NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 7, 1999

• 1103

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)): Good morning. I'd like to call the meeting to order.

First of all, let me thank all of you for your patience. I make no excuses for starting on time, so I won't make any excuses for starting late.

I want to welcome Mr. John Burrett and Mr. Joseph Dion from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They have a presentation for us this morning on Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act. I'm going to turn the microphone immediately over to them.

Gentlemen, you have about ten minute or so, not much more than that, to present your case and then we're going to go to questions from both sides of the table. Hopefully we'll engage in a meaningful dialogue over the course of this next hour. You're okay with that? Good. Which one of you two wants to go first?

Mr. Joseph P. Dion (Director, Policy and Public Affairs, Federation of Canadian Municipalities): I will, sir.

The Chair: Mr. Dion.

Mr. Joseph Dion: Thank you very much, sir.

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I would like to thank you for inviting us to discuss our views on Bill C-10, An Act respecting payments in lieu of taxes.

My name is Joseph Dion and I'm the Director of Policy and Public Affairs for the FCM and Acting Director General. With me today is John Burrett, Senior Policy Analyst.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is the national voice of municipal governments, dedicated to improving the quality of life in al communities by promoting strong, effective and accountable government.

• 1105

We are here today to inform you of our support for this bill and of those issues regarding the application of the legislation and regulations on which we have arrived at an understanding with Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Payments in lieu of taxes have been paid to municipal governments on federal properties for the past fifty years, owing to the efforts of the FCM. The federal government, although exempt from paying property taxes under the Constitution, has come to agree with FCM that the correct course of action is to pay municipalities in a manner equivalent to other taxpayers.

A Joint Technical Committee on Payments in Lieu of Taxes was initiated by FCM with Treasury Board and Public Works and Government Services Canada in 1995. Following two years of negotiations and the signing of two agreements, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Alfonso Gagliano, announced a complete review of the Municipal Grants Act at the FCM Annual Conference in 1998.

The legislation has been introduced at a rapid pace but FCM has been able to analyze the content of the bill and consult with members of our Sub-Committee on Payments in Lieu of Taxes, as well as with officials of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

FCM believes that Bill C-10, subject to some clarification and assurances, is a welcome improvement to the Municipal Grants Act, which our members can support, subject to some caveats.

Let me say at the outset that FCM has been encouraged with the openness and candor of officials from Public Works and Government Services in this matter. We at FCM are confident that we are arriving at a mutually satisfactory agreement with the federal government.

In particular, we are very pleased that Public Works and Government Services Canada will sign an agreement or memorandum of understanding with FCM. This memorandum of understanding will be to the effect that all of the recommendations of the Joint Technical Committee will be in place under the new legislation and that the wording of regulations and policies will clearly reflect these recommendations. This is key to FCM's support for this bill.

[English]

If I could, Mr. Chair, I'd like to repeat that note on our understanding that there can be a memorandum of understanding regarding the recommendations of the joint technical committee. This approach of the memorandum is a key part of FCM's support for the bill.

Specific recommendations of the joint technical committee, and corresponding to changes in the legislation, regulation, or policies, which should be highlighted before this committee, include the following six points we would like to bring to your attention.

The first point is devolution of administration. Concerns have been voiced by our members regarding the inconsistency with which the government's commitment to make payments in lieu of taxes may be followed where the decision rests with regional departmental officials. Concerns also arise regarding complexity and uncertainty where the administration is no longer centralized. FCM has been informed that a consultant has been appointed by Treasury Board to review the results of this policy. The outcome of this study is keenly awaited by FCM. In the meantime, where present problems exist, FCM expects that the federal government will act quickly and in good faith to resolve them.

On the second point, liability of crown corporations for business occupancy taxes, FCM and Public Works Canada had previously agreed to examine the extent to which the activities of crown corporations, such as Canada Post and the Royal Canadian Mint, constitute activities “for profit,” and hence should be liable for business occupancy taxes. FCM is pleased to be assured that nothing in the new legislation precludes this.

• 1110

On the third point, third-party leases, FCM has been assured that the new legislation and regulatory changes mean that crown corporations are covered equally to departments regarding interest on late and supplementary payments and on payments where tenants of the crown default on their obligations. FCM understands that further amendments are being drafted to clarify this point.

On the fourth point, FCM is pleased to report to our members that compensation for late payments will be paid according to municipal due dates. This is critical for the efficiency of municipal financial operations.

