Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 9 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 3, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-10, to amend the Municipal Grants Act, met this day at 5:55 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the committee has had referred to it Bill C-10, to amend the Municipal Grants Act. We will be hearing from the responsible minister tonight, followed by representatives of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
The minister, Mr. Alfonso Gagliano, is well known to all of you and, without further ado, I invite the minister to make an opening statement. I will then open the meeting to questions.
[Translation]
The Honourable Alfonso A. Gagliano, Minister of Public Works and Government Services: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to speak about this important legislation, and to answer any questions you might have. First, let me introduce the officials who are with me: Mr. François Brazeau, Acting Deputy Minister of the Real Estate Branch, and Mr. Colin Boutin, Municipal Director.
As you may know, I have taken a personal interest in this bill, the Capital Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, and I will be seeking the Chairman's and the committee's endorsement of the legislation so that it can be adopted at the earliest opportunity. Municipalities have been waiting for months for these reforms.
The origins of this legislation go back to 1992, when large and unexpected increases in municipal tax levies prompted the government of the day to freeze the Municipal Grants Program budget at $426 million per year.
[English]
The freeze expired in March 1995, and the government's payments in lieu of taxes have remained quite stable since that time. Nevertheless, the spiralling costs of the program in the early 1990s made it clear that changes were needed to improve the fairness and the efficiency of the payment system, while controlling program costs.
With that in mind, in 1995 our government launched a major review of the Municipal Grants Program. First, we created a joint technical committee of representatives from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Treasury Board Secretariat and Public Works and Government Services Canada to develop recommendations on improving the payment system. The committee submitted two reports -- in 1995 and in 1997.
After becoming Minister of Public Works and Government Services, I expanded the scope of the review by establishing an advisory panel of experts to further consider the need for change and to provide me with advice. Perhaps most important is that during the summer of 1998, I undertook a cross-Canada consultation tour to meet directly with municipal officials to hear their views on the best possible structure for payments in lieu of taxes.
[Translation]
All this work led to Bill C-10, which proposes certain amendments to the current Act. I think that these amendments will ensure just, equitable and predictable management of federal payments in lieu of real estate taxes.
In producing these amendments, we went by the principle that the Canadian Government must pay its rightful share of the costs of local services. The Government is exempt from local tax under section 125 of the 1867 Constitutional Act, but it is also a large real estate owner. Its installations bring great pressure to bear on municipal service infrastructures in almost 2,000 municipalities in Canada. As a responsible landowner, it has the moral obligation to pay a reasonable part of the costs of local services.
[English]
I know that honourable senators will agree with this basic premise. Our goal throughout this process has been to improve the administration of payments in lieu of taxes, taking into account the far-reaching changes that have occurred in municipal taxation over the past two decades. Let me quickly explain how Bill C-10 will achieve this goal.
The first and most obvious effect of Bill C-10 will be to change the name of the existing legislation and program. "Grants" in lieu of taxes will in future be known as "payments" in lieu of taxes. This terminology better acknowledges the nature of our government-to-government relationship and the fact that the federal government receives valuable services from municipalities. This new approach is confirmed by a "goodwill" clause in the legislation that states our commitment to fairness and equity in the administration of federal payments in lieu of taxes.
Many of the amendments proposed in Bill C-10 are designed to make federal payments in lieu of taxes as much like the taxes levied against private landowners as possible. For example, Bill C-10 will empower the minister to authorize payment of a supplementary amount to a municipality when a federal department or agency fails to meet a local payment schedule without reasonable cause.
[Translation]
It will include a provision for establishing an advisory board on dispute settlement. This will allow municipal representatives to contest federal payments when neither party can agree on real estate value. So that municipalities may view the board as being credible and objective, I will consult the Canadian Federation of Municipalities as well as the provincial authorities responsible for evaluation about its contents.
[English]
This proposed legislation will also address a gap in the current regime in the area of tax defaults by tenants of federal properties. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services will be given a new discretionary power to authorize payments in lieu of taxes on tenant-occupied property when the tenant has defaulted and the minister is convinced that the municipality has made all reasonable efforts to collect from the tenant.
