AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 6, 1998

• 1540

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.)): The meeting will now come to order. I see we have a quorum. On our agenda today is Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867.

We are pleased to welcome today representatives of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada: Gilles Binda, Senior Policy Adviser, Nunavut Secretariat, Northern Program; John Merritt, Senior Adviser, Nunavut Secretariat, Northern Program; and Mary Douglas, Legal Counsel.

I am honoured and pleased today to be in the presence of five competent women.

We will now begin our clause by clause consideration of the bill.

• 1545

(Clauses 1 to 12 inclusively carried)

(Clause 13)

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy wishes to move an amendment to clause 13. Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Keddy?

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): So moved. Do you want explanation or do you want discussion?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Would you kindly read your amendment?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Certainly.

[English]

The amendment would read that the commissioner shall cause to be laid before the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut any agreement entered into under subsection (1).

Essentially, the purpose of this amendment is to.... The interim commissioner of Nunavut has the legal right to enter into agreements of any type for the new territory or proposed territory. In this case he has the ability to sign contracts up to $400,000. I talked to the legal experts on this, and that's why it's worded “cause to be laid before the Legislative Assembly”. Essentially, it would enable the legislative assembly to take a moment to look at those contracts that had been signed and gives them permission, if they want to, to renegotiate or redo the contracts as a legislative assembly. I think the legislative assembly needs the ability to do that.

She's shaking her head; we're not sure. That is the point of the amendment, to allow the elected legislative assembly, once they are elected, to actually look over the contracts they will inherit as the legal government up north. If they decide to renegotiate them, they would have the ability to do that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I will read the amendment. Mr. Keddy moves that Bill C-39, in clause 13, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 6 the following:

(2.1) Section 73 of the act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) The Commissioner shall cause to be laid before the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut any agreement entered into under subsection (1).

Does anyone wish to debate the motion?

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Chairman, in subsection (1.1) of the French version, it should say "le commissaire doit déposer", instead of "le commissaire fait déposer". The word "fait" should be deleted. The English version contains the word "shall". There is quite a difference between "doit" and "fait". One implies a choice, and the other, an obligation.

The Chairman: Mr. Patry

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): I have a question for Mr. Fournier. You wish to amend the French text to ensure agreement with the English version. Is that correct?

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Precisely.

Mr. Bernard Patry: And that's all?

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Yes.

• 1550

Mr. Bernard Patry: You would like the French version to read "Le commissaire doit déposer". What if it said "Le commissaire dépose"?

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: No, "doit déposer" would be more accurate.

Mr. Bernard Patry: It's a matter of semantics.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: He has no choice. If the Commissioner "fait déposer", he is assigning that task to someone else, but if the Commissioner "doit déposer", he has a responsibility to ensure that that agreement has in fact been laid before the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I have no objections, Mr. Chairman, to changing the wording of the French text so that it reads "doit déposer", instead of "fait déposer".

[English]

Do you have any objections, Mr. Keddy? It's just the French translation compared with the English.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, I'm fine with that.

Mr. Bernard Patry: You're fine. Okay. On the government side, we don't have any opposition to this amendment.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Patry, since the Commissioner is not a member of the Assembly, shouldn't the text read: "Le commissaire doit faire déposer"?

Mr. Bernard Patry: No, "doit déposer" would suffice.

The Chairman: Fine then, "Le commissaire doit déposer". Are there any objections? The amended subsection (1.1) would therefore read as follows in French:

(1.1) Le commissaire doit déposer, devant la législature de Nunavut, tout accord conclu en vertu du paragraphe (1).

Is that all right with you, Mr. Keddy?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman, the change only affects the French version.

[English]

There's no change at all on the English side.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Very well than. The English text is correct. Go ahead.

The Clerk: I simply want to point out that since the Commissioner is not a member of the Nunavut Legislative Assembly, he is not the one who will be tabling an agreement. He will have to get a member of the Assembly to do this on his behalf. Perhaps it would be more appropriate in that case for the text to read: "Le commissaire doit faire déposer". That would be closer to the facts.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I have no objections to "doit faire déposer". The intent of Mr. Keddy's amendment was merely to ensure that the Nunavut Legislative Assembly was aware of everything going on. I have no problem with the text reading "doit faire déposer".

That settles it as far as the French version is concerned.

The Chairman: Fine. Is that all right with you, Mr. Keddy?

(1.1) Le commissaire doit faire déposer, devant la législature du Nunavut, tout accord conclu en vertu du paragraph (1).

