[English]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 30, 2001
• 1111
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Ray Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, pursuant to its order of reference of Thursday, September 27, 2001, the committee will now resume consideration of Bill C-33, an act respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
As agreed, we will now proceed, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), to clause-by-clause consideration.
I'll run by you the process I wish to initiate. If the committee wants to discuss doing it differently, I'm open to it. What I would like to do is go to clause-by-clause immediately. For any clause where you have an amendment, a concern, or a question, or you just want to have it pulled so that we can deal with it after, just say pull it.
Just as an example, I will say “Shall clause 2 carry?”, and if I hear a consensus to carry it, with no dissension, it's carried, my friends. It doesn't come back on the table unless 50% plus one ask that it come back.
If I say “Shall clause 15 carry?”, and you have even the smallest question about it, just yell out “Pull it”. That means we will deal with it after.
Is that acceptable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1 will be postponed, which means we'll deal with it at the end.
Here we go.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
(On clause 3—Inconsistency with Agreement)
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, PC/DR): Mr. Chair, a question. I see Pat Martin is not here, and he has something about clause 3. Could we be courteous by just saying “Pull it”, and if he shows up we could talk about it later?
The Chair: Only if one of you asks me to pull it. Are you asking me to pull it?
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): I wouldn't agree with that. If they're courteous enough, they should be here.
Miss Deborah Grey: Push it.
The Chair: But in all fairness, nothing prevents any member from saying pull it. I don't ask for the reason. So I'll go back.
Shall clause 3 carry?
(Clause 3 agreed to)
(Clauses 4 to 13 inclusive agreed to)
• 1115
The Chair: If at any time you want me to call these clauses in bulks of five, I'm amenable to that.
(Clauses 14 to 54 inclusive agreed to)
The Chair: Does clause 55 carry?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Pull it.
The Chair: Okay. We'll come back later to deal with it.
Shall clause 56 carry?
An hon. member: Pull it.
The Chair: All right.
(Clause 57 to clause 70 inclusive agreed to)
The Chair: For our colleague who has just joined us, if there is any clause for which you have an amendment, question, or concern, then when we come to that clause, you just yell out “pull it”, and we'll deal with it after. Otherwise it is deemed to be carried.
(Clauses 71 to 75 inclusive agreed to)
The Chair: Shall clause 76 carry?
An hon. member: Pull it.
The Chair: It's pulled.
Shall clause 77 carry?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Pull it.
The Chair: Clause 77, we pull.
Shall clause 78 carry?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Pull it.
The Chair: Clause 78 is pulled.
(Clauses 79 and 80 agreed to)
The Chair: Shall clause 81 carry?
Some hon. members: Pull it.
The Chair: Pull.
Shall clause 82 carry?
Some hon. members: Pull.
The Chair: Pull.
• 1120
(Clauses 83 to 170 inclusive agreed to)
The Chair: Shall clause 171 carry?
Mr. John Finlay: Pull it.
The Chair: Clause 171 is pulled.
(Clauses 172 to 203 inclusive agreed to)
(On schedule 1)
The Chair: We have to be sure we are not passing something on clauses that we have pulled. I need guidance there.
Are any clauses pulled that are affected by schedule 1?
Mr. John Finlay: Well, what is schedule 1?
The Chair: I'll tell you what we'll do, ladies and gentlemen. We'll come back to the rest after we deal with your amendments. Fair enough?
Mr. John Finlay: Fair enough.
The Chair: That gives you time.
(Schedule 1 allowed to stand)
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Chair, I'm late, and I must apologize. I was visiting with a guest, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in Manitoba, in my office.
• 1125
I did have motions I wished to make on
two clauses, and I believe you passed by them
prior to my coming in.
I guess I would ask for the unanimous consent of the committee to back up and allow me to pull clauses 3 and 56, if they were not pulled as you went ahead earlier.
The Chair: Clause 56 has been pulled, so you'll have your opportunity.
The other one you are concerned about is clause 3. You don't need unanimous consent, but you do need to ask your colleagues, on a majority vote, if they wish to reconsider clause 3.
Mr. Pat Martin: Well, if they would, I would appreciate it.
The Chair: It needs to be 50% plus one.
You're moving that?
Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, I am, please.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I thank you for your cooperation, my friends.
(On clause 3—Inconsistency with Agreement)
The Chair: Mr. Martin, if you have an amendment, you should share it with us.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, thank you.
I would like to move to amend clause 3 in Bill C-33 by taking away lines 3 to 7 on page 4 and replacing them with the following:
Mr. Chairman, we feel this is in keeping with the interests of the people of the area. We heard representation to that effect when we heard from the Nunavut Water Board and the NTI. We think it's an appropriate amendment that we would hope would be entertained here today.
The Chair: Any comments?
Members, if at any time you wish to ask, through the chair, a question of our guests from the department, that's what they're here for.
Who is first to react to this?
Mr. Godfrey.
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I'd just be interested in hearing the department's reaction to this proposal.
The Chair: Who will take this one?
Mr. Dunlop.
Mr. Will Dunlop (Director, Resource Policy and Transfers Directorate, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): The suggested amendment, I believe, would have the effect of limiting the supremacy of Parliament. Parliament has the right to derogate, or abrogate, if you so choose, and if you have the intention of lessening or taking away from an aboriginal right. The non-derogation clause that's provided now is the non-derogation clause that will appear in probably all future legislation. It's the one chosen as the least obtrusive and supposedly giving the most comfort to first nations.
The Chair: Anyone else?
Mr. Martin, you'll have the last say on this.
Mr. Vellacott.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Dunlop, are you saying there is a non-derogation clause? I didn't catch the last part there.
Mr. Will Dunlop: Subclause 3(3) is the non-derogation clause, yes. It's the same clause that currently appears in Bill C-5, and it's the same non-derogation clause that was amended, put into Bill C-6, and passed on to the Senate some weeks ago. It's identical wording.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.
The Chair: We just overheard a question, which was “So we don't need it, do we?” Perhaps our researcher has an opinion on that, or the department does.
Ms. Mary Hurley (Committee Researcher): For the information of Mr. Godfrey, the wording of the amendment that's proposed by Mr. Martin would be substituted for the wording that's in the bill.
The Chair: Mr. Finlay and then Miss Grey.
Mr. John Finlay: To say, Mr. Chairman, that the wording that's in the bill is the current wording that's approved by the department and by Justice Canada does not change the meaning of the former, or any other variations on, abrogation or derogation clause. It's intended to give safety, if you like, or protection, to the aboriginals who have made the land claim, who have the treaty rights, and whose rights are recognized in the Constitution. This is the wording that's in the last two acts passed by this government, and it will be the wording of the future.
• 1130
I suggest that we pass
this clause the way it is.
The Chair: Miss Grey.
Miss Deborah Grey: I was just going to ask if you feel this is irrelevant or redundant.
Mr. Will Dunlop: No, it's second-best. It limits Parliament if you choose the wording of the amendment.
The Chair: Anyone else before I go to Mr. Martin, the mover, for the last word?
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think the reason this was raised by more than one group from Nunavut was that there's supposed to be a comfort level such that nothing in any legislation we deal with in any way seeks to diminish the protections guaranteed under the Constitution. Now, they feel that the non-derogation clause in this case deviates from other non-derogation clauses in other aboriginal issues legislation.
