|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Briefs and Public Hearings The Proposals met a spirited response. The Commission received two hundred and fifty-four (254) written notices from people and organizations wishing to make oral representations relative to its Proposals at the public hearings. It also received one hundred and seventy-two (172) resolutions and three hundred and twelve (312) written representations containing various comments but not requesting to make an oral representation. In all, one hundred and ninety-nine (199) briefs were submitted. Finally, the Commission’s activities received wide media coverage. The Chairman of the Commission made a point of being available to various journalists and agreed to answer any question that might better inform the public. The Commission held fifteen (15) public hearings in fourteen (14) different locations throughout the province of Quebec, including an unscheduled hearing in Baie-Comeau. Regretfully, it could not accede to other requests for additional hearings. In all, two hundred and fourteen (214) people were heard, including forty-two (42) members of the House of Commons, one (1) provincial member of the National Assembly, twenty-one (21) mayors, and twenty-four (24) wardens. The public hearings were methodically planned. Based on the notices of representation, the Commission prepared a hearing roll for each public hearing. The interested persons and groups were all notified in advance as to when they would appear and how much time they were allotted. The Commission also adopted a schedule and presentation method suited to the participants. At the start of each hearing, the Chairman’s opening remarks focused the participants’ attention on the Commission’s mandate and its independence. The Commission members were impressed by the quality of the briefs received and by the interventions at the public hearings. Certain citizens showed their interest by travelling long distances and all agreed to keep their remarks relevant to the Commission’s mandate. The discussions took place in an atmosphere of courtesy that inspired mutual understanding. The Commission members appreciated their participation in the process and learned a great deal from citizens and from representatives of various organizations. In fact, as shall be seen further on, the process led the Commission,
after deliberation, to revise a large number of its proposals.
|
 |
 |
