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.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I have difficulty understanding why the government would be opposed to having Parliament approve a master plan for the national capital once every ten years. That sounds like wanting to keep all authority for the executive and not sharing it with the legislative branch of government. As a legislator, I have to resist that.
I would urge all my colleagues, including those who purport to be great defenders of the role of Parliament in a democracy, to seriously consider adopting L-4.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Chair, I am disappointed with what just happened, the vote we just lost. We did it for the good of the National Capital Commission. We wanted more involvement in the decision-making process, as well as public involvement.
This is a key point. It is paramount that elected representatives in the House of Commons be able to debate and make decisions regarding the National Capital Commission's plans for the future. Then, elected officials could solicit the opinions of members of civil society—given this opportunity we have just lost.
First of all, it is extremely important to finally have all the transparency needed for the cities in Quebec and the City of Ottawa, as well as other cities in Ontario, to work with their respective government on improving these cities, which are affected by the National Capital Commission. We support L-4.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We have bells ringing. They are 30-minute bells.
I'm looking for direction from the committee on whether we want to continue or we have to leave--
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
With that snow storm, Mr. Chair, God knows what could happen when we try to cross Wellington Street.
I only have rubbers; I don't have my boots, I don't have my heavy winter mitts. My mother always told me when you go out in a storm to be careful. I wasn't careful this morning, so I--
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm going to suggest that we return immediately after the vote. It's a 30-minute bell, so we should be back here by around 4:30.
Mr. Jean.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Well, right after the vote. It's 3:53 according to this clock.
Am I wrong?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
The vote is in half an hour, and it takes ten minutes to vote, so there's no way we can reconvene at 4:30. Say, ten minutes after the vote.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
When we left we were discussing L-4, presented by Monsieur Proulx.
I have Monsieur Laframboise on my list. Please.
December 9th, 2009 / 4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Going back to the amendment moved by the Liberals, once again, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that the provinces are not consulted. I also have a hard time understanding the position of the NDP.
I want all of our colleagues, including the Conservatives, to ask themselves a question: if this happened in my province, would it be acceptable not to consult the province? I see that as a major problem.
Later, I will probably try to move a friendly amendment regarding G-6, because it would be a good idea to consult the provinces.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
As a matter of record, Mr. Chair, I wanted to say to Mr. Laframboise that's how I felt yesterday on the national housing act when there was a clause put in by the Bloc member in relation to excluding Quebec and didn't allow for a friendly amendment to exclude other provinces.
So I understand exactly how you feel.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
During the vote someone raised the matter with me that I think needs to be addressed, Mr. Chair. The comment from my colleague from the New Democratic Party was that we don't submit to Parliament for approval plans of our national parks. I have to disagree somewhat with that, Mr. Chair.
I refer my colleagues to the Canada National Parks Act, section 33, where it talks about park communities. I understand that we differentiate in that act between parks that have communities within them, essentially Banff and Jasper, and the other parks. For those parks--and there's another one, but those are the two principal ones--that have communities there's a separate process delineated in the Canada National Parks Act, which does give to parliamentarians the ability to reject certain elements of it. So if I'm being told that one is not prepared to support the notion that parliamentarians would be called upon once a decade to approve a master plan for the nation's capital, in which 800,000-plus citizens live--over a million if you include the national capital region--where we do give that ability to parliamentarians for the community plans of national parks, then I would hope that those who believe otherwise would reconsider and indeed give parliamentarians the ability.
As an aside, we are actually giving parliamentarians the ability to approve this plan, but only those who happen to sit in cabinet. That's where I have a problem. If the legislatures in this country are to be effective they cannot carry on ceding all their authority to cabinet. Here's a chance, where we're asking parliamentarians once a decade to pronounce on the plan of the nation's capital. I would hope we would see our way to approving that.