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]

Wednesday, April 5, 2000

• 1534

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.)): We'd like to come order with our Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. This is a selection of votable items.

I believe we have a maximum of thirteen members coming in front of us today. Each member has a five-minute maximum time to explain why his or her item should be selected. I'd like to remind those members that's probably where they might want to focus their remarks, on why their bill or motion should be selected.

First we have Brenda Chamberlain. Ms. Chamberlain, would you like to proceed?

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you.

Honourable colleagues, I am very pleased to be here today to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-451, an act to establish an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada.

Some of you may remember I originally introduced this bill in the 35th Parliament. At that time it received overwhelming support from Canadians in 717 different communities, from Gander, Newfoundland, to Abbotsford, B.C., to Mayo in the Yukon. Nearly 500 municipalities also endorsed this bill. Obviously this issue is important to Canadians everywhere, including those in your ridings.

• 1535

Unfortunately the bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called, and due to other commitments, I was not able to reintroduce it until now, at the beginning of the new millennium.

The idea for this bill comes from a constituent who realized there is no one official oath of allegiance to our flag. Several are in use, but there is no officially sanctioned oath. As we embark on a new century and a new millennium, what better time than now to ensure Canadians have a way to express the importance of our flag and all it symbolizes?

The oath of allegiance would not be mandatory. It would not force Canadians to show their patriotism but rather would allow proud Canadians a means of expressing themselves. It could be used in schools, meetings, sporting events, or wherever a flag is present.

As this oath would be for Canadians, their input is crucial. I am proposing that Parliament work with Canadians to develop an official oath of allegiance to our flag, just as we did with our flag. A parliamentary committee could consult with Canadians to develop an oath that accurately reflects the pride we all feel from being citizens of the best country in the world, Canada.

When I introduced this bill, I received nearly 800 sample pledges. Mrs. Clara Jones from Saint-Hubert, Quebec wrote:

I am proud to be Canadian, and I pledge allegiance to our flag, which stands for freedom and justice for all its people, from coast to coast. United we stand, protected by the Canadian Constitution.

From the east coast, Evelyne Day from Saint John, New Brunswick, suggested:

To the maple leaf flag, pride of our country, I pledge my allegiance with sincerity, dignity and honour.

Across the country in Victoria, B.C., David Evans wrote:

As a Canadian citizen, I pledge my allegiance, my respect, and my heart to our flag and to our country, Canada, unified from sea to sea.

The interest shown in this bill was genuine and extremely touching.

I believe it is important for Canada to have an official oath of allegiance. The swearing of an oath is not something done lightly. It is cause for reflection on what is being pledged as well as on the benefits and obligations stemming from that pledge. Just as we all benefit from a united Canada, we must all do our part to ensure it remains united.

As the year 2000 approaches, many of us are looking back on all we have accomplished over the last thousand years and looking forward to all we can accomplish in the future. The 19th century gave us nationhood. In the 20th century we adopted our own flag. An official oath of allegiance would be an excellent way to mark the 21st century and the start of a new millennium.

I appreciate your consideration of this bill, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Chamberlain.

I'd like to welcome very special guests we have in the room, who are representing probably a portion of our ten provinces and three territories, the Forum for Young Canadians. I thank you people for dropping in and sharing some of your time with us.

If I'm allowed just a few seconds, I'd like to thank Mr. Jordan for outlining some of what we're trying to do here today. The items we deem votable will get three hours' debate in the House, versus one hour for the non-votable.

Thank you, Ms. Chamberlain.

Our next member is Libby Davies.

Are there any questions? I'm sorry. The young people had me.... We have a short time for questions.

Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Ms. Chamberlain, do you have any examples of oaths of allegiance from other States that would be similar to the one you are suggesting? If so, what are the names of these countries and how are these oaths used in practice?

[English]

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: The one that's obviously most familiar to me is the States. They have an oath of allegiance. What they do with it is really profess their love for their country. It's a way of expressing who you are, your identity, and some of your beliefs and ideals.

When I did investigation into this issue about three and a half years ago, many people remembered saying an oath in school as children, but we don't have any official oath. There are three or four of them out there that were said, but there is no official oath.

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): I'm just curious why you chose to have the oath of allegiance to the flag. I know there's a fair bit of controversy out there because our members of the armed forces and other organizations connected to the government swear allegiance to the British monarch, and that causes some problem.

• 1540

Why did you not choose to have an oath of allegiance to the country? Why did you go with the flag?

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: The reason I did was, as I said, I based it on a constituent, and I had tremendous support for this. When you go back, almost 500 municipalities said they agreed with this.

The reason I thought it was probably a good idea is that many, many organizations and places have a flag in place, and many times they want something to be able to open a meeting with. This would be an ideal thing for our country, to pledge who we are and our faith in Canada. That really is where it stemmed from.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you very much for your time and presentation.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Thank you so much.

