Environment Committee on March 1st, 2018

[Karen L. Pearce]

The chair summarized exactly what the objective was, to modernize the language.

This bill was drafted by the Department of Justice in accordance with this policy objective, taking into account federal drafting practices, and going through various revisions and editing to ensure both English and French versions are consistent, as well as consistent with both legal systems in Canada.

The point is that the notion of having this type of expense for administrative services was already in the act, so it was updated accordingly by the professional drafters.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you.

Mr. Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Welcome to the committee.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you. Yes, that's what I want to say. Thank you so much for your invitation. I'm pleased to see all my other colleagues, especially Mr. Aldag. We had such great pleasure to work together on the electoral reform committee. It's good to see you again.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Sure.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Moving on....

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

We're supposed to have fun here.

Ladies and gentlemen, my question pertains to this amendment.

This is not the first time an amendment regarding the make-up of a board has been put forward; it is not the one and only board in Canada.

Under the proposed amendment, the board members appointed by the Governor in Council will be reimbursed for all expenses incurred, as determined by the Governor in Council, for administrative assistance related to the business of the board.

Is this the first time such a provision has been included in a bill intended to create a board or amend its composition? God knows that there have been dozens and dozens of boards in Canada over the past 150 years.

[Rachel Grasham]

I would just really reference what was already said, that this was drafted by Department of Justice drafters. I'm not familiar with terms of references of other boards, so I'm not able to answer the question.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

It could be quite interesting to see. If this is brand new, if we are in a new field of law, if we are in a new field of regulations, if there is no other precedent, well, it could raise some questions. What if this is how fields have been moving on after so many years? As you know, there are hundreds of commissions in Canada for the last 150 years. If we are in a new field, okay, now we can look at it carefully and ask, is that an open door to something we don't want to see? If that's exactly the wording used for other commissions, well, move on. As far as I'm concerned, I would be very careful with that. Yes, my colleagues raised some issues about the fact that we could open the door to so many things that we cannot identify right now, we have to be careful. If not, if this is exactly written like it is written in other commissions, well, move on. As far as I'm concerned right now, and based on what you have said, we have to be careful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm not seeing any other information coming from the end of the table. I'm going to make a comment. There are some other speakers—Mr. Sopuck and then Mr. Bossio—but what is clear is that what was in there was antiquated and needed to be modernized, and it has gone through a rigorous process, and that the safeguard is that it isn't opening the door wide because it's referring to the Governor in Council, who is going to define what is going to be covered. It's not as if it's open to some other interpretation. It is following the process, as far as I have been able to ascertain, that the Governor in Council will then have to go through Treasury Board to make sure it is standardized practice in government.

I'll leave it at that because I'm not the expert; they're the experts.

Mr. Sopuck.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I say this with the deepest respect, Madam Chair, that intervention that you just had is not appropriate for a chair. Chairs run the meetings, and I've chaired committees. For chairs to intervene into offering an opinion on the substance of the matter is unusual, to say the least. The chair should be careful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I was trying to be helpful. Thank you.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

With all due respect for the committee and my colleague Mr. Aldag, I think we are going to create a precedent if we agree to modify this board. Correct me if I am wrong. Should we not give this some thought, as parliamentarians, and establish guidelines for boards throughout the public service?

We have to go further. Otherwise, it will set a precedent, and that is the danger. That is why I am questioning this. I support the bill's objective, but some of the details bother me. This one bothers me the most because it will have an impact on all other federal government institutions. I would like us to consider this and be conscientious. My reluctance does not pertain to this bill specifically, but rather to the precedent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay.

Are there any other comments? Go ahead.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

To go back, as far as precedent is concerned, I don't see it as precedent setting. The intention was that there was already this clause for these costs in the bill and it's simply a modernizing of that.

If it were precedent setting, I would think other acts, other boards, could have looked at that since this was done. I think it goes back to the 1950s, so it has been a long-standing practice that this board has had this clause. It has definitely been in place since 1985 at this dollar amount. I believe we've been able to put in the safeguard to capture and reflect what this board has operated under for a number of decades, and that safeguard is through the Governor in Council process.

I'm very comfortable in not opening up a brand new issue for other boards. That would have happened previously if that were the case. I really believe that through the drafters and legal advice we have, we've come to a good solution on this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Mr. Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

With all due respect, what Mr. Aldag just said worries me even more. If it had existed since 1950, there would be no need to amend the act.

The bill is being put forward to amend the composition of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. If it were already possible to do this, there would be no need for the bill. The bill is being put forward because there are new rights, it is new terrain; we are doing something different. As my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier so aptly put it, we are creating a precedent, we are creating case law that could be cited by all other boards of the House of Commons or indeed of the Canadian government.

I respect your work, of course. No offence intended. Yet you yourself admit that you did not draft the bill; it was drafted by jurists. I am sure it is well drafted. The real question is whether this is new terrain, whether there are new rights. If there are new rights, the least we can say is that we have not only the power but also the duty to ensure that this is well aligned with our objective. If there is a chance that this could have an impact on other boards, we have to be informed in order to measure the broader impact it would have.

We heard that it has always existed, since 1950, that is. If that were the case, however, we would not have to amend the act. Clearly, it does not exist.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

It there anything anybody wants to add to the discussion? No, okay I think all positions have been adequately and appropriately put on the table. I'm going to ask, shall the amendment carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

(Amendment agreed to)

Shall clause 3 carry as amended?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

Shall the title carry?