Evidence of meeting #41 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ncc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
What's their mandate for this? Is it in regulations or legislation?
4:20 p.m.
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
There is no specific mandate. They have the ability to purchase property. They still need to seek Governor in Council approval for acquisition, except in Gatineau Park. Governor in Council granted the authority to go ahead without seeking approval. They have the power to acquire property, but they are not specifically mandated to purchase property in Gatineau Park.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I'm wondering whether Mr. Bevington would entertain a minor adjustment to this amendment. Would it satisfy Mr. Jean's and Mr. Dubé's interpretation if the word “open” were introduced in front of the word “market”?
I don't know what the correct French for “open market” would be. Would it be “marché publique ouvert”? Does that allay some of the concerns that have been raised by the parliamentary secretary? Does it accomplish the objectives of those who want to maintain the method of acquisition without creating the impression that there is a built-in expropriation mechanism?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Before you answer that, Mr. Bevington, let me say this. When I read it, it sounds as if you're instructing a body to buy every available piece of property as it comes on the market. If I'm misinterpreting that, please tell me. But it seems like it's a command, an edict. It's not “if”; it's “always”. Is that correct? Is that not what you're saying?
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
It gives the board the authority and a mandate to purchase the properties that come on the market in the Gatineau Park. That is correct.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Does that direction come without any boundaries put on it? They could acquire the land regardless of its sale price? To me it sounds like a command; it sounds as though they have to do it. I don't know if we want to say that. Is that what you want to say, that they have to buy all available land as it comes up?
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
We're just giving a legal mandate to the practice that's already in place.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
They have that mandate already, but the present mandate is not forcing them to buy. You are suggesting that they be forced to buy it, which will price them out of the marketplace.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
It gives the board the understanding that its job is to acquire property within the Gatineau Park as it becomes available on the market. Otherwise, you are going to be back and forth acquiring authority to purchase property. With this understanding, the board would have the authority under the law.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
If there's an occasion to talk about expropriation rights, it may come to this. But I don't believe what Mr. Bevington is trying to do is necessary. In the past, the NCC has acquired land without this mandate that he seeks to put in the law. They have acquired land in the Gatineau Park, at Mer Bleue, and in other areas. So they have that ability now.
I share my colleague's concern that the way it's written could be interpreted as saying that they have to. If the word “may” were in there, it might alleviate some of that concern. But I don't think it's necessary to put it in, since they already have all the authority they need.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, if you look at section 14, it talks about that, and it already talks about what Mr. Bevington said. It just doesn't reflect what NDP-1 is actually doing. My understanding, especially from the officials, is that they already have the authority to do so within Gatineau Park; they just aren't forced to do it. This would actually force them to do it, and actually it would price the land beyond what would be a reasonable and fair market value, in my opinion, because they would get into that debate on a consistent basis.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
That would be my thought only if I owned that property and I knew you had to buy it. It would be pretty hard for you to get any other price but the best price out of me.
Go ahead.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
If I may, though, Mr. Chair, when representatives of the National Capital Commission were in front of us and this was discussed, they were clear in the sense that they don't want to have a mandatory order to buy any property that comes on the market. They want to pick and choose. Because of their budgets, some properties might not be interesting for them at that particular time, while others might be. So they want to keep the option of buying or not buying.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Okay.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll now move to Liberal-3.
Monsieur Proulx.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, sir.
Because there was a mention some time ago that the NCC should be participating in the planning of transportation—not necessarily taking over, but planning... There are at this time five bridges crossing the Ottawa River, two of which are owned and maintained by the National Capital Commission, one being the Champlain Bridge and the other one being the Portage Bridge. Two are owned and maintained by the Department of Public Works and Government Services, namely, the Chaudière Bridge and the Alexandra Bridge. The fifth bridge is a partnership between the Government of Quebec, the Government of Ontario, and the Government of Canada.
We feel that it would be appropriate that these bridges, and the share of the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge that is owned by the Government of Canada, not the entire bridge, be transferred to the National Capital Commission. They would be in charge, if you want, of maintaining the four bridges--plus one-third of the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge being the fifth one--and all bridges crossing the Ottawa River in the future, whether it be for vehicles or pedestrians in the national capital region. These should fall under the National Capital Commission.
That's the intent of Liberal-3. However, there's a line missing where we should say that for the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge, the part owned by the Government of Canada should be transferred to the NCC. We can't transfer the entire bridge because it doesn't belong to the Government of Canada.
So that's the intent.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
The government would be against this particular one. First of all, my understanding is that three are managed by Public Works at this stage. Is that correct?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
One-third of another one.
Is the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction considered in any of this, because obviously—
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
No...I'm sorry, I shouldn't say no. The Government of Quebec owns one-third of the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge. The second third is owned by the Government of Ontario, and a third one is owned by the Government of Canada. That's the Macdonald-Cartier Bridge.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
But again, we talked about transportation generally being a provincial matter and now we're suggesting—