Evidence of meeting #21 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was municipalities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Chairman, my response to that would be that you then would have two paragraphs using different phraseology. Our officials would tell us it's better to be consistent in your wording.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I think that's been part of the argument even with Mr. Holland's amendment, yes.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
You're getting the same intent; I understand that. But it's much better to stay consistent. Some judge somewhere will look at the two different wordings and say there must be some reason they used different wording. They may read something in it that we do not intend to have in it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Do the officials have any comments on this amendment? They're the ones who are very familiar with the bill.
We've had the request here. How long would it take us to comply with having this translated into French?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
That would be good. Put it on the record.
Mr. Comartin, please.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Chairman, we are proposing inserting the phrase which is found at line 34, paragraph 4(1)(f): “[...] and through the provinces, those of local authorities [...]”, at line 9, section 3, after the words “the provinces”.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
So you are proposing adding the words “and through the provinces, those of local authorities”. Do you propose that we remove “and other entities, emergency management activities”?
NDP
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
So it would read: “[...] and through the provinces, those of local authorities and other entities, emergency management activities.”
NDP
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I'm not so sure. You are raising the exact issue raised by Mr. Lee and you are giving it even more weight. I thought, as did Mr. Lee, that “other entities” cannot include municipalities. So I thought, given the wording and the context, that, no, it cannot include municipalities, because other entities fall under federal jurisdiction. Since I still believe that an emergency situation is not the right time to fight a constitutional battle, and since I acknowledge the caution and good faith of the drafters of the bill as regards the respective provincial jurisdictions, I found that...
However, if, on the one hand, you include both phrases in the same section and say “and through the provinces, those of local authorities” and, on the other hand you then add another wording, namely “an other entities, emergency management activities”, it seems to me you would be adding something.
I would be more satisfied with that and it would be clearer if it simply said “with the provinces and, through the provinces, those of local authorities and other entities.”
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Under what you are proposing, it is as if we excluded emergency management activities from the responsibilities of provincial governments although I am sure that was not the original intent of the drafters.
I understand just how important this bill is for the federal government. We need legislation enabling the federal government and its institutions to take preventive measures and to deal with emergencies, whether they happen on a military base, in a nuclear reactor, or elsewhere. In fact, in Quebec's legislation, there is a part which deals with municipalities, but there is also another part which deals with every department, and which says that each department must have an emergency plan, just like this bill says that each department must have an emergency plan, in other words, it must prepare an emergency management activity plan.
Perhaps I am overly concerned, but if we add what has been proposed, the sentence becomes ever more complex and even more difficult to understand, whereas it was so simple and clear in its original version, as drafted by the legislative drafters.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I wonder if the officials could maybe interject some comments here at this point. Have you had a chance to think about a proposal here?
Mr. Hill, first of all.
Acting Director General, Emergency Management Policy, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC)
Thank you.
The proposed amendment that we've just been discussing—inserting the words “and through provinces, those of local authorities”—would I think address the issue that we've been discussing. At the same time, we're being very clear about respecting federal, provincial, and territorial jurisdictions. By including “and other entities” as well, we are including specifically a reference to non-governmental organizations and private sector entities. It's consistent with the bill as it's written right now, and it provides a very focused elaboration that we already have in paragraph 4(1)(f). So it seems to me that the proposed amendment that we've just been discussing works well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
It would fit in and not change the tenor of the bill.
Mr. Hill.
Acting Director General, Emergency Management Policy, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC)
The proposed additional language—i.e. “through the provinces, those of local authorities”—does not intend to include necessarily going through the provinces and territories to work with other entities, because the amendment makes it clear, then, that the other entities are no longer government entities at any level. I believe the proposed amendment clarifies and respects existing jurisdictional arrangements and provides a further level of detail that is being considered.
Conservative
Counsel, Department of Justice
If I can just add to what Mr. Hill said, if I understand it correctly, we don't want the concept of “other entities” to be coloured by the fact that the federal government would have to go through the provinces to support. That's my understanding of the intention here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Is a comma enough? No? So there could be a problem in interpretation if we added this.
Ms. Wong, would you like to comment on that?
Director, Critical Infrastructure Policy, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC)
While we understand the importance of the new amendment, adding that in changes the nuance of the provision, so we have to talk more about it. Right now it implies that we may have to go through the provinces to talk to other entities. That's what this new addition would change.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
All right. I can see that. We have a bit of a discrepancy in opinion.
Monsieur Ménard, did I see your hand up? Did you have a response?