(Subamendment carried)

(Amendment carried)

(Clause 13 as amended carried)

(Clauses 14 and 15 carried)

(Clause 16)

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy has a motion to amend clause 16. It reads as follows:

That Bill C-39, in clause 16, be amended:

a) by replacing line 6 on page 10 with the following:

in Council shall, before the day that section 3 b) by replacing line 12 on page 10 with the following:

governing the elections and shall be before or

I'm sorry. I didn't have a copy of the bill in front of me.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I didn't bring mine, either. Gordon, I think, has his here and the way it would have read is by replacing line 6 on page 10, so we have to come down here.

Does anyone else have the bill here?

• 1555

A voice: Yes, I have the bill here.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay, I just want to make sure we're right. It's subsection 76.03(1) and it reads “Despite section 15, the Governor in Council may, before the day that section 3 comes into force,”—

Mr. Bernard Patry: You want to replace the word “may” by “shall”.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Exactly.

As well, by replacing line 12 on page 10 with the following:

governing the elections and shall be before or

[Translation]

The Chairman: Do you have an explanation for us, Ms. Karetak- Lindell?

[English]

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I have a question as to how these two are connected together. I'm not getting what the amendment is trying to do.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy, could you explain your amendment to us?

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It puts the onus upon the commissioner. By changing from “may before that day” to “shall before that day” he has no option. To explain this, what I actually wanted to do here was to put an amendment that would allow for a February election. This really is kind of a back door way to try to do that. But it doesn't allow for a February election because we're only changing the amendments here and we're not changing the act. All we have are the amendments to the act and not the act itself.

All we can change are the amendments, not the act. This way there's no choice but to call an election on that day. They shall do it, not may do it. He has to do it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank You.

Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Just to answer Mr. Keddy, I understand pretty well his concern about this, but we cannot accept it. It's not because we don't agree in principle. Certainly it's a fact that the chief electoral officer for the election of the next Nunavut assembly requests one year to do it. He needs that much time.

We have less than a year right now. And if you calculate that it will be the end of June before the bill is passed in the Senate, there will not be enough time. He needs to go through the enumeration and he also needs to solve some mechanical problems. These are the only reasons; it could be technically quite difficult. This is the reason why we would like to remain with the same wording of “may” instead of “shall”.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The problem with that is that the groups we've talked to from Nunavut have certainly requested, if possible, that the election be moved ahead. I realize the situation we're in here, and we need time to do it, but I would have a bit of difficulty agreeing, Mr. Patry, that we couldn't have an election in February. I would think that even if this passes through the Senate—and we're going to be soon finished with it in the House—by early summer or even by September they couldn't have.... They've already had a long history of holding elections. We've already done that before. We should be able to put an electoral process in place that would allow for early elections. That way, on April 1, 1999, when Nunavut comes into being, the legislative assembly will be ready to take office.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Are there any other comments?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Any further comments? Mr. Merritt.

[English]

Mr. John Merritt (Senior Adviser, Nunavut Secretariat, Northern Program, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): The only comment I would make is that the one-year advance time period that Mr. Patry mentioned is the lead time we were given by the chief electoral officer of the Northwest Territories, the clerk of the NWT assembly. He's a very experienced individual. He has run the legislative assembly elections going back many years. He has run plebiscites. He has calculated out in some considerable detail the kind of advance time that would be necessary to assure that there's an effective enumeration process, candidates have the opportunity to identify themselves, and papers are filed. These are all the various mechanical things associated with that election. He is somewhat anxious even now that the amount of time available to hold that election will be much shorter than would be within his comfort zone.

• 1600

Based on that advice, our feeling is that although everyone is working toward an early election and the department has signalled its commitment to assist northern parties in that result, to commit to an election in advance of April 1, 1999, might in fact lead to some administrative problems that could not be overcome in that time period. The flexibility the current language allows would avoid the predicament of having committed to an election while the machinery can't deliver that election in an organized and orderly fashion.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

[English]

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I did have another question, then. I had understood that the reason we were doing these Nunavut Act amendments was also to have an early election. Am I now understanding that there is no possible way to have an early election before April 1, 1999? I'm very confused now.

Mr. John Merritt: There is every possibility and certainly there is every intention to organize that election to occur before April 1, 1999, if these amendments are adopted. I guess what we're reluctant to supply you would be some kind of guarantee that those elections could be held independently of what happens between now and 1999.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Is the key word here “independently”? Again, I'm a little confused here, because I want to understand the implications of this. When you say “independently”, do you mean that elections cannot be run by the Nunavut government independently, so therefore they will be run by the existing Government of the Northwest Territories before April 1, 1999?

