Transport Committee on Nov. 4th, 2010

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

My understanding.... I know Mr. Nadeau wasn't here for it, but I heard loud and clear from residents and citizens of the Gatineau Park area that they didn't want this within there, and I thought that was actually one of the mandates that came back and one of the recommendations. They did not want that included within there, the ability to...and a set-out clause to do exactly what he's suggesting.

I thought we heard loud and clear in relation to citizens of Gatineau Park that they did not want this set out in the legislation. So that's why we will be voting against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Seeing no further comment, shall BQ-13 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 13 agreed to)

(On clause 15)

We're going to clause 15 now, and we're dealing with amendment LIB-8.

I just want to advise the committee that the amendment LIB-8 is not admissible at this time because it makes reference to 10(1) and (a.1) and they no longer exist, since amendment LIB-3 was defeated.

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

Agreed.

(Clause 15 agreed to)

(On clause 19)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're going to clause 19.

We have amendment G-8, and I want to advise the committee that should amendment G-8 be adopted, amendments BQ-14 and BQ-15 would not be allowed to be moved because it affects the same lines.

Mr. Jean.

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

I would move amendment G-8. In my understanding, this would modernize the language of the National Capital Act, and furthermore, would reflect that clause 12 repeals section 15 of the National Capital Act.

As far as the specifics of that, it amends the references to section 2 of that act. After the title, the present schedule of the act should read sections 2 and 22.1 instead of section 2. It's also to reflect the addition of proposed section 22.1 of the act, pursuant to clause 19, which allows the Governor in Council to amend, by order, schedule 1 of the act.

Is that pretty much it, Mr. Dubé? It seems like a lot of things. The explanation is less than the amendment.

[Simon Dubé]

Yes, in short it deals with the process for amending the schedules, which include the national capital region boundaries, Gatineau Park boundaries, and the greenbelt boundaries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I simply want to tell you that we will be voting against this amendment, for the good and simple reason that we do not consider a mere order in council that would allow the Governor in Council to alter the boundaries of the park to be a good thing.

The approval of the Government of Quebec is a condition sine qua non, precisely because it is a matter of preserving the integrity of the territory of Quebec.

So we will be voting against the amendment for that reason, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Proulx.

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

I have a question for Mr. Nadeau.

I understand his intent. However, does that mean that future amendments from the Bloc Québécois would require that changes be approved first by the houses of Parliament, or is the intent that those changes be introduced after approval by the Governor in Council?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Generally, when it comes to anything that affects the territory of Quebec, we want the Government of Quebec to be consulted, and yes, the changes to be approved by the elected Parliament, by the House of Commons. The Senate is of secondary importance to us. But yes, the approval should come from both chambers, the lower and the upper.

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

I have a question. How do you think it could be approved by the House of Commons or by the House of Commons and the Senate?

Earlier, this request was rejected by the Conservative and New Democrat coalition. The coalition prefers that it continue to be a decision by the Governor in Council, and that it then be introduced in the House of Commons. That was the decision of the Conservative-New Democrat coalition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Proulx could not have spoken truer words, on that point.

That is why there is also amendment BQ-14, which sets out the intention you have stated and that we stated, to have the House of Commons and the Senate be the decision-making bodies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Proulx.

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

Mr. Chair, this brings me to a question for the clerk, that I will put through you.

The Government of Quebec had been invited as a witness, if memory serves me, during the consultations or testimony given at the time of Bill C-37. If memory serves me, the Government of Quebec did not deign to come here to testify.

Is my interpretation of the facts correct or were there other circumstances?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The Government of Quebec was invited to the committee to make representation and it declined that invitation.

Monsieur Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, yes, it was invited. Some municipalities were also invited. However, our position is based on two letters from Quebec ministers informing us of their views. If you want, I can read the two letters.

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

Yes.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

So I will do it. This is the Minister, Benoît Pelletier, and the former Minister, Claude Béchard, who was responsible for this issue in the Government of Quebec.

For those listening, and so what we are saying will be clear, I am going to read the following document. The letter head is from the Government of Quebec. The letter, which is dated October 16, 2007, is addressed to the Hon. Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and reads as follows [Translation]:

Dear Minister:

We have read the report entitled "The National Capital Commission: Charting a new course" submitted by the Panel on the NCC Mandate Review on December 21, 2006. The Panel was created by yourself the previous August, following on the intention you had announced in April 2006 to undertake a review of the mandate of the NCC in order to determine whether the Commission "correspond[s] with Canada's new realities".

