AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 9, 1997

• 1538

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.)): We are resuming our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-6, an Act to provide for an integrated system of land and water management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

As I told you this morning, we have, from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Will Dunlop, Peter Haley, Jacques Denault, Suzanne Grenier and Margaret Gray.

Good afternoon, everyone. Are there any remarks before we continue with our study of clause 2?

Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, on page 7 of the documents that were handed out...

[English]

It's not a big document. They were delivered by the clerk this morning. If you're looking, it's on clause 2, on page 4 of the bill. In French we want to change lines 18 to 24 of the French version. In French it says frontières, and we want to change that word to limite. Frontière is a word that was used just for international purposes, and we cannot use it between regions.

The Chairman: That's it?

Mr. Bernard Patry: That's it, if we all agree.

(Amendment agreed to)

• 1540

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Can I just ask, is there a problem in the English sense? I can't find the matching English.

Mr. Bernard Patry: No, just in French.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay, fine. I'll look for it.

Mr. Bernard Patry: You're going now to clause 3.

The Chairman: No, back to clause 2.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): This amendment on page 6 was Mrs. Hardy's.

An hon. member: She's not here.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: This was the second one. Isn't this amendment, because the first part of it was defeated, not applicable any more?

The Chairman: No. It's not applicable.

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): It's on page 6.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chair, if you agree, we could just suspend voting on clause 2, to give Mrs. Hardy a chance to make her point about this amendment that you would like to do. If you want, we can suspend the vote.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I think she should be here.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, but I want to be fair to everyone, too.

An hon. member: Everyone else is here.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Let's just move on, then.

Mr. Bernard Patry: No, we're going to suspend...to vote on clause 2 as amended, and we'll go to clause 3 now, if you agree.

[Translation]

The Chairman: If we have unanimous consent, we will defer that clause until this afternoon in order for Ms. Hardy to be able to speak to it. If she is not there, we will vote on it.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, but we will vote this afternoon in any case. We will give her a chance to speak to the clause.

The Chairman: Fine.

(Clause 3 carries on division)

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Why are we suspending clause 3?

Mr. Bernard Patry: We are not suspending clause 3. We're suspending clause 2 only.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, but I thought he was on clause 3 and you said we were suspending it.

Mr. Bernard Patry: No, we're not. Adopted on division.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, okay. Adopted.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Suspended number 2, going on number 3.

Mr. John Bryden: Where are we now?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: We just adopted 3.

[Translation]

(Clause 4 carries on division)

(Clauses 5, 6 and 7 carry)

(Clause 8—Consultation)

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: We just want to replace clause 8, on page 5. We want to replace lines 32 and 33 with the following, after the marginal heading “Consultation”:

8.(1) The federal Minister shall consult with First Nations with respect

That means we're deleting “Gwich'in and Sahtu”.

The Chairman: Is clause 8 adopted?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chair, it's 8.(1), if it's adopted.

The Chairman: It's 8.(1)—okay.

Mr. Bernard Patry: We're also going to add the following new lines after line 34 on page 5. Everyone has it, on page 8 of the package. After the marginal heading “Review of Act”:

(2) The federal Minister shall, in the course of any negotiations with a first nations relating to self-government, review the pertinent provisions of this Act in consultation with that first nation.

The Chairman: Is there any debate? Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: What is the purpose of the negotiation if you're going to deal with just one first nation, and talk about it and not the others? You already have two groups that are agreeing with this, three that are opposing it, and then you're going to talk to them individually again as you work your way through the various land claim agreements. To what purpose?

• 1545

Mr. Bernard Patry: Previously the minister was bound to consult just with the Gwich'in and the Sahtu, as was stated in our land claims agreement. Now in the interests of all the first nations, with or without land claims settlements, it will be appropriate for the minister to consult with all the first nations. That's the idea of this amendment.

Mr. Derek Conrad: But is it for the purpose of proposing amendments?

Mr. Bernard Patry: No, it's just to be sure the minister will consult with all the first nations.

Mr. Derek Conrad: I know what's being said here. I'm just wondering if it's going to work at all or do anything useful.

Mr. Bernard Patry: God hopes we're doing something useful.

Mr. Derek Conrad: It's kind of a pointless amendment to me.

Mr. John Bryden: I just want to make the observation, if it wasn't already made, that this clause replaces the fourth clause in the preamble. We've taken what was in the preamble—I think we generally agree preambles are faint hope provisions—and actually enshrined it in the act itself that the minister shall consult with the first nations with respect to the provisions of this act, both before and after, as Bernard has said.

So this directly addresses the concern that kept coming up of “What about us? We haven't done our land claims agreements yet. How does it work?” So this compels the minister to consult with them.

The Chairman: Yes. Thank you.

Mr. John Bryden: It's a very positive thing. They're going to like it.

Ms. Judy Longfield: So it's taken out of the preamble and put into the body.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes.

[Translation]

(The amendment carries)

(Clause 8, as amended, carries)

Mr. Bernard Patry:: Mr. Chairman, I am a doctor and not a legal expert. In clause 8, we adopted subsections 1 and 2. The new clause is therefore number 9. Is that what we are saying?

The Chairman: It is clause 9.1. There is clause 9, and clause 9.1 is another one. Clause 9 is distinct from clause 9.1. We are therefore going to vote on clause 9. Does it carry?

(Clause 9 carries)

The Chairman: We are going to discuss the new clause 9.1, which is on page 10.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: I'm going to repeat if you allow me, Mr. Chairman. It's a new clause.

Ms. Judy Longfield: It's subclause 9.(1).

Mr. Bernard Patry: There's no subclause 9.(1); it's clause 9.1. I'm going to read it.

The purpose of the establishment of boards by this Act is to enable residents of the Mackenzie Valley to participate in the management of its resources for the benefit of the residents and of other Canadians.

The idea behind this new clause is to set a guide principle for the boards to follow in the conduct of their affairs, as was discussed before.

The Chairman: Debate. Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I just wanted to observe for my colleagues opposite that this is the amendment that follows all the discussion about trying to get a noble all-encompassing purpose for boards.

It simply states that this act is all about the creation of boards to enable the residents of the Mackenzie Valley area to decide their own future in terms of their resources for the benefit of not all Canadians—which is something I did want—but other Canadians, because there's a legalistic problem with using all Canadians. In their wisdom, the government's officials went in this direction. And I have to say that I, for one, am pleased.

• 1550

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): I apologize for being late.

In the new clause 9.1, it says that the participation of the inhabitants in managing the Mackenzie Valley is in their own interest and in the interest of all other Canadians. I imagine that it is in the interest of Quebeckers as well.

[English]

An hon. member: You mean Quebeckers are Canadians?

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: In what sense is it in the interest of Canadians? Why is it in the interest of Canadians? What advantages do Canadians and Quebeckers get from this clause? I would like to understand.

The Chairman: Which clause are you talking about, Sir?

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I am on the same clause as you are.

The Chairman: On page 11, in French, clause 9.1.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I would have liked to have...

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I'd like to respond to my colleague on that.

You may have missed a little bit of the discussion, because we can't all be here all the time, but the discussion turned on the concept that the people in the Mackenzie Valley area were custodians of the resources that were part of their lives. What seemed to be lacking in the act was the sense that they looked after these resources not just for their own narrow or parochial interest, but also because the environment, the forest, the resources are a great asset to all Canadians. It was to give this broader and nobler purpose to the act that this innovation was brought forward.

I certainly do believe “Canadians” embraces Quebeckers as well—at this point in time, at any rate. I don't think we were quite prepared to put “Canadians” and “Quebeckers” separately in this context—later, perhaps.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I agree and I thank you for understanding me. I understood your answer very well, but concretely, is it written this way to look good, to show that it is to the advantage of other Canadians, or are there facts that could bring us certain concrete advantages? Will it stimulate development that could interest us and that we would share in? I want to understand what advantages other Canadians and Quebeckers would obtain.

