Evidence of meeting #31 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The reference to Gatineau Park in proposed section 2 hasn't changed. We did make some amendments, but the description hasn't changed.
Liberal
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
He's deciding whether we still need proposed subsection 10.01(1).
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Chair, clause 10.01(1) would add consistency regarding the role of national parks. That is the reason for it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Is there any other comment?
(Amendment negatived)
We're now moving to Liberal-4, and before we open the floor up for discussion, I'll advise the committee that if Liberal-4 is adopted, BQ-5 and BQ-5.1 cannot be moved and G-5 cannot be moved as is. Okay?
We'll go to Monsieur Proulx.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The purpose of amendment LIB-4 is to correct what I believe to be a fundamental error that infringes upon our democratic process, given that the bill reads as follows:10.1 (1) At least once every 10 years after the day on which this subsection comes into force, the Commission shall submit to the Governor in Council for approval a master plan for the National Capital Region for the next 50 years, including principles and objectives.
The following paragraph reads:
(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of a master plan approved under [the preceding] subsection to be laid before each House of Parliament within 30 sitting days after its approval.
That means that the government decides everything. Everyone knows what it means when you say “governor in council”. The government determines the master plan for the next 50 years and advises each House of Parliament. Furthermore, amendment G-5 confirms that the master plan is to be laid before each House of Parliament, but not for approval by the House of Commons or the Senate. It is for information purposes only.
I think that once every ten years—and this is certainly not unreasonable—the master plan for the national capital region should without a doubt be approved by the House of Commons and by the Senate.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a subamendment to propose on this point, if my Liberal colleagues are willing to accept it. It ties into amendment BQ-5.1, on page 12.1. I will read what the result would be. It is not that complicated.
In the wording of amendment LIB-4, after the words “the Commission”, we would add, enclosed in commas, “after consultation with the public and governments of the provinces concerned”, followed by “shall lay before each House of Parliament, for approval, a master plan” and so forth.
Are the Liberals in favour of that subamendment?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
So we now have a subamendment to the amendment. I'm just getting clarification to make sure we have it presented.
Bloc
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I assume there would be a consultation [Editor's note: inaudible].
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The subamendment is on the Liberal-4 amendment, in the second paragraph, where it reads “force, the Commission”. After “the Commission” there would be “after consultation with the public and governments of the provinces concerned, shall lay before each House of Parliament, for approval, a master plan.”
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Precisely. The purpose of the amendment, Mr. Chair, is to ensure that the governments of the areas concerned, in other words, Ontario and Quebec, are consulted, and that the public is as well.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
The difficulty with the Liberal amendment and the Bloc subamendment is that if passed, they actually obliterate amendment G-5, which deals with, I would suggest, all of the proposals and comments made by both Monsieur Nadeau and Monsieur Proulx.
I would suggest, on that basis, because the issue of public comments and getting consultations at national and regional levels is set out in here as proposed subclause 10.1(3)--“a master plan is approved by the Governor in Council, it shall be laid before each House of Parliament”--and it speaks about restrictions on the Governor in Council approving a master plan, etc., that's why we would have to vote against it in this particular case.
I would suggest, if members could look at the government's position on amendment G-5, it does lay out all of the issues they referred to, and it does so in what I would suggest to be a better format than the subamendment and the amendment.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, Mr. Jean, except that in this case he's wrong.
Proposed subclause 10.1(3), outlined in amendment G-5, says very plainly:
“[...] it shall be laid before [...]”; it does not say that it has to be approved.
With what they want to do, it still reads:
Before a master plan is approved by the Governor in Council, it shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
The approval still remains with the Governor in Council. I feel that the approval should rest with both chambers.