On the fifth point, the dispute advisory panel, FCM recognizes that the legislation proposes a dispute advisory panel that is to be impartial in its resolutions. For the security and assurance of our members, however, FCM has asked the Minister of Public Works and Government Services for assurance that our signed agreement will include reaffirmation of the joint technical committee supplementary recommendation that appointments to the panel be made jointly by FCM and other parties. Public Works officials have responded that while this is the case in practice, they would request to the minister that this be affirmed in writing. FCM regards this as critical to our members' support of the bill.

On the sixth and last point, issues of interpretation, FCM is aware that there exist some issues, such as a determination of what constitutes federal property and property assessment, that will continue to be matters of interpretation by the courts or professionals in property assessment. This is appropriate, and FCM has been assured that the federal government's approach will be reasonable and open to discussion and negotiation in all cases.

A case in point is the legal action now initiated between the City of Halifax and Parks Canada regarding the interpretation of the use of the property at the historic Citadel and its assessment by the federal government versus that of the municipality. FCM will monitor this situation closely, and we expect a reasonable conclusion.

There will also arise questions on the application of the legislation, which will take time to answer. FCM expects that all such matters will be addressed with a similar reasonable approach open to negotiation and geared to a timely resolution.

An example of issues that may arise is that of the status of properties and municipalities that have been deemed by Indian bands as reserve property. Public Works is now looking into this matter raised by FCM that is happening in western Canada.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the FCM is prepared to voice our support for this legislation subject to the important caveats we have raised.

[Translation]

In closing, Mr. Chairman, FCM is prepared to voice its support of this legislation, subject to the important caveats which we have raised. Attached to this brief is a memorandum to the FCM Technical Sub-Committee, communicating the content and nature of FMC's discussion and agreement with officials of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Thank you and I look forward to the Committee's questions. Merci beaucoup.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dion. I also want to thank Mr. Burrett for his patience.

Mr. Schmidt, the honour of asking the first question is yours.

[English]

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing. It's good to be here. There are a number of substantive-type questions I would like to ask, but before I do that I'd like to ask you, if you would, something on the clause just before the end of your presentation, which says “subject to the important caveats that we have raised”, and there are six of them in here. What does that “subject to” mean? Does it mean that if those subjects are not removed you in fact will not support the bill?

Mr. Joseph Dion: I don't believe we would want to be so hard and fast. As we've mentioned in the past, we've been at this a very long time. There were two years of negotiation between the FCM and the government and ongoing discussions over three years, and there is a very good understanding on both sides. We've found in the last months since the bill was tabled a very good cooperative approach with the officials. We fully expect that everything will be resolved to our satisfaction.

• 1115

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That's very encouraging.

Mr. Chair, it should be stated clearly that I think the bill does move in the right direction. We would like to raise some very significant points on some of the substantive issues that have to do with the discretionary power of the minister.

The minister has virtually complete discretionary power, right from the very beginning when the first assessment and the tax notice are received. It's totally his discretion whether or not he will pay that amount or some other amount. The time of payment is also at his discretion, or her discretion if the minister happens to be a female. What is your position with regard to this discretionary power?

Mr. Joseph Dion: In the text it certainly appears there is a lot of discretionary power, but the point is often made that in reality it's more cooperative. On questions like this, we do rely on the advice of our technical subcommittee, which is made up of responsible persons and municipalities across the country.

I'd be reluctant to say today that we would say there's too much discretionary power, but we could certainly consult with our subcommittee and come back with a very definitive answer. In general, we think it's adequate the way it is right now.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Experience, I'm sure, will tell the story.

I'd like to move, if I could, to the advisory panel. There are two parts of the advisory panel. You raised the issue with regard to the composition of the panel. I'd like you to clarify that a little bit further.

My other question is with regard to the way in which the panel operates. If I understand correctly, most municipalities have a tax review board or something like that. Individuals who are taxed for their real estate may appeal their assessment or their taxation, whichever way they want to go, and they may do that with the municipality. There is a very formal procedure they go through. Just how does this panel differ from that review panel?

Mr. Joseph Dion: Could I ask for clarification? If I'm correct, in the bill there's a dispute advisory panel and then there is also another advisory panel that appears more in the policy....

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'm talking about the dispute advisory panel.

Mr. Joseph Dion: I cannot say for sure how they would differ. I cannot answer that.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: It seems to me that's a very significant point, though. If we already have a mechanism in each municipality that deals with disputes like this, why would we now set up another one?

