Brown J (1977) Letter from JS Brown to P Juneau, re: National Capital Commission Conceptual Plan for Gatineau Park. A201500060, p 44 Brown JS (1986) Affidavit. NCC ATI A-2015-0037CS, p 447 Browncrest Farms Limited (n.d.) Sully Woods. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, pp 488–517 Brunton DF, Lafontaine JD (1974) An unusual escarpment flora in western Québec. Can Field Nat 89:361–370 Charron J (1976) Letter from J Charron to J-M Séguin. A-2015-00060, pp 93–94 Denault PJ (1987) Reasons for judgement. T-3840-76. Federal Court of Canada, Ottawa Desmoyers JR (1976a) Letter from JR Desmoyers to AN Brown, re: notice of confirmation of intention to expropriate. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 267 Desmoyers JR (1976b) Letter from JR Desmoyers to AN Brown. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, pp 482–483 Durrant D (1983) Request for financial encumberance. Settlement of expropriation claim - Andrew Newton Brown. NCC ATI A-2015-00037, p 209 Fosteur SG (1976) Letter from SG Foster to Quain & Quain. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 313 Gallant E (1975) Letter from E Gallant to B Danson, re: acquisition of land. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 380 Gatineau Park Task Force (1989) Acquisition plan: Gatineau Park private properties. National Capital Commission, Ottawa Gordon DLA (2015) Town and Crown: an illustrated history of Canada’s capital. Ivenire Books, Ottawa Guggi R (1982) Gatineau Park plans on an indefinite hold. Ottawa Citizen, 27 Aug 1982 Gyton G (1999) A place for Canadians: the story of the National Capital Commission. National Capital Commission, Ottawa Hill B (1974) NCC to locate zoo near Wakefield: phase one completion by 1977. Ottawa Citizen, 30 Jan 1974 Hill JR (1978) Letter from JR Hill to EC Aquilina, re: Paul Cardinal expropriation – Kingsmere. NCC ATI A-2016-00073, p 569

200

9  Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

Holland TJ (1978) Letter from TJ Holland to A Bonin, re: Paul Cardinal, 4.5 acres Kingsmere. NCC ATI A-2016-00073, p 605 Holland TJ (1983) Memorandum, re: AN Brown Lot 25A, Range 13 Township of Hull 107 acres. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 232 Jackson J (1984) Plan resurfaces for Meech Lake zoo. Ottawa Citizen, 23 Mar 1984 Jones LM (1987) The role and rationale of the National Capital Commission: a critical analysis. Unpublished Honours Thesis. Carleton University, Ottawa Juneau P (1977) Letter from P Juneau to JS Brown. A201500060, p 3 Karon D (1975a) Expropriation begins for Hull wildlife zoo. Ottawa Journal, 11 Apr 1975 Karon D (1975b) West Hull’s loophole to block planned zoo. Ottawa Journal, 25 Apr 1975 Karon D (1975c) Meech Creek: rural community shocked by NCC’s plans for a zoo. Ottawa Journal, 23 Jun 1975 Karon D (1975d) Development freeze slapped on West Hull. Ottawa Journal, 5 Mar 1975 KS Fortune Associates (1964) Appraisal report: Ernest Stanley Brown part lots 22-A, 230A, 24, a5-A, range XIII and 23-B, range XIV Township of Hull. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 79 Labonté GJ (1982) Letter from GJ Labonté to H Quain, re: expropriation of Land, AN Brown, 242158, Q-566-1. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 243 Labonté GJ (1983) Letter from GJ Labouté to M. Beaudry. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 228 Lait M (2018) The paradox of nature and elite second homes: examining the eco-social impacts of Meech Lake cottagers in Gatineau Park, Québec. Ann Leis Res 21(3):302–323 Lambert V et  al (1970) Gatineau Park: overall development plan. National Capital Commission, Ottawa Langevin J (1977) An analysis of public input on the Gatineau Park Conceptual plan. A201500060, p 366 Lauzon DL et  al (1976) Technical addendum to conceptual plan. National Capital Commission, Ottawa Lemieux C (1974) Zoo to start in two years – Isabelle. Ottawa Journal, 23 Feb 1974 Lopoukhine N (1974) The forests and associated vegetation of Gatineau Park. Forest Management Institute, Ottawa Lussier M (1975a) Letter from M Lussier to JR Hill. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, pp 360–362 Lussier M (1975b) Memorandum, re: Ernest Stanley Brown and Andrew Newton Brown. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, pp 360–362 MacIntyre F (1986) Affadavit of expert witness. Ottawa: Federal Court of Canada, T-3840-76. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 169 Marshall FS (1975) Q-566-1 authority to acquire land. NCC ATI A-2015-00037, p 388 Matte-Richer F (1986) Letter from R Matte-Richer to G Kerluke, re: expropriation  – Lot 25A, Range 12 Township of Hull – Andrew Newton Brown Q/R 242158 – Y/R Q-566-1. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 179 Meech Lake Association (1978) Letter from MLA to JJ Seguin. NCC A-2015-00036, p 116 Miller FL (1974) Distribution and numbers of white-tailed deer wintering in Gatineau Park, Québec. Can Field Nat 88:41–45 Morin A (1975) Letter from A Morin to JE Kirchner, re: subdivisions in Gatineau Park. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 390 Morley DJ (1977) Letter from DJ Morley to Stirling Know, re: Gatineau Park land acquisition. A-2016-00073, p 793 National Capital Commission (1975a) Annual report of the NCC. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1975b) Authority to acquire land Q-556-1. Submission to the Treasury Board, Ottawa. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 376 National Capital Commission (1976a) Annual report of the NCC. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1976b) Gatineau Park: conceptual plan. NCC, Ottawa National Capital Commission (1978) National Capital Commission meeting action list. ATI A-2016-00073 National Capital Commission (1979) Annual report of the NCC. Ottawa

References

201

National Capital Commission (1980) Master Plan: Gatineau Park. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1986) Annual report of the NCC. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1988) Plan for Canada’s Capital: a federal land use plan. NCC, Ottawa National Capital Commission (2006) About National Capital Commission lands. Ottawa National Capital Commission (n.d.) Q-566-1 AN Brown. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 250 National Capital Planning Committee (1978) Acquisition program  – option 2. NCC ATI 201500060, p 601 Nortey H (1992) Public participation in decision-making: a case study of National Capital Commission to integrate public participation into Gatineau Park Master Plan. MA Thesis, University of Ottawa NPPAC-OH (1971) Minutes of June meeting. Ottawa-Hull chapter of the National and Provincial Parks Association of Canada, Ottawa Ottawa Citizen (1974) A zoo at last for the capital, 1 Feb 1974 Ottawa Citizen (1975) Parkway, Meech Zoo delayed by cutbacks, 20 Dec 1975 Ottawa Citizen (1976a) Meech Lake zoo put off. Ottawa Citizen (1976b) Gatineau Park gets legal check, 12 Nov 1976 Ottawa Journal (1972) Gatineau Park to be capital’s new zoo site?, 13 Oct 1972 Ottawa Journal (1975) Meech Creek: government relents, 9 Dec 1975 Ottawa Journal (1976) Gatineau test for NCC. Perks WT (1976) Memorandum, re: Gatineau Park acquisitions. A-2016-00073, p 678 Petry EH (1964) Appraisal of part of lots 25A, 22A, 23A & 24 range XIII and part of lot 23B range XIV, Township of Hull, owned by Ernest Stanley Brown. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, pp113–138 Pilon JJR (1978) Memorandum, re: Meech Lake Association. NCC A-2015-00036, p 271 Planification Quebec (1974) Recommended Gatineau Park acquisition policy. LAC A-2016-00073QC, pp 892–894 Planification Quebec (1978) Iventaire des batiments, propositions d’utilisation et elaboration d’une politique et d’un programme d’acquisition des proprieties privées du parc de la Gatineau. LACT ATI A-201500060, pp 602–614 Policy and Research Division (1986) Initial proposals  – summary. National Capital Commission, Ottawa Privy Council of Canada (1975) Order-in-Council P.C. 1975–4/1414. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 378 Program Support Services (1988) Quite claim deed  – Andrew Newton Brown. NCC ATI A-2015-00037, p 151 Quain H (1976a) Letter from H Quain to NCC. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 274 Quain H (1976b) Letter from H Quain to NCC. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 262 Richardson RL (1976) Letter from RL Richardson to J Charron. LAC ATI A-2016-00073-­ QC-AB, p 897 Rivest, J-M (1976) Letter from J-M Rivest to J-M Séguin Robb J (1976) NCC will buy Gatineau Park private land, Ottawa Journal, 10 Nov 1976 Roy GG (n.d.) Affadavit of expert witness. Ottawa: Federal Court of Canada, T-3840-76. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 169 Rubec PJ (1975) Fish distribution in Gatineau Park, Québec, in relation to postglacial dispersal, man’s influence, and eutrophication. Can Field Nat 88:389–399 Ruelland JC (1986) Letter from JC Ruelland to M Beaudry, re: Andrew Newton Brown. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 173 Saumure G (1984) Letter from G Saumure to TJ Douglas. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 185 Senzilet M (1986) Letter from M Senzilet to G Kerluke. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 166 Service de Planification de la Communauté régionale de l'Outaouais (1976) Commentaires sur le concept d'amenagement du parc de la Gatineau. Brief submitted to the NCC, Ottawa. LAC ATI A-2015-00060, pp 11–17

202

9  Planning, Expropriations, Planning…

Sweetman K (1982) NCC wants land-purchase moratorium lifted. Ottawa Citizen (2 Dec 1982) Task Force on Program Review (1986) Real property. Ministry of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa The Globe and Mail (1980) $15 million plan set for Gatineau, 29 Oct 1980 The Globe and Mail (1985) Mulroney cuts off salary of suspended manage, 5 July 1985 The News (1972) Worth considering: a zoo for West Hull, 18 Oct 1973. Available from https:// news.google.com/newspapers?nid=173&dat=19731018&id=1LlhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aeMFA AAAIBAJ&pg=3391,70815&hl=en Thomas EM (1975) Letter from EM Thomas to NCC, re: lotissement et developpement dans le parc de la Gatineau. LAC ATI A201500060/MR, p 269 Thomas EM (1977) Letter from EM Thomas to H Quain. NCC ATI A-2015-00037CS, p 244 Waltz D (1975) Zonage ecologique de la region du parc de la Gatineau. Centre de Recherches Ecologiques de Montreal, Montreal

Chapter 10

The McInnis Scare

The previous chapter confirmed that the National Capital Commission (NCC), in continuing to adhere to the policy of negotiated purchase, was aware of the tremendous costs, both economic and environmental of this policy. This chapter describes the avalanche of expropriations in the 1980s, focusing on the McInnis Scare. This episode underscores how governance under the NCC means that Gatineau Park remains vulnerable to urbanization and development on private lands. Even though the NCC has jurisdiction over the park territory and the power to zone and prevent developments, it refuses to do so. As with the Bourque Brothers and Sully Woods expropriations, the NCC was always reacting to events in the late 1980s and 1990s, such that the parkland acquisition program was ultimately derailed and remains incomplete to this day. This is an unfortunate policy failure given that Gatineau Park once appeared destined to be the prototype in a nation-wide system of near-ruban national parks. The first section documents the genesis of a proposed residential subdivision in the park, which Gatineau developer Carl McInnis obtained approval,  albeit with conditions attached by the government of West Hull now known as Chelsea. While the NCC managed to prevent this and other major subdivision proposals in the park, the expropriations proved, as shown in the second and third sections, to be highly controversial, costly, and time-consuming; indeed, the expropriations included not only McInnis but also the 17 individuals who had purchased lots, as well as the property owners at Kingsmere and Meech Lake. As shown in the fourth and fifth sections, these controversies renewed discussions around the NCC’s parkland acquisition program and renewed calls for Gatineau Park legislation.