We asked the witnesses, why do you think the government specifically chose to put in a new and different non-derogation clause, one with less teeth? Why would they seek to do that? The feeling was that they would be leaving themselves open to an erosion or a derogation of the existing rights. So they would be more comfortable—and I agree with them—if a more strongly worded non-derogation reference were put in. That would mean changing those lines, 3 to 7, with the language they in fact put forward as their choice.
So I would seek agreement with that. I feel it's a very justifiable position.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
(Amendment negatived)
The Chair: Mr. Martin, I understand you have another amendment on the same clause.
Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, I do.
I move to amend clause 3 of Bill C-33 by adding, after line 7 on page 4, the following:
This would be considered a positive interpretation clause. Any subsequent interpretation of this bill would not only have to keep in mind the non-derogation act; they would have to view it in the most positive possible aspect, or more positive light.
Again, this was a request brought forward from witnesses from the Nunavut Water Board and the NTI. We believe strongly that this would also give a comfort level to the people of Nunavut. As this bill gets challenged down the road, possibly, in subsequent generations, it would give direction to future arbitrators or future courts that the language here, if there is any ambiguity or misunderstanding, is to be viewed in the most positive possible light, in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Again, you will have the last word on the debate.
Mr. Godfrey.
Mr. John Godfrey: To the officials, what's your take on this? Does this have some unintended consequences? Is anything gained by this, or anything lost?
Mr. Will Dunlop: I guess the first thing to note is that it's redundant. It's unnecessary. If you look at the preceding two subclauses in the same clause, you'll see that the land claim prevails over any inconsistencies. So the rights of the Inuit are protected in the land claim. If there is an inconsistency, those rights prevail.
Second, if there's an inconsistency between the ratification act, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, and any other act of Parliament, that act prevails. So in the event of two inconsistencies, the land claims prevail.
As well, it's bad drafting. If you have this section in there, what is its effect? I honestly can't tell you. If I was an administrator or a judge and that section was in the act, how would I interpret the protection of Inuit rights if the matter before a court had nothing to do with Inuit rights? What if it had something to do with, say, an infraction against water regulations, or a decision of the tribunal? How would a judge interpret the protection of Inuit rights if the matter before them had nothing to do with Inuit rights?
• 1135
In other words, I
don't know what the effect of the limitation would be.
In any event, it's redundant.
Mr. John Godfrey: Thanks.
The Chair: Any other comments or questions?
Mr. Bagnell.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): I'd like to ask a question about the clause you just referred to. Where it says “except the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement”, does that mean the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement doesn't...?
Mr. Will Dunlop: No, it's the first act that prevails over inconsistencies with any other act. First is the land claim; that's the top of the pyramid. Second is the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, and third would be any other act.
Mr. Larry Bagnell: That's all in there?
Mr. Will Dunlop: Yes, in subclauses 3(1) and (2).
The Chair: Any other comments or questions?
Mr. Martin, final remarks.
Mr. Pat Martin: I would close by saying that when the NTI did come with this idea for a motion, they didn't feel it was redundant; they felt it was necessary, and their legal counsel felt it was necessary. I don't think we want to craft legislation based around one legal opinion as compared with another.
We can give this the additional weight that the legitimate government of Nunavut feels that they want this, as do the people of Nunavut. They feel that it does ensure that any additional purposes of the bill are dealt with using the same weighing, the same priority.
No one questions the initial intention of the bill, but there could be additional issues dealt with in the context of this bill, and they want additional protection. So I don't think it being redundant is enough of an argument; that's opinion. If it does give a comfort level to the people who actually have to live under the parameters of this bill, I don't see how it does any harm, either.
So in the interest of giving the witnesses what they were asking for, I would like to ask for broad support for this amendment.
The Chair: This brings to a close the debate on the amendment to clause 3.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I would like to abstain from voting.
The Chair: There's no such thing as abstention in the procedures. You're for or against, or else you didn't participate.
Mr. John Godfrey: The record will note that she said it.
The Chair: Yes. You have noted it yourself.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 3 agreed to)
(On clause 55—Notice of applications)
The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I move to amend clause 55 by replacing line 3 on page 23 with the following:
Basically, we're asking that in respect to minor water uses that don't involve a public hearing, they be issued as expeditiously as possible, by way of this change. Regulations classify licences of this kind as type B licences. The amendment differentiates between type B and type A licence applications. For the former, a minimum period of 21 days after publication of the required notice is proposed before the board can take action under subclause 55(4).
For a type A application, the 30-day period, which the legislation presently provides, would be maintained. That will stay as is.
By way of further explanation, this amendment to subclause 55(4) would allow, but not require, the board to take further action on a type B licence at the end of the 21-day time period. So they could extend that 21 days if there were circumstances, or, in the judgment of the board, they wanted to take it longer. Hopefully it would expedite the minor licences, the type B licences.
• 1140
That would be
the intent of the motion.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vellacott. You will have the last word on this issue.
Mr. Finlay.
Mr. John Finlay: On a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, I didn't have clause 55 as held; I had it as carried.
The Chair: No, Mr. Finlay, both clauses 55 and 56 have been pulled. Do you have a comment on the amendment?
Mr. John Finlay: No, not particularly. I just don't know why we should change the date.
The Chair: Does anyone else have a comment or question on clause 55?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can we get a comment from the officials? Having put the amendment forward, I'm still appreciative, if there's major consternation by department officials in respect of this, of their views. I do respect their judgment.
The Chair: Mr. Dunlop.
Mr. Will Dunlop: I wouldn't call it major consternation. I think you heard a fairly eloquent presentation from the Mining Association. I think it's really a matter of judgment in this case. The witness talked about how much time they need to plan to get ready for their exploration season.
I would only suggest to the committee that the Water Board, too, needs just as much time to arrive at its decisions. It faces the same problems with communication, transportation, remoteness, and weather. I would suggest you take some comfort in knowing that if there is an emergency, the Water Board can wait only ten days before it begins to deal with an application.
As to the difference between 21 days and 30, it's strictly an opinion. It's strictly the comfort level of the committee.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So we're talking about the difference of a minor...you know, as deemed a minor licence and a major one, I guess.
Mr. Will Dunlop: There's no difference. It obviously would not be a major licence if they published a notice for hearing and nobody responded. That means it probably hasn't generated much interest or much concern anywhere. There's just that sober period of 30 days where they're not supposed to begin to make irrevocable decisions before that licence gets issued.
You know, pick a period; they should be limited before they can just begin to issue the documents.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Do you have closing remarks?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess there's a question here, John.
The Chair: We were at the last speaker.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I would like to make the last comments.
Mr. John Godfrey: Just on a technical issue, I was looking at page 23, line 3, and unless I have this wrong, something doesn't work here. You have “act on the application”, and it says here “circumstances that justify the Board acting on that”.
I'm just trying to make sure it's at least grammatical. I assume that's where the change begins, at “acting”.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'll blame that on the legal people.
The Chair: So are you asking to withdraw your amendment?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No, grammatically he's probably correct on that.