The Chairman: You mean Ontarians, British Columbians and so on?

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Yes, yes. I am talking about the two countries: Canada and Quebec.

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I have a question regarding other governing acts that transfer controls to provinces. Do they have similar provisions in those acts? I haven't had a chance to look at the resource transfer acts or any of the others, but coming from the west, this is of particular interest to me in the light of the PGRT and other federal enactments. I'd like to know if this is going to be used for that. If it is, I would certainly not support it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: In regard to Mr. Bryden's amendment, I think we're looking at it in the wrong context, folks. To me, what the amendment is stating and what we discussed—those of us who were around the table that day—is quite simply that there is a federal jurisdiction there at the end of the day, and I think that's the point we should understand. We're dealing with a territory that doesn't have provincial status. To me, that's the encompassment we're looking at.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Dunlop.

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop (Director, Resource Policy Directorate, Northern Affairs Program, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): I wanted to give the members of the committee a couple of examples of the kinds of benefits that sometimes flow from other Canadians to other Canadians in the valley. The examples Mr. Konrad might know of are drilling rigs and drilling equipment in the oil and gas industry. They come from Alberta and up into the exploration of the Northwest Territories. Some of the offshore equipment comes from Nova Scotia and the drilling that takes place offshore in Newfoundland, for example.

• 1555

For Quebec, Monsieur Fournier, it's not at all unusual for winter roads to be constructed to bring the new fire trucks, made by Thibault Brothers in Quebec, into the smaller communities when they build the new fire halls.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dunlop. I will not keep you from speaking, Mr. Fournier. Go ahead.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I'm sorry, but I did not understand. I will give you a concrete example. In Fermont, for example, in my riding, there is a giant mine, and it is in the interest of all Canadians, because it pays a lot of income tax and the federal government receives much of it.

But in the present case, tell me one thing that would be in the interest of Canadians. Just one. I am talking about Canadians across the country, if that pleases you.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman, there are many advantages. Mr. Dunlop named a few. You have big multinationals like BHP, north of Yellowknife, that are going to invest and take $2 billion worth of diamonds out of the ground. Those companies, to begin with, need equipment and they do not have it. Therefore, other Canadians, south of the 60^th parallel, provide all the equipment and the trucks. A type of joint venture is undertaken with the First Nations so that First Nations people can also work and have access to their underground resources. There are thus very significant benefits for all Canadians.

There is also a small pipeline going south to Alberta, which means exchanges between Canadians.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I understand very well. Thank you for your answer. I understand very well that those people will be subject to the same laws as other people in this country.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, that is right.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: They are going to pay the same royalties and the same taxes.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier and Mr. Patry.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

[English]

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I have a question. We talk about the establishment of the boards. What if, when the boards are working, they make decisions that favour only the people in the Mackenzie Valley, let's say, just to take a scenario? If it doesn't look as though it's for the benefit of the rest of Canada, what will happen then? Will someone use this clause to overrule their decision? Is that what will happen?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: The answer is no.

[English]

An hon. member: Not at all.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Okay.

[Translation]

(Clauses 9.1 and 10 carry)

[English]

(On clause 11—Appointment of members by federal Minister)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: You probably don't need me to read it. Our concern is that you already have regions set out in the north, where I presume the majority of the population are members of the groups to whom they've been assigned, the Gwich'in and Sahtu particularly. We're just looking at electing people out of the general population. Otherwise you get a double majority of votes. So we'd like to see the process opened up to a democratic election rather than nominations and appointments.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: The standard practice for this type of board in a provincial jurisdiction is for it to be appointed. The exception is school boards. Indeed, school boards present a special type of problem, which Premier Mike Harris is handling at this very moment.

An hon. member: Not very well.

Mr. John Bryden: Not very well, yes, but he's certainly dealing with it.

• 1600

I would suggest that the bill contains pretty good checks and balances for qualified appointees. Also, you might have some difficulty in electing qualified people, considering that some of the population centres aren't as large as they might be in some areas of the far north. So, if I may say so, while I appreciate where you're coming from, I would think appointed boards is probably the better way to go.

The Chairman: Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I agree with my colleague. First of all, this will set a precedent for federal appointments to other boards of commissions. This is quite important. Also, an election is costly, and who's going to pay for it? It's quite costly to hold an election like this.

I really feel we should stick with it as it is right now.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I just point out that where I come from, the co-management model has been proposed, and it raised quite a storm of protest over appointed people, rather than elected from the general population. You might be creating a similar situation. But each one to his own vote.

[Translation]

(Amendment negatived—See Votes and Proceedings)

(Clauses 11 to 15 inclusive agreed to)

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: We are opposed to having members removed by the board. We would like to oppose that phrase. If my amendment had been carried, this certainly wouldn't have happened. Never mind; let's carry on.

(Clause 16 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 17 to 20 inclusive agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: We have a new clause, 21.1. We need to adopt it before clause 21.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: I don't follow you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: On page 14, there is a new clause, 21.1. The Reform Party is tabling an amendment, R-2.

[English]

Debate, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: This is just to allow for openness in the process. Realizing that some information has to be kept out of the public view, paragraph 30(1)(b) provides that need for secrecy, or not making absolutely everything public. I'd just like to put in there that we want to see the minutes available for public consultation.

• 1605

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: I understand the idea behind what the Reform is saying, but the board is already required to disclose in some cases: needs publication on the board and rules in clause 30, prior publication on draft plans in clause 42, public records, public register in clause 72, public comments on environment assessment, and notification to public. I think there are many hearings and the board is already holding hearings. I don't think it's necessary to add this to the bill.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy, followed by Mr. Fournier.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I would support Mr. Konrad's motion on this. I would make one change to it, and that is that we would allow for the difference between a regular meeting and an in camera meeting. Obviously for in camera meetings you don't want to divulge the minutes, but for a regular meeting you could.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I support this clause, because I believe that irreproachable transparency is needed.

We must keep in mind that a government has no money. It is the public that pays, and the public has a right to be fully informed of everything that is done, everything that is discussed and everything that may cost money. The taxpayers are the masters. I therefore applaud this clause, because it pleases me. I think that it must be made public. We should adopt this example in all other committees of the House.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Bryden, followed by Mr. Wilfert.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: We actually did discuss this on this side and I certainly have great sympathy for public meetings. There are a couple of us who took a particular interest in this one, and the problem we had with it was that it said every meeting would be open. If you put that in legislation it doesn't allow any latitude for in camera meetings and that kind of thing.

A little further on there is a government amendment that endeavours to look after both of your amendments, this one and the one that follows, the one allowing the public to attend meetings and the one about preparing minutes of every meeting. I don't know how we can do that. We try to address your concerns specifically in clause 29. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, whether we can just hold off until we come to clause 29. How would you like to do it?

Mr. Bernard Patry: I think it's redundant like this. In clause 29 we are looking at this and it's very well set up.

Mr. John Bryden: If you will be patient until we come to clause 29, we'll explain the solution we sought with the officials.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, we could defer the vote on this.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay, that's fine; we'll do that.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I don't know; we need to ask the chair. He's the boss on that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Wilfert.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I was going to point out clause 29 as well. My experience has been that if you are at an in camera meeting at some point you have to adopt the minutes of that meeting in public. Presumably it will then become a public document.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Well no, Mr. Chairman; that's my question.

Certainly under the municipal act in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, etc., if you're going to.... When Mayor Ratchinsky in St. Albert has an in camera meeting, it cannot be adopted until it is in fact done in public, public and open session. The public may or may not be there but they have to declare a public session. Presumably in this case a board that adopts something is going to have to at some point make that.... Whether it's a legal item or a land transaction or a personnel item, at some point that would become part of the public record.

