TRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 4, 2001

• 1902

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Lib.)): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to start the proceedings.

We're here with regard to Bill C-43, an act to amend certain acts and instruments and to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act.

With us this evening is the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the Honourable Don Boudria. He will introduce the rest of his colleagues and then we will start the proceedings with some explanations about the bill from him.

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to express my appreciation to the members of the committee for arranging this meeting tonight on somewhat shorter notice than is usually the case to discuss Bill C-43, in short form the technical amendments bill.

I'd like to introduce the witnesses who are here to assist me: Mr. Ed Schmidt and Mr. Luc Labelle of the Department of Justice; and Mr. Matt Lynch and Mr. Ron Wall of the Privy Council Office. There are also officials from various departments involved in the provisions of this bill available for detailed question. I want to thank them for being here this evening as well.

Mr. Chairman, the bill makes minor technical amendments and corrections to various statutes, which would not likely be substantial enough to justify stand-alone, separate bills in any of the cases we have before us. I think as we go about describing it, you'll all agree with that conclusion.

The bill will ensure that our statutes are up to date in regard to these technical amendments. Many of the amendments in this bill, Bill C-43, were in the original miscellaneous statute law amendment proposal, now Bill C-40.

During the parliamentary committee study, additional information was sought on some of these provisions in the MSLA bill, which perhaps I'll call just Bill C-40 from here on in. This was provided, and generally satisfied the members of the committee. However, due to the concerns expressed during committee study, some amendments were not included in Bill C-40.

To explain to members of the committee, the way the MSLA process works is that it's a whole variety of minor technical amendments, and the minute someone in a committee objects to any clause, and if you can't find the explanation to it right away, it's removed. That's basically the process utilized.

• 1905

Since the committee reports did not, in the end, raise concerns about any of these proposals we have here, it should be possible to proceed quickly with their consideration. The technical amendments bill also contains several corrections that came to the government's attention after the draft of Bill C-40 was introduced, including the correction of cross-references in public service pension legislation, as well as updating the minimum age at which lieutenant governors can begin to collect a pension.

I now propose to go over some of the clauses in this bill. I invite members to go to their bill, clauses 32 to 36, which deal with the Fisheries Prices Support Board. This would repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act, the act that creates this board and everything else that has to do with it. The Fisheries Prices Support Act is being repealed because the Fisheries Prices Support Board is not operational and has not been operational for a very long time. I'll get into that a little later.

This organization was established in 1944. The purpose of the Fisheries Prices Support Board at the time was to stabilize the prices of the fisheries' products by buying and selling fisheries products at prescribed prices. The board has not maintained any significant price support activity since 1982. In other words, three different governments, actually four, if you want to be technical about it, have been there since then without this organization functioning. Its one activity was that it continued to purchase canned mackerel for CIDA until the mid-1990s. It was just in the process of winding down, actually, when I became the CIDA minister. In March 1995 the board actually ceased to exist. So this amendment would make our laws up-to-date.

The provision was in the miscellaneous statute law amendment, and additional information was provided to the Senate committee, which in the end did not object to it in their report. Many of the other amendments in Bill C-43 are consequential amendments to the Fisheries Prices Support Act so that references in the Fisheries Prices Support Board are removed from other statutes,

[Translation]

like the access to Information Act. It was referred to there, but only in relation to the structure that I have just mentioned and not in relation to other acts. There is also the Financial Administration Act and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act. Of course, if the organization does not exist, there are no payments in lieu of taxes; that is disappeared. There is also the Privacy Act

[English]

and also the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

[Translation]

That is all about the organization I have just described.

Secondly, clauses 19 and 20 of the bill would amend the National Capital Act to take into account the recent municipal amalgamations in Ontario and Quebec. Those of you who are from the national capital region know that the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, in which I live and that I partially represent, no longer exists. It is now the city of Ottawa. In the past, a representative from the city of Ottawa and a representative from the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, but from outside the city of Ottawa sat on the National Capital Commission. As this distinction no longer exists, the provision no longer applies.

The same thing recently occurred on the Quebec side, with the amalgamation of several municipalities. So from now on, or as of January 1, 2002, the entire agglomeration on the Quebec side will be called, as we know, the city of Gatineau. So there is no longer a structure with several municipalities and the National Capital Act must reflect the decisions made by the provincial legislatures in both cases.

• 1910

These amendments were in the initial miscellaneous statute law amendment proposal, but they were withdrawn, because the amalgamation had not yet been completed at that time. The elections had not taken place. It is now done, and clause 37 of the bill stipulates that the provisions will come into force on January 1, 2002, for the Quebec municipality, because, of course, the municipality currently does not exist.

At any rate, it will be approximately December 15, or so, before the bill receives royal assent. So there will be only a few days before the municipality is created. So there is a clause to reflect that reality, clause 37, and it will come into force only once the municipality on the Quebec side exists formally. That is all on that.

The third series of amendments deals with the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act. It is difficult to pronounce and you're going to see why we don't call it that. Clauses 5 to 9 amend the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act so that from now the organization is called Telefilm Canada. We have been calling it that for 16 years, but it was not in the text of the act. Since common language is used to refer to the corporation in question, we will now call it Telefilm Canada. From now on, what was being called Telefilm Canada in common language will now also be known as Telefilm Canada in the act. I think that almost everyone thought that was already the case.

The transitional clauses were necessary for that. So we did not keep that section in the initial MSLA, because transitional measures needed to be added, in this case, clauses 10 to 15. Once again, I draw your attention to that.

[English]

Now for the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act. Clauses 17 and 18 amend the Lieutenant Governors Superannuation Act. The bill would lower the pension age for lieutenant governors from 65 to 60. This amendment was not part of the miscellaneous statute law proposals. This is one of the ones that wasn't in the first bill.

This request came to the government's attention after the MSLA proposals were tabled. I use the word “tabled” as opposed to “introduced” because in fact MSLA is one of those few bills that are actually tabled in the House of Commons as opposed to introduced. It's introduced formally at a later stage.

This particular amendment here would bring the pension arrangement for lieutenant governors more in line with that of the federal public service. I'll give an example here. Public servants who have had at least two years of service can presently retire at age 60. In other words, anybody, if they've served two years—they wouldn't get much of a pension, mind you—can retire at age 60. RCMP officers can receive a pension at age 60. I'll not comment on what the age is for our own pensions. I'm sure the honourable members know that very well, Mr. Chairman.

Apart from changing the age at which a person can receive a pension, I want to assure members that no other change is being made to the overall pension policies or arrangement for lieutenant governors. There's nothing else in there. That's it.

