OGGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, September 29, 2003

¹

1530

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

The Clerk

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby)

The Clerk

¹

1535

The Clerk

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Clerk

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Derek Lee

The Clerk

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South)

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. Derek Lee

The Clerk

Ms. Raymonde Folco

¹

1540

The Clerk

Mr. Pat Martin

The Clerk

The Clerk

Mr. Pat Martin

The Clerk

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)

The Chair

Hon. Don Boudria

º

1600

º

1605

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Paul Forseth

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Paul Forseth

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Paul Forseth

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Paul Forseth

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

º

1615

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC)

Hon. Don Boudria

Right Hon. Joe Clark

Hon. Don Boudria

Right Hon. Joe Clark

Hon. Don Boudria

Right Hon. Joe Clark

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Michel Voghel (Legal Counsel, Justice Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

º

1620

Right Hon. Joe Clark

Hon. Don Boudria

Right Hon. Joe Clark

Hon. Don Boudria

Right Hon. Joe Clark

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

Hon. Don Boudria

º

1625

Mr. Roy Cullen

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Roy Cullen

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Roy Cullen

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Konrad Sigurdson (Director General, Consular Affairs Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade)

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Konrad Sigurdson

Mr. Roy Cullen

Hon. Don Boudria

Ms. Ginette Bougie (Director, Compensation and Classification, Senior Personnel and Special Projects Secretariat, Privy Council Office)

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Ginette Bougie

Mr. Roy Cullen

Hon. Don Boudria

Ms. Sandra Stapleton (Counsel, Legal Services, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency)

º

1630

Mr. Roy Cullen

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Ron Wall (Foreign Policy Advisor, Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat, Privy Council Office)

Mr. Roy Cullen

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Roy Cullen

Hon. Don Boudria

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

º

1635

Hon. Don Boudria

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

º

1640

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Matthew Lynch (Parliamentary Relations Officer, Privy Council Office)

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Matthew Lynch

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Paul Forseth

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Paul Forseth

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Paul Forseth

Hon. Don Boudria

º

1645

Mr. Paul Forseth

Hon. Don Boudria

Ms. Ginette Bougie

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Ginette Bougie

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Ginette Bougie

The Chair

Right Hon. Joe Clark

Hon. Don Boudria

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Hon. Don Boudria

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 059

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, September 29, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum. We can proceed to the election of a chair. I will now accept nominations.

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): I nominate Reg Alcock.

    The Clerk: Anybody else? Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby): I move that nominations cease.

    The Clerk: I now declare Mr. Alcock chair of the committee.

    I will now accept nominations for government vice-chair.

    An hon. member: I nominate Roy Cullen.

¹  (1535)  

    The Clerk: Are there any others? Ms. Folco.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I nominate Mr. Szabo.

    The Clerk: Since there is more than one candidate, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I am authorized to preside over the election of the vice-chair by secret ballot.

    Before proceeding, I will very briefly explain how the process will be conducted. Nominations for the government vice-chair now being closed, my colleague, who is a procedural clerk with the House of Commons, and I will stand to each side of the table, where we will hand out the ballots to members. After members have written their choice on the ballot and deposited it in the box on the table, we will count the votes and announce the successful candidate.

    Again, on the ballot for government vice-chair are Mr. Cullen and Mr. Szabo.

¹  (1532)  

---

¹  (1537)  

    The Clerk: Honourable members, I'd like to announce that no one received a majority on that ballot, so we'll now go to a second ballot. We'll now hand out a second round of ballots.

    Again, the candidates for government vice-chair are Mr. Cullen and Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): I have a point of order.

    The Clerk: I can't take it.

    Mr. Derek Lee: You can't take a point of order.

    If I may address committee members, we've elected a chair, who could take a point of order. I believe that the election of the chair has already taken place. I would ask our chairman to take the chair and get on with our business.

    He wouldn't be able to vote on the next one. That would break the tie.

    The Clerk: If it's the will of the committee, I invite the chair to take the chair.

    Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South): What's the procedure?

    An hon. member: The chair has been elected. You're in business. Take the chair.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: If the clerk conducts it, I'm....

    Mr. Derek Lee: We have boxed ourselves into a stupid box. We can't even talk to our clerk. We have no chair. According to what the clerk told me before, the rather foolish current ruling from the clerk at the table in the House is that we're out of business. So why don't we just all go home now. You take the chair or we're out of business.

    We're being proceduralized into oblivion and stupidity. I hope the record got this.

    The Clerk: If it's the will of the committee that the chair take the chair....

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: I take exception to the way in which our clerk has been addressed by a member of this committee. We have always tried to be very polite with one another, and I would like to continue to see this. People may not agree with the way things are going, but I think we should retain politeness for each other, particularly for people who are working with and for us.

¹  (1540)  

    The Clerk: Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I'd like to say that there is a good reason the clerk undertakes the election of all three of the chairs. It's because it takes away one vote from the members. The MP who is elected chair is not allowed to vote in any of the other elections. There is a good precedent for it. In any committee I've sat on, the clerk oversees the election of the chair and both vice-chairs and then hands over the chair to the newly elected officer. I would like to proceed that way. That would be my feeling.

    The Clerk: We would only invite the chair to take a point of order. As far as presiding over the vice-chair elections, that would be the role of the clerk.

    An hon. member: Then let's just keep going.