Just for the record, we're doing that for the benefit of my colleagues.

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I just want to address that idea of every meeting. I certainly would be open to an amendment there, but paragraph 30(1)(b) also gives, as it is, the board rules regarding those issues you brought up. It's not as if they're without any protection whatever.

• 1610

Mr. John Bryden: They're at hearings, you see. There's a distinction between the open hearings the board has and meetings the board might have, and that's where we had difficulty your amendment. You made it such that if the board had a public hearing and then decided to meet in camera to discuss the results of that hearing, it would be impossible to have that meeting with your amendment.

As I say, we did try to address it later on. I hope you'll be presently surprised at how the officials, of course, came up with the solution.

Mr. Bernard Patry: With your help.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, with the help of us all. This is coming from all sides here. It was Mr. Konrad's amendment that made us think of addressing the problem.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Can we defer this until we get through the other one?

Mr. John Bryden: That will be fine.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: At the discretion of the chair, of course.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, are we deferring both new clause 21.1 amendments?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes.

Mr. John Finlay: We have to change the number on one of them if we pass them both, but we can leave that too, I guess.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chair, I agree to the two amendments from Reform. The two new clauses from Reform should be discussed after we reach clause 29 and then we'll come back here after.

Mr. Grant McNally: Sure.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Do you agree that amendments R-2 and R-3, which relate to the new clause 21.1, should be studied after clause 29?

(Clause 21.1 deferred)

(Clauses 22 to 28 inclusive agreed to)

(Clause 29—Administrative Regulations)

The Chairman: We are now at clause 29. There is an amendment on page 16. This is a corrected version.

Mr. Bernard Patry: It is the corrected version that

[English]

all the members received. It's that Bill C-6 in clause 29 be amended by replacing line 26 on page 10 with the following:

administrative affairs, including by-laws respecting the holding of meetings in private and the maintenance at its office of minutes of its meetings.

[Translation]

In French, I propose that clause 29 be amended by substituting, on line 23, page 10, the following:

interne, notamment en ce qui touche la tenue de réunions à huis clos et la conservation, à son siège, d'un exemplaire de ses procès-verbaux. (administrative affairs, including bylaws respecting the holding of meetings in private and the maintenance at its office of minutes of its meetings.)

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Because it was difficult to draw specific parameters around what meetings would be open and what meetings would be closed without introducing several new clauses, what happened here, first and foremost, was the addition of these words: “the maintenance at its office of minutes of its meetings”.

By saying that the boards may make by-laws pertaining to the maintenance at its office of minutes of its meetings, we make it implicit that the law expects the boards to have minutes. So saying that they're going to have to come up with by-laws pertaining to minutes suggests that they must have minutes in the first place.

Similarly, we use that strategy to deal with the public meeting problem. That's why we said “including by-laws respecting the holding of meetings in private”. By saying that we expect them to actually come up with by-laws determining what meetings should be held in private, then they're forced by the back door, if you will, to have the majority of the meetings in public. Now theoretically, they could close them all and put them all in private, but I think the reaction from the community and the media would make that a very unacceptable tactic. So that's how we dealt with it.

• 1615

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Keddy, followed by Mr. McNally.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, I find that wording just a bit awkward. I wonder if we wouldn't serve the case better if we went back to clause 21.1, if you'll just let me digress for a minute, and where we say “the board shall prepare minutes of every meeting” we can say “the board shall prepare minutes of every meeting not held in camera”—just put those four words in—“and shall make them available for public consultation”.

It allows the board to hold in camera meetings, which they will need to do from time to time, and it allows for an openness in the process and an openness in the availability of the minutes.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. McNally, Mr. Wilfert and Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: Going back to the amendment, I'm reading in line 24, previous to this line 26, that “a board may make by-laws respecting”. With respect to the difference between “shall” and “may”, if we put in “may”, then the board doesn't have to act on this clause. They can just simply say they don't want to do it. So unless we have the word “shall”, it doesn't have an impact. The board can get around it, I think. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Dunlop.

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: We had thought about that a bit and were very careful to use the word “may”. The day the act comes into force, if the word “shall” is in there, on the very first day the board can't make any decisions until it makes its by-laws. They're hamstrung until they write by-laws if you use the word “shall”.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Wilfert.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I was just curious as to how the minutes are going to be recorded. Are they to be written or taped? And are they kept for three years or five years or until the next ice age?

Mr. Will Dunlop: They are a creature of the federal crown. We're not telling them how to keep their minutes, but they can't destroy them. It's a public record. They may be archived and they may be very old, but we're still going to have them.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Okay. It's just that when you think of minutes, Mr. Chairman, some people.... Unless they are tape-recorded, they are not going to be verbatim minutes, presumably. Just so we're not misleading people that they're going to get every nuance. Okay.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden, followed by Mr. Fournier.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Very quickly, to answer Mr. Keddy's problem, at an in camera meeting, you still have to keep records. You cannot not keep records. The way the act gets around the problem of trying to keep confidentiality is all that these boards come under the Access to Information Act—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Right.

Mr. John Bryden: —and there would be suitable provisions of the Access to Information Act that would protect confidential minutes. On the other hand, the government will always have the opportunity to review these minutes, which is of course the other level of protection you have.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: This amendment provides for the possibility of holding meetings in private. It is unusual for the minutes of private meetings to be made public. So a choice must be made, whether it is private or public.

In my opinion, there is no really valid reason for having a meeting in private. We do not have a good reason. Everything we're discussing here is public knowledge.

I've seen organizations hold preparatory meetings but if journalists are present, then it is made public. I can understand that certain things must be done as a preparation, certain arguments must be presented and people don't want to lose face. It's like training for a hockey game.

But when we are talking about decisions taken by the board, unless someone can convince me otherwise, I don't think anything should be hidden. They should be proud of the decisions they make in the public interest. There's no reason to hide anything from the public.

I'll vote against this amendment because I am against in camera meetings.

• 1620

The Chairman: Mr. Dunlop.

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: We fully expect that there are a number of valid reasons why the various boards may require to have an in camera meeting—for example, on personnel matters, where the board does employ staff and they may be dealing with a staff issue. One of the boards, the Environmental Impact Review Board, is also able to hire expert advice during its panel testimony, technical specialists, and they may have a personnel matter around that. They are definitely going to have legal matters and there will be solicitor-client privilege discussed, and those should not appear in the public record. And last but not least, when they finish their public hearings and they're going to make their deliberations on how to write up their report and their recommendations, we believe that's in camera. The written decision and the reason for their decisions is public and it's published.

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I still don't agree with the premise here. The original motion on proposed clause 21.1 was about making—

An hon. member: It's now 29.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I understand that. The original motion that we left and went to clause 29 was about making meetings public. When we go to clause 29—I'm going to ask this question to some of the legal experts here—it refers to administrative affairs, including by-laws providing for the maintenance. That doesn't say anything about disclosure; that just says we're willing to keep them in a file providing for the maintenance of the record. That does not allow for public disclosure.

I think if you want to allow for confidentiality, we have to understand that people have to be able to have in camera sessions, for various reasons. If you include the words “in camera” in the original 21.1, you can allow for public disclosure of the minutes. If you go to clause 29, there's absolutely no reason why they have to show anyone those minutes, because all you're saying is that they maintain them, that they keep them.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: In addressing your early comments, this is a negative way of accomplishing what I see as a positive act that I would like to see, and I think it needs somewhere a bias toward openness, not something that might happen if somebody decides to let it happen. If we were to adopt something along these lines because it maybe suits a little better, I would like to at least see something here that gives a bias for openness.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Longfield.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I agree with what Mr. Konrad is saying. I think it can be accomplished in clause 29. And I agree with what Mr. Keddy had said, that while we hope they'll be open, it doesn't say that they're available to the public. Maybe it needs to say “and such minutes available to the public”. And I know what Mr. Bryden is saying: that under the freedom of access it's there. But I think to give everybody more comfort, to suggest that what we're really hoping is that there are public meetings, that there are minutes kept, that there is availability for the public, perhaps in this clause we could just add a few additional words that simply say “which shall be available for public consultation”, really, just taking from your first one.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Longfield.