Now let's look at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act, or the ACOA act. Clauses 2 to 4 in the bill make several amendments to this act. The amendments were part of Bill C-40. Clause 2 would allow ACOA to enter into agreement with the provinces without needing to obtain Governor in Council approval. So in other words, you wouldn't have to have an Order in Council pass,

[Translation]

an order, if you will.

[English]

When ACOA was first created, the Governor in Council approval made sense for broad agreements signed with each province in the initial stage, but since then ACOA and the Atlantic provinces moved to sectoral arrangements and then to the current process of agreements for specific projects.

• 1915

So they actually do an agreement each time there's a project, and it really doesn't make sense any more to have to go to the Governor in Council for every single project ACOA approves.

This change would be consistent with other changes that have been made to the Department of Industry Act for other industrial projects. In other words, it's proposed that it be treated the same as with other similar arrangements.

Clause 3 of the bill, if members are following, would allow ACOA to enter into an agreement with Enterprise Cape Breton to act on ACOA's behalf where the activity falls under Enterprise Cape Breton's mandate. This amendment does not entail additional spending, since Enterprise Cape Breton would be acting on ACOA's behalf and would reduce duplication between both of those agencies.

In addition, clause 4 amends the minimum number of times the ACOA advisory board must meet. There are now some minimum criteria there, and they're not deemed to be appropriate. The board must now meet at least once every three months, and that's somewhat frequent. Under Bill C-43 it will be at least once a year, and for the information of members, that is the same as for the Canadian Space Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, for instance. In other words, it makes the same provision as for many other organizations for the purpose of constituency.

I'll mention a few other amendments in this bill. Clause 21 would amend the National Film Act to remove the requirement that appointments above a specific level must have Governor in Council approval. The National Film Board would continue, of course, to be subject to Treasury Board policies.

The unusual situation we have there is that because this organization adheres to Treasury Board policies and is subject to Governor in Council approval, you could be faced with the odd situation where sometimes a particular project will go before two cabinet committees in the same day. It doesn't really make much sense. The Special Committee of Council is the one that does orders in council, and Treasury Board...or at least no more than 24 hours' difference between the two. It's kind of superfluous, and it's a waste of taxpayers' money.

Clauses 22 and 23 for their part would amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, which would be amended so the commission can establish employment standards without Treasury Board approval. Of course, the commission would still be subject to Treasury Board policies overall.

Clause 26 would amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act so student employees of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency would not be covered under that act and be represented by bargaining agents. This is the same as with student employment programs in the public service everywhere and in other agencies such as the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and Parks Canada. We had a different structure in relation to the Public Service Staff Relations Act only for Canadian Food Inspection Agency summer students as opposed to other summer students working elsewhere.

Clauses 28 and 29 would amend the Special Retirement Arrangements Act to add cross-references to the Public Service Pension Fund, which was created in 1999 by Parliament.

Clause 30 would amend the Telecommunications Act to clarify that the consent of the Minister of Industry is required to begin a prosecution under part IV.1 of the act. Part IV.1 of the act was passed by Parliament in 1998, and this provision was to have been included at the time. This amendment is consistent with the rest of the Telecommunications Act—an oversight, I guess—and it would make the application of the act uniform.

Finally, clause 31 would make a correction to the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act to ensure that the French and English versions are consistent.

Mr. Chairman, these are the amendments. They're all minor and technical in nature. They do not reflect any significant policy issues. None of the provisions of this bill is substantive. Most of them were part of the MSLA bill, Bill C-40, which has now been passed and, I believe, is pretty well concluded in the Senate as well. Except for one I've raised, namely the one about the lieutenant governors, they were in the end acceptable to parliamentary committees examining the bill.

I would hope that this committee would support the passage of these housekeeping amendments, which will ensure that our laws are up-to-date. If the committee can do that, then we'll return the bill to Parliament so hopefully we can do the third reading later this week pursuant to discussions House leaders had a little earlier today.

Alors, voilà, Mr. Chairman.

• 1920

I didn't name all the other officials who are here. I have a full list of them, but in order to save the committee's time perhaps we can do that only if they're required to come to the podium to answer specific questions.

The Chair: Monsieur Lebel from the Bloc. Do you have any questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Minister, we have been given a background document prepared by Ms. Dunsmuir from the parliamentary research branch, who is here, I believe. It says in this document that Bill C-43 was originally introduced as C-40 a little earlier this fall. Is that correct? Not exactly?

Mr. Don Boudria: I apologize. Perhaps I explained that part shortly before you arrived. Most of the elements that were in Bill C-40 were withdrawn from it, because in the process used for Bill C-40 if someone required additional information on a clause, it was simply withdrawn from the bill. If the additional information arrived in time, it was put back in the bill before the bill was completed. If that was not done, the clause simply disappeared and was put in this bill later. So that is not true of all clauses, and as I said in my conclusion, that is certainly not true for the amendments pertaining to the lieutenant-governors. They were not contained in Bill C-40. It is true for most of the amendments, but not for those ones. There may be others; I am not sure.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I think you are reading my mind, Minister Boudria. The financial impact of the provision of the lieutenant-governors is not at all the same at what we might have expected to see in Bill C-40. That is the purpose of my question. It may have a significant financial impact.

Mr. Don Boudria: No, I do not think so. Ms. Joan Arnold, from Treasury Board, could perhaps provide you with more information on this, but as you can see, Mr. Chairman, there was no royal recommendation.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: There was no what?

Mr. Don Boudria: No. I did not think that there was a royal recommendation for the bill, but in fact there was one. I am going to ask Ms. Arnold if she can give us her assessment of what the impact will be. Of course, the provisions on the lieutenant-governors would apply only if a lieutenant-governor were to retire between the age of 60 and 65. There are of course only 10 at any given time, and one of the 10 would have to retire before age 65 for there to be any impact.

Ms. Arnold.

[English]

Ms. Joan Arnold (Director, Pensions Legislation Development, Treasury Board Secretariat): The only provision of the bill, to my knowledge, that requires a royal recommendation is the lieutenant governors', because there is a modest cost associated with changing the age of getting a pension from 65 to 60. It's a fairly small cost. The maximum would be five extra years' worth of benefits, which would depend on the individual's salary history and so forth. I can't give you an exact number.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I see. Thank you.

Mr. Minister, do you not think that a provision like that should be debated in the House? I am referring solely to that. For the others, I fully agree with you. But for the one requiring royal proclamation, wouldn't it be better to have a debate in the House? Will there be a debate on that in the House?