10.1  Subdivision Approval As shown in the previous chapter, the NCC was struggling to plan let alone implement its Gatineau Park land acquisition program throughout the 1970s. Despite the NCC’s intention to acquire all remaining private lands in Gatineau Park, and the © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Lait, Governance of Near-Urban Conservation Areas, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64440-6_10

203

204

10  The McInnis Scare

controversy around the development freeze imposed by the Outaouais government, McInnis remained optimistic about the prospects of future residential subdivisions in Gatineau Park. In the late 1970s, a period of economic recession, McInnis anticipated that a boom period was about to get underway for waterfront recreational properties that were easily accessible from Ottawa-Hull. As the owner of C & B Vacation Properties Inc., McInnis sold $1-million of properties in the Gatineau Hills. McInnis observed the changes in the real-estate market in the 1970s: “A few years ago $2,000 would have bought you anything” (McInnis cited in Charters 1978). He argued that developers were needed in order to make development in the area affordable: “I pity the poor guy who thinks he’s going to buy his domaine in the Gatineau. People should be thankful developers are here” (McInnis cited in Charters 1978). McInnis believed that, over the course of the next decade, he would run out of property in the Gatineau Hills, after which he would then focus on the various properties he owned in other regions, namely, Costa del Sol and the Maritimes. As shown below, McInnis’ prediction about running out of land proved somewhat inaccurate as, in the late 1980s, he purchased 110 acres of land near Pink Lake, Gatineau Park (see Fig. 10.1 Map showing proximity of subdivision to Pink Lake). Pink Lake is located adjacent to the Gatineau Parkway and is one of the first lakes accessible to park visitors travelling from the nearby cities. The small meromictic lake has a very fragile ecosystem, such that swimming and fishing are forbidden, and the NCC (1970: 12; 1988: 9) has, from time to time, rehabilitated the shoreline. Thus, the same year that McInnis purchased his 110 acre lot, the Commission was carrying out a $500,000 rehabilitation program for Pink Lake, which consisted of “a new trail system, expanded visitor amenities and new vegetation to cover slopes scarred by visitors descending from the lookout to lakeside” (NCC 1988: 9). McInnis purchased the undeveloped bush lot from land speculators, Robert Tennant and Redmond Quain (see Fig. 10.2 Map of Lot 14). The pair had purchased the lot on 8 July 1988 for $476,550, and they immediately relisted the lot on the market. As shown in previous chapters, Quain was a Kingsmere cottager and lawyer, whose law firm represented several of the families that had been expropriated (Sparks, Brown) by the NCC for park purposes. Tennant was co-founder of the Ottawa-based planning consultancy FoTenn and a future member of the NCC Board of Directors. Only days after their purchase, Quain and Tennant sold the lot to C. &. B. Vacation Properties for $600,550. As an NCC official recounted, “the Commission initially attempted to acquire this property at market value from the previous owners, [redacted] but was outbid by [redacted] “In Trust” for C & B Vacation Properties Inc. and Drovelle Corp. Ltd.” (Page 1989). In addition to paying the land speculators, C. & B. Vacation Properties “also paid a sum of $50,000.00 to one Robert McElligott to whom Messrs. Quain and Tennant had previously committed themselves to sell the property” (Nadon 1997: 2). Having made a quick profit of $124,000, Quain and Tenant had been successful with their land speculation enterprise in Gatineau Park. C & B Vacation Properties paid $650,550 for the lot because it was intent on increasing the property’s value as a residential subdivision. One of the first steps McInnis took was to hire a professional appraiser, FE Macintyre (1988). Macintyre estimated that the parcel was worth $810,000. On the one hand, the property was entirely forested and “[m]ost lots would have a limited

10.1  Subdivision Approval

205

Fig. 10.1  Map showing proximity of land to Pink Lake

view through the trees but some of the lots on high ground would have good distant views into the Ottawa and Gatineau River valleys to the north, east and southeast” (Macintyre 1988: 8). On the other hand, the subdivision would be completely surrounded by Gatineau Park, in perpetuity. Macintyre’s report foreshadows the opposing viewpoints in his appraisal report: It is obvious that the Federal Government considers that the highest and best use for lands within the boundaries of the Gatineau Park is as public park land. On the other hand, private

206

Fig. 10.2  Map of Lot 14

10  The McInnis Scare

10.1  Subdivision Approval

207

lands within the park have frequently been subdivided, sold and built upon. The NCC, as one of the buyers in the market, has frequently competed for these parcels and has purchased scores of properties, with or without buildings, in the open market. Thus, while land is acquired within the Park for parkland, it has usually been in successful competition with developers or individuals wishing to buy or build homes or cottages. It is concluded that at the present time, the highest and best use of the subject property is as a high quality subdivision development. (Macintyre 1988: 10).

With this report in hand and confirmation from government lawyers that the NCC could not interfere with the right of way (Hiley 1988), McInnis proceeded to obtain municipal approval of his development proposal. The next step was to hire a small army of professionals, including surveyors, engineers, and planners, to prepare a 73-lot subdivision plan for “la Corniche du Parc” (see Fig. 10.3 C & B Vacation Properties plan of subdivision). The preliminary plan of subdivision was submitted to the municipality of West Hull for approval, and on 29 August 1988, the West Hull planning commission unanimously recommended that Municipal Council approve the preliminary plan of subdivision, with five conditions attached. On 6 September 1988, municipal council approved the preliminary plan for a 73-lot subdivision based on the planning commission’s recommendations. Soon thereafter, C. & B. Vacation Properties started advertising lots for sale. As McInnis had predicted, there proved to be great demand for the lots. By the end of the month, he had accepted eight offers of purchase and had increased lot prices three times. On 17 September 1988, McInnis began clearing a 50 foot strip on NCC lands along the right of way to their property, informing the NCC of this a week after the fact (Nadon 1997: 4). The accelerated pace of this development was made apparent that day when a municipal building inspector ordered McInnis to stop the road clearing operations: the necessary permit from the municipality had not been obtained. Even an apologist for the developer had to concede that McInnis didn’t help himself by starting to build a road to his property before he had the necessary approvals, although given the procrastination of cowardly municipal officials, the temptation to proceed must be immense when time is money. Still, he shouldn’t have done it, since it helps opponents paint their favorite stereotype of the caring citizen versus the uncaring developer. (Hoy 1988)

The McInnis subdivision near Pink Lake—the first of three subdivisions in Gatineau Park during this period (Woodhouse at Kingsmere; Alexander at Meech Lake)— was not just a case of the caring citizen versus the greedy developer but also a case of the municipality uncaring of Gatineau Park (see Fig. 10.4 Woodhouse plan of subdivision; Fig. 10.5 Alexander plan of subdivision). As shown below, the municipality under Mayor Judy Grant in the late 1980s would “open the floodgates for developers” (Hoy 1988). Mayor Grant would plead to landowners to give her a mandate so that she could defend their interests. Despite the opposition that the McInnis development would encounter from conservationists and park activists, the municipality of West Hull and C. & B. Vacation Properties nevertheless drove the subdivision approval process forward, with the proponents citing the NCC’s lack of jurisdiction over private property and sometimes going so far as to claim that the approval was a matter of routine procedure.

208

Fig. 10.3  C & B Vacation Properties plan of subdivision

10  The McInnis Scare

10.2  Public Protest and Expropriation

209

Fig. 10.4  Alexander plan of subdivision at Meech Lake

10.2  Public Protest and Expropriation The Ottawa-Valley chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS-OV) was aware of the proposed  McInnis subdivision and its progress through the municipal approval process. Following its September 1988 meeting, the

210

Fig. 10.5  Woodhouse plan of subdivision at Kingsmere

10  The McInnis Scare

10.2  Public Protest and Expropriation

211

CPAWS-OV (1988a) executive decided to write letters “opposing development plans for 200 acres within Gatineau Park, near Pink Lake.” This was the first action in what amounted to a social movement to change park governance. At a meeting, conservationists likened the park’s  present situation “to renting out half of the National Art Gallery to condos” (CPAWS-OV 1988b). Their public campaign against the McInnis development found considerable support from local politicians and news outlets. The Ottawa Citizen published many reports on the McInnis subdivision that not only elaborated but also reinforced the conservation perspective, observing the ecological sensitivity of the nearby Pink Lake and the NCC’s ongoing rehabilitation program. Conservationists wrote to Quebec’s Environment Minister seeking to block the development and called on the NCC to expropriate the property so as not to set a “bad precedent for other private development projects within the National Capital Commission’s 87,000-acre park” (Sibley 1988). The Ottawa Citizen’s first article coincided with the decision of West Hull council to delay the subdivision’s final approval. The council’s decision came as the developer had not met all of the earlier conditions, such as completion of the road clearing on the NCC rights of way, the engineering report, etc. After the meeting, Mayor Grant tried to assuage the real-estate developer, informing Le Droit: “ce promoteur est respecté dans notre municipalité. Il a fait chez nous de l’excellent travail et il est soucieux de l’environnement” (Grant cited in Gauthier 1988). Nevertheless, the delay at municipal council provoked McInnis’ condemnation: “This is ridiculous. They had no reason tonight not to approve the plan. We have complied to the letter exactly what was asked of us. This land is my land and I’m not sure if anyone understands that” (McInnis cited in Kalogerakis 1988). Despite this setback and the growing media attention, McInnis was still accepting offer from potential buyers and accepted offers for eight lots after increasing the price of the lots three times (Nadon 1997: 5). In mid-October 1988, McInnis met with NCC officials for the first time to discuss the potential purchase of the soon-to-be-subdivided lot for park purposes. The NCC General Manager, Graeme Kirby, erroneously claimed that the situation which officials found themselves in could not have been anticipated. Rather, the situation, Kirby explained, was the result of “a whole series of things [that] are coming together at the same time” (Kirby cited in Robb 1988j). The General Manager added that the NCC had no funds to acquire the McInnis lands, or the remaining 280 parcels of privately-owned land [in Gatineau Park], many of which are large parcels that can be subdivided” (Robb 1988j). Environmental groups including CPAWS-OV, the Sierra Club, the Quebec Mountain Federation, and the Alpine Club of Canada formed the  Gatineau Park Protection Coalition (GPPC). The GPPC collected approximately 2000 signatures on a petition to stop the subdivision development in (Robb 1988a). The NCC Chair Jean Pigott received the petition at a meeting of the Gatineau Valley Historical Society and suggested that the NCC had not ruled out expropriation but that it preferred trying to acquire the property through negotiation. Pigott “corralled” Mayor Grant, who was also in attendance at the meeting, into accepting the petition at the meeting, with the Mayor reminding the audience that the subdivision plan was only under consideration by municipal council (Robb 1988b).