Mr. Wilfert.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: You could do it that way, but there's this other way of looking at it.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, In clause 29 it talks about giving the public written reasons for its decisions, which I presume meant that it would be open to the public. I know what Mr. Konrad is trying to do. The amendment to clause 29 talked about giving the written reasons; therefore the written reasons will be put in the public.

Mr. Fournier, in your community they have in camera meetings. And if you haven't been to them it was because they're in camera, but they do hold them. They hold in camera meetings for legal land issues and personnel in every community in your riding. And they will hold them, because if they did not, as Mr. Dunlop said, there obviously are other difficulties. So they have to hold them. In fact, I believe that even at the federal government here I've been to an in camera meeting. So they do hold them, and certainly do in your riding.

I thought that was covered here, but if you want to, that's fine. I have no difficulty with that.

• 1625

I think we're tripping over each other to be so open, but the reality is if you advertise a public hearing or a public meeting, it's a public meeting, period. If you advertise that it's public, you will also advertise or give notice that you're going in camera. You can't just snap into an in camera meeting. You give notice you're going into it, and at some point you come out of it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

[Translation]

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I listened to Mr. Dunlop's answer. He explained that in his view in camera meetings were necessary in particular circumstances. Will someone have to justify the holding of a meeting in private if someone is of the opinion that there is no good reason for doing so? Is there someone who will make a ruling on such a matter?

To reply to my colleague opposite, I was a town councillor in Sept-Îles for four mandates. Under Quebec municipal legislation, decisions cannot be taken in camera. Such a proceeding is not legal according to the Department of Municipal Affairs of Quebec. This is not legal in Quebec, only preparatory meetings can be held in camera. I personally was against such preparatory meetings because the subject must be broached in public where proposals can be made and official decisions taken. A town council acts through resolutions and these are public, they take on official form.

It is not legal for a town council to make decisions at an in camera meetings. It may decide to sit in camera but these are considered to be preparatory meetings for a public one.

I'd like to know whether this board, to be publicly funded and supported by the federal government, the government of Canada, is to be subject to legislation allowing it to hold private meetings and for what reasons? Is this allowed under clause 29?

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, because we seem to be at a bit of an impasse, and I still find the clause 29 amendment a bit wordy and to err on the side of simple language, I would like to go back and look and have the rest of the members here look at new clause 21.1 one more time, and simply say, as our partner across the way has just said, “public” may be the word we need. “The boards shall prepare minutes of every public meeting”—just insert “public” in Mr. Konrad's motion—“and shall make them available for public consultation.” Any public meeting can turn into an in camera meeting when need be. What's wrong with that? It's simple language; it's straightforward.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy. Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Keddy's suggestion may well be a good one, but I want to say to my colleague Mr. Fournier that I wouldn't argue with what he's saying. He's quite right. The decisions of an in camera meeting are reported to the whole board and voted on by the whole board, but they are not necessarily discussed in the whole board at all. The decision has been made prior, and this is the way all boards operate.

There is another reason, which I don't think Mr. Dunlop mentioned, but we're talking about development here. We're talking about the use of lands and water. We're talking about mines, and maybe pipelines, and hydroelectric sites, and so on and so forth. In my experience, there are a lot of companies that are not going to walk into an open meeting and say we want that piece of land because we're going to build a hotel there or something.

Mr. John Bryden: Or a diamond mine.

Mr. John Finlay: These things have to be in camera, because otherwise nobody is going to explore the possibilities if they think they're going to alert their competitors or raise opposition that's unnecessary.

• 1630

There must be a dozen clauses in this act where the boards are told they must report, hold a public meeting, accept input, and talk to all the interested parties. I think we're spending a great deal of time on something that is really not terribly important.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I was the mayor of a city of 12,000 for 18 years before coming here as member of Parliament. I was also a town councillor before becoming mayor. I agree with Mr. Fournier that a town council makes its decisions in public. However, when it's a matter or hiring a director general, for example, a lawyer, a clerk or any other employee, these are not matters dealt with in public. Let's assume we want to hire Mr. so-and-so and Ms. so-and-so. You may think that it is not a good idea, she is the co-chairman of another organization or a relative of the director of public works. These are not the sort of things that are said in public.

It's the same thing for unions. There are in camera or preparatory meetings but all decisions are made publicly. Decisions are taken by councils in public, they are not made at private meetings. If, occasionally, they want to dismiss someone, they don't do it before everyone.

There must be the possibility of discussing things in private. However, decisions taken in private meetings are submitted to the council which makes them public. That is something you have to understand.

As for the minutes of meetings, provisions are to be found in the by-laws, in sections 30, 42, 49, 72, 117, 120, 121, 134, 143 and 148 that specify that whenever there is a public meeting, there must be minutes. This is already a requirement under the by-laws.

It seems to me that this becomes redundant. We could note in all sections that there must be minutes for each public meeting. There will be for the different public meetings. As for the private meetings, the councils will decide themselves what may or may not be discussed. If legal counsel is to be engaged, why should the services of X be preferred to those of Y? These matters can be discussed but not before the legal firms concerned. That is how I understand it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry. We're now down to our 16th speaker.

Messrs. Bryden, Wilfert and Fournier.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I really didn't believe that saying “by-laws respecting the holding of meetings in private” makes it implicit that meetings are to be held in public, unless rules are made that describe the conditions under which they will be privatized, as it were. I'm not very happy with any in camera meetings, I have to add. Nevertheless, I think we have to leave a certain amount of discretion to the people who are going to be working under this act.

Secondly, I think we might get a little more comfort in the direction of Mr. Konrad's idea—and Judi and I were discussing this—if we add a few words at the end of the sentence saying “the maintenance at its office of minutes of its meetings be made available for public disclosure”. Judi has here, “pursuant to the Access to Information Act”, but that is in the legislation now.

The Access to Information Act in section 19 deals with privacy and there are a lot of protections of privacy of individuals and ordinary citizens in the Access to Information Act in section 19 and the Privacy Act. What's not protected is the hiring and remuneration, for example, of public servants. So public servants do have to disclose, in the general sense, under the Privacy Act.

I think that spirit would allow a lot of flexibility for these boards. They would want to have most of their minutes open to the public, and the only things that would be closed in those minutes would be things that were actually restricted under the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act.

• 1635

But if we put those extra words in, “available for public consultation or for public disclosure”, then we answer Mr. Konrad's problem, in that we say the intention is to be public with this material. That would only apply to minutes, not the holding of meetings in private, because that's very explicit. If meetings are held in private, they're held in private, and that's it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

[Translation]

We've now reached our 17th speaker. Things are clicking along. Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I'll be brief. I'm largely in agreement with Mr. Patry and I think he will agree with me because he has experience of the kind of private meetings we held. We would meet together in camera on Monday afternoon and have a public meeting the same evening. So the afternoon meeting was a preparatory one.

I don't know whether you've had the same experience as I've had. At the afternoon meeting, we would say: I'll be making such and such a proposal, do you agree? We would come to an agreement but over supper, three councillors might change their mind. In the evening at the public meeting, the decision would be overturned. That's an example.

So it is impossible to draft minutes for a private meeting. There's no provision for it in the Municipal Code. We could note that the boards can have preparatory meetings for their public meetings, that is to make the necessary preparations but that no official decisions can be made in such in camera meetings.

We must always provide explanations on why a particular firm was chosen. If a journalist asks about our choice, we have to provide a public explanation. But we will have prepared one ahead of time.

