Transport Committee on Oct. 26th, 2009

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'm finished, Mr. Chair.

[Jean-Paul Murray]

—about Minister Baird's comments last week. Minister Baird said two things. In essence, what he said is expropriation if necessary, but not necessarily expropriation, if you read the transcript.

What we're advocating is what the NCC has been advocating for decades but has not been doing. There are 119 new houses in the park and eight square kilometres of land removed, without any parliamentarian raising the hue and cry, except those in the Senate and a few of the members here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Proulx.

[Nicole DesRoches]

Could I answer?

I'd like to say that you can have a national park. Parks Canada has decided in its criteria not to have private homes, but the national parks of Quebec have them—“national” being the international union's definition of national parks: category two parks. There are criteria, and the national parks of Quebec belong to this IUCN definition, and there are homes.

I don't want to spend $380 million to buy homes. I find it absolutely crazy to do so. But you can create a park that has the status of park, and the people who live in the park still own their property and can give it to their children, but they can't subdivide.

So there are ways of doing it; it's not all black and white. And I think there are ways to explore this. The park needs a status so that more houses are not built, but it doesn't mean you have to buy out everybody who's there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Proulx.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. DesRoches, isn't preventing people from subdividing their properties a form of expropriation? Do you think the government should offer financial compensation?

[Nicole DesRoches]

They're lucky to be living in a national park, which already is a major privilege. The properties have risen in value in recent years, and I'm aware of that. I don't live on the edge of the park. And my children can't live in the municipality because they can't afford to buy a house there.

I think that people would be winning and losing at the same time. They live in a national park and know that their environment is protected. That's a privilege that's worth something. Most citizens don't have the privilege of living in a park. It's tit for tat.

I think it's possible to do that. It works quite well elsewhere. I don't see why that couldn't be the case in Gatineau Park.

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

Ms. DesRoches, I want to touch on other aspects of the bill, including the matter of the regional transport mandate. Bill C-37 just barely touches on the matter of a transport mandate with the tips of its fingers. The Liberal Party thinks it shouldn't do so just for the tips of its fingers, but with its entire hand.

How do you view that?

[Nicole DesRoches]

As I said earlier, there should be a formalization of the issue and of the agreement between the cities and the two provinces. We've seen, moreover, what's happened with regard to the bridge issue. The two provinces agreed to say that there were three projects to review, not just one. Thank goodness they did that because, in my opinion—this is 2009—we have to be coherent. There are two major files that we have to share in the region, whether you're on one side or the other of our beautiful river, and these are the issues of water and transportation.

So, in 2009, the fact that we are still saying we're going to do this and you're going to do that without there being any coherence is absolutely incredible. There has to be a framework for this, and I think the NCC can play that role because transportation between the two cities right now is pretty much a mess.

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

Would you agree—we've discussed this at previous meetings here around the table—to the idea of responsibility for the bridges being transferred to the National Capital Commission?

The Commission currently manages two bridges.

[Nicole DesRoches]

There does have to be a manager. I say so in my brief.

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

Would you agree to the NCC's doing it, with the related budgets, of course?

[Nicole DesRoches]

Obviously, because, when I look at certain bridges managed by other authorities, I don't think they contribute much to the improvement of the capital.

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

Bill C-37 refers to a master plan. The Liberal Party would also like that master plan to concern the issue of employment centres in the greater National Capital Region. That means that the 75-25 policy for Government of Canada jobs should be managed through that master plan of the National Capital Commission. The Commission would thus be able to play the role of police officer. In that way, it would ensure that the Government of Canada considers in the 75-25 division, not only those positions for which Treasury Board is the employer, as is currently the case, but all positions, that is to say all direct and indirect jobs at federal organizations. So 75% of jobs would be on the Ontario side and 25% on the Quebec side. We think the NCC is in the best position to manage that.

Obviously, with this 75-25 division, there would also be the question of sustainable development, which is the question of knowing where to set up such and such a department, how to attach it to existing municipal infrastructure, and so on.

Has CREDDO already examined this matter, Ms. DesRoches?

[Nicole DesRoches]

We've examined all those questions, but this is a very complex issue. If we had a lot of employers, it would be easy, but it's hard to say that Health Canada will go to such and such a place and that there has to be a division of employees.

Some people don't necessarily want to work on a certain side of the river, which complicates matters. I would at least be in favour of the government automatically considering businesses on the Quebec side when it comes to awarding contracts because the inequality is more on that side than the 75-25 division on one side and the other.

As for sustainable development, people clearly have to be brought closer to the employment centres, but it's difficult because there's only one major employer. It's hard to say, for example, that Public Works in Gatineau will be this and that Public Works in Ottawa will be that, and we can't decide whether the people who want to live near their place of work will live in such and such a location. There's the entire issue of language and of belonging to provinces. So it's a very complex issue.

As I said, I would be more in favour of contracts whereby people would work on both sides of the river. That's where there's more unfairness, I think. Is it up to the NCC to manage that? I'm not sure.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the witnesses for attending today.

I will say that I've listened with interest in relation to the issue of the first right of refusal. I was a lawyer before this life and I do understand it. I've been involved in many commercial transactions that deal with it. Although there may seem to be no positive implications or negative obligation on landowners for fair market value, I would suggest that if a family wants to transfer land for value to another family member and to keep it in the family, indeed that first right of refusal will negate the ability to do so.

From my perspective, I think enough has been done over the years in this area, especially to francophone families and others, to take land away from families who have had it for centuries, if not decades, at least. So I do think, from that perspective, the government is treading lightly, because certainly those implications are not positive. And I do want to say that, and put that on the record, because it may not create an obligation on the landowners, but it does negate any opportunity to sell to family members and to keep it in the family.

[Jean-Paul Murray]

I would suggest--

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

My question, Jean-Paul Murray, if I may, is this. Mr. McDermott talked specifically about shady land deals. I heard that. Quite frankly, it scared me a bit. I would like to know what you're talking about there and what kind of evidence you have in relation to this, or what you're talking about as far as the description of “shady” is concerned. “Shady”, to me, means illegal.

[Jean-Paul Murray]

Well, no. We weren't hinting that they were illegal. What we were saying is nobody knew about it. Parliamentarians weren't brought in. I think there were 150 questions on the order paper of both houses. Mr. Proulx might have put a few questions on the order paper to find out what was happening.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

You're going to have to put this in context for me.

[Jean-Paul Murray]

Okay. For instance, when we say that eight square kilometres of land have been removed from Gatineau Park--119 new houses, five new roads--do you know how much work it took to just come up with those facts?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I understand, Mr. Murray, but that--

[Jean-Paul Murray]

So it wasn't transparent. “Shady” means not transparent.