212

10  The McInnis Scare

Nevertheless, on 27 October 1988, the Municipal Planning Commission approved the McInnis subdivision. Following negotiations with the recreation committee, the developer agreed to pay the municipality $100,000 in lieu of providing recreational land. Ironically, there was no appropriate recreational land at the Pink Lake subdivision in Gatineau Park! Further, McInnis had also submitted the required engineering report, which confirmed that septic systems could be installed on all 72 of the individual lots. The developer told the newspapers that construction of 72 new homes would not harm the ecology of Pink Lake, as the nearest home was 400 meters from the lake (Robb 1988c). He went even further, referring to the environmental damage caused by hikers: “My God, it couldn’t possibly be affected any more than it is now” (McInnis cited in Robb 1988c). As pointed out, the NCC was in the process of rehabilitating Pink Lake, where public swimming was forbidden and public access to the lakeshore was limited. In an attempt to stop the development, the NCC offered McInnis $650,000, an amount which was slightly higher than McInnis’ initial purchase price for the lot. Not surprisingly, this was not enough for the developer, who was simply not prepared to forgo the potential profit that was going to be made from the development. So, even before the NCC made its first offer, McInnis (cited in Robb 1988d) said: “I don’t think they [the NCC] really are serious.” The NCC subsequently increased its offer to $750,000, but McInnis rejected this offer. As the NCC kept raising its offer, McInnis’ perspective on the negotiations’ progress began to change. He informed the local media that negotiations with the NCC “are coming along extremely well” (McInnis cited in Robb 1988e). As for Pigott raising the specter of expropriation, McInnis claimed that the NCC Chair was bluffing (Robb 1988e). Incidentally, once McInnis had been expropriated, he told the local media that he would have been willing to sell the lands to the NCC for $1.5 million (Yonson 1989), an amount substantially less than the final amount the NCC would have to spend on the expropriations, not only of C. & B. Vacation Property lands but also the 17 individual property owners who had purchased lots from McInnis. In November 1988, municipal council approved the subdivision, with only two conditions attached to its approval. First, on account of the inadequacy of the land for recreation purposes, the municipality required C. & B. Vacation Properties to pay a 5% parks and recreation tax in cash; second, the company was required to enter into “a standard Development Agreement with the Municipality” (cited in Nadon 1997: 7). As observed by Harry Gow, one of the leading figures in the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, the approval of the subdivision was another indication that the municipality was not interested in the park project. Rather, “permission comes from municipalities like Chelsea [West Hull] whose interest is to approve development even though council knows the NCC’s policy is to conserve as much of the park as possible” (Gow cited in Rogers 2008). In other words, the municipal interest was is keeping private lands entrenched in Gatineau Park. As the McInnis subdivision was progressing through the municipal approval process, the GPPC petition to the Province’s Environment Minister received a negative response, with the Minister explaining that the municipal project did not come under the jurisdiction of provincial environmental legislation. While the Quebec

10.2  Public Protest and Expropriation

213

minister was not ready to side with the GPPC, the Mayor of Ottawa spoke out about its “justified” cause. In a letter published in the Citizen, the Ottawa mayor, Jim Durrell, encouraged Pigott to expropriate the Gatineau Park subdivision  (Robb 1988f). Pressures on the NCC grew toward the end of November 1988, when the GPPC staged a public demonstration outside the NCC headquarters in Ottawa. Citing the McInnis development and ongoing highway construction in the park, the GPPC called on parliament to draft special legislation to give Gatineau Park national park status. Jean Pigott’s support of the GPPC became apparent when she delivered cookies. She told the 40 protesters assembled: “Well, we were going to give you cookies, but there are just too many of you” (Pigott cited in Ottawa Citizen 1988a). A Parks Canada official interviewed for a story on the protest confirmed that “there is no Gatineau Park Act” (Rogers 1988). The unnamed official did not add whether Parks Canada would support such a proposition. On 29 November 1988, McInnis broke off negotiations with the NCC. He reiterated his belief that Pigott would not expropriate and scolded the NCC: “I’ve never dealt with people like this before. They bargained in bad faith” (McInnis cited in Robb 1988g). It was reported that the NCC offer was less than $400,000, despite what had already been spent on acquiring and developing the lands ($1.2 million); McInnis claimed that, once subdivided, his property would be worth between $4.6 million and $4.8 million. Of course, the NCC countered McInnis’ claim about its conduct in the negotiations: “We made an offer. He still has not responded. We are still negotiating in good faith. Until he replies to our offer, there’s no need to even think of expropriation” (cited in Robb 1988g). Following the breakdown of talks, the NCC and several mayors adjacent to the park met to discuss imposing a 6-month moratorium on future development on private lands inside Gatineau Park. Though this moratorium would not impact the McInnis subdivision, it would have delayed West Hull’s approval of the Dunne-­ Woodhouse subdivision, a 42-lot Kingsmere property on 50 acres. Mayor Grant defended the moratorium: “I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask council for a six-­ month moratorium on something that’s caused us no account of problems for the last six months” (Grant cited in Yonson 1988). Nevertheless, the Mayor was insistent that “Neither the NCC nor the municipalities intend to roll over the private owners in the park. We intend to take into consideration their ownership of these lands and try to work together with them” (Grant cited in Yonson 1988). The moratorium was never imposed (Ibbitson 1988). Although the NCC still exchanged correspondence with McInnis, no further in-­ person talks were held between them prior to the expropriation. In mid-December, the NCC requested the Department of Public Works that it undertake the expropriation. McInnis still maintained his belief that the NCC was bluffing and dismissed the expropriation proceedings as “scare tactics” (McInnis cited in Robb 1988h). He reasoned that: “If they expropriate me now they’ve got to go expropriate everyone else in the park” (McInnis cited in Robb 1988i). Acting on the mistaken belief that the NCC was bluffing, McInnis continued to sell the remaining subdivision lots. The Ottawa Citizen expressed its relief at the announcement that the subdivision was going to be blocked through expropriation proceedings:

214

10  The McInnis Scare Finally, the National Capital Commission is getting serious about protecting Gatineau Park from developers’ bulldozers. … The signal comes not a moment too soon. There are at least six major residential developments besides Carl McInnis’s 72-home subdivision project near Pink Lake that are planned or possible for some of the 2,900 acres of private property inside the park in the immediate or long term. (Ottawa Citizen 1988b)

Although the Citizen editors were critical of the NCC for its slow response to development on private lands in Gatineau Park, they astutely recognized that the earlier moratorium on NCC land acquisitions had impeded its ability to control private property in the park. The Citizen heaped praise on the GPPC protesters, who, in turn, regarded the beginning of the expropriation as a “tentative victory” (Ibbitson 1988i). At the expropriation hearing, McInnis, having been forced to stop the subdivision, predictably condemned this alliance between the NCC and GPPC.  The developer decried the Commission’s  conduct as totalitarianism: “This is not Communist Russia under Josef Stalin, but Canada” (Robb 1989). As the expropriation was getting underway, the Mayor of West Hull became anxious about the fate of the other subdivisions then under consideration by the municipal council. Mayor Grant indicated that the subdivision of the Dunne-­ Woodhouse property was going to be approved and further informed the Ottawa Citizen that she opposed the NCC purchasing private land in the park: “I think it’s a stupid way to do it. They [the NCC] had ample opportunity to expropriate the land years ago when they took the rest of it” (Grant cited in Ibbitson 1988). In March 1989, Mayor Grant organized a meeting with property owners in Gatineau Park. The mayor told the 75 park residents, including McInnis, Woodhouse, and others intending to subdivide their lands, that the municipality needed a mandate: “We don’t want any more expropriations. We want to protect the rights of property owners. We have given notice of a motion to change zoning in the park” (Grant cited in Municipality of West Hull 1989). The meeting attendants offered various suggestions, such as zoning all private lands R-5, which required that houses could only be built on 5-acre lots, with a minimum of 10 acres needed for a subdivision. McInnis reiterated his belief that the NCC could not expropriate for park, read: federal, purposes. The developer called for solidarity among property-owners and argued that the NCC would back down from the expropriation(s) if property owners formed “common fronts” (Municipality of West Hull 1989). As recorded by the meeting minutes, “Mayor Grant then provides figures comparing present and potential revenues for the McInnis development” (Municipality of West Hull 1989). Following the Mayor’s presentation, participants expressed their views, with many approving the R-5 zoning change, albeit with modifications. One person proposed a 50-acre limit, but the consensus hovered around a 5-acre limit. The proponent for 50 acres, Mrs. Moya Wright (cited in Municipality of West Hull 1989), “believes owners have a right to property but must realize they live in a privileged location and that this isn’t only a question of money.” Of course, there was widespread resentment of the recent NCC actions as “Canada is a free country” and property owners are “not second-class citizens” (Municipality of West Hull 1989). The argument for cottagers predating the park was repeated several times, with one

10.2  Public Protest and Expropriation

215

participant pointing out that “the Moore family was there even before Mackenzie King” (Municipality of West Hull 1989). As shown in the following passage, Mayor Grant was aligned with property owners against the park project: “Mr. Gilles Blais, president of the Meech Lake Association asks Mayor Grant to explain for what exactly she wants a mandate. The mayor replies that she wants a mandate to defend the position/rights of owners, and informs the audience that the NCC has told her they will not allow houses to be built on one acre” (Municipality of West Hull 1989). This meeting was held behind closed doors, and one participant even lamented the fact that local media had not been invited to it. Perhaps this was because such divergent views were expressed. So, although resentment of the NCC was widespread, there was also support for the NCC park, expressed by “Mr. Wallace, from the Gatineau Valley Historical Society [who] says the NCC has every right to be here” (Municipality of West Hull 1989). Dr. Scott Findlay also attended the meeting to defend the park project. Along with Harry Gow and Nancy Hall, Dr. Findlay (1988) was among the most vocal opponents of the McInnis subdivision development. A Professor of Biology at the University of Ottawa, Findlay organized faculty to oppose this latest “Gatineau threat.” In a letter to the Ottawa Citizen, he exposed the leakiness of the entire park project: “Unlike lands under the jurisdiction of (say) the National Park Act, there is nothing to prevent private landowners from selling their properties to developers. The only reason this park exists is through the public’s vigilance” (Findlay 1988). Dr. Findlay addressed the meeting of Gatineau Park landowners: saying his grandfather owns 12 acres of land in the park, and that he is attending as his representative. Although he acknowledges his grandfather was poorly treated by the NCC, he is completely against the NCC being excluded from administering the park. He is absolutely opposed to any development for the simple reason that it would occur inside a park. In his view, the NCC only wants to expropriate where large developments occur. He supports the view that municipal council adopt a 5-acre bylaw for building inside the park. (Municipality of West Hull 1989).