I am also pleased to report that this legislation will put the federal government on a more level playing field with taxable property owners by expanding the definition of "federal property". As a result of this change, facilities currently excluded for no logical reason, such as employee parking lots, outdoor swimming pools and golf courses, will be subject to payments in lieu of taxes.
As well, Bill C-10 will remove existing limitations on payments in lieu of taxes to First Nation governments, which are increasingly using property taxes in an effort to become more financially independent.
[Translation]
As Minister I made other changes in the payment program that are not included in the proposed bill. These changes directly result from conversations I had with municipal representatives 18 months ago. For instance, I initiated a process for establishing "best practices" for the less usual categories of federal real estate so as to avoid evaluation disputes and ensure uniform evaluation in the country. We will inform other intervenors about these recommendations so as to reach a consensus about a way of evaluating real estate that would be just and consistent in all the regions of Canada.
So as to carry on a national dialogue regarding this program, I intend to organize a council of stakeholder representatives to advise me on administrative and policy issues involved in the program's management.
[English]
The committee will be pleased to know that the proposed changes set out in Bill C-10 will have a minimal impact on program costs. In fact, program costs will increase by less than 1 per cent as a result of these changes. A total of about $1.7 million in additional costs will be distributed among departments and will be met from existing budgets.
Prudent management of taxpayer dollars is an underlying objective of Bill C-10, but it must be achieved without sacrificing the principles of fairness and equity that have been cornerstones of this program for the past 50 years. We must be mindful that federal payments in lieu of taxes contribute substantially to local economies and to the well-being of Canadians.
[Translation]
During my round of consultations in 1998, I was clearly told, at each meeting, that the program of payments to municipalities was extremely important for local communities. I was also told that the program needed improvement, that this should have been done long ago, because the system has not been updated for 20 years.
Honourable senators, Bill C-10 was favourably received by many key stakeholders, like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Appraisal Institute of Canada as well as by municipalities all across the country. With your support and with a final vote of approval on third reading in the Senate, this bill will be enacted and we will begin to set up the new system.
We are here today to answer all your questions, and let me thank you for your work and co-operation.
Senator Bolduc: A committee is struck to advise you on the disparities in municipal tax assessments where some building in Montreal is assessed at $400,000 whereas the municipality says that it is worth $600,000. Your committee makes the recommendation to you, and then the decision is made. Why, Mr. Minister, doesn't the federal government accept the established assessment system that applies in all Canadian municipalities for all kinds of buildings?
Every municipality has an assessment system, and an appeal system if you are not satisfied. You go to a commission to set the prices. Why doesn't the federal government, as a corporate citizen, not follow this rule even if constitutionally, the federal government stands above municipalities? This is not the issue. The sums paid in lieu of taxes are paid for services offered by municipalities, like water, fire protection, etc. Why does the federal government not say that it will pay like everyone else following the procedures accepted across Canada for many years by existing administrative systems?
Mr. Gagliano: First, if we were dealing with commercial property, I agree with you that we would not need these systems. The Canadian government owns many buildings and lots for different purposes and with different values.
Almost none of the litigation involves commercial property. We take the evaluation made by the provincial authorities. I agree with you on that point. As for all properties, this question was put to me during the 1998 consultation. Why did we have a separate system? I put the question to people who came to me to discuss the matter. For instance, how do we assess a penitentiary? Is it an apartment building? Is it a hotel?
Senator Bolduc: A house of ill-repute?
Mr. Gagliano: Or a house to help people with problems? If the answer is yes in each case, it would take another evaluation system. There is a taxation issue. The Canadian government has properties. We will not set about buying properties merely because the market is favourable. The Canadian government is there to serve Canadians. These buildings often have different purposes that often go against market behaviour.
We think that Bill C-10 is an improvement. We changed the definition of territories, parking lots. We corrected all that. We have a very predictable system. Other witnesses will confirm to you -- and the municipalities are among them -- that a provincial evaluation commission sets the system. If the federal government does not agree, it only has to appeal. This is the existing public system. Because of construction, we said that we would be willing to pay taxes. The federal government is not the one to appeal, the municipality makes the appeal.
Senator Bolduc: You mentioned that you had raised the issue of prisons. A penitentiary has rather special characteristics. It is not a commercial building. Are there really that many buildings with special characteristics?
