Public Safety Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. Mr. Lee, ask your question.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

In clause 4 and in some other clauses, I see the insertion of hyphens. I haven't seen a lot of this before. When reading it, it gives the appearance of hyphens being treated as huge big commas or higher echelon commas or pauses. I see hyphens in English and not in French or hyphens in French and not in English. I'm not used to seeing them.

Can the drafters indicate if this is a new technique and where it came from? Is the justice department drafting according to Hoyle or what?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

The question has been posed. It's actually on the next clause.

While we're waiting for Mr. Comartin to come up with his wording, Mr. Mungall.

[Richard Mungall]

Mr. Lee, I'm no longer a legislative counsel, but I can say one of the current techniques used in legislative drafting is the use of what's technically called the em dash. I don't immediately have all the rules respecting its use and so on, but it is a recognized technique now.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Is the em dash an accentuated comma or something less than a semicolon? What is its purpose? Why don't we use commas?

[Richard Mungall]

Not being legislative counsel, I would hesitate to necessarily equate it so.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

We're lucky, Mr. Chair, because we have a legislative counsel here. Why don't we ask the legislative counsel?

[Richard Mungall]

I think it's probably used more in a parenthetical sense, much like the comma but with greater emphasis.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

It's much like the function the committee serves here today, according to Mr. Holland.

But could I ask the legislative clerk this? Do you have a comment? Can you answer my question?

I'll have to keep searching for the answer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. Are you ready, Mr. Comartin?

Please read it slowly so that we can get every nuance.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I have the English, but I haven't finished the French. Do you want me to go ahead with the English?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Sure. Go ahead with the English.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'll read it in its entirety.

I move that Bill C-12 in clause 3 be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 2 with the following. The following reads: “inces”, which is the latter part of provinces, “and through the provinces, those of local authorities, and with other entities, if appropriate, emergency management activities”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Monsieur Ménard, is that clear to you? If this amendment is approved, it will be up to our officials to make sure it is exactly the same in French.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 3 agreed to on division)

(On clause 4--Responsibilities--Canada)

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We have two amendments.

Monsieur Ménard, are you prepared to speak to them and move them at this point?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I will simply say that the amendment says what it has to say and its purpose is obvious. Either you agree or you don't. The scope of the paragraph as worded currently is too general. It's states:

(n) in relation to emergency management, conducting exercises in and providing education and training for government institutions;

We wanted to be clearer that this is an area of federal jurisdiction. We are therefore suggesting that the clause refer to assisting the conducting of exercises within government institutions and insuring that these institutions be provided with education and training for emergency management.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Are there any other comments on that?

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Our concern is that the definition of government institutions in clause 2 only applies to federal government agencies. Currently, the federal government provides training through the provinces to a variety of other bodies not limited to the federal government. By putting in that section we would eliminate training we currently provide across the country. We think it limits and would be counterproductive to the provinces taking advantage of training facilities that are offered by the federal government.

There are a variety of things across the country that are not only in provinces but need a national scope for training--maybe in the area of nuclear, and a whole raft of things. So by limiting it to just federal government institutions, it takes away the ability of the provinces to utilize resources of the federal government. I don't think that's necessarily the intent.

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this act is just an umbrella. It's not intended to take away anybody's responsibilities; it's intended that the federal government will provide services to the provinces as they request them, and through the provinces to other bodies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Are there any other comments?

(Amendment negatived on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We'll now go to the second amendment from the Bloc.

Monsieur Ménard, please.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Once again, I think that the wording is clear. In the previous case, the provinces could have been prevented from benefiting from exercises organized by the federal government in areas such as the nuclear sector. In this case, the wording is even more general. We are talking about promoting a common approach to emergency management.

I should point out that I don't really have any objections to the federal government promoting standards and best practices. However, adopting standards or best practices implies mandatory measures. One thing is certain, promoting a common approach to emergency management is paramount to imposing emergency management procedures on the provinces.

Once again, Quebec does not want to force other provinces to do what it is doing. Quebec has created an original system and one that defers from the one developed by the federal government for its own institutions. I believe, given that I propose this, that its way of proceedings was the best one possible. It involves preparation, prevention, response and recovery, PPRR. It is a logical procedure, but it is quite possible that different procedures would be chosen elsewhere.

Maybe I could be convinced otherwise if I were told that it was the federal government's intention to use the procedure that was adopted in Quebec's legislation, however the words being used, that is, “promoting a common approach to emergency management” clearly indicate that the federal government is encroaching on an area that does not fall under its jurisdiction.

I should also point out that some terms are being used that are not quite equivalent in meaning. “Institutions fédérales” is translated by the term “government institutions”. From the perspective of the Interpretation Act, in federal legislation, the term “government” refers to the federal government. In French, we refer to the federal government. I have nothing against that, on the contrary.

Ultimately, I have no objection to the federal government creating specific procedures for the nuclear sector. There are nuclear plants throughout Canada, in at least four provinces, and they present a specific threat. However, I do not believe that I am preventing the federal government from developing procedures for those types of emergencies by adding “for government institutions”.

If you consider the words “promoting a common approach to emergency management”, you realize that they imply a standard emergency management plan throughout Canada. That is what Quebec is opposed to. It wants to manage its emergencies in a way that it considers to be most appropriate. In some cases the federal government has been well ahead of Quebec, but over the past few years, Quebec is well ahead of Canada in some areas. I think this is particularly true in the case of emergency management.

That is why I agree on collaboration to the greatest extent possible between both levels of government when it comes to managing emergencies on the ground. Nevertheless, I believe that the federal government has to respect Quebec's jurisdiction. Adding those words would mean that those procedures fall under federal jurisdiction only.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I think Mr. Ménard's arguments actually illustrate why the proper wording is here now. He's illustrated and told us about Quebec's plan, and we agree with it. What this would do now is allow the federal government to promote that as a best practice across the country.

It's not intended to limit. It only talks about encouraging and promoting. My understanding is that all of the provinces have been consulted on the act, all of them are in agreement on it, and that there was a federal-provincial agreement in January of 2005 where these issues were addressed and agreed upon by the provinces.

If you look at the wording in the existing act, Mr. Ménard, I think what you see there is the federal government trying to bring the best practices across the country to the table, but not to impose them on anyone. The provinces have retained and continue to retain their own authority to have their own emergency management act and to address those issues. Quebec, for instance, may have experience in some areas that other parts of the country haven't but may be exposed to. We can use the best practices from Quebec and illustrate that and encourage other provinces to adopt those same policies.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but I think by doing that we start to limit the ability across the country to.... We take away that sort of freedom of the provinces, or opportunity, at least, to learn and to adopt best practices from one province to another. This act was never intended to take away any authority from the provinces, and I think that's the consistent message in it. It's the umbrella body that across the country.... From a federal perspective, ours is to provide training and commonality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie.

Do any of the officials or anyone else have any comment on this?

[Suki Wong]

I simply want to add that we cannot impose standards on any entities in provinces and territories outside of the Government of Canada. When we talk about the adoption of standards, it only applies to federal institutions. I wanted to qualify that section of this provision.

Going back to what Mr. MacKenzie said, it's exactly that. If following the ice storm we found perhaps that Quebec had the best approach to dealing with such emergencies, we would promote that use across Canada. Or if B.C. dealt with forest fires in a way that we thought other provinces would have a means of learning from, we would promote that as well. It would not limit how we work with provinces and territories.