Transport Committee on Oct. 19th, 2009

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to the 30th meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, with the orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 5, 2009, being Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts.

Joining us to introduce the bill, speak on it, and take some questions from the committee members is the Honourable John Baird, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Welcome.

Joining him today from the Department of Transport are André Morency, assistant deputy minister, and Simon Dubé, director, portfolio management, crown corporation governance.

Thank you for your attendance again today, Minister. If you would like to open with some comments, we'll move forward.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am very pleased to be here on an issue that I care passionately about: the future of the National Capital Commission. I'll be very brief in my comments. I look forward to hearing your feedback, any questions, and anything else that I can take back to my colleagues.

I think the National Capital Commission is a real national treasure and is something that everybody from every corner of the country can take great pride in. Obviously, it's especially important for me as a lifetime resident of the national capital region.

If I could, I'll explain two things at the outset.

One is the responsibility for the National Capital Commission. We have a minister of state, Lawrence Cannon, who deals with this crown corporation. That designation was made by the Prime Minister. As well, obviously, it falls under my broader portfolio. Lawrence has the lead and I'm very much a supporting actor in this, but we have worked closely together on many of these files, both now and when he was the Minister of Transport and I was a member of Parliament from the other side of the river. That's the first thing.

Second is that today the National Capital Commission is having an important meeting that they didn't want to cancel, so the leadership from the NCC will be here at a later date to hear your questions, your concerns, and your suggestions.

I think the National Capital Commission should be non-partisan. It is something that all members, from any part of the country, can contribute to. In that spirit, we look forward to hearing about any issues that arise out of this committee.

Certainly the perspective that we in the government are taking on this bill is that it's not an ideological issue. I think there is a significant amount of agreement on the point that we all share in wanting to reform and improve the National Capital Commission.

I'm quite proud of some of the changes we've made. I have not been a vocal critic of the NCC over the past 20 years, as some have. I think Marcel Beaudry served Canadians very well in his post. It was not without making mistakes, and I didn't agree with every single thing he did, but I think he served Canadians very, very well.

I am, though, very, very excited and very, very pleased by the two leaders who have been appointed to the board. Marie Lemay is a really outstanding public servant who is providing great leadership to the NCC. I have been thrilled to work with her, both as an MP in the affected area and now as lead minister in the portfolio. Russell Mills, as chair of the board, brings a huge amount of integrity to his job and is a well-respected individual.

I think the first change we made to the NCC, a decision made in the Federal Accountability Act to split the CEO and chair, was really just good governance. I think it's an important change. In some respects it's symbolic, but in other senses it is very, very real. I think it has been tremendously well received and it is something that we support. Just the new spirit of openness and transparency has been welcomed by everyone in the region, I think, whether they are municipal leaders, the business community, environmentalists, or others who interact with the board, and it's important.

I should say at the outset that one of the issues that's tremendously important to me is the greenbelt on the Ottawa side. It is very much part of our character, of the national character, and it's part of the local quality of life that we enjoy in this area. It's tremendously important. It's very different from Gatineau Park, but there are parts of significant ecological integrity within the greenbelt that have to be protected and are very important.

Like many, I have been concerned over the last 10 or 20 years that we don't have any sort of plan. To see the greenbelt disappear piece by piece.... I think the NCC, in an issue with respect to Ottawa's city council, recently said that the city shouldn't presume that the national capital greenbelt is available by slivers and slices for this or that project, however noble the project is. That's something that I believe is tremendously important.

Like many people in the capital, I was concerned that the lack of a capital budget at the NCC caused pressures for them to eat what they kill, to sell off lands. When I first sought election to the House of Commons, I referred to it as selling off the family silverware to pay for groceries. In the 2007 budget, we got a $10 million capital budget for the NCC, which allows them to meet capital needs without having to look to asset sales. That's something that I think is tremendously important.

That also allows them to do some planning with respect to the future of the capital and allows them to maintain, to a certain degree, the infrastructure that supports it. Many of the infrastructures they maintain are tremendously important. They can maintain transportation routes, others, and planning work, so this gives them some stability but doesn't eliminate the need for government to be actively involved.

As you know, there are five key amendments in the bill, one of which is meetings in public. I think that has been welcomed by the public. It shows an openness and a transparency that I think we have all welcomed.

The 50-year master plan is something that I think people have called for, that it be submitted to government and tabled in Parliament. I think that has been a welcomed step.

The national interest land mass is something that is tremendously important. Not every square inch that the NCC manages is of equal importance. I mean, the property along the ceremonial route is very different from Gatineau Park or the ecologically sensitive areas in the greenbelt. Not all greenbelt land is valued the same. The Stony Swamp is something of great ecological integrity versus some scraps of land here or there that may not have the same ecological or national interest.