That's the point I wanted to make. I agree that they will have meetings in private but it is impossible to have minutes for such meetings because decisions cannot be taken. They are preparatory meetings.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Konrad, do you have something to add?

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: It's wise to take what you can get when something is offered.

Mr. John Bryden: We tried very hard.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you. It doesn't go as far as I'd like to see it go, but I can support what you've proposed with the addition at the end of making the minutes available to the public. Paragraph 30(1)(b) basically gives the protection you're talking about under the Access to Information Act anyway.

Mr. John Bryden: So what are you suggesting?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: You're saying you could support our amendment—

Mr. Derrek Konrad: To the amendment.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: —which simply says “and made available for public disclosure”. Do you want “pursuant to the Access to Information Act”?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: No, I wouldn't need that, because paragraph 30(1)(b) gives that.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay, “and made available for public disclosure”.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Yes.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Chair, could we ask the staff?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Longfield, it's your turn.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Dunlop, are we getting ourselves in trouble? It's implicit in the Access to Information Act anyway.

A voice: We don't need to refer to it then.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: But if it gives some comfort....

Mr. Will Dunlop: When Mr. Bryden first spoke, I thought he was making it pursuant to the Access to Information Act, which in fact restricts the availability, because for someone to read the minutes, they would now have to file for access to information. So it was actually making it more exclusive than inclusive.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay, so if we just said “and made available for public disclosure”, period...?

Mr. Will Dunlop: That's safer.

Mr. John Bryden: How about “for public consultation”? Would those words be a little better for you?

Mr. Will Dunlop: Or “made available in the public record”.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: How about “for public review”?

Mr. John Bryden: “Public consultation” or “public review”—whatever.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: “Review” is better.

Mr. John Bryden: They're the experts down there.

What do you think, guys?

Ms. Suzanne Grenier (Legal Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): The only problem is we are putting “the minutes”. We are not specifying which minutes the public will have access to, and that can include the minutes of the meetings in private.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: That would be subject to the Access to Information Act.

Ms. Suzanne Grenier: But this act is now giving the power to the public to have access. They don't need to go through the Access to Information Act to have access to the information. They could just say, “Pursuant to section 29, I want access to your minutes.” They wouldn't need the Access to Information Act any more if the power were in your act. So we are broadening. Anybody can go to the office and ask for information, and if we don't limit it, then it's open.

The way we had it before, the by-laws would tell what would or would not be public. The board will be bound by the by-laws, and we'll have to respect that fact.

• 1640

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Excuse me, but Mr. Wilfert asked to speak. I'm being very patient. It's a good bill and I'm starting to like it.

Mr. Wilfert.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'm not sure whether I'm reliving the Abbott and Costello “Who's on First?” act or not.

It's a public meeting. You declare the public meeting. The date is January 1, 1998. The minutes would be available from the meeting of January 1, 1998. I presume you specify that.

On the in camera meetings for the disposition of land, legal, contracts, personnel matters, I'd ask a question. If you are in fact discussing it in camera, to me it is not legal until those minutes are ratified in a public session. My understanding is that it's no different in Quebec from what it is in Ontario. The decision cannot be enforced until it's been made public. You'd specify what dates you're talking about here, but it's a public meeting. If you're going to advertise it as a public meeting, then it's open to the public.

Mr. Keddy, I agree. Why are we trying to make this.... I'm going to go to the dentist to get my teeth pulled out rather than.... This seems to be so complicated. It's not complicated. What is difficult?

You're saying this is public, but under these circumstances this is not going to be public. This says you're going to deal with it in camera. You're going to have access to the information because you're going to have a public record at the town hall or the fire station—I don't care, wherever it is—where you're saying you're going to keep those records. You're going to advertise it publicly. What could be more straightforward? If we want the public to have access, why are we making it so convoluted in order for them to get that access?

The Chairman: Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Wilfert, for me, it's also simple, but we've been discussing it for over thirty minutes because it's too simple.

Public meetings are public meetings. Everywhere in the bill, where it says it's public, the minutes are available according to the by-laws. They're going to say “municipal”, and it could be fifteen days or thirty days after the meeting. It doesn't matter when it's there, because it's there, period. It's probably there everywhere in the country now.

When you are going in camera, à huis clos, it's written in private, and the maintenance of the minutes of the meeting is at the office now if they keep them.

“In camera” doesn't mean they're going to make decisions in camera. You can have a discussion in camera and not make any decisions; if you don't make any decisions, they're not going to go to the board afterwards, but you still could have some minutes. Depending on what you're discussing in camera at that time, though, if you don't want to get into disclosure because you're discussing a diamond mine or, I don't know, anything like that, at that time you need to keep this meeting's minutes inside, in the physical place where they're going to hold the meeting. They hold the minutes of the meeting, and afterwards if anyone would like to get them through access to information, they're going to request it. But if we say to the board that they need to give them at that time, everyone will be able to get all the minutes.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: No, that's not what I was saying.

Mr. Bernard Patry: But that's the point.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Monsieur—

Mr. Bernard Patry: That's the way I feel about it.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Wilfert.

[Translation]

Mr. Keddy asked to speak.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I was even more patient, because you tripped all over here.

[Translation]

The Chairman: It's like a hockey game. After the first period, we don't know what's happening.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Who's on first?

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

The Chairman: I wanted to say something.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, can I make a motion?

[Translation]

The Chairman: It's your privilege.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I would move that we go back to Mr. Konrad's original motion of new clause 21.1, and vote on it. I would make an amendment to that motion to add “public” in front of “meeting”, so that it reads, “The board shall prepare minutes of every public meeting and shall make them available for public consultation.”

Let's get a vote on it and move to clause 29.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Shall we go on to clause 21.1?

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: No, I disagree totally. We said in the beginning that we'd go first to clause 29. We have to finish 29 and then get back to clause 21, because I feel 21 is redundant. Every meeting needs to be public if that's put in every section.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I say we vote on 21.1.

• 1645

[Translation]

The Chairman: Do you agree to finishing clause 29?

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: He has a motion to a motion. He has a motion that we go on clause 21. You're going to vote on the motion to go back on clause 21, and if it's defeated we'll finish clause 29.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The reason for that, Mr. Chairman, is that I think many of us find clause 29 to be very difficult language. I understand the premise of it. I think the premise in clause 21.1 is exactly the same if you add the word “public”.

[Translation]

The Chairman: If we go back to clause 21.1, we will require unanimous consent.

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Chairman, we cannot vote on the principle that in camera meetings are to be held. We must vote on the proposition that meetings are to be public. Nothing prevents the board from having meetings in private but they cannot be considered official. No official decisions will be made there. They are preparatory meetings. There is nothing that prevents us from meeting before a meeting.

It's a bit like a hockey team. You don't start counting goals before the game begins, but you can get together to talk about strategy. So there is nothing preventing the board from having a meeting before.

We cannot vote on the principle that meetings are to be held in private. A hockey game held in private is something impossible.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, can we have unanimous consent to go back to clause 21.1?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Do we have unanimous consent to go back to clause 21.1?

We do not have unanimous consent. Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: With the amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: There never will be. We are not going to change our minds.

The Chairman: Let's move on to clause 29. We are voting on the amendment to clause 29.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: What did you say, Mr. Chairman, I didn't understand.

The Chairman: We are going to vote on amendment G-6, the new amendment tabled earlier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Would you put me down as voting against clause 29?

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I'll move to adopt this amendment if you wish, Mr. Chairman. Do you need a motion for the vote?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Which amendment?

Mr. John Bryden: The amendment to clause 29, G-6 I guess it is. I think the corrected version adds the words to—

[Translation]

The Chairman: Excuse me. Mr. Patry asked me to go directly to G-6.

