Transport Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Under the provision in amendment G-5, the provinces are not consulted as such; the government does not consult the provinces. The other thing is that we want it to be approved by the House of Commons, by elected officials, not just the government of the day.

So I repeat that we are in favour of amendment LIB-4, as subamended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is there further comment?

(Subamendment negatived)

(Amendment negatived)

We will now move to amendment BQ-5. I'll just inform the committee that if BQ-5 is adopted--

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

I'm sorry, where are we? We were discussing the Conservative-NDP coalition. That's why my attention was drawn away. Sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That's fine.

We are moving to amendment BQ-5, and just for the information of the committee, if BQ-5 is adopted, BQ-5.1 cannot be moved.

Monsieur Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, we wish to withdraw amendment BQ-5 and proceed directly with amendment BQ-5.1.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Just a minute, please.

Monsieur Nadeau has withdrawn amendment BQ-5 and we're going to amendment BQ-5.1.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Just for the committee's information, if amendment BQ-5.1 is adopted, amendment G-5 could not be moved.

Monsieur Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Further to the proposed amendment that unfortunately was not adopted, we want to reassert, with amendment BQ-5.1, our demand that the public, the provinces concerned and the House of Commons be consulted before the plan is ultimately approved by the House of Commons.

There you have it, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Is there comment?

Mr. Jean.

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

Obviously this is an issue in which we believe G-5 is the better amendment, and as such we will, as government, be voting against this amendment, because obviously amendment G-5 could not be moved if this passes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is there further comment?

(Amendment negatived)

We now move to amendment G-4.

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

I'll find it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's page 13 in your package.

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

I don't have it memorized, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I would move this amendment G-4, and if I can find it I'll even move it faster.

It goes without saying that we want the amendment to include:

The plan must contain principles and objectives, including in respect of Gatineau Park and the Greenbelt.

This obviously was amended based on the agreement between the parties, and I think it goes without saying that it's a great amendment. I hope everybody supports it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is there comment?

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

It's an automatic one, because we've already included the greenbelt, so now we have to adjust. But we'll vote in favour.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We now move to amendment BQ-5.2.

If you would move the amendment, then I have a ruling.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Give me two seconds.

Mr. Chair, amendment BQ-5.2 speaks for itself. We want to make sure that, in the Ottawa-Gatineau area, the National Capital Commission makes proportional investments in both Quebec and Ontario. So we want to add this provision to ensure that the National Capital Commission's master plan incorporates the principle that investment must be commensurate with the demographic weight of Quebec, as well as Ontario across the river.

As the Bloc Québécois has often said, when the NCC allocates resources, its investments are not commensurate with the demographic weight of Quebec. It is only reasonable to expect the NCC to invest fairly in both regions covered by the National Capital Commission, the greater Gatineau area and the greater Ottawa area.

Given that the plan is submitted at least once every ten years and that it covers a 50-year period, incorporating this provision into the master plan would still leave a fair degree of flexibility, while ensuring that all investments are fair and proportionate. The figure of 25% is commensurate with the demographic weight of the population of the region in question on the Quebec side, whereas the figure is 75% for the more extensive Ottawa side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

It is the opinion of the chair that this is a new introduction of a notion of investments and is a new concept that would put it beyond the scope of the bill.

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

So we can challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You can challenge the chair or agree with the chair's ruling.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

So, according to your decision, you do not accept this amendment, is that right? In that case, I challenge your ruling, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, and I am ruling that it is inadmissible.

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

Why?