The Chair: Therefore, we're ready to proceed to—
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I just pose the amendment in the interest of.... I think it's not an unreasonable one, and we don't have major consternation from the department.
The Chair: I'll go directly to the vote.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 55 agreed to)
(On clause 56—Approval of issuance)
The Chair: I have a number of amendments. There are four subclauses in clause 56, so I will ask, first, are there any amendments proposed for subclause 56(1)?
Miss Grey, the floor is yours.
Miss Deborah Grey: Thanks.
Regarding representations, of course, that were made, to have a final period is important. So the amendment, which would add new subclause 56(1.1), reads
It would make sure, and ensure, that people weren't waiting forever for the minister to respond. So I think sixty days, again, is a fair period. We heard from virtually every group that there must be some end-run on it so that it doesn't go on and on.
• 1145
The Chair: If there are any other amendments for subclause 56(1), let me know now so that we do them justice. For the time being, we are debating subclause (1).
Mr. Bagnell.
Mr. Larry Bagnell: I think most of us agree with the intent of this amendment, but I'm wondering if Ms. Grey has looked at the regime of amendments that the MP for the area has put in that would basically accomplish the same end. It has some attendant technicalities to it that....
Miss Deborah Grey: Yes, I have looked at those, and they're acceptable, but it was just different subclauses.
Mr. Larry Bagnell: So either way—
Miss Deborah Grey: If I could be reasonably assured ahead of time that those might pass and that there was some time limit on it, I'd be happy to defer, although on subclause 56(1) I didn't see any of hers in there.
The Chair: Mr. Elley.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): From my conversations with the lawyer for the Water Board, he had made a comment to me that of the hundred or so licences that have already been approved and sent on to Ottawa for their approval, there's been about eight, I think, they've never heard from the government on yet in terms of approval. They don't quite know why this hasn't taken place.
There is concern that maybe months might elapse before they get this approval from the minister. I don't think it's the minister's fault; I think it's caught up in the bureaucracy of Indian Affairs.
I suggest that perhaps Ms. Grey's amendment here would speed that process up. I think it's only fair that when we set up a board like the Nunavut Water Board, and we give them the mandate to do a job, and they have to send these to Ottawa for ministerial approval, that they expedite that as quickly as possible.
The Chair: You mentioned that it may not be the minister's fault but the fault of the bureaucrats. I sense that there are some around the table. Do you want them to add something to that?
Mr. Reed Elley: All right.
The Chair: Well, it's up to you.
Mr. Reed Elley: You don't like being called bureaucrats, do you?
Mr. Will Dunlop: I don't mind, just as long as there's no scorn in the tone.
Just for the record, the Water Board has sent no licences to Ottawa. Believe me, we're not holding up anything, Mr. Elley, not a single licence.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: They have sent no licences to Ottawa.
Mr. Will Dunlop: Correct. But we really would like to receive the pile.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: So do they sit in Nunavut someplace, or...?
The Chair: It's been cleared up that no licences have been sent to Ottawa.
Mr. Finlay, Ms. Grey, and Mr. Bagnell.
Mr. John Finlay: I'd just like to say, Mr. Chairman, that there's a number of amendments to clause 56.
The Chair: All we're talking about right now is subclause 56(1).
Mr. John Finlay: Well, for information, Mr. Chairman—
The Chair: No, I'll only accept debate on subclause 56(1).
Mr. John Finlay: All right.
The Chair: Ms. Grey.
Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you.
I understand that we've reached a compromise here, so on my amendment about the sixty days, I will defer to Nancy. She has another time limit. I have received a pretty good assurance that where I say, in new clauses (1.1) and (1.2), that the minister is deemed to have approved the application, there's going to be another clause in here when we get to clause (5). So I will either withdraw this, defer this, or whatever you like until we get to those.
Is that allowed?
The Chair: I'm told that the amendment Ms. Grey is proposing does not fit under subclause 56(1). It's a new subclause.
We'll continue debate on the amendment.
Miss Deborah Grey: I have neither a legal background nor a bureaucratic background, so I'm swamped here.
The Chair: Hold it, everybody. Order, order.
My clerk tells me that Ms. Grey is asking to withdraw the amendment.
Is that correct?
• 1150
Mr. John Godfrey: With an assumption—
The Chair: I'm asking Ms. Grey.
Miss Deborah Grey: Yes, with an assumption, which I would not like to be taken advantage of.
The Chair: Well, I can't proceed like this. We either have it on the table or we withdraw it, or else we defer it until after other discussion.
Miss Deborah Grey: I'm happy to leave it on the table, then—with that advice from Mary, thanks.
The Chair: You have the option of deferring, if you want.
Mr. Bagnell.
Mr. Larry Bagnell: I think, Ms. Grey, you were prepared to defer it until after the other amendment discussions, were you?
Miss Deborah Grey: I thought it was all going to be wrapped up into new clauses 56(2.1) or (5), but Mary says, no, it's a separate discussion, so I'll leave it.
The Chair: Do you want to bring it back under subclause (2)?
Ms. Mary Hurley: The point I was making was that there does not appear to be, as far as I can see, any amendment to the existing text of subclause 56(2). The amendment that Ms. Grey is proposing and the amendments that all the others are proposing would be either to different subclauses of clause 56, or, as in the case of Ms. Grey, to add additional subclauses to clause 56.
Legally speaking, then, there is no amendment proposed to subclause 56(1).
The Chair: Is it reasonable that we defer the discussion on Ms. Grey's amendment until we've dealt with the subclauses?
I suspect that's what Mr. Finlay wanted to bring to my attention. I didn't have the patience to listen, so I apologize to you.
Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: As I told you, there will be times when I go too fast, so bring me back.
So there are no amendments to subclause 56(1).
To subclause 56(2), there are amendments.
Ms. Karetak-Lindell.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I move to amend Bill C-33 in clause 56 by replacing lines 19 to 22 on page 23 with the following:
The Chair: Comments, questions?
Mr. Vellacott, and Mr. Godfrey after.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I would have a question of the mover, just comparative to Deb's amendment, coming at a point later. In hers, if the minister doesn't act, or nothing happens, then it's deemed to have approved the application, whereas in yours, we're.... I'm not sure what you intend here. Are we still in limbo, then? If he extends it to 45 and there's still no response, where do we sit at that point? Is it a valid application?
I mean, we just extended it. We've gone 45, and he's got to respond. If he doesn't, so what? He's a bad boy, and you go another 45 days.
I don't know what the implication is.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I don't know if I say this, or if Mr. Finlay says it, but there's an amendment to my amendment saying that if he doesn't make a decision within 45 days, he's deemed to have approved.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Oh, okay. And that's coming later?
The Chair: Well, if that's a subamendment, I think we should have it on the table now.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Okay.
The Chair: Mr. Godfrey, would you allow Mr. Finlay to go before you?
Mr. John Godfrey: Of course.
Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be inserted between clause (2) and new clause (2.1), so it would need to be numbered (2.1), making Nancy's (2.2) instead.
I move to amend Bill C-33 in clause 56 by adding, after line 41 on page 23, the following:
• 1155
So he is deemed to have approved
those things he can approve, as the case may be,
regardless of whether he lets anybody know or not when
the 45 days runs out. His only recourse is under new
clause (2.2),
that he can request another 45 days, but then that's
finished.