¹  (1540)  

---

¹  (1545)  

    The Clerk: Honourable members, I declare Mr. Szabo duly elected as government vice-chair.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

    The Clerk: We will now proceed to the election of opposition vice-chair. I will receive nominations.

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I nominate Mr. Lanctôt.

    The Clerk: Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I nominate Mr. Forseth.

    The Clerk: Any others?

    Nominations are now closed. Since more than one candidate has been nominated, pursuant to Standing Order 106 I am authorized to preside over the election of opposition vice-chair by secret ballot.

¹  (1546)  

---

¹  (1550)  

    The Clerk: I declare Mr. Forseth opposition vice-chair.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    The Clerk: I now invite the chair to take the chair.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We have about ten minutes before Mr. Boudria arrives to start the discussion on Bill C-41. And for the information of members, Mr. Lee has a point of order, which I am going to entertain in a second.

    Because so little time was available I arranged to have Mr. Boudria appear on Bill C-41 to give us the briefing we talked about last week. He'll walk through the bill and explain it to people. However, because of this controversy, or shall we say “conflict in interpretation” of the Standing Orders, we were not able to make that arrangement, because the committee, theoretically, in the eyes of....

    Careful, Mr. Lee; I'll give you a chance.

    Since the committee didn't exist after two o'clock last Thursday, I need the consent of the committee to call Mr. Boudria. Is it agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Okay. He will come at four o'clock. He's just finishing up another meeting.

    I have another piece of business, but before I go to that, would you like to state your point of order, Mr. Lee?

    Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

    Mr. Chairman, my point of order arises out of the earlier election we had. I want to point out that I don't quarrel at all with the fact that we had to have an election of a chair. That is explicitly provided for in Standing Order 106. What I do take quarrel with is the apparent interpretation of the rules that effectively put our chair and the committee out of business as of last Thursday, when the striking committee's report on membership was adopted in the House of Commons.

    I believe it is an absurd scenario. The interpretation of.... And I'm not here referring to our clerk, as Madame Folco had intervened on my earlier remarks. I'm not directing my remarks here now, and neither was I then, to our clerk in particular, because her position on this comes from the Table of the House. It comes from the Clerk of the House.

    The interpretation is that when a striking committee report of this nature is adopted by the House, it somehow interrupts the committee membership. My position is that the House has never, in this circumstance, determined that a committee's status or the chair's status or the status of anyone else on the committee would be interrupted in that sense. If the House intended to disable our committee and all the other committees, and our chair and our vice-chairs, and interrupt our particular membership, it would have said so and done so.

    Perhaps I can take the example of Mr. Forseth. He was a member of this committee. His membership on this committee continued right up until and through the point when the striking committee report was adopted by the House. His membership was never interrupted. His membership continued without any interruption--scintilla juris, as we sometimes say in the legal business--and he never ceased to be a vice-chair.

    So it is my view that an election of his vice-chairmanship today was not needed. Standing Order 106(2) states very clearly that we elect vice-chairs only if necessary. In this case, in my view, Mr. Forseth's membership was not interrupted, his vice-chairmanship was not, and there was no need to re-elect him.

    To follow the logic through, if Mr. Forseth's vice-chairmanship were interrupted, then so would his chairmanship of the subcommittee on the possible contempts have been interrupted. Now, I've been told by the clerk and others that, no, no, the subcommittees continue on uninterrupted, and there's no need to do anything there. Well, if the logic that applied to our voting today, and interpreted by the chair, and the interruption of our chair's position applies, it should also similarly apply to the subcommittees. However, the Table of the House has not interpreted it that way.

    There is an obvious inconsistency, and I am asking our clerk to get this interpretation, the one she relies on, in writing. I want to see it in writing, with particulars. I am asking why the chairmanship of our chair is interrupted without an explicit rule prescribing that, coming from the House of Commons. If there is some ambiguity, the ambiguity should be resolved in favour of continuing the committees, continuing the work of the House, and not disabling them.

    But that's if there's ambiguity. I maintain there is not. I maintain the only reason we have this silly thing going around here now is a misinterpretation of the rules, mission creep on the part of the administrators.

    So I hope the matter can be resolved, if not with this point of order then at least with the Table in the House in due course.

    Thank you.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Forseth, on the same point of order?

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes.

    I understand that this has been the topic of discussion elsewhere, that it was the position of our party, through the House leaders, to eliminate this whole routine of coming back all the time. I think at that time all those precedents were looked at. I take it that it was the position of the government that they wanted to maintain the current way.

    So in answer to Mr. Lee's point, this discussion has taken place elsewhere, and there may be a lot of material there that could be of help.

    To my mind, it just seems to require the re-electing of chairs and all the rest of it every time we go on a summer break, which doesn't seem appropriate.

    I'll leave it at that.

    The Chair: I think Mr. Lee's point is less to the specific action of electing the chair than to its consequences on the existence and activity of the committee between the tabling of the striking committee report and the meeting that is called by the clerk in order to elect the chair. There is a grey area there, and I think it's right to clarify it. It caused us a bit of a problem earlier today, and I have some sympathy for the point Mr. Lee is raising.

    I would suggest that what we'll do is simply refer it. I will come back next Wednesday, hopefully, with a written ruling from the Table on this matter, because it affects other chairs.