Mr. Joseph Dion: It seems to me it carries out a different function. I would suspect that the panels in each municipality would deal with very specific issues local to that area. This dispute advisory panel, which is in the statute, following agreements between FCM and the government would provide an additional, very useful function at the national level. So I think there is a value to have the dispute advisory panel.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: It would seem to me, though, that the municipalities are the ones that issue the property taxes—very specific, very local in their application. So what difference would there really be? It's not Ottawa that's issuing those taxes. It's not Halifax that's issuing those taxes on behalf of Vancouver. Halifax does it for its area and Vancouver for its area and Ottawa for its area. Why would we have a national advisory panel over here that looks at the disputes in those very specific and highly localized areas?

Mr. Joseph Dion: My colleague, John Burrett, may wish to add something. As I understand it, the dispute advisory panel would be for something like the situation we spoke of in Halifax, where the municipality has one view of what the government should pay in payments in lieu of taxes and the federal government has another view. There will always be different interpretations, so it is good to have a panel to decide on those different views of how it should be evaluated.

• 1120

The Chair: I would think the municipality probably has a lower value attached to the federal—

Mr. Joseph Dion: I'm sure if you look at all of them, you may find a pattern that different parties tend to one end or the other. That could well be.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Good try. You've never been a municipal councillor, have you?

The Chair: Perhaps you can answer that question in a few minutes, while Mr. Schmidt reloads his guns.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: No, I'm ready. I'm not finished with this one yet, though, because we want to keep going all day.

The Chair: Well, not all day.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Let's give Mr. Burrett a chance.

Mr. John Burrett (Senior Analyst, Federation of Canadian Municipalities): I would agree with what Joseph has said. Essentially, the idea for the dispute advisory panel, as far as we're concerned or the advantage for municipalities is concerned, is that there will be cases where there's still less disagreement between the federal government or tenants of the federal government or crown corporations respecting the assessment of the property or the application of the law to that property—for instance, whether or not it constitutes federal property under the bill.

So there are matters of interpretation that will always come up and that would be the appropriate venue for those matters, besides the court system.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Okay, then please help me understand. Does this dispute advisory panel then deal with the legal interpretation of whether or not they are in fact taxable in that municipality? And does the local municipal review board deal with the disputes? Once there's an agreement, once it's been established by the advisory panel that this is legitimately taxable property, does the review board then actually decide what the assessment should be? What's the relationship between them, or is there one?

Mr. John Burrett: Do you mean the review board being the municipal review board?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes.

Mr. John Burrett: I don't know what the technical relationship is. I would assume that in all of these matters there should be, or what we are asking for is effective negotiation and feedback between municipalities and the federal government and Public Works or Parks Canada, as the case may be, in resolving those disputes so they don't need to go to the court system, for instance, for further interpretation.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I agree with that. I think that's fine, but there's a weakness in the bill here that should be clarified.

What's the point of having two quasi-judicial bodies, one that does have final authority, as far as you and I as taxpayers are concerned in terms of paying our real estate...? If we dispute the assessment or the taxation made by the municipality, we can go to this appeal board, and whatever decision it makes is binding. In this case with the advisory panel it's not binding. They can make a recommendation to the minister, but the minister may accept that, he may amend it, he may go part of the way. He has total discretion.

There's a potential for duplication of activity. With all the duplication that exists already, I don't think we need to have more duplication; it just costs. I think that should at least be clarified.

The Chair: Mr. Schmidt—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'm not done, but is that all the time you're going to give me?

The Chair: No, I thought you were going to come up for air about five minutes ago. I'm going to go to Mr. St. Denis, and then you can come back at this, okay?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Okay.

The Chair: Good. Thank you.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you for being here, gentlemen, and thank you for the expressions of support for this legislation. I think it is timely indeed.

Some of my collegues have heard me say this before. I was in the distant past a municipal administrator, a treasurer for a small town in northern Ontario. It was a fascinating job, but I can remember with not great fondness some of the frustrations of dealing with, in that case, Canada Post and settling what we thought was an account receivable every year.

Nonetheless, I think things have improved. I would like to ask you whether or not you think this bill marks a new era in the relationship between our municipalities and the federal government. Has the federation found itself a willing partner, indeed a full partner in this process of renewing, at least, the relationship between the federal government and the municipalities in relation to our local “payments in lieu of tax” relationship?

