Evidence of meeting #42 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
I will repeat it, “and at the same time, for consultation with the provinces concerned.”
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Yes.
We will move to debate on the subamendment. Any comments?
Mr. Jean.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I would just say, if I can, that the public includes all of the provinces and territories. They're certainly invited to make public comments at the national and regional level. I think that would identify them both. I would suggest they're already included within clause 2...to allow them to provide comments.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I find the government's answer, that is, the answer given by Mr. Jean, more troubling. I understood that he did not want to consult with the public, because consultations took place in the rest of Canada. But, when we talk about consulting the provinces, we are not talking about the same consultation process. What we are adding is provincial consultation, otherwise, the provinces could just submit their comments, which would be treated like everyone else's. We want real consultation.
I repeat what I said earlier. Think about this: if you had a national park in your riding, be it in Alberta, Saskatchewan or British Columbia, and the province was not consulted.... I have a really hard time.... It is your prerogative not to support it, but really think about it first.
As far as public consultations go, I can see how you would not want the process to drag on forever. But, as for provincial consultations, the province, the government and the NCC all have an equal interest in resolving the issue. I do not think that is too much to ask.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
It seems to me that, up to this point, the subamendment, Mr. Nadeau's suggestion, makes eminent sense in the debate with respect to previous amendments. It doesn't make a lot of sense--or a lot of reasonable sense--for the commission to provide opportunities for public comments at the national and regional levels, and not include contemporaneously or beforehand a discussion and consultation with the provinces that share part of the responsibility.
We had some pretty interesting observations with respect to what happens on the bridges that might be in part administered or at least have the cost borne by the two provinces associated with those bridges. To then say that it's not necessary to have their input in the development of a master plan would seem a little less than logical.
I think Mr. Nadeau is absolutely right to suggest that in order for number two to be acceptable--I didn't get the exact wording in French--there would have to be a similar consultation at the same time or before with the two provinces in question.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
That's what I see in Monsieur Nadeau's subamendment. It's basically consultations take place at the same time with the concerned provinces.
Is that a pretty reasonable interpretation?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Well, in the development of the master plan. I see a sequential issue.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
So I see the consultation with the provinces taking place first, and because it's only a consultation, it's not going to be one that we've already rejected--that there's going to be debate, the two provinces would be consulted before the establishment of a master plan, and then that master plan would go to the communities and the regional authorities in order to see if there is a willingness to make some adjustments or not.
I don't recall exactly the wording that Monsieur Nadeau provided, but I thought it was sequential wording.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
With that, I'll wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and we'll see everybody in 2010.
Thank you to our staff and people that help us around here. I hope you have a good holiday season.
The meeting is adjourned.