Mr. Don Boudria: There was one in fact. This bill was not tabled like C-40. Bill C-40, for example, was a bill without debate. The MSLA bill was not debated. There was a debate on this one at second reading. It took place last Thursday. I made the first speech. A speaker from each of the political parties spoke in the House of Commons and there will also be a debate at third reading. If we agree, the debate will take place Thursday or Friday of this week.

• 1925

So this is not a bill without debate like Bill C-40 was. It is structured differently. It was introduced at first reading instead of being tabled. It was introduced formally with the number and so on, and the debate took place precisely for that reason.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: It says here: “transitional”.

Mr. Don Boudria: What clause is that, please?

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I saw “transitional” mentioned somewhere in the bill.

Mr. Don Boudria: Are you talking about the transitional provisions for Telefilm Canada?

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: No, but maybe I am... I read the bill very quickly. It was introduced Friday, it would seem. Honestly, I have not had time to study it, but I arrived a bit before the others and I saw a reference to transitional measures somewhere. I don't see it on the first page of Bill C-43. But I did not dream it up. Forget my question. And if I figure out—

Mr. Don Boudria: Are you referring to clause 33? Clauses 33 to 36 contain transitional measures to repeal the Fisheries Prices Support Act only.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: That's it. Why should there be transitional measures if the organization has not existed since...?

Mr. Don Boudria: I am going to ask the people who drafted the bill if they have any information on that. Perhaps Mr. Labelle or

[English]

Mr. Schmidt or someone else here can answer that about the Fisheries Prices Support Board.

Mr. Edgar Schmidt (Legislative Counsel, Legislation Section, Legislative Services Branch, Department of Justice): The sole purpose of the transitional provisions is to protect any rights that may presently exist. Any property that might still exist in the name of the board becomes the property of Her Majesty, and any contracts or any rights anyone may have against the board are preserved, so someone can now sue Her Majesty instead of the board. It's really just intended to preserve any existing rights.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Fine.

Mr. Don Boudria: It is a matter of protecting property rights or the rights of anyone who would have to take the board to court.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Marcel Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First I would like to make a comment. I would like to tell the minister that I am disappointed that his support team did not provided us with a fully bilingual version of his speaking notes. On our committee, documents that are not bilingual from start to end cannot be handed out. They try to give us a speech that was partly in French and partly in English. That is unacceptable for us, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Don Boudria: I cannot believe that is what you have, but I have two texts, one in one language and the other in the other.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I am sorry. I am talking about your speaking notes.

Mr. Don Boudria: It's not in there?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: At any rate...

Mr. Boudria, I would like to talk about clause 19, which applies to the National Capital Act. You say that none of these changes are substantial, of any importance. I must point out that I do not agree with you on that.

In the old text, in the old system, there was a representative from the city of Hull and one from a municipality in Quebec, other than the city of Hull, wholly or partly within the National Capital Region.

Now you are proposing that at least one representative be from the city of Gatineau. The new territory of the city of Gatineau includes the city of Hull, which has about 70,000 people, the city of Aylmer, which has about 40,000 people, the former city of Gatineau, which has between 110,000 and 120,000 people, and the former city of Buckingham, which has just over 35,000 people. That means that the former city of Hull, which had one representative for 65,000 people, may no longer have anyone representing its territory.

• 1930

I think that the intent of the National Capital Act was to privilege the former city of Ottawa, which is another story, and the former city of Hull, because these two former cities were close to Parliament and formed the core of the National Capital Region, the limits of which had been defined by the Trudeau government in the early 1970s.

I think we should seriously consider the possibility of saying that there should be at least one representative from the geographic region constituting what was the previous city of Hull, and that is now within the new city of Gatineau, and that the second representative could come from the same city or the remainder of the territory within the new city of Gatineau.

Apart from you, I do not see any member who could look after representation for the former city of Ottawa and the new city of Ottawa. At any rate, I am going to look after the Quebec side, but I think that the situation is more or less the same on the Ontario side.

Mr. Don Boudria: There is someone here from the NCC, but I will try to explain the situation.

First of all, on the Ontario side of the region, there were three representatives and there are now three. On the Quebec side of the region, there were two representatives and there are now two. That does not change.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I understand.

Mr. Don Boudria: That remains the same. So on the Quebec side of the National Capital Region... The boundaries of the region were not determined arbitrarily. They are not municipal boundaries. The perimeter is defined in the National Capital Act. The definition goes on for 25 pages. It starts so many feet over there and goes for so many feet in another direction, etc. There is an exhaustive description of the perimeter.

In the past, there was another internal perimeter within this perimeter on the Ontario and Quebec sides. The internal perimeter on the Ontario side corresponded to the boundaries of the city of Ottawa, the external perimeter was that of the National Capital Region on the Ontario side, excluding the city of Ottawa. On the other side, it was the same. Within the National Capital Region, there was always an internal perimeter and an external perimeter, I referred to the territory of the former city of Hull.

On the Ontario side, about 90% of the territory is within the new city, but there are some small areas, for example around Russell, which are outside the new city of Ottawa and inside the National Capital Region zone. The National Capital Region did not correspond to municipal boundaries before the amalgamation and it does not correspond to them since the amalgamation.

So on the Ontario side, we have three representatives, including two that must come from within the city of Ottawa. All three can come from there, but there must be at least two. As for municipalities in Quebec, there is a new city that would be called Gatineau with the boundaries that you just described. At least one representative must come from that territory. The other can come from the outside, from a municipality that is farther away, especially to the west with the Gatineau Park and so on, but it is not necessary. There must be at least one from the city of Gatineau, but both can come from the city. We are guaranteeing that there will be at least one.

You were asking for a sub-zone, with that zone, that corresponds to the former city of Hull, but is not necessarily the new city of Gatineau, which includes the city of Hull. That would create three boundaries with the Quebec side, whereas there are only two on the Ontario side. However, there are still only two representatives on the Quebec side.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Minister, allow me to make two points.

Mr. Don Boudria: Yes.

• 1935

Mr. Marcel Proulx: According to the text that you have here, you say that at least one of the representatives must come from the city of Gatineau,...

Mr. Don Boudria: That is correct.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: They both could come from the city of Gatineau.

Mr. Don Boudria: At least one.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: At least one. So it could be both.

Mr. Don Boudria: It could be.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: According to the description that you have in this bill, both people could live within the territory of the new city of Gatineau while residing outside the territory of the National Capital Commission. If you ask the people from the NCC to show us the map, you will see that part of the new city of Gatineau, on the east side, is outside the territory of the National Capital Region.

