SMEM Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

SOUS-COMITÉ DES AFFAIRES ÉMANANT DES DÉPUTÉS DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 28, 1999

• 0836

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. I see a quorum, so we can start.

We have quite a full day today. I see from the agenda of the subcommittee on private members' business that we're continuing selection of votable items. Today is Thursday, October 28. I thought it was Halloween last night here on the Hill, but “Hilloween” it was. We're in room 307.

We have 13 members who will appear. Each member has about five minutes to explain why his or her item should be selected as a votable item. That would give them three hours rather than one hour.

Again I thank the staff. Do you know what? We were a very special group here yesterday. One of our witnesses was celebrating a birthday, and some of you left too early. Also our clerk was celebrating a birthday. They're very smart staff. The clerk tells me they're now a year younger.

Our first member here is Chuck Strahl, on Bill C-244.

Chuck, when you wish, you may proceed.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My congratulations to the first committee of the day, I think. I'm not sure if you folks really know what you've signed on for.

The Chair: Thanks, Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: This bill, Bill C-244, I have entitled “The Good Samaritans Act”. I'd just like to read to you a portion of a letter I received from someone in my riding; it was one of the sparks behind this. This fellow wrote:

My eldest son was involved in an incident at work (Canadian Tire in Abbotsford) a few weeks ago which has raised a large question for me. He helped apprehend a would-be shoplifter and in the scuffle some blood from the accused came to be on my son. My son is now on medication from the AIDS Prevention Society (...in Vancouver). We won't be able to test him to see if he has contracted any disease until after three months. However, all it would take is for the accused to take a blood test to see if he has any such disease (he's a known heroin addict to the RCMP in Abbotsford). The accused refuses to take such a blood test and the law, I've been told, supports him in his refusal. Here again is a case where the victim is being punished and the accused's rights take precedence over the victim's rights. What can we as a family do? What, as our MP, can you do to help us, to help my son?

This is an example of conflicting rights: the right of an accused person to security of the person, balanced against the right of someone, who has in this case helped to apprehend a robber at the store he worked at, to know whether he could be infected with blood that has either the hepatitis or HIV virus.

I'd like to go through quickly the criteria we have. I know we don't have a lot of time.

That was the human face of it, but there's also a cry from the Canadian Police Association for this same legislation. The CPA has been in the offices of many of us, asking for the same sort of notification. In other words, when they apprehend someone and if bodily fluids come into contact with a police officer or someone doing their duty as a firefighter, for example, they should have the right to know whether they need to be worried about HIV and hepatitis C and B viruses. So there is really a public interest in this bill. That's for sure.

• 0840

You have the bill before you, and I'd like to just quickly go through what it would do.

It would provide for a justice to issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer to require a qualified medical practitioner to take a blood sample in the cases I just described: if the justice is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant came into contact with a bodily substance from another person while they were engaged in the performance of a designated function—and the designated functions are listed in the bill; if by reason of the circumstances in which the applicant came into contact with the bodily substance, the applicant may have been infected by a virus, because of the lengthy incubation periods for many of these diseases, it would be in the best interest; and finally, if a qualified medical practitioner is of the opinion that taking the samples of blood will not endanger the health or safety of the person from whom they're taking the blood sample.

The second part of the bill amends the Criminal Code, which is the federal jurisdiction we're talking about here, in order to cover things, such as the example of the father who wrote me here, where someone assists a police officer in making a citizen's arrest. In other words, where someone does a job that we all stand and applaud as a heroic act, I feel he or she should be covered under the same type of legislation as the police officer or the firefighter.

The last point I'd like to raise is that I have had correspondence with the Minister of Justice on that. As I mentioned to you, the Canadian Police Association supports the idea of this bill, in principle. The minister wrote back to me on October 15. She is concerned about the practicality of the process, and so on. In her letter to me, she says there is considerable public sentiment supporting mandatory testing for HIV/AIDS of those accused or convicted of offences, where there's been an exchange of bodily fluids. She goes on to say: “I would like to assure you that the Government will continue to examine this issue and listen closely to the views of Canadians.”

I realize there is no government bill—actually that's one of the criteria—currently before the House that deals with this. I believe we could do the minister a service by debating this in the House and sending it to committee to do what she says, which is continue to examine this issue and deal with what I think will quickly become the conflicting rights between someone who wants their blood sample taken and someone who may or may not want to give it. I think we could have a good discussion in committee perhaps and deal with it in depth with some witnesses, to deal with that issue.

I think it is of national concern. The CPA has certainly made it one of their top issues in the country. We would be doing not only our peace officers well by this bill, but also the good Samaritans who have reached out behind the zone of safety and actually helped police officers and medical practitioners do their work.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Chuck.

Are there any questions? Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Let's say something happened to a prison guard in a prison. Are there regulations right now that allow for blood testing in that circumstance?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: There is nothing. That's alarming for many of these prison guards, police officers or attendants if someone is a high risk—as you say, someone who is in prison or is a habitual drug user or needle user.

One of our assistants here on the Hill was on the Sparks Street Mall last summer when a street person collapsed in a big heap. There was blood and what not, and the guy had a seizure. She jumped in and gave him CPR and saved his life, no doubt about it. Yet he was a chronic heroin needle user, and when she asked whether she could know whether he had a communicable disease, the police said “Well, he's a heroin user; you can take that for what it's worth, but I can't tell you.” So that woman, who works here on the Hill, had to go home without knowing what degree of concern she should have for her children or her husband over the next several months, while she waits to see whether she has developed.... It was a really messy scene. So it's not only prison guards and police officers but even someone who actually saved someone's life is not allowed to know under the current law.

• 0845

The Chair: Are there any other questions? That was very interesting and very educational. Thank you, Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Roger Gallaway is here to speak on motion M-98. Roger, I believe you would know the rules and the parameters of this subcommittee much better than I.

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): This morning I want to be extremely brief and to the point. In my opinion, this motion is very clear and succinct. It proposes that the proceedings of the Senate in the Senate chamber should, in the opinion of the House, be televised. I'm here to give you my five-minute précis as to why I believe this should be made a votable motion.

First I want to give you a crash course in how the House of Commons reached agreement to go on the airwaves in 1977. By way of background I can say that legislative chambers in all democratic countries and states have public galleries. The reason stems from a period shortly following the Magna Carta, and that is that public business must be able to be seen by the public.

So if I flash forward from 1016 to some 960 years later, a debate occurred here in the House of Commons on extending the galleries by way of television, realizing that in an era of electronics and as the medium known as television matured, it was the ideal and modern way of extending the principle of the public galleries of the House to Canadian homes. So on January 25, 1977, the House adopted a motion to broadcast live its debates and proceedings. In September 1977 our chamber's galleries went on the air. In effect, it entered the homes of Canadians who possessed a television.

The concept of extending the galleries is based on some very clear and sound philosophies. First, as I've said, the public has a right to see its legislators debating the public's business. Second, for our federal chambers to be relevant, its affairs and proceedings must be fully accessible to the public. Finally, public broadcasting gives viewers first-hand experience of legislators at work, as opposed to what otherwise would be received through reports or commentaries prepared by journalists. Quite simply, it's not filtered, and it cannot be misconstrued or censored in any way.

It's interesting to note that today more than 80 countries broadcast their legislative chambers' proceedings on a daily basis, yet in this parliamentary precinct, which was the first elected chamber in the world to broadcast its proceedings, there is an exception, which is the Senate chamber itself. I should tell you that the last and only debate that occurred in that place on the use of television took place on November 5 and December 3, 1975, when senators expressed a majority opinion that the public should not see its proceedings by way of television. In fact, their equivalent of a standing order in that chamber, numbered 130, prohibits the televising of their proceedings.