    On the issue of changing the Standing Orders, though, around the term of memberships and all of that, I believe it's under active discussion and will be proceeded with. But at the current time, the term and process remains as it is stated in the Standing Orders.

    Is there any further discussion on that? If not, that's what I shall do.

    I see we have been joined by the minister responsible for Bill C-41, an act that is going to revolutionize government as we know it. Perhaps we could invite him to the table to introduce us to this massive document.

    I should say one thing to members, though, while the minister is getting ready. I did make one error in my description of this bill. Mr. Boudria, the gentleman next to you, who gave me a very competent briefing on this a while ago, did help me with the differentiation between this bill and the.... Is it the minor something amendments act?

    Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): It's the MSLA. I'll get into this.

    The Chair: I think I had wrongly informed the committee that this was the miscellaneous whatever bill, and that we would deal with it on an exceptional basis. But it is not. Some of the clauses here require a message, and the message has been delivered, so I'll stop talking.

    Mr. Boudria, take it away.

    Hon. Don Boudria: Thank you.

[Translation]

    Mr. Chairman, colleagues from the House, I would first like to introduce Mr. Ron Wall, Director of Parliamentary Relations at the Privy Council, as well as Mr. Matthew Lynch, also from Privy Council.

º  (1600)  

[English]

    Let me start by congratulating the members for their re-election and election, as the case may be, this afternoon. I understand this is your inaugural session for the famous—or infamous, depending on what point of view you have—September rules. I notice you were debating whether it was famous or whether it was infamy just as I came into the room—an interesting debate at the best of times.

    Mr. Chairman, before I get into my formal remarks, I want to address this issue of the kind of bill this is—a technical corrections bill, as opposed to a miscellaneous statute law amendment bill. The threshold for the MSLA—which is introduced once per Parliament, usually—is quite different. The MSLA works under the following principle: there are only corrections where everybody on all sides agree they don't even need debate; they never need a royal recommendation or anything like that; they're strictly clerical in nature. With the draft MSLA—the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act—If anyone has any questions, the first thing you do is remove the questioned item. Whatever is left over forms the MSLA and goes through both houses—the two houses are consulted—and you work under the lowest common denominator: you remove anything anyone questions at any reading. That's the MSLA.

    We've had now for some time another instrument, which is called a technical correction bill. It has not quite so rigid a threshold. It's administrative in nature—the same thing—and there is no major policy decision involved. It would correct technical errors here and there, and sometimes have something that actually causes a government expenditure—in other words, needs either a royal recommendation, which is generally the case, or that type of thing—but it is still not what you would call a policy bill per se.

    We had one of these in the last Parliament. It dealt with such things—and I'll give you an example—as amending the boundaries of the national capital region, because there was an amalgamation of municipalities that actually caused it. Is that a policy decision? Hardly, in my opinion, but that was the kind of thing that was in it. Well, we have a similar group of these today.

    Incidentally, the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act bill should be ready by February 2004. When that time comes, my view is that we should be back with that kind of thing, dealing with it in the normal form of MSLA; in other words, it usually starts in two committees and ends up in the House and is passed at all stages, usually without debate—that sort of thing.

[Translation]

º  (1605)  

    There.

    Thank you for being here today to consider Bill C-41. This is an amending statute that corrects certain things. As I said, with me are Mr. Wall and Mr. Lynch, but there are also other experts from Privy Council who can answer specific questions from the honourable members if the need arises.

    Bill C-41 makes several corrections and technical adjustments to a variety of statutes, as I said earlier. These amendments on their own would not justify stand-alone bills in Parliament. And several amendments require the expenditure of funds and therefore cannot be part of the miscellaneous statute law legislative process. So the government has introduced this bill as a housekeeping initiative to ensure that our laws are as accurate and up-to-date as possible. This is the second technical corrections bill. I tabled the last one about two years ago in the House of Commons.

[English]

    I would like to summarize the provisions of the bill. Again, they're very technical in nature.

    Clauses 2 to 5 amend the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act to change the French title of the deputy commissioner from commissaire adjoint to commissaire délégué, which is a more modern way of describing it. I understand that over recent years we've moved over to that name—that handle, if you wish—and it's now the most common form. It corrects that.

    On the Customs Act, clause 6 would make an amendment to the Customs Act to ensure it makes correct references to the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. This amendment is needed because of the lack of coordinating amendments in the Costa Rica free trade agreement implementation bill. Again it's clearly clarifying in nature.

    Regarding the Financial Administration Act, clauses 7 and 8 would correct this one: it's to provide greater certainty in the legal interpretation of what is known as “officer-directors” and directors continuing in office. The term officer-director has traditionally been limited to the chairperson and the chief executive officer and any officer who had been appointed to the board of directors under section 104(1), while section 105 has traditionally excluded officer-directors from the definition of directors. The amendments in this bill would ensure good administration by clarifying that officer-directors terminate at the end of their term, while directors continue until replaced.

    Another item, clause 9, would make an amendment to the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, so that the act would make direct reference to the list of tariff provisions in the schedule to the customs tariff, consistent with other provisions in this act.

    Clauses 19 to 24 would amend the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act to replace the title “executive director” with the title of “president”. This, again, makes it uniform with other similar structures. It would amend the maximum allowable term from three years to five years—again consistent with what is done in other similar organizations.