The Chair: I will ask advice from our researcher. There seems to be a problem with the subamendment, as to where it fits.
Ms. Mary Hurley: Mr. Finlay, I think you suggested that it was going to go in your introductory after line 41 on page 23. If that doesn't work, you're also suggesting that it go in between Ms. Karetak-Lindell's new subclauses 56(2) and (2.1).
Mr. John Finlay: That's correct.
Ms. Mary Hurley: In addition, since the new subclause (2.1) would allow for the minister to extend the period by no more than 45 additional days, it's not clear to me that it would follow logically that the amendment to the amendment belongs in between those two paragraphs.
The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.
Mr. John Godfrey: Well, my concern was that if you get to line 41, you're into clause 57.
Mr. John Finlay: Yes, I hesitated, reading that.
Mr. John Godfrey: But I also would be curious to know—and I imagine we can sort all of this out, or I hope we can—the reaction of the officials. If we can make this consistent and get it all fitting in, is this a useful addition? Do you have any problems with this—or a combination of these amendments?
Mr. John Finlay: That's right.
Mr. Will Dunlop: No, it can work—45, 45, and, if no decision, it's deemed to be approved. We have a similar regime in the Mackenzie Valley with the land and water board there. So it can work.
Mr. John Godfrey: So it's okay.
Mr. Will Dunlop: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, Mr. Finlay, and Mr. Elley.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I was just going to say something like Mr. Godfrey's, or in the case of Deb's wording here, but after new clause (2.1), where, if the minister doesn't make a decision within the above time periods—meaning, inclusive of (2) and (2.1)—then you go into that wording John had, that he has either denied it or approved it or whatever, as the case may be.
The Chair: We need our researcher—
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: But I think it has to go after so that you don't have a scenario where, if he's just not acted within the 45 period, and all of a sudden he gets a little antsy that maybe he should have done something, well, then he goes into (2.1).
That's why I think, if you're going to do this, you have to give him pretty much the full.... If he hasn't moved on it within the first 45 days, then it's deemed as denied, or approved, or whatever the case may be. If you go into that second 45-day period, then it's a done deal after that.
I think you have to get it after the new subclause 56(2.1).
Is that more possible from a legal point of view?
Ms. Mary Hurley: I think you're correct that it more properly belongs after.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Immediately following?
Ms. Mary Hurley: However, one thing for the committee to consider is that the intention of the subamendment is 45 days. The intention of Ms. Karetak-Lindell's proposed amendment is a total of 90 days. So there's a problem there.
Under one, the minister is deemed to have acted a certain way after 45, and under the other, he's allowed 90. There could, I suppose, be a provision made that would extend the 45 days under exceptional circumstances with written reasons. I'm not going to speculate on that. I would simply point out that there is a discrepancy between the 45 days total that would be allowed under the subamendment and the total of 90 that would be allowed under Ms. Karetak-Lindell's.
The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Elley, that is why I asked my colleagues to share with others their amendments. We can prevent problems like this, if we do.
Mr. Elley.
Mr. Reed Elley: Well, it would have been nice to have had that written amendment before so that we could see how it just fits in with what we're suggesting here.
• 1200
I'm trying to get my head around why we need the
amendment, and especially the additional 45-day
period. If we're concerned about the minister getting these
responses back within the 45-day period, and that's
what we want him to do, and then we turn around and
say, no, that's not what we want him to do, we actually
are going to give him 90. To me, it's contradictory
to the intent of what I think we want to say here.
I mean, if we're giving him 90, give him 90, that's it. Otherwise, we need to be more careful, I think, about why we're proposing this amendment.
So I would have some problems with the amendment the way it is worded at this point. I like the intent of the amendment, and want to vote for the intent of the amendment, but I'm concerned about this wording that would get us into some real difficulty.
The Chair: It's getting confusing, there's no doubt.
I don't want to ask my colleagues to use up their turn, not being very clear on what the amendment and subamendment is, so I'm going to ask Ms. Karetak-Lindell to read her amendment, and I will ask Mr. Finlay to read his subamendment. Fair enough?
Ms. Karetak-Lindell.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.
The amendment I'm proposing would replace lines 19 to 22 on page 23 with the following:
The Chair: The subamendment, Mr. Finlay.
Mr. John Finlay: I'll read it slowly:
The Chair: I'll ask Ms. Karetak-Lindell and Mr. Finlay if there's a way we can come back to this clause and look at the possibility of blending both....
Ms. Karetak-Lindell, Mr. Finlay, I'm talking to you.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I'm listening.
The Chair: Mr. Finlay.
Mr. John Finlay: Yes, sir.
The Chair: Do you wish, then, to suspend until we all have the subamendment before us?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Martin, and Ms. Grey is after.
Mr. Pat Martin: If Ms. Grey has a question I'd be happy to defer.
The Chair: Is it a point of information you have, Ms. Grey?
Miss Deborah Grey: Well, a question. I suppose someone else could give me the information.
The Chair: If it's a question, you're on next, then.
Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
Miss Deborah Grey: Just a couple of things—
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
Miss Deborah Grey: Oh, excuse me.
Mr. Pat Martin: I was happy to defer, but that's okay.
• 1205
I would like to see, if the
minister hasn't got an answer back after 60 days,
that this would be
it. It would be deemed to have been approved.
In actual practice, what's happening now is
that there are licences that have been ongoing for
eight or ten years that get renewed from year to year and the
minister never answers, whether it gets sent to Ottawa
or not.
The examples I have here, going back to 1996, 1998, and 2001, were submitted and the minister never did respond. But that doesn't mean Echo Bay Mines isn't using water, and it doesn't mean Jericho mine isn't using water, the whole bay joint venture.
When the minister does answer, it's been taking an average of.... For example, it took from October 1, 1998, to September 10, 1999, to answer, and from January 1, 2001, to August 1, 2001. There's a number of those. So if the average is eight or nine months to a year to get an answer—if and when the minister ever answers—obviously the Water Board's been acting pretty much unilaterally on its own, independently, already.
So send it as a courtesy to the minister. Send it off, and if you don't get an answer for 60 days, everybody just carries on, business as usual. That would be my recommendation.
This would mean that the only change would really be changing 45 to 60, and dropping (2.2), I guess, in Nancy's...or what was bumped down to (2).
That would be my opinion.
The Chair: That would be something for the mover of the amendment and subamendment to consider. But if your issue is not dealt with at that point, your 60 days could become a subamendment to Ms. Karetak-Lindell's motion, after the other one has been dealt with.
Ms. Grey.
Miss Deborah Grey: Again, just a couple of points of information. On the actual typed notice that somebody handed to me, it said “sixty days”, which is then scribbled out, with “45 days” written above it.
Is this just a work in progress here, then, that we got to 45? Okay.
Knowing human nature just a tad, I know that if you get an extension, it seems to me you're always going to take it. It seems to me one deadline is always better than two, because there would just be the assumption that I have 45 plus 45. Precious little would get done in the first 87, and then we'd really boogie for three days. I'm not sure if I'm the only one who ever wrote essays at university in that timeframe, but I dare say I'm pretty typical.