The Chair: Ms. Davies, as you know, you have five minutes maximum to explain why your item should be selected as votable. You might want to focus your remarks on that. You may proceed.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm pleased to be here today to speak to M-361 and to give you some arguments and some reasons it should be a votable motion.

Basically this motion would urge the government to encourage the CRTC to make a community voice mailbox system a requirement or a mandate as part of licensing.

I'd just like to give you a little bit of background. Last year I went across the country and visited various urban and rural communities to deal with the issue of homelessness. I visited many shelters; I visited drop-in centres; I talked to homeless people; I talked to service providers.

I was actually amazed at the number of people who came up to me and told me one of the real concerns they have, being homeless and not having shelter, is, particularly for single people when they're looking for employment, their inability to make a connection with an employer. There's the matter of sending in letters, but also leaving a phone number for an employer to phone you back. Many of the people I spoke to who were unemployed told me one of their biggest barriers to employment was lack of access to a phone.

Most Canadians think having a phone is something we take for granted; it's part of everyday life. But we got information from Stats Canada that shows, based on their survey done in 1997, 157,000 people don't have phones. That doesn't include homeless people, so that's a very conservative number.

I further came across this idea in my own riding of Vancouver East. A local community organization started up a community voice mail system, and as you'll see from the background notes I've provided, they have about 800 users, about 70% of whom are unemployed. In doing their survey of this service, they found 62% of the subscribers actually got their current jobs because of a voice mail service.

To me this is a very fundamental issue. I talked to people who felt very embarrassed that they were giving a phone number of a shelter. If an employer phones up and they say “Good Hope Mission”, you're not going to get hired. A barrier and a sense of discrimination comes from that, having to rely upon a shelter but at the same time maybe being required to look for work under EI or on welfare, or because the person wants to find a job. It just seems to me so outrageous that people are prevented from making that connection to an employer simply because they can't afford a phone.

The service that was set up in the downtown east side, which is part of my riding, has been hugely successful. It costs about $10 for three months. I am aware that another group in Victoria, B.C., is trying to set up a similar service, and I started making some connections and thinking.

We have a tradition of saying the CRTC, for example with television programming, has a mandate to provide a community service. We're all familiar with that across the country. So it could be a very important policy initiative to say to the CRTC that as part of their mandate with phone companies, there should be some sort of community component for a community voice mail service.

• 1545

It would be very cost-effective. We're talking about small amounts of money here. But my concern is that we shouldn't just rely on some little group setting it up wherever. It would be much better to have some sort of pan-Canadian or national approach through a licensing body like the CRTC, to say that telephone companies should be supporting that kind of service.

I think we already have the principle established, in terms of phone companies that have a requirement to list emergency information and provide emergency services. That's already something we take for granted. This builds upon that and could be a very successful program to enable and empower people who are unemployed or homeless and don't have access to telephones. They would have the dignity of being able to use a service that says “This is my mailbox and you can leave a message for me”. It's really that straightforward and is something that could be done relatively easily.

I'll leave it there, and if you have questions I'll be happy to answer them.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Ms. Davies, could you please explain how your proposed voicemail service would work. I don't think that every individual will be able to have his or her own voicemail box. For instance, in the case of a shelter, would you install a community voicemail box and have someone take messages before forwarding them on to the proper individual? How would it work in reality?

[English]

Ms. Libby Davies: That's a very good question. I'm glad to say that the service is working, so we actually have very good experience on how it can work technically. Basically, you require a community host. You require a community agency that's willing to sort of put together the nuts and bolts of providing telephone access for people.

Just like your own voice mail, where you can phone into it even if you're not at home, if you are unemployed you would have a phone number and be able to give it out. If an employer phoned you, they would phone that number and get your voice on the voice mail saying “This is Yvon Godin. Please leave a message.” Then, through the community voice mail system, you would be able to access that number using a phone that was provided through the host community, or wherever you were. You might be in a community centre where there was access to a free phone. I know many community centres, job resumé clubs, or various community organizations provide phone service.

The key here is that you have a phone number that's identified by your name, which you can leave with an employer. That is the big difference. It's not just having access to a free phone.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I assume it would be required to have this community mail box in every phone exchange in the country, simply because that's the only way you could avoid incurring long-distance charges to reach your voice mail. So that would result in literally thousands of community mail boxes.

Ms. Libby Davies: I'm not sure I can answer your question about how one would deal with long distance, but I know there are mechanisms through provincial phone companies that block out the ability to do long-distance calling. I think that's sort of a technical issue, and I'm sure that with the technology we have it would not be a problem. I think the basic principle here is to provide that dignity, in terms of someone having a number they feel belongs to them that someone else can leave a message at.

The Chair: Thank you. I see no further questions, so thank you very much for your presentation.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you.

The Chair: Our next member, if she wishes to take her place, is Madam Alarie on motion M-230. Take your time.