    Clause 28 of the bill—this is a very different issue now—would provide the necessary authority for consular fees collected between April 1, 1998, and January 22, 2003. Since 1958, Canada has had consular service fees for the provision of consular services such as authenticating signatures, receiving oaths, serving court documents abroad, making unofficial translations, administering estates of Canadians abroad, and so on. Draft regulations for an increase in consular fees were approved by the Governor in Council for public consultation in 1997.

    Following the consultation period, the regulations were implemented in April 1998 by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. At that time, Governor in Council approval was not sought a second time, even though it had been the first time. When this procedural situation was discovered in December 2002, corrective action was taken seeking Governor in Council approval for regulations and fees collected after that date, but there is still some ambiguity about the legal status of funds that had already been collected—and were already in the government's coffers, and so on—between April 1998 and January 2003. This clarifies that, and states that for greater clarity, these funds collected are definitely in government coffers, and so on.

[Translation]

    Now, Bill C-41 updates disability provisions for lieutenant-governors consistent with recent changes for parliamentarians. Clauses 10 to 17 would amend the Lieutenant-Governors Superannuation Act to allow lieutenant-governors to continue to contribute to their pensions in the event they become disabled and receive disability benefits, similar to changes for parliamentarians made in 2001. This is just to make the provisions for lieutenant-governors similar to ours. In fact, the measure had to be invoked once, I believe, in the case of a former member of Parliament, General John Richardson, when he had to resign for medical reasons.

    Clause 25 would amend the Salaries Act to update the disability benefits available to lieutenant-governors aged 65 years or over, consistent with changes provided to parliamentarians in 2001.

[English]

    On special committee chairs, there's one further technical correction that I would like to have added to the bill as a report stage amendment. This is an oversight.

    Earlier this year, parliamentary compensation was updated to provide chairs and vice-chairs of special committees with the same compensation as that of chairs and vice-chairs of standing committees--of course, on a pro-rated basis, though. If they sit only one month, it's a one-month provision only and nothing else. However, this change was erroneously not made retroactive, where of course that was the intent, because there had been one such committee sitting, the committee on the non-medical use of drugs, and the bill was brought forward to correct that. But in fact, notwithstanding having passed the bill, it didn't really correct the situation. So this corrects that as well.

    It requires a royal recommendation, so I can't put it to you in committee. I'll put it in the House later. Because of the royal recommendation, a minister of the Crown has to put it before the House, as you know. I have discussed this with other House leaders, as well.

    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, these are all amendments that are technical, minor in nature, and do not reflect policy issues per se. I'd like to welcome any questions you and other committee members may have about this technical corrections bill. Of course, with your permission, I would invite officials as needed, because of the nature and it being scattered here and there throughout the entire government.

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Boudria.

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

    Mr. Boudria, I'd like you to state, just for the record here, whether the bill has passed second reading and been referred to the committee in a normal manner, or has it come directly to committee, bypassing second reading? What is the technical status of the bill before this committee?

    Hon. Don Boudria: It was referred before second reading.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: All right.

    On this other interesting point, that you felt that you had to move a report stage amendment for the purposes of the royal prerogative because it's going to expend funds, I felt that the government can come to committee and move it if it's a government motion that includes royal prerogative here at committee.

    Hon. Don Boudria: No, sorry, that's not the case.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay, that's not your version. I thought I saw it happen in other cases, but you feel that once it's reported out of here, in this situation, you'd have to move a report stage amendment at that point in the House.

    Hon. Don Boudria: Perhaps the honourable member can check with his own House leader. There's no other way to move an expenditure of funds. It has to be done at report stage. Because the report stage amendment is beyond the scope of the bill, of course, the bill had to be referred to committee before second reading in order to effect it.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay.

    Hon. Don Boudria: I've discussed it with the member's House leader as well.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay.

    As a general principle, when we get a bill that comes directly from the House to committee--this could set precedent perhaps for other bills--there's always this argument about amendments: Is it beyond the scope of the bill or not? What's in and what's out?

    I suppose in this very technical bill it's going to be pretty clear whether someone else wanted to add something new. If in the meantime, somewhere in the bureaucracy, someone felt that there was one other item that needed to be added, I take it that the government could not come to committee now and move it. I thought that's generally what referring directly from the House to committee before second reading was all about, to give the committee the flexibility to be able to add issues that weren't, so-called, traditionally in the scope of a bill and this was a new procedure that allowed committees to do their own investigation and make recommendations and really shape a bill and include perhaps things that were forgotten. So I want to talk about that issue of scope of the bill.

    Hon. Don Boudria: If it can assist the committee, Mr. Chair, I'm ready to undertake now that the government does not intend to move any other amendment at report stage. That's the only purpose of it, which I have discussed with the honourable member's House leader. I can state for the record now that there is no other purpose.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Clark, do you have any questions at this point?

º  (1615)  

    Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): I came late, and I apologize to the minister for that.

    In a word, what's the purpose of the bill?

    Hon. Don Boudria: It's to bring technical corrections to approximately half a dozen pieces of legislation. I'm summarizing my previous remarks, but none of the corrections are substantive in nature. Because a few of them require royal recommendation, they cannot be put in what we sometimes call the MSLA, the miscellaneous statute law amendments. Under the miscellaneous statute law amendments, it's usually a non-debatable bill originated in the two committees, the House and the Senate, and anything that's a question is removed. That's the threshold, and you don't do it. Of course, nothing in there requires a royal recommendation.