Mr. Don Boudria: Yes, around Buckingham.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Exactly. There is something illogical there.

Secondly, in 1972—I am pretty sure that is the date—under the Trudeau government, it was decided that the city of Hull, at the time, and the city of Ottawa, at the time, would become the core of the National Capital Region. Unfortunately, the PQ government in Quebec, in a recent order, because of the English connotation of the name of the city of Hull, decided to get rid of the name of the city of Hull. Now, there has been a forced amalgamation and the former territory of the city of Hull, which made up the core of the National Capital Region along with the city of Ottawa, will no longer legally exist as of one minute past midnight on January 1.

So first of all, to preserve the original spirit of the National Capital Act, one representative should be required to come from the territory of the former city of Hull. Secondly, the bill should be amended to say that at least one representative must come from the city of Gatineau, but within the territory of the National Capital, because a representative from the territory of the city of Gatineau could be from outside the territory of the National Capital.

Mr. Don Boudria: I understand. In short, Mr. Chairman, the member is asking for some kind of additional restriction saying that, at least in one case—I am not sure that I agree with the other case—the representatives for the city of Gatineau must live in the city of Gatineau, but within the limits of the National Capital Region.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Precisely.

Mr. Don Boudria: Have I got it right? I will let the people from the NCC complete my response. Madam.

Ms. Karen McNeil (Legal Counsel, National Capital Commission): I do not understand. The limits of the National Capital Region—

[English]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Just turn it around.

[Translation]

Ms. Karen McNeil: The limits of the National Capital Region are set out in the appendix of the Act. In the appendix, it says that only one part of the city of Gatineau is in the National Capital Region and that members must reside in the National Capital Region.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Madam, it says in this text:

(b) two from local municipalities in Quebec, at least one of whom must be from the city of Gatineau; and

[English]

So he could be living in the city of Gatineau but be outside the territory of the National Capital Commission.

Mr. Don Boudria: Can I help a bit here? You know, the bill doesn't have the full law. The bill is only the bill. You would need clause 20, perhaps, in order to have the annex that further describes the other limitation, the other one being the one that has just been summarized to us. In other words, not only must they live within the limits of Gatineau, as defined under clause 19, they must also live within the limits of Gatineau and inside the national capital region, as defined under clause 20.

Is that correct?

Ms. Karen McNeil: They have to live in a local municipality, and a local municipality is now defined as a municipality “wholly or partly within the National Capital Region”. The national capital region only includes part of the city of Gatineau, so they would be in the part of the city of Gatineau that is in the national capital region.

• 1940

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes, but I think we should be a little more specific. I agree that it says “two from local municipalities”, and local municipalities are defined as municipalities “wholly or partly within the National Capital Region”. But when we say “partly within the National Capital Region”, it means that somebody from Gatineau who lives outside the national capital region could be a member representing the city of Gatineau, and I think this is just contrary to what the intention is.

Ms. Karen McNeil: I would read it the other way. It says “partly within the National Capital Region”. The whole of the city of Gatineau is not in the national capital region, but the part that is in the NCR is a local municipality.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: That's not what it says in the interpretation. It says local municipality means a municipality “wholly or partly within the National Capital Region”. Gatineau is partly within the national capital region, so you consider it a local municipality. But if the resident, the appointee, lives in the part that is not within the National Capital Commission, what do you do? Do you accept him as being a representative of Gatineau?

Ms. Karen McNeil: I can only interpret the law as it stands. I don't know that I can answer that.

Mr. Don Boudria: Well, we have legislative draftspersons here, and they inform us that in fact Mr. Proulx may be correct. They can elaborate, and maybe that'll necessitate a correction.

Perhaps Mr. Schmidt—with your permission, Mr. Chairman—could add to that, because the amendment that would be sought would then say, at least on that point, that one must be from the city of Gatineau and—to add words here—from that part of the city that is within the limits of the national capital region.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay. That is the intent.

Mr. Don Boudria: Perhaps Mr. Schmidt could elaborate, and we'll see what he thinks of all this.

Mr. Edgar Schmidt: I think it would be fair to say that we proceeded initially from the assumption that “local municipality” was limited to territory within the national capital region.

Mr. Don Boudria: I know, as a local MP, that neither side would do that.

Mr. Edgar Schmidt: As to the definition of “local municipality”, we thought that by referring to “local municipality”, we were limiting it to that part of those municipalities that was within the National Capital Region. I think perhaps the member is correct that, technically, it probably has not accomplished that purpose.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We'll have to look at this and see what kind of amendment we can bring to this. That's one of my questions.

I'm running out of time, but my second question hasn't been answered. What is the intent, or is the intent to continue the original intent to have one representative from within what was described in the seventies by the Liberal government as being the core of the national capital region, which was the original city of Hull and the original city of Ottawa?

[Translation]

Mr. Don Boudria: That gets a bit more complicated, Mr. Chairman. In fact, when the provincial governments on both sides decide that the new city limits are larger, you are either in the city or not. It gets a bit more complicated if there is an additional segregation within the city. That was not the government's intent. For example, I can be a citizen of the city of Ottawa even if I do not live downtown. People who are citizens of the new city of Gatineau, if that is the name they keep—I do not want to get involved in that debate—can live near the Alexandra Bridge, downtown, or 10 kilometres away, in what used to be a different municipality. Once it becomes the same city, it gets complicated creating divisions within the city limits that could be deemed arbitrary by some people. I am not saying that the provinces, in both cases, were right or not in expanding the city's territory. I do not want to get into that debate.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: In the beginning, when the National Capital Region was defined, the core of the National Capital Region was described as being the city of Hull at the time and the city of Ottawa at the time.

• 1945

Mr. Don Boudria: I do not want to comment on the city of Hull being the core, but I can draw a parallel with the city of Ottawa. At the time, the municipal structure had two levels, and the majority of citizens and the majority of elected municipal representatives were in the centre, whereas there were other groups on the periphery. The concept of the centre and the outskirts disappeared as a result of the action taken by the Ontario provincial government, in the case that I am familiar with. Now it is one city. It is a single city on all levels. There is no other way of describing it. With what you are proposing, we would run the risk of attempting to recreate, at our level, a division within a municipality. I do not think it is up to us to do that.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Even for the National Capital Commission?

Mr. Don Boudria: The National Capital Region has its own boundary which is defined in the National Capital Act.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Minister, I am not talking about the boundary.