So as I examine the criteria the committee has adopted as its measurement standard for passing judgment on these motions, remember that “The Senate will continue to play a fundamental role in the federal legislative process”. That is a quote from the current Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in a written response to me dated February 18, 1999. I want to repeat that: “The Senate will continue to play a fundamental role in the federal legislative process.”

• 0850

I want to repeat that more than 80 countries televise all of their legislative chambers' proceedings, yet we in this Parliament average 50%, one out of two. So the only debate that occurred in the Senate, which was very brief, ended almost exactly 24 years ago.

In speaking to the five criteria adopted by this committee, there can be no doubt that, first, this motion's wording is clear, complete, and effective. Second, that the subject matter is in fact constitutional and falls squarely within the realm of federal jurisdiction. Third, I would suggest that the business of Parliament and its chambers is of significant public interest. Four, I can state unequivocally that this motion is not part of the government's current legislative agenda and in fact has never been addressed by the House in this or any other session of Parliament. This is in fact a first. Finally, I'd like also to say that the business of the Senate and its proceedings in that chamber are in fact of national interest. This is not a partisan issue. Rather, it is about making that other integral legislative chamber available to the public and relevant to the public.

I should tell you that the British House of Lords went on the air in 1985, about four years before the British House of Commons, and rather than affect the general demeanour of that place, public opinion polls since that time have clearly revealed two points: first, the public in Britain actually liked it. In fact it is a ratings success. Second, it is agreed among the British public that the quality of debate in that place went up, not down.

Finally, I want to repeat that we live in an electronic information age, and I have to ask, is it not ironic that the other place, the Senate of Canada, is not available to Canadians through the medium of television?

I would ask that you make this motion votable in order that the House of Commons can clearly state to Canadians that it collectively believes the public's business should be and shall be open to scrutiny.

Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Roger.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: On a technical point, Roger, the House of Commons can suggest, but we can't force. Is that right?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: That's correct, yes. It's an opinion of the House.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I've a question for my friend Roger. What reasons did the Senate give for objecting to the televising of its proceedings?

[English]

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I have those debates, and I believe there were only three speakers. The proponent of it was a senator by the name of J.J. Greene, who had been in the House of Commons and had been a cabinet minister, actually. He is the one who put forward this argument about the ancient principle of extending the galleries of Parliament and taking it into the electronic age. A Conservative senator by the name of Martial Asselin expressed opinions that dealt with the so-called dignity of the chamber and said that allowing television into that chamber would lead to a loss of dignity in the chamber—and I can give you the quote—and that indeed if Canadians saw the chamber, there would be a move to abolish or reform it. That was the Conservative position.

The Chair: That's always a very interesting subject and a current one. We thank you very much, Mr. Gallaway, for your time.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Thank you.

• 0855

The Chair: Mr. Godin, you're not the next person on the list, but you could take the next spot and be ready to go in a few seconds, if you wish.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I'm ready.

The Chair: Have a seat. Mr. Godin is going to speak on M-222, and he has given us a handout of his excellent work, as always.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That goes in my favour.

The Chair: As you know, you have a very few minutes to convince us why this should be a votable item to give you three hours in the House rather than the one hour. You may proceed.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to thank you for having me here today to speak to you about my motion concerning seasonal workers.

Before listing the reasons why this motion should be deemed votable, I'd like to describe it briefly to you.

The motion reads as follows:

M-222—October 18, 1999—Mr. Godin (Acadie—Bathurst)

[English]

On or after Monday, November 1, 1999, in the opinion of this House the government should take immediate action to restore Employment Insurance benefits to seasonal workers.

[Translation]

On or after Monday, November 1, 1999 - That, in the opinion of this House, the government take immediate action to restore Employment Insurance benefits to seasonal workers.

As you can see, this motion focuses on two major issues, namely seasonal workers and employment insurance.

This morning, I'd like to focus primarily on the issue of seasonal workers, one of the biggest challenges posed by today's economy. It's an issue of national interest, one that touches the forestry, fishery, tourism and agricultural sectors.

It is important that as elected federal representatives, we turn our attention to this matter which especially concerns rural communities. As we know, the economy of many rural communities is based on the exploitation of natural resources and raw materials. The reality is that several primary sector industries are subject to quota systems and can only carry out their operations during one specific season.

An expanded debate on this issue in the House of Commons would bring to light the realities of this industry and debunk the myths surrounding seasonal industries. While some still harbour the belief that seasonal workers don't want to work, we must remember that it is the jobs that are seasonal, not the workers.

Others believe that certain industries will look to relocate to areas where the economy is driven by seasonal industries. However, I for one know of no industry that waits until the fishing season is over before beginning its operations.

Parliamentarians need to debate the issue and hold a vote in order to bring to light the true scope of the problems affecting seasonal industries. B.C. forestry workers can no longer go out and work in the bush once they have met their quotas, quotas which were set to ensure responsible forestry practices. Newfoundland or New Brunswick fishers cannot fish under the ice in the winter or off season. Ontario workers cannot work in campgrounds during the month of January, unless campers can arrange to sleep outdoors in -30 degree celsius weather. I recall that in 1936, the thermometer plunged to 72 degrees below zero. I can't imagine anyone wanting to camp in that kind of weather.

These are just a few examples of seasonal industries where workers are unemployed at certain times of the year. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to examine this issue in order to develop both short and long-term solutions.

This is where the issue of employment insurance comes into play. Don't imagine for one moment that I think the entire problem can be resolved by giving seasonal workers access to EI benefits. I recognize that this is a short-term solution and that other longer-term solutions are needed to address the problems of seasonal industries. We need to acknowledge that the current system hurts many communities which depend on seasonal employment. This only underscores the importance of holding a debate in order to develop solutions to ease this desperate situation.

• 0900

Let me give you some examples of what people refer to as the black hole. In light of all the closures in the fishery, fishers are no longer eligible to draw EI benefits after January. Each year, a battle is waged with governments to launch projects which would allow fishers to survive from January to May. The government is under no obligation to provide these workers with some relief during this period, and every year, these workers experience the same level of stress.

Consider, for example, the spring crab fishery, a situation with which I'm most familiar. Crab fishers work in the spring and must wait until August 15 before they can fish for herring. Therefore, the entire month of July is a black hole for them. Is there any company out there that would be willing to settle in the region to fill this one-month void? I don't think that's ever going to happen. That's the problem with seasonal employment.

Forestry workers encounter similar problems. Is there a company willing to stand by until they have filled their quotas and then step in to pick up the slack? Not likely. It's critically important that we debate this issue and voice our opinions. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to do so.

Perhaps the solution lies in investing in secondary or tertiary industries, or in specialized training programs. I want us to have a prolonged debate in the House of Commons to give everyone a chance to express their views on the subject.

This motion should also be deemed votable because it meets the criteria established by your committee.

[English]

The Chair: We only have time for a couple of minutes more. If you want any questions....

Mr. Yvon Godin: I think I want to have this on the record. I have just one page left.

The Chair: As you wish.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: This motion deals with a subject of interest that has not been debated in the House and that cannot be debated elsewhere. It is clearly non-partisan. Members of all parties must work together to resolve this problem. We all have seasonal workers living in our ridings and we must devise some strategies for helping them.

This motion does not violate the Constitution or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It touches on a federal matter, namely the administration of the Employment Insurance Program.

I am asking the Committee to declare Motion M-222 a votable item in the House of Commons. Again, it's important that members be given an opportunity to express their views on an issue that directly affect our constituents. Let's work together in the House of Commons to find solutions to the problems affecting workers in seasonal industries. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Merci. Thank you for your continuing efforts on behalf of the seasonal workers.

Have we any questions?

You've given us a lot of complete information. I thank you very much for your time and your submission.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you. I'm very happy that it is very clear, and now I wait for your support.

The Chair: We'll take a one- or two-minute break, please.