The five acre requirement was voted on at the meeting, and the proposal was defeated. Ultimately, the meeting was unable to pass any resolutions. However, as recorded in the minutes, the participants were unanimous in their opposition to any limits on their property rights. Simply put, landowners were—and are—not prepared to relinquish their property rights for Gatineau Park. Accordingly, Dr. Findlay told conservationists that park “[r]esidents want no part of proposed rezoning of all lands in the park because, in the past, this meant the NCC would allow development” (CPAWS-OV 1988c). By the 1980s, the expropriation process had evolved where it was not only the Department of Public Works that carried out the expropriation, but also formal hearings were held so objections could be raised by the public, including by the expropriates themselves. Thus, McInnis and several of the individual lot owners appeared before the hearings in February and March 1989. They denied the subdivision’s environmental impacts. McInnis maintained that the residential subdivision would “not affect it [Pink Lake] in any way.” The developer was accompanied by the environmental engineer who had signed off on the subdivision plan; they insisted that

216

10  The McInnis Scare

the development and septic systems would conform to provincial and municipal regulations. One of the expropriates, Diane Gilbert, tried to turn the argument about the subdivision’s environmental impacts back on the NCC; Gilbert, “a nature lover and concerned with environmental protection,” pointed to the NCC’s use of chemical toilets in the Pink Lake area. She said: “This is more harmful than a residential project to the ecological conservation of Pink Lake. The Commission has constructed an access ramp on the edge of Pink Lake. The ecological impact of this access ramp for the public to Pink Lake will be worse than a residential project” (Gilbert cited in Ste-Marie 1989). The expropriates rejected the NCC’s “change of mind” in acquiring the property (Thomson cited in Ste-Marie 1989). Several claimed that the NCC, and its predecessor, the Federal District Commission, had stood idly by for “150 years”; according to Laurence Wade, his property rights had been disrespected by this inaction: The Government could have purchased these properties earlier. The Crown lands in Gatineau Park would be protected more effectively than at present if private development were allowed. The extension of the freeway would cause more damage than private property owners to the environment and wildlife of Gatineau Park. Since 1974 neither the National Capital Commission nor the Department of Public Works has done anything to amend the zoning by-laws. As a citizen making personal investments in accordance with the existing laws, I should be able to expect the Government to respect my rights. (Wade cited in Ste-Marie 1989)

Citing the construction of new houses and Kingsmere and Meech Lake, William Meldrum (cited in Ste-Marie 1989) argued not only that “there has never been a consistent policy on land acquisition in Gatineau Park” but also that “[t]he National Capital Commission was reacting to public pressure and not because it had a specific project in view for this land.” Of course, the NCC’s goal was for the land to be part of the Gatineau Park. Reflecting the messiness and unintended consequences of the expropriation, one objector was in the middle of negotiating with McInnis for the purchase of a lot for their retirement home: Jean-Paul Dionne said that when he signed the offer to purchase the property in question, he was not aware of the possibility of expropriation. He was subsequently informed by his notary that, if he failed to close the deal as agreed, even though a notice of intention to expropriate had been filed, he would lose the lot and his deposit and might even be taken to court. The notary acting in the purchase apparently told him that a notice of intention to expropriate had no legal validity and that he had to complete the deal.

William Burrows, the lawyer from the firm retained by the individual lot owners, testified at the public hearings with three objections. First, Burrows objected to “the process used in this expropriation [which] ran counter to the normal principles of natural justice and against the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Moreover, this public hearing was not truly a consultation with the public and was not in accordance with the requirements of section 10 of the Expropriation Act” (Burrows cited in Ste-Marie 1989). The lawyer’s second objection concerned the filing of the “necessary material and documents” (Burrows cited in Ste-Marie 1989). The third objection “concerned the deadlines and the costs incurred and still to be incurred. These

10.2  Public Protest and Expropriation

217

properties were privately owned for more than 150 years and for at least 30 or 50 years since Gatineau Park came into existence. It would be enormously more expensive for taxpayers to expropriate now than if the National Capital Commission had acted earlier at the proper time and place” (Burrows cited in Ste-Marie 1989). Following the public hearings, the Minister of Public Works approved the expropriation  of the McInnis subdivision. The approval was reported in the Ottawa Citizen: “[t]he National Capital Commission has won its fight to expropriate a planned 72-home subdivision in Gatineau Park” (Foley 1989). As shown below, conservationists and the local media soon became aware that “[e]xpropriation proceedings on Pink Lake are in trouble – $5 million price tag” (CPAWS-OV 1988d). McInnis (cited in Foley 1989) also estimated the $5-million cost for the NCC in the Ottawa Citizen article, in which he criticized NCC’s “negligence and footdragging.” A journalist asked the NCC how it could justify spending $5 million for 45 hectares (110 acres) of undeveloped land, “general manager Graeme Kirby said it has been forced upon the commission by McInnis’s and the previous owners’ refusal to sell” (Foley 1989). While the NCC had offered the developer $750,000 before talks broke off, the NCC proceeded to offer McInnis $1,380,000 for the remaining unsold lots the month after the expropriation by the Department of Public Works. This offer was accepted by McInnis without prejudice (Nadon 1997: 10). For McInnis, the Commission’s vastly increased offer was vindication that officials had negotiated earlier in bad faith. The Gatineau developer informed the Ottawa Citizen that “he continues to believe his part of the land is now worth close to $5 million. Under federal expropriation law, he can accept the government’s initial bid, bank the money, and still negotiate or sue for more” (McInnis cited in Yonson 1989). As for the various owners of the 23 individual lots which had been sold, the NCC was reportedly prepared to offer another $1.2 million (Yonson 1989). The “test case” for the individual owners was that of Dr. Chris Weber, who had purchased two lots on October 13, 1988, the time when McInnis was raising prices despite protestors calling for the expropriation of the McInnis subdivision. Weber took the federal government to Court arguing for compensation of $200,000 for the two lots, which were purchased from McInnis for $109,000. The first, lot 22, was one of the best in the entire subdivision that Weber bought for $65,000. On this lot, Weber planned to build a home to live in with his wife. The second, lot 73, was purchased for $43,500 as an investment, or for his parents, if they were looking to build a home. A long-­ time Kingsmere resident and an avid cross-country skier, Weber grew up next to the Woodhouse family, and he considered the Gatineau Hills as “home.” In testimony to the Federal Court, Weber was astounded at the opportunity to own land in Gatineau Park, though he harbored reservations about the subdivision’s environmental impacts on Gatineau Park. Having made the choice to purchase two lots, Weber could only enjoy ownership of the lots for several months, as the expropriation occurred on May 2, 1989. At the time of expropriation, the NCC offered him $109,000 for the lots, albeit using different amounts than what Weber had paid for the  undeveloped lots ($62,500 for lot 22 and $46,500 for lot 73). The Federal Court awarded Weber $157,500 plus costs associated with legal, appraisal, and

218

10  The McInnis Scare

engineering fees (Cullen 1992: 56). Although the NCC appealed the Weber compensation, in February 1994, it finally withdrew its appeal. The lawyer representing McInnis, Weber, and other property owners estimated that the NCC was paying $100,000 a month in interest and penalty charges alone (Denley 1994). There was growing pressure within the government to conclude the stalled expropriation proceedings. An ATIP request reveals the sense of panic within the NCC as officials recognized that the 1989 Acquisition Strategy would continue to be inoperative without the requisite funds and that the NCC was not setting aside funds for the purpose of completing the parkland acquisition program (see Fig. 10.6 NCC email exchange on Gatineau Park land acquisitions). At the trial in Federal Court, Justice Marc Nadon’s ruling on the expropriation focused on the divergent appraisals obtained by McInnis and the NCC, as the appraisals had a $2-million difference. Nadon (1997) found that the main factor contributing to the difference was the “unfounded optimism” of the McInnis appraisal that all the lots would have been sold by the time of expropriation. According to Nadon, this created a legal fiction in which all the lots had been sold at the time of the expropriation, it was not just the appraisers’ application of the subdivision approach, but also differing values as to the development costs of the “serviced lots.” The appraisal difference arose, in part, from the fact that the appraisers had been supplied with different data by engineering consultants who had, in turn, provided “very different figures with respect to the costs of constructing the access road and the subdivision streets.” Engineers held divergent views as to the development potential of the various lots, and the NCC’s engineer claimed six lots could not be developed because they could not have septic systems installed on them. McInnis’ engineer maintained that all the lots, which, taken together, were valued at $450,000, could have septic installations. This expert opinion was confirmed by another engineer contracted by McInnis. Judge Nadon ultimately agreed that all of the lots could be developed. In the March 1997 decision, judge Nadon awarded McInnis $823,000 more than the Commission’s offer of $1.52 million, an award 23% greater more than what the NCC had originally offered McInnis. As stipulated by the Expropriation Act, the NCC was thus required to pay the developer, not only the $2,343,000 for the expropriated lands but also to cover the full costs of the trial, including the services of lawyers, property appraisers, and other professionals, which amounted to $735,515. The GPPC’s tentative victory turned out to be a pyrrhic one for the NCC (and by implication the Canadian taxpayer). An Ottawa Citizen headline appropriately read: “Developers win court battle with NCC.” The report noted that the NCC still had to settle final compensation with the other owners of the subdivision lots (Rogers 1997). Whether or not the NCC offers to purchase the lot had been reasonably refused by the developer, the McInnis Scare underscored the vulnerability of the park’s governance regime of tolerating private lands, as the NCC was outbid on the open market by a developer, only for the federal government to be forced expropriate a planned residential subdivision at prohibitive cost.

10.3  1989 Land Acquisition Strategy

219

10.3  1989 Land Acquisition Strategy The Mulroney government’s response to the 1988 private lands issue flare-up went beyond approving the NCC’s request to expropriate the McInnis development. In September 1989, Treasury Board (TB) lifted the moratorium on Gatineau Park land purchases, which had been in effect since 1978. That same TB decision approved the designation of all lands in Gatineau Park as belonging to the National Interest Land Mass (NILM). As a result, all lands within the 1960 OIC boundaries were given NILM status, which, as noted in the next chapter, proved ineffective in protecting the park’s territorial integrity. Ahead of the 1989 TB decision, the NCC appointed an internal task force to plan the resumption of the property acquisition program, with the explicit aim of acquiring the remaining 1200 hectares (3000 acres) of privately-owned land in Gatineau Park. In May 1989, the Gatineau Park Task Force submitted the Acquisition Plan: Gatineau Park Private Properties. Not only does the Acquisition Plan rank privately-­ owned parcels according to six categories (in order of importance, with the three receiving  top priority status: Large holdings in excess of 4 hectares (10 acres); Waterfront holdings; Parcels in existing residential clusters which affected federal facilities or interests; Small landlocked parcels; and Other parcels in existing residential clusters not having a direct impact on federal facilities or interests); but the plan also lists property owners by name—many of these owners or their families likely continue to own properties in the park. The public does not know the exact ranking of the remaining parcels of privately-owned lands in Gatineau Park and the owners attached to these lands. It is also unclear whether the NCC ever produced an Implementation Strategy which the Acquisition Plan had called for— such a document would probably be heavily redacted as well. Nevertheless, there are important insights to be gleaned from the Acquisition Plan. For instance, NCC planners recognized, in the plan’s introduction, that the McInnis Scare reflected the lack of federal-municipal cooperation on issues of park governance, in particular, the question of whether new residential subdivisions can be built in the park, with NCC wanting to ban this practice while municipalities address it on a case-by-case basis (and often approve). Citing the recent expropriations, the task force underlined how the NCC was forced to take direct action in order to prevent urban development in the park—development that had received municipal approval. As NCC planners observed, “[t]he threat posed to the integrity of the Park by these proposals prompted the NCC to seek the support of municipalities and the Region in the control of development of private lands in the Park. This support has not been forthcoming to date” (Gatineau Park Task Force 1989: 4). Another insight to be gleaned from the Acquisition Plan is evidence that NCC planners knew of the difficulties in maintaining positive relations with private land owners and the inevitable need of NCC officials to engage with them on a regular basis well into the future. … there is a history or legacy associated with almost each individual private property in the Park. Private owners’ perception of the NCC and our ability to foster positive relationships

220

10  The McInnis Scare

with them could depend on our understanding of the history of the Park. Unpleasant experiences and actions taken by the NCC’s predecessors remain vivid memories for some, and could create another track for future media attention. The better the Commission understands this history, the more equipped we will be to deal with the media and the concerns of individuals. (Gatineau Park Task Force 1989: 12)

The NCC never conducted research into this history, namely that of its relationship with private property owners. The Acquisition Plan was intended to provide NCC officials with a decision-­ making tool; the plan was meant to be a first step toward consolidating park territory. The goal of bringing Gatineau Park into the public domain would not be realized without some modification to existing arrangements, whereby the NCC relies on the cooperation of municipalities to reject development proposals. According to task force members, “direct control over Park property is essential to its effective management” (Gatineau Park Task Force 1989: 3). Otherwise, they warned that the park was vulnerable to future urbanization: Several of the key large private parcels in the Park are located in close proximity to one another (Pink Lake, Kingsmere, Camp Fortune areas). Their almost contiguous development could mean the creation of a veritable town within the Park when coupled with existing residential clusters. The possibility of a domino or floodgate effect of development of private parcels, one after the other, could have a drastic cumulative effect on the integrity of the Park and its future (Gatineau Park Task Force 1989: 3-4).