Mr. Bernard Patry: It's clause 29 on page 10. Mr. Bryden is moving a subamendment to clause 29.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: No, I'm not. I'm proposing moving the amendment as written.

The Chairman: Okay, as written.

Mr. John Bryden: Oh, he's already done it? Well, then I'll second it.

The Chairman: Okay, that's fine.

[Translation]

I will read the amendment to clause 29. We move that Bill C-6 in clause 29 be amended by replacing line 26 on page 10 with the following:

administrative affairs, including by-laws respecting the holding of meetings in private and the maintenance at its office of minutes of its meetings.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'm just trying to figure out if the average guy on the street would know what the heck that meant.

An hon. member: No, I don't think they they will.

The Chairman: Monsieur McNally.

• 1650

Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Chairman, could I ask for a recorded vote on this one so we know who voted which way?

[Translation]

The Chairman: We can hold a recorded vote.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: Maybe they all are, I don't know.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I go along with the recorded vote.

The Chairman: That's what we'll do, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I don't want to be associated with the idea of in camera meetings.

The Chairman: No. We know your opinion, Mr. Fournier. We will have a recorded vote.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: We can talk about it again one day when we are not sitting in camera.

[English]

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I have a hard time understanding this.

Mr. John Bryden: You have to vote one way or another. The roll is called.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I like the idea but I don't like the English in it.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Christine Fisher): Ms. Karetak-Lindell, I'm sorry, we can't have a debate at this point.

Mr. John Bryden: You have to decide one way or another.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We are voting, Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Follow your heart.

A voice: No lobbying on the other side.

The Clerk (Ms. Christine Fisher): Abstain.

Mr. Bernard Patrie: Nobody can abstain.

Mr. John Bryden: There's no abstention in this world; there shouldn't be anyway.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I'm going to abstain because I don't understand it.

Mr. John Bryden: You can't abstain; you have to vote one way or another. We didn't come here to abstain. You can't abstain.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I don't understand the English in it.

Mr. John Bryden: You have to vote as you feel you must vote. Often I sit in the House of Commons and I'm not quite sure what goes on.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Karetak-Lindell may leave the room.

[English]

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I'm going to vote for it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: She may leave the table.

The Clerk (Ms. Christine Fisher): Yeas, 5; nays, 5.

[English]

The Chairman: I vote yes.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, you've done some good work.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I know it is written for the board, but is it not also written for the public? I understand what Nancy's saying. The difficulty is if you're going to have this kind of meeting—the maintenance in its offices of the minutes—I presume we're drafting these not only for the board but for the public. If the public were to review that, how will it be translated in terms of...how will you operationalize that?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Wilfert, those present at these meetings and those in charge of the board will be taking on a great responsibility, like the mayors of Canadian and Quebec towns.

In any case, people eventually get wind of what takes place at in camera meetings in municipalities. People always find out through someone else. The members of the board will have a great responsibility and we are putting a lot of trust in them.

• 1655

The Committee Clerk (Mr. Charles Bellemare): We can adopt clause 29 first and come back...

The Chairman: I will wait for Mr. Keddy and Mr. Patry. Ms. Longfield, we have now reached clause 29.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay, with respect to clause 29, I think it's fair to say that a number of us are all trying to reach the same view.

Correct me if I'm wrong. These minutes are open and available to the public under the Access to Information Act. But how difficult is it going to be to get these minutes? Is that something that we're going to see in the by-laws? And could the by-laws restrict the availability of the minutes?

The Chairman: Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Will Dunlop: It can certainly restrict the availability of your in camera minutes.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, and that's fair, and I don't think we're concerned. I'm talking about the minutes of the public meetings.

Mr. Will Dunlop: Right. We assume they'll be on the counter amnd when you go to the board office you can go through the ring binder and read the minutes.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay. I guess what some of us were trying to find was something to put there so that it gave other people comfort. I believe that they are available, and so when it came to supporting it, I supported it with that understanding. I think that needs to be uppermost, that those minutes are—

Mr. John Finlay: They are always—

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I understand that, but we were having a great deal of difficulty. Because of that we have members on our own side having difficulty with this amendment as it was written.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We shall continue the debate. We know that we have to continue with clause 29.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Clause 29 is concluded.

The Chairman: No, it isn't concluded. We adopted an amendment.

The Clerk (Mr. Charles Bellemare): No, we are voting to adopt clause 29 as amended.

The Chairman: We have to adopt clause 29 as amended. I don't want a long debate but some people have asked to speak. It's a matter of fair play.

Mr. Dunlop.

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: Just as a point of comfort to members, I realize we have not gotten to clause 30, but I would just like to point out to members—and I know I do that at risk—that if the board tries to make a rule about its practice or its procedure in dealing with applications, they must pre-publish that rule in the Canada Gazette. It is available before they can create such a rule. They cannot make a rule to keep everything public. They'll never get away with it.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: You mean private.

Mr. Will Dunlop: Private. Sorry.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dunlop. Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I can't help reacting to the comment made by my colleague opposite, Ms. Longfield. It reminds me of the time when I was the president of a union and the foreman told us we were entitled to verbal warnings. We called them verbal warnings but in fact they were written warnings. He gave us a verbal warning but he wrote it down. It was included in the file.

Ms. Longfield says that in camera meetings were held but that the minutes will be public. They will no longer be in camera.

I maintain that in Quebec municipalities are not entitled to hold in camera meetings. They can get together to prepare for something, just like a hockey team, but they are not entitled to have an in camera meeting. There are not minutes for an in camera meeting.

The Chairman: You are quite sensible, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't even know if this is the place to say this, but having said that, I will say it. It's a long process here. We have a lot of work to do and we all know it and we're all having a lot of preambles. I would like to make one comment. I don't see this committee as.... I understand that we're all here representing partisan politics, but hopefully at the committee level we can put some of that aside, and if we see that one amendment is better than another amendment, then we should go to that, and leave “our side, their side, your side, my side” out of it if we can.

Mr. John Bryden: Absolutely.

• 1700

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. I appreciated this discussion. There was a frank exchange of views. You are a good team. In any case, if this bill is passed, it will be a for long time. It's better for us to take on our responsibilities immediately. We'll now vote on clause 29 as amended. Shall clause 29 carry?

Mr. Grant McNally: No, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. McNally, I apologize. I had your name down but I let myself get carried away.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: No problem. I've been forgotten by many people in my life.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Not by me.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: Not so far.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. McNally, not by me. You have the floor.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: On a related point, the first comment I made about “may” and “shall,” if I could ask our departmental people, are there any provisions...? To me, with this word “may,” “may make by-laws,” there's no.... I know you talked about it briefly. If we had “shall make by-laws within a certain time period to set up....” Otherwise, it looks to me as though there are no specifics. I think a board should get together and decide where they're going to go and what the rules and the by-laws are. But it looks to me like...not that it would ever happen, but there could be an escape clause here for the board to do their own thing without making by-laws.

Maybe I'm reading something into it that's not there, but we have “shall” in a number of other places. If we said something like a board shall make by-laws about how they are going to carry on their business within a certain time period, would that work? I understand the legal ramifications you mentioned earlier.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Dunlop.

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: I believe if you use the word “shall,” it would be prudent to give them some period of time within which to create the by-law.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We are going to vote on clause 29 as amended.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I cannot vote for clause 29 as amended. I am against it.

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier asks for a recorded vote. We shall proceed immediately.

[English]

(Claude 29 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will now turn to clause 21.1, amendments R-2 and R-3.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I can live with that.

[Translation]

Mr. John Bryden: If we don't have the minutes of informal meetings, that would be a problem for me. I'd prefer to have in camera meetings because we will have minutes. For informal meetings, it's impossible.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden. You speak good French. You've been hiding it.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: He's good, isn't he?

