Transport Committee on Dec. 7th, 2009

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay. Thank you.

NDP-4 is withdrawn, and I was going to make the comment that it's very similar to G-11.

On Bloc-3, Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to do with recognizing the legal status of Gatineau Park and its purpose. The bill provides a definition of the park and establishes its limits. However, it fails to grant the park proper status and determine the use that is to be made of it. These aspects would simply help ensure the sustainability of this very important park in the region.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there comments?

Mr. Jean.

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

Again, Mr. Chair, it's very similar to what was suggested, and indeed I think my understanding is there was something that was proposed by the government as being very similar to this. As a result, the government would vote against this one in favour of its own.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

On Bloc-4, Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that when a master plan is developed every 10 years to set guidelines for the next 50 years, the NCC consults with the public and the provinces. The purpose is to ask the NCC to establish a master plan and general direction. It seems absolutely logical to us that this be done every 10 years.

What makes less sense would be for the NCC to do so without consulting the provincial governments involved or the public, specifically people who live in the sector. The Bloc Québécois believes that the individuals and governments that are directly involved are often in the best position to identify the real needs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I will advise the committee that if this is adopted, then Liberal-4 and Liberal-5 cannot be proposed.

Are there comments?

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Specifically, we think it is necessary. We have put forward another proposal that actually requires public comment from across the country. Specifically in G-6, if the other members have received that, the master plan shall include also the principles and objectives for Gatineau Park and the greenbelt, which of course wasn't included. And finally, one other proposal by the government that would deal with this even further is to require the NCC to include in its annual report information on all of its activities regarding Gatineau Park, and the greenbelt again, including acquisition of real estate properties in those areas. So it would have not just a reporting function but also a comment function from across the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Monsieur Laframboise.

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

I do not mind having the government member read his document, but I would like to get back to what we were discussing from the start. I sense that there is a desire to simply set the provinces aside in terms of future direction for the National Capital Commission. I am prepared to listen to constitutional experts tell us that the federal government can do whatever it pleases, but it must be said that these lands are those of the Quebec nation. They're also those of Ontario. When we are discussing broad general direction, the provinces that are involved should be consulted. I believe it is simply a matter of respect.

Earlier on the parliamentary secretary was telling us that the Department of Public Works and Government Services had the right of expropriation. I would prefer to have that department make use of its power of expropriation because at least it would never do so without holding discussions with the provinces. The problem is that an arm's length committee is being given the power to make all sorts of decisions on provincial lands without consulting the province in question. I would prefer to have the government make use of its right of expropriation. At least it would not do business with the provinces without consulting them first. The problem is that an arm's length commission is being given the authority to do anything it chooses without consulting the provinces. At some point this is going to have to come to an end. These are not elected representatives. I would prefer to have the minister and the government make use of their authorities. These authorities are being granted to an arm's length agency which would have unlimited powers. When it is in the planning stages, it should be compelled to consult with the public and provincial governments. It is simply a matter of logic.

The parliamentary secretary was saying that they may do as they choose, when they choose. It would be made public, and there may nor may not be consultations. I believe my colleague's motion is quite appropriate. We are referring to long-term planning. I would move that there be consultations with the provinces involved, out of respect for public administrations. If you want to have an agency which acts without any regard for others, keep doing what you are doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll go to Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

This amendment is perfectly in order. Quite clearly, this is what you want to see happen. This is a process that I think gives the assurance that consultation with the bodies will take place. That's something that I think is absolutely critical to the development of a master plan. It couldn't be ignored anyhow. It just reinforces the basic principle.

Having lived next to a national park for most of my life, and having had to deal with the master plans the national parks institute, I'd say that the primary ingredient in a successful master plan is consultation. So what we're doing here is ensuring that this commission will follow a good pathway, a pathway that can be successful in dealing with master plans. The thought that the commission would not have this ingrained in the process is just not on. It has to be there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

I am concerned particularly with what Monsieur Laframboise said. I would like to hear from our experts in relation to that and consultation, first of all.

Also, isn't it true that there is a member from the Province of Quebec appointed to the NCC board? Is that not true? Or is that...?

[Simon Dubé]

No.

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

Is there any direct representation at the NCC from the Province of Quebec, or do they have any input?

[Simon Dubé]

There is not representation on the board itself. They would have input, obviously, if they wanted to share their concerns directly with the corporation. The corporation also discusses with the Ontario and Quebec governments files that are within their jurisdictions. But that's the extent of it. It would be within the context of their business and whatever specific file they would need to discuss with the provincial government.

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

What would happen in a case now in relation to the acquisition of land, in particular, by the NCC? Would they consult with the Province of Quebec or not?

[Simon Dubé]

If it's a private property, I don't think they would consult. As with anybody who wants to buy a property, they would go directly to the owner and buy that property. Obviously, if it is land owned by the provinces, they would discuss it with the landowner, which in this case would be the province.

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

Then obviously the Province of Quebec would have discretion as to whether or not to sell that land to the NCC.

[Simon Dubé]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bélanger.

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

I'd like to confuse the issue a bit more here, Mr. Chairman, if I may; I'll give it a good shot anyhow.

You ruled on something that is perplexing: that if BQ-4 is adopted, Liberal-4 could not be considered. The two are not addressing the same thing at all. The BQ-4 amendment addresses a consultation process. They are arguing that the public and the governments of the provinces concerned, in this case Quebec and Ontario, should be consulted. That's one concept I personally don't have a real problem with. I don't sense that the government has a problem with that either. I may be wrong.

LIB-4 does not deal with the consultation but with the results of the consultation. Once the consultation, whichever way we decide, has been done, it's “the Commission shall lay before each House of Parliament”, instead of the Governor in Council.

Mr. Chairman, I would invite you to reflect on your ruling, to see if you still hold fast to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

To add to the confusion, basically both are amending line 13. If we accept the first amendment to line 13, all we're doing is amending line 13 again. Therefore, if you accept one--