Transport Committee on Oct. 19th, 2009

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

If I understand correctly, the government is not ready to consider, for instance, that the Ontario and Quebec governments be consulted if there were to be a change to the NCC lands.

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

Consultation is one thing, but do we have to obtain the express consent...

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

... the legislative support...

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

... the legislative support of the Government of Quebec?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

It could also be that of Ontario.

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

That is not in the bill. Of course, as I said to our colleague Mr. Proulx, we respect provincial jurisdictions. I am sure that the members of the National Assembly and the Government of Quebec will respect federal jurisdictions because we respect provincial jurisdictions.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Minister, expropriation is also an important issue. According to the National Parks Act of Canada, it is impossible to expropriate private property within or adjacent to a park. I am still thinking of Gatineau Park as an example. However, the NCC has the right to expropriate.

I went to the Gaspé this summer and was able to see that the Forillon Park affair was still very much alive in people's minds. As for Kouchibouguac National Park, we remember the case of Mr. Vautour. In fact, the argument was based on the fact that he was on the territory of the park, but the fact remains that in the Forillon Park case, people were expropriated so that the park could be created.

From the social and political perspective, I would like us to avoid in this case a situation where the NCC has expropriatory powers that are greater than those in the National Parks Act.

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

I'm a big believer in property rights, and I have real concerns with expropriation powers. To give a crown corporation the power to expropriate would cause me great concern.

Going back to the fifties, there are still some raw feelings from people and descendants of families who had their land, farm, or home expropriated when the greenbelt was created. I'm very, very cautious on expropriation powers for a crown corporation. If in extraordinary times a contractual agreement can't be reached, I suppose that's always something to be considered, but to give it to a crown would cause me concern.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

The fact remains that the NCC still has that power, if I understand correctly.

[André Morency]

It has it regarding lands that it already owns, but it has not exercised it in the past.

[Simon Dubé, Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport]

The commission has had that power for a number of years, but it has not exercised it for over 20 years. Indeed, it no longer wishes to operate that way. It prefers to negotiate.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

You are telling me that this is not the way things are done anymore; in that case, why not simply remove that from the bill, so that that situation never occurs? What is in the bill can always be used.

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

The commission has not used this power in the past 20 years, but be that as it may, you are right. I will discuss this matter with my colleagues. The rights of owners are always a concern. As is the national interest.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Transportation is also an important question. There is currently a debate on a new bridge that might be built between Gatineau and Ottawa. The NCC has returned to the drawing board on this. For the moment, three plans are being discussed. Would providing the NCC with legislative support as regards transportation be an encroachment on provincial jurisdiction, since transportation within their own boundaries is a matter of provincial jurisdiction?

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

I'll say it in English to be precise.

To show you how non-partisan I am with infrastructure spending, I said we didn't have to build the bridge they wanted to build on the west end, that we could build one on the east end, in a Liberal riding and a Bloc riding, because I didn't want to take all the infrastructure money for the west end.

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

Make us cry.

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

As you know, the enthusiasm for a bridge isn't quite as strong on the west end as it is on the east end.

I think we have a responsibility when it comes to interprovincial transportation. The reality is that we're going to want to work with both provincial governments and, frankly, the municipalities, in both cases, on a new bridge in the east end. I think that only makes good sense. I think we want to share costs. That will be important. I don't know whether you could proceed without the support of the provinces on either side. They are going to the next phase of looking at an east-end bridge. It's something that I think is important and that we'd like to see happen.

It would do a lot for economic development in Gatineau. I think it would be important in the city of Ottawa to get the interprovincial trucks away from our downtown core. It's something we support. The next phase, the environmental work and the public consultation, that is required is significant, and working with communities is particularly difficult. I think we'd all like to see it get under way more quickly than the process takes, but we also want to ensure it's in the right place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

This bill is an interesting mélange of initiatives that many of us have been pushing. You referenced reforming the NCC in your opening comments, which I certainly want to see. I applaud the government when it does the right thing, including the initiatives of Bill C-2, as you mentioned in your opening comments. I think it was important to separate the function at the top, so I concurred with the government's direction on that and supported it when Bill C-2 was going through the House.

I note also in this bill that a large focus--and again, it is something that I and others have certainly been pursuing--is on protection of Gatineau Park. I'm just curious--and this is sheer curiosity--as to why you decided to put all these things in one bill.

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

It is under the broader category of NCC reform. Obviously, in recent months when this Parliament didn't look as if it would last a significant amount of time, I was concerned--as you were, and as many of us were--that NCC reform would fall by the wayside and wouldn't be accomplished. It took a significant amount of work to get it this far with the review panel, which finished a number of years ago. We took the various NCC matters and put them into one bill.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I would like to turn to the Gatineau Park provisions within the bill. Actually, this relates to your previous portfolio as Minister of the Environment.

In the Canada National Parks Act, 2000, there is the whole principle of ecological integrity that kind of guides the Canada National Parks Act. My own bill, which I put forward, didn't determine to have a park laid upon Gatineau Park. But the idea that I think is important, which relates to this bill, is that instead of having the ecological integrity that is in the National Parks Act, there is due regard in the bill to maintaining ecological integrity. I'm just wondering whether there is any rationale behind that. What I'm looking for is whether there would be an opening here to actually put that language into this bill so that it mirrors what you have in your National Parks Act.

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

Obviously there is no question that we're not proposing that the park be designated a national park, nor are we proposing that it not be designated a national park but have all the obligations of a national park imposed on it. So we've tried to strike a balance. Obviously we want to protect the park, but we don't want to have to get rid of all private land ownership within it. We don't want to reach a variety of protections. I think we've struck a reasonably good balance.

There may be, from time to time, local transportation needs on the outskirts for which decisions have to be made. I hope this would be nothing more than a nip and a cut.

If there are opportunities to expand, if properties become available within the park or neighbouring the park that would benefit the ecological integrity of the park, the NCC would have the capacity to move there. We just didn't go that far.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

The reason I'm asking--I don't think there's a huge chasm here--is that the latest master plan of the NCC has the language I just referenced to the National Parks Act, which is to have ecological integrity. Maybe we could just take a look at that. It's in one of those amendments. We can straighten things out, because it will actually then conform to the NCC's master plan right now, in terms of the National Parks Act, and put it into this bill. I don't think it will conflict with any concerns you might have about properties. It's just tweaking the language.

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

In an effort to show openness to working with all members of the committee, maybe at some point after the committee has had its deliberations, if one member from each party would be interested in sitting down informally and discussing what you've heard, we could have a discussion with the NCC folks. We'd certainly welcome that. This is not an ideological issue; we want to be very practical. Obviously we want to seek environmental protections and--

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

On that note, I have a number of amendments to strengthen.

The issue you mentioned, acquisitions, is something on which there can be amendments made that would be helpful, including expanding the park, if that is available, noting that the whole notion of expropriation is not something people want to get into. But certainly I've applauded going down the path the way the NCC is going right now, and that is that when there is an opportunity to grow the park that way, seize it, and not seize it in the manner that one might suggest happened in the past, but to actually grow the park that way. I would welcome that approach. I would like to see the protections for the park that many of us have wanted to see for quite a while actually happen so that we get the legislation done right the first time.

One of the concerns people have, notwithstanding that the NCC is a crown corporation, is that we ensure that there is also an ability for Parliament to be involved so it can represent those interests. So again, I would like to see some tweaking of that so that how it's reported to Parliament is done correctly. Particularly if there are any massive changes contemplated, it becomes an issue that is connected to accountability through Parliament.