Mr. Gagliano: Penitentiaries, national parks, historical monuments -- it is unbelievable if you inventory all this property, I do not know what percentage our portfolio represents, I do not know all the details. An entire division of my department knows these things. There are lakes, streams, rivers. Have you any idea about the Canadian portfolio subject to this program?
[English]
Mr. Colin Boutin, National Policy and Planning Officer, Municipal Grants, Real Property Services Branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada: Overall, the property holdings of the federal government across Canada are quite large. Many of the properties, as the minister indicated, are of a specific, special-purpose nature. I might add that it is with respect to many of these properties of the special-purpose nature that disputes arise. Many of the disputes arise because those with the expertise to value these cannot look at the markets to find comparable properties in many cases. Therefore, in most cases of special-purpose properties, much of the expertise for valuing them rests with the federal government. In the structure of the provincial assessment bodies, they do not deal with these sufficiently or enough in each case to be able to gain the immense expertise that is required. As the minister indicated, many of the special-purpose properties are the ones that end up being the subject of dispute between municipalities and Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Senator Bolduc: Would it be unrealistic to say that, for these specific properties, it is up to the committee or the arbitration tribunal, call it what you will, but for the rest of the federal government properties, ordinary buildings, the provincial law will apply?
Mr. Boutin: We do not normally have any problems with most of the properties. The expertise in valuing office buildings, residential houses and vacant land rests within the private sector, in the appraisal fields, in the assessment jurisdictions; but most of the cases that we deal with, that come into dispute, are not with these typical types of properties that trade every day on the marketplace. Most of the disputes deal with larger complex properties where no one can point to the marketplace and say, "This is how they are valued because this is how they trade," because they do not trade. Consequently, most of the committee work involves looking at these types of special-purpose properties and trying to determine what their value is.
Mr. François Brazeau, Acting/Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property Services Branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada: The number of disputes that we have had over the years has been minimal. We have the statistics here, but the number of disputes has been very small indeed. I do not remember one that involved a property that was of a commercial nature and was frequently exchanged.
Senator Bolduc: So it is mostly with respect to penitentiaries and properties like that, that you have difficulties.
Mr. Gagliano: Historical properties.
Senator Bolduc: Military bases, I suppose, and airports, maybe.
Mr. Gagliano: The airports are privatized.
The Chairman: You do not object, Senator Bolduc, that the minister should have the last word on those matters.
Senator Bolduc: I do object to that.
[Translation]
The Chairman: You surprise me. The federal government would be at the mercy of other governments.
[English]
Senator Bolduc: If there is an independent regulatory body that decides on the property, the minister should follow their advice or their conclusion. Why do you keep that type of discretionary decision?
Mr. Gagliano: I tried to explain at the beginning that the Constitution of Canada is very clear: the Crown does not have to pay tax to local authorities. However, we want to be good citizens and thus we say we will pay, but we do not want to be at the mercy of the municipalities.
[Translation]
Senator Bolduc: You would not be at the mercy of the municipalities, you would be at the mercy of the arbitrator.
Mr. Gagliano: Yes, but an arbitrator who must evaluate a property that is not on the market. Their projections are based on that.
Senator Bolduc: You are the one who appoints him. If you are not satisfied, you can throw him out in three years.
The Chairman: Parliament must have the last word. The minister is accountable to Parliament. He cannot be bound by the process that you suggest.
[English]
Senator Moore: Senator Bolduc is always engaging. I welcome the minister and his staff. Thank you for attending.
On page 3 of your remarks, just below the middle of the page, you talk about having launched a process to draft the best practices for unusual types of federal properties in order to avoid valuation disputes. Could you tell us a bit about that?
Mr. Gagliano: To illustrate what I meant and what the effect will be, I will give an example. Under the existing legislation, a municipality does its evaluation roll and sends the tax bill to the government, just like any other taxpayer. The government officials look at that. If they do not agree with the valuation, they advise the city that, "No, we will not pay so much, but we will pay this."
The municipalities -- I believe in Quebec, and I assume in the rest of the country -- cannot have large deficits.
Their budget is therefore based on their valuation, their functions and so on, and all of a sudden they realize they have a problem.