• 1125

Mr. Joseph Dion: We could certainly say that it's another extremely good step forward in the history of FCM. The discussion on payments in lieu of taxes began in 1945, so it's an ongoing process. I think the new era really dawned with the signed agreements of a few years ago. So for us, the test of how good this bill is is how closely it reflects the agreement signed between FCM and the government three years ago. And we think, by and large, it does. So yes, I think we could say that is the case.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I'll leave it at that.

The Chair: We'll go back to Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you very much.

I have a question with regard to your comment beginning at the bottom of page 4 and proceeding to the top of page 5. It has to do with the devolution of administration and the inconsistency you see with which the government's commitment to make payments in lieu of taxes may be followed, where the decision rests with the regional department officials and with the local administration. So I would like to ask you to clarify this a little more fully. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.

Mr. Joseph Dion: I believe that in the past all of the payments were handled out of Public Works Canada. There has been an administrative change in the last two to three years in which this has been decentralized to the various departments of government. Each individual department can decide how it chooses to do that, and there's a great variation.

I believe Corrections Canada, for example, keeps it centralized here in Ottawa, whereas at the other end of the spectrum, National Defence has decentralized this right to the level of base commander. So when it's very decentralized to the regions we find there has been quite a variation. We've brought fairly serious concerns to the attention of the officials of the Department of Public Works, and they are responding right now, so we're quite pleased with their response.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Could you clarify what you mean by variation? Is the tax notice sent and then not paid? How can there be a variation? I would like to know what the variation consists of.

Mr. Joseph Dion: As was said earlier, it's a very complex technical bill, so there are definitional problems of what does or does not constitute federal property, and what is included, what is not included, and then the next step, the evaluation.

At each step in that process there are decisions to be made, and one party can make the argument that something constitutes federal property and the other party can disagree. So if it is being done independently in different regions of the country, those regional officials can have different interpretations. That's where the inconsistency has come.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Wouldn't that same inconsistency rest with the municipality?

Mr. Joseph Dion: Yes, but the municipalities are independent corporations, whereas the federal—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: You can't have consistency on one level and inconsistency on the other level. Let's get our act together and figure out who's calling the shots here.

Mr. Joseph Dion: It is a matter of interpretation, and we're arguing that the federal government should be consistent in its interpretation across the country. If an individual municipality chooses to interpret in a way the federal government does not agree with, then certainly the federal government will have a discussion or dispute with that municipality. It is technical, and it is difficult for everyone to come to the same interpretation.

The Chair: Mr. Schmidt, I gather you're arguing for the municipality.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Definitely, because it strikes me there are some real potential problems here. On the one hand, it seems to me that the municipalities—and you represent them here right across Canada—want their taxes to be paid on time, on the basis of their assessment in terms of their mill rate. Isn't that what you want?

Mr. Joseph Dion: Yes, but municipalities do recognize there are occasionally disputes of interpretation.

• 1130

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Yes, but that's not what's in dispute here. What's in dispute here is the administration. It's the inconsistency of administration that you're addressing on pages 4 and 5. It's not whether this thing should be taxed or not. It's in the administration itself.

Where is the inconsistency in the administration? You're assuming that the dispute panel will deal with whether it should be taxed and with the assessment and so on. That's in place. But now it's the administration. What's the problem there? You obviously raised it as separate point. I can't understand it yet, but please tell me, if you can.

Mr. Joseph Dion: We should stress that by and large it works very well. Payments in lieu of taxes in a very large amount are paid across the country every year, and for the most part it works very well. Occasionally there are disputes, often related to very specific cases of the evaluation of federal properties and buildings that are really unique structures. It's hard to easily come to an agreement on the evaluation of a unique structure when you cannot compare it to something else and hence get a market rate.

The Chair: Maybe we can get the point of view of the government through the parliamentary secretary here, because now we have the good guys' version of the bill.

Madame.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I would like to ask a couple of questions and make a couple of comments.

I would assure Mr. Schmidt that if he has any further questions of a very technical nature, there are plenty of staff at the back of the room. The chair, at his discretion, can invite them up to be further grilled. The FCM came here to support a bill, and they're beginning to feel a little warm under the collar, I'm sure.

I would like to begin by thanking you very much for cooperating for the last couple of years on this bill. The department feels that FCM has been a very willing partner. I know even when the minister travelled to Mississauga, Hazel McCallion behaved, so it's a definite step in the right direction.