• 0904

• 0911

The Chair: We'll resume. I just need to mention that Mr. Jason Kenney, who was scheduled, has asked for a replacement. The replacement has not shown up yet. We can address that when the replacement may or may not show, according to our time. We're quite tight.

Our next member presenting is Bev Desjarlais on M-211. Bev, you have about five minutes to tell us all the excellent reasons your bill should be votable, and you may start whenever.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Thank you. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to present my position. I do recognize that your decision is based on whether a motion should be votable and not necessarily the substance of what's within the motion.

The reason I have asked specifically to have Stanley Knowles Day recognized is that Stanley Knowles was a long-time member of Parliament, having served for 37 years. He's the only MP who was ever made an honorary member of the House of Commons, in 1984, and had a lifelong chair at the clerk's table. He was honoured in Manitoba by having a school named after him in the riding he once represented. Even Prime Minister Diefenbaker had so much respect for his parliamentary knowledge that he offered him the Speaker's chair, even though he turned down this opportunity. A veteran journalist and former MP, Douglas Fisher, wrote that “Stanley Knowles was one of the three greatest MPs of this century, along with Wilfrid Laurier and Mackenzie King”.

I think as Canadians we sometimes lose sight of the great people we have had representing us. Most other countries have taken the opportunity and honour their citizens, whether they be parliamentarians or others. For example, the United States honours past presidents and great Americans like Martin Luther King. Great Britain has Guy Fawkes Day. But in Canada, the only two days we tend to recognize are Queen Victoria of England on Victoria Day and St. Patrick of Ireland, but not our own great citizens. I'm sure the honourable chair wouldn't take offence to us indicating St. Patrick.

I think this motion gives us the opportunity to rectify this situation, and as we move into the new millennium I think it's the opportune time for us as Canadians to start recognizing the number of Canadians and great Canadians who have been instrumental in our lives.

Thank you.

The Chair: Very precise and to the point.

Have we any questions, colleagues? Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Bev, would it be a holiday or would it just be a day of recognition?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Just a day of recognition is my intent.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): I wonder if we could make it a holiday.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: It certainly was not my intent.

The Chair: A very fine gentleman, and he served so long.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Didn't Guy Fawkes blow up the Parliament or something?

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I don't know why they recognize Guy Fawkes. Maybe that's why he is—

Mr. Joe Jordan: Didn't he make a big bonfire or something?

The Chair: Certainly it's something we are all very much aware of. He's a very impressive gentleman. I'm glad I arrived here in time to be able to say hello and then pay more attention to his great work and reflections.

I see no other questions at this time. I thank you very much for your time and your presentation.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

The Chair: Yes?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Come and get me when....

The Chair: Thank you. I will do that the next time.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You have all the rights you want.

The Chair: I started out to walk by the phone booths, and then one came in and we had quorum. Who am I to touch anyone's schedule? I apologize. Excusez-moi, my colleague.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Nothing's wrong; it's just funny, that's all.

[English]

The Chair: We touched the Irish and we touched the English and the fact that we were recognizing those people and we were not recognizing one of our own, Mr. Stanley Knowles. I expect no finer gentleman has ever served, by anyone's standards—speaking for myself, if I may.

• 0915

Our next presenter is Dr. Carolyn Bennett, speaking on M-96. Carolyn, when you want to proceed to the table, please do. We're not always going in order.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): I could use five minutes. Do you want me to do it now?

The Chair: Yes, if you would like to proceed now, you're on and you have five minutes. There may or may not be questions, but you're going to inform us why this should be a votable item.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I think there is obviously going to be a concern that we've got enough diseases of the month and diseases of the week already. The Cancer Society obviously has always reluctantly...whether it was the breast cancer people or now prostate cancer, they worry about people leaving from under their wings.

However, I think leukemia has a very different place in the need for public education. More than just writing cheques, this is a disease that can be cured by bone marrow donation. We are missing the boat. So many Canadians cannot find a match, and by actually having a full public service blitz on leukemia, we could raise the number of Canadians who would become bone marrow donors.

This claims more lives of children than any other disease and it strikes greater numbers of adults. As you know, 70% of affected children are cured, and a lot of those because of bone marrow donation, and more than half of the adults do reach a remission lasting one to five years.

It's a personal thing for me. My husband's best friend, Phil Borsos, the famous film director of Grey Fox, Bethune, and John and the Missus, died of leukemia four years ago. I think a lot of us feel that we ought to have done more to get more people to become bone marrow donors. Phil's leukemia was caused because of a curable condition of Hodgkin's disease, but he reacted to the radiotherapy from the Hodgkin's disease, which then caused the leukemia.

I think we are actually out there causing leukemia with our treatments for other things, and whatever we can do to backstop this...because it is curable and it is taking out more kids than any other disease in this country.

Even though there is a concern that we've had enough already and it's thyroid and it's this and it's that, a full blitz, a public awareness campaign that would help more people become bone marrow donors I think would be a really important thing, to say nothing of the difficulty we've had in the transition from the Red Cross to the Canadian Blood Services, which has had people worrying about donating and worrying about becoming a bone marrow donor, and it's a much more painful and difficult sell. That's all.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Carolyn.

Have we any questions on this? Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I had the reverse. I had a friend who actually was cured through bone marrow.

I think you hit the nail on the head in that we only have 12 months and so on. But if we were going to make a movement in this direction, is it your opinion that this is the number one condition to make the next month? I understand your argument, but is that...?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: It was my 25th medical school reunion in June, and one of my classmates, who is on the board of the research fund, Mark Minden—I think he is one of the most prominent Canadians in bone marrow research and transplantation—gave us the most optimistic view of how close they are to a cure.

• 0920

I think I'd put this one right up there, because I think if we can actually find cures for things, and when they are that close, it's amazing.... We're not healing people just because there aren't enough people in the bone marrow donor bank.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I just have one comment. I'm very sensitive to the issue of children, and particularly to children with leukemia. I'm well aware of the problems they face. However, the problem is not confined to bone marrow donors. There is a general shortage of organ donors. It's not simply a problem of people being unwilling to become organ donors. Unfortunately, when emergencies arise, people don't follow through. I think we're dealing with a much bigger problem, one that is not limited to bone marrow donors.

That's all I wanted to say.

[English]

The Chair: Any other comments or questions?

Doctor, I thank you for sharing one of your very many talents with us. Have a great day.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Thank you.

The Chair: Chuck Strahl has been here. Roger Gallaway has been here. Jason Kenney asked for a replacement, who would be here by 9:30. I'm not going to make the ruling on that. We can address that. Mr. Godin's been here. Bev has been here. Carolyn has been here. We're right on time.

If we had started at 8:30—we started at 8:40, Bill. Blame the chair. We didn't have a quorum. We would be at 9:30, if we went by ten-minute slots, at the end of Dr. Bennett's presentation and if Jason had been here.

So we are on time. We're five or six minutes ahead. It would be nice if Jason's replacement came along soon, if he was coming. I understand they are asking us to wrap up our selection process today. Again, I was told it's not the end of the world if we don't. I may have heard differently from other people, but everyone is quite busy—understatement of the day and the session.

I am only asking. It could be to our benefit—my perception—if we were able to do this today. Does anyone have any...?

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): I don't see any reason why we can't. Generally, once we come to the end of the presentations we go in camera.

The Chair: Good. You've been here and done that. I was asking and not telling.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes.

The Chair: If we took a short break now and no one else is here after five minutes.... Have you ever before proceeded...? We shouldn't proceed until we have everybody here. It's me who has to learn.

Thank you.

Mr. Joe Jordan: If it's a case of going in camera, we're not supposed to do that until—

The Chair: I was just asking. I'm your servant.

Thank you. We'll take a break.

• 0923

• 0931

The Chair: We're called to order again for our Subcommittee on Private Members' Business.