Mr. Don Boudria: I know.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I am talking about a zone within the periphery. In the former situation, 65,000 of the city of Hull were guaranteed one representative. With your new text, there may be no representative from the same geographic area.

Mr. Don Boudria: Just it is possible for both of them to come from Aylmer.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes, it is possible for both of them to be from the former city of Aylmer.

Mr. Don Boudria: Exactly, and it is the same thing on the Ontario side.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: One can come from outside.

Mr. Don Boudria: A maximum of one, but there must always be at least one representative from within the city of Gatineau.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: They could both be from the former city of Hull.

Mr. Don Boudria: Of course.

[English]

The Chair: You're out of time.

I'll go to Bev Desjarlais, please.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Just to follow up and to clarify, I'd like to ask you, where, prior to the changes suggested here, has the representation come from?

Mr. Don Boudria: At the moment it's three from Ontario and two from Quebec; the new number is still three from Ontario and two from Quebec. We're talking about the local municipality. The number remains the same.

The complication that existed before on the Ontario side was that there was one from inside the city of Ottawa and one who was from outside the city but within the region. There were a total of three on the Ontario side. On the Quebec side it was the same thing, except we only talked about two, the municipality being much smaller. The limitation there was that one was from inside the city of Hull and the other was from the periphery, if you will.

In both cases the periphery has now become part of the inner city by way of the actions of the two provincial governments, which coincidentally or otherwise have within a year of each other done exactly the same thing—that is to say, amalgamate the neighbouring municipalities. The original situation has now ceased to exist.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So the intention wasn't necessarily to have representation from within the national capital area of those cities.

Mr. Don Boudria: We're always talking about the national capital area. It's a curious situation. There are the national capital boundaries. Within that there was the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and inside that there was the city of Ottawa. We had, in fact, three different levels.

Of course, everybody has to be within the NCC zone. Say it's the Ontario side. They were designated as being either inside the core or outside the core but still inside the periphery. On the Quebec side it was the same thing. They were always within the greater boundaries of the national capital region, some being inside the core and some being outside the core but within the periphery—except that we only talked about two on one side of the river and three on the other. But they were always inside the periphery.

I think what Mr. Proulx is suggesting on one score is that it is not clearly stated as to whether the periphery still applies to a municipality, namely the city of Gatineau, that has land both inside and outside the periphery, nor is it clear whether someone could live outside the periphery and still qualify as though he were inside because he's inside the city. That's the clarification he's seeking, and the legislative drafter is, I think, writing in more precise words to ensure that this is the case.

• 1950

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay, because when you spoke—and I'm sorry, I can't recall your name—I thought you'd given the indication that it was the intent that it would be inside the national capital region. So that is the intent.

Mr. Don Boudria: The periphery.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

Just going by our Parliamentary Research Branch paper—

Mr. Don Boudria: Mrs. Desjarlais, can I just add one point?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Sure.

Mr. Don Boudria: All kinds of representatives from right across the country, of course, don't live within the national capital region but sit on the National Capital Commission.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, eight of them.

Mr. Don Boudria: That's correct, eight of them. It's the “National” Capital Commission, so they're from all over the country, but there's a specific number from within.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Are they spread out all over the country?

Mr. Don Boudria: Yes.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Or are there more from, say, B.C., or Alberta, or P.E.I., or New Brunswick?

Mr. Don Boudria: No, they're from within the regions of Canada. I can ask a representative of the NCC to look that up before the meeting is over.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: How do you distinguish regions? Is “middle east” Ontario, “east” the Maritimes...?

Mr. Don Boudria: No, no. That information will be sought, but I think they are the geographic regions of the country—the west, Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So “west” would include B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba? Because often, you know, they say B.C., and everything else in between is west.

Mr. Don Boudria: Given that there are eight, I assume there are two per region.

Ms. Karen McNeil: I don't know the exact breakdown. I think it varies over time. But there are representatives from across Canada.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Since we're dealing with it anyway, I think if we found there was some inconsistency, now might be the time to make sure it was looked into.

Being that we did not get our briefing information until today, and many of us haven't had a chance to go through this in any intricacy, I'm going to go by the research paper by our Parliamentary Research Branch. It comments on what happened with parts of the bill when it was at the Senate committee and the House of Commons committee.

Specifically, on the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the House of Commons committee objected to...and I take it that means that specific clause.

Would you know why they objected to some of these clauses?

Mr. Don Boudria: Perhaps Mr. Wall can direct an appropriate official to come and answer that question.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It might help if they have one of these papers that I'm going by. It would make my job easier if I could ask you specifically what was objected to, rather than me trying to read everybody's notes.

The Chair: Are you finished, Bev?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: No, I'm waiting for an answer—and the time that's used up for that doesn't use up my time.

Mr. Denys Vermette (Vice-President, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the honourable member for asking the question.

As the Honourable Minister Boudria mentioned earlier, the rules surrounding the committee that looked after the MSLA were such that objection from one member would cause something to fail that was in front of it.

As I recall, the objections centred around the fact that there was some lack of clarity on the contracting policy, or some members were concerned about the effects on the contracting policy that these changes could bring about. I'm certainly ready to explain those to you, if that's a centre of your concern.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Specifically, was clarification brought forth that would have addressed those concerns?

Mr. Denys Vermette: We were not given that opportunity, to my knowledge. I would have been the person to have been given that opportunity. But what I can say to you with certainty, to reassure you regarding a contracting policy, is that if you read the present text of section 17 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, it basically says that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would have to receive Treasury Board approval for any contracts. So if we go out there with a $500 contract, we would need approval.

• 1955

Now, that's in direct conflict with the Treasury Board policy on contracting, which specifies certain levels of delegation. What we're trying to do through an amendment to section 17, for instance, is to remove that conflict so that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has the same—no more, but actually the same—level of autonomy, if I can say it that way, as all other departments and agencies have under the Treasury Board contracting policy.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just for information's sake, what would that level be?

Mr. Denys Vermette: That level is $400,000 for competitive and $100,000 for non-competitive.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

The Chair: Are you finished?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: For now, yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Don Boudria: Mr. Chair, may I put a question? I am sorry for interrupting the honourable member, but it's just to assist in the process of the previous issue that was raised, the one involving the National Capital Commission. Again, referring to line 14 of the bill on page 6, if the description was worded this way, I ask Mr. Proulx to see if this would assist him:

three ordinarily resident in the National Capital Region from local municipalities in Ontario

That would be the first one.

That would say, look, you have to live within the periphery on the Ontario side, period.

