Bill C-37 (Historical)

Marcel Proulx Hull—Aylmer, QC

We discussed all of this, Mr. Chair, in our study of the previous bill, Bill C-37. We had very interesting witnesses, but...I'm having a senior moment.

Marcel Proulx Hull—Aylmer, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I simply want to point out to my colleague, Mr. Nadeau, that it is no surprise that we are discussing the Greenbelt this morning. On the contrary, it was part of the amendments that were made to Bill C-37. And I would add that it is now the government adding this clarification, which requires us to discuss the issue of the Greenbelt.

In amendment G-1 we clarified the proposed bill by accepting a new definition of ecological integrity. One of the objectives in including the greenbelt in this particular bill is exactly that, to make sure that the ecological integrity within the greenbelt, where possible, will be protected. As you are very right in saying so, as we go along, the definition of the greenbelt will be better known.

Thank you.

Richard Nadeau Gatineau, QC

Mr. Chair, the first question we need to ask ourselves is: Why did no one see fit to include the Greenbelt and all the related legislative provisions in Bill C-37 when it was brought forward in June 2009, in order to lay things out clearly or, at least, ensure that everything was done in accordance with the rules that would have been established.

We heard Mr. Dubé and Mr. Proulx talk about the wide variety of lands that make up the Greenbelt, which, by the way, spans a vast area. This was put to us today without any groundwork having been done, without any evidence from knowledgeable witnesses on the matter, which is one of the National Capital Commission's many responsibilities. Either it was a mistake, or it was not done intentionally to provide an opportunity to gather more sound arguments for discussion down the road, especially in terms of defining the duties and responsibilities related to the famous Greenbelt.

We did it for Gatineau Park, and that is great, but we did not do it for the Greenbelt. It is extremely difficult to accept, even if we say that we will provide an explanation in a schedule. We are required to vote on all the elements contained in the bill before us, not on things that appear out of nowhere in an amendment on a major issue concerning the National Capital Commission.

Mr. Chair, I am not trying to take away from the Greenbelt or diminish its importance. It is just that we did not study the issue, we did not propose it for consideration, we did not set out the necessary parameters to pass legislation on the issue and then clearly identify the corresponding responsibilities.

It is also to protect the Greenbelt. It is important to keep in mind what Russell Mills said before he was appointed chair of the National Capital Commission's board of directors. He said that he did not have a problem with carving up the Greenbelt; he was willing to hand it over to the private sector. Forgive me, but let's define everything first and give the Greenbelt legislative protection, to prevent the Russell Mills of the world from, one day, selling off pieces of the city of Ottawa's environmental heritage.

To do that, we need a piece of legislation. But we do not have that here. We should have done it in due course. It is never too late to do things right, but it would have to be through another motion or another amendment to the current act, in order to ensure that the job is done well and that the Greenbelt is given adequate protection. The boundaries need to be known and established, to be sure that we, as lawmakers, are protecting an area with known and established boundaries. We would also need to ensure the sustainability of this land for future generations of Quebeckers and Canadians alike.

But that is not the case right now, and so we have this grey area referred to earlier. You cannot just cook this up, and come here and tell us that everything is hunky-dory and that we should have confidence in it even though we were not given the slightest opportunity to discuss it or to hear from witnesses on the matter, if only regarding the boundaries of this extremely diverse and significant area.

Marcel Proulx Hull—Aylmer, QC

To start with, this is not a new concept. As your witness just said a few minutes ago, the greenbelt is known in the Ottawa region. It's being referred to in all types of different municipal, provincial, and federal uses.

To say that it's a new concept to the bill.... I don't agree with Mr. Nadeau. We had witnesses. When we had hearings on Bill C-37, we had witnesses come and explain to us what the needs were to protect the National Capital Commission's part of Ottawa known as the greenbelt. The greenbelt does exist in Ottawa. It's to pin down what territory it covers.

Now, if we were to accept this way of doing things, does it mean that for schedule 2.1 to be legal or to be accepted eventually it would have to come back to this committee, sir? We would be accepting schedule 2.1, but in fact the schedule doesn't exist, so we would have to create that schedule sometime in the future.

Richard Nadeau Gatineau, QC

Mr. Chair, I agree that this amendment is out of order, primarily because it introduces something that was not included in what was presented to us previously in Bill C-37 or currently in Bill C-20.

Therefore, we will vote against the amendment.

Marcel Proulx Hull—Aylmer, QC

Mr. Chair, once again, things are being hidden, as was the case when we were studying Bill C-37. A bit further on, we will come to a point when we will want to discuss the description for Gatineau Park. I think the bill has some 37 pages of descriptions.

Right now, we are being asked to endorse a term because the government implied that there was an intention to extend the same protection to the Greenbelt as the protection that will apply to Gatineau Park. So we are being asked to add the Greenbelt without knowing what it refers to.

If you were to ask 10 Ottawa residents to define the Greenbelt, no two people would give you the same answer. It is very unfortunate that the government wants to keep us so in the dark. It would certainly be a first to agree to include a term in a bill without being able to define it. I am very disappointed.

The Chair Merv Tweed

I'll have to interject there.

I thank our guests for being here today. We do appreciate your time and your comments.

For the committee, on October 26 we're going to start with Bill C-509, the Canada Post libraries bill. If we have time, we will start on Bill C-20. I am going to suggest to the committee members that if they have amendments to either of those bills they please have them to the clerk's office by Friday. Before we start Bill C-20, we will be discussing a motion to suggest that the evidence considered in the previous session for Bill C-37 be a part of the Bill C-20 study.

Thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.

Brian Jean Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

I have no difficulty with that. I was only trying to make it simpler to save committee time.

However, I do have, from Transport Canada, in both official languages, the differences between Bill C-37 and Bill C-20. I would like to hand those out to committee, but if this is ruled out of order, we're not going to challenge it. We'll deal with it as the committee deals with it, unless other people have a different desire.

Brian Jean Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Mr. Chair, I think what the motion was attempting to do was to fast-track Bill C-20—or Bill C-37—to the point at which it was last left by committee members.

Quite frankly, I'm prepared to do whatever is required in respect of the members' wishes, but I would like to have the opportunity to hear from the new members specifically in regard to their position on it prior to any other issue.

I know that Mr. McCallum hasn't had an opportunity to address the issue itself, and I know that Ms. Crombie was here, of course, when we dealt with the previous legislation. But of course, I would like to hear from Mr. Guimond as well.