Public Safety Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 21, and we are here to go through Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts. We are doing the clause-by-clause consideration today.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses from the department to the committee. We have Suki Wong, the director for critical infrastructure policy; Peter Hill, the director general for emergency management policy; and Jacques Talbot and Richard Mungall, counsels for the justice department.

For those of you who may be new to the committee and going through clause-by-clause for the first time, we usually have witnesses from the department here to give us advice. They answer any questions we may have about the bill regarding the implications of any of the amendments.

Of course, the legislative clerk is here to answer any questions on procedure, and the research staff will also assist us in our deliberations.

During the clause-by-clause, the committee considers the clauses of the bill, as well as any proposed amendments, in the order they appear in the bill. An amendment is not before the committee until it has been moved by a member of the committee.

We can ask questions and discuss them. The committee will then vote on each amendment, on each clause, and finally on the title and the bill as a whole. Then we present the report to the House.

In today's case, we have three amendments, which have been translated and distributed. Since clause 1 is the short title of the bill, it is automatically postponed to the end of the discussion, according to Standing Order 75(1).

There are no amendments on clause 2. Does clause 2 carry?

(Clause 2 agreed to)

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

Am I to understand, Mr. Chairman, that our witnesses will remain here while we study the bill clause-by-clause? I don't know if that is the usual procedure. In this case, that would not be a problem, because there are not many amendments and we agree on the thrust of the bill, except for a few things we would like to add. I find it unusual that we call witnesses and force them to listen to our discussions, which can sometimes be at a different level than what we usually talk about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

At all the committees I've sat on, we've had the officials present to advise us on the discussion and the amendments. That was the usual procedure.

Unless you can tell me otherwise, I think it is usual.

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

Oh, so if I understand, these are not witnesses, but people who are here to help us. Is that right? Perfect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes, they are the officials from the department. They are listed as witnesses on the agenda, but I don't think we can proceed without them.

We're going to go to clause 3. We have some amendments from the Liberals.

(On clause 3—Ministerial responsibilities—general)

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

The amendment is pretty straightforward. It's looking to amend clause 3 by replacing line 9 on page 2...it's basically to add “municipalities and other entities” in emergency management. This is further to some of the delegations we heard, including FCM, to ensure that municipalities are heard from directly in the consultation process and that they are included at the table. This doesn't suggest that they're part of the decision-making, but they have indicated a desire to be consulted directly. Given the role they play as first responders, this is pretty critical.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You've heard the amendment and the arguments for it. Is there any other discussion in regard to this?

Monsieur Ménard.

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

We are completely opposed to this amendment, and I am convinced that any government in Quebec would also oppose this amendment.

Personally, I will begin my intervention by saying that this shows, yet again, that there are two nations within Canada and as soon as an important issue arises—and there is no doubt that crisis management is such an important issue—the natural reaction is that each nation would love the crisis to be managed by the government over which it has the most control, the bigger government. In the case of Quebec, that would be the national government of Quebec. In the rest of Canada, I understand perfectly that it would be the federal government.

Of course, you know what our fundamental views are of the current Constitution. As long as we are part of that Constitution—and we will only be able to remove ourselves from it through democratic and peaceful means—I believe that we must remember that the distribution of jurisdictions does not mean that the most significant jurisdictions should belong to the central government, and that the provinces should only deal with regional issues or other ones. On the contrary, there are some very big issues which fall under provincial jurisdiction, not because the provinces are regional governments, but because the drafters of the Constitution decided that some very important issues should fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec in particular.

Municipalities fall under provincial jurisdiction. Municipalities are creatures of the provinces and they may appear or disappear according to the wishes of the various provincial legislatures. So, when the federal government deals with municipalities, it must go through the provinces.

Again, I understand perfectly—and this is one of the reasons why I am convinced that my basic opinions are correct—that we would operate much better in a true confederation rather than in the current federation. I've noticed that the natural trend in English Canada, when there is a crisis, when something important arises, is to turn towards the federal government for direction. In fact, this seems to have been a strong trend within a certain political party—namely the Liberal Party—rather than with the other parties. Indeed, this is a mark of the Liberals. As well, I am not surprised that the Liberals want to amend this section in the manner they are proposing. They feel that when there is a crisis or when an important issue arises, the federal government must step in. On the contrary, the Conservatives, perhaps because their roots lie in outline areas, usually tend to think that provincial governments are not simply regional governments and they don't mind when the provinces play a major role even if it involves issues as important as this one.

When I read the bill, I felt that its drafters were perfectly aware of these trends and that they wanted to respect the current Constitution as much as possible. That is why they did not include municipalities. Further, as far as crisis management is concerned, and contrary to what people may think, intervention is a bottom-up approach. That is the most effective principle.

In Quebec, we have a provincial counterpart to this legislation, namely the Civil Protection Act. It is recognized today—and I realize this in the course of our discussions—as a model within Canada. Quebec has fully exercised its powers, whereas I've noticed that other provinces have not wanted to step up to the plate to that extent.

Quebec traditionally had, and this will not change as long as it is a member of the current Constitution, always jealously guarded its areas of jurisdiction. So Quebec has exercised its powers, and since it has done so, I don't see why the federal government should try to involve itself in issues affecting municipalities, because it must always go through the provinces.

I therefore acknowledge the wisdom of the drafters of this bill. I think they thought long and hard about what they were doing. In fact, it seems they did a fairly good job, except for two small amendments which I would like to propose to the rest of the bill.

I therefore strongly object to the amendment proposed by our honourable colleagues who are members of the opposition, as are we.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Is there anything further? I think the Bloc has made its position clear on this.

Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We--

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'm sorry.

Mr. Comartin, you are actually next on my list. I should have been paying attention here.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I'm inclined to support this amendment, not because I see this as any major shift in the constitutional practices or the constitutional history of our country, but simply as a reflection of reality.

We heard--and I think most of us knew this already--that in these circumstances, when we're dealing with these types of emergencies, the first responders come from the municipal level. I think all this amendment does is recognize that practical reality.

We're not proposing to change the Constitution with this amendment; it doesn't do that. It simply says we're going to coordinate emergency response activities at all levels of government. I don't think that takes any authority away from the provinces. They will still have their constitutional framework in which the municipalities are offshoots of provinces and have their direct responsibility to the provincial level of government, not to the federal level of government.

I hear Mr. Ménard's argument, but I think it really misses the main point. I think the mover of this motion has no intention of changing the power relationships in this country but is simply addressing the question of how do we best coordinate the response. It seems to me that unless we recognize the very crucial role, the absolutely crucial role, that the municipal or regional levels of government play, we're not really doing our job. As a result, I will support the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. Next I'll recognize Mr. Lee and then Mr. Hawn. Then as chair I will ask if the officials have any comments on this. Then, Mr. Holland, if you have any further comments....

Mr. Lee, please.

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

I have a question for the officials on this, but I also want to say that my colleague's angst, which is recognizable through this amendment, might be exacerbated perhaps by the knowledge that the existing wording of the section refers to other entities, which would include transportation authorities, hospitals, tourist venues and sites, hydroelectric-generating authorities, and police forces, clearly already under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The wording of the section is pretty soft wording. It involves coordination in cooperation with.

I want to ask officials to advise us whether or not there were, and if there are, in existence some examples they can give us of direct relationships between this particular ministry and other entities, municipal or otherwise, including municipal police forces, power-generating authorities, transportation authorities, and any funding mechanism that would move federal money directly to any of these bodies in the existing policy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Who would be prepared to take that?

Mr. Hill, please.

[Peter Hill, Acting Director General, Emergency Management Policy, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC)]

Thank you very much.

Indeed, the department has a range of relationships with various entities. Primarily, our relationships are through the provinces and territories, according to the established emergency management system in the country, and are based on the jurisdictional roles and responsibilities. We deal with first responders through their national associations, in collaboration with provinces and territories.

When it comes to various projects, such as critical infrastructure or protection, we're developing relationships with private sector organizations for the purposes of sharing information. I hope that answers your question.

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

And is there a federal financial contribution or assistance to any of these entities with respect to emergency management plans or emergency preparedness?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I'm not sure if that has anything directly to do with this bill, but if anybody wants to take a run at that....

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

If I could clarify, it's for the sole purpose of establishing that there is already a relationship between the federal government and these entities.

[Peter Hill]

I'd be happy to answer that question.

In terms of the provision of financial assistance, the department is responsible for managing a number of programs. One you are all familiar with is the disaster financial assistance arrangements. The federal government, through that program and managed by Public Safety, provides funding to support provinces and territories to assist their recovery activities following the events of an emergency or a natural disaster. That funding is directly to the provinces and territories, but of course that funding is used by provinces and territories in support of municipalities.

We also provide provinces and territories with financial assistance through the joint emergency preparedness program. That's designed to enhance their emergency management capacity at the local level. It includes training, for example. It includes the funds to purchase equipment, radios; it includes funds for exercises, things of that nature.

Those are the two primary programs we have in support of provinces and territories.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Hawn, please.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I would just like to say that we oppose the amendment, but not for the reason that we think there's a croque-mitaine hiding in the wording, as some do. I just want to say that this is intended to be an umbrella act; it's not intended to get into the nuts and bolts of how things are done.

Spending three days in Quebec this past week reminded me of how much I love Quebec and like it being part of my country. I own a piece of Quebec, just as Mr. Ménard can own a piece of Alberta, if he chooses to exercise that.

Again, it's intended to be an umbrella document; it's not intended to single out any or get in the way of any cooperation. This is a cooperative effort between the federal-provincial governments and the municipalities, all first responders. That's all this is intended to do. We kind of like the wording the way it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I said I'd give an opportunity to the officials.

Mr. Mungall, please.

[Richard Mungall, Counsel, Department of Justice]

Thank you, sir.

I'll just point out that the bill in other sections contains concepts and language that encompasses municipalities. For example, in paragraph 4(1)(f) we use the concept of “local authorities”; in paragraph 6(2)(a) we also use the concept of “local authorities”. For the information of the committee, if we inject a new term, “municipalities”.... Typically speaking, the rule of interpretation is that when a different word is used in a piece of legislation, it must mean something different. Therefore, there may be some interpretative difficulties with such an amendment.

The other thing I wish to point out to the members is that the potential addition of the word “municipalities” after “provinces” indicates that we have created some kind of a class. In the rule of statutory interpretation known as the limited class rule, when you have general words that follow specific words, the general words that follow take on the common meaning that's found in the general words. Therefore, the effect may be--whether it's litigated or not remains to be seen--to colour the interpretation of the term “other entities”, which might conceivably have the effect of excluding things that are not of a governmental nature, as are provinces and municipalities.

Further, the term “local authorities”, as we find in this bill, is also used in provincial emergency management legislation, as are various other terms to describe the things other than municipalities, such as local service boards or rural communities.

So across the country and in all the provinces there are different ways to describe things other than municipalities. I merely point out to the members that there may be some interpretive confusion or difficulties.

Thank you.