The reason the bill is as good as it is—and I'm here to tell you I think it's an excellent bill, as a former municipal politician—is that we had so much consultation. Because our minister was a municipal politician, he believes you're the most effective level of government to be consulted on this.

I'm also pleased to hear that the Public Works officials have been super-cooperative, because this is more of a partnership than somebody telling somebody else what to do. We have to get back to that, Mr. Schmidt.

We must understand that the dispute advisory panel, in my interpretation, is to deal with specific arguments, of sometimes a very nasty nature. The advisory panel is an ongoing panel to look at broader issues and to address the six points you've given us, because the bill is a work in progress.

Mr. Joseph Dion: Yes.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Do you agree with my interpretation?

Mr. Joseph Dion: Yes, I'd agree with that.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Okay. Generally speaking then, from my perspective and from the minister's perspective, everybody has cooperated so nicely that we're going to try to work on Mr. Schmidt to get him to settle down a little bit. We have ourselves an excellent bill here, and with a bit of fine-tuning—Mr. Bernier has a few amendments—I think you'll be surprised that it may come out just fine.

That was a speech. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: May I comment on that speech?

The Chair: There was probably a question in there someplace.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I did ask one, and I got a yes answer.

The Chair: That's it then?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, thank you.

The Chair: Okay, so the government is satisfied.

Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I really want to commend the honourable parliamentary secretary for her intervention. It was very positive and very nice. I'm not suggesting that we're totally opposed to this bill, because that would be far from the truth. We're not. But there are some questions, and these are real questions that are raised. Not only are they real questions, but they should be of concern—and I'm sure they are—to the municipalities represented by your organization.

I do want to raise one final point with you though, and that has to do with the business taxes of the three crown corporations that are for profit now and are not under schedule IV. These are the Mint, the CMHC, and Canada Post. I think the joint technical committee did recommend that these corporations also be included under schedule IV.

I notice you refer to them in your brief here. You have a very trusting presentation that this is all going to happen in due course and everything is going to be just fine. My question is, why would you be so trusting? Why wouldn't you simply say yes, you want them in schedule IV?

Mr. Joseph Dion: Again, Mr. Burrett may wish to add, but we recognize that sometimes these crown corporations can be a little bit half and half or have different mandates. For example, the Mint in general is carrying out government work of making coinage for use in everyday commerce, which is more like a public service. It may have a commercial operation of making commemorative coins and things like that, which is more of a commercial nature. Similarly, I think we could say Canada Post has its basic mandate of delivering the mail, but with a specialized area of making commemorative stamps, and perhaps even its courier services, which could be regarded more as a straight commercial operation. So we think there is a bit of variation in there, and our view reflects that.

• 1135

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Well, with all due respect, we all know that, and the joint technical committee knew that too. They still made the recommendation that this is what should happen, and you've softened your position considerably here. I'm just wondering what happened.

Mr. John Burrett: I don't think we've softened our position. I think we've been looking for this to be a reasonable resolution of an outstanding question. And there was some examination in 1996, as you probably know, into the for-profit as opposed to not-for-profit nature of various crown corporations. There's quite a great deal of variance in that, and there's nothing in this legislation that precludes further discussion or further attempts to resolve the difference of opinion, if you will, on the basis of facts.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Well, I agree, but everything in any act that is now in operation is always open for discussion. I think you have softened your position, because the joint technical committee said clearly that this is what should happen. The details of that are pretty complex, and the operations of those city corporations are both for public service and for profit. The amendments to CMHC last year clearly made it possible for CMHC to actually pay a dividend to its shareholder, the Government of Canada, which wasn't there before. So clearly the intention is that the government will get some money there.

You have said that's not your position. You're simply saying you're happy that it doesn't preclude that. But why not take a position?

Mr. Joseph Dion: Well, I think we have taken a position—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: No, you just said you're happy it doesn't preclude that.

The Chair: Mr. Schmidt, I know you've got them on the spot, and they're trying hard to tell you in diplomatic language that they're happy that municipalities are going to get some money. So—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Well, I'd like to help them be a little stronger.

The Chair: Well, they recognize that the clock is moving very quickly on their decision—

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I'd like to help them go a little faster.

The Chair: We're about twenty minutes away from clause-by-clause. I think they're very respectful of that, and they probably want to agree with you that good negotiation has taken place and they now have the position they've outlined.

Am I right there, Mr. Dion?

Mr. Joseph Dion: Yes.

