Government Operations Committee on June 20th, 2006

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'd like to make a motion that we table the amendment, the motion brought forward by Mr. Proulx, as well as the entire motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

There is a point of order from Mr. Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

On a point of order, I think we're playing hide and seek with the vocabulary, in the sense that when proponents are talking of tabling a motion, the motion has already been tabled. It was Mrs. Thibault who tabled the original motion. So it's tabled. Then we had an amendment on the part of Mr. Warkentin. We voted on the amendment, and the amendment passed, was accepted. Therefore, we now have a motion that has been tabled and amended.

We are now speaking of another amendment that I've brought forth. So there's no discussion of tabling or not tabling. The motion is already there, it has already been amended, and now we're discussing a further amendment.

We have to discuss this amendment. Either we discuss it until 11 o'clock and then this committee adjourns and the problem hasn't been solved, or we solve it before 11 o'clock. So let's not play with the vocabulary.

I'm surprised when the Conservatives are saying that this is different. When you're saying the amendment is totally different from what you expected, what did you expect was meant by the words “federal Public Service, government agency and Crown corporation”? Did you figure that it included or did not include, for example, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation?

I think everybody in Canada will agree that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is definitely related to the Government of Canada. What I'm saying is that because CMHC does not answer to Treasury Board as an employer under the rules of administration, Public Works excludes it from the mathematical calculation. What I'm saying is that it should be included.

In answer to Mr. Kramp's objection, I have no dreams in my head. I don't think for an instant that eventually 25% of CMHC will be moved to the Quebec side of the national capital region, and I'll tell you why. The charter of CMHC specifies that CMHC's head office is to be in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. You can't move it. I can dream about it, but it will never happen in this world.

However, because it is related to the Government of Canada, I think the number of jobs within CMHC has to be used in the calculation to establish how many jobs there are on the Ontario side and how many jobs there are on the Quebec side, in comparison. Once we establish that we are short, whether it be 5,000, whether it be 50,000, or whether it be 10,000 jobs on the Quebec side, then the Government of Canada, within its powers, within its departments and the agencies it controls, can switch jobs over to the Quebec side to make sure that we are now at the 75%-25% proportion. But there isn't a hope in my head, nor in yours, I'm sure, that we start changing charters such as the one for CMHC that says it must be in Ottawa.

Therefore, I'm open to discussing it as long as you want, but I don't think this is so complicated that we need to discuss it until death do us part. I think it's a situation where we should be able to say it's 75-25, calculated out of these jobs, and now we have to get the government to apply it and make sure that there are enough jobs on the Quebec side to meet the 25%.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, we need to use an overall approach to calculate the 75:25 ratio. This matter was resolved in 1984. All governments, from John Turner's to the present one, have recognized this ratio as a standard to be attained. Therefore, there's nothing to be concerned about.

The Bloc Québécois is asking the committee to support a number in the upper range, as both we and the Liberal Party have advocated. It bears mentioning that the President of the Treasury Board is very mindful of the significance of the 75:25 ratio, given his current status as a Conservative Cabinet minister.

So then, there's no great mystery here. I agree with Mr. Proulx's amendment which further clarifies the meaning of the 75:25 policy. The motion was more general in scope, but the amendment is more specific. At issue is the basic principle which calls for 25 per cent of all federal jobs to be located in the Outaouais, and 75 per cent in Ottawa. That's the issue here. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My issue with the amendment here, which is really a replacement, is that the original motion talks about starting now to divide the federal public service government agency...it leaves it broad, and I'm not sure what the advantage is and I don't understand why things have to be listed.

In my interpretation of the original motion, the Bank of Canada would be included in there. What else do you have here? The Canada Council for the Arts. I'm assuming they're a government agency. I'm really confused. I'm fairly new here, and don't know all the agencies that are part of the Government of Canada. I believe there was a tourism agency here previously, and I think it got moved out of the region. So why is that not included here and this one is included here?

I'm a little nervous about having them listed. I think the previous motion has a better position for the committee and for the government in terms of calculating the thing because I think it will capture more. I'm not sure why these particular organizations and departments were chosen for this motion, and I think it's important for me to know that before I vote in support of why they're there.

In the second part, in terms of posting it on the website and so on and so forth, I don't have any particular problem with any of that. I just don't know about whether the deadline is feasible from a practical point of view. I haven't a clue. So I have a hard time deciding whether this is good. I would rather have been able to ask those who are responsible for actually doing the work to be able to determine whether this is feasible or not, whether it's four months, three months, five months.

So I'm not able to support these amendments to this motion, just because I don't understand what the implications are when we have some agencies and departments listed and not others, and then what the actual availability and practicality of the second part is.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Following on exactly that point, we cannot just start to cherry-pick. We either have to have a carte blanche in which everything is in the package or you have to go to each and every department that potentially could be a participant in this program and list every one of them. I thought we had carte blanche to go ahead, but now to list specific departments and exclude others, there is no rationale to that whatsoever in my mind. So that's why I would oppose it, but I do believe on the spirit and the purpose of this we could have some unanimous consent. Let's not try to steamroll this thing through. It's an important issue, and I'm sure we can come up with effective wording between now and our next meeting to resolve this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Dewar.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

On a point of order.

[A voice]

He can't vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

He cannot vote, but he can be recognized.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes. Just to beg your indulgence--

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I have a point of order. Is it possible that for Mr. Dewar to address the committee you would need consent?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

If somebody opposes, yes.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Does somebody oppose Mr. Dewar addressing the committee? Do you oppose?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Not if the other member sits aside from the chair just so that we have equal numbers at the table here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We have the substitution now.

I'll allow Mr. Dewar to speak, seeing as we have the substitution, but I'm going to say this. We'll allow him a few minutes to speak and then I'm going to end the meeting without calling the vote because I think we are not moving forward. I'm going to give directions that we work together to see what kind of motion we can put forward to make it a unanimous motion of this committee. Okay?

Mr. Dewar, I'll give you just a minute or so to speak, and then I'll end the meeting so that the health committee can then come in.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much. Thank you for your indulgence, committee.

I just wanted to say a couple of things. I have an interest in this, because it's my constituency this affects. I want to clarify a couple of things. We had an original motion that has been amended and is to be amended yet again. This makes perfect sense, because I just came from the Bill C-2 committee, so I'm used to it.

I will say that when you're looking at something of this magnitude that could be brought to the House, where concurrence might be debated and it would have some weight, I think there needs to be clarity. I was going to say for the record that we shouldn't rush this. I think some other documentation needs to be provided. I'd like more detail on the 1984 federal cabinet decision, as much as we can have.

Then, to make sure we have the full scope, the last thing I'll say is that Bill C-2, which is probably going to be passed, will affect what we're talking about here. I think that needs to be taken into consideration, and there will probably be a need for some backup from people in the public service to help us out with this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much.

I'll call the meeting to an end. The meeting is adjourned.