THE NEW WOODLANDS

PRESERVATION LEAGUE

LA NOUVELLE LIGUE POUR LA

CONSERVATION DES TERRES BOISES

Chelsea, Quebec
J9B 1R7

17 Kingsmere Road

July 5, 2007
Ms. Micheline Dub
Executive Vice-President
National Capital Commission
40 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 1C7
Dear Ms. Dub,
Thank you for meeting with Ms. Barbara Robson, Maureen Hayes and myself
today with respect to Gatineau Park. We very much appreciated your time, and commend
your enthusiasm, and obvious dedication to fully protecting Gatineau Park.
It is unfortunate that Minister Cannons office had not informed you he was
planning to seriously amend Bill S-210. This seems to indicate he may have been scared
off either by the provincial government or the property owners. At the very least it
indicates a clear reversal of his prior position and commitment. We will continue to try to
convince him to support the bill. In any event, I trust Ms. Robson will forward the
governments 18 amendments and her analysis of them to you shortly.
As mentioned this morning, Senator Banks was kind enough to provide me with
copies of your responses to his various letters on Gatineau Park. Time constraints prevent
me from going into all the points you made, but I would like to address some of them,
before requesting your views on two questions pertaining to the 1973 agreement
regarding the transfer of lands in Gatineau Park.
With respect to the point you made in your letter of April 30, referring to the
Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act (1991, c.50): you are right in saying
that section 10 says that Her Majesty may grant federal real property and concede federal
immovables to Herself. However, the Act mentioned does not allow the federal Crown to
transfer titles or ownership to the provincial Crown. The definition of Her Majesty
contained at the beginning of the Act clearly says Her Majesty means the federal Crown.
So what the Act in fact says is the federal Crown can transfer something to herself, not a
province. I believe this section was put in for very specific and technical reasons in the
early nineties.
/2

-2Another point you make in your April 30 letter, referring to Paul Lordons book
Crown Law, is that, according to Lordon, the indivisibility rule is gradually being
recognized as archaic. However, although this may be accurate in terms of international
affairs, where the United Kingdom used to speak on behalf of all Dominions before the
Balfour Declaration and Statute of Westminster, this in no way subverts the indivisibility
principle as it applies to federal-provincial property transfers. That principle was
originally confirmed in 1945 as case law by the Supreme Court in Attorney General of
Canada vs. Higbie et al and the Attorney General for BC. It has been reconfirmed many
times since, most recently in 2001 by the Supreme Court in Osoyoos Indian Band v.
Oliver (Town). Moreover, that principle is reinforced by sections 16(1)(e) and (f) of the
Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act and sections 5(1) and (2) of the
accompanying Federal Real Property Regulations, which address property transfers in
terms of administration and control. So if the principle appears archaic to some, it
nonetheless remains operative as statute, case law, regulation and policy, since it is also
invoked by several provincial governments.
As for the status of the August 1973 agreement between Quebec and the NCC, I
agree it appears quite complex due to the nature of federal provincial relations. However,
on May 26, to get a better handle on this agreement, I spoke with the Honourable Oswald
Parent, the former Quebec Interprovincial Affairs Minister who signed the agreement in
question. During that conversation, Mr. Parent confirmed the following: 1) the 1973
agreement transferred control and management of the lands to the NCC; 2) there was
never any question of transferring titles or registering the agreement; 3) the agreement
came into effect six months following its signature, as required by clause C-1; 4) no
additional instrument of transfer was necessary, or ever discussed, since all that was
needed, according to Mr. Parent, was the agreement and two Orders in Council.
All of this seems very complex indeed. Accordingly, I would appreciate your
views on the following two questions pertaining to the 1973 agreement, which I
mentioned during our meeting this morning:
1) Clause C-1 of the August 1, 1973 agreement between the National Capital
Commission and the Quebec Government regarding the transfer of certain public lands in
the Quebec portion of the National Capital Region stipulates: The Government and
Commission agree to take the necessary measures to carry out their respective obligations
pursuant to clauses A and B within a maximum period of six months from the date of
the present agreement.
What measures were necessary to fulfill those respective obligations; were they
carried out within the six-month period; if not, in each case, why not; if those measures
3/

-3were not carried out, what is the governments timeline for fulfilling those obligations; if
those obligations were not carried out, what is the status of the 1973 agreement, and has
that agreement been rendered inoperative by failure of the parties to fulfill their
respective obligations?
2) Clause C-5 of the 1973 agreement stipulates that the parties agree to execute
all such deeds and documents required to give effect to the present agreement.
Specifically, what deeds and documents were required by law, or otherwise, to give effect
to the 1973 agreement; were they executed; if not, why not; if not, what is the status of
the 1973 agreement as a result; and if those deeds and documents were not executed, why
have the parties not taken steps to ensure the agreement was respected and brought into
effect?
In closing, we are delighted that the NCC has completed the metes and bounds
description of Gatineau Park according to the 1997 rationalized boundary. That is not
only good news, but a major achievement as well for which you and the NCC deserve our
strongest praise.
I appreciate your dedication to making National Capital Region an outstanding
meeting place of which all Canadians can be truly proud.
With Best Regards,
Copy of original signed by
Jean-Paul Murray
President
PS: I have forwarded a copy of the two questions to Ms. Maureen Hayes