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.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, because I still want it approved by Parliament and not by the Governor in Council.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I understand that Mr. Jean was a lawyer before entering politics, that he wants to argue his case and have us adopt amendment G-6, i.e., that “The Commission shall provide opportunities for public comments and at the national and regional levels.” Clearly, the provinces will be providing public comments.
I fail to see why the government does not want to include the provinces in the discussion concerning such an important matter as the future of the National Capital Commission. I have a hard time understanding that. Following Mr. de Grandpré's constitutional explanations, I now better understand that the federal government can go it alone without the provinces. That is its choice.
As I said, I would prefer that Public Works and Government Services Canada make a decision concerning an expropriation because at least there will be a discussion between elected officials. The problem is that unelected persons will be granted more powers than the elected officials of Quebec and Ontario. I find that very problematic and I do not understand why the government wants to maintain a situation wherein a commission will be given more powers than the provincial governments. I find that quite disconcerting.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
What I suggested, Monsieur Laframboise, was specifically that we address this particular clause and include provinces and territories in it. I made that comment, but it might have been lost in the shuffle of discussion. I did actually suggest that it be amended to include that—particularly provinces and territories, not just the public.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
There is quite a difference between “comments” and “participation”. When you think of participation you think of terms of reference for a particular master plan. You think of participating at that level. Then you can think of participating at a level at which you actually look at the issues individually.
This is why I am saying that simply asking for comments at the end of a plan's being laid out doesn't give me much confidence in the scope of what the public is going to be involved with in the development of this master plan. I'm saying we need a little stronger word than “comments”. The word in the National Parks Act is “participation”.
I'd like to think that the government could look at that word rather than “comments”. Then I'd be fine with what they have there.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm not from Gatineau, though I spend more months here than anywhere. But I'm curious and am wondering what Monsieur Nadeau and Monsieur Proulx think about this particular area, and also Mr. Bélanger. What is your belief in relation to the word “comment” versus “participation” versus “input” or—
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
We've already heard “consultation”.
Is “input” a difficulty, or is “comment” a difficulty, if we include provinces and territories in it? What kind of “participation” are we talking about? That's the difficulty.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
With respect, Mr. Chair, those people who want to comment on the national park will be commenting and participating in the debate and the discussion.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Let's find out.
Is there a public consultation act, Mr. Chair? This is for our witnesses.
Is there a federal public consultation act?
5:20 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
And we do that every two or two and a half years, so there's no problem doing it every ten years.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I look for direction. I will advise the committee that if we deal with the amendment and include L-4 as a subamendment, then basically you're looking at amendment L-5 being adopted, and amendment G-6 would not be proposed.
Are there any other comments?
Mr. Jean.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
My comment would be, quite frankly, to vote down the one we're dealing with and at the very least amend amendment G-6. That would be my comment, if we are going to do something, because we've already lost two parts of amendment G-6, in that Mr. Bevington removed one before, I thought. I could be wrong on that, but just from memory, was there not a previous one too?
“The plan must contain principles and objectives”--I thought that was it.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Yes, exactly; that's what I mean. So we would have to make more amendments to include it. What the government has proposed is that the master plan be laid before the House and that there be comments.