Mr. John Merritt: Perhaps I put the emphasis on the wrong word. I think the word I would emphasize is “guarantee”. At the moment, the amendments permit an early election, but they wouldn't compel an early election if it turns out that the administration of that early vote becomes impossible for whatever reasons might occur between now and 1999.

The practical problem might be that if the amendment were adopted, there would be an obligation to conduct that election even if the chief electoral officer advises all the parties that the timing is impossible to meet before April 1, 1999.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We don't need to delay this forever. I'd like to make a final point, and then maybe the committee could decide.

Very much the reason for this amendment is to allow for early elections. I realize the bill, as it's written, allows for it, but it doesn't force it; this would absolutely force it.

This piece of legislation is going to go through Parliament. It's a matter of time before it's completely approved. There's absolutely no reason why the chief electoral officer cannot be doing his or her work right now. That would be my qualifying statement there. They can start. There's nothing to hold them up. We're going to have to have an election in Nunavut at some time. If it's not able to be done in February, maybe it could be done in March, but it could still be done prior to that April 1 deadline.

I think it's important that when April 1, 1999 rolls around.... We've had many years to plan this. If the chief electoral officer needs more help or more assistance, then that would be incumbent upon the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to find that assistance or help.

• 1605

The Chairman: Mr. Merritt.

Mr. John Merritt: Perhaps I can provide a bit more information on that point. The Chief Electoral Officer of the Northwest Territories has worked very closely with the Department of Indian Affairs to do as much prethinking as possible about the organization of that election. However, the way the amendments are worded, the election rules for the organization at election cannot be adopted formally until these amendments go through by way of Order in Council. The spending of public moneys would have to await the adoption of these amendments.

So although some initial work can be completed, we still have the difficulty that a lot of the work can't begin in earnest until after the amendments go through.

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But the Government of Canada, after the amendments are officially approved by the Governor General, or whoever that mysterious person is that gives the final stamp of approval—it's someone, it's not really an elected official, I know that—would be able to give the chief electoral officer more assistance, more dollars, if that was required, in order to do this. Is that correct or incorrect?

Mr. John Merritt: I'm not experienced in the organization of elections, but I would relay to you the advice we have received from someone who is very experience at running elections in the north. I would point out that a lot of the time periods he has built into his calculations involve mandatory time periods—allowing people opportunities to file nomination papers, periods of time associated with the training of returning officers, things of that nature—that really can't be overcome by adding to the budget. Some of these timing concerns really dictate a certain kind of process. You can't just overcome any of those problems by adding more people or more money.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy has one final comment.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: With all respect to what you're saying—and I think I understand exactly what you're saying—and with respect to the chief electoral officer and his experience in the north, I think as a group here, as a committee, we have to understand that this is not the first time there's ever been a ballot box in the eastern Arctic. I just can't quite see what the major problem is.

I'm finished.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 16 carried)

The Chairman: Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: I don't know if any other amendments will be brought. If there are no amendments, can we just do clauses 17 to 52 instead of...?

No? You want to go one by one?

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): You can go to the end of the first part, to clause 42.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Including clause 42?

Mr. Mike Scott: Yes, including clause 42.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Okay. That's fine.

[Translation]

(Clauses 17 to 42 inclusively carried)

(Clause 43—Number of senators)

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions I would like to ask, if I may.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. Mike Scott: I'm not sure which one of the witnesses I would address this to, so I'll address it to all three. Whoever wants to then respond, please do so.

• 1610

Clause 43 in our estimation provides for a new senator without election. It also provides quasi-provincial powers to Nunavut, in essence. Indeed, some constitutional experts.... Mel Smith, who I believe has appeared before the committee in the past and testified, has made it very clear that in his estimation the creation of Nunavut is in essence the creation of a new province. So I'm going to ask you if you hold to that view, whether or not the government has sought the agreement of the other provinces that is required in the Constitution. If in fact any new provinces are created, it is a requirement of the federal government to consult with the provinces and to obtain agreement from them prior to proceeding in this manner.

So I'm going to ask you about provincial consent. I'm going to ask what has been done in that regard. I'm also going to ask for the legal constitutional interpretation as to whether or not what is being done with section 43, and not just section 43 but the sections following that in part II, is in fact the creation of a new province in Canada.

Mr. John Merritt: The department's view is that the creation of Nunavut through the coming into force of section 3 of the Nunavut Act, 1993, will amount to the creation of a new territory and not a new province, so the issue of provincial consent is not relevant.

