Transport Committee on June 3rd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I will have to rule that that isn't a point of order. It is ground that we covered earlier in today's meeting.

I will also suggest that G-7.1 is inadmissible and beyond the scope.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

On a point of order, I would challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean has challenged the chair.

[The Clerk]

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The ruling of the chair was challenged and overturned by the committee.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I want to move a subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll ask to have it circulated.

I think we'll wait until everyone has it.

Everyone has it in front of them now.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I move that Bill C-442, in clause 8, be amended by adding, after line 18 on page 3, the following:

8. (2) Nothing shall prevent the Minister from contributing funds for the cost of planning, designing, constructing, installing and maintaining the Monument.

After the text that was put forward by Mr. Jean earlier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise has presented a subamendment, but because of the presentation, it becomes an amendment. We will have to deal with this amendment and then deal with it as an amendment to it.

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Are you saying that in order to consider what Monsieur Laframboise is presenting, we have to consider his presentation as a subamendment to the government's amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

What I'm saying is that what he has presented would be considered another amendment, as opposed to a subamendment to the government bill. Basically we would deal with the government amendment, and then Mr. Laframboise would add another amendment to the clause. We would have two issues.

We are discussing clause 8 and amendment G-7.1. Do we have debate?

All right. Go ahead, Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I would like to seek clarification from Mr. Jean on what he considers responsibilities. Within the definitions, I don't know whether there is such an interpretation. I don't see an interpretation of responsibilities, so I have problems with this amendment, because it doesn't clearly say what responsibilities are and whether they differ from authority. Responsibility and authority sometimes can be confused, and I want to make sure that we clarify those particular points so that we understand that responsibilities are different from authority.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Do you have a response, Mr. Jean?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Certainly. My understanding, Mr. Bevington, is that a minister cannot delegate authority for anything he's responsible for, unless he specifically delegates authority. Responsibilities in this case would be, for instance, the design and the location. I think paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) specifically talk about planning, design, construction, and installation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mrs. Crombie.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I'm sorry, but the parliamentary secretary is referring to clause 7 and the amendment refers to clause 8, so I'm asking him for the relevance of his comments.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

In clause 8, it actually indicates on G-7.1.... Is that correct, Mr. Chair?

It refers to proposed paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) and proposed subsection 7(1), which I was referring to specifically in relation to some of the responsibilities. In clause 6 those responsibilities include planning, designing, and construction, and I was trying to clarify Mr. Bevington's--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

The words that I consider important in terms of authority are “shall oversee” and “shall choose”. Those refer to authority rather than responsibilities. That would be the question. Does this refer to those particular items within clause 6, “shall oversee” and “shall choose”? That's the clarification that I need to support this motion. Those are the key operating words for the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

To be honest, I don't really understand your question. Maybe you could repeat it so that I--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

The minister may delegate to the council his or her responsibilities under proposed paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c). Does this mean that he has the ability to delegate the right to oversee and the right to choose? Those are the two things I'm concerned about; the rest I agree with. Those are the things that are, I think, very much of importance to everyone in this room when it comes to the development of this memorial.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

My understanding is that the minister, since he has the authority under this act, can't lose the authority, but he can assign the responsibility to somebody else, such as a deputy minister. That's my understanding from reading this, and I would think that's what it is. It makes sense to me already. He can't give up his authority and his ultimate responsibility for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary's response to Mr. Bevington's question is a clear indication of why we would have to have somebody before the committee who actually knew what this meant.

My sense of what Mr. Bevington is saying is divided into two parts. I am sure--the parliamentary secretary has already said so--he is not in a position to be able to answer this. We're talking about the minister's authority and the minister's responsibility. Under our system of government, the responsibility is always vested in the government. It cannot be delegated to anybody else. Someone else can have delegated authority to execute a decision, but the responsibility for that decision is always resident in the executive, in the minister.

So under this clause--and this is, I think, why Mr. Bevington may have difficulty with it, and why I have difficulty with it--we're not even empowered to ask the minister to delegate his responsibility, because he can't do it. If that interpretation is correct, then I think we need to maybe have the law clerk of the House before us to tell us whether this would be acceptable. If in fact we can do that and the parliamentary secretary's interpretation that everything always stays with the minister anyway, no matter what...then we can deal with the clause as we ought to, in a thoughtful, deliberate fashion.

Under the circumstances, the answer I've heard makes it as difficult for me as it makes it for Mr. Bevington to say that we can authorize the minister to eliminate or to delegate his responsibility. He can't. He can delegate his authority. That's why we have a bureaucracy. That's why the deputy minister exists. That's why everybody below the deputy minister exists, to execute the authority of the minister.

I'm not sure we even need this, especially given that Monsieur Laframboise has already proposed an amendment that you say we must deal with after we deal with this one. Mr. Laframboise's proposal--even though it's not yet on the table, but you have said we have to refer to it later--addresses that issue.

I wonder if you would revisit your decision and make a decision as to whether, for the sake of clarity and moving along, we could ask the government member to withdraw amendment G-7.1--which I guess would now have to be numbered differently--in respect of the Bloc's amendment to clause 8. At the very least, you would clarify that constitutional issue that's raised by the words “responsibility and authority”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I don't have the authority to do that, but obviously the committee does have the authority if they so choose. We are debating amendment G-7.1.

The debate now is on amendment G-7.1. The floor is open.

Mr. Volpe.