Transport Committee on Oct. 26th, 2010

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

Mr. Chair, may I have an answer to the question I was asking? Seeing that we are asked to approve schedule 2.1 but that schedule 2.1 does not exist as such, does it mean that when schedule 2.1 is proposed, either by the government or by the department of the government, it will have to come back in front of this committee, or whatever committee at that time is responsible for the National Capital Commission? Does it mean that it will have to come back to that committee so that the contents of schedule 2.1 can be approved?

Is that the way you see it, sir?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

My understanding is that it does not have to come back before a committee.

Mr. Dubé, can you...?

[Simon Dubé]

One of the motions the committee will consider will create schedule 2.1, if agreed. One thing I will point out is that one of the motions that will also be before this committee in the coming hours or days on this bill provides for a process on how schedule 2.1 will be populated, if I may put it that way.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have amendment G-1. Is there any further debate on it?

Mr. Nadeau.

Oh, I'm sorry. I mean amendment G-2.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, we are in a bit of a grey area here.

We know there is a greenbelt. I remember discussing it with Ms. Lemay. The boundaries, the perimeter, of Gatineau Park were described in detail for the first time ever here, in this very committee, about one year ago, precisely for the purpose of including them in the bill. That never happened. We were able to ask questions about it. Some cities are located within Gatineau Park, such as Chelsea. Other cities, such as Gatineau and La Pêche, are located only partly within Gatineau Park. It is crystal clear. We brought that forward, and we even asked some mayors to come and meet with us. Mr. Perras accepted our invitation. He made a presentation. We asked him questions to make sure the information we had was accurate. We had a document that served as a basis for further discussion.

But the Greenbelt was not included in either Bill C-37 or Bill C-20. The people at the NCC, who support this bill because it affects them, did not see fit to include it at the time. Was there a reason for that? Did it have to do with the fact that the boundaries had not yet been established? Whatever the reason, the outcome was that we could not invite mayors, council or interested parties in the municipality of Ottawa or municipalities surrounding the Greenbelt to appear and give us assurance that we had the right definition.

The newspaper Le Droit recently published a series of articles on the Gréber plan, which was developed some 50 years ago and which mentioned the Greenbelt. The article said that the surface area of the Greenbelt had shrunk slightly as compared with the initial plan. It would have been a good idea, at the time, to talk to people living in the city of Ottawa region. They could have given their opinions on how large the Greenbelt was, which would have helped us determine whether our boundary description was accurate or not. We did not do that. The issue was not referred to the committee. The committee cannot study a document that it does not have and that does not exist. As lawmakers, we cannot study an issue that was not referred to us through the appropriate legal channels and determine whether we agree or disagree with the boundary description in question. We could have done it by consulting those who are very knowledgeable about the area where they live and which they manage in conjunction with the NCC. I am talking about the Greenbelt, specifically. No Ontario stakeholders affected by this situation, whether at the municipal or provincial level, appeared before the committee on the matter.

I am extremely uncomfortable talking about the Greenbelt as a principle, given that it is not even defined and no one ever saw fit to include it in Bill C-37. Everyone was set on passing the bill swiftly and picking up right where we left off on December 9. Everyone wanted to continue the debate and present the bill in the House of Commons so that it would become law.

I think we are going to have to do our homework. The issue of the Greenbelt should be the subject of another study, and the legislation should be amended to allow us to speak with the stakeholders, at the right time, and include this element in the bill and eventually the act if the bill is passed.

You will understand that I am going to vote against this amendment, precisely for this reason.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Proulx.

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

We've had an explanation from the witness saying that the intent is to eventually describe or create the text for schedule 2.1. I think that just to include the greenbelt or “la ceinture de verdure” in Bill C-20 is a big step forward, with the understanding that the NCC, in a future that I hope will be near, will arrive at a description of the greenbelt. So we will be voting in favour of amendment G-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to understand exactly what's proposed with the addition of the greenbelt.

Are we going to see that the greenbelt then becomes completely similar to Gatineau Park, in terms of the legislation driving it? Is that a large step forward from where it's at already, this greenbelt, in terms of how the land management is conducted?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

I would like to hear from Mr. Dubé, but I do understand that with this new concept of greenbelt included within the legislative framework, it's also going to require the NCC to come up with their action plan in the master plan of what they're going to do with the greenbelt.

I understand that actually it's going to be left with the board, an independent board, with of course members from Quebec and members from Ontario and across the country, which will include in their master plan their intention and what they plan to do with the greenbelt. Of course, in my understanding, from a general perspective—and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Dubé—some of it is commercial, light industrial, residential areas, which obviously cannot have the same prescriptive approach that a park can have, but at the same time, they would be able to take recognition that it is a green area and that they want to protect the green area and the existing flora and fauna in that area.

