I see.
It would be my understanding, and again, I would seek clarification from legislative counsel, that if the entire clause 105 is deleted, what would happen would be the status quo, which is that the board appoints its own chair from amongst its members, who have been appointed by the minister and others. In the event of an incapacity of both the chair and the vice-chair, the board would simply exercise its authority to appoint another chair. This provision, proposed section 17.1, is necessary only if the minister is given the power to appoint the board chair, which we don't think the minister should have.
I understand what Mr. Barsalou-Duval is doing. He wants to put some limits on the minister's power there. I think the best way to limit the minister's power and allow the board to operate at arm's length is simply to delete the entirety of clause 105, which would then take away the minister's power to appoint the board chair. It would also give the board back the power to act in the best interest of the board in the case of the incapacity of both the chair and the vice-chair.
If it's as good as we can get, I think we would support that. However, I think deleting the entire clause achieves the status quo better, giving control of their operations back to the board without the minister's interference in the board chair's selection process.