I want to thank Mr. Dubé for being here on time. He's going to give us the reasons why we should consider Bill C-213 a votable item.

Whenever you wish to start, Mr. Dubé, please do. You have just about five minutes, with some questions, possibly.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, honourable colleagues, I wasn't able to be here yesterday because I was abroad with Minister Normand on an economic mission to Eastern Europe.

This bill concerns ship building. I will review its provisions very quickly and tell you why I think it should be votable. That is the purpose of this morning's meeting.

The bill contains three measures which the Shipbuilding Association of Canada, an organization representing the nine largest shipyards in the country, has been calling for for the past two years, namely: a loan guarantee program geared specifically to the shipbuilding industry, an amortization provision for boats, coupled with a leasing provision, somewhat like in the case of persons who lease automobiles with an option to purchase, given that substantial sums of money are involved, and lastly, a refundable tax credit. These are not subsidies, but major forms of assistance. Building ships and boats is an extremely costly proposition.

I could get into a number of other provisions contained in the bill, but I recognize that the purpose of this morning's meeting is to explain the reasons why this bill should be deemed votable. In my view, it is votable because to my knowledge, this is the first time that a bill specific to the shipbuilding industry has been tabled. I've seen relevant motions in the past, but never any bills on this subject. Therefore, this is a first.

Moreover, this is a subject of national interest, because shipyards are located in each of the four Maritime provinces, as well as Quebec, where there two of them, and Ontario, which is home to a large shipyard in Port Wheeler. There are two more shipyards in British Columbia. The only place where you won't find any shipyards is in the three Western provinces.

I've obtained the signatures of 100 members from the four opposition parties. This bill has the support, therefore, of the four opposition parties. I also have the feeling that government members are very sensitive to and interested in this issue. Obviously, it's more difficult for them, but I sense that many of them might be willing to support the proposed legislation.

• 0935

This is a very important piece of legislation. At present, the shipbuilding industry employs 4,000 people. However, a scant three years ago, there were up to 10,000 industry workers. This is a subject of national interest because the country needs to maintain a minimum number of shipyards in operation, if only to carry out repairs.

Recently, for example, a large cruise ship ran aground at the mouth of the Saguenay, not far from Mr. Harvey's riding. It needed to undergo repairs quickly, and these were carried out at the MIL Davie shipyard. Similar situations could arise elsewhere. If the industry continues to lose ground at the current rate, Canada could face some problems.

During my mission abroad, I read the newspapers in three of the countries I visited. Several are experiencing similar problems, including Spain. All stressed the importance of preserving their shipbuilding industry.

This bill respecting the shipbuilding industry is, therefore, very important, not to mention that this is a national, not a provincial, issue. It's important because it concerns interprovincial as well as international transportation.

As I indicated earlier, the House of Commons has not yet debated this issue, at least not from the perspective of draft legislation. I know my colleague John Herron is planning to table a motion that he wants the Industry Committee to consider. Mr. McCormick, you served on the Industry Committee and you may recall that members wanted the matter to be debated one day, but there were other urgent matters to consider. Therefore, this is a subject in the public interest.

I'd also like to say that I've been especially careful not to table an overly detailed bill, with quantitative elements, because then I would be taking the government's place. We ask the government to implement measures and it is the government's responsibility to establish very specific, well quantified, comprehensive programs. I am not taking the government's place by introducing this bill, because we still have government sponsored bills.

If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Of course, I could go on for hours on this topic. I've toured every major shipyard in the country and the workers support my initiative. For instance, the union had workers mail in 160,000 postcards in support of my proposed legislation.

I'm comfortable with my role as a Member of Parliament. I represent the interests of the people, not only Quebeckers, but all Canadians. I'm a sovereigntist MP, but I made a special effort to tour all of Canada's shipyards and to speak to shipyard workers in all provinces. My bill has received widespread support. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Have we any questions?

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I want to thank my colleague from Lévis who, along with several of my colleagues, has devoted many hours to this initiative.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Well, I'm advocating some positive action. I've collected the signature of members from each of the four opposition parties in support of my bill. I'm not that fluent in the other official language, but I can assure you that I'm making great strides in my learning process. Sometimes my meetings were fairly brief, while at other times, they lasted a little longer. However, my efforts were genuine and I think people realized that I was working in the interests of everyone.

Ms. McDonough has supported my bill. Her own Halifax riding is home to two large shipyards. The Reform Party has also been quite receptive to my efforts. Most of its members hail from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, where there are no shipyards to be found, but I succeeded in convincing them that this was a subject of national interest and they signed on. They understood. As for the Liberal Party, I know that several of its members also want to see this bill adopted. I understand that at their last convention, Liberal Party faithful called on the government to take some action to help this industry. I too get the feeling that the government wants to do something, even though it made no mention of the issue in its Throne Speech. This is one more reason for me to speak in support of this bill this morning.

• 0940

As I said, this important subject was not broached in the Throne Speech. I'm not saying that this was an oversight on the government's part, but I don't think it has adopted a hard and fast position on the matter. When the bill is tabled in the House, the government will then have an opportunity to unveil its position. In any event, the matter will be debated. I don't want to weaken my bill in any way, but if the government were to table an even better bill, one that proved to be even more generous than mine, then I don't think anyone in the shipbuilding industry would object.

[English]

The Chair: Very well said.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I'd like to make one final comment. You no doubt received an invitation yesterday from representatives of the shipping industry, which includes shipbuilding and other sectors. Shipbuilders are somewhat reluctant to support this initiative directly, but all shipping industry stakeholders that we have consulted consider this to be sound bill.

Europe still subsidizes its shipyards. We are not asking for subsidies. Asia also continues to subsidize its state-owned shipyards. The United States have adopted a highly protectionist stance. I'm suggesting a compromise position. I have to say that this bill even caught the attention of the Canada-Germany Parliamentary Association which invited me three weeks or so ago to speak on the subject. That was on the Friday before the resumption of Parliament. Therefore, this timely subject is of international interest.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. Always a hard worker. Thank you for your information and your presentation.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Since this is the first private member's bill that I've ever tabled, I have a question. When will the committee decide whether or not this bill is votable?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Dubé, your first time? I arrived here one day before you did.

I believe we're going to make our decisions today. They will be reported to the main committee, who meet on Tuesday, I think.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: The report won't be tabled until next week, I'm told. Thank you for sharing with me.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: In the House. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: We're going out of order here a bit, but the next presenter, the next member, will be Mr. Roy Bailey, for my prospector friend and ally, who's not here today, Mr. Morrison. Mr. Bailey, you have five minutes to make a presentation, and there may be questions. It's on private member's business M-136. You may proceed when you wish.

Mr. Herron, we will be with you in a moment.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your call because I will be able to get back to another transportation issue, which is up to here with my big ears in the airline industry right now.

This issue that I bring before this committee, and beg with you, is an issue that has been prepared by my colleague, Lee Morrison. I want you to note that in many respects it is indeed a motherhood issue, because just as the airline industry is in crisis, so is our national highway system in crisis. If you follow very quickly down the dots, you will see that only about 6% of the $4.5 billion that is extracted from the motoring public and so on ever goes back into the infrastructure of our roads. We met just recently with the Canadian Trucking Association and listened to their concerns as well.

At the second star you see that this came about to create Petro-Canada. It was a dedicated tax at that time, but like many taxes it goes on and it doesn't come off. That is the case here.

• 0945

Canada's national highway system is becoming historic, not just for its beauty, but because, let's face it, across Canada and across North America it's simply deteriorating. It is of no pride to Canada to see this happening. It's eating into our tourism industry something ungodly lately, and it will continue to do so.

The next item Lee has here is the investment they are making in the United States.