So the national interest land mass is something that I think is very important. Take the condominium that was built at Sussex and Wellington; that piece of land, in my judgment, was of national interest. I don't think we were well served by the NCC's decision a number of years ago to build a condo and restaurant on that parcel of land. I just use that as an example.

Environmental stewardship is something that's important. It's different in different parts of the greenbelt. Obviously those parts that are around the ceremonial route have a different importance than do others, which I've spoken about.

As well, there are enhancements for the governments in power to be able to bring in regulatory powers in a variety of areas, whether it be on issues of permits or controlling the commission resources and facilities, or whether it be restricting or prohibiting access to and activities on commission properties or ensuring that we protect the natural resources and the process on commission properties and the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park.

Those are just some very informal opening remarks. I am excited that the committee is moving forward on examining the bill. On behalf of Minister Cannon and on behalf of the government, we welcome any suggestions, any comments, on what we can do to work together to strengthen the bill.

I'll say at the outset that this bill is not going to respond to every single concern. It is not going to go as far as every single person would like it. But I think overall it is a significant step in the right direction. As you'll know, the government had a three-person panel that looked at the future of the NCC, and much of the work that we have before us represents the fruits of that labour.

I know that my colleagues, particularly those in the national capital area, have closely followed this, particularly Mr. Dewar and Mr. Nadeau, as well as our colleague Mr. Bélanger and my colleagues Mr. Cannon and Mr. Proulx from the other side of the river.

So we're very excited to be here, and I look forward to answering questions.

As well, on behalf of Marie Lemay and Russell Mills, they look forward to the opportunity to appear before the committee to respond to your concerns and to hear your suggestions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Baird, welcome. It is a real pleasure to hear you talk about the National Capital Commission with such love and interest. I share that affection and I believe in the importance of the National Capital Commission for the Ottawa-Gatineau metropolitan region.

Mr. Baird, I have a few questions for you as we in the Liberal Party are concerned about certain things. Subclause 3(1) states that the number of commissioners will be reduced to 14. This is due to the fact that the chief executive officer position was changed. The position of the head, Ms. Lemay, is no longer a commissioner's position. So there would be 14 commissioners.

What will happen if there are equal votes pro and con on an issue, according to you? Would it not be preferable that the chair have the deciding vote?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I have to tell you that this was an issue of some concern with respect to Ms. Lemay being a member of the board, the CEO being a member of the board.

We're looking at a good number of crown corporations. We've made a determination that in most cases it's better not to have the CEO, to separate management from governance. I guess with the amount of times when they would have every single member present, when you'd actually have a position where you'd have a tie-breaking vote, it's not something that we think is of significant concern.

So I guess we've just taken the one-off--

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I have no problem with it, Minister. The question wasn't about that. The question is that with 14 on the board now, shouldn't the chairperson have a casting vote so that you don't end up with a tie on votes?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I don't want anyone having two votes, so if the chair reserved and only voted in the event of a tie, that would be one option.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Okay.

The other thing the project doesn't cover is the distribution of the different members of the board throughout the country, in the sense that normally there have been three from Quebec, four from Ontario, two from the east, and three from the west, if my memory serves me right. This is not covered in your proposal. Should we not include in the proposal where they come from and how they are established?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'll ask Mr. Morency to respond specifically to that. I don't think you'll see a significant change.

[André Morency, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management and Crown Corporation Governance, Corporate Services, Department of Transport]

Yes, Mr. Chair. You won't see a change in this legislation in terms of how the distribution of the members would be selected. In terms of this--

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'm sorry, it will or will not be changed?

[André Morency]

You will not necessarily see a change.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

You are covering the issue that the NCC's mandate be added to the issue of transportation in the region. Our suggestion is that we be much more specific in order to clearly establish the NCC's presence in the planning of interprovincial transportation, roadways, and public transportation.

Furthermore, we feel that the management of existing and future bridges should be transferred to the NCC. That would bring about the transfer of certain bridges, while others are already under the NCC's purview. Would you agree that all of the bridges across the Ottawa River in the national capital region be transferred to the NCC and, of course, with that, the necessary budget to run and maintain them and so on and so forth?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think there's always a concern when you transfer the asset: do you also transfer the obligation to pay for it? That's the concern I would have. I wouldn't want the NCC to have to look at dealing with issues with respect to Gatineau Park, the ceremonial route, and the bridge, and then have to weigh off priorities on those issues.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

No, but that's why I'm suggesting the appropriate budget be transferred with it.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

You can never get the appropriate budget you'd like for any file, so I guess that would be my only concern there.

