Evidence of meeting #3 for Subcommittee on Private Members' Business in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was take.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michel Bédard  Committee Researcher
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Olivier Champagne

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

I'm certainly not in a position to answer that.

Does anyone here know the geography of this area?

11:20 a.m.

Committee Researcher

Michel Bédard

My understanding is that it's close to the base, but not on the base.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

We're asking the federal government to take over something that is not really federal jurisdiction. Maybe it's a purely informal non-governmental thing, and it's not actually run by the municipality. Is that the case?

You can see what I'm getting at. Otherwise we're actually moving in favour of the federal government asserting a power, which it has, to declare works to be for the general benefit but we'd be doing so by the wrong means, I think.

11:20 a.m.

Committee Researcher

Michel Bédard

There's currently an altercation between the residents of the municipality and the Canadian Forces about the contamination of the groundwater.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

It's a non-governmental.... It's not run by the municipality. Is it a purely informal, private effort that's not paid for by the provincial or municipal government?

11:20 a.m.

Committee Researcher

Michel Bédard

The residents of the municipality claim that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces are responsible for the contamination of the water. So the motion calls upon the House of Commons to recognize that this is—

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

No, it's paragraph (b), the take over of the efforts of the Shannon Citizens' Committee to monitor filtration systems in place for those dealing with the contamination of drinking water. I think there is pretty much universal consensus that the contaminants are the fault of the federal government, the military.

The question is whether the Shannon Citizens' Committee is, in fact, just a private group, which doesn't present any difficulties, as opposed to being an actual group that is under the aegis of a government which is, itself, a creation of the provincial government. That's the distinction.

11:20 a.m.

Committee Researcher

Michel Bédard

My understanding of paragraph (b) is that they asked for support from the government, and they're not necessarily asking for any special legal measure of the Constitution to take over the responsibility.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

We'll take over the efforts.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Go ahead, Mr. Toone.

11:20 a.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

I will be brief.

It says: “take over the efforts of the [...] Committee”, but I don't think that is necessarily a problem. Once again, a debate on the issue would be advisable. The Shannon Citizens' Committee does not own the municipality's filtration system. If we talk about taking over the efforts of the Citizens' Committee, we are not saying that we will be nationalizing the municipality's facilities; we simply want to help out the committee. That is what I understand from the text.

That said, I think that you are right: it is somewhat unclear. However, I don't think as you do that it would allow the federal government to control a facility that is there for everyone. I think that the purpose is to support the group in its efforts to obtain suitable drinking water. That is the objective. However, I acknowledge that it could have been better written. Once again, I think that a debate would be a good thing.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

I'm actually not sure it's badly written, but I just don't know the answer to the question. If Madame Michaud were here, she could probably answer this for us right now.

Just to be on the safe side, I don't want to vote against it, because to me it's either perfectly acceptable, or there's a slight potential that it violates one of our four criteria. Would it be okay if we just set this one aside, and then deal with it very briefly once we have the answer to that question?

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

The basic question that I think Mr. Toone is asking is whether it is to support the efforts or to take over the efforts, and superimpose itself upon the—

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

Well, no, the question is not whether it is to support or take over. If it's a private group, then taking it over is not a problem. If it is a group that is actually—and you can't tell from the name—a creature of the municipal government, or a creature of the provincial government, then there is a federal power under the Constitution to take over any public work that Parliament decides is for the general benefit of Canada, but that changes the tenor of the whole thing, and the constitutional meaning of what's in here. I just don't know the answer to that question.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

Go ahead, Mr. Dion.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

I need to know more about the habits of this committee. It's clear that, if you read it this way, your interpretation is the right one, because of the words “take over the efforts”.

Words such as “take over the efforts” are used, and that means to replace them. One wonders if it is the role of the federal government to take over from a private group. However, this committee may be able to accept a certain lack of clarity and let the debate happen in the House, where the motion could be clarified.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

I want to point out again that it is a motion and that it is referred to the opinion of the House, but does this committee want further study before making its final call?

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

In my mind, it doesn't need further study. It is

an awkwardness.

It's not precise, or the proper word. I guess Madame Michaud wanted to say “assist” the group in its role, but it's not what she wrote. Is it sufficient for us to ask for a rewording of the motion, or should we send the motion to debate for our colleagues to clarify after?

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht

I'll get some advice from the panellists in terms of whether or not she could withdraw this motion, or change it at this stage.

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

I would like to raise another question.

11:25 a.m.

Committee Researcher

Michel Bédard

The only power the committee has is to make a recommendation to indicate that a bill or a motion is non- votable. The committee cannot require that a member redraft his motion.

If the committee were to designate the motion non-votable, Ms. Michaud could certainly introduce a similar motion that would take the committee's discussions into account. However, the mandate of the committee is to determine which private members' items are non-votable, using the four criteria.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Would she take our justifications into account? Would she understand why we blocked her motion, or would we simply be sending her the message that this did not go through?

11:25 a.m.

Committee Researcher

Michel Bédard

A report would be made to the House, and since the meeting is public, she could examine the minutes.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Very well.

11:30 a.m.

Committee Researcher

Michel Bédard

If the committee wants to include the reasons why the motion has been deemed non-votable, it is free to do so. However, the motion must meet the criteria. Among others, a motion is non-votable if its topic falls outside federal jurisdiction, or if it is clearly unconstitutional, even if this only applies to a few unfortunate words. We are simply asking for the House to express an opinion on a topic.