In some very small municipalities, the Government of Canada might be the major taxpayer, and if we dispute and do not pay 50 per cent of that bill, we may put them in a bad situation. That is why the committee said, "Do not wait until you get the bill. You know the committee will be people in the profession and you know the valuation. You know that they will disagree, so go out there and try to find a solution, a middle ground." When we talk about predictability, we want the municipality to understand and to know what revenue is coming. That is how they budget. They need to know their revenue in order to balance their expenses.
This is an important aspect of the system so that the municipalities can know in advance. I also hope that it will avoid the types of disputes that exist right now, sometimes long disputes, and that we can find a solution.
Senator Moore: Part of the process, then, is to have pre-tax-bill discussions with the various municipal authorities, to flag and to deal with properties that might be in dispute prior to bills being issued by the municipality in the normal course of fiscal operations?
Mr. Gagliano: It is creating a cooperative system in which both parties can talk and not wait and get into legal disputes.
Senator Moore: Plus they will have the stability of knowing where they stand financially.
Mr. Gagliano: The objective is stability, so that they will know the revenues that they can expect.
Senator Christensen: Could you elaborate a little on the process when a First Nations government becomes involved? Is this after land claims are settled, and they are becoming more autonomous and having assessments on their lands, which will no longer be Crown lands?
Mr. Boutin: The amendment in Bill C-10 that deals with First Nation governments stems from the early 1980s. Due to changes in the Indian Act, Indian reserves were able to set up as taxing authorities and tax non-native businesses on the reserve as a legitimate authority. Our act then followed suit, back in the early 1980s, and made a change that recognized them as a taxing authority and allowed us to pay a grant in lieu of tax on property on a reserve, but it limited the type of property on a reserve that we could pay on. It limited it to property on a reserve that was there to provide service to people who did not live on the reserve.
That created an inequity. In a regular municipality that had a post office providing a service for the whole municipality, we would pay a grant in lieu of tax on that property. On the reserves, if that same type of federal property were present, under the current act before amendment, we could not pay on that because it provided service to people who lived on the reserve. We felt that was an uneven playing field, and the amendment in Bill C-10 is there to re-level that field and to treat them the same as every other taxing authority. Therefore, if there is a federal property on there, no matter whom it is there to serve, we will consider that for a grant in lieu of tax. That is the amendment in Bill C-10.
The Chairman: There appear to be no further questions. I hope you found that reasonably painless, minister.
Mr. Gagliano: It is always a pleasure to appear before this committee.
Senator Bolduc: Minister, I am a bit frustrated by the discretion that you keep for yourself. It hurts me.
Mr. Gagliano: I assure you, senator, that I will --
Senator Bolduc: You will use it wisely, I am sure.
Mr. Gagliano: My advisors will be professionals from the industry.
Senator Bolduc: But still, you appoint the chairman of the advisory body, and it is embarrassing in one way because he is the guy who gives you advice on the property, so after three years, if he does not behave as you think he should, in terms of evaluation, you may change the guy.
Mr. Gagliano: But that is democracy, senator. If something goes wrong, I am the minister responsible, so I should have that freedom.
Senator Bolduc: In other words, this is not a tribunal.
The Chairman: Do provinces pay grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities?
Mr. Gagliano: Some do and some do not.
The Chairman: How does that regime work under your supervision?
Senator Bolduc: With an administrative tribunal that decides the price. The government does not intervene.
The Chairman: The government has to pay whatever it decides.
Senator Bolduc: Whatever is decided by the tribunal.
Mr. Gagliano: Not on the schools and not on the hospitals in Quebec. I beg to disagree with you there.
Senator Bolduc: On some types of buildings, yes, but not on the regular ones.
The Chairman: Thank you, minister.
Honourable senators, we have one more set of witnesses and then we will consider what to do with this bill.
Our next witnesses are representatives of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Welcome, and please proceed.
[Translation]
Mr. Joseph Dion, Director, Policy and Public Affairs, Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Today I am accompanied by Mr. John Burrett, Senior Policy Analyst for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. On behalf of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I would like to thank you for having invited us to meet you and express our opinion regarding Bill C-10. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is the national voice of municipal governments and our mandate consists in improving the quality of life in all communities by fostering a strong, efficient and reasonable government.