Mr. Mike Scott: You haven't obtained any provincial views or any provincial consent, then.

Mr. John Merritt: The provincial governments are aware of the legislation, but their consent has not been sought.

Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Chairman, I certainly have to go on the record as objecting to this clause, in that I disagree with the interpretation of the government. I do believe this is in fact creating a new province, without provincial consent as required by the Constitution. I certainly want to be on the record and the Reform Party to be on the record as stating that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Scott. Are there any further comments?

(Clauses 43 to 51 inclusively carried on division)

(Clause 52—Nunavut Act)

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask some questions on clause 52, please.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: As this clause deals with the actual implementation of the Nunavut Act and actually confirms the date by which Nunavut will become, in the words of our witnesses today, a territory, and as there has been a great deal of speculation by those who live in the area that the time line is not going to be met, I'm going to start by asking the witnesses, with respect to that, what their view is or what their position is with regard to this. We have some very high-profile people in the Northwest Territories saying that this date is not realistic and can't be met.

• 1615

In essence, as I understand it—and again I will ask you to confirm this—the original cost of implementation was estimated at $75 million. I understand that has now been increased to $150 million. Can you confirm that in fact the price for implementation has escalated dramatically? Can you discuss the implementation date and the very serious concerns that have been raised by many in the Northwest Territories? As a matter of fact, it seems that only Jack Anawak believes the dates can be met. Nobody else believes it. For example, Charles Dent, the minister responsible for western transition on Baffin Island, says it can't be done, and the fellow who is expected to be the new leader in the area doesn't think it can be done in that timeframe.

The Chairman: Mr. Merritt.

Mr. John Merritt:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible].

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: To begin with, Baffin Island is in my riding. Charles Dent and the western constitutional forum and Baffin Island are not one and the same; they're not together. I've told people that we can be one of two things when it comes to Nunavut: we can be optimistic or pessimistic. I think the majority of the people are very optimistic.

There is no precedent. As with all new things, I'm sure we'll be coming to some moments where we might not have everything 100% planned out, but I believe the priority items will be in place so that we can have a functioning government as of April 1, 1999. Given the resources and the will of the people, I think we will be ready to tackle whatever issues come our way.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. That was an excellent comment.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: We haven't dealt with the cost issue, but further to that, and beyond what Mr. Dent is quoted as saying, there are others. Goo Arlooktoo, who is the minister responsible for Nunavut transition planning in the current Northwest Territories, is saying he has real concerns and reservations about being able to meet the deadline.

This is simply a matter of reality. It's simply a matter of trying to determine whether this is doable or not and whether trying to make it in the timeframe that's been set is really going to dramatically escalate the costs yet again, as I believe they have been already as a result of trying to meet artificial targets.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. Merritt.

[English]

Mr. John Merritt: On the funding issue, I'm not aware of the status of the $75 million figure. The department indicated in I believe April 1996 that the transition budget for the establishment of Nunavut would be $150 million, and the department is still operating with that figure.

With respect to the coming into force on April 1, 1999, I'm not aware of any leader of any major organization in the Nunavut area who is advocating any delay in that date. A number of individuals have been quoted as saying everything will not be in place, and the department accepts that not everything will be in place.

I would point out that the model that's being followed, as recommended by the Nunavut Implementation Commission, does anticipate a transition period in which certain activities would continue to be supported by help from the Government of Northwest Territories and through contracts with other jurisdictions. So we are still holding to the April 1, 1999 timetable.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. The bell that you're hearing is for the quorum. That is customary. Let's continue. Ms. Karetak-Lindell had the floor.

[English]

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Just a comment about Goo and his comments. I understand—and I wasn't here—that Goo was one of the witnesses here on April 29, I believe. If he didn't repeat those comments, then.... I'm sure at the time he had a chance to be a witness he would have asked for a delay of the implementation date if he really thought this couldn't happen. He was here in person, speaking to this committee, and if he didn't make an intervention then, he must have changed his mind.

• 1620

A lot of the quotes that are happening are really from the western Arctic group, who are still trying to work out how they're going to deal with the territory that's left behind.

The Chairman: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Mike Scott: Again, Mr. Chairman, John Amagoalik, head of the Nunavut Implementation Commission, admits the new government will not have the staff ready to take on its responsibilities for a number of years, and he is quoted as saying the actual implementation of those plans is behind schedule, which causes us some worry.

So it's more than one person being quoted, and there seems to be some real concern as to whether or not these are doable dates.