The other one is:

two ordinarily resident in the National Capital Region from local municipalities in Quebec

So they have to be inside the periphery, otherwise they can't get appointed. You can't represent the periphery if you're not inside it. So it would do that on both sides, and it would do it equally, except, of course, for the numbers, which are different. But then again, they've always been different, because the population is much larger.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: A technical question to the lawyers. If you refer to (4) in the interpretation part, it defines local municipalities as being “wholly or partly within the National Capital Region”. Because of the change Minister Boudria just read, should we also take the opportunity to clarify this little definition here?

Mr. Edgar Schmidt: I'm not sure why. I don't understand why it would be necessary.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Because in the first part we're talking of local municipalities, and we define here a local municipality as a municipality that is “wholly or partly”, but the fact that we are now saying within the perimeter, maybe we don't need it. I'm asking you.

The Chair: We'll come back to it when you are ready to move the amendment.

Mr. Alcock, you have the floor.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you.

I want to reference a couple of things here. As I understand the process, the larger bill went forward earlier. There was this procedure both in the Senate and in the House to facilitate the passage of a large number of really inconsequential changes.

The process is that if the two committees object to things, they are taken out, and then that bill passes—so you deal with that quickly—but this bill has sought to bring forward some more inconsequential amendments. They are really, truly small amendments, but the bill has brought back some of the ones that were objected to in the earlier bill. Is that so?

Mr. Don Boudria: Somewhat. The objections in all cases on the earlier bills, as far as I've been informed, were all lifted in any case. In other words, in most if not all the cases, it had to do with information not being available to return to one or the other committee in time for the work that it was doing.

• 2000

Mr. Reg Alcock: Okay. I want to draw your attention to just one item. It may be a little unnecessary, but I think it's important to at least draw to people's attention what has gone on here.

The item is listed as clause 59 in the previous bill. It was the Energy Monitoring Act, and there was the insertion of a clause in the previous bill that would have repealed the section requiring that the act be reviewed by a committee of the House of Commons. This inconsequential amendment was put in the previous bill. It was objected to in the Senate and that clause was withdrawn; it has not been reintroduced here.

I assume this is your doing, Mr. Boudria. I want to thank you for it, because this is the kind of action I find most objectionable, and I'm pleased that you caught it and didn't bring it forward again.

However, to be frank, I am concerned that it appeared in the first place. I would like to make one suggestion. I note in this policy—used, I'm told, by the Department of Justice—about how they put together these bills.... These bills are important to the extent that we all understand that the government is so large that there are all sorts of details having to be dealt with because they create impediments. I don't think anybody has an objection to the quick passage of them to facilitate the business of the government. But in this process they identify five criteria that must be met in order for amendments to appear in these omnibus bills.

Mr. Don Boudria: You're talking about Bill C-40, because this bill did not follow that process.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I understand that.

Mr. Don Boudria: Okay.

Mr. Reg Alcock: But given that some of the clauses were blocked in that process and they appear in this particular thing, I would ask for a sixth criterion to be put into this Department of Justice protocol that specifically addresses things referencing the House. When the House puts a clause in a bill that says it wants that bill to come back before it for review some time hence, it is quite objectionable to me that a clause would then be put in an omnibus bill as an inconsequential clause to remove that review.

Now, the process worked because you caught it and didn't come back with it. But the very fact that it was put into the omnibus bill, that it made it into the first bill as an inconsequential amendment, is completely unacceptable. So this is both a thank you to you and an admonishment to whoever did this.

Mr. Don Boudria: I can't take any credit for it, because I had nothing to do with it. Nobody attempted to bring it back in this one. I just didn't see it.

If I can speak of Bill C-40 in a general sense—I'm not the sponsoring minister of that bill—it is clear that miscellaneous statute law amendments should never be used to—quote, unquote—“pull fast ones” or some such thing. That's not their purpose, nor should it ever be the purpose of legislating at all, of course.

In any case, that would have been, in my opinion, good or bad, a substantive amendment, not a miscellaneous statute law amendment. In other words, had such an initiative been wanted it should have appeared in this bill today, a bill that received first and second reading, committee consideration, and so on, not one that went in through the other process.

I'm just responding in a general way, of course, because it didn't appear in this bill today. But had the government wanted to do it, it should have been in this bill today. When I gave my long summary I would have asked you to please pay attention to this clause, that clause, and that clause, as I did with all the rest of them, explaining what each one did to ensure that members were well aware of what they were voting on.

But you make a good point. I hope everyone who listens to this testimony or who somehow acquaints themselves with it will know exactly what you're saying. And I share it.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): I would like some clarification, Mr. Boudria. This mentions the National Energy Board Act. What does that organization do?

Mr. Don Boudria: The National Energy Board?

Mr. Robert Bertrand: If I understand correctly, the organization will look after dams on the river.

• 2005

Mr. Don Boudria: What provision is it?

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Clause 74.

Mr. Don Boudria: The bill does not contain 74 clauses. What clause of the bill are you talking about?

Mr. Robert Bertrand: I do not have it here.

Mr. Don Boudria: The bill only has 34 clauses.

[English]

The Chair: That's right.

Are there any further questions for our witnesses?

Go ahead, Bev.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just to follow up, although my colleague has withdrawn it, it does indicate clause 74 here. Now, maybe it doesn't appear in this bill and that's part of the reason.

Mr. Don Boudria: I think that's been identified as Bill C-40, which is now before the Senate. This bill only goes to clause 34. I do believe Bill C-40, the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, long since passed by us and currently in the Senate, did go as high as clause 74 and higher. And those references...because the National Energy Board isn't even in this bill. So it's the other bill.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I take it, then, that neither the Energy Monitoring Act of clause 59 that Reg just spoke about nor clause 105 on the Railway Safety Act is in there.

Again, we're just basing it on the information we have. It seems everybody received things just a short while ago, which it makes it a little more difficult.

In regard to the lieutenant governors pension, I recognize your point that this brings it in line with other public service pensions and I have no objection to it. But I am curious about the response that we don't know exactly how much it's going to cost.

I find it rather strange that we can't have some idea of how much it's going to cost. Whether it's only a period of five years and there's only ten of them, I mean, the bottom line is, there aren't always only ten of them; they do continue on for a period of time. In Canada, as I know it, they'll be there for a while. This will continue on with other lieutenant governors as well.

So I think there is some expectation that we should have some rough idea of what it's going to cost.

Mr. Don Boudria: Perhaps Mrs. Arnold has been able to secure additional information, I'm not sure. I'm not trying to put her on the spot.

