Evidence of meeting #32 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 clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Seeing no other comment, I will ask whether amendment BQ-9 shall carry.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 11 as amended agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
We're now going to move to clause 13, where we start with amendment BQ-10.
Monsieur Nadeau.
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We believe it is time to eliminate the NCC's power to expropriate. The federal government has used that right several times in recent decades. If we consider Forillon National Park, or the people who live in the area of the present Greenbelt, we cannot ignore the extent of the human tragedies experienced by the families that have been displaced.
I am thinking of the Lac Philippe site, in Gatineau Park, where people had their land expropriated. That situation was extremely painful. People still talk about it today, in fact. There was also the case of Kouchibouguac, New Brunswick, and the story of Jackie Vautour.
We are therefore proposing that the acquisition of land by the NCC proceed in a more civilized manner, meaning by negotiation, particularly since the National Capital Commission has not used its right to expropriate for many years.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, I think there's a little bit of confusion in relation to the Expropriations Act.
My understanding is that the law is such that it's beyond our power in this committee to take away the power of expropriation. What I think they're trying to do in this is make sure that it's not....
Expropriation, by the way, deals with fair market value, with any other person. They can't take it away unless there's fair market value paid, and in fact that can be challenged with the court. So certainly, first of all, there would be negotiations.
But my understanding of this particular proposed section is that we want to include the minister's having notice of it before the commission does anything, so that the minister could be involved and in fact, in my reading of the clause, not allow them to do it. My understanding is that they could do it now without going to the minister, if I'm not wrong. This would require them to go to the minister so that the minister could be involved and say exactly what we've heard from citizens here: “No, I don't want my land sold. I want to keep it in my family and I want to keep it for myself.” So the minister would be involved to restrict their ability to expropriate.
I think what your proposal is doing is acting in the reverse of what you want. But possibly Monsieur Dubé could clarify this. I haven't received a brief on it.
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
The only thing I would mention is that first, what's proposed by way of changes to the expropriation portion of the act deals only with harmonization with the civil law in Quebec, as we've done with other clauses in this bill.
It's worth mentioning that the expropriation process is governed by the Expropriations Act under the Minister of Public Works. The only thing that this allows to you is for the NCC to go to the Minister of Public Works through the Expropriations Act to get the expropriation for the purpose of the national capital. The Minister of Public Works, through the Expropriations Act, can expropriate, but only for public works purposes. That gives a hook to the NCC to explain why they would need to expropriate through their mandate and objects and power.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
I just want to say to Mr. Jean, because I didn't mention it earlier, that our amendment limits the National Capital Commission's right to expropriate, but only within the boundaries of Gatineau Park.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
But I don't think we can actually do that, because it's done through another complete act, which would have to be amended to limit any ability to do so. My understanding is that it just adds the mechanism to give notice to the Minister of Public Works, but we can't actually affect the Expropriations Act here; I mean that it's beyond our power in relation to this legislation to affect what it is. It's just to change the notice period and I think to send it to the public works minister—if I'm not wrong on that, Mr. Dubé.
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
Yes, and if what the Bloc Québécois is proposing were passed, it would limit the existing scope of the expropriation power that the NCC can have through the mechanism in place to Gatineau Park only; that's my understanding. But regardless of that, it would still need to go through the Expropriations Act process.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask Mr. Nadeau to explain again, in more detail, what the intent of his amendment is.
I am neither a lawyer nor a real estate expert, and I don't understand the effect this amendment might have.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Right, I'll rewind and I'll repeat my explanation, if I may.
Here, when we talk about the National Capital Commission, which is the subject of the entire bill before us, there are amendments on that point. As was said, one of the aspects we have examined very seriously, as have you in fact, and that we are very concerned about, is the entire question of the integrity of Gatineau Park. Gatineau Park, properly speaking, is completely within the territory of Quebec. It touches on several towns; one of them, Chelsea, is in fact completely a part of it.
What concerns us is the borders of the park and what is inside it. We don't want there to be real estate development inside it, because we want the character of the park to be preserved. I am thinking of lots being sold for residential development or to build businesses, and so on.
I didn't express myself very well before, in fact, and I apologize for that. I'm going to reiterate the spirit of what I said about this a little. We don't want an actual boom in Gatineau Park: we don't want real estate development. So to avoid a residential development boom in Gatineau Park, we think the right to expropriate is exerting a degree of pressure at the moment that is hindering development, and in any event, we would not want to facilitate it, because we believe in the ecological value of the park.
So the question of expropriation has to be seen as this kind of pressure on the entire park for there not to be development. That is why we talked so much about the primary purpose of the park, which is not recreational, but environmental conservation.
I want to reiterate, to cover the question of expropriation. So we think it is time to take that right away from the NCC, but to keep it for the interior of Gatineau Park.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
A point of order.
I am wondering whether Mr. Nadeau is in fact speaking to amendment BQ-10. Is he not rather speaking to amendment BQ-11? From what I understand, BQ-10 relates to lines 8 to 10 of proposed subsection 14(1), which is not the same thing as amendment BQ-11, which relates to lines 16 to 18 of proposed subsection 14(2).
Bloc
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I think Mr. Nadeau is getting ahead of himself, in that he is explaining expropriation, which should be the explanation for amendment BQ-11, because amendment BQ 10 applies to lines 8 to 10 of proposed subsection 14(1), while amendment BQ-11 relates to lines 16 to 18 of proposed subsection 14(2), which deal with the Expropriation Act.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Thank you, colleagues.
Mr. Proulx is right. Amendments BQ-10 and BQ-11 are like two fingers on the same hand, they go together.
I will summarize amendment BQ-10 in a single sentence: for the territory of Quebec, we are prepared to retain the expropriation aspect for inside Gatineau Park, but not for the rest of the territory located outside Gatineau Park. I don't know whether you understand, but that's what it means.
Conservative
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Dubé, we did a rewind, as Mr. Nadeau said. What would the impact be, in light of what Mr. Nadeau has explained, outside Gatineau Park? What are we talking about? What properties or lands are we talking about?
The National Capital Commission owns land in numerous places in the Outaouais. I'm thinking of Jacques-Cartier Park, for example. That would mean that the National Capital Commission would not be able to expropriate a property adjacent to the park... I don't understand.