    These two involve three or four things, one of them correcting.... For instance, one of them changes the titles of some officials in French to English. One of them has a change in the lieutenant governor's disability pension, to enable him to contribute after age 65—the same as we have for MPs. We amended that for MPs, but did not include the lieutenant governors.

    One of them has to do with correcting a consular fee that was only gazetted once between 1998 and 2002 but should have been gazetted twice. It leaves some ambiguity about those funds already collected a long time ago, and has no impact on funds being collected now. There are a few coordinating amendments that way.

    There's one clarifying element of the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement. While it's something that's in the agreement, it's unclear whether it's included correctly in the bill, so it's for greater clarity. There's a minor element about the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, to ensure that the references to the schedule are made consistently and directly. My note says that it will make the schedules easier to rule, more transparent, and consistent with the provisions found in other free trade agreements.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: I apologize for making you repeat that.

    You say there is one matter with respect to a customs provision that had been wrongly introduced or was ambiguous. Is that correct?

    Hon. Don Boudria: It is about the Customs Act, which was amended by Bill S-23 and by Bill C-32, the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. In S-23 a new paragraph was added to subsection 43(1) to authorize giving an advance ruling for tariff classification purposes. It has to do with the advance ruling. Subsequently, subsection 43(1) in Bill C-32 was amended to add references to the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, but no coordinating amendment was drafted with the changes in Bill S-23. This corrects that to make sure that it's parallel.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: Okay.

    Finally, on the consular fees correction, is there any retroactive effect of...?

    Hon. Don Boudria: No new fees are to be collected with this at all. As I was explaining earlier, it was discovered in 2002 that a 1998 order had been published only once in the Canada Gazette, rather than once at the pre-publishing stage and once at the end—which I know the right honourable member will be familiar with.

    When that was discovered, of course, it was immediately given to effect, but it leaves some ambiguity about funds collected several years ago to ensure that it fully complies with the Financial Administration Act.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: Is there any potential legal liability on the part of the government for having collected fees that might not have been fully authorized?

    Hon. Don Boudria: I would ask, with the permission of the chair, the official in question to come to the table.

    Mr. Michel Voghel (Legal Counsel, Justice Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): I'm Michel Voghel, and I'm a justice department lawyer.

    You're right, in fact, there could be a liability on the part of the government, because the fee that was collected on all of these services was higher than the previous regulation advised. The purpose of the regulation made in 1998 was to increase the fees to recover all the costs incurred by the government. The previous regulation dated back to 1988, and the 1998 regulation was to level it to what the cost is, in recovering these fees and so on. There was an error produced, that's why.

º  (1620)  

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: Okay.

    Hon. Don Boudria: The error was that it was not published a second time. It was published the first time, but at the end of the cycle it was to have been republished and it was not.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: So a legal argument would be based upon a technicality, not upon an argument of ignorance.

    Hon. Don Boudria: No.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: Okay, thank you.

    The Chair: Is there anyone else?

    Mr. Lee, and then Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Derek Lee: On the consular fees regulations amendment, Mr. Minister, the amendment makes legal what would have been technically illegal in terms of collection of the fees. I don't have to actually go into that in detail; that's simply the context. I just wanted to confirm that the fees charged after implementation of this will be the same as the fees charged immediately prior to the implementation of it, that there haven't been any fees dropped or added.

    Hon. Don Boudria: Very clearly, there are a couple of things here.

    First of all, once that ambiguity was discovered, about a year ago, there was an immediate gazetting. Clearly, for everything collected after that, there is no ambiguity. What we're talking about is the interval period between 1998 and 1992. The effect of this is certainly in no part to send an additional invoice to anybody. The bill does not do anything like that, I can assure the honourable member.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Minister Boudria, just while we're on the consular fee, this is something like a user fee. My bill just passed the House, which would call for more consultation with users on what the fees are all about. But the way it works now, my understanding is that if it goes through the special committee of council, then it's gazetted, and then people would have an opportunity to provide input on the fee or the fee increase.

    For the period you're trying to correct, were the users given the opportunity to comment on the level of the fee and the appropriateness of it?

    Hon. Don Boudria: Yes.

    Maybe I can explain the process. The answer is yes, it was done that way. But there is a recent amendment to that, and I think I announced it in the House recently. Anyway, the process works like this: There is what we call pre-publication, and usually the only exception to pre-publication is where there is a reduction. In other words, you don't wait to reduce something; you give the immediate benefit. But in the case of an added burden—and I chair the special committee of council, so I'm wearing my other cabinet hat here—the way it works is that ministers are submitted a proposal about consulting Canadians about a fee. Ministers react--we give our okay or we're not satisfied, whatever the case may be--and they return with additional information if that's what we need. Then it's published in the Canada Gazette for the prescribed period of time. After that prescribed period of time, the officials of that government department return to the special committee of council with their final recommendation, outlining what was in the original one, what kind of input they received from the public—if ten people responded, or zero, which is the case sometimes, or a large number—and the new approach they will take. Then the special committee of council decides whether we're agreeable to this. It's gazetted again, and that closes the issue.