The Chairman: Yes, congratulations. We'll continue with clause 21.1.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: There are five against and six in favour.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I understood the opposite.

• 1705

The Chairman: Would you repeat the results of the vote, please? Mr. Fournier asked me a question, he wanted to know how the vote on clause 29 turned out.

The Clerk (Ms. Christine Fisher): The vote was six yeas and five nays.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Thank you. There were lots of people talking.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier. We'll now move on to clause 21.1, amendment R-2 from the Reform Party.

Mr. Konrad moves:

21.1 The boards shall prepare minutes of every meeting and shall make them available for public consultation.

Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Well, I think I've already spoken to this, but this just gives the requirement for openness in the act to ensure that the minutes of every meeting will be made available. As I said before, this doesn't contravene any other requirement for in camera meetings or the protection of trade secrets and that type of thing. That's because this would still be subject to paragraph 31(1)(b).

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad, thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: The new clause reads:

21.1 The board shall prepare minutes of every meeting and shall make them available for public consultation.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: You can't be against it.

The Chairman: Is there a debate?

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I simply wanted to note that

[English]

it's redundant. It's in the bill. Look at all the clauses. I'll repeat them.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You've said it twice. We'll take note of it.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Clauses 30, 42, 49, 72, 117, 120, 121, 134(2), 143 and 148 are already there. It's redundant to say that. I'm not going to say I like the apples because I like the apples. It's there. It's further in the bill. We don't need to put it in in every section.

On top of that, as for the way it's written concerning every meeting including in camera ones, we discussed that, and we don't want to have that in camera. This is the reason we're against it. Every section is in the bill right now.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I had you repeat it for the interpreters so they were able to get the numbers right.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Sometimes we speak too quickly.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Mr. McNally.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Patry, could you give us those numbers again a little more slowly?

Mr. Bernard Patry: These are clauses 30, 42, 49, 72, 117, 120, 121, 134(2), 143 and 148.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry, you're very patient.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Not as patient as you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. We'll now vote.

(The amendment is negatived)

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Can I ask a question on subsection 21(2)? It says:

(2) Subject to the by-laws of a board, any member may participate in a meeting—

Mr. Bernard Patry: No, it isn't that one, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: No?

Mr. Bernard Patry: That one was carried.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: That one was adopted?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Where was I?

Mr. Bernard Patry: I don't know, I didn't notice.

The Chairman: You were reading your document on the bill. That's what happened.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Thank you. It went by unnoticed. We can't read everything because everyone is talking at the same time.

Mr. Bernard Patry: No, it was proper procedure.

The Chairman: It seems to me we adopted it as a whole.

• 1710

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: There was no discussion.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes.

The Chairman: And everything went well.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Did it?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Things are getting out of hand.

The Chairman: We'll now go on to R-3. Mr. Konrad moves that Bill C-6 be amended by adding after line 43 on page 8 the following:

21.1 A board shall allow members of the public to attend its meetings.

Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: It's a little bit the same as the previous one. It's redundant. If it's a public meeting, it means that it's public and the people are allowed to attend the meeting.

[Translation]

In French, if they're public meetings, then people can attend them. It doesn't have to be specified in a clause.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Where do you see that? In which section?

Mr. Bernard Patry: It's—

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: It's the amendment, but in the bill?

Mr. Bernard Patry: There isn't any in the bill. These are new clauses that are not in the bill.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: But why do you not want to have it included in the bill?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Simply because a public meeting—

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Where is it indicated?

Mr. Bernard Patry: There is no indication. They say that when it's public, it's always public.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: But where is it stated that these are public meetings?

Mr. Bernard Patry: It's stated in several places, in the clauses I listed previously.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: And why shouldn't we be able to add it?

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier—

Mr. Bernard Patry: If it's a public meeting, it's public. When the town council says that there will be a public meeting on the 1st of each month, people know it's public.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Does this go against the interests of anyone or anything?

Mr. Bernard Patry: It doesn't go against anyone's interests. We don't add things to enact simply for the sake of repetition. It's already included. That's all I can say. It's part of the Act.

The Chairman: The doors are going to have to be unlocked. Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: In one of the clauses you quoted, clause 30, I don't see where it says it's particularly public. It says you can make a written submission, but I don't see where it says it's a public meeting or open to the public to attend. Maybe you could enlighten me.

Mr. Bernard Patry: It was regarding a previous clause. It was not about this public meeting. It was about the previous amendment you requested. That's why I named them.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Yes, but you referred to them again just a moment ago.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes. Sure.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Before I give up on this proposal, I would like you to specifically point to where this is redundant.

Mr. Bernard Patry: It's because when there are these Monday meetings when you have hearings it is public, and if it's public, there are minutes and these minutes are available to the public.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Is it in the bill?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Where?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. Fournier. Mr. McNally asked to speak before.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Chairman, you forgot me twice in the same day. I'm just kidding.

We need to look at what the interpretation of this is. I would agree with Mr. Konrad that it's the board making rules under.... Looking at clause 32, one of the ones Mr. Patry noted, I'm reading it as though interested persons can then submit written responses to the board, which I think is a little...maybe it's the interpretation of that.

Mr. Bernard Patry: No. It's fine. When Mr. Konrad asked me the question, he referred to paragraph 30(1)(b), but if you go to subclause 30(2), “Before making rules under this section, a board shall publish notice of its intention in the Canada Gazette and in a newspaper circulated in the Mackenzie Valley”, that means they're inviting interested persons to submit written representation to the board with respect to the proposals within 30 days after the publication of notice.

It's there in every clause. I gave you the numbers previously. It's there. It means there are public meetings, and if it's public, it's open to the public.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: That's in evidence.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. McNally.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you. Done.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. McNally, you have the floor. I wasn't going to forget you.

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I don't understand. After all, Mr. Patry is a wise man. I don't understand why he is against this. We can never be too clear in a legal text. Mr. Konrad's amendment is very clear. It says without any ambiguity that members of the public may attend the meetings of a board. It couldn't be any clearer.

• 1715

It's true that there are some references to what is public. This is a very clear amendment and there's no reason to be against it. What does it matter if we add a short sentence? If members of the public are entitled to attend, so be it. What does that take away from you?

The Chairman: Ms. Longfield.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Fournier, reading this, it says “A board shall allow members of the public to attend its meetings.” If there's an in camera meeting, and I come to this part of the act, it says that the board shall allow me to attend. This one is so broad that it's not accomplishing what you want, because now if there were an in camera meeting and this were in the act, the public could attend the in camera meeting, and that's not what we want.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Longfield. We'll now have the vote.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Can we have a recorded vote?

The Chairman: Yes, certainly Mr. Fournier. A good idea, we'll have a recorded vote.

Mr. Keddy, I'm sorry.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Can I hear the amended clause before the vote? Can we have it read one more time?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes, it is moved that Bill C-6 be amended by adding after line 44 on page 8 the following:

Public meetings.

21.1 A board shall allow members of the public to attend its meetings.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: I want to clarify for Mr. Keddy, because the translators could tell you it's line 43. In the English version, it's line 44.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

[Translation]

(Clauses 30 to 41 are carried)

(Clause 42—Public notice)

The Chairman: The Progressive Conservative Party proposes two amendments.

The first motion is from Mr. Keddy. He moves that Bill C-6 in clause 42 be amended by replacing line 19 on page 14 with the following:

settlement area and in other communities in the Mackenzie Valley a notice inviting interested

[English]

In English:

settlement area and in other communities in the Mackenzie Valley a notice inviting interested....

[Translation]

Mr. Keddy.

