Human Resources Committee on April 26th, 2007

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I imagine a lot more consideration went into it than this private member's bill.

You used an analogy regarding a car. I know that Olivia was nodding along as you made the analogy of the parents and the child.

Olivia, I guess I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on that analogy. You think that's a good analogy, the parents and the car? Yes? Well, you were kind of agreeing with it before.

I'm curious about it, because I want to know. The analogy regarding the car works because parents have authority over their kids, right? That's the whole point of the analogy—or I guess some parents have authority over their kids. Are you implying that the federal government is a parent and the provinces are children in the constitutional relationship?

[Christian Beaulieu]

Not at all. It was just an example that came like that. I didn't imply anything.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

We'll maybe ask the provinces what their thoughts are after, about that analogy.

[Mark McCombs]

I think Maître Beaulieu's example was just with respect to what happens when you make an offer of funds and what the conditions are that are attached. We all know that if we offer the keys to our son or daughter, they come with certain conditions: one, to fill the tank up with gas—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Because you have authority over your son or daughter, right? That's kind of why it works that way.

[Mark McCombs]

But that has nothing to do with the federal and provincial governments, and we don't look at them as father-daughter, father-son, or any of that.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I think my point is made, though.

I want to move on to the Quebec exemption, because I find it an interesting one. I'm curious; is it normal to have a blanket exemption for one specific province in a piece of legislation, and not have it offered to everybody else?

[Christian Beaulieu]

The only act I know where there's a specific reference to Quebec is not this kind of legislation but the harmonization act, the Federal Law—Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1. The purpose of that bill was to recognize the duality of the legal system in Canada, civil law versus common law. That's why, in its preamble, you have a reference to the Quebec Civil Code and Quebec society—but that's it, as far as I know.

[Mark McCombs]

Let me just add that the federal spending power is normally an offer of funding to provinces. The provinces then make decisions whether they want to accept the funds or not, based on the offer and whatever the conditions are.

That's the normal practice. As we mentioned, it's always legislation you see when you're doing these types of things.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I just want it to be clear, though. So in Alberta or New Brunswick or Saskatchewan, do we have the same ability to make that decision? Can our provincial governments take that money and use it to make the best decision for the people in their province?

[Mark McCombs]

The courts have said, on the exercise of the federal spending power, that it is up to the provinces to accept the offer or not.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

So they get the money anyway?

[Mark McCombs]

Well, no, there's an acceptance of the funds or not. It's an in or out situation, depending on how the program is designed. Other programs can be designed for having funding for other reasons.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

To be clear, is that this case for Quebec? Quebec doesn't get the money, then, are you saying?

[Mark McCombs]

I'm not talking about—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

But Quebec gets the money for this bill. If they want the money, they get it and can use it how they want to, according to—

[Mark McCombs]

That seems to be the way the bill is designed.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I just wondered, because I'm from Alberta, and the Alberta government might be curious to know if they have the same ability to opt out and take the money.

No?

[Christian Beaulieu]

In this bill, only Quebec is exempted, from what we can read.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay, and it says “notwithstanding any other provision of this Act”. So there are no conditions at all on Quebec, because it says, “notwithstanding any other provision of the Act”, right?

[Christian Beaulieu]

That's the way we read the act.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay. I find that kind of an interesting piece.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have.

I do want to thank you gentlemen for being here today and answering some of our questions. We will release you now.

I have a bit of committee business to take care of. It should take us a few minutes before we break and then hear from our next panel of witnesses.

If you'd like to pull out the 2007 edition of the report on the Centennial Flame Research Award, I could give those of you who weren't on our committee before a bit of background information.

The amount for the 2007 Centennial Flame Research Award was $4,500 last year. We're suggesting that we keep it at $4,500 this year. Although you see that we have some money in the bank, remember that this money comes from the flame in front of the Parliament buildings. You'll notice there was not a whole lot of money collected from the flame this year, part of the reason being that it was closed for renovations for a large part of the winter. As a matter of fact, from October until April the fountain was closed.

As opposed to raising the amount, which we have done in the past and did in fact do last year, the recommendation of the clerk—which I concur with—is that we leave the amount at $4,500. I'm not suggesting we lower it, because it has to be worthwhile in terms of people taking the time out of their days. And we've always had a hard time attracting a lot of people who are interested.

You have before you the three or four motions we want to recommend. Everything is in the package. The first is that we set the amount at $4,500. The second is that the press release be submitted. The third is that the clerk and the chair be authorized to take any means, including members' householders, to give the award some publicity. It's a great opportunity for people on this committee to advertise through their householders and ten percenters. And the fourth motion is that report be adopted.

My feeling is that we're certainly welcome to discuss this all we want. I don't think there's a big need for discussion. This is more of an FYI, as something we've done in the past. It's pretty much standard procedure going forward, but we do need the authorization of the committee to proceed in this fashion. So if that is all right, I don't necessarily see the need for a lot of discussion.

May I just suggest that we adopt the motions before you?

(Motions agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

We're now going to break for five minutes before we come back to hear our witnesses for the next round.

Thank you very much. We'll suspend the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I call this meeting back to order.

I would like to start off by thanking the witnesses for being here today. I realize that many of you are very busy people. Some of you flew in this morning, some last night. Depending on how geographically far you had to travel, that determined how much time you needed to get here. I do want to thank you for being here.

I realize we have a couple of ministers with us. I realize how busy you individuals are as well. Again, thank you very much for taking the time to be here.

The way things will work is that we will move across the table and give each province seven minutes to outline their thoughts. We will then have the members of Parliament ask question of the witnesses, starting with the opposition and moving around to the government. They will have one round of seven minutes, followed by a couple of rounds of five minutes.

I need to sneak out at 11 o'clock. Ms. Dhalla will step in for me at that point in time.

Once again, thank you very much for taking the time to be here.

Starting with the Government of Prince Edward Island, we have Ms. MacAulay, Deputy Minister of the Department of Social Services and Seniors.

You have seven minutes, please.