    The recent change to this has been the following--and this is something I consulted my cabinet colleagues about. At the same time it's published in the Canada Gazette, from here on in I want the relevant parliamentary committees to be circulated with it at the same time. It seems to me that if we can send this to everybody across the country...why everybody except MPs? So send it to MPs too. If they don't have a reaction, well, fine. But if they do, at the very least we could be notified of that as well. For all we know, perhaps an MP would make a ten percenter and consult constituents and what have you, and we could receive valuable advice from that process.

    Anyway, that's roughly the process.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Perhaps I could interject, Mr. Chair.

    I appreciate the response, but the information I have is that if people do complain about the fee, there are really not many plan B's that actually come into effect. But I think broadening it to MPs is not a bad idea.

    I'm wondering in this particular case about what users came forward. Was there any feedback on the appropriateness of the level of these fees and the costs that were being recovered?

    Hon. Don Boudria: That information I wouldn't have.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Were there any alternatives considered by the department?

    Hon. Don Boudria: This is something that occurred between five and six years ago. It occurred a very long time ago, and what the reaction was then.... And if, between the initial publication and the final one, there were amendments--

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Is there any official who could answer that?

    Hon. Don Boudria: Perhaps we can ask.

    Mr. Konrad Sigurdson (Director General, Consular Affairs Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Yes, we did consider other alternatives, and in fact we discarded them, because the cost of rectifying the payments of the fees for the transactions were in the neighbourhood of $2 million to $3 million just for administration. These constituted thousands of services, with the average cost of $40 each, and we did not keep good, detailed written records. It would have been literally impossible to find them. So after giving consideration to the alternative, we discarded it and looked for other ways, which was the bill the minister has spoken of.

    The fact is that the people who received the services between 1998 and 2003 received the very same services and at the very same price that their colleagues or Canadians and foreigners were receiving after December 20, or January 23, 2003. And they were receiving the services for about the same price as it would cost if they went to a private person or organization.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Was that last conclusion consistent with what you heard from the users of these services?

    Mr. Konrad Sigurdson: We never did hear very much from the services. We never did hear that, for sure.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, well I think that's been part of the problem. Thank you.

    I'd like to go to the Financial Administration Act. Minister, on the term “officer-director”, in what sorts of circumstances do we use that terminology now? Is this an arm's-length type of organization, or something within the government, or an agency?

[Translation]

    Hon. Don Boudria: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Bougie will answer that question.

[English]

    Ms. Ginette Bougie (Director, Compensation and Classification, Senior Personnel and Special Projects Secretariat, Privy Council Office): “Officer-director” in the Financial Administration Act refers to the chair and the CEO of a crown corporation. Right now there is some confusion with the way it's worded that it might apply to regular directors of a board, so they want to clarify that the officer-directors do not continue once their term has expired, but that the other directors do, until such time as they are replaced.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: That doesn't have anything to do with director liability?

    Ms. Ginette Bougie: No, it doesn't.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: No, okay. Thank you.

    On the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, I don't follow the gist of it. Is it a matter of making a connection in the wording between one act and a tariff provision in the tariff?

    Hon. Don Boudria: We're getting another official over here, Mr. Chairman, about the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, about the consistency of this item. The official is over here now.

    Madame.

    Ms. Sandra Stapleton (Counsel, Legal Services, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency): I'm Sandra Stapleton, legal counsel with CCRA.

    It's a very technical amendment. In fact, I would say it's user-friendly. The way it's currently structured, and what we're trying to change it from, you cause the reader to have to go to a particular section of the act, which says to go see the schedule. Really, we're just saying to tell the reader to go directly to the schedule. That's where you need to ultimately end up to get the information you need. For some strange reason, this particular provision was drafted differently than similar provisions in the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay, thank you.

    On the national round table, to change the term to “president” and to extend the term, any particular reason for that, other than having a fancier-sounding title?

    Hon. Don Boudria: In many cases, those titles have to do with ease of translation as well. They use terms that are parallel in both languages.

    I don't know if Mr. Wall would have information about that.

    Mr. Ron Wall (Foreign Policy Advisor, Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat, Privy Council Office): One of the other reasons is just to make it consistent with other organizations, the term of five years, as the minister said, the extension of the term.

    The title is to be more broadly consistent with other similar organizations. So it's a move to do this across the board.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay, I wasn't aware of that.

    This is enabling. In other words, a three- to five-year term has nothing to do with incumbency or otherwise right now; it is just enabling.

    On special committee chairs, when we talk about special committees, could you give me an example, Minister?

    Hon. Don Boudria: There is only one at the present time.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Which one is that?

    Hon. Don Boudria: It's a special committee that sat about a year ago on the non-medical use of drugs. There has only been one on the House side. Perhaps there has been one in the Senate, but I'm not sure.

    There is also, of course, the modernization committee, but it doesn't apply, because the chair already receives extra emolument, and so do I as a vice-chair. Of course, I'm already a minister, so I don't get that anyway.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I just want to ask about the same issue of a report stage motion for retroactive compensation.

    Mr. Minister, we have made some changes to the rules of the House that provide compensation of $10,000 for a chair and $5,000 for a vice-chair, and I think those were well received. This is like a creeping thing. There is no question that, in the particular example you gave, that was an important obligation and responsibility of a number of people. And I know the chair did a very good job in conducting the affairs of that committee, but by the same token, all those people who participated also had other responsibilities that they vacated to do that work. They travelled extensively. It happens very often in this place. Indeed, the work that members of Parliament do in a variety of roles tends to be significantly different from member to member.