• 1720

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The reason I inserted that clause is because the entire watershed area is interconnected, and quite often we're going to have developments that are going to affect other areas outside of their specific settlement area. This enables people who may be downstream of a settlement area to at least be heard at the public hearings. It enables them presentation. It doesn't mean that they will win the day or that their case will be the one that comes out the winner—though I hate to say winners and losers here. But it allows them representation.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I think the intent is not bad, but I think it's impractical. Some of these distances between communities could be 600 or 700 miles, which is a long way to involve other people. I think if it were restricted to communities that may be affected.... This refers to planning, not to a particular development or an environmental review. It's simply how they plan to use their land. I can't see where somebody 600 miles away should have a say in that.

The purpose of setting these up was to create autonomous regions, or semi-autonomous anyway, where people would have control over development in their region according to a plan that they're making. If it's along the borders that's one thing, but if it's sort of between the Gwich'in and the South Slave, that seems kind of like overkill.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I have some sympathy for this, because there is a danger. If a notice of meeting is not given wide distribution, that is a very effective way of restricting debate.

I think maybe “and in other communities in the Mackenzie Valley” is perhaps too specific and thereby too broad, but maybe other words just suggesting.... Other words like they “shall widely publish” or “shall publish both within and beyond the settlement area” might be a way of getting around the problem. Certainly you wouldn't want them just in the one area.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The reason we put in the words “and in other communities in the Mackenzie Valley” is to allow anyone access to the debate that is required. What it says is, these people aren't coming to this debate as voting members. It's stating “A planning board shall publish in the settlement area a notice inviting interested persons to examine at specified times and places a draft of the land use plan prepared by it.” So it's allowing people access to the process. They are not determining the process.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I wanted to ask whether this would give rise to additional spending.

Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: I fully understand, Mr. Keddy, about this. The provision of this bill is that if something is going in one area, the whole valley should be involved with this. I fully agree with this.

There are three newspapers in the Mackenzie Valley—The Inuvik Drum, The Yellowknifer, and News of the North—and they're all valley-wide. This is why we didn't precisely specify in the draft of this bill that it should be.... I understand, and I agree with you, but all the newspapers are valley-wide.

That means if they put a notice in any of the newspapers like The Inuvik Drum, it's going to go from the top to the bottom of the valley, and the same with the other newspapers. This is the reason it was not put in the draft. But I agree with you, and the intention is to get the whole valley to deal with this. I fully agree with you, but for me it's a little bit redundant, because it is done by the newspaper.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, assuming that newspaper is there next month, or next year, or the year after. There is no requirement—the newspaper does not work for the government.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I apologize for making you wait, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Dunlop.

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: We were quite careful with how we worded this, knowing that they only have a choice of three newspapers. I think Dr. Patry read them out correctly. Unlike the eastern Arctic, where the Nunatsiaq News has a large circulation, in the Mackenzie Delta in the Inuvik area they have The Inuvik Drum and the two newspapers published in Yellowknife—The Yellowknifer and News of the North. Those are their only three choices. All three newspapers are valley-wide. They're distributed throughout the western Arctic.

• 1725

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Today.

Mr. Will Dunlop: Yes.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Keddy's point is a valid one that the situation with respect to the newspapers is now, but what about in the future?

May I make a suggestion? Why have the words “in the settlement area” at all? Why not just say “ A planning board shall publish notices inviting interested persons...”? If you pluralize“ notices”, then they're going to have to publish in more than one newspaper.

The danger right now is the settlement area could have its own newspaper, a very limited circulation, and as the law now reads that would be the only area required to publish a notice. Take out “in the settlement area”, just pluralize “notices”, and you're going to get valley-wide publication.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask what the thinking or what the background is to putting in.... I know it's land use, and hence it's settlement lands that the land use plans are directed at. That may be the mindset here.

Mr. Dunlop, when we get to water use or when we get to resources, does the wording change? I don't want to step on the toes of the Gwich'in and the Sahtu by saying that what they want to do with their lands shall be published all over the valley, if it has no environmental implication.

The Deh Cho would agree with that, from what they've said to us. If it's land use planning in today's world, it does have an environmental implication. I see nothing wrong with publishing it throughout the valley, unless we're going to run into trouble from the sensitivities of the first nations that have made land settlements or the sensitivities of those that haven't yet.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

[Translation]

Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: As a land surveyor, I work with planning a fair bit. I can assure you that when somebody wanted to propose a plan in the north part of the province that was only 400 miles away, never mind 700 or 800 miles away, nobody in Regina at the south end of the province cared to be advised. We're talking about humongous distances.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We are talking about huge distances.

We also heard dissertations from the Sahtu and the other bands who live at the mouth of the Mackenzie River, downstream of any development that's going to occur.

We all understand that any mining company or any developer can come out with government regulations they have to abide by. We help to set those regulations that will say tomorrow morning you can put 0.0002 parts per million or per billion of mercury into the water. That's the rules you live by and that's what goes in it.

The people downstream of that heavy metal will have an accumulation of that deposit, and this could be 400 miles downstream. I'm not pretending to be a scientist, but it is a problem.

All I want is for the bill, in very simple language, to be able to accommodate other communities in the Arctic. They can have some input during the beginning of the discussions.

You have to say “settlement area”, because that's the area you're discussing at the time. You have to include other communities in the Arctic. You're not saying other communities decide what happens in the settlement area, but they do have an input.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Ms. Longfield.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Having sat on municipal planning boards, it's been my experience that as long as you publish and they know where you're publishing, people who have any specific interest in that area will be constantly monitoring the papers in this area and they will get to—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It won't come 2,000 miles away.

• 1730

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Part of what we're talking about is that they know what's happening. Mr. Konrad has suggested that they're not going to come. They're not going to come, whether you publish it in there and hand-deliver it to their house or whether you publish it only in the settlement area.

If you start to move and say sometimes you're going to publish here and sometimes you're going to publish there, there's a problem. But if everything is published in the settlement area, then it's incumbent upon those who may have an interest in there to find out, and if they choose to come, they can. We put an onerous task on any board to have to go valley-wide.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Longfield. In the Val d'Or region community radio is very strong in the towns and villages.

Mr. Wilfert.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: If you designate the vehicle in which you're going to be publishing the notice, that's sufficient. As long as you're clearly designating that this is the vehicle where it will always be published, as Ms. Longfield indicates, people who are going to follow this will always look at that publication.

Normally the practice is you designate publication X, whether it's a major newspaper, cable TV, or whatever it happens to be, but they know that is always the vehicle and you're not switching. That's steady practice.

[Translation]

The Chairman: In conclusion, Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: One reason I support Mr. Keddy's proposal is we must remember we're talking about a huge territory that's sparsely populated. It's not quite the same thing in southern Ontario or Quebec, where there's dense population and there are a great many expert interests in planning and various areas, and they have the resources to monitor it. It would appear to me that anything that happens in one settlement area in the valley has the potential of affecting other areas.

I just don't see any problem, particularly after what Mr. Dunlop said, in adopting what Mr. Keddy is suggesting, because it's not going to be onerous. The newspapers are already publishing valley-wide, so I don't see why it would create a problem.

I wonder if the officials have any specific thoughts about why it would be a problem.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

We have to leave to vote. I'd like to ask you whether you want to come back this evening.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Okay.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Dunlop.

[English]

Mr. Will Dunlop: Just let me point out to members that the clause 35 they've adopted has in it paragraph 35(c), which says the guiding principle of the land use planning board is to involve the participation of first nations, residents, and the communities of that settlement area.

When we got to clause 42, we were trying to make sure the board has to publish its draft plan in the settlement area. It has to give notice so people know it's available and they can come and see the draft of the plan. The public participation is already guaranteed. This is the minimum the board must do. They have to publish in that area. And indeed, when they do publish, it's valley-wide.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

We'll adjourn until tomorrow. I don't like to try to do things too quickly. If you agree, tomorrow afternoon we can deal with the vote on the first amendment of the Progressive Conservative Party. Do you agree on that?

The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 3:30 p.m. in room 701.