Vote No
An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park)
Overall, the bill’s primary thrust is environmental preservation with additional land-use restrictions and regulatory powers; it does not materially advance productivity, exports, investment, or tax competitiveness. While it improves governance clarity and cost‑recovery, its scope is narrow and its economic upside is indirect.
No question period cards yet.
Conservation and tourism benefits are possible, but the bill does not directly drive national income growth and could limit development within park boundaries.
It expands regulatory controls, prohibits land disposition, and restricts uses of public land, adding compliance and reducing flexibility for economic activity in the park.
Quality-of-life and tourism effects may help at the margin, but there is no direct, scalable productivity or competitiveness lever.
No material link to export growth; any tourism uplift would be modest and localized.
Prioritizing ecological integrity and forbidding land sales or new uses curtails development and investment within the park, despite limited Indigenous procurement opportunities.
Clear boundaries, a 10‑year master plan cycle, and cost‑recovery fees can streamline governance and reduce ad hoc decisions, though enforcement adds some overhead.
No tax policy changes.
This is a place‑based conservation measure with limited economic scope and does not pursue broad, transformational growth.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email [email protected]