So on the whole idea of this plus that, you just make that assumption. You said 60 days in your own typed notes, and I have proposed 60 days. Let's just compromise and go with it so that we're not fooling around with two deadlines. Let's have one of 60 days. It's clear, it's a couple months. You know that you have that time. You had it in your own subamendment, so let's just do it.
The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.
Mr. John Godfrey: This is really a tricky question, because it has to do with the blending of these things.
I don't know, maybe that's what this conversation back here has been about. Are the folks from Indian Affairs or Justice Canada who know about these things actually producing an integrated, sensible thing that won't affront legal views? Is that what's going on back here?
That is what's going on back there. Good. I feel reassured.
The Chair: If any effort is made to clarify this and it's brought through one of the members, it will be received by the chair. I would be interested if one of you would ask the department what their position is at this point, because it's becoming more confusing.
I don't know who the young man is with the black suit, but he's not a member of this committee. Is he a staffer or is he with a department? He's the minister's EA. Therefore, he should be dealing with the parliamentary secretary and not interfere with our witnesses.
I'd like us to start focusing.
Ms. Karetak-Lindell.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: My understanding with the two amendments was that.... First the 45 days. We looked at the ones we already have for the NWT, and they have down 45 days. We're trying to be consistent with other management board timelines so that the department is not faced with which ones have 45 and which ones have 60.
• 1210
So that was caught by the
department, trying to make them all consistent with
the 45 days.
With this amendment, my understanding is that if the minister hasn't put in a request for an extension for 45 days, this kicks in, because he has to respond within 45 days, but the response could be a request for the 45 days, or in a lack of response, it's deemed approved.
Maybe someone has to iron that out. Either one of the two responses can be an extension or lack of, and if he fails to put in a request for an extension, then it's deemed to have been approved. That was trying to cut down on administration.
I think what we need now is just a polishing up so that those two come across.
The Chair: If someone would present an amendment that says the minister must respond within 45 days, or ask for an extension within 45 days, an extension of 45 additional days, the licence is deemed to be approved....
Is that right? I'm trying to combine. The staffers are getting more attention than the chair, which means that the work should have been done before we came here. It's very upsetting to others who have shared and done their homework. We're in a predicament of our own making.
I'll repeat what I said. If someone would present an amendment that would say that the minister must respond within 45 days, or request a further extension of 45 days, and if those two things are not done, the licence is approved....
Is that what we are saying?
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I'll make that amendment to....
The Chair: If that is the motion you are suggesting to table, then Mr. Finlay should request that his subamendment be withdrawn, at 50% plus one.
Ms. Karetak-Lindell has indicated that she intends to retable an amendment reflecting what I summed up. In order to do that, we have to ask Mr. Finlay if he wishes to withdraw, and then Ms. Karetak-Lindell to withdraw hers, and then table that amendment encompassing everything.
Would it present problems to anyone around this table if we go through those three steps?
Mr. Vellacott.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Well, I was going to say—and we can have your judgment on this—that by simply inserting on Mr. Finlay's, if the minister does not make a decision or request a 45-day extension within that first 45 days, then you just carry on from there.
The Chair: We can do it in two different spots or we can combine it. What is best for the drafters?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Do you know what I'm saying, John? Simply, if the minister does not make a decision or request an extension of 45 days, within that first 45 days, then you carry right on from there in the wording. That's what I would suggest you insert, or I will do it, or Nancy, or whomever.
I think yours is acceptable if, as our chair had I think rightly suggested, you simply insert that if the minister doesn't make a decision or ask for an extension within the first 45 days after he receives it, then it's deemed to have carried on from there.
The Chair: We've offered two different ways to resolve this.
Mr. Elley.
Mr. Reed Elley: I'm just wondering, do we have that amendment that was suggested on the floor right at the moment? Is that on the floor? Nancy moved it. Did someone second it?
• 1215
The Chair: No. What we have on the floor doesn't talk of the extended 45 days. So we do not have it. And I'm not prepared to deal with it until someone indicates that they're prepared to table it. Before we do that, we have to withdraw—
Mr. Reed Elley: All right. Let's get John's—
The Chair: Those have been received by the chair, they're in possession of the floor, and they have to be withdrawn before we can deal with a combined amendment.
So I need to know from Mr. Finlay and Ms. Karetak-Lindell if they wish to withdraw their amendment and subamendment so that we can deal with the combined amendment.
Am I clear? Is it reasonable?
Mr. Reed Elley: Yes.
The Chair: Then I will ask the question of both of you, reflecting what I just said.
Ms. Karetak-Lindell.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: My question is, if we can put mine through, and only address Mr. Finlay's amendment to reflect what we're trying to do, and, going with what Mr. Vellacott was saying, if we insert, if it's possible....
I guess I'm asking the bureaucrats if there is a problem with just mine going through and then the amendment being made with Mr. Finlay's amendment to correct that.
The Chair: We can't, because his is a subamendment to your amendment. Mr. Finlay has to withdraw his amendment if we are to proceed.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: No, I mean without rewriting mine; I submit mine as is and he resubmits his.
As Mr. Vellacott is saying about changing the 45 days, his would have to become the new subclause 56(2.2), because there wouldn't be any mention of the 45 days extension if mine doesn't stay as new subclause 56(2.1).
Just for the record, I did distribute mine. I submitted mine on Friday, and it was distributed to all members.
The Chair: That's correct.
Our researcher has a comment about the amendment.
Ms. Mary Hurley: The question I have for the committee to consider.... I think when Ms. Karetak-Lindell explained the intention underlying her proposed amendment, it was that one of two things could happen under subclause (2) as proposed. The minister could either decide, or the minister could notify the board that he or she was requiring an extension. The problem is, subclause (2) only speaks to one of those, and it speaks to the decision-making part.
So if the intention was that this provision was to allow one of two things, that's not what it says. All it talks about is the notification of the decision. It doesn't speak to a request for an extension.
The Chair: Mr. Finlay, Mr. Elley, and then Mr. Vellacott.
Mr. John Finlay: The essence of the subamendment, as it was called, subclause (2.1)—and we can make it whatever the proper drafting would be—was to ensure that the decisions of the Water Board after 45 days, or if the minister requests an additional 45 days.... If he doesn't say anything at the end of the second 45 days, then it is deemed approved—the issuance, the amendment, the renewal, or the cancellation, as the case may be.
In other words, we don't want to be in the situation we've discussed, and some people have suggested, that the approvals never come, or the amendments never come, and they don't get any answer. The board needs to know. So the intention, if I understand it, is what Mr. Vellacott said. The minister can do these things. He provides written reasons. If he needs to ask for 45 days more, he does that.
Regardless, at the end of 45 days—the second 45 days, I suggest—then it's been issued, adopted, amended or cancelled, as the board decided. So the board makes the final decision. If the minister wants to act, he has to act promptly.
• 1220
Now, I'm not a drafter, Mr. Chairman. I guess I
could write that down, but Mary might tell us better.
If, after
(2) of Nancy's motion, we say the minister
may extend
the period, and we call that (2.1), can we then call, if
the minister doesn't make a decision, or doesn't ask
for an extension, then the licence is deemed approved,
renewed, cancelled, as the case may be.
Is that decent or appropriate?
The Chair: Well, it would be better to deal with precise amendments or subamendments.