Ms. Joan Arnold: Given the fact that lieutenant governors' salaries at present are around $98,000, as I understand it, if every single lieutenant governor right now who was now going to receive this pension had an average salary of close to $100,000, with the benefit of approximately 30% of this, the most the extra cost could be is about $150,000 to take into account those first five years.

So instead of getting the pension at age 65 and receiving approximately $30,000, the individual will get that pension of about $30,000 at age 60. For each lieutenant governor who may be eligible, it will be approximately an extra $150,000. This is a very rough estimate, because I don't know exactly how many are sitting out there right now waiting to get a pension or what their average salaries are exactly.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Still, if I as a New Democrat used the amount as not being very much when it is ten times that amount, we'd be criticized for reviewing it as not very much. So I think it needs to be regarded as a reasonable sum of money, and it's not unreasonable to have an idea of how much it's going to be.

Thank you.

Mr. Don Boudria: Just to add to this, Mr. Chairman, $150,000 is based on the assumption that, first of all, the person is younger than 60 and would retire at 60. It has absolutely no bearing on the lieutenant governor who's already 61 and not yet retired, or even 61 and about to retire. It doesn't do anything. It only kicks in for people between the ages of 60 and 65 to the extent that they are covered for each year in between, and only if they retire. Otherwise, it has no effect.

The Chair: Providing they live.

• 2010

Mr. Don Boudria: And providing.... Well, yes.

The Chair: Mr. Comuzzi.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.): This is, Mr. Chairman, perhaps more procedural than anything else. When did we get those books everyone is referring to? When were they delivered, please?

The Chair: Mr. Clerk, when did you send the books out?

The Clerk of the Committee: I received them at a quarter to five yesterday evening, so they were delivered first thing this morning.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: When was this put on the agenda to cover?

The Clerk: The notice for the meeting was published yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: So we had basically one day to review the changes.... Let me rephrase that. I'm not saying there's anything wrong in what we're doing, but what you've done in essence is ask a committee of Parliament to change some 15 or 20 statutes without the...and thank you very much to our research department for bringing some order to it.

I think Bev was pretty astute in observing that a lot of these sections had been objected to by both the Senate committee and the House of Commons committee, which I assume, Mr. Chairman, was in the large bill that Mr. Alcock referred to. Would that be Bill C-40? Am I correct in that? I'm asking the question.

The Chair: Mr. Boudria probably would be the best person to speak to it.

Mr. Don Boudria: I believe every clause was in Bill C-40 with the exception of the reference to lieutenant governors. The other measures were there and were withdrawn, generally because one member in either of the two Houses on the committee needed information or objected to it, and even in the cases where the satisfactory information was found, if it was found too late for the process of the bill they were included here—with the addition of the lieutenant governor clauses.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Thank you. We're trying to understand in one day what we're trying to do in this proposed act. My colleague here has a problem with the interpretation of what “local municipality” means under the national capital region, and we're trying to arrange some accommodation in that area and get some statutory interpretation on it.

We're asked in that one day, as members of the House of Commons, or this committee of the House of Commons, now to pass all these changes.

Mr. Chairman, it's not that there is anything wrong, but I feel very uncomfortable in effecting the changes to these statutes without reading them. I happen to be one of the members to have a great deal of belief in the ability of statutory construction. To me there's no inconsequential wording in a statute.

These people up here put a lot of effort into putting a statute in to make sure they're subject to legal interpretation, and maybe it's a thing lawyers make millions out of. I don't subscribe to that theory of inconsequentiality with respect to the wordings in a statute or the changing of the wordings in a statute. I just don't feel competent, as a member of this committee, to cast a vote on changes to so many statutes without giving this more scrutiny.

The Chair: Mr. Comuzzi, I appreciate it. I think part of the...well, not “problem”, probably. This committee is constituted of transport and government operations, and this process was gone through before.

Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Well, to be very truthful with you, Mr. Chairman, when I was coming to the meeting tonight, I said, “What are we doing going to talk about fish, as a transport committee?” I thought something had changed in the week off we had.

But I just want those comments recorded. You can't put a committee into that dilemma, to make those changes in such a short period of time.

The Chair: Okay.

Bev.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just to clarify, because I think we all felt a bit put on the spot in regard to this, I was in my office shortly after nine o'clock this morning, and this briefing package was not there at that time. It would have come at a time after that, after we then went out to committee meetings—transport committee, for that matter, from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.—and then by 3:30 p.m. we were again in committee for another two hours dealing with issues the government wants to see put through.

• 2015

I think it needs to be recognized that there is a real commitment from the committee to do the job properly, and this makes it tough to do that. I recognize there's a wish to push a lot of things through rather quickly right now, but in all fairness to the work that's done—and again, I commend Mr. Comuzzi's point that nothing is inconsequential—it's a good point.

The Chair: And the chair takes it under advisement and will make sure that in this process we have longer periods of time to do that.

Are we ready to go clause-by-clause?

André, would you move clauses 1 to 18, then, and we can deal with clause 19, which Mr. Proulx has a problem with.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Yes, I so move.

[English]

(Clauses 1 to 18 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 19)

The Chair: Marcel Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Chair, we have a recommended amendment from the minister, and I also have a further amendment to lines 18 and 19 of the English side and lines 17 and 18 on the French side.

Should we start with the minister?

The Chair: You're moving the motion to make the amendment, Marcel?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Don Boudria: These are the words that would be the subject of the amendment; if I understand, Mr. Proulx is moving it. Do you want me to read it into the record, or should the clerk take it and take care of it from here?

The Chair: Perhaps Mr. Proulx could read it into the record.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We'll start with the first paragraph, page 6, line 14, on the English side. It would read:

(a) three, ordinarily resident in the National Capital Region from local municipalities in Ontar-

which finishes, in the bill, with

io, at least two of whom must be from the city of Ottawa;

Do you want the French version also?

The Chair: Sure, we want to read it into the record.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: That would be at page 6, line 14 of the French side. The line starts with

[Translation]

rio, dont la résidence ordinaire est dans la Région de la capitale nationale et dont au moins deux résident dans la ville d'Otta-

• 2020

[English]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Chair, is it possible to see that amendment in writing? I have to admit, I'm trying to put my head around it, and it doesn't come through as a clear amendment. If I could see it in writing, I'd appreciate it.

The Chair: Sure.

Bev is a visual learner. She wants to have a look at it.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Well, I'm trying to figure out whether an “ordinary” resident is any different from a “regular” resident, or a “resident” resident.

