Transport Committee on Dec. 9th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities, meeting number 42.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 5, 2009, we are dealing with Bill C-37, an act to amend the National Capital Act and other acts.

Joining us again today from the Department of Transport are André Morency, Simon Dubé, and Kim Thalheimer.

From the Department of Heritage we have Philippe de Grandpré, legal counsel.

When we last adjourned, we were discussing the subamendment put forward by Monsieur Bélanger to the Bloc for amendment. We have it in writing, and I'm getting it printed so people can actually see it. We replaced the words “submit to the” with the words “lay before each House of Parliament, for approval, a master plan”.

Again, just to refresh everyone's memories, if the subamendment and the amendment as amended are adopted, then amendment LIB-4 cannot be proposed, amendment LIB-5 is immediately adopted, and amendment G-6 cannot be proposed.

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

Parts of G-6 cannot be proposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We can do something, I think, with agreement, but basically, as it stands now, it would not be proposed.

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

Mr. Chair, before that, I just want to clarify where exactly we are.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'm not sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're discussing the subamendment. We're on clause 10.

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

Are we on page 8?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're on page 12.

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

It's just going to take me a second.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

For everybody's information, we're on clause 10, page 12. There's been an amendment put forward by the Bloc, BQ-4. Monsieur Bélanger has offered a subamendment to BQ-4, and basically that's where we left the discussion last time.

Again, just for the interest of the committee, if BQ-4 with the subamendment is adopted, then LIB-4 cannot be proposed, LIB-5 is adopted, and G-6 cannot be proposed.

Does everybody understand that?

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

Can you run that again, please? Translation didn't get it the first time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If the BQ-4 amendment is accepted with the subamendment, then L-4 cannot be proposed, L-5 is adopted, and G-6 cannot be proposed. In the subamendment that Mr. Bélanger has introduced--and I'm hoping that the copies are going to be here very quickly—he is basically amending it by replacing the words “submit to the” with the words “lay before each House of Parliament for approval a master plan”. This would make the BQ-4 amendment with the subamendment go to:

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

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

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

I think we beat this horse to death last time. The government is opposed to this on the basis of some of the substantive parts of it, but primarily because it's going to exclude G-6. For the record, we're stating that at this stage. If G-6 needs to be amended, we can deal with it at that stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Bélanger.

Oh, was Mr. Volpe...?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

He can ask first. He's a guest. We want to treat him properly.

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

I'm not a guest here. I'm not just going through.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

He is an honoured former member of the committee and a special guest.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the committee staff for their research on the consultations. I had time to read the first page, at least.

I want the committee members to look at the last paragraph of that document, in either the English or the French version. It says that the National Capital Commission's public consultation process was studied, and it was noted that the same practice has been observed within the organization previously. The current public consultation process is even described in the NCC's guidelines; have a look at Appendix B. Therefore, we can assume that the legislative amendment will simply formalize an existing practice.

I think it is important to take note of that information. On Monday, we seemed to get a bit caught up in the meaning of the term “consultation” versus “participation”. I am very glad to see that the term “consultation” was not a problem. The practice is commonplace at the NCC. This simply formalizes what it is already doing, what it says in its internal rules. I hope that the Bloc Québécois's amendment, BQ-4, dealing with public consultations and the governments of the provinces concerned, will be accepted, just as the amendment was accepted requiring a master plan for the nation's capital to be submitted for approval to each House of Parliament.

I do not think it is too much to ask the country's parliamentarians that, as representatives of the people, they make a decision on the capital city of all Canadians once every ten years. Several pieces of legislation require us to do so more often than that. We review the country's banking laws every five years, and Parliament is asked to make decisions on them. In my opinion, parliamentarians should be asked to make a decision regarding the master plan for the national capital region once every decade.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Bélanger for adding what he's just added for us.

I was wondering about BQ-4. You said that we would make a change by removing the last three words and then adding the amendment, but you had indicated that you wanted to go to what was essentially amendment L-4. You did not say to eliminate the words “force, the Commission shall”. I think you said just simply “lay before each House of Parliament”.

I didn't have this in front of me, so I ask that question. With reference to “for approval, a master plan”, I gather what you're saying is that we're considering BQ-4 and L-4, the amended item, as one. Is that it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Basically, if amendment BQ-4, with the subamendment, is adopted, amendment LIB-4 then cannot be proposed but is included.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

It's included. It's one and the same.

I just wanted to make sure that at least I had the right thought here. Otherwise I was going to say that I wanted to stick by amendment LIB-4, given that the parliamentary secretary has already given us some direction about not supporting this particular amendment because he wants to have a larger discussion on amendment G-6, on an ideological basis, I gather, not on any procedural basis.

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

I think we all know what's going on. I actually am ready for the question.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I just flew in this afternoon, so I don't know what's going on.

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

Mr. Volpe, you're so sharp, it doesn't matter where you're flying, you're still there.