Mr. John Finlay: No, I agree.
The Chair: We're looking for a way out of it. In the meantime, we'll continue with the debate, and of course there will be more than one round. You'll have an opportunity to speak on it.
Mr. Elley.
Mr. Reed Elley: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, we could clear this up and all go home happily if Mr. Finlay would simply withdraw his motion, and what we want to say be made as an amendment to (2.1). If we do that, I think we'll all be happy.
With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think if we move that way we'll get out of this.
The Chair: Our researcher doesn't agree.
Ms. Mary Hurley: I'll tell you why I don't agree with the proposal.
In the proposal you are, in a sense, going to have a contradiction between new subclause (2), which insists that the minister decide within 45 days and doesn't speak to an extension. In new subclause (2.1), you're going to say, if the minister doesn't decide, or requests an extension. In other words, it should go either both places or neither.
On this idea of requesting an extension, you only allow for one possibility in the 45 days, and you make that obligatory, as new subclause (2) does—you say the minister “shall” decide—but in an another provision you allow for the minister to do two things.
Mr. Reed Elley: It puts an entirely new wrinkle into it, though, one we haven't even talked about yet.
The Chair: Well, we'll allow a little bit of debate.
Mr. Vellacott.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If somebody needs to eventually cut to the chase here and make a motion, I'm prepared to do that. But my suggestion would be, and I'll even move to this extent, that Nancy withdraw new subclause (2.1) and that we add Mr. Finlay's as an integral part of (2), part and parcel, no sub-point there. It simply would read, as he has here, that if the minister does not make a decision or ask for a 45-day extension within the first 45 days, after the minister receives a licence that had been issued...and so on, right to the end of that sentence there.
You'll have to judge what's in order here, but I would move, in one fell swoop here, that Ms. Karetak-Lindell's (2.1) be removed, and that we add this as an integral part of her (2). So I'm asking for the removal of the one, and I'm amending her (2). In other words, if the minister does not make a decision or ask for a 45-day extension within the first 45 days, then carry on after the minister receives a licence.
I think that might be the way, expeditiously, to deal with it.
The Chair: We're in a bind, because we have an amendment and a subamendment, and that's all the chair can receive. We have to deal with one before or get the cooperation where we can agree on consensus to solve this problem.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Is my amendment acceptable?
The Chair: I cannot receive it, because I can only accept one amendment and one subamendment. We have to deal with the subamendment to make room for another one.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Which is the subamendment?
The Chair: Mr. Finlay's.
Mr. Reed Elley: Well, let him remove it, then. Let's get on with it.
Remove yours.
The Chair: Ms. Grey.
Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you.
Regarding the subamendment here, where we're doing 45, or 45 plus 45, it seems to me—I'm going to take one more kick at this—that 60 would be a really good compromise.
Now, Nancy, you did talk earlier about making this consistent. You said the departmental officials were saying that this would make it consistent with other water board acts, etc. But I didn't see you chatting with any of the departmental officials; I saw you chatting with the minister's staff. I appreciate that, but who is it who thinks this is consistent or needs to be changed?
If we went 60 days, could this be acceptable or not?
I'll ask the officials.
The Chair: Mr. Dunlop, help us out.
• 1225
Mr. Will Dunlop: We can work with 60 days, no second 60 days; we can work with 45 plus 45.
I think the simplest way out of the amendment, amendment, and subamendment is straight math. I think we're just about there. Ms. Karetak-Lindell's two motions to amend can both work, substituting two with the wording for her sub-two, adding a (2.1), as she has suggested. That's a time limit of 45, and 45 in additional time. The only thing we were missing was the math on the subamendment from Mr. Finlay. If you just add the two together, it's 90.
So after a period of 90 days, no matter how you get there, at the end of 90 days, the minister is deemed to have approved. So it's 45, 45, and 90.
Miss Deborah Grey: It would be great, then, John, if you'd do the math. I'll concede that one if we could just carry on.
The Chair: Did everybody understand that? Is someone prepared to put it on paper?
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, could the clerk order sandwiches and coffee? Though since we are talking about Nunavik, perhaps we should order popsicles.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Grey.
Miss Deborah Grey: In the interests of time and drafting by committee here, could we move on to the next “pull it”, and come back to this?
The Chair: The next clause or the next part of this clause?
Miss Deborah Grey: Oh, heavens, we're just absolutely mired down in clause 56. We still have clauses 76, 80, 81, and 82. We could then come back to this other version.
The Chair: The problem I have is that I lose the attention of two or three of our members, who are busy redrafting. We're dealing with another part of the same article, so....
Miss Deborah Grey: It seems to me we've beaten this one enough. One person should just write the thing down. With the advice just given, I don't know that it would take three or four.
The Chair: But our concern was, how does that affect your amendment? Because you're asking for 60. If you're saying that you would support what Mr. Dunlop just said, then I think we're starting to close in on the problem.
Miss Deborah Grey: Again, I do have some reservations about human nature being given two deadlines. But beyond that, if there is going to be a, deadline, which would now be 90 days, after which there's the phrase “the Minister will have been deemed to have approved it”, I can live with that.
The Chair: And when you said 90 days, you're still talking 45 plus a request for an extended 45?
Okay.
Miss Deborah Grey: And I'll be watching to see how many extensions there will be over the years.
The Chair: Thank you, Miss Grey.
Miss Deborah Grey: I'm happy to do that.
The Chair: That facilitates, because my concern was that as I made room for another subamendment you would want to have us deal with the 60.
Miss Deborah Grey: Yes, I'll defer as long as there's that phrase that the minister is deemed to have approved it.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Chairman, when we say 60 or 90 days, are those working days or non-working days?
The Chair: What do you understand by “working days” and “non-working days”.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: To my mind, working days are weekdays. They do not include the weekend—Saturday or Sunday. That is important.
The Chair: If there is nothing to indicate whether these are working days or non-working days, then they are calendar days.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you.
• 1230
[English]
The Chair: If not specified, we are talking calendar days. It is not specified, therefore we're talking calendar days.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Could someone please order sandwiches and coffee?
[English]
The Chair: We're waiting for the drafted motion, and then we can deal with two or three of our amendments.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: It was going to be my suggestion that maybe somebody could draft them.
The Chair: Are they not doing that now?
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Well, Mr. Finlay is doing one, but I don't know if he's doing it with....
The Chair: Mr. Finlay, sir, are you drafting an amendment that coincides with what Mr. Dunlop suggested the department is prepared to accept and that would probably facilitate everybody's concern?
Mr. John Finlay: I think that's what I'm doing. I have three lines to go.
The Chair: Mr. Finlay, after you have done that, will you be asking to withdraw your subamendment?
Mr. John Finlay: I'll do that now, if you like, if it helps.
The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell, at that point will you ask to withdraw your amendment?
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: It depends on whether his amendment is an amendment to my amendment.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I can't see what he's writing.
The Chair: His amendment will reflect what Mr. Dunlop said.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I was just going to suggest that we could take a few minutes to work with Will.
The Chair: That's what they're doing. We're waiting for that.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I mean, I don't know if that's an amendment to my amendment or if we're trying to make them all one amendment.