The Chair: Are there any other questions? Seeing none, I want to thank Monsieur Dion and Mr. Burrett for their interventions on behalf of FCM. As you can see, some members were delighted by the intervention and the exchange, and all members are that much more informed. So thank you very much.

Mr. Joseph Dion: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We'll suspend for about two or three minutes, and then we're going to have officials around the table for clause-by-clause.

• 1140

• 1143

The Chair: Seeing a quorum, we'll go into clause-by-clause.

At the table we have representatives from those venerable institutions of government most immediately involved with this bill. I have Mr. Michael Nurse, who is the assistant deputy minister for real property services branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada. Mr. Nurse, thank you very much. We have as well Mr. Alexander MacGregor, director of municipal grants, real property services branch, from the same venerable institution, Public Works and Government Services Canada. And we have Monsieur Jacques Gauthier, who is the conseiller juridique, Justice Canada—another great place. They are here to help us out as we go through this legislation.

We're going to go clause by clause, and I hope I have the cooperation of members, because apparently there are a lot of other people waiting for the attendance of some members at the table.

I'm going to have clause 1 and clause 2 stand, because they are the long and short forms, or titles of the bill. We'll go immediately into clause 3.

(Clauses 1 and 2 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 3 to 9 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 10)

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: You have an amendment to clause 10, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I think all of you are in possession of the motion moved by the government that Bill C-10 in clause 10 be amended by replacing line 16 on page 12 with the following.... Shall I dispense?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Dispense.

The Chair: I won't dispense then. I'll read it while you read it, Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman:

(G.1) providing that, in respect of a taxation year starting on or after January 1, 2000, subsections 3(1.1) and (1.2) and paragraph 3.1(b) apply to corporations included in Schedule III or IV, with any modifications that the circumstances require, in respect of payments in lieu of a real property tax and a frontage or area tax and, in the case of a corporation included in Schedule IV, payments in lieu of a business occupancy tax;

(g.2) providing that section 11.1 applies to,

• 1145

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: I do a mea culpa for anticipating your cooperation.

(Clauses 11 to 13 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 14)

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): There are amendments, Mr. Chairman, on clause 14, which you have a copy of it.

The Chair: I believe all members are equipped with this copy.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: The first one is this. I move that clause 14 of Bill C-10 be amended by deleting line 13 on page 13 and substituting the following:

good behaviour for a term not exceeding three years,

The Chair: So that's amendment one?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: It's changing the word “pleasure” for the words “good behaviour”; really that's what it is.

[Translation]

The Chairman: One moment please, Mr. Bernier.

[English]

While others are looking at those items, you'll find in the package of amendments presented by Mr. Bernier, unless I'm mistaken, that Mr. Bernier has withdrawn all of the amendments that are listed on those six pages, with the exception of amendment one and amendment three. So pages 1 and 3 are the only two relevant pages.

Am I correct in that, Mr. Bernier?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. So we are now on the first amendment there.

Mr. Schmidt, do you want to raise a question about it?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: No, no. I just wanted to find out where we were.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: There were two things there on that same amendment. The first was “good behaviour for a term not exceeding three years” and the second was adding after line 16 on page 13 the following:

A member appointed under subsection (1) may be removed for cause by the Governor in Council.

The Chair: We're treating them as one.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Okay.

The Chair: Then you have a further amendment on page 13, line 9.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: It's “The Governor in Council shall appoint an” and then replacing in the English version line 15 with the following:

further terms. The Governor in Council shall name one of

So there are three places you have to.... Instead of being “The Minister”, it shall be “The Governor in Council”. There's one on line 9, one on line 15, and one on line 36.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: The government accepts that.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 15 to 19 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 2 agreed to)

• 1150

[Translation]

(Clause 1 agreed to)

[English]

The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill be reprinted?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Will you be reporting to the House of Commons tomorrow morning, December 8?

The Chairman: No, not tomorrow morning, because we have a caucus meeting to attend.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Tomorrow afternoon then?

The Chairman: Perhaps.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: That's fine. I was merely curious to know.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. At the very next opportunity it will be reported. Thursday? We're going to try to do it tomorrow afternoon if we can—at the latest maybe on Thursday, unless I get kidnapped along the way.

I think we're all done, so thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. The next meeting is Thursday.

We will have an opportunity to question another member of those venerable institutions you like so much, Mr. Schmidt—Mr. Ouellet, Canada Post.

This meeting is adjourned.