The next star, of course, is your relationship with the provinces, and all of the provinces are on side with this, Mr. Chairman. Every province in Canada wants this discussed. Every province in Canada wants a national health system. Every province in Canada wants...I could go on and on.

As you know, the star at the end of the line is that we have followed the pattern of the Canadian Automobile Association, which for years has said, look, give us just even 20%. That's the aim of this bill, Mr. Chairman. Let's start on Canada's restructuring of our roads. Let's get a commitment from the federal government to put 20% back.

Mr. Chairman, I might add a little personal touch here. The argument is that the highways belong to the provinces, and that's not quite true, but I'm sure the provinces know where to designate this money better than the federal government. I have that feeling. I must repeat that, because sometimes as I drive in rural Saskatchewan I see a sign that says “federal government” in some ungodly place where nobody drives. Another sign says “federal government” and it always seems to be in a very particular constituency.

Pardon me, I don't think that's the way my colleague Lee....

Finally, on the last page, I want to point out that in 1919—that's the year after World War I—we started the Canada Highways Act. Since funding started in 1970 for the Trans-Canada, boy, we have gone backwards, Mr. Chairman.

So I beg with this committee, in no uncertain terms, that this should be a votable item. I think we owe it to the provinces, and indeed I think we owe it to ourselves in the House to really zone in on this issue.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have another committee to get back to.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bailey.

Have we any immediate questions? If you have a moment, Mr. Bailey....

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Is our situation in fact going to get worse, in light of North American competition? Mr. Chairman, I may be wrong, but I think that over the next four years, the Americans are planning to invest $172 billion in their roads. Shouldn't this be a signal for Canada to become more competitive in terms of its national highway network, which should be both upgraded and expanded?

[English]

Mr. Roy Bailey: We have a number of things. You're right. That's a good question. But at the present time, in talking to the Canadian Trucking.... I'll give you two examples. If they have a route even in northern Ontario, instead of going around Superior and 17 and so on—and it's because of the roads and taxation, but mainly the roads. That's number one.

It's the same thing if I, sir, were to leave Saskatchewan and come to Ottawa. I know where I would go. I'm truly a Canadian, but I would duck down on U.S. 217 and come that way, because of the roads. So we're cutting off not just our tourists, but ourselves too.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Bailey, you're right, but of course number 17 is the most scenic view, along with my beloved number 11.

I thank you very much for your time.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Herron, the chair jumped out of order here a moment ago. You're next on the list.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I'm really stressed about it.

The Chair: Well, we owe you. You'll get an extra 20 seconds.

Mr. John Herron: I plan on being even shorter on the topic to some degree.

The Chair: Mr. John Herron on motion M-71 under private member's business. Proceed whenever you wish, please, sir.

Mr. John Herron: For most of the presentations you've seen you've probably had an elaborate number of notes. I'm not going to use them that much. I just have a couple of comments to make.

• 0950

Essentially, what I'm looking at debating is what I consider to be a compromise with regard to shipbuilding. I don't want to put the government in a box in terms of what necessarily has to be done. I prefer more market-driven incentives, such as revising the Revenue Canada leasing regulations and beginning some bilateral accords with the Americans to make some penetrations into the Jones Act on shipbuilding.

The reason I'm not prefacing this with a whole lot of detail is because I know that Antoine has done a solid job of presenting this before. That's one party that has put their shoulder to the wheel on it. We have as well with my colleague in Saint John. Gordon Earle and Alexa McDonough have spoken of the need to develop a national shipbuilding policy. Even more recently, at the meeting of the Liberal national caucus held in Halifax, Mr. McGuire and Senator Bryden have said that it is imperative that a more up-to-date shipbuilding policy be adopted. It can be incentive-based and not subsidy-driven. With that language I know that my colleagues in Reform also have started to engage in the debate to some degree.

So what I'm saying is this: there has been a categorical will among all provinces that was established in St. Andrew's in 1997 and replicated in Quebec City in 1999 for the need for the federal government to develop a national shipbuilding policy. Those are the first ministers of the 10 provinces and the territories, who represent the 30 million-plus Canadians who reside in this country. There's an unprecedented spectrum of support for something to be done in terms of labour being onside and talking with shipowners as well as shipbuilders. We have an unprecedented coalition of parties starting to talk the language to develop a shipbuilding policy.

About four or five mechanisms have been presented in unanimity by all the provinces, all the shipbuilders, and all the party leaders, which can and likely will be discussed at a committee level. This is what I consider to be a compromise. Make it the intent of the House of Commons, the will of the House, that the industry committee study the issue of shipbuilding not as a subsection of productivity but in a comprehensive way so that all parties and all spectrums can have a chance to present their views and so that the Commons committee on industry, which has the best resources to study this issue, can present in a very comprehensive way their view on what should be done with regard to the shipbuilding industry.

I think it's the very minimum we owe to this sector of our economy. It's imperative in the industrial sector, and we can say how pan-Canadian it is, whether it's transporting grain in the prairies or shipbuilding jobs that exist near my region of Saint John or in Newfoundland, Halifax, or Vancouver. So the issue is this: all provinces and a broad spectrum of support to go and do this sort of thing.

I think motion M-71 would be a good compromise to help my colleague, Antoine Dubé, who has worked on this issue as well. For the most part I agree with Antoine's bill, I'll be quite honest, but the government might feel they're in a box and that they have to agree with every item in the bill. Antoine has clearly said that he's open to modifications to his bill.

But maybe the first step

[Translation]

would be to adopt a step-by-step approach. We could start by referring this motion to the Industry Committee for consideration

[English]

so that we could have a comprehensive study of the issue.

I didn't read my notes, but I'd really like to have some questions thrown at me.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: John, has the industry committee looked at this issue in the last 20 years? What's the history of this?

Mr. John Herron: Categorically, it hasn't been looked at in a comprehensive manner since October 25, 1993. The issue had been studied during the 1980s. I think it has been a long time since we've had a comprehensive industry report tabled on this particular industry.

• 0955

Things have changed since the 1980s, when this was studied. In order for the shipbuilding industry to survive, it needs to find new markets and be more competitive from an exporting perspective. We've gone from making naval vessels, defence contracts, and that kind of shipbuilding to finally export-driven ships.

You're going to hear very often that we can't compete with the subsidies that exist in Spain, Poland, and Korea. And we shouldn't; absolutely not. We can't compete. We're after value-added, high mechanical outfitting, low steel content, sophisticated navigational equipment, and shipshape drilling hauls for the offshore that's being developed off Newfoundland. Joe McGuire commented on that, and Senator Bryden made allusion to that as well.

This is a compromise. The government and this committee have a chance to say they're willing to make it votable to challenge Industry to actually look at this.

Do you know what my real objective is? It's for my motion to be obsolete, not necessary. I wish the industry committee would just come out and say, “We don't need to vote on it. We will study it in a comprehensive way and table a report, so we can save time in the House and get on to something else.”

Mr. Joe Jordan: You made reference to the Jones Act in the States. Is it a fact that if they want to second ships for defence purposes, they throw a non-tariff barrier up?

Mr. John Herron: With the Jones Act, essentially the Americans are free traders when they want to be—

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes.

Mr. John Herron: —and protectionists when they want to be, as well. The Jones Act essentially says any ship used in interstate transport, meaning shipping from Boston to New Orleans, has to be owned by an American, built by an American shipyard, and manned by Americans, with no other penetration in it. So some U.S. senators are now saying the Jones Act is a trade barrier to some degree, because they have no choice about which shipping company transports their grain to markets.

So maybe we can start getting some bilateral accords on certain types of ships. Minister Manley said that could be something we could do.

There are lots of mechanisms, which I can explain here in detail, but they will fog over, after all the presentations you've had about why this is so important. I'm just saying all the provinces, political parties....