    I raise this from the standpoint of what is done in other jurisdictions, where in fact people who participate in meetings are compensated for attending meetings. And Mr. Minister, you know there are some who do not discharge their responsibility to the fullest extent and yet continue to enjoy the same level of compensation.

    So I raise this, that by doing this report stage motion and by acknowledging the special work that's being done over and above the permanent standing committee status, we have not considered the work that is done by some of the permanent subcommittees of standing committees. There are enormous amounts of work done in those subcommittees.

    Some subcommittees admittedly are really just for general research purposes and general interest because members would like to have them. There is, however, a basis for determining whether the work of members is principally related to discharging the responsibilities of the committee system, as opposed to just for general interest. I wonder if that has come up or whether you would consider bringing this matter forward to maybe a future effort of the modernization committee or with regard to referral to the procedure and House affairs committee to enter into some discussions about the appropriate recognition of the work of members through the committee system.

º  (1635)  

    Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, what's being asked now is a policy issue. The one in the bill or the one I'm going to offer to the House is not, and here's the difference. In 2001 we had already decided that committee chairs and vice-chairs were going to be remunerated. That was the case. I think everybody assumed that included all committees. But when this particular committee was structured, after they sat for a while, the officials of the committee rightly asked why this wasn't reflected into a paycheque. They were told by the House officials that it's not quite worded that way in the act. Everybody acknowledged it was never meant to do that. It was never meant to exclude any committee except one. The Library of Parliament committee is excluded from that. It was a deliberate decision that was taken at the time we all agreed to do this. This was more of an error. So we corrected it with a correcting bill that says this is the way it's going to be. It means, for greater clarity, standing and special committees. However, when we passed the bill originally for standing committees, it was retroactive along with all the other benefits to January 1, 2001. The amendment that we put for the special committees did not make reference to their retroactivity, even though it was supposed to make that one the same as all the others. Even though we've amended it to make it the same, it's still not the same at the end of the day, because the retroactivity provision was not included.

    The other issue, though, that is brought forward is a legitimate one. Members have asked me about a whole variety of benefits to members for the last little while. As we know, when we structured the new MPs' compensation package, there were two elements in what was known as the Lumley report. One was that we would gear our compensation after we had adjusted it, which we did with all these measures, and it would be adjusted to that of judges. Fine. But a second portion was put in, and perhaps that's what the honourable member is asking, that said after every election the measure by which we would have a commission has disappeared. In other words, that's another element.

    We might have gone too far in that, because, who knows, after a future election we might decide that there are still some quirks in the system that need to be ironed out. The only mechanisms to do that then would be to have either a modernization committee of the kind we had before that could look at not only modernization of a House rule, but perhaps include that as its mandate, or to re-create a commission again next time notwithstanding.

    Those are two different ways of doing it, in theory. Neither of the two exists now, of course. The commission method has been disbanded under the second-last bill, as it were, and of course the modernization committees are ad hoc. In other words, we decide collectively as a House to have a modernization committee. We provide it with its mandate--and the honourable member very ably served on one of these committees--and then we consult our respective caucuses and place before our colleagues the final result of that, which we have recently done in the House of Commons. That would be the other way, and if I were a betting man I'd say the probable way, in which it could be done in the future.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

    I have a final question from Mr. Forseth, and seeing no others, I will conclude after that.

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

    I refer you to page 17 of the bill. Under the title “Bill C-25”, and looking at the paragraph that's in French, proposed section 57 on page 17, I see that there is both regular print and print in italics. I'd just like an explanation about what was the problem with that section. It looks like a new French version is being put in there. What is the difference between...? In other parts of the bill where you have new sections, it's either underlined or there's a line down the column. It's not clear as to what we're doing in this proposed section 57. We have a mixture of italics print and regular print. What are we trying to accomplish here? What was the problem that we're correcting?

º  (1640)  

    Hon. Don Boudria: This is a coordinating clause only. We have this in a variety of bills when we have a bill before Parliament and another bill that has effect on the same legislation has not completed the process in Parliament. That's the case with Bill C-25. Bill C-25 is still before the Senate. So instead of having a clause that amends Bill C-25, you have to have a clause that says “If Bill C-25...”, then the result is this, because in fact we cannot presuppose that a bill has passed Parliament when it has not. That's the case right now, because of course it has not yet been proclaimed into law. I understand it's still at third reading, as a matter of fact, before the Senate.

    Mr. Lynch can elaborate as well on that. But it's clearly only coordinating.

    Mr. Matthew Lynch (Parliamentary Relations Officer, Privy Council Office): Yes, it's simply designed to provide for the coordination of the coming into force of the two different bills.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: I understand that's the function, but what was the difference between the English and the French version? I take it that this is trying to fix up a French version, because it's only in French. I was also asking about the difference between the regular print and the italics within proposed section 57. What are we doing here?

    Mr. Matthew Lynch: The reason is because the amendment to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act, which is in clauses 2 to 5 of Bill C-41, is an amendment only to the French version of that text. It's changing the title of “deputy commissioner” in French from “commissaire adjoint” to “commissaire délégué”. Therefore, the coordinating amendment is only to the French version.