The veritable town at Kingsmere and Meech Lake has since been realized, specifically through a gradual urbanization that NCC planners foresaw in the late 1980s and conservationists as early as the 1970s. As shown above, while the NCC was still muddling through the expropriations in the early 1990s, NCC officials expressed frustration at the inability of their predecessors to set aside funds necessary, not only to settle the expropriations, but to implement the land acquisition policy  (see Fig. 10.6 NCC officials email exchange on Gatineau Park land acquisitions). As shown in Chap. 11, the NCC continued to stand idly by throughout the 1990s and into the present in the face of new housing developments approved by municipalities and the conversion of seasonal residences into permanent ones. Further, the NCC has accommodated private interests, through recognition of the permanence of park residents. The NCC has encouraged, behind the scenes, the veritable town and resort area that the Commission had once sought to prevent. Not coincidentally, the leadership of the NCC would be turned over to a prominent lawyer, real-estate developer, and business owner from Hull, Marcel Beaudry.

10.4  Renewed Push for Legislation As the campaign to stop the McInnis subdivision was approaching its “successful” conclusion, the Gatineau Park Committee of CPAWS-OV turned its attention to the preparation of a brief on legislative protection for the park. As shown in the

10.4  Renewed Push for Legislation

221

Fig. 10.6  NCC email exchange on Gatineau Park land acquisitions

committee’s minutes, the latest crisis had renewed the resolve of the group, which was co-­chaired by a lawyer and transportation engineer,  respectively, Timothy Denton and Henning von Mirbach. The Gatineau Park Committee’s membership also included the leaders of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, Nancy Hall and Dr. Scott Findlay (Denton 1990a). In May 1989, the CPAWS-OV Executive

222

10  The McInnis Scare

approved the GPC’s brief in principle (CPAWS-OV 1989); it was then translated from English to French before publication in September 1989. In an op-ed to coincide with the brief’s publication, CPAWS-OV’s Executive Director, Stephen Hazell (1989), wrote: Canada’s Parliament overlooks one of the most biologically diverse wild places in our land, with over 1000 species of plants, 236 species of birds and animals, and 188 rare or endangered species. Wolves, black bear, lynx and deer roam freely in this 363 square kilometre natural treasure. … National parks are protected by law but not Gatineau Park. Incredibly, Parliament has enacted no law governing how land in the park is to be used. The NCC owns most of the land in the park and thus has some control over development. But decisions to build new roads or expand skiing facilities are made at the discretion of the NCC and in secret. And without a governing statute, the NCC lacks the tools to properly manage the park even if it wanted to. (Hazell 1989)

As shown below, the brief’s release prompted the NCC to commit to exploring the creation of a legal regime for Gatineau Park. In a letter accompanying Legislative Protection for Gatineau Park, Hall and Denton (1989) make a distinction between suburbs and cottage country, with the latter already present in the park. With the overall goal of protecting and preserving the park for the use and enjoyment of all Canadians, Hall and Denton (1989) proceed to lay out the remaining goals of the proposed legislation: 1. Preserve the park from urban development. 2. Preserve private holdings in a manner suitable to the maintenance of the natural beauty of the park. 3. Increase the level of democratic influence exercise by park residents and others over park management. 4. Save Gatineau Park as a precious natural resource for the people of Canada and the citizens of the National Capital Region.

The brief reviews three options for Gatineau Park legislation. Having examined the possibilities of amendments to either the National Capital Act or the National Parks Act, the brief ultimately recommended the “[i]mplementation of a separate Gatineau Park Act” (CPAWS-OV 1989: 1). Specifically, the proposed legislation would have established a Gatineau Park Commission (GPC) that functioned completely independent of the NCC, albeit with a government appointed membership (Denton 1989a). The GPC would be mandated with, inter alia, “developing a policy for land acquisition and would have sufficient funds to purchase available lands at fair market value” (CPAWS-OV 1989: 1). Even though the primary mandate of the GPC would be park preservation, and hence land acquisition, CPAWS-OV was not prepared to exclude private residents from having representation on the Commission. Two of the five members (a minimum) would be property owners in Gatineau Park, and the legislation drafted by CPAWS-OV included a section on property owners associations and trust agreements. When considered overall, the conservationists did not view private lands as incompatible with the park:

10.4  Renewed Push for Legislation

223

[i]n our view, most residences and the several small communities within the park boundaries are an integral part of the park’s cultural heritage, and we see no rationale for their removal provided their activities are in keeping with the general mandate of the park. On the contrary, a legal regime sensitive to both the landowner’s and user’s concerns about the preservation of the park is an important advantage of separate legislation. (CPAWS-OV 1989: 9)

This position reflected the prevalent view within CPAWS-OV at the time that, in order for park legislation to be successful, they “[n]eed to get property owners on side” (CPAWS-OV 1988d). Without doubt, the Meech Lake Association and Kingsmere Property Owners’ Association would have resisted attempts to restrict the property rights of owners. As shown in the next chapter, a central theme in discussions around the legal regime for Gatineau Park has always been the resistance from property owners to the threat, real or perceived, that their property rights may be infringed upon by legislation. As revealed in the next chapter, in the different pieces of legislation that have been tabled, property owners are often found arguing that the proposed bills fail to balance the rights of property owners with the public interest. CPAWS-OV was confident that their 1989 brief would convince the NCC to press for legislation. GPC members held their first of several meetings with NCC officials to discuss the brief’s recommendation. Following meetings with the NCC and the Minister of Public Works, conservationists soon gave up the idea of removing the park from NCC jurisdiction and transferring it to an independent commission (von Mirbach 1990). NCC officials raised the possibility of protective legislation at an executive meeting, which decided, in turn, that legislation was worth pursuing. While noting this progress, the GPC co-chair, Timothy Denton, also recognized the NCC decision for what it was: “[i]n bureaucratic terms, that [worth pursuing] means assigning some warm bodies to think, research and write about the issue” (Denton 1990a). At a November 1989 meeting between CPAWS-OV and the NCC, several questions arose concerning the Commission’s legal authority over private lands in the park. Denton was not content to wait for the NCC and Department of Justice to take a stance on the various issues which were raised over the course of these meetings. Rather, in a letter to the NCC’s Vice-President of Capital Planning, Denton (1989b) argued that the NCC had the necessary legal authority to expropriate for park purposes and suggested that the Commission could even zone privately-owned land in Gatineau Park. A subsequent letter from Denton (1990b) contains those legal opinions that confirm the authority of the federal government to zone privately-owned land, namely, rulings of the Exchequer and Supreme Courts, in the Munro case that Section 92 of the Constitution gives federal government Peace, Order, and Good Government (POGG)  powers that can be applied to NCC projects in the NCR, which are carried out in the national interest. At another meeting with the NCC, GPC co-chair Henning von Mirbach (1990) argued that “NCC policies have been too variable regarding the extent to which they support preservation versus utilization.” Having recounted the differences between the Gatineau Park Conceptual Plan (NCC 1976) and the Gatineau Park Master Plan (NCC 1990), von Mirbach (1990) made the astute observation that every NCC

224

10  The McInnis Scare

policy change coincided with a change in leadership. He insisted that legislation was needed to eliminate this policy variability, so as to ensure that the preservation mandate was inscribed in the park’s governance. Following the meeting, conservationists sent a letter to the Minister of Public Works recommending examination of the “constitutional aspects of legislation for the park” (CPAWS-OV 1990).  This examination was never completed, and the push for legislation spurred by the McInnis Scare dissipated in the face of the NCC’s bureaucratic inertia.

10.5  1990 Master Plan Revision Alongside of these meetings, the NCC was concluding its three-stage revision of the 1980 master plan, which began in July 1987. As shown in the master plan, CPAWS-OV GPC’s arguments for legislation had evidently persuaded NCC planners. The NCC’s revised master plan acknowledged that the park lacked a legal status and that there were no official park boundaries. Thus, the master plan would not only recommend the rationalization of park boundaries (NCC 1990: 49) but also urged “the creation of a legal framework [that] could, in the long run, facilitate protection and management of the park” (NCC 1990: 123). Specifically, planners recommended that the NCC: • Explore various methods for providing the Park with an official status. Such status would enable the NCC to legalize Park zoning, confirm Park boundaries and make complementary regulations. • Study the possibility of obtaining special designation under the Land Use Planning and Development Act (LRQ, c a-19.1). (Special Planning Zones – ss 158–163). Such an order would ensure special status for the Park, while assigning responsibility for its management to the NCC. • Study the possibility of rationalizing Park borders (along Autoroute 5 first of all) without diminishing the total Park area. (NCC 1990: 123). Again, the NCC’s commitment to legislation was questionable—it would be repeating this promise in the 2005 master plan revision before fulfilling it, through an internal, heavily redacted staff memorandum (NCC 2006) that will be taken up in the next chapter. The 1990 master plan parted ways with CPAWS-OV in its treatment of remaining private lands in the park. As noted, CPAWS-OV was prepared to admit two representatives to the Gatineau Park Commission, and conservationists recognized the “cultural heritage” of the cottage communities at Kingsmere and Meech Lake. The NCC’s master plan (1990: 39) was insistent on the elimination of private property and suggested that this may be accomplished through zoning, powers conferred on the NCC as per the National Capital Act. As explained in the master plan, Zoning is one of the most important tools available, one that makes it possible to define clearly the extent to which various water and land areas will be protected, and it thus directs the activities of both visitors and managers. The application of zoning is a problem, however, in the case of private interests and properties in the Park, where reconciling the