No one is really against doing anything, other than spurring the Department of Industry. I don't want to put the Department of Industry in a box here. This gives them flexibility to table a report so that all people can have a broad spectrum of ideas. It's the right thing to do.

So many good MPs have really worked on this kind of thing for a long time, whether it be the leader of the NDP, Mr. Dubé, Gordon Earle, Elsie, or mediocre ones like me. Let's just sort this out and get it right. Let's challenge the committee to have a comparative study and table a report, and then we can take it from there.

[Translation]

Let's take a step-by-step approach.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thanks, John.

Our next presenter will be Leon Benoit. Mr. Benoit is going to be talking about his motion, M-20.

Welcome, Leon. Good morning.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Good morning. How are you this morning?

The Chair: Fine, thank you. You have five minutes to make your points and then time for questions, if any, on why your item should be considered a votable motion.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

Today I'd like to present my case for you making M-20 votable. There are some very strong reasons for this motion to be made votable, and I'm sure you will agree after I make the presentation and after I answer your questions.

It's my understanding that a motion must meet 11 criteria to be given the strongest consideration, and I intend to show that my motion meets all 11.

My motion states that in the opinion of this House, the government should impose minimum sentences for those involved in people-smuggling, with the highest minimum sentences for those who profit the most, including organized crime bosses, “snakeheads”, and those who carry out the actual smuggling operations.

This being a motion for the House to consider, the broad context and intent of the motion address a significant concern for all Canadians. This issue was brought to the forefront over the past summer, with the arrival of four boatloads of illegal Chinese migrants. However, the problem has existed for some time, and it can't be trivialized. In fact the problem is growing. As we parliamentarians have an obligation to our country to do everything we can to ensure that a strong message be sent to those who profit from this type of activity, it is something that must be dealt with.

• 1000

If made votable, my motion would help to ensure that Canada is sending the strong message to the world that we will not be a soft touch when it comes to the deplorable crime of people-smuggling.

This motion, you will find, is inclusive of the entire country in its intent. All Canadians are affected by the crime of people-smuggling, whether they live in Vancouver, Halifax, Toronto, or even Mannville, Alberta.

Additionally, this motion clearly does not attempt to change the electoral boundaries. However—and I say this with humour—I suggest if it's not dealt with, there may be some different MPs in some of the ridings after the next election. Again, that's meant to be humorous.

This motion is very clear in its meaning and intent. It would give the government a clear mandate to strengthen our immigration law, which in its current form allows exceptionally lenient sentences to be handed down by our courts and in effect encourages people-smuggling. I myself have been told of sentences of as little as one day. In fact one immigration official has pointed to one particular case where no time in jail was allocated for someone who was convicted of actually being involved in people-smuggling; they were given a fine of $350, I believe.

So clearly there is a need for minimum sentences to be imposed. By imposing minimum sentences, international people-smugglers will think twice before attempting to illegally enter Canada with payloads of human suffering.

My motion not only is timely, but it addresses a concern that is not currently on the government's legislative agenda. In fact there has not been any legislation with respect to immigration in either of this government's mandates. This being the case, I would submit that my motion fits this particular criterion for a votable private member's motion.

To the best of my knowledge, a similar motion has never been brought before the House. However, the Parliament of Canada has enacted laws that contain minimum sentences. For example, a number of violent offences carry minimum sentences. As well, a minimum sentence is imposed on drunk drivers. The drunk driving legislation passed by this House last spring in fact did put in place minimum sentences, which was a change made for a very good reason and supported by all members in the House. Those same reasons are here in this case.

This motion should be given the highest priority to become votable, as there really are no other avenues for this House to address this issue in some other meaningful way, in particular as a separate issue. Anything brought forth by the government would be part of a package and would take an awful lot of time to put through, and we all know that. This has to be dealt with with a great sense of urgency.

I must also point out to the committee that I specifically stayed away from using any partisan terms in my motion, because this is an issue that transcends party lines, and I believe it is widely supported by members, from my personal conversations with members.

As I've said before, Canada must send a strong message to people-smugglers that we're not a soft touch when it comes to this deplorable crime of dealing in human cargo. Being that there is a precedent for minimum sentences, I believe there would be no problems regarding the constitutionality of my motion, nor would my motion infringe on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In addition, other countries impose minimum sentences for the crime of people-smuggling. In fact just this morning in the papers I read that a person in Great Britain was given seven to 14 years for being found guilty of people-smuggling. They take it seriously there.

This committee will also find that my motion is not substantively the same as any other motion that has gone before the House. In the same vein, to my knowledge, no similar motion has been made votable and is currently before the House at this time.

It is for the above 11 reasons I have submitted to this committee that I believe my motion meets all the criteria for becoming votable.

I'll now entertain any questions the committee might have for me. I'll conclude by saying I sincerely hope this committee will see this as an issue that should be dealt with in a votable way before the House, for the sake of our country and for the sake of ending this despicable activity, which has really in effect become the new slave trade.

The Chair: Very good.

Have we any questions?

Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No questions?

The Chair: No questions. You have answered them, I believe.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thanks, Leon.

• 1005

Our next presenter will be Mr. Myron Thompson, on Bill C-222.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Good morning.

The Chair: Good morning, Myron. I understand that all the Yankee farm team supporters and former players are still celebrating the victory.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Unfortunately, I had to come in on the red-eye last night and missed the game, and unfortunately, the Speaker of the House, in our little friendly bet, had his choice and picked the Yankees, so I'm suffering this morning.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: So you're going to take a few minutes to share some of the points as to why your bill should be votable.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm very pleased to be here this morning to request that this private member's bill, Bill C-222, be made votable on behalf of grassroots natives from all across Canada. It calls for the creation of an ombudsman who would investigate allegations to bring some accountability to many reserves.

In the summer of 1988, my work began with Indian affairs when I was named deputy Indian affairs critic. At that very time, the Stoney Reserve in my riding was undergoing forensic audit. This reserve has long been a hotbed of allegations of financial mismanagement, and the audit uncovered enough evidence of criminal activity such that 43 allegations of wrongdoing are now pending and have been turned over to the RCMP.

Immediately after the word got out regarding the findings in the Stoney Reserve and regarding the fact that I was one of the individuals looking into the accountability of reserves, I was literally bombarded by grassroots natives from every province across Canada.

I couldn't possibly bring all the files here today, Mr. Chairman, but they number in the hundreds. I have a green binder with me which represents well over 200 cases of mismanagement from all across Canada that have been reported to the media. The files I have go well beyond the cases that have been reported.

As I travelled from reserve to reserve, the stories were all the same. The chiefs and councils mismanaged money; there is no place to live; there is no clean drinking water; there is squalor; there are suicides and despair that are absolutely sickening. Also, there were hundreds of cases brought to me where there had been election irregularities.

The list of problems goes on, but before I talk any more about that I must be fair and note that not all the reserves were this bad, although the majority of them that I visited were. But it was a pleasure to come across some reserves—quite a few—that have some very good accountability practices in place, reserves where everyone is employed and living in good conditions. Problems that exist in many other places do not exist on these reserves, so we know it's possible, but it just isn't happening in too many places.

As I held accountability summits all across Canada, one of the first people that I was able to meet was a lady by the name of Leona Freed, who comes from the Winnipeg area, from the Dakota Plains First Nation. Since we first met, she and many of here colleagues have set up an accountability coalition. At present, the people involved in that coalition and the names she has on file number approximately 5,000 grassroots natives from coast to coast.

The coalition is calling for accountability, equality, and democracy on their reserves. Many times they have discussed resolutions that they would like presented somehow to someone in the House of Commons, who would then present them on their behalf. One resolution came out from the majority. It was accepted in every province, in every meeting that we had when these were discussed. They were voted on by these individuals, and the one resolution that came up most resulted in what you see before you today: someone they can go to.