The Panel's report supports enhancing the status of the NCC in terms of its involvement in the planning, stewardship and management of Canada's Capital Region. It even proposes expanding its responsibilities and budget.

On several occasions, the Government of Quebec has spoken out against the methods used by the NCC in its activities in the Outaouais and the impact of its decisions, which are too often made without consultation, after a closed process that lacks transparency. The problems that have arisen in relations between the Government of Quebec and the NCC are clearly illustrated by the fact that important road infrastructure agreements that were signed in 1972 and 1985 did not come to fruition until 2007. Another agreement relating to an exchange of strategic lands that was signed in 1973 has still not been completed.

We were surprised by the panel's conclusions. After all, the powers that the NCC has at present, whether under the National Capital Act or under the general powers assigned to the federal government, are already very substantial. Moreover, despite noting that the Canadian Constitution gives the provinces jurisdiction for land-use planning, the report nevertheless promotes a new idea, that of the "National Interest Land Mass" (NILM): land in the NCC portfolio that is deemed essential to the long-term viability of Canada's Capital Region. This is a remarkably nebulous concept. It could potentially entail a risk of encroachment on Quebec's territorial jurisdiction in the Outaouais, given that a number of important components of the NILM, including the Gatineau Park and other parcels of land in the Greenbelt, are located in Quebec. Such an expansion of the NCC's prerogatives is an extremely disquieting prospect.

In addition, the report suggests that Quebec should have minority representation, as compared to Ontario, on the new board of directors that might be installed at the NCC. The Government of Quebec takes a dim view of this kind of imbalance in Quebec's representation on what would become the managing body of the NCC. Knowing in advance that important issues that affect Quebec directly, in terms of land-use planning or integrity of the territory, will be addressed there, Quebec calls for equal representation on the board.

In short, while Quebec may agree with the recommendations of the Panel that, for example, propose greater transparency in the NCC's decision-making process, it is firmly opposed to any federal plan based on strengthening the presence and activities of the NCC in the Outaouais in Quebec that would impair or, at the least, threaten the territorial integrity of Quebec. I would therefore be grateful if you would take all necessary measures in this regard to defend the interests of Quebec. Sincerely yours, Benoît Pelletier Minister

That is the first letter.

I will now read the second letter, which is a little shorter.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Proulx, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, I had asked Mr. Nadeau to tell us about the letters. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Nadeau, but one of the letters, the one that has not yet been read, was written by a minister at that time. So it is practically ancient history.

Surely there have been discussions between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada, through Mr. Cannon, who commissioned the Paquette study, if I recall correctly.

I would like to ask the witnesses here this morning whether any other meetings or discussions have been held between the Government of Quebec and the Department of Transport or the National Capital Commission, recently, and if so, whether the Government of Quebec has expressed any interest in changing the position taken by the Government of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Before I recognize Monsieur Dubé, do you have a comment, Monsieur Nadeau, or...?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have heard the comments by my colleague Mr. Proulx. The first letter does date from October 2007, but the second dates from November 2009. It is shorter. It is from Mr. Béchard and is addressed to Josée Verner, who was then and is still today the Minister of Intergovernmental Affaires.

The letter reads as follows [Translation]:

Dear Minister:

Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts, which is currently being considered in the House of Commons, is a cause of some concerns for the Government of Quebec, and some

This is the case for the concept of "National Interest Land Mass" defined in the bill, which will enable the National Capital Commission (NCC) to designate all or a portion of any immovables that are part of the National Interest Land Mass that is part of, for example, Gatineau Park and other land located in and around the City of Gatineau. This new tool, due to the NCC's increased presence on the Quebec side of the Outaouais region, further complicates the Government of Quebec's exercise of its jurisdiction with respect to land-use planning. As well, Quebec's minority representation, as compared to Ontario, on the NCC board of directors, is still unacceptable, in view of the potential impact of the decisions that will be made on the Outaouais in Quebec.

I would therefore reiterate the request made by the Government of Quebec in a letter sent to your predecessor on October 16, 2007, a copy of which is attached, that all necessary measures by taken by your government on these issues to respond to Quebec's concerns.

Sincerely yours,

Claude Béchard

I would point out that the letter of October 16, 2007, that he refers to is the one I read to you before this.