Transport Committee on Dec. 7th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I would like to come back to what Mr. Jean said earlier.

It is true that a request had been made to the Government of Quebec, A letter was sent to the then Minister of Transport. The bill had been tabled by Minister Pelletier. Once it is translated, we will send you a copy. For having spoken to their officials, we know that the Government of Quebec had already issued a letter setting out its positions, which it still maintains today.

Obviously, if the government imagines that Quebec and Ontario government representatives will scramble to appear before our committees, then I think there is some misunderstanding out there. They want to retain a certain independence, especially regarding the lands that are located on their own territory. I do think we must be aware of that.

I maintain that the consultation is a nice exercise. Once the legislation is enacted, there will be a duty to consult, according to an established schedule. The consultations will take as much time as required; there will be negotiations with the provinces. That is not a problem. We are talking here about a 50-year planning cycle.

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

But if the process takes 5 years, that might drag things out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any other comments?

Monsieur Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Yes. This notion Mr. Dubé brought up, Mr. Chairman, of the obligation of consultations imposed upon the crown for aboriginal populations is a real one. It's called the “honour of the crown”. Whether it is in this bill or not, the honour of the crown rests with the crown at all times, so it's irrelevant; it's a red-herring argument. If there are any considerations in the national capital region that pertain to the aboriginal communities—and there are, and we've seen them in the paper today, because the entire territory is under claim—therefore, ipso facto, there is an honour-of-the-crown obligation in any event, whether we include consultations or not. Let's not put some red herrings in the window here; there are enough.

The notion that we would not want to consult Canadians once a decade on what their capital should be is ludicrous.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. Bélanger, with respect, that's not what's being suggested here. We're asking for public comments; we're asking for provincial comments. The government would have a positive obligation to go and seek comments from the public and from the provinces. It's a totally different meaning within consultation. Consultation sets out a time period and certain things the federal government has to do within those time periods, to seek consultation and to address those issues. It's a totally different onerous obligation.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I know, but whether it says “public comments” or “consultation”, the crown has an obligation vis-à-vis the aboriginal communities, regardless.

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

I'm not talking about aboriginal—

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

That notion was brought up by Mr. Dubé.

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

No, it was brought up by me, but I was using it as an example because of consultations. If it doesn't mean anything different to you, Mr. Bélanger, then let's go with “comments”.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

That's not what I'm saying. You asked and Mr. Dubé tendered an opinion that, yes, if we put “consultation”, it would have a different obligation because of the significance the word has with the aboriginal community. I'm saying it doesn't matter whether you put “public consultation” or “public comment” in this act, because the crown has a constant obligation of public consultation with the aboriginal communities wherever there are claims.

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

That was just an example. It's the Supreme Court that actually came up with “consultations” and the legal definition it required in relation to aboriginal consultations. I brought it up because I'm familiar with that particular law. What I'm suggesting is that we seek “public comment” instead of “consultation”, in order to avoid all those onerous time periods and all the challenges and court challenges in relation to the future.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

The Supreme Court is clarifying this obligation of “honour of the crown”, but it dates back to the 1800s.

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

I agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would ask the witnesses, if they would, to read the section they showed me of the parks act. I think it may give us ground for a bit of improvement here.

[André Morency]

The Canada National Parks Act, under the rubric “Public consultation”, reads in subsection 12(1):

The Minister shall, where applicable, provide opportunities for public participation at the national, regional and local levels, including participation by aboriginal organizations, bodies established under land claims

--etc.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I think the word is “participation”. If we could change the government's position from “comments” to “participation”, I think we would cover off pretty well where I'm coming from concerning it. That would be a sort of in-between word, between “consultation” and “comments”, because it implies that there's a to and fro between those who are planning and those who want input into the plan. If you have “participation”, then you have some structure, rather than simply calling for comments and not having an opportunity for a debate over those comments or over those things.

So “participation” is a better word. I think it implies a better position.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Let me, if I may, refer the committee to the first page of amendment G-6, which is on page 14.1 of our amendments package, I believe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm glad you did that. I was going to refer the committee there, because if the amendment as we are looking at it, with the subamendment, is approved, it basically eliminates amendment G-6.

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

I take your comments, Mr. Bevington.

If you look at G-6, proposed subsection 10.1(2), which deals with public comments at the national and regional levels, and also in relation to the master plan and having it laid before each House of Parliament, and then in relation to the days that it can approve the master plan, they have to wait 30 sitting days, which is approximately two months, or 160 calendar days before they can approve it. This gives an opportunity for parliamentarians to give public input and also for the public to participate in it.

That's the issue, in essence. I know I beat this horse to death in relation to consultations, but I think it has tremendous, onerous provisions that are not really being considered, so I would like members to look at this. This is what the government proposed after speaking to Mr. Nadeau, Mr. Proulx in particular, and also Mr. Dewar.

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

Don't put me in that.

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

It's after speaking with you—not agreeing with, but speaking to you.