    Hon. Don Boudria: I don't know if perhaps you would recall from my initial presentation, when I talked about the fact that we had a more modern term in the French language to describe “assistant commissioner”. Instead of saying “commissaire adjoint”, we now say “commissaire délégué”. That was part of my presentation at the beginning. Of course, that only amends the French title. The one in English is appropriate.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. But if that's the case, then that term would have been underlined, rather than regular print and italics in another part of that section. I'm still....

    Hon. Don Boudria: It's because it's a coordinating amendment that it's done that way. I believe it's done in the way you suggest in the main part of the bill. This is just one section that refers to Bill C-25. It's a coordinating amendment.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, but it refers to political activities. I still haven't had an answer to my question. On page 17 of the bill, proposed section 57, we have both regular print and italics. Yet the section you're talking about, to change the title, isn't even underlined.

    Hon. Don Boudria: Can I just make sure what is being referred to here? Does the honourable member mean the bold part or the italics? The italics is utilized to designate the title of the bill only. Perhaps what we really mean here is the bold print. Is that what is meant?

    Mr. Paul Forseth: No, I'm looking at proposed section 57, the whole thing. The super-bold print is of the bill itself, which says how proposed section 57 is to be used. But then we look at the substance itself, which is proposed section 57. I want to know.... You say it's to change the title “commissaire délégué”, but that's not underlined as a change. You have a mixture of print. What are you really trying to accomplish here? It doesn't seem correct.

    Hon. Don Boudria: This part does not amend this statute. This part amends a bill still before Parliament. The reference to amending the statute is found earlier in the bill. I'll just find the appropriate section here. It's pages 2 to 5 of the bill. That's where you find the references. On page 2, about line 27 or 28, you see the actual change. The change is underlined. About two lines, one sentence later, we see the same word appear again. That's the actual change in the statute. What is referred to over here is a coordinating item, not for a statute, but for a bill still before Parliament.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth: I understand that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act is not before Parliament, because it says right above, “the French version of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act is replaced by the following”. So it's changing the CCRA, not Bill C-25.

    Hon. Don Boudria: The legislative drafter has just joined us at the table. With your permission, Mr. Chairman....

    Ms. Ginette Bougie: Sorry, I'm not the legislative drafter, but I was a legislative drafter.

    Perhaps the confusion here is that normally we underline for changes when we have an amendment to another bill, and it shows us the change between what was and what will be. In this instance, this is a coordinating amendment, which effectively is there to make sure that when different amendments in different bills occur in the House, we don't have a collision. We pick up all the changes that we need at the end of the day, if you read the two acts together. In this instance, it's an amendment that will accommodate clause 5 of this bill, which brings that change to the text of the agency act. It is not underlined and it's not italicized, because there is no other text to amend, to point out to you. It's an entirely new clause for the purposes of this act, being an act to amend certain acts.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: If it's a new clause, there should be a line down the column, but there isn't in this case.

    Ms. Ginette Bougie: We do the lines on the side to show usually a change in existing legislation. This is a provision of this clause, but it's going to be, if you will, a fall-away provision. It won't exist once this bill is passed.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: And why are there italics in 57?

    Ms. Ginette Bougie: The italicized language is simply to point out the title of the act. That's standard drafting procedure, to make it easier for you to read the provisions. And the bold text is there to indicate that this is not part of the regular text of the bill, but rather a coordinating amendment. It's the enacting portion.

    The Chair: Thank you, Paul.

    Mr. Clark.

    Right Hon. Joe Clark: It's an interesting point that is raised here. For the help of legislators and people trying to look at legislation, there is usually some form of designation when there's something new, and maybe you need a new style, maybe you need a wavy line down the side to indicate that this is a contingent change. I'd missed it, but Mr. Forseth is right that when you look at this, it is new, but it is not designated as new. Heaven forbid that we instruct drafters, but it may be necessary in drafting to come up with some new designation that takes account of circumstances like that.

    Hon. Don Boudria: I think members are making an interesting point, Mr. Chairman, and I'm willing to bring it back to the people at PCO for future reference. I think it's quite clear when something replaces a word in an existing statute, with the style of having the word underlined. The honourable member is referring to that. A coordinating amendment does not replace any words, it adds words to a bill still before Parliament. Perhaps having some other handy identifier would be a useful tool for parliamentarians in the future. This isn't unique to this bill. All coordinating amendments in bills are styled this way. But it's a criticism I'm certainly willing to bring back.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Boudria.

    Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Given the nature of this bill, would anyone want to do clause-by-clause now?

    The Chair: Mr. Lee, you are anticipating the chair, which is something you do at your peril.

    Hon. Don Boudria: I'll keep away from that one.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I certainly would be, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Actually, Mr. Lee, the same question did occur to me. I had intended to call clause-by-clause on this bill for Wednesday, but given that we have a room full of officials and the minister at the table, I have not heard strong concerns. I've been asked the question. I would want unanimous consent, though.

    Are the members ready to go to clause-by-clause and save us a little time for Wednesday, or would you like to have the extra time to consider this and deal with clause-by-clause on Wednesday? It's the latter.

    Thank you, Minister. I appreciate the time and thank the staff. I had the advantage of a private briefing last week, which was excellent, and I appreciate the time and energy. We'll see you on Wednesday at 3:30.

    Now we are adjourned.