Let me try to give you just a quick example of what happened on one reserve. I was called because they had documents they had managed to get their hands on and wanted me to look at. The documents were payouts from the social welfare list on this particular reserve. They were authentic. As to how they got their hands on them, they would not let me know, but these are the things that happen.

• 1010

On the list I saw a number of names, with $300 payments or $400 payments, and then one $9,000 payment. Then there was another $200 or $300 payment and then another one of $8,000 or $10,000. I asked the obvious question: why are these particular individuals getting paid such enormous amounts? The group then produced the next documents, which were the death certificates of those three individuals. They were dead, one of them for 13 years.

Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but when I looked at that I thought, well, it seems to me like there's cause for investigation. I asked them if they'd be willing to report it to the RCMP. They were. I attended a detachment with them, where we presented the documents. The RCMP office agreed that these certainly were very suspicious and should be investigated.

They were turned over to the commercial crimes department in the Province of Alberta, who were to get back to me. About three months later, I got a call from the commercial crimes people. The indication was that they had been asked not to pursue this any further. I never did know what that meant. That didn't mean that there wasn't the evidence. I didn't know if there was interference from other bodies of people or what. The fact that nothing was going to be followed up on brought some real dismay to the grassroots people who worked so hard to put all this evidence together.

The cry from the people is simply this: they are told that they must report to their chiefs and councils with their complaints, but the chiefs and councils have been unresponsive to the people, so the people go to Indian Affairs, and Indian Affairs tells them that they must go back to their chiefs and councils because it's an internal problem. It goes around and around and nothing gets resolved.

The RCMP have become very proactive in their efforts to bring accountability to this, such as this document, “Band Council Management Accountability”, which is simply some very straightforward and good ideas on what they should do on the reserves in order to make certain that the funds and the money being used are being used in a responsible manner. This has not been followed in a number of cases.

I really fail to understand why that we seem to forget about the quality of life of these Canadians living on the reserves. Even the United Nations has recognized it; they simply have said that for white people, for our status, this is the best country in which to live. But for people who live on the reserves, we rank 35th according to the United Nations, which is below Mexico and Thailand.

I believe that these kinds of embarrassing reports just require that something be done. There isn't a whole lot more that I can say, except that the people across this country on the aboriginal reserves are crying out for help. If you ever have the opportunity, if any of you have any reserves in your riding, and you go to any of these and visit, I would ask you to talk with the grassroots and visit their homes, as I have done. I'm sure you're well aware of the squalor, the unemployment, the addictions, and the crime, all the difficulties that these people are suffering.

They're very excited about the fact that my name was drawn first; they think that's an omen. As soon as I let Leona Freed know that my name had been drawn and I would be presenting today, I can assure you that the other 5,000 people on that list knew. They have a very magnificent way of spreading the word, and they're waiting anxiously to see this thing brought to the House of Commons for a debate and voted on.

This is not a partisan issue. Indeed, this is a human issue, a tragedy, which all of us must make every effort to correct.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for a very thorough presentation.

Are there any questions, colleagues? Joe.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thanks, Myron.

In the situation you encountered, there was obviously enough evidence to get attention of the RCMP. Then it hit a brick wall. Would an ombudsman, then, be able to not stop at that wall or to go around that wall? Would they have power of subpoena?

• 1015

Mr. Myron Thompson: In my opinion, the purpose of having an ombudsman is that it's at arm's length from any government group of people. Believe you me, I have no evidence that one department in this government would have influence over another department, but that seems to be the indication, and there should have been a much better process at the end. At least if there were no grounds for it, then it should have been perfectly explainable to these people, and we have simply been told the investigation will not continue. There were no answers as to why, no satisfaction to the people, and they're still holding on to these documents, hoping somebody will take a serious look at them.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thanks.

The Chair: I thank you very much for your time today.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Thank you.

The Chair: Myron, we know the Yankees picked you as a winner years ago. I still remember you on the front page of the Hill Times with your Yankee ball club.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Well, just think of the life I would have been leading, though, if I'd been good enough to make that team. I wouldn't be here today.

The Chair: Then it would have been our loss, Myron.

Mr. Myron Thompson: There you go.

The Chair: Our next presenter is Mr. John Bryden, with Bill C-206. John, when you wish, you may come forward. We have a few minutes, as you know, for you to get your points across as to why we should consider this to be a votable bill. Welcome, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Let me first begin by reading the summary of the first point. It sort of encapsulates what this bill is all about, which is of course to amend the Access to Information Act.

If I may read it, the very first amendment

...changes the name of the act to the Open Government Act, reflecting an overriding principle that the Government should provide all the information it reasonably can to enable the public to assess to its performance and to ensure that it is always acting in conformancy with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This bill is a comprehensive overhaul of the existing Access to Information Act. In doing so, it opens crown corporations, and it opens the Senate chamber, the operation of the Senate. It establishes a 30-year rule whereby documents would be released automatically after 30 years unless there was a clear cause to retain them. Overall, what it's all about is that it establishes the principle that government can withhold documents only if it can demonstrate that it is in the public interest to do so; that is, there is a material injury test, either financial to the government or to public security and safety.

There are about 20 amendments there, and I think the community—MPs, journalists and the public—has been asking for a very long time that the Access to Information Act be amended in this form.

Now, the bill has a history. When I came to Parliament in 1993, because of my background as a journalist and historian, I had a great deal of experience with the existing Access to Information Act, which came in in 1983 and in fact has been a good act, except that over time it has encountered many shortcomings, which my reforms are intended to address. But I and some other MPs approached the then justice minister and asked him if it would be possible for him to get behind reforming the act, and he was very enthusiastic.

Over a period of about two years, I met with various bureaucrats in the justice department and other departments, and over time nothing happened. The justice minister began to get cooler and cooler to the idea of doing anything with the act at all. I came to realize that one of the reasons for this, and maybe the only reason, was that the bureaucracy was unable to form a consensus on addressing this, because these reforms affect every government department. The bureaucracy does work by consensus, and I felt that to get agreement from all the various ministries on the various changes, which were only proposed, was impossible.

So my answer was finally to hire my own legislative counsel out of my office budget and sit down with that counsel, and side by side we drafted the bill before you. I took advantage of the fact that I am a writer and have direct experience with the act, and of her expertise. We introduced the result of that at first reading in October 1997.

• 1020

It didn't take long to get considerable enthusiasm from other members, and I think I'm one of the first to take advantage of the change in the standing rules to seek more than 100 seconders for the more than three parties. Before long I had, and still have, 112 seconders for this bill from the three parties, and I should tell you that those seconders are all backbenchers. I did not seek any parliamentary secretaries, I did not seek any ministers for the support of this bill. So it truly is a backbench MPs' bill.

Finally, after getting the seconders, as time went on I was never drawn from the lottery. It took a long time. Various people in government agencies and departments and access officers approached me with suggestions on changes to the bill—mostly technical changes. I redrafted the bill to introduce those technical changes, primarily to avoid the bill being entrapped in a debate, if it were to go to committee, dealing with technical points. I presented that to the House a year later, in June 1998, and it received unanimous consent.

So the bill before you not only has more than 100 seconders, it also has the unanimous consent of the House in the form that you see before you. So the bill—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Unanimous consent to do what?

Mr. John Bryden: The House gave unanimous consent to the revised version of the bill.

So what you have before you in Bill C—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: At what stage?

Mr. John Bryden: Still the first reading. It never got out of the first reading. It has only just got out of first reading now, thank you.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: How did it get unanimous consent at the first reading?

Mr. John Bryden: Well, I went before the House and simply said that I wished to reintroduce my Bill C-264, a revised version, and that I sought unanimous consent of the House to accept the revised version. You would appreciate how rare it is to get unanimous consent, but I did get unanimous consent on that occasion. So the bill before you is the revised bill, and of course Bill C-206 is now an absolute replica of that bill of June 1998.

