Panel report published

The Panel’s report and recommendations are just about as good as we could have wished (even if some might want to quibble with certain choices, such as keeping the NCC in charge of Gatineau Park and the Greenbelt and protecting it through the National Capital Act; my own slight disappointment is that, in discussing the possible disposition of surplus land, it did not mention the option of transferring the land to a community trust). The next question now is what Cannon, Baird & his colleagues are going to do with the recommendations.

We should strongly welcome the report’s recommendations, in particular:

– a strengthened and more focused mandate;

– the need for a rigorous definition (“a Charter”) and public process around National Interest Land Mass status;

– the end of land sales, even if determined to be “surplus”;

– a municipal consultative committee (MCC) of senior officials, advising the NCC Board – and if the advice is not heeded, they must explain…

– the Board’s Advisory Committees (4 identified) acting like municipal standing committees: in a public process;

– chairs of the Advisory Committees to be on the NCC Board;

– other Board members to be 5/4 from here/elsewhere; no municipal politicians;

– more funding;

– an Associate CEO and an effective Ombudsman;

– another look at the mandate two years from now, and then every five years.

Quite a list.

Happy New Year and congratulations to all,

It seems our submission was well received since most of our recommendations in one form or another were in the final report.

I … agree with Erwin about the protection of GP and GB but what I gather is that they will get legal protection within the NCC Act. As long as they use agreed upon international standards it should be OK. Of course if … we don’t trust the NCC to do a good job we will have to be vigilant.

The interesting recommendation was the one about the creation of committees. I suggested in the CREDDO brief that they have to do “concertation” not just consultation so this is an interesting development. This way you get a “national” figure as president but a more involved community in committees. Scott Findlay (UO biology prof) has also been after them for years to have a scientific committee.

They also recommended that people be from different backgrounds to sit on the board (another of my rec.), no elected politicians and added Chelsea to the tripartite committee.

All in all it should be a well balanced NCC. As for the GP, when I was doing an interview with Radio-Canada, Cannon walked in and in his mind GP will get a legal protection within this framework. We shall have to wait and see.

As for the Senate I shall await the call, if they consider my participation pertinent.

Cheers

Nicole