10.6 Conclusion

225

interests of property owners, municipal authorities, interest groups and the NCC is not only desirable, but essential. The gradual acquisition of properties, using a strategy based on zoning, should also be adopted as a long-term program, since it is still the best way to ensure the Park’s survival. (NCC 1990: 39)

The NCC recommended designating private property as non-conforming with the park’s governance mandate: “private residences fall under the heading of non-­ conforming uses under Park zoning, and they be the subject of a long-term acquisition program…” (NCC 1990: 127). Notably, the NCC has never exercised zoning powers on private lands in the park, whether to restrict new residential construction or prevent other non-conforming uses. Nevertheless, the NCC can institute zoning in the park by virtue of Section 25 of the, which gives the NCC exclusive jurisdiction over the park. The question remains as to why the NCC fails to recognize that it has zoning powers. In the 1990 master plan, NCC planners recommended the resumption of the parkland acquisition program. While the 1990 plan does not go into great detail, it identified waterfront properties at Kingsmere and Meech Lake as “High-priority properties” for acquisition, whereas “existing residential enclaves” were classified as “low-priority properties” (NCC 1990: 129). Despite recommending this designation and calling for the gradual elimination of private lands, NCC planners were nevertheless confident that the NCC could “redefine, in cooperation with the private landowners, their property rights, taking into account the fact that their properties lie within a park managed for the enjoyment of the general public; [and] ensure that Park operations do not infringe upon the property rights defined above” (NCC 1990: 117). The master plan does not detail how this redefinition of property rights with park residents would proceed. Indeed, in an issue analysis of the park done for the purposes of the Parkway Sector plan, consultants reasoned that this recommendation “would be difficult (if not impossible) to implement ... The goal of cooperation is laudable, and one which the local residents encourage, but they stress that their property rights should not be limited unduly just because of where their properties are located” (Torrance Thakar Associates 1991: 21). The consultants’ prediction proved accurate; as shown in the next chapter, relations between the NCC and park residents were, at times, adversarial but were, on the whole, beneficial to property owners.

10.6  Conclusion For over a decade, the moratorium imposed on the Gatineau Park land acquisition program prevented the NCC from adequately protecting the park. As shown above, it took the spectre of residential subdivisions to force the NCC into action. The McInnis Scare led to the government’s lifting of the land acquisition moratorium and Gatineau Park’s newfound status as National Interest Land Mass. Following the “McInnis Scare,” the NCC was immediately consumed by the expropriations of McInnis, the individual lot owners, as well as Woodhouse and Alexander. As the

226

10  The McInnis Scare

Federal Court has found, real-estate developers are only exploiting a weakness in the park’s governance regime, one which had been created and left open by the federal government and the NCC, which refuses to impose and enforce a zoning scheme over the park territory; rather, the NCC governs the park by attempting to enlist the cooperation of municipalities. Nevertheless, in the late 1980s, West Hull/Chelsea showed itself to be as uncaring as any developer. Mayor Grant opened the floodgates to developers and property owners despite—or perhaps because of—the recent recognition of the park’s importance by the federal government. Had the McInnis, Woodhouse, and Alexander subdivisions actually gone ahead, the park’s ecological integrity would have been compromised. Fortunately, conservationists spearheaded the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition. While the GPPC did not advocate expropriation, it did pressure the NCC to stop the proposed subdivisions. The municipality did not side with the protest movement, nor was it going to cooperate with the NCC. Following the McInnis and Woodhouse expropriations, conservationists drafted a brief on protective legislation for Gatineau Park. CPAWS-OV called for the creation of an independent commission to administer the park. The  Gatineau Park Committee would have sought to enlist the support of other land owners in the park. The brief held that private lands could remain in the park without compromising the park’s ecological integrity; and it proposed that two members of the Gatineau Park Commission would be park landowners. When revising the master plan and preparing an acquisition plan, the NCC was not prepared to abandon the prospect of public ownership. The master plan declared private lands non-conforming uses of the park, while the acquisition plan identified the shorelines of Kingsmere and Meech Lake as high-priority areas. As shown in the next chapter, the property owner associations would be opposed to the 1990 master plan; park residents were decisive in influencing both the NCC’s park planning and policies and in stifling attempts to pass Gatineau Park legislation.

References Charters MJ (1978) Developer opening up Gatineau waterfront lots. Ottawa Citizen, 24 June 1978 CPAWS-OV (1988a) Minutes of September meeting. Ottawa-Valley chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Ottawa CPAWS-OV (1988b) Minutes of November meeting. Ottawa-Valley chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Ottawa CPAWS-OV (1988c) Minutes of March meeting. Ottawa-Valley chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Ottawa CPAWS-OV (1988d) Minutes of December meeting. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Ottawa-Valley chapter, Ottawa CPAWS-OV (1989) Minutes of May meeting. Ottawa-Valley chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Ottawa CPAWS-OV (1990) Minutes of March meeting. Ottawa-Valley chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Ottawa

References

227

Cullen B (1992) Reasons for judgment in Christopher C Weber and Her Majesty the Queen. T-1529-89. Federal Court of Canada, Ottawa Denley R (1994) NCC ‘strategy’ of delay hurts only the taxpayer. Ottawa Citizen, 31 May 1994 Denton T (1989a) Environmental group claims greater protection for Gatineau Park.  Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Ottawa-Valley chapter, Ottawa Denton T (1989b) Letter from T Denton to R McLemore. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Ottawa-Valley chapter, Ottawa Denton T (1990a) Gatineau Park Committee: annual report. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Ottawa-Valley chapter, Ottawa Denton T (1990b) Letter from T Denton to R McLemore. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Ottawa-Valley chapter, Ottawa Findlay S (1988) Gatineau threat. Ottawa Citizen, 12 Nov 1988 Foley D (1989) NCC stops subdivision plan for park. Ottawa Citizen, 3 May 1989 Gatineau Park Task Force (1989) Acquisition plan: Gatineau Park private properties. National Capital Commission, Ottawa Gauthier M (1988) La CCN voudrait acheter le terrain de Carl McInnis. Le Droit, 5 Oct 1988 Hall NA, Denton T (1989) Letter to friend of Gatineau Park. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Ottawa-Valley chapter, Ottawa Hazell S (1989) A real park for the Gatineau. Unpublished op ed for the Ottawa Citizen Hiley JR (1988) Letter from JR Hiley to a Courchesne et Associés, re: right of acccess – lot 14, range 7. Township of Hull NCC file QC-570 Hoy C (1988) Passion clouds park feud. Ottawa Citizen, 31 Oct 1988 Ibbitson J (1988) NCC starts move to block Gatineau Park subdivision. Ottawa Citizen, 30 Dec 1988 Kalogerakis G (1988) West Hull delays Gatineau Park planning council says housing project doesn't meet guidelines Ottawa Citizen, 4 Oct 1988 Macintyre FE (1988) Appraisal - Parcel QC-570. Century 21, Wakefield, Quebec Municipality of West Hull (1989) Minutes of Meeting with Park Landowners. L244 X6211 013 N0824–1988 Parc de la Gatineau Nadon M (1997) Reasons for judgment in C & B Vacation Properties Inc. and Corporation Drovelle Ltée and Her Majesty the Queen. T-1160-90. Federal Court of Canada, Ottawa National Capital Commission (1970) Annual report of the NCC. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1976) Conceptual plan for Gatineau Park. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1988) Annual report of the NCC. Ottawa National Capital Commission (1990) Gatineau Park Master Plan. Ottawa National Capital Commission (2006) Gatineau Park: is legislation necessary? Ottawa Ottawa Citizen (1988a) On the record, 27 Nov 1988 Ottawa Citizen (1988b) Gatineau Park: slow off conservation mark, 17 Dec 1988 Page P (1989) Letter from P Page to E McKay, re: expropriation – Gatineau Park. Quebec. NCC ATI A201500091, pp 213–214 Robb J (1988a) Pressure mounts against development in park. Ottawa Citizen, 14 Oct 1988 Robb J (1988b) NCC could expropriate to stop developer: Pigott. Ottawa Citizen, 18 Oct 1988 Robb J (1988c) Developer says plan won’t hurt lake. Ottawa Citizen, 2 Nov 1988 Robb J (1988d) Gatineau Park subdivision clears hurdle. Ottawa Citizen, 27 Oct 1988 Robb J (1988e) Activists vow to block Gatineau Park housing. Ottawa Citizen, 9 Nov 1988 Robb J (1988f) Durrell opposes Gatineau Park project. Ottawa Citizen, 19 Nov 1988 Robb J (1988g) Developer ends talking on Gatineau Park Land. Ottawa Citizen, 29 Nov 1988 Robb J (1988h) Developer criticizes NCC ‘scare tactics.’ Ottawa Citizen, 31 Dec 1988 Robb J (1988i) Expropriation prepared in Gatineau Park. Ottawa Citizen, 14 Dec 1988 Robb J (1988j) NCC land deal raise questions; park lands need to be protected, say critics. Ottawa Citizen, 11 Oct 1988 Robb J (1989) Developer rips NCC land grab in Gatineau. Ottawa Citizen, 2 Mar 1989 Rogers D (1988) Gatineau should be national park. group says Ottawa Citizen, 25 Nov 1988

228

10  The McInnis Scare

Rogers D (1997) Developers win court battle with NCC. Ottawa Citizen, 5 Apr 1997 Rogers D (2008) NCC cuts out middle man in land purchases. Ottawa Citizen, 30 Sep 2008 Sibley R (1988) Plans for park draw fire; conservation group wants Quebec to block housing development.” Ottawa Citizen, 3 Oct 1988 Ste-Marie, JM (1989) Hearing officer’s report for public hearings on expropriation held on February 27, 28, 1989; March 1, 2 1989. T1160–90. Federal Court of Canada, Ottawa Torrance Thakar Associates Inc. (1991) Parkway sector identification of issues. NCC ATI A-2015-00036, pp 456-493 von Mirbach H (1990) Meeting February 20, 1990 of a delegation of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society’s Gatineau Park Committee with the NCC on federal legislation for Gatineau Park. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Ottawa-Valley chapter, Ottawa Yonson D (1988) Project freeze proposed for Gatineau Park. Ottawa Citizen, 1 Dec 1988 Yonson D (1989) Bid soars for Gatineau Park site. Ottawa Citizen, 24 Aug 1989

Chapter 11

Protecting the Park’s Status Quo

The McInnis scare prompted a renewed push for legislation from the Ottawa-Valley chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS-OV) as well as action from the park’s governing body, the National Capital Commission (NCC). CPAWS recommended a new Gatineau Park Commission; however, this call went unheeded by parliamentarians and was only met with promises from NCC officials to “study” legislation. Having expropriated McInnis and two other subdivision proposals on private lands in the park, the NCC prepared an acquisition strategy with the “long-term objective” of eliminating remaining privately-owned land within the park, which had also been given a new status by the federal government as a National Interest Land Mass (NILM). The Acquisition Strategy (Gatineau Park Task Force 1989) provided criteria for the NCC's priority acquisitions, but the NCC’s funds were tied up by the McInnis expropriations. Indeed, the document reveals that NILM status and the NCC’s parkland acquisition strategy did not in any way affect the status quo. This chapter and the next detail how, through the 1990s and beyond, park residents influenced park planning and decision-making, while new roads, commercial, and residential developments eroded the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park. The situation prompted the NCC to carry out a “boundary rationalization exercise” that severed parklands when incompatible uses had been allowed on parklands. This chapter begins with the reaction of park residents to the1990 master plan revision, which, as shown in the previous chapter, reaffirmed the NCC’s implementation of the 1989 Acquisition Strategy. The second section documents how the NCC, under Chair Marcel Beaudry, was downsized and privatized; further, under Beaudry, the NCC annexed the Meech Creek Valley lands as part of the boundary rationalization, but also, despite the park’s NILM status, sold off parkland for residential development. The third section describes the subtle change that took place within the NCC, one sought by the property owner associations. That is, the NCC recognized residents as “park custodians,” and as the fourth section reveals, this new policy was confirmed and elaborated in the 2005 Master Plan. Whereas previous master plans had  emphasized the management problems introduced by private © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Lait, Governance of Near-Urban Conservation Areas, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64440-6_11

229

230

11  Protecting the Park’s Status Quo

lands, the NCC now  understood Kingsmere and Meech Lake residents as ‘‘park custodians’’ with a long-term future in the park. The subsequent chapter, in addition to documenting the ongoing campaign for legislation and issue flare-ups, also traces the continuation of this regulatory capture of the NCC, as park residents continue to be accommodated by park officials.

