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.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
It is about the greenbelt. I would prefer to wait until Mr. Nadeau comes back.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Clauses 21 to 26 have no amendments.
(Clauses 21 to 26 inclusive agreed to)
I think we're at a crossroads now, so we'll take a short recess for lunch. I'll emphasize some of the things on our upcoming schedule while we're eating.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Welcome back.
When we recessed we had completed all the clauses that were without amendment, and we're now going back to clause 3. We're discussing Bloc amendment 2.1.
Could I just ask for order, please, so that we can move forward with this?
We were discussing BQ amendment 2.1. It was moved by Monsieur Nadeau, and just for clarification, at the time we were having a challenge making sure that the numbers added up correctly.
(On clause 3)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We're just pulling out BQ-2.1, and just for advice, if we defeat this, we deal with BQ-2. If we adopt it, then we don't deal with BQ-2.
When we last recessed, we were just trying to confirm that the numbers added up, and according to the amendment from Mr. Nadeau, the members other than the chairperson shall be appointed. That's one person, the chair; then three persons who are ordinarily resident in the NCR from local municipalities in Ontario, at least two of whom must be from the city. That adds up to three. Then there are three who are ordinarily residents of the national capital region from local municipalities in Quebec. That's three, and then eight from the Canadian population. So it adds up to one, the chair, three, three, and eight, which gives us fifteen. We were debating over the number seven or eight. So it is correct.
Monsieur Nadeau, you were explaining your position, and I'll ask you to continue.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Chair, the proposal is to have three from the part of the Outaouais covered by the National Capital Commission and three from the part of the Ottawa Valley on the Ontario side.
At the last meeting, someone said that if the figure 8 appeared in paragraph 3(4) c, the figures would not add up. Has that been fixed?
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Okay.
As well, we want 25% of the other members of the board of directors to be from Quebec. In simple terms, three would be from Ottawa, three would be from Gatineau and 25% of the others would be from Quebec. That is the spirit of the amendment, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I don't see any issue with this. The government is fine with this position on this.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Further comment? If not, I'll call the question.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 9)
We have two amendments here. We have Bloc amendment 3.
Monsieur Nadeau.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You have the text of the bill. The clause in question defines the powers and the mission of the National Capital Commission. The clause seeks to specify the National Capital Commission's role in transportation. Our amendment seeks to take this role away from the National Capital Commission. Let me explain why.
The Constitution defines the role of each of the levels of government. Under this sharing of legislative power, the Bloc Québécois feels that road construction and upkeep, as well as public transportation, is a provincial matter. In our opinion, therefore, it is quite unacceptable at this table that the representatives of political parties that have all voted to recognize Quebec as a nation should seek to hand over powers that rightly belong to Quebec to a federal body like the National Capital Commission.
Developing its territory is a matter for the government of Quebec and must remain so, even in a border region like the Outaouais. That is the spirit of our amendment, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Frankly, I'd like to hear from Monsieur Dubé in relation to this. Our position at this stage is that we want the NCC to obviously take under its wing the objective of transportation planning. Indeed, the NCC is responsible for much of the upkeep and obviously the roads, etc.
It would be no different from any provincial government and their jurisdiction, because we do not want to infringe upon any provincial government jurisdiction. But in this particular case, to take out the mandate of transportation planning for an area that obviously is used by commuters and used by a lot of people, to ignore that particular need, would be, frankly, negligent.
Mr. Dubé, what's the position in relation to transportation planning?
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
The intent here is to clarify that word, recognized as part of the planning of the national capital region. It covers transportation between the two provinces. The NCC already has many bridges, including two interprovincial bridges. It has a network of parkways. So it clearly has a role in transportation, especially when it comes to connecting the two provinces.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
If I may, Mr. Chair....
So in any way would this section, in your opinion, violate any jurisdictional issue or infringe upon any jurisdiction of the Province of Quebec or the Province of Ontario?
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
The intention has always been clear. I communicated to the NCC that this is meant not to change the role of the provinces or the municipalities, and that it is a player, but it is not the leader in that field.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Obviously, the government sent this bill to Quebec. Have we heard anything back from Quebec or Ontario in relation to this particular clause?
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
I'm not aware of anything from Ontario or Quebec on that specific aspect. I've heard about other items, and some have been discussed so far, but not on transportation.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
So as far as you're aware, the Quebec government has nothing to say on this clause.
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
Not really.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Is there further comment?
(Amendment negatived)
We'll now move to amendment Liberal-3.
Monsieur Proulx.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Within the territory of the national capital region there are five existing bridges, one of which is totally under the supervision, construction, renovation—the whole shebang—of the National Capital Commission. I'm sorry, two are under the NCC; two are under Public Works; and one is shared one-third Quebec, one-third Ontario, and one-third Public Works and Government Services Canada.
The intent of this amendment is to make sure that all existing bridges and future bridges in the national capital region would be constructed and renovated and maintained by the National Capital Commission.
Bloc