Transport Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Could you ask Mr. Watson not to use his cell phone when the committee is in session. The House of Commons rule applies: you can use a BlackBerry, but you cannot talk on a telephone.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll ask all members just to respect the rules of the committee.

Mr. Jean.

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

The government cannot be in favour of this particular Liberal amendment. Certainly, I think we would have to have a lot more discussions with provinces, especially the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario, before we infringed on any of their jurisdiction. Frankly, I don't see this as being something that the Government of Canada should play a role in, especially a dominant role, as suggested by this particular amendment. So we will be voting against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is there further comment?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 9 agreed to)

(On clause 10)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We move to Monsieur Nadeau and BQ-4.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The object of our amendment is to recognize in law the status of Gatineau Park and its reason for being. The bill that we are studying provides a definition of Gatineau Park and sets out its boundaries. But it has been given no due status, nor has the use to which it is to be put been established. These clarifications simply establish in perpetuity the space that is so important for the region.

That is all, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is there comment?

Mr. Jean.

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

Considering the relationship between this amendment and G-5, if this passes, does it mean that G-5 would be out of order, Mr. Chair?

I'll tell you, if I may, Mr. Chair, the reason I prefer the wording of G-5, but I'll wait until the clerk gives us confirmation on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

There are some similarities, in fact strong similarities, between G-5 and BQ-4.

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

If I may say, Mr. Chair, the reason I'm in favour of G-5—and I'm hoping to convince other member of the committee here—is that we did hear from witnesses regarding the private property component of the park, or private property within the park.

My interpretation of the wording of BQ-4, “so as to leave it unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations”, is that the term “unimpaired” could be interpreted to unduly restrict the rights of property owners. I can see that happening.

If you deal with G-5, it specifies that the NCC shall manage its properties “in Gatineau Park for the enjoyment of the people of Canada, including allowing for the pursuit of recreational activities.” I think, frankly, that would be better wording than BQ-4, because it does exactly what I think the Bloc are intending to do with BQ-4, which is, of course, to allow people to continue to use Gatineau Park and enjoy the facilities, including the recreational activities. So I think it's a better use of a clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Proulx.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I just ask for clarification.

Could we ask Mr. Nadeau to explain the impact on section 10.1, dealing with the master plan, if his amendment were accepted?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What we are suggesting goes after the heading. We are not taking it out, we are keeping the 10-year requirement for the master plan.

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

I'm sorry. Then does clause 10.1 become clause 10.2, and clause 10.2 becomes clause 10.3, and so on and so forth?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Proulx is describing what we want to do. In other words, we are not taking section 10.1 out; it is already in the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Proulx.

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

Could we ask the witness a question? As it is, we're talking of schedule 2 in the amendment, which reads, “Gatineau Park, the boundaries of which are set out in Schedule 2, is hereby established”.

Aside from this amendment, what do we have to give a detailed description of the Gatineau Park?

Is there a geographic description, a cadastral description, at the moment?

[Simon Dubé]

Currently in the definition section of the bill, the words “Gatineau Park” refer to schedule 2 in Bill C-20. Schedule 2 is that detailed cadastral boundary. It's in the bill currently before this committee.

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

The first paragraph in this amendment says the following:

Gatineau Park, the boundaries of which are set in schedule 2, is hereby established

Does this exist anywhere else?

[Simon Dubé]

No. It's not in the bill or the act.

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

When we're talking about Gatineau Park, what are we referring to?

[Simon Dubé]

In Bill C-20, the definition is this:

“Gatineau Park” means the area whose boundaries are described in Schedule 2;

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

Schedule 2 would be incorporated, then?

[Simon Dubé]

It's in the bill.