11.1  Resident Opposition to the 1990 Master Plan As shown in the previous chapter, the fallout of the McInnis Scare was influencing NCC discussions throughout the 1980 Gatineau Park master plan revision and the NCC’s parkland acquisition program. At the same time, Kingsmere and Meech Lake residents sought to strengthen ties with senior NCC officials in an attempt to ensure that NCC policy remained unchanged. In October 1989, a meeting between the NCC and representatives of the Kingsmere Property Owners’ Association (KPOA) was held to receive the latter’s views on the resumption of NCC parkland acquisition program (Dunne 1989). NCC meetings were held irregularly throughout the 1980s (Kyer 1984) and included meetings between NCC officials and Meech Lake Association (MLA) representatives (Frank 1989; Mackenzie 1989). These meetings became more frequent following the release of a draft version of the 1990 Master Plan. The meetings provided opportunities for the property owner associations not only to steer policy but also to discuss “day-to-day” park management issues. At the same time, park residents would provide the NCC with “encouragement” to make improvements to the Kingsmere and Meech Lake. Thus, the KPOA thanked the NCC for its “outstanding cooperation…in removing the old logs, downed trees and sunken wharves from Kingsmere Lake” (Dunne 1988). The issue of public swimming at Kingsmere Lake was raised by the KPOA: There has apparently been a noticeable increase in the number of swimmers in the early evening by the estate boat-house, and KPOA suggests we might want to increase signage and/or patrols. … It is agreed that KPOA will organize a community watch and call in NCC personnel immediately, whenever trespassing occurs. If these measures are not effective, NCC would then agree to consider additional “No Swimming” signage. (NCC 1990a)

Similarly, at Meech Lake, the MLA would complain about swimming in undesignated areas and would routinely seek the closure of NCC beaches. When the NCC repaired fencing at one of its beaches, the MLA was “extremely pleased at the NCC’s response to this complaint which they had raised previously” (NCC 1990b). At the same meeting, the MLA brought to the NCC’s attention several new issues, including garbage from beach users, after-hours use, and the NCC’s impending restriction of the boat launch to “small, portable, craft only. The Association pointed out that there was some difficulty for residents for whom motorboats were a necessity, not a luxury, and that pressure was being mounted to have a launching area provided for such residents” (NCC 1990b). While the NCC would temporarily close the boat launch, a special agreement was made to allow some of its members living on the western shoreline to use O’Brien Beach (National Capital Commission and

11.1  Resident Opposition to the 1990 Master Plan

231

Meech Lake Association 1993). This agreement formally remained in effect until 2009 (NCC 2009); however, the Gatineau Park Protection Committee (GPPC), a watchdog and advocacy group, witnessed the NCC allowing the launch of a power boat in 2013, so it is unclear whether the agreement between the MLA and NCC still remains in effect. In addition to this example of cooperation, the NCC reported the results of water quality tests of Kingsmere and Meech Lake to the respective property owner associations (Doyon 1991a, b). As with other lakes in Gatineau Park, eutrophication was and continues to be a serious environmental problem. Park residents are concerned about the damage brought by growing numbers of park visitors. Nevertheless, biological studies commissioned by the NCC have pointed to private residences at Meech Lake as the main sources of nutrient load accelerating the lake’s eutrophication (Dryade Ltée 1989). What is most important among the various complaints and calls for improvements, however, is the KPOA’s request for the construction of an access road from the Champlain Parkway to the Mackenzie King estate. The access road would reduce traffic congestion experienced by Kingsmere residents, while increasing traffic to the Mackenzie King estate. Recognizing that federal budget cuts would delay construction, Pigott (1989) promised the KPOA that the NCC was going to build the access road, and it built the road under Beaudry. Local journalist, Bob Philipps, recognized the road’s construction as evidence of the NCC’s “drastic new policy [of] accepting private ownership [in Gatineau Park]” (Philipps 2003). The construction of the access road contradicted NCC objectives, not only of protecting the park’s ecological integrity, but it also hindered the land acquisition program. Philipps recognized the function of the new access road as it “would enhance the privacy of private property forever and much escalate its market value, by diverting traffic headed to the estate from the current main access route along historic Swamp Road, which is lined with expensive homes” (Philipps 2003). Apart from improving access to the NCC’s Mackenzie King estate, there was little benefit to park visitors or the public at large. As shown in the next section, the Mackenzie King estate access road was one of several road building projects initiated under Beaudry; the construction of the 1.8 kilometer McConnell-Laramée extension also elicited strong protest from conservationists and environmental advocacy groups (Burbridge 2001; Huggett 2001; Rogers and Laucius 2001; St-Amand 2001). Despite this cooperation on policy between residents and the NCC, the 1990 Master Plan (NCC 1990c) revision was perceived by residents as a major setback. Following their October 1989 meeting, the KPOA President, Dunne, sought clarification about the criteria used by the NCC for land acquisitions, which listed Kingsmere and Meech Lake as high priority areas—equal in importance to large, undeveloped parcels. According to Dunne, “the criteria were judged to create an environment of uncertainty with respect to private land tenure. As stated, they could level or reduce property values and leave owners in doubt as to their options concerning their properties” (Dunne 1989). In response to the request for clarification, Chair Piggott detailed the criteria for property acquisitions and reiterated the NCC’s longstanding acquisition policy:

232

11  Protecting the Park’s Status Quo

Resolution of all negotiations respecting property acquisition will be based on fair market value assessments as determined by private sector appraisers. The Commission will only consider expropriation action where the development of or use of a property will create a definite threat to the Park or its program, and where negotiations to reach a mutually acceptable settlement respecting a priority property have broken down. As we also stated at the meeting, the NCC’s ability to purchase private property is subject to the availability of funds. This will in many cases, limit the ability of the Commission to respond to every property which comes available on the open market. However, it will automatically focus our acquisition program on those properties of highest priority. (Pigott 1989)

Sure enough, the NCC did not obtain funds for land acquisition in the 1990s, a time of federal budget austerity. Indeed, as shown in the next section, there was nothing automatic about the NCC land acquisition program, which remained in abeyance under Piggott’s successor, Marcel Beaudry. The assurances provided by Chair Pigott and other NCC officials did not alleviate the reservations that park residents had toward the 1990 Master Plan. Following its release, the MLA President, Chris Frank, called an NCC official who relayed their phone conversation: He and presumably his membership are upset that the Gatineau Park Master Plan does not include a stronger statement on the legitimacy of single family residences in the park. They feel they were promised such a statement by the Chairman during the meeting with residents last Fall. I told him the language had been toned down quite a bit as a result of that meeting but they were looking for more. I will look into it along with Park and Planning officials and get back to him. We can certainly expect a letter to the Chairman but he also said the Association would go to the Minister if the issue was not resolved to their satisfaction. (Lalonde 1990)

This internal NCC memo demonstrates that park residents played a significant role in the revised master plan, that is, by weakening the stance that would have otherwise been taken by NCC planners. At the September 1990 meeting of the MLA and NCC, Frank positioned residents as “co-owners and co-custodians.” The “prime concern” of residents was “expropriation” (NCC 1990b). To be sure, the 1990 Master Plan makes no reference to expropriations; indeed, it is a continuation of the NCC’s policy of negotiated purchase, albeit with several land acquisition criteria and priorities now identified. Nevertheless, President Frank told the meeting that “the terms used in the Master Plan and the words expressed at the last meeting did not convey the same message” (Frank cited in NCC 1990b). Frank added: “The Association did not buy the expression used [by NCC officials] that ‘they were privileged.’ Although the Association was disappointed that there was no real comfort to be found in the document [1990 Master Plan], (re private ownership) they were encouraged by the Chairman’s letter to the Kingsmere Community Association on this topic” (Frank cited in NCC 1990b). Although subsequent meetings between the NCC and MLA became more cordial, this did not prevent Frank from criticizing the NCC at a public meeting of Chelsea’s Municipal council. Frank referred to the NCC as “bullies … They just don’t accept us as equals” (Frank cited in Low Down 1991). Seeing the MLA

11.2  NCC Privatization and Boundary Rationalization

233

President’s comments, the NCC’s Director of Government and Community Relations was “taken aback and greatly disappointed … You will recall that you had made reference to the significant improvement you had witnessed in the relationship between the NCC and Meech Lake property owners” (Lalonde 1991). In a six-point correction to the Editor of the Low Down, Frank clarified his statements on the NCC: Yes, some of our members individually and the Meech Lake Association have problems with the NCC. Their agenda is different from ours; to be fair to them, so is their scope of responsibility and mandate. However, there is from time-to-time frustration stemming from their lack of direct accountability to those who they purport to serve (they are, after all, public servants). This is in contrast to town council who realize their direct accountability to the electorate and react accordingly. Yet, through discussion and negotiation with cooperative NCC staffers (at HQ, Gov’t Relation and Gatineau Park personnel), progress on key issues continues to be made. (Frank 1991)

This public dispute marked the end, for a time, of the meetings between the NCC and property owner associations, even though the NCC continued to arrange special permits to MLA members to launch motorboats from the NCC’s boat launch. As shown below, the NCC, under Beaudry, would alleviate the concerns of park residents, not only by effectively discontinuing the land acquisition program but also by positioning residents as responsible park custodians. As shown below and in the next chapter, the NCC continues to frame park residents in this way, in the process downplaying the detrimental environmental impact of the private residences  at Kingsmere and Meech Lake.