The Chair: I can tell you the ruling right away. If you don't withdraw, we'll deal with the subamendment, and then at last we'll deal with your amendment. And if it passes, your amendment becomes redundant, because it's dealt with in their subamendment.
Correct?
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: No.
The Chair: We need a bit of cooperation.
It would be very helpful if Mr. Finlay drafts the amendment and allows Ms. Karetak-Lindell, being from that area of the country, to move it. You know, we're all politicians, and it's nice to go home and say you made a certain amendment.
But there are problems with chairs who talk to themselves, too. There are people who have white jackets that are not very comfortable for guys like me.
We have two other bills coming. I would hope when that happens we will have notice of all subamendments.
• 1233
• 1239
The Chair: Order.
Mr. Finlay, are you prepared to read the amendments?
Keep in mind that we will allow Mr. Finlay to read the proposed next step, because we still have an amendment and a subamendment on the floor.
Mr.Finlay, read your proposed solution, and then we'll discuss if you are wanting to either withdraw or....
• 1240
Mr. John Finlay: My solution, Mr. Chairman, is to use Ms. Karetak-Lindell's motion (2), and her (2.1) as proposed originally, and then simply add my amendment as (2.2).
The Chair: Would you read that?
Mr. John Finlay: The whole thing?
The Chair: Yes. And it's very irregular, because, as I've mentioned many times, we have an amendment and a subamendment; we can't take more.
We want you to read it for the interest of members.
Mr. John Finlay: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but I'm not suggesting you make any changes in the amendment or the subamendment.
The Chair: I cannot.
Mr. John Finlay: I know.
This amendment would amend Bill C-33 in clause 56 by replacing.... Now, I can't quite tell you where the lines will be.
The Chair: It doesn't matter.
Mr. John Finlay: It's on page 23:
The Chair: Period?
Mr. John Finlay: Period.
The Chair: Our researcher will comment.
Ms. Mary Hurley: There is the matter that I raised a little while ago, that subclause (2) speaks only to a decision. It does not speak to an extension of time. This means there will be an interpretive problem with (2), as proposed, saying one thing, and (2.2) saying two things.
In other words, if subclause (2) as proposed were to also include a mention of a request for an extension, then your proposed subclause (2.2) would speak to both aspects.
The Chair: Mr. Bagnell, Monsieur St-Julien, Ms. Karetak-Lindell, and Mr. Vellacott.
Mr. Larry Bagnell: Well, I'm in favour. I think we should get on, because I have to leave exactly at 1 o'clock.
The Chair: I would like that, too, but I....
Mr. Larry Bagnell: I agree.
The Chair: So the problem you have is where it's situated? Can we fix that after?
Ms. Mary Hurley: If the members look at subclause (2) as proposed at the moment, it's a mandatory provision. It obliges the minister to make a decision within 45 days. The (2.1) provides for an additional 45 days. It doesn't say “to decide”, and it doesn't say “to request”. Proposed subclause (2.2) speaks about two things—that is, if the minister hasn't decided, or requested an extension. In other words, if subclause (2) as proposed were to also mention a request for an extension.... At the moment, all the minister can do under subclause (2) is to decide. It obliges the minister to decide. It doesn't say anything about requesting an extension.
That's the only point I'm trying to make.
The Chair: That's why we thought they were combining the whole issue under (2). Then it would be okay.
Ms. Mary Hurley: The proposal, as I understand it, is for there to now be three new subclauses—the new subclause (2), the subclause (2.1), and the subclause (2.2).
The new subclause (2.2) that Mr. Finlay just read to us talks about two possibilities: the minister either decides or requests an extension. If the minister has done neither, he's deemed to have accepted.
The problem with this is that new subclause (2), which I believe remains on the table, only speaks to one possibility, and that is the minister deciding.
I don't know if I can make it any clearer.
The Chair: But if we put the other two provisions in (2), then they're all in part of one subclause.
• 1245
Ms. Mary Hurley: The solution, in my view, would be to amend existing subclause (2) to allow for the possibility that the minister request an extension. Then, the proposed subclause (2.2), which does mention both possibilities, will be referring back to the two possibilities that existed under subclause (2).
Under subclause (2), for example, if we were to say, “The Minister shall, within 45 days after receiving a type A licence, or, if a public hearing is held, a type B licence”, etc., either notify the board of the minister's decision, and provide written reasons, or request an extension. Then subclause (2.1) would say the maximum extension is going to be 45 days. Then subclause (2) is going to say, if neither A nor B, then it's deemed to have been approved.
Mr. Reed Elley: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. For us to deal with this, according to Robert's Rules of Order or any other thing, Mr. Finlay has to withdraw his subamendment. That clears the board. We can then start to amend what Mr. Karetak-Lindell has proposed.
The Chair: I'll rule on the point of order. What you are saying is correct, but we are under Bourinot.
Mr. Reed Elley: Well, whatever.
The Chair: What you said is correct with Bourinot. With Robert's rules, you can have as many amendments as you want. So you're correct.
Mr. Finlay.
Well, hold on. Let's go to the list.
We won't get this done today. I feel badly about that. We have just been offered a solution. Either we try to solve the problem by talking about the same thing or we stick to our guns, and we'll meet you at a special meeting.
Mr. Bagnell, Monsieur St-Julien, Ms. Karetak-Lindell, Mr. Vellacott, and who else? That's it.
Mr. Bagnell.
Mr. Larry Bagnell: I propose that we, for the moment, accept that solution, let them write it out, and—
The Chair: We can't do it unless they withdraw the two amendments and subamendments. I've gone beyond, to allow them to read it. I'm in a corner. I can make a decision and say we're voting on the subamendment right now, but we're trying to work together.
So it's a checkmate. We can't budge unless somebody withdraws the subamendment.
Mr. John Finlay: Well, I'm trying, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw the subamendment. I was ready to do that 30 minutes ago.
The Chair: There's been a request by Mr. Finlay to withdraw his subamendment.
(Subamendment withdrawn)
The Chair: Now, are you talking of the solution suggested by our researcher as the amendment? Yes?
Therefore, Ms. Karetak-Lindell, do you wish to ask the committee to withdraw your amendment, and reintroduce it the way it's written there?
Mr. Reed Elley: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, you do not need to do that. Ms. Karetak-Lindell has already put on the table her amendments. If we want to include what our researcher has said in it, all we need to do is make a motion to amend her new subclause (2) to include the words of our researcher.
I would so move.
The Chair: So you have a subamendment. Okay.
It would have been simpler to withdraw it and reintroduce it. Now we'll go to a subamendment of Ms. Karetak-Lindell's, which we have to deal with first. It would be a lot easier, on consensus, to write it properly, withdraw, reintroduce the proper amendment, and we're going home.
[Translation]
Mr. St-Julien.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: No, that's all right. My comments would be out of context. I wanted to talk about something else.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I want to ask the officials here to comment on Mary's suggestion.
The Chair: Mr. Dunlop, could you respond to our researcher's suggestion.
Mr. Will Dunlop: I think I followed it. I understood at least the first half of the description by the researcher. Ms. Karetak-Lindell's new subclause (2), the amendment to replace subclause (2) in clause 56, works. Her second subclause would be (2.1).