Mr. Bernard Patry: The gentleman you're quoting was here last week and never discussed this matter. That man was here last meeting, and there was no question about this. I think he's ready to move ahead.

We're assured that it will be possible to do the implementation for the first of next year.

The Chairman: Monsieur Earle.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): I don't want to throw any kinks in the thing, because I'm quite supportive of this bill and want it to get passed. I wasn't here last week either, but I understand that there were some people representing the Quebec Cree and they had raised some concerns.

I wonder if maybe some of the people here could answer if the Cree had in fact been consulted and expressed any of these concerns, and how these things were dealt with.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I'm sorry, Mr. Earle. Are you referring to Brian Craik and Bill Namagoose who are James Bay Cree? They mentioned the shore islands.

Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: That's fine. The Grand Cree chiefs were here last week, and they mentioned mainly about the four main islands on the south end of James Bay—Charlton Island, Long Island, and South and North Twin Island—and a little bit also about the shore islands.

But this bill doesn't affect in any way the assets and the territory of the Northwest Territories. Nunavut is the same thing, and that does not affect in any way the rights of the Cree of Quebec to negotiate with Nunavut, or as before, with the GNWT and the federal government. It doesn't affect their rights.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With all respect to everybody on this committee, we are dealing with the clause-by-clause, and we should stick to the clause-by-clause. With respect to Mr. Earle, the committee meetings are there; you can attend or someone else can attend in your place. This is not a committee meeting. This is a clause-by-clause meeting, and we have a number of questions to raise.

To go back to Mr. Scott's statement about the fact that Nunavut—and that's what we're discussing—will not be ready, that's an important comment, which this committee shouldn't overlook. There are a number of areas that will not be ready, and that has been recognized by most of the witnesses who have arrived and was a major concern for me.

From investigations we've done, it looks as if the areas in Nunavut where the Government or the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut will not be ready will be handled by the Government of the Northwest Territories. So I would think—and I think everyone here has probably done the same homework—in effect, the transition may not be smooth and it may not be without some potholes in the way, but it should carry over without a lot of problems. But the point Mr. Scott raised is still an important point, and we shouldn't ignore it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Do you have one final comment, Mr. Merritt?

• 1625

[English]

Mr. John Merritt: Our department accepts that the Crees have outstanding claims in some of the James Bay areas based on traditional use and occupation. The department hopes to name a federal negotiator shortly and to see those negotiations begin in earnest in the near future.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Merritt.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: One more question, please.

The Chairman: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Mike Scott: I would really like it if you would answer the question. What was the original implementation budget—not the one in 1996—for Nunavut?

Mr. Gilles Binda (Senior Policy Adviser, Nunavut Secretariat, Northern Program, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Originally, in 1991-92, there were studies conducted by Coopers & Lybrand. They came out with the original $600 million to create Nunavut.

Mr. Mike Scott: Oh—before Paul Martin.

Mr. Gilles Binda: A subsequent study brought it down to about $350 million. We, working with the north, came out with a plan for $150 million. That is what was approved in 1996.

Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Chairman, there are about 25,000 people living in Nunavut, including people below the age of majority. That's about $6,000 per person to in effect implement this territory, or this province, as some would say. The Reform Party cannot support and will not support that kind of an expenditure, particularly when the province hasn't been consulted.

I think all of these clauses, from 43 right through to 52, deal with those, and we cannot support them. We definitely want to be on the record as not supporting that kind of a waste of taxpayers' money.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman, can we take a vote on clause 52 now?

(Clause 52 agreed to on division)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Carried.

The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Carried.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Chairman: Shall I report Bill C-39 as amended to the House tomorrow morning, May 7?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I'm biting my tongue, but I have to agree with my colleague opposite. I agree that $10,000 per capita is a lot of money. I have a problem with this because it's a substantial amount. I'm going to think about that. In any case, the bill has been passed. I trust you will note my opposition to it.

I agree with my colleague. I'm going to discuss this matter with my party and with Mr. Bachand. I'm not comfortable spending this kind of money, particularly when none of the provinces was consulted. This money comes from all provinces and from all citizens, and there was no consultation process. Once again, I have to say that I agree with my colleague. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to come back to this point later.

The Chairman: You will have an opportunity to make your views known in the House of Commons, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I trust you will note of my opposition as well.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I want to thank all of the witnesses for coming, as well as the department. I would also like to congratulate all parties and members for their excellent work, as well as the staff, interpreters and console operators. Thank you very much for your fine efforts.

The committee is adjourned to the call of the Chair.