[English]
We are here today to inform you of our support for this bill. It is an excellent piece of legislation, the product of exemplary consultation and cooperation, and will provide significant benefits to many Canadian municipalities. We are very happy with the legislation and we hope it will pass quickly.
We also wish to touch on several outstanding issues on which we expect to reach agreement with Public Works and Government Services Canada regarding the application of the legislation and regulations.
Let me first provide an overview of our work.
Payments in lieu of taxes have been paid to municipal governments on federal properties for the past 50 years, partly as a result of the efforts of the FCM.
The federal government, although exempt from paying property tax under the Constitution, has come to agree with the FCM that the correct course of action is to pay municipalities in a manner equivalent to other taxpayers.
A joint technical committee on payments in lieu of taxes was initiated by FMC with Treasury Board and Public Works and Government Services in 1995. Following two years of negotiations and the signing of two agreements, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Mr. Gagliano, announced a complete review of the Municipal Grants Act at the FCM annual conference in 1998.
The legislation has been introduced at a rapid pace, but FCM has been able to analyze the contents of the bill and consult with our subcommittee on payments in lieu of taxes, as well as with officials of Public Works and Government Services Canada. FCM believes that Bill C-10, subject to some clarification and assurances, is a welcome improvement to the Municipal Grants Act and is one that our members can support.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been encouraged by the openness and candour of officials from Public Works and Government Services in this matter. In particular, we were pleased to be informed that Public Works and Government Services would sign an agreement, preferably a memorandum of understanding, with FCM. While that has not yet come to pass, FCM expects that that commitment will be respected.
The memorandum of understanding must be to the effect that all of the recommendations of the joint technical committee will be in place under the new legislation, and that the wording of regulations and policies will clearly reflect these recommendations.
Specific recommendations of the JTC, and issues corresponding to the changes in the legislation, which should be highlighted before this committee, include the following items.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities recognizes that the legislation proposes a dispute advisory panel that is to be impartial in its resolutions. As agreed with the officials of the department, FCM will prepare a list of nominees, as will the federal government, and will arrive at a mutually agreeable choice of panel members.
For the security and assurance of our members, however, FCM asks the Minister of Public Works and Government Services for assurance that the memorandum of understanding will reaffirm this commitment.
Concerns have been voiced by our members regarding the inconsistency with which the government's commitment to make payments in lieu of taxes may be followed, where the decision rests with regional departmental officials.
We are aware of several situations where municipal governments have been forced to engage in protracted discussions without any closure. In a letter to the minister in February, the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities drew the minister's attention to such a situation, which "has persisted for more than four years at this point, saddling the municipal government with considerable expense and uncertainty."
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities keenly awaits the report of the consultant appointed by Treasury Board to review the results of this policy.
In the meantime, where present problems exist, FCM continues to expect the federal government to act quickly and in good faith to resolve them.
Public Works and Government Services Canada has agreed to consult with FCM on the contents of the best practices guide for assessment of unique properties. Our members expect to be consulted immediately following the consultations with provincial assessment authorities.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Public Works have previously agreed to examine the extent to which the activities of Crown corporations, such as Canada Post and the Royal Canadian Mint, constitute activities for profit, and hence, should be liable for business occupancy taxes. FCM is pleased to be assured that nothing in the new legislation precludes this.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been assured that the new legislation and regulatory changes mean that Crown corporations are covered equally to departments regarding interests on late and supplementary payments and on payments where tenants of the Crown default on their obligations. FCM understands that further amendments clarify this point.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is pleased to report to our members that compensation for late payments will be paid according to municipal due dates. This is critical for the efficiency of municipal financial operations.
Finally, FCM is aware that there exist some issues, such as the determination of what constitutes federal property and property assessment, that will continue to be matters of interpretation by the courts or professionals in property assessment. That is appropriate, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been assured that the federal government's approach will be reasonable and open to discussion and negotiation in all cases.
A case in point is the legal action now underway between the City of Halifax and Parks Canada regarding the interpretation of the use of the property at the historic Citadel and its assessment by the federal government versus that of the municipality. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities will monitor this situation closely and expects a reasonable resolution.