• 1250
Both of those work. Then the effort has to go into
rewording a new subclause (2.2), a subamendment, that
makes sure the minister's deeming provision operates
after the first 45 days, if the minister doesn't
extend, but in any event it operates after the second
45 days if the minister does extend.
That's simply what we want to do; it's just getting the words right.
The Chair: Right.
If you can include that in your new drafted amendment, then you could withdraw the other, introduce this one, and it's done.
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Okay.
The Chair: Do you wish to do that?
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Whichever would expedite the process.
The Chair: Okay.
Therefore, on the agreement or consensus that you will be the first to introduce an amendment, which is the new drafted one, are you asking the committee to withdraw your amendment?
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Yes.
(Amendment withdrawn)
The Chair: We're back on the main motion for that article.
Could you introduce your new amendment?
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I don't have it written down, if you want it all on one piece of paper.
The Chair: Does the committee insist on having it in writing, or do we ask our researcher to put it on record and that it be drafted after?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Just to be clear on the record, she's going to insert in subclause (2) that proviso for an extension. Is that what you're doing? This would then mean new subclause (2.1), as Nancy had here originally, and then new subclause (2.2), as John drafted?
Ms. Mary Hurley: The additional important point was the point that Mr. Dunlop just made, which is that the deeming provision has to apply in both circumstances, either after the first 45 or after the second 45, when an extension has been requested. That way it's clear that if the minister doesn't request an extension, he's deemed to have approved after the first 45 days. So that would have to be worded in a...and I think it's a little bit tricky to word that.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.
The Chair: I feel that we could agree on this with a majority vote. Is there anyone in this room who can write this down? There must be somebody who can draft this. If not, next time we should have somebody who can.
Could you draft that for us, please, and then we can come back to ratify it?
Does that take care of Miss Grey's amendment that we had deferred?
Miss Deborah Grey: I suppose. I just seem to get more confused, not just by the minute but by the half-hour here. You say we're at a checkmate—
The Chair: Not any more.
Miss Deborah Grey: No, not any more, but it seems to me.... And I'm not even sure of this, but someone talked about the ministerial staff. I mean, who is writing this thing, and what is it we're trying to accomplish? I would hate to think, in my naïveté, that the minister was in fact drafting by committee here, around the table, their own way out of this. I think we should all be concerned about that, regardless of what side we all sit on.
And I suspect your frustration, Mr. Chair, is pretty tightly wrapped up in that.
The Chair: I told you at the first meeting that once I hit the gavel, I'm your chair and everybody else's chair. The minister's staff or the department have caused this problem by not telling us before, and I'm very upset at that. We'll leave it at that. It's unfair to the committee to have a simple amendment like this and not try to have the problem solved before we get here.
Miss Deborah Grey: This has gone on for an hour and five minutes.
The Chair: Exactly.
Where are we now?
Mr. Vellacott. Did we go to you?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm fine. I don't want to belabour this, but I'm not so sure it's the department's issue so much as it was an amendment that they see here, at this point, for the first time. How could they react to it before they even got to this meeting? So I wouldn't want to put the blame on them.
The Chair: Somebody.... Well, anyway, I've said it.
Is it being drafted?
Mr. Elley.
Mr. Reed Elley: To settle the concerns of Miss Grey and maybe those of others around the table, I don't think we're having the department here working to do our work for us. Basically, Nancy, as the mover of this, can consult and bring in the new motion at the next meeting.
The Chair: It's being drafted. We'll have it today.
Mr. Reed Elley: Will we have it today?
• 1255
The Chair: Yes. We'll have it very shortly.
The point is, if, by accepting that new amendment, we defer Ms. Grey's motion, which spoke of 60 days...and that's why I was asking to see if there was any intent of going with this new amendment.
Miss Deborah Grey: I was acting in good faith about an hour and five minutes ago on this. When you talked about the departmental officials, they've actually been sitting here behaving themselves quite admirably. It's all this fuss over here going on that I think we all need to be very concerned about.
I mean, I'm not going to say ahead of time, after an hour, that sure, I'll just defer. I'll have a look at what actually gets written on paper, something that should have been done this morning, before we got here. But I'm not going to just waive my 60-day right when I've watched this go on, actually.
So I'll defer my decision.
The Chair: Our researcher has shared with us exactly what they will be drafting.
Miss Deborah Grey: Sure, but over morning coffee would have been just a super time and place to do it.
The Chair: Agreed.
While we're waiting for this, committee, do you wish to come back at 3:30 p.m. to do this, or do you want a special meeting at another time?
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can we move on to other clauses and come back?
The Chair: I wish we could.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: For instance, clause 76; is that a possibility?
I would think by consent we can come back. Why can't we deal with clause 76? Is that a possibility?
The Chair: We have two other amendments on clause 56.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's what I'm saying. That's in limbo. Leave clause 56 for the moment and, by consent, move to clause 76. You can't, obviously, pass or approve clause 56 with all that complication going on.
The Chair: I'll ask that question.
Is the new amendment drafted?
Mr. Will Dunlop: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is.
The Chair: Could you read it for us, please?
Mr. Will Dunlop: That clause 56 be amended by replacing lines 19 to 22 on page 23 with the following:
The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell, do you wish that to become your amendment?
Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Yes.
The Chair: I'm accepting that as the amendment.
Is there any debate on this?
Our researcher has a problem with this, and I think we should hear it.
Ms. Mary Hurley: Unfortunately, it doesn't address the first issue I raised.
First of all, it's difficult to comment when I don't have it in writing, but my understanding is that subclause (2) still imposes on the minister an obligation to decide within the first 45 days. It says the minister “shall”—as I understand Mr. Dunlop to have read—within 45 days.
I'm sorry, but I missed the last sentence of subclause (2), which might clarify. It's very difficult to comment.
• 1300
Mr. Will Dunlop: Yes, I thought you'd made a very valid point earlier, so we did not break it into three. We broke it into only two amendments. Ms. Karetak-Lindell's two amendments are collapsed into one so that there can't be an internal inconsistency in the substitution of (2).
I wonder if I should repeat it.
Ms. Mary Hurley: Just to respond for a second, as I understand it, Mr. Dunlop, you still have a first sentence that reads the minister “shall”, and it does not provide in that sentence for any possibility other than a decision. That's the point I was making.
Mr. Will Dunlop: Right. It's an awful thing to do to you to not have it in writing in front of you.
At the end of that sentence, where it says “notify the Board of the Minister's decision and provide written reasons in the notification”, there's a period there, but not a change to a new subsection. So we have a sentence, added in the same section, that the minister may extend the period of 45 days by not more than 45 additional days. So the “shall” is still in the first sentence, that the minister shall notify, and, in the second, that he “may” extend for another 45. We've put them in the same subclause.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Why wouldn't you say “or” instead of a new sentence there?
Mr. Will Dunlop: Well, we're drafting as hard as we can.
The Chair: Committee members, I think we should have another meeting. It'll allow time to clear this up. It's unfortunate.
Can we try to agree to a time? I suggest 3:15 p.m. this afternoon or 3:15 p.m. tomorrow.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Let's do it today.
The Chair: There's a suggestion for today. Do we have consensus?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I would ask that drafters of legislation be found somewhere so that they can help us out with this.
We are adjourned until 3:15 p.m.
