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.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Let me challenge the chair.
(Ruling of the chair overturned)
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Okay. The amendment, as presented, is on the floor. Are there comments?
Go ahead, Mr. Jean.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if the finding, in relation to this particular clause, can be reflected in future clauses that refer to a greenbelt and might be ruled out of order and excluded on the same basis.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I think that might be presuming a little too much. I think it would be better if we introduced it and then dealt with it.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Certainly. I would just hate to challenge you on a consistent basis, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Okay, so we will vote on amendment G-2.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We now move to BQ-1.
Go ahead, Monsieur Nadeau.
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
If I may, Mr. Chairman.
In fact, that is the very crux of the issue. That is why we are asking for the striking of clauses 20 to 23 of the bill. I will read you that. It also comes from a letter given to us by Mr. Cannon who was transport minister at the time. The letter is dated October 16, 2007, and it is signed by Benoît Pelletier, from the Government of Quebec, who was responsible for this issue at the time. It reads as follows:
The concept of a National Interest Land Mass provided in the bill would allow the NCC to designate all lands within it, for instance, Gatineau Park and lands within the City of Gatineau and surrounding area. This new tool, due to the NCC's increased presence on the Quebec side of the Outaouais region, further complicates the Government of Quebec's exercise of its jurisdiction with respect to land use planning. Furthermore, this concept is a direct affront to the Quebec nation and to Quebec's territorial integrity. Quebec's territorial integrity is a principle that all successive governments in Quebec, regardless of political allegiance, have staunchly defended. Along with the right of expropriation it already has, the concept of a National Interest Land Mass provides the NCC with excessive authority. Without wanting to impute any motives to the Commission, the powers currently granted to the NCC and the governor in council could allow them to: (1) expand the limits of the National Capital Region; (2) identify all lands which would fit within the National Interest Land Mass; and (3) proceed to expropriation without the agreement of the Government of Quebec, nor the approval of Parliament.
So, we feel uneasy about these powers being granted and are concerned about the territorial integrity of Quebec. This is why we have moved the amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you.
For the committee, a vote on this particular amendment would also apply to BQ-5 and BQ-8. Basically, if we vote for BQ-1, we would be voting for BQ-5 and BQ-8. Also, if this amendment is accepted, amendment G-3 cannot be proposed.
Mr. Jean.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I looked at this with great interest when I saw the Bloc amendment. I did a little bit of research into it. My understanding of the definition of the “National Interest Land Mass” was that it was designed to convey the same meaning under the civil law of Quebec as that under the common law of the other Canadian jurisdictions, whether in English or in French. I understand that to be more of a translation issue than anything.
In particular, I think it goes to the long-term vision of Gatineau Park in the national capital region. I just don't see how it could infringe upon Quebec's jurisdictional powers. I think it would be ultra vires for the National Capital Commission to expand, in essence, to violate the jurisdiction given under the Constitution.
I'm wondering if the legal minds here could give us any idea as far as how it could infringe upon Quebec's jurisdictional powers.
Philippe de Grandpré Senior Counsel, Canadian Heritage, Legal Services, Department of Justice
The “National Interest Land Mass” is a planning tool. It doesn't have any other effect; it guides how planning will take place within the national capital region.
From a legal standpoint, that is what I would have to say. There are no changes to Quebec's territory, nor any violation of Quebec's legislative jurisdiction.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
On the contrary, in the definition the following is mentioned under clause 10.2: "The National Capital Commission may designate all or portions of real property or immovables as part of the NILM". The Commission may designate all parts of any real property or immovable, in other words it could decide to expand its land mass. That is where it runs counter to the interests of the Government of Quebec.
I understand Minister Pelletier's letter at the time. He was saying that the National Capital Commission should not be granted more authority than it currently has on designated lands. Further, it could expand its territory because it has the right of expropriation. That would therefore directly conflict with the rights of the Government of Quebec.
Of course, if it goes no further than the limits of current lands, it would not be a problem. However, based on the wording we see, the Commission would be granted the power to expand its land mass. That would supercede the authority of the Government of Quebec.
Senior Counsel, Canadian Heritage, Legal Services, Department of Justice
That is an issue of politics rather than the law. From a legal standpoint, the government's position is that this provision is constitutional. If the federal government decides to expand the National Capital Commission's land mass, the Government of Quebec may not be pleased, but the federal government's position will be that it is constitutional to do so.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I understand, but we are here to say that we understand what Minister Pelletier was stating at the time. Indeed, he wrote that caution must be used in granting authorities to the National Capital Commission. I have no difficulty with the concept that it may be constitutional, but clearly this would be a way of superceding the Government of Quebec's authority. We are saying to the Conservatives that if they recognize the Quebec nation, they should do so fully and not prevent it from having the right to intervene when the National Capital Commission chooses to expand its land mass. You will have to negotiate with the Government of Quebec. Obviously, there is no written document providing for negotiations with the Government of Quebec.
Senior Counsel, Canadian Heritage, Legal Services, Department of Justice
I have nothing further to add from a legal standpoint.
Bloc
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Well sir, I believe the main issue has been stated. Benoît Pelletier, it must be said, is a recognized constitutional expert who was defending the interests of the Quebec State.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
First of all, I want to address a couple of issues that were raised by Mr. Laframboise.
The movable issue initially had me a little stumbled as well, because it's not recognized as a legal term, as far as I'm aware, under common law. It's actually a Quebec civil law term that is the same as our term under the Torrens system of land and real property, so I didn't recognize it. In fact, the immovable term is more expanded and has a greater context than the common law definition of real property. It includes trees, which I was astonished to find out because it doesn't in common law. So my understanding is that particular definition was brought in because the land is in Quebec, so it is specifically related to that.
My understanding--and correct me if I'm wrong--is that Public Works has the ability to expropriate, whether or not NCC does, and it would still be constitutionally recognized that Public Works has that right under law. Is that correct?
Senior Counsel, Canadian Heritage, Legal Services, Department of Justice
It is correct that under the Expropriation Act the Minister of Public Works runs a process whereby Her Majesty can expropriate land for public purposes.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
So it's still in law today that the Minister of Public Works has a right to expropriate.