On the issue of transportation, Minister Cannon in particular is someone who's been very involved in transportation, both as minister and before that with the municipal transportation system on the Quebec side. We'd like to see a much greater role for the NCC. I guess the issue we have is that neither transit system really separates its interprovincial work from its municipal work. We want to be very cognizant of not encroaching on provincial jurisdiction in this regard.

As we go forward, I'd like to see the NCC's mandate grow and do some coordination there, but at the same time, we have to be cognizant of respecting provincial jurisdiction. It's not for the federal Parliament--

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes. Excuse me, but these other bridges are already under the federal government purview in the sense that those not under the NCC are under Public Works, so it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Before we run out of time on this first run, on the master plan that you're talking about in proposed section 10.1, I don't understand why you would not want it to be approved by Parliament. The way this is presented, a master plan would be established, and Parliament would be informed. I think it should be the other way around. I think Parliament should approve a master plan.

On that master plan, I would like to hear your views on the fact that the plan should cover the employment polls, let's call them, in the national capital region. You can see me coming here with a 75%-25%, in the sense that if we are ever going to arrive at a proper sharing of jobs on the Quebec and Ontario sides of the river, somebody will have to act as the planner and the police on this. I would suggest for your master plan that this be covered by the master plan for the NCC.

Not only should we be talking about square footage, square metres, or spaces, but I think, as we have said for a long time, that we should be talking about jobs, and not only jobs relating to or answering to Treasury Board, but all Canadian government direct and indirect jobs--that is to say, all jobs in all federal organizations in the national capital region. As it is, there are too many organizations that are totally federal but are not included in the calculation of this sharing. For example, there are the museums and Canada Post, and I can go on and on, to the point where, should we include all of these, the Quebec side of the river is approximately 10,000 jobs short of reaching that 75%-25% sharing.

So to go back to my first question, should the master plan not be approved by Parliament?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

That's not something that has traditionally been done with crown corporations, but it's something I'll certainly reflect on.

On the concern with the 75%-25%--and the government strongly supports it--to be charitable, there are many definitions of what constitutes that in real estate, and some are more liberal than others. Some view it as jobs, others as square feet.

When Mr. Trudeau first came forward with the initiative, it had a certain definition, and others have tried to redefine it over the years. I know, as President of the Treasury Board, that at one point we identified five different definitions, but the one Mr. Trudeau brought in certainly became a living definition, because it ended up growing and growing in what it constituted.

I think that would be a good idea. Obviously there's always clarity in what definition is being used. We'll take your thoughts back to my colleagues.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

What about the greenbelt?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You're out of time. I'm sorry.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'll come back.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'd be happy to talk to you again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, Mr. Dubé and Mr. Morency, good afternoon.

Any question involving the National Capital Commission is important to members whose riding contains NCC lands. Moreover this is also of interest to all Canadians and Quebeckers as we are talking about an investment. It is very important to ensure that this be done in cooperation with the other partners, that is to say the federal government, the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, as well as the two cities concerned, Gatineau and Ottawa.

One of the factors that is of great interest to me is the matter of the integrity of Quebec's territory. We know that under the Constitution, any changes to provincial borders require the consent of that province. This is to be found in article 43 of the Constitutional Act, 1982.

Moreover we know that changes cannot be made to a national park without the approval of the province wherein the national park is located. Gatineau Park is not a national park. We would be very interested in a legislative guarantee that would establish that in order to make changes to the park, not only would people have to consult the Quebec government, but also obtain its agreement. We are talking about the park boundaries. That is not in the bill.

What is your position on this? How could we work together to ensure that this be done?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'll invite André to speak to this afterward if he has anything else to add.

I think it's tremendously important that there be good collaboration with the NCC and both municipalities. It's much easier now than it was at one point, with fewer municipalities--and single tier--and the two provinces in question. I can report to you that certainly during my time in Parliament, at the federal level, they've enjoyed pretty good collaboration with the provincial governments on both sides of the river and, depending on the issue, with the municipal government in question.

The National Capital Commission is a federal commission. Gatineau Park is a federal park, not a national park. And as a national institution--both the park and the commission--I don't think it should be given to a municipality or province to control its fate. But the success of the leadership of the NCC at both the executive and board levels will be based on how well they work with the provincial and municipal leaders. Thus far, I think it has been very positive provincially. I haven't heard any negative concerns from the Province of Quebec or the Province of Ontario. I don't think I'd want to legislate that.