Is that correct, Mr. Dubé?

[Simon Dubé]

Yes, that's correct.

And I will just point out that we can look in isolation to that specific proposal to have a definition, but, collectively, all the motions provide for some clearer status to the greenbelt with respect to the master plan, with respect to planning and protection of that territory or area in the NCR.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

I'm just wondering, Mr. Dubé, what happens after the master plan is proposed by the NCC board. What happens to it then? Who authorizes it? Is it automatically recognized? Has that been the situation, or what happens then?

[Simon Dubé]

As it stands now, we don't—

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

If the legislation as proposed is passed, what happens to the master plan after it's gone to the board?

[Simon Dubé]

Once the NCC has approved it, it will need Governor-in-Council approval, and all together, all the proposals that are before this committee, would ensure that the greenbelt is covered in that master plan for the national capital region. So it would obviously be a significant component of that master plan.

And to lead to the approval of the plan, there will have been consultations, as the NCC is already doing. They're embarking on this adventure, if I can say, to update the existing plan. So all together that's what would be the process.

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

What are the proposals in respect of the greenbelt at this stage? If it's proposed, and if it passes, what's your understanding of the special recognition for the greenbelt?

[Simon Dubé]

Once the boundaries are defined in the schedule and it's clear for everybody what the greenbelt is physically, the master plan would elaborate on what can be done or not done in the greenbelt, what is the long-term intention with the lands in the greenbelt, and how they are managed. So it's the overarching guiding principles for the greenbelt, as well as other components of the region.

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

Who does it now? Who does it currently? Who manages the area? Who cuts the grass? Who makes sure the litter is picked up? Who does that?

[Simon Dubé]

The greenbelt—and Mr. Proulx had a very good definition of the greenbelt—is a collection of various types of land that includes the Ottawa airport, some agricultural land, some light industrial land, some wetlands. There's a very wide variety of land in the greenbelt, so that's why it's hard to say that the greenbelt.... You cannot just have one principle to manage that area because of the variety of the land. But assuming everything goes through, it's going to be clear what the greenbelt encompasses and how it will be possibly managed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Nadeau, you have the floor.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, the first question we need to ask ourselves is: Why did no one see fit to include the Greenbelt and all the related legislative provisions in Bill C-37 when it was brought forward in June 2009, in order to lay things out clearly or, at least, ensure that everything was done in accordance with the rules that would have been established.

We heard Mr. Dubé and Mr. Proulx talk about the wide variety of lands that make up the Greenbelt, which, by the way, spans a vast area. This was put to us today without any groundwork having been done, without any evidence from knowledgeable witnesses on the matter, which is one of the National Capital Commission's many responsibilities. Either it was a mistake, or it was not done intentionally to provide an opportunity to gather more sound arguments for discussion down the road, especially in terms of defining the duties and responsibilities related to the famous Greenbelt.

We did it for Gatineau Park, and that is great, but we did not do it for the Greenbelt. It is extremely difficult to accept, even if we say that we will provide an explanation in a schedule. We are required to vote on all the elements contained in the bill before us, not on things that appear out of nowhere in an amendment on a major issue concerning the National Capital Commission.

Mr. Chair, I am not trying to take away from the Greenbelt or diminish its importance. It is just that we did not study the issue, we did not propose it for consideration, we did not set out the necessary parameters to pass legislation on the issue and then clearly identify the corresponding responsibilities.

It is also to protect the Greenbelt. It is important to keep in mind what Russell Mills said before he was appointed chair of the National Capital Commission's board of directors. He said that he did not have a problem with carving up the Greenbelt; he was willing to hand it over to the private sector. Forgive me, but let's define everything first and give the Greenbelt legislative protection, to prevent the Russell Mills of the world from, one day, selling off pieces of the city of Ottawa's environmental heritage.

To do that, we need a piece of legislation. But we do not have that here. We should have done it in due course. It is never too late to do things right, but it would have to be through another motion or another amendment to the current act, in order to ensure that the job is done well and that the Greenbelt is given adequate protection. The boundaries need to be known and established, to be sure that we, as lawmakers, are protecting an area with known and established boundaries. We would also need to ensure the sustainability of this land for future generations of Quebeckers and Canadians alike.

But that is not the case right now, and so we have this grey area referred to earlier. You cannot just cook this up, and come here and tell us that everything is hunky-dory and that we should have confidence in it even though we were not given the slightest opportunity to discuss it or to hear from witnesses on the matter, if only regarding the boundaries of this extremely diverse and significant area.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Before I recognize Mr. Proulx, I think Mr. Dubé and his comments again refer back to my ruling. Amendments G-3, G-4, G-8, G-9, G-10, and L-7 actually address some of those issues. As we move through the bill, it will clarify itself.

It is at the first. I understand that.

Monsieur Proulx.