There will also be outstanding questions on the application of the legislation that will take time to answer. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities expects that all such matters will be addressed with a similar, reasonable, approach, and openness to negotiation geared to a timely resolution.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, allow me to reiterate the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' support for this bill. We believe its development has been a model of consultation and cooperation. During the consultation phase, the government listened to our many concerns and responded to them seriously. The legislation, when passed and put into force, will constitute a significant benefit to a great number of Canadian municipalities and their residents.
Thank you very much. I look forward to the questions of the committee.
[Translation]
Senator Bolduc: For assessments, do you prefer to have an advisory committee whose chairman is appointed by the minister, or an administrative tribunal?
[English]
In other words, there is an advisory panel, the chairman of which is appointed by the minister. Would you prefer that, or an administrative tribunal that would fix the assessment?
John Burrett, Senior Policy Analyst, Federation of Canadian Municipalities: We prefer it the way it is set up now, where we have a dispute advisory panel with joint selection of the membership by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the federal government, to be able to pursue a transparent and open process.
Senator Bolduc: But you do not mind leaving the decision to the minister, in the final analysis?
Mr. Burrett: The Federation of Canadian Municipalities recognizes fully the position of the minister within the constitution, and we have no quarrel with that.
Senator Doody: If they are happy --
Senator Christensen: We are happy.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dion. Thank you, Mr. Burrett. Let us quit while we are ahead.
I should tell the committee that, apart from the minister and the representatives of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, there were no other intervenors, no other parties indicating a wish to be heard by the committee. I should also say that the bill received, I understand, unanimous approval in the House of Commons. Mind you, that should make us suspicious.
I will now consult with members of the committee as to where we go from here.
Let me do an informal poll, first of all. Does anyone intend to move any amendments at this stage?
There being no response to that, the options are, as I see it, that I can take you through this bill clause by clause -- and the officials are here, just in case you have questions about particular clauses; so that can be done; that is your right -- or, if you do not wish to do that, then the Chair could entertain, with unanimous consent, a motion simply to report the bill without amendment. The Chair would entertain a motion that we dispense with clause-by-clause consideration and that we report the bill without amendment.
If the honourable senators want to adjourn the meeting and go home and think about it for another week, they have that right, too.
May I hear from some honourable senator?
Senator Cools: Honourable senators, there seems to be a pretty clear agreement around the table that the committee is satisfied that the bill has received enough consideration. At first, I thought we were perhaps rushing things a bit too much to even anticipate clause-by-clause consideration this afternoon, but having listened to the two panels of witnesses, I see no reason for us to burden ourselves with another meeting.
I suggest that we move now into the final consideration of this study and go to a vote. I propose that we adopt the bill. I propose that we just vote on the clauses of the bill in clusters and then, assuming it is adopted, you can report it tomorrow, if possible.
Senator Doody: Can you not just move that the bill be reported without amendment?
Senator Cools: No, the committee must adopt it first. That is what clause-by-clause consideration is.
Senator Doody: I have been in legislative assemblies now for nearly 30 years.
Senator Cools: I do not think it is that important. I would be quite happy to move that we adopt the whole bill. I do not think it is a critical point, but it confirms a critical decision in case anyone wants to question it.
The Chairman: The Chair would entertain a motion, with leave, that we dispense with clause-by-clause consideration. That can be done. I do not know what we gain, Senator Cools, by adopting the clauses of the bill in clusters.
Senator Cools: I do not want to make an issue of it, but it seems to be a practice that is creeping in. We have so much agreement here that it is unnecessary to cloud it.
The Chairman: Say no more. I get your point.
Senator Cools: It takes only a minute for the committee to vote on it.
The Chairman: Regarding Bill C-10, shall the title stand?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The title stands. Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 15 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 16 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 17 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 18 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 19 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Is it agreed then, honourable senators, that this bill be adopted without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed. Is it agreed that I report this bill at the next sitting of the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed. Thank you, honourable senators.
We meet again on Tuesday morning at 9:30 to hear from the federal Department of Health and from Natural Resources Canada pursuant to our consideration of emergency and disaster preparedness.
The committee adjourned.