Pierre Lemieux

[Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, September 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we spoke about ecological integrity, and I gave its definition as contained in the Canada National Parks Act. As I mentioned, I feel that definition provides ample information to the NCC on how to carry out that responsibility.

I hear from the opposition that it wants such detail inserted into this act that we would not actually need a National Capital Commission; it would all just be regulated by the act.

We have to invest our confidence in the decision-making abilities of the National Capital Commission and we have to ensure that the right people, with the proper qualifications, sit on the board of the commission so they can make the right decisions.

[Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, September 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, the intent of this bill is to upgrade, modernize and increase the transparency of the act to make it more accountable, to modernize the NCC in carrying out its roles and responsibilities. This will follow the normal process of bills of this nature, being first reading, second reading, to committee and back to the House for final reading.

I would encourage my colleagues on all sides of the House, from all parties, to support this important bill.

[Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, September 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's concern in this respect.

As I mentioned in my speech, the National Capital Commission is obligated to oversee the environmental integrity of both Gatineau Park and the green space. It is called the green space.

This bill will go through its normal process. It will go to committee, and if there is an amendment to be made, I would ask my colleague to make that amendment or make it through his colleagues who are sitting on that committee. I would have to see the wording of the amendment before I would comment. Listening to the intent and the spirit with which my colleague is speaking, I would not be adverse to it. Again, I would have to see the wording before I could commit to whether I would be able to support that amendment.

[Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, September 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with my hon. colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse.

By introducing amendments to the National Capital Act, the government is presenting an action plan for the National Capital Commission. The National Capital Commission and its predecessors, the Ottawa Improvement Commission and the Federal District Commission, are part of a planning and building legacy of over 100 years.

Over time, the mandate and tools that Parliament gave to the NCC have evolved to reflect current issues. For instance, in 1969, the mandate of the NCC was expanded to encompass implementation of a new policy for increased presence on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River. In 1988, the NCC was given the additional responsibility of organizing, sponsoring or promoting public activities and events in the national capital region.

The NCC is the largest federal landowner in the national capital region. It owns 470 square kilometres of land, including Gatineau Park, the greenbelt, 2,100 hectares in the urban area, 40 kilometres of parkways, 170 kilometres of recreational pathways and some 1,300 buildings, 63 of them being heritage properties. The NCC also owns and operates six official residences in this region.

Given the important mandate of the NCC to plan the development of the capital region and maintain the assets under its custody, Parliament decided many years ago that the NCC should be subject to more government oversight with respect to its real estate transactions. We have to realize that this was at a time where government was smaller and ways of conducting business in general were different.

However, times have changed and the current thresholds set out in the National Capital Act are such that virtually every real estate transaction that the NCC seeks to enter into requires Governor in Council approval. This is not efficient for a crown corporation that is expected to operate at arm's length from government and as much as possible like private entities.

Not only does the requirement for GIC approval affect the NCC's ability to quickly seize business opportunities, it also prevents private companies from making good use of NCC's properties in a timely fashion so they can also contribute to making the capital a vibrant place.

That is why this government proposes in Bill C-37 to remove the obligation for the NCC to obtain GIC approval of each real estate transaction.

Appropriate oversight of the NCC's operations, including its real estate transactions, presently exists through Governor in Council approval of its annual corporate plan. The NCC may decide to designate any property as part of the national interest land mass if the property is considered to be essential to the long-term character of the national capital region.

The NCC is not required to seek the approval of third parties or other levels of government in order to designate properties as part of the national interest land mass.

The independent panel that reviewed the mandate and functions of the NCC reported that the nature of the national interest land mass and the process that underpinned its delineation have been shrouded in secrecy and raised several questions, including criteria used to designate properties. Similar concerns were raised in the Auditor General's 2007 special examination report of the NCC.

That is why Bill C-37 provides a process for greater transparency and predictability in the national interest land mass process. The bill introduces a definition of “national interest land mass” and requires regulations governing the relevant criteria and process. This would enhance the oversight of the NCC by having regulation-making powers in the act regarding these criteria and a process subject to public consultations in accordance with the usual regulatory process. Obviously the NCC could not effect the management, development, conservation or use of those properties if it did not own or otherwise control them.

In previous speeches made in this House regarding Bill C-37, some comments were made regarding the regional representation on the NCC's board of directors. The National Capital Act already requires certain representation from Quebec and Ontario as well as from other regions of the country. More specifically, other than the chairperson and the chief executive officer, two members of the NCC board must be residents of local municipalities in Quebec, including one from Gatineau, and three members must be from local municipalities in Ontario. The act allows for an additional eight members from elsewhere in Canada, including places in Quebec and Ontario outside the national capital region to be appointed to the NCC board. Bill C-37 maintains the representation of local municipalities in Quebec and Ontario to ensure adequate representation of other regions across the country.

