Transport Committee on Dec. 7th, 2009

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

It's only a part of line 13.

With regard to BQ-4, and I'm going from the English text here, the last four words are “shall submit to the”. If you remove “shall submit to the” and add LIB-4, “shall lay before each House of Parliament, for approval, a master plan” for the national capital region, you could weave the two together. You don't have to rule them against each other because they are not.

It may take a bit of wordsmithing, but not all that much. You have your consultation process, the result of which is then presented to both Houses of Parliament. I think we have a plan there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The recommendation I would make, if that is what you choose to do, would be to make a subamendment to the Bloc amendment to make it match. If not, both amendments are attempting to change the same line and you can't do that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'd like the group to consider that--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

This will be offered as a friendly amendment to BQ-4?

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

Yes. The group should consider that the BQ-4 amendment be amended by reading:

force, the Commission, after consultation with the public and governments of the provinces concerned, shall lay before each House of Parliament for approval a master plan.

If that fits, you would then take out all of line 13 and half of line 14, including “Governor in Council”. So the entire proposed subsection 10.1(1) would read:

At least once every 10 years after the day on which this subsection comes into force, the Commission, after consultation with the public and governments of the provinces concerned, shall lay before each House of Parliament for approval a master plan for the National Capital Region for the next 50 years, including principles and objectives

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

The government's position is similar but not exact. I thought I would read that out to see if there could be some consistency and then deal with them all at once.

The government's position, quite frankly, is that they would be tabled in the House and would not be dealt with until a period of time elapses, rather than for a vote in the House. It would be similar to international treaties, etc. It would bring consistency in relation to that kind of act and proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Proulx.

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

Through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Jean, on your proposal, the approval would be with the Governor in Council and not Parliament, right?

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

The same as it is right now, yes.

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

We're saying it should be with Parliament.

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

I understand that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

What I'm working on here is clarification, because amendment L-4 impacts another amendment further down.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I don't like the words “provide opportunities for public comments”. I prefer “consultation”.

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

Consultation, however, has a specific legal meaning, which sometimes requires two or three years to fulfill, and that's the difficulty with it. I would like to hear from officials in relation to that in particular, because I think it is quite onerous. We've discovered that as a result of aboriginal consultations in the Northwest Territories, in particular. The term “public comments” has a similar English meaning but not a similar legal meaning. That's exactly why.

Actually, I was going to propose that we include provinces within that comment time as well, as part of a synopsis to try to bring about an agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bélanger.

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

I was seeking the...

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

While he's thinking, this is the capital of almost 32 million Canadians. It wouldn't be a bad thing, once every 10 years, for the population to be consulted, for the provincial governments concerned to be consulted, and I imagine for the two Houses of Parliament, whether one of them is elected or not--who knows by then--to actually have their members once every decade consider what their national capital should look like. I don't think that's asking a whole lot of parliamentarians to give for what the capital of every Canadian should look like or does look like. So I don't have a great deal of difficulty with the notion that a plan for the nation's capital is laid before both Houses once every decade and that parliamentarians are asked to approve it.

I think that would perhaps trigger some interest and something good for the capital of all Canadians, Mr. Chair. I would urge members to consider this one seriously.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Before I go to Mr. Jean, I will just advise the committee again that both the Governments of Ontario and Quebec were asked to come to present their positions to this committee and both chose not to.

Mr. Jean.

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

That's exactly what I was going to say, Mr. Chair. In fact, I think we made several requests at the committee level to have them here, or at least the Government of Quebec, and they decided not to.

My biggest difficulty, just from having dealt with some legal issues before, is that if we are going to make a change like this and reflect the local needs--which primarily this bill deals with, on the grand scale of things--the consultation issue and the onerous nature of that, and the ability to make changes after this if we do put in law the consultation process.... From my perspective, the government doesn't have any problem with a public comment period and a provincial comment period, but “consultation”, which may mean the same thing in the normal English language, certainly does not mean the same thing in law. That's the difficulty. If we are going to make changes for the local level and we have to do so in a timely manner, it's going to be impossible.

I was wondering if we could hear from the officials in relation to the term “consultation” and what that means.

[Simon Dubé]

Mr. Jean, I would just confirm what you said earlier about the legal risk or the legal meaning of “consultation”, and the recent cases with aboriginal consultations. What is enough consultation for one person is not enough for some others. So there's a legal risk.

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

I don't know if you have any track record with aboriginal consultations. For instance, with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline consultations and other consultations, what happens as a result of that? What kinds of timeframes are we talking about here?

[Simon Dubé]

I would not be able to comment on that.

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

Is anybody else at the table able to comment on that? Consultations require a positive...

Maybe Mr. Bevington could. You're from the Northwest Territories.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I think there are processes within the Canada National Parks Act perhaps that would be more appropriate for consultation. I understand those processes. Those processes have been hard fought, to get those ideas in place within the national parks for their master plan, so I don't think we would want anything less. If public comments are all that national parks are required to achieve from provincial governments, from the stakeholders around there, then I'm okay with public comments. If, on the other hand, the Canada National Parks Act demands more significant types of representation in a very formal fashion—because you're making choices that affect people—I'd be willing to go with at least the level the national parks master plan process calls for.