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 ruling of the chair has been challenged.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
The BQ-5 amendment is inadmissible.
We now move to the G-5 amendment. I will just advise the committee that if G-5 is adopted, Liberal-5 and BQ-5.3 cannot be moved because they are amending the same lines.
Mr. Jean.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Obviously G-5 is quite lengthy, but it's very important to the government and, I would suggest, to the opposition parties. This particular amendment adds a clause that would oblige the commission to manage any property of the commission that is in an immovable location in Gatineau Park for the enjoyment of the people of Canada, including allowing the pursuit of recreational activities, which I mentioned before. Obviously, I think it's very consistent with what the Bloc put forward earlier.
It also requires that in developing a master plan, the NCC must provide opportunities for public comment across the country, and that was also one brought forward by the Liberals, as was said earlier.
Also, before a master plan is approved by the Governor in Council, the proposed master plan shall be tabled in each house of Parliament. The Governor in Council may not approve the master plan before a specified time after that—I think it's 180 days. Just to be blunt, this is in line with existing parliamentary procedures from other legislation and other sections of other acts. Because it is the minister responsible for crown corporations who tables documents in Parliament on behalf of the corporation, this is very consistent.
The last substantive proposal in G-5 is that in developing the master plan, the NCC must provide opportunities for public comments at the national and regional levels. Before the Governor in Council approves the master plan, it must be tabled in each house, as I said before, and no approval will be possible before 160 calendar days, or 30 sitting days. Both houses have that option in there to challenge it at that stage.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
We will not be able to vote in favour of this for the simple reason that it goes against what we had explained previously.
We want the master plan to be approved by both the House of Commons and the Senate. This amendment with the subamendment and so on have been denied to us. It doesn't make this one better because the other has been turned down, so we're going to vote against it.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Chair, can we put the amendment to a vote in two parts? I am not sure whether that is possible, but we could start with point (a) and then go to point (b).
So, point (a), on page 14, would be one amendment, and point (b), on page 15, would be another unto itself.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
My understanding is that they have been moved as one amendment, and I would ask if the government is willing to divide the two.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
First of all, prior to them being moved, that would have been possible. I don't think it's possible at this stage. Frankly, I think it has to be looked at as one total section of the bill, because they walk hand in hand. No, we wouldn't be prepared to.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I have a question for our witnesses, if we're through that particular point.
Conservative
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
What's the process for national parks approval and master plans?
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
The National Parks Act provides for a committee being created locally in consultation. But getting into the details, I—
November 2nd, 2010 / 12:20 p.m.
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
I don't think so. I have the parks act with me, but I don't know it by heart, I must admit. I can try to find that for you, if you want.
The minister tables the report on the plan once it's completed.
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
Yes. That's what I can find in section 12.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I live next to a national park with about 43,000 square kilometres of land that's held in perpetuity for Canada. Under the laws of Canada, then, the minister tables the—I think this is a good step up from national park designation of management plans. If we were to take the principle that everything that happened on national land had to go through the Parliament of Canada and the Senate for approval, this would be a very difficult process.
When you look at what the government is proposing here—and I know the NDP critic for this particular subject has given me instructions to support this—I see the logic of it because it does give a higher degree of national approval requirements than under the National Parks Act, which is land that is controlled by the federal government completely, right across this whole country.
I think this is fair. I see it as a fair amendment that provides a greater degree of participation by this Parliament in that decision, compared to the amount of decision-making this Parliament is entitled to, to very vast tracts of land in my jurisdiction.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Chair, with respect to amendment G-5, I want to know whether my colleagues in the government would be willing to remove point (b), which we have issues with. It mentions recreational activities, and we do not want to misrepresent the ecological nature of Gatineau Park.
I want to know whether the government would agree to withdraw point (b). If so, we would be willing to accept point (a).
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
First of all, we don't see that as being a difficulty. If we look at ecological...and at the definitions section and the greenbelt and how we're trying to encompass it, I think those protections are already in there, because it has to be developed in an ecological manner. That was the very first definition we dealt with.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
So from that perspective, I would not be prepared to remove that part of G-5. I think it speaks for itself.