11.2  NCC Privatization and Boundary Rationalization Marcel Beaudry was only 9 months into his first term as the Mayor of Hull when his political career was taken to the next level. In 1992, Beaudry accepted an appointment by the Prime Minister as Chair and Chief Executive Officer of the NCC. Prior to entering politics, Beaudry was a government lawyer, real-estate developer from Hull, and business owner (hotel and restaurant). Beaudry owned real estate throughout the Hull region, which would invariably put him into conflicts of interest as NCC leader, in particular, with the Commission helping fund several road linkages between Gatineau and Aylmer, where Beaudry owned housing developments (Lapalme 1999). Beaudry’s leadership of the NCC was extended by Prime Minister Chrétien and Prime Ministers Martin and Harper kept him on; in 2006, Beaudry retired at the end of his second 7-year term, passing the leadership on to Marie Lemay (CBC News Ottawa 2012). He remains the longest serving head of the NCC. Through Beaudry’s tenure (1992–2006), both Gatineau Park and the NCC experienced “death by a thousand cuts.” Whereas the park’s urbanization was attributable to the NCC, local governments, and politicians, the death by a thousand cuts experienced by the NCC was not of Beaudry’s own doing, even though he was the official responsible for implementing the cuts. As with other federal government agencies, NCC budget cuts were required by the federal government as part of the “Program Review” (Dare 1995). The Program Review cut the NCC’s staff by half

234

11  Protecting the Park’s Status Quo

and reduced its annual budget by $24 million. Having gone from 960 to 400 staff, and with a 25% reduction in its budget, the NCC (1994: 2), as solemnly noted in its annual report, had become “a very different and much smaller organization.” Federal budget cuts led to the layoffs of frontline staff in Gatineau Park with 103 positions eliminated (Eade 1995). The privatization under Beaudry saw the contracting out of the park’s maintenance and programming staff. The NCC privatized customer services in the park, including concession stands at beaches, fee collection, and trail maintenance. The staff layoffs and privatization of park services alarmed conservationists. Indeed, they expressed relief that the NCC had not privatized all Gatineau Park staff; thus, the NCC retained some park positions, namely, the biologists, conservation officers, and planners. The NCC subsequently reversed a decision to privatize visitor services, leaving staff at the information center on Scott Road, as well as NCC staff for the summer-guided tours of Pink Lake and Champlain Lookout (Eade 1996). As Rebecca Aird of the Gatineau Park Coalition told the local media: “We feel a little better now that natural resource management will remain with the public sector. Our main concern was the potential for conflict of interest if natural resource research and management, as well as development and revenue-generating aspects of the park, went to the private sector” (Aird cited in Ottawa Citizen 1996). While at the helm of the NCC, Beaudry dedicated much of his time and effort toward the development of Hull-Gatineau and the Outaouais region. He was actively involved in the casino development at Lac Leamy, and his decision to support a golf club at the casino was abandoned in the face of an organized protest movement. Under Beaudry, the NCC resumed construction of the highway network for the Outaouais in cooperation with provincial transport authorities (Robson 2006), that is, as part of the Outaouais Roads Agreement which was started in the 1970s when Beaudry was working as the solicitor for the Société de transport de l’Outaouais. In addition to resuming the regional highway network, Beaudry would resuscitate another defunct project from the 1970s, acquiring the Meech Creek Valley for Gatineau Park as part of a complex land exchange agreement with regional authorities (see Fig. 11.1 Map showing BRE of Meech Creek Valley). Beaudry began negotiations with the Communité urbaine de l’Outaouais (CUO), owner of the Meech Creek Valley, in August 1993 (Upton 1993). The CUO was the successor organization to the agency that had expropriated lands in the valley in the mid-1970s for the purpose of a national zoo. Thus, the farmlands remained dormant for decades, and the NCC, in addition to wanting to prevent any unwanted developments in the pastoral landscape of the Meech Creek Valley, wanted to revive farming (once the NCC did gain control of the lands, it allowed farming to resume which led to complaints from conservationists about the pollution of Meech Creek from animal run-­off and the NCC’s subsequent abandonment of farming). In September 1994, the NCC concluded the Meech Creek Valley exchange with the CUO. They would agree on an “equal value exchange.” Thus, the NCC sold the CUO a 31.2 hectare property along Mountain Road (on the park’s western edge) which was “good stock for future

11.2  NCC Privatization and Boundary Rationalization

235

Fig. 11.1  Map showing BRE of Meech Creek Valley

high-priced homes…” (Robson 2006: 13). As part of the equal value exchange, the NCC sold another two parcels (0.30 hectares and 0.40 hectares) of parkland to the CUO, on behalf of the Université du Québec à Hull. Though these lands were technically NILM, the NCC was willing to part with them in order to acquire the Meech Creek Valley, some 595 hectares (1472 acres), worth an estimated $2.5 million (Upton 1993). While negotiations with the CUO in the Meech Creek Valley were getting underway, the NCC executive, in April 1993, approved a recommendation for the following: • A review of park boundaries • Adjustments to the buying strategy for private properties located within the park • A follow-up program The Gatineau Park boundary rationalization program was the logical conclusion of the NCC’s 1989 Acquisition Plan (see Fig. 11.2 Map showing 1990 Master Plan boundary amendment). The boundary rationalization exercise formally began with a cumulative effects assessment (Kingsley 1995), which was submitted in August 1995, followed by an addendum (Simonyi 1995). Through the assessment process, the boundary rationalization was justified as it would have a net positive impact on Gatineau Park: its boundaries would better correspond with the geographic reality,

236

11  Protecting the Park’s Status Quo

Fig. 11.2  Map showing 1990 Master Plan boundary amendment

and they would be redrawn to take into account roads, highways, and other developments inside the park since the original 1960 Order in Council boundaries (Kingsley 1995). Further, the assessment indicates that, although 654 hectares of NCC-owned land would be deemed surplus, the boundary rationalization added a total of 850 hectares to the park (Simonyi 1995). In order to both annex and sever park lands, however, planners recognized that the NCC needed a new legislative instrument, that is, an order in council or legislation was needed to override the park’s 1960 order-in-council boundaries. The NCC never obtained a new federal order in council. Instead, the 1997 Park Boundaries were approved by the NCC Executive, with Treasury Board approval in 1998. The largest loss of parklands from the boundary rationalization exercise was in the Vorlage ski resort (see Fig. 11.1, note D17, D18, D19, D20); it was one of several real-estate transactions conducted between the NCC and real-estate developers during Beaudry’s tenure. The sale was concluded 3 years before the boundary rationalization exercise. In November 1994, the NCC sold 112.85 hectares of parklands to the Vorlage ski resort for $296,616 (Assad 2003). NCC planners retroactively justified this sale as the lands, which were leased to the Vorlage Ski and Recreation Area Ltd., had been severed from the park by the new Autoroute A5 Wakefield bypass. They explained that the lands were sold “for the purposes of continuing the ski centre’s operations and activities” (NCC 1995). Though the sale of the lands was perhaps justifiable, there can be no doubt that the Vorlage ski resort paid

11.2  NCC Privatization and Boundary Rationalization

237

significantly less than it should have. To add insult to injury, the ski resort immediately logged the former parklands. Another real-estate transaction carried out through the boundary rationalization exercise resulted in the severance of lands in the Lac Des Fées Sector for a residential subdivision (see Fig. 11.4 Map showing BRE in southern half of Gatineau Park). As the so-called “Gateway” to the Gatineau Park, the Lac Des Fées Sector was acquired by the NCC in the late 1960s. In the Sectoral Plan (NCC 1992), the NCC proposed a new residential enclave at Lac Des Fées (see Fig. 11.4, note D24, D26). Three years later, NCC planners confirmed that the property, estimated to be worth $1.82 million, was of “no significance” to the park, and Lac Des Fées lands were severed through the boundary rationalization exercise. Thus, in 1995, the NCC found itself in the curious position of requesting a zoning change from Hull’s municipal council. The municipality held a public consultation on the zoning change, which Hull council approved. In April 1997, the NCC placed “For Sale by Public Tender” signs on the property and advertised it in the local media; the NCC received no offers to this or the subsequent attempt to sell the property in August 1998, when an “Invitation for Offers” sign was posted on the property and advertised through the local media. Months later, the NCC hired a real-estate broker who placed signs on the property and advertised it by the Chambre immobilière de l’Outaouais. As noted by the NCC in a response to MP Marc Assad, “[a] final effort, which resulted in the sale of the Lands, was done through an Invitation for Offers

Fig. 11.3  Map showing BRE in Pontiac sector

238

11  Protecting the Park’s Status Quo

Fig. 11.4  Map showing BRE in southern half of Gatineau Park

sent by the NCC to two interested developers in February 2000” (NCC cited in Assad 2003). In March 2001, the Lac des Fées property, with an estimated worth, in 1995, of $1.82 million, was sold to G. Lemay Construction Inc. for only $402,000 (Robson 2006). These real-estate transactions and the boundary rationalization exercise were conducted behind closed doors. Under Beaudry, criticisms were often leveled at the NCC that its governance arrangements made it secretive, unaccountable, and undemocratic. In response to this criticism, Beaudry sought to make the NCC more transparent by holding NCC board meetings in public. However, Beaudry had to make several changes to NCC governance in order for these real-estate transactions to be carried out more independently from Treasury Board. At the beginning of Beaudry’s tenure, the NCC Executive was given more powers over land dispositions. In January 1996, the NCC passed a resolution to give signing authority for land disposals to Directors for disposals of up to $200,000, to the Vice-President for disposals of up to $400,000, and to the Chair and General Manager authority to sign for land disposals exceeding $400,000. Another Resolution on NCC corporate policies from 18 November 1999 gave the Director authority to approve disposals. This consolidation of power in the CEO and Executive as well as the park’s boundary rationalization reinforced criticisms by conservationists that NCC policy can change from one leader to the next and that such change can be done in secret, without any public notice, let alone input. As the NCC became more powerful and autonomous

11.3  Park Custodians Co-opt NCC Planning

239

under the Beaudry, the federal government would, in 2006, carry out another mandate review of the NCC.

11.3  Park Custodians Co-opt NCC Planning During Beaudry’s administration (1992–2006), the program of acquiring private lands was effectively discontinued; however, much of the NCC never formally admitted to this. NCC officials repeatedly said that the Commission did not have funds for acquisitions. As Beaudry explained, We have struck quite a few deals in the past and if it is possible to buy more land within the park limits, of course we are interested. But you need to take into account that we live within a budget and our budget allows us only so much money to spend. We can’t take all of our money and put it into the park because it meets the objectives of some people who would like to see us acquire all of the properties. If we do our best and manage the park in a responsible manner, this is all that Canadians can expect. (Beaudry cited in Rogers 2005a).

Given this, the NCC could not compete for lands when they were put up for sale in the open market. An NCC official defended the implementation of the acquisition policy, even though it had purchase only three properties in Meech Lake, Kingsmere, and Skyridge areas in the past decade (Caesar 2004). In 2005, the NCC could have purchased the 16.6 acre Dufour property, which was completely surrounded by the park; negotiations failed because of discrepancies in the seller’s offer and the property appraisals, respectively, $1.5 million and $500,000 (Rogers 2005b). Not only did the NCC stop acquiring private lands in the park, but it also tolerated new residential construction. Over the period of Beaudry’s tenure (1992 and 2006), 117 new homes were built inside the park, including 68 along Gamelin Street (Caesar 2004). The NCC (2000: 41) summed up the park’s declining situation: “In recent years, rising property values, a lack of financial resources available to the National Capital Commission to purchase properties, and a relatively flexible application of municipal by-laws has resulted in an increase in the conversion of cottages to permanent residences and in the construction of new homes.” Alongside the urbanization of the park’s residential enclaves (see Table  11.1 NCC survey of Kingsmere and Meech Lake residences), the NCC renewed relations Table 11.1  Number of residences at Kingsmere and Meech Lake by property size Property Size (m2)