The government takes the matter of effective governance of crown corporations seriously. Through the GIC appointment process, the government ensures that individuals appointed as chairs meet the selection criteria and that the directors appointed meet the needs of crown corporations, based on advice received from the board of directors. The NCC is no exception.

The proposal that municipal councillors be on the NCC's board has not been adopted, since their participation could lead to potential conflicts of interest and the need to recuse themselves. This would render such appointments ineffective.

While the views of local residents are taken into account, given that the NCC's decisions often have an impact on people living in the national capital region, the main focus of the NCC has to remain the building of a great capital for our country.

An important component of the government's action plan for the NCC is the efficient protection of Gatineau Park. Among other measures, Bill C-37 proposes to oblige the NCC to give due regard to maintaining the ecological integrity of Gatineau Park. Although not defined in Bill C-37, the term “ecological integrity” is defined in the Canada National Parks Act as “a condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region and likely to persist, including abiotic components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes”.

There is enough already enshrined in legislation to say that what is proposed in Bill C-37 sends a pretty clear signal to the NCC of Parliament's expectations on how Gatineau Park is managed.

Gatineau Park is not the only fabulous green asset we have in the national capital region, and this is why Bill C-37 also proposes to clearly add the obligation for the NCC to manage its properties in accordance with the principle of responsible environmental stewardship.

All in all, Bill C-37 proposes amendments that address issues that have been voiced in the last few years and updates the NCC's enabling legislation to ensure it can continue to build and maintain a great capital that fully reflects the beauty of our country as well as its cultural and natural diversity.

[Petitions, September 16th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by Canadians calling upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.

I would like to underline the support that Canadians showed for this petition. It was reinforced by the impressive turnout of over 12,000 Canadians here on the Hill in May for the March for Life.

[September 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the witness himself admitted to his leanings toward the Liberal Party and his financial donations. There is no black list. The witness himself said that in front of committee.

Our Conservative government responded quickly, professionally, tirelessly and effectively with its partners during the outbreak investigation and the subject of the recall process related to listeriosis. We do recognize that there are areas where we can improve and we are acting on these.

We are moving ahead on all 57 recommendations made by the independent investigator, Ms. Sheila Weatherill, who was commended by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for her excellent in-depth investigation. We are making $75 million available over the next three years to immediately begin implementing these recommendations. Actions will focus on prevention, surveillance, detection and better response, including the hiring of 166 food safety staff, which includes the training of 70 new front line inspectors of ready-to-eat--

[September 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, regarding a public inquiry, I was there. I sit on the agriculture committee and I also participated in the food safety subcommittee.

After hours and hours of testimony by a myriad of witnesses, not a single witness called for a public inquiry except for one, a very Liberal-friendly witness, one who has donated financially to the campaigns of the Liberal member in particular. That is important to note.

Yes, the food subcommittee did include a request to have a public inquiry in the report but that is only because the opposition are numerically superior on the subcommittee and on the main agriculture committee. That is why the recommendation was there.

The opposition called for a full meeting by the agriculture committee this summer. We did meet this summer. Another point regarding this meeting is that when the first report was released that finding was rammed through by the opposition before it had seen the independent report released by Ms. Sheila Weatherill.

When the opposition called for an additional meeting this summer, we and the opposition had an opportunity to look at the recommendations put forward by Ms. Weatherill as the independent investigator. Once the committee took into account what was in her report, all of the lessons learned report, all of the testimony that we heard in both the subcommittee and in the main committee, the committee passed a motion that a full public inquiry was definitely not necessary. In fact, that decision is being reported to the House.

[Petitions, June 19th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I put forward this petition which calls upon Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.

The petition is supported by a record number of Canadians, 12,000 of them, who showed up on the Hill in the month of May for the March of Life. The petitioners have asked the House of Commons to pass the same type of legislation.

[Petitions, June 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition from over 250 Canadians that calls on Parliament to pass legislation for the protection of human life from the time of conception until natural death.

In fact, this petition directly supports the event that took place on the Hill a few weeks ago, the March for Life, when over 12,000 Canadians gathered on Parliament Hill, once again asking Parliament to show respect for human life throughout all its stages.

[May 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we indeed are moving forward, which is what I pointed out in my earlier remarks, and we continue to move forward. There are three lessons learned documents that have been presented to the public. We are reviewing these. We too want to improve the system.

The CFIA is committed to continuous improvement in the meat inspection system and implements necessary adjustments as warranted by science and best practices. The CFIA had taken action previously regarding enhanced requirements for the sanitation of slicing equipment, and its oversight of sanitation and equipment maintenance.

The agency also carries out an in-depth examination of the health hazard assessment plans implemented by the industry in all facilities that produce ready to eat meats.

We carry out an ongoing assessment of our programs and make the improvements required to preserve the health of Canada's food.

In my closing remarks, I will point out once again that the Liberals cut funding for food safety. We have increased funding for food safety.