Public Safety Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

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

I am even more concerned by Mr. Hill's explanations, precisely because under Quebec's emergency plans, companies producing electricity or building or using dams, for example, must have emergency plans.

I do not think this should be under federal jurisdiction. I want to avoid overlapping regulations, as do, I am convinced, the people who drafted this bill and did so in good faith. I want to avoid situations involving emergency management or precautionary actions where private companies responsible for dams or other types of activities will be subject to two sets of regulations and potentially faced with conflicts between federal and provincial regulations.

Even though I was aware of what Mr. Lee raised earlier, I was willing to live with the drafting of section 3 as it stood. However, if we add Mr. Comartin's proposed wording—and I appreciate his efforts to calm my fears—we will be creating one category that involves the federal government acting through the provinces, and another category where the federal government does not need to act through the provinces.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Lee, and then Mr. Comartin, maybe for the wrap-up comments.

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

That shows the difficulties of drafting on the run. We should be careful; we may end up with nothing here.

I support the evolution of the amendment. I think I disagree with the advice offered by Ms. Wong, who seems to have overlooked the existence of a comma prior to the words “and other entities”. I take the view that if the comma is inserted, it gets us to where we wanted to be originally, with a relatively unrestricted other entity relationship, with municipalities clearly being subject to relationships with the province. That would get us to where we want to go.

If the officials are consistent in that...and I'd like to hear from one official who can speak for the department clearly on it. If the insertion of a comma doesn't work to separate “and other entities” from the rest of the words, then we're back to the drawing board. That's my view.

Mr. Chairman, could I get a clear statement, I guess from the drafting counsel, that the insertion of a comma before the words “and other entities” is not sufficient to separate those words, that phrase, from the reference to local authorities?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

I hope you understand the question. I think Mr. Lee is suggesting that we put a comma in there, after local authorities, and that this comma may address any concerns Ms. Wong may have.

Mr. Comartin.

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

Mr. Chair, maybe it would be appropriate to take a five-minute break and see if we can come up with some wording to address this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes, let's take a five-minute coffee break.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I call the meeting to order.

Mr. Comartin, could you please explain to us what your final amendment is going to look like before we vote on it?

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

I think we need to hear from the officials, because in the break we discussed potential wording. We want to be very clear about “other entities”. Whether they are the Red Cross or even people in the private sector who provide assistance in times of emergency, we want to be able to deal with them in the broadest way. For instance, we don't want to be mandated to deal with them directly when it's more appropriate to deal with them through the provinces, or, where it is appropriate, directly at the federal level.

So it's the “other entities” section that's the problem. I'm not sure who's going to speak to this. We came up with a number of proposals. I don't know if the officials have come to some consensus, or if Mr. MacKenzie can give us some assistance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Hill, please.

[Peter Hill]

On reflection, we find that what's being proposed is adding confusion. The proposed language in the bill has been carefully constructed, and we believe that “other entities” covers all of those entities, such as local authorities and private sector NGOs, with whom we need to cooperate. Paragraphs 4(1)(f) and 6(2)(a) provide specific references to local authorities, and we believe that's appropriate.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Do you have any concluding comments before we vote on this, Mr. Comartin?

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

Yes. In that case, in addition to the amendment I've already proposed, to add “and through the provinces those of local authorities” after “with the provinces”, insert after “and” in line 9 the words, “with other entities, if appropriate”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I find this a bit confusing. Do you have that written down? Put those commas in there as well where they should be. You might want to have a comma after “local authorities”.

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

While I'm doing that, why don't we move on to the next amendment, and I'll present this to the clerk in a minute?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. We'll come back to it.

I don't think we can really move on until we've done this.

Mr. MacKenzie.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I'd like to reiterate what Mr. Hill just said. In attempting to make Mr. Holland's amendment fit, we would be in a dangerous predicament to try to amend this on the fly and come up with wording we sort of agree with but then on further reflection find there are issues with it.

With all due respect, we should move on. We've dealt with Mr. Holland's amendment, and from the perspective of the government and the officials, we were opposed to that amendment. If we try to now come up with something that will do what Mr. Holland wanted in a back-door way, we'll just end up with a bit of a mess in the legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Can we get an indication of how supportive people are to getting the proper wording here? Should we continue to wait? How does this committee feel about the direction Mr. Comartin is taking us here? Are we spending a lot of time on clause 3 when maybe some of these other clauses should be discussed as well?

We're not voting on the amendment, but how do you feel about getting the proper wording on this? Could I see a show of hands from those who would like to continue pursuing this?

I think, Mr. Comartin, the indication is that even with the correct wording it might not fly. Should we proceed?

Mr. Holland has a comment.

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

Yes. I have no problem with moving on at all. Well, of course, I have a problem with moving on, but I see the votes are on the table, and I don't have a problem with the report on that basis.

I have one question to Mr. MacKenzie. Why are we here? If we don't want to amend the legislation because it's carefully worded and we don't want to make any changes because it's been so carefully worded, then why are we here today?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I think that's a fair enough question.

We're here because this is the process. You felt there was an amendment that you wanted. I think we've had the opportunity to discuss it around the table.

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

I'm only saying my point is this. I don't have any problem with you voting against an amendment that I, Mr. Comartin, or anybody else put forward. It's certainly a prerogative of all committee members.

But there was a suggestion that we have a carefully considered document that can't be amended or that we shouldn't be participating in amendments today. It was said that we shouldn't be making amendments on the fly. Well, then we shouldn't be making amendments today.

If you don't want to make amendments today, and there are other amendments to be considered, then let's adjourn and deal with clause-by-clause on another day, if that's the comment.

If the position is such that the only way we're going to deal with this bill is exactly as it is and it's the only purpose of the committee in being here, then I frankly have better things to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Lee.

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

I think we've invested a lot of time in this attempt to make the bill a little better. If Mr. Comartin is finished, he can put his amendment. If he's not finished, can you do it in a minute?

I have a question that relates to the next clause, which I would have asked on the next clause anyway. I won't waste any time by asking a question about clause 4, if that's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Comartin, are we ready to vote on your motion? Are you going to move it, first of all, or should we move on?

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

I don't have the wording, Mr. Chair, because I've been listening to the discussion and I stopped writing.

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

Could I take a minute to ask my question and get an answer?

If you're then ready, Mr. Comartin, and if it's okay with the chair, you could put the amendment.