When the bill goes before committee, as I hope it will do, I can assure you that even though I have had suggestions from the government to make technical changes, the bill is going to cause a lot of conflict in committee. Already I'm having representations from various stakeholders who do not want to see various aspects of this bill. I'll give an example. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the CBC, is very much opposed to coming under the Access to Information Act. I should tell you that all kinds of government departments and agencies will come under the Access to Information Act, because I eliminate schedule II, which means that all other legislation that provides for confidentiality will be subject to the injury test in the Access of Information Act, including the Income Tax Act—well you name it, any legislation that exists.

So there will be sparks flying on this particular bill, but I look forward to debate. I'm not one who is not prepared to entertain amendments—and I would think the committee would want to entertain amendments—because I'm not someone who believes I can write the perfect bill. But I think it is high time that this legislation goes forward, that we reform the Access to Information Act, and I can tell you I'm very, very proud that it is coming from backbenchers and only backbenchers.

The Chair: Thank you, John.

Do we have any questions on this bill? Joe.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Just a procedural question, John. Yours was the 100-signature bill? You weren't drawn?

Mr. John Bryden: I wasn't drawn. Mine is the first 100-signature bill to go forward.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I understand you were there quite early in the morning.

Mr. John Bryden: I got up at five o'clock in the morning to get there, because I don't seem to be very lucky when it comes to the draw.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I just want to clarify this matter. What you received was unanimous consent to introduce the bill, not unanimous consent to the substance of the bill.

Mr. John Bryden: What happened, just to clarify, is that the House gave me unanimous consent to reintroduce a revised version of the bill.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That's different from implying that somehow there was unanimous consent with respect to the substance of the bill.

Mr. John Bryden: Oh no, and I don't mean to suggest that. The only thing is that certainly, by getting unanimous consent, I personally interpret it as broad support for the principle of the bill. Obviously there's going to be debate, and I would expect that various members of the House are going to contest various aspects of the bill. But I must say that when I got unanimous consent in the House for the reintroduction of a revised version of the bill, which already has 112 seconders, I interpreted it as broad support of the House for the bill in principle. That's my interpretation.

• 1025

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm not trying to be difficult on this, but I've seen that happen before. It's generally just done as a courtesy to people—why should we be miserable and not permit somebody to do that? So you may be reading a bit too much into it.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, that's fair, although the way the whips operate....

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Bryden: There isn't a lot of courtesy around the House when you're trying to do these things.

Mr. Joe Jordan: A significant point is that nobody from the Liberal side denied unanimous consent.

Mr. John Bryden: That may well be the point. You ought to know, the actual truth is that I did try to move the bill forward directly on to the Order Paper, and it was a nay vote from the Liberal side that prevented it from going forward.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bryden, for your presentation.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you very much.

The Chair: That's your time. I thank you.

We have one other member here at the moment, Mr. Randy White, with Motion 128, which will proceed in a moment. Following that we'll take a short recess before we meet.

Good morning, Mr. White. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

How this committee operates is not a surprise to me. I was on it for two years. I must say it's probably one of the best committees in the House, because you see more good business come out of here than from a lot of other places.

I'm just waiting to have a package passed around.

The Chair: That's fine, Mr. White. You certainly have much more experience than I, so I will be listening and learning, as I am with my colleagues here. Thanks, Randy.

Mr. Randy White: I put this motion forward. What this motion is meant to do is make the process of petitions more relevant in the House of Commons.

I think probably we've all experienced the job of watching people collect names on petitions, trying to do something meaningful for themselves and groups right across Canada. Yet when it comes to the House, the process I describe here—I'll go through it briefly—basically dies. I think some of the information may be used in future legislation, but we really don't know that. It may be two, three, four, or eight years before it is. So the exercise here is to try to make it relevant.

I don't know if you have the results of petitions tabled in the 35th Parliament here.

I just want to cover a couple of things. In the last session—the second session of the 35th Parliament—the House received 1,730 petitions, and 520 were responded to. That means that individuals got a letter. Fewer than half of the petitions were responded to, much less having action taken on them. That's about 30%. The issues are everything from NATO to aboriginal affairs, AIDS, AIDS research, alcoholic beverages, you name it. There are some very interesting issues.

The difficult part, as I say, is what happens to it after that? How is a petition relevant?

So I'll go to the first page. I think my colleagues already know pretty well what the present process—understanding Standing Order 36 of petitions—is. The petition comes in to the House, it goes to the clerk, and basically they look at the petition to see if it's worth while. If it is, you sign your name and away you go. That process basically stops there.

In the proposed changes here I've borrowed significantly from the NDP bill from days gone by. This process was submitted to the House of Commons in 1992 by Ross Harvey, NDP member for Edmonton East, as Motion M-89. We've updated it since then and brought it into a better perspective, I think.

In the proposed changes—I've listed the eight significant ones—a signed petition is presented by a member to the Clerk of the House. I'm suggesting that you'd have to get 2% of the eligible voters, which today is approximately 370,000. Now, if that level is too low, that can be changed at some other point, but I think 370,000 is reasonably significant.

• 1030

The second proposed change is that the petition be referred to the Chief Electoral Officer for verification. They would look at the number of signatures, the validity of the signatures, and so on. In British Columbia's recall legislation, for instance, the Chief Electoral Officer has 42 days to draw on and to verify. They do that within that timeframe, so this is why this timeframe was picked.

The third item is that the petition prayer aspect of it, the actual request, could be debated in the House for a minimum of three hours. I'm suggesting it be on a Wednesday at 11 a.m., because that would take no extra time out of the House business and could be done there.

The fourth item is that the House then would vote on whether or not to support it after the three hours. If adopted, the prayer is then sent to an appropriate committee. The committee then gets 60 days, which is very similar to our current process on members' bills, to report the bill or a motion back to the House. So they get 60 days. The committee looks at it. They develop it. Then it goes back into the House of Commons.

The item then proceeds through the House as government business the following Wednesday at 11 a.m., with three consecutive hours for second reading, debate, and vote. If the House is dissolved or prorogued, the item would be automatically reinstated at the next sitting of the House at that stage. That's the same as private members' business, of course.

Finally, the clerk is authorized to make consequential amendments to the Standing Orders, which would mean that if there is something in the bill aspect, the whole aspect of what we're talking about here, it can be changed. This has already gone through a number of sources to look at whether or not the process would work.

I've listed the criteria we have to pass. You can read that for yourselves. For instance, they have to be drafted in clear, complete, and effective terms. We have worked with the library, the House of Commons clerks, and just about everybody we could to make sure this process is clear enough.

With regard to it being constitutional, it does fit within the Constitution, of course. I think more importantly than most private members' bill or motions I've done, I think the interest of Canadians here, and the fact that this isn't a partisan issue.... All of us understand the need to get better public input.

Since so many Canadians today are signing petitions—for instance, they're coming into this place with hundreds of thousands of names on them—I think it goes without saying that it's in the interest of Canadians.

So there you go. You can ask me any questions you like.

The Chair: Yes, Bill.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Perhaps it's clear from the material, and I haven't read it thoroughly, that this wouldn't be over and above the current system or replace the current system. You would still have a place for petitions with 25 or 50 names on them, would you?

Mr. Randy White: Oh, yes. When you come up to a certain level of petition, this is simply an acknowledgement by the House that this is a pretty serious issue. It's across Canada, and it's not 200,000 names but 370,000 names—or two million. What we're doing is putting in a threshold.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

You've made your points very clearly, and we thank you very much, Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: Do you mean this is it?

The Chair: You've been here, done that, and we appreciate your experience.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Having been on the committee, you know what it's like when you're the last presenter.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Randy, your presentation shows that you understand this all very well. Thank you.

We're now going to take a stretch break.

[Proceedings continue in camera]