The Chair: Are there any further questions?

(Amendment agreed to)

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I have a second amendment, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay, a second amendment then.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: On the English side, again at page 6, lines 18 and 19 would be replaced—and the “bec” at the start of the amendment ends the word “Quebec”, which ends the previous line—by the following:

bec, at least one of whom shall be from the section of the City of Gatineau which is west of the Gatineau River; and

The Gatineau River is probably the easiest geographical division in the new municipality of Gatineau.

The Chair: So is that the amendment?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes.

The Chair: You've heard the amendment.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Unfortunately, we have to disregard the wording of the amendment that had been recommended by the minister, because we can't have two different lines on the same line. But we should also keep in mind—and this is why I was asking about this—that when one must be from the west section of the city of Gatineau, the other one has to come from the national capital region within this description.

The Chair: Discussion.

Mr. Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Chair, is there any reason why you couldn't say, in the same way that it is in proposed paragraph 3(4)(a), “two, ordinarily resident within the National Capital Region from local municipalities” and so on? Why couldn't you do that?

The Chair: We should ask the drafters.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Try that again?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Well, inserting the same phrase that was inserted in paragraph (a), which was,

three, ordinarily resident in the National Capital Region

and then under (b)

two, ordinarily resident in the National Capital Region

Mr. Marcel Proulx: And “at least one of whom shall be from the section of the City of Gatineau”, which is even better, “which is west of the Gatineau River”. So we cover the fact that we want these people to be from within the national capital region and we cover the fact that one must be from the section west of the Gatineau River within—

Mr. Geoff Regan: I'm not clear on this issue of “west of the Gatineau River”. I thought the idea was that clearly they should be within the national capital region, but in terms of where in that region, that seems a question where you would want input from the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Well, the amendment is on the table. If you don't agree, you can vote against it.

• 2025

Mr. Geoff Regan: Okay.

The Chair: All right.

Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Mr. Chair, just a minute here, because this also touches on my riding.

[Translation]

Marcel, you are saying west of the Gatineau River, but within the boundaries of the new city of Gatineau.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: One must come from there.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Yes, but the northern border—

Mr. Marcel Proulx: It remains the same as the one for the city of Hull at present.

[English]

One must come from the west section of the new city of Gatineau, which in fact is west of the Gatineau River. At least one must come from there. And the rest come from the national capital region on the Quebec side. So it could be La Pêche. It could be Templeton, Buckingham. If Breckenridge is within the national capital region, it could be Breckenridge.

The Chair: Robert, are you okay with that?

Mr. Robert Bertrand: I'm okay with that.

The Chair: Okay.

Yes, Bev.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Monsieur Lebel, you go first.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Okay.

The Chair: Monsieur Lebel.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Can we have a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Yes, Bev.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: In fact, for my clarification now, as someone who is from out west and really doesn't know what area you're talking about at all and is admitting it here, does this then say that someone from any other part of Quebec cannot be?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: No. Absolutely not. We're saying that two must be from the Quebec side of the National Capital Commission territory, one of whom—a minimum of one—must be from the west section of the new city of Gatineau. It used to be that one had to be from the city of Hull. Now one would be from the old territory of Hull and the old territory of Aylmer.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: But did not one formerly come from some other part of Quebec?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Oh, this is another part. These are included. The one you're talking about now is included in the eight others—the eight from Canada generally.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So the other person from Quebec would come out of the eight from Canada generally, other than from a city or a municipality—

Mr. Marcel Proulx: No, no. Ms. Desjarlais, you have to have at least two from the west Quebec region of the national capital region. And in the eight others you could have—we didn't get an answer as far as a limit—one or two from elsewhere in the province of Quebec. As it stands now, I think there is one from Quebec City.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I would not want to be unfair to other parts of Quebec.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: No, no. This is very regional.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Well, the correction, Mr. Chair, is that we're going to say in the amendment:

(b) two, ordinarily resident in the National Capital Region, from local municipalities in Quebec, at least one of whom shall be from the section of the City of Gatineau which is west of the Gatineau River; and

The Chair: Mr. Lebel.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Chairman, I want a recorded vote, please.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, and we will.

All those in favour?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes, Bev.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: The minister had wanted to comment.

Mr. Don Boudria: Is your witness able to say something here or is it too late?

The Chair: No, go ahead, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Don Boudria: Well, I'm just a little bit concerned about what we're about to do. Of course members vote here, I don't. But the present situation has it that on the Ottawa side there is no split within the region. They can come from anywhere. That enables a Governor in Council to accommodate if...you know, two, three, five years, as populations shift—there's this, then that—they appoint them forever, they see properly qualified people living in the national capital area on the Ontario side.

On the Quebec side, from now on, you will divide the zone in two and say that at least one has to come from within a sub-region of that. It's going to be inconsistent with what occurs on the other side of the river.

• 2030

First, I don't believe that is a good idea. Secondly, it will further hamstring the Governor in Council when making appointments in the future by limiting within a second geographic area.

That said, I can't speak any more on this. You probably want to....

The Chair: All right.

We have a motion. We'll poll and see what happens. It's a democratic institution.

Mr. Clerk, would you poll?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, I move to divide the motion—in other words, to divide this motion so that you'd consider it in two parts. The first part would be the insertion after the word “two”, which would be the part where you say “ two, ordinarily resident in the National Capital Region”. That would be the first part we'd consider. The second part would be the part that divides up to the west of the Gatineau river. That part would be the second issue to decide.

The Chair: We have a subamendment by Mr. Regan to subdivide it. We'll see if this is the wish of the committee.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, it may be within your jurisdiction to make that division if you so choose, although I'm not sure of that.

The Chair: Well, I'd like the committee to do it.

The motion is defeated, I think.

A voice: It carried.

The Chair: It carried? Let's try again.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Perhaps I can just ask the clerk what the view is in that kind of situation.

The Chair: You moved a subamendment to his amendment.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, I'm not sure that's the correct procedure. I'm just asking what the correct procedure is.

The Chair: Unless Mr. Proulx agrees that this is a friendly amendment, I understand that we have to vote on Mr. Proulx's motion.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Fine.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx, is this a friendly amendment? In other words, do you want to alter your amendment?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: No.

The Chair: Okay.

So we go back to Mr. Proulx's motion.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 4; nays 3)

(Clause 19 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Shall clauses 20 to 37 carry?

(Clauses 20 to 37 inclusive agreed to)

The Chair: Shall schedule 1 carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House with amendments?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister, ladies and gentlemen.

We're adjourned until tomorrow.