Bonjour. Colleague, you are probably aware that you have five minutes, maximum, to explain why your item should be selected as one of the votable items. You may proceed when you wish.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

I am requesting that this be deemed a votable motion because, in my opinion, it is in the public's interest and it concerns all of us. I am requesting mandatory labelling of genetically modified food because each and everyone of us is already consuming a fairly significant amount of genetically modified food without knowing any exact details about concentration or content.

• 1550

This is an issue that is of interest to all of us as citizens and consumers. Many of us, colleagues, have tabled or defended petitions calling for the mandatory labelling of food. I believe that this is an issue of general interest.

I have prepared a short argument, but I won't read it since you can do so yourselves. I believe that we are entitled to know what we have on our plate. We are entitled to be informed consumers. This is a matter of knowledge, health and culture because more and more transgenic food may contain ingredients that may, in certain cultures or religions, be forbidden.

We are asking for mandatory labelling and we are also asking for an examination of issues that pertain to health, trademarks, food safety, environmental safety and long-term effects. To date, my political party has tabled 43,000 signatures but we must also factor in many other petitions all calling for mandatory labelling.

The Chairman: Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Hélène, your motion also calls for a study to assess long-term effects. Could you provide more clarification about this aspect of your motion?

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Yes. Very few studies have been done to date. In addition, the Agency isn't conducting any studies at present. It follows the process used by companies in deciding whether or not to accept transgenic foods. An increasing number of people have fears about their health and the impact that these products will have on agriculture. We know how these crops can have an effect on the soil, including worms and soil bacteria which are significant aspects. These crops also have an impact on the environment. In the case of canola, for example, the pollen travels quite a distance as a result of wind and bees and this can have an impact on fields used for traditional or even organic crops as opposed to transgenic crops.

Without being alarmists, I think we have to stop and ask ourselves this type of question.

[English]

The Chair: Very topical. Are there any other questions?

We thank you for your presentation.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Our next member is Mr. Goldring. You may take a seat when you wish, Peter.

Perhaps I should remind Mr. Goldring that each member has five minutes maximum. You may wish to focus on why your item, motion, or bill should be votable after you identify it. You may proceed.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance): All right. Thank you very much and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this.

I believe it's a very important bill. I wish there were facilities for combining some of these bills for riding changes, as there were in the past, but apparently that isn't possible this time.

I feel the bill is important enough to have the name of the Edmonton East riding changed. There are a number of reasons for that. The main purpose of it is that Edmonton East has gone through a transformation of late. It's had a revitalization. It has had a renewal in a sense, and people are gaining a lot of pride in the development of it. I really want to emphasize this to the provincial and municipal authorities.

Including the word “centre” and making it Edmonton Centre East will indicate certainly that city hall is in this riding, as well as the provincial legislature building. There are also facilities in the city centre like the Citadel Theatre, Winspear Arts Gallery, the main commercial office buildings downtown, as well as the Telus Field and the police headquarters. In other words, it truly does encompass the centre of Edmonton.

• 1555

In Edmonton Centre East, they also have the main artery roots, the Wayne Gretzky Way, the sports and soccer stadium, Clarke Stadium, and Commonwealth Stadium. As I said, it includes the entire downtown of the city.

It's important for people to recognize this. I have found in the past, in sending out information and polling this, the people in the inner city are not sure what riding they are in. They do not connect themselves simply with the name Edmonton East.

Keep in mind that most other city centres, including Calgary, Kitchener, Laval, Mississauga, Niagara, and Brampton have indication of centre in their names. There are also some that are directly parallel, like London North Centre, Winnipeg South Centre, Winnipeg North Centre, Toronto Centre Rosedale. They encompass the description, by their names, of the actual areas they are covering.

With that in mind, I feel it's very important that the Edmonton East riding be renamed to reflect its current status, that it includes a major number of the people from the centre of Edmonton itself. This will truly indicate to the people of Edmonton Centre East that Edmonton Centre East is Alberta's window to Ottawa.

Thank you.

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Godin, followed by Mr. Chatters, on questions.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The only question I have is why did you have to present a bill? I thought not too long ago people could send a request to change the name and it would be done automatically if the people in your riding agreed to it. Normally I don't think a member of Parliament does it on their own. It was just done I think last Monday.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, we did. Apparently this is not possible to do. That's my information. This is the second time I've had a bill on this. The intention was to combine this with others; now it's not. I feel it's important enough to change it, to take it through the full process.

The Chair: Before we go to Mr. Chatters, can we ask the opinion of the researcher?

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): For clarification, Mr. Godin, it must be done by legislation. Any change to the name of a riding constituency must be by legislation. In the past, all of the name changes were put together in one omnibus bill. That usually went through with unanimous consent very quickly.

I believe there are ongoing discussions about that, but obviously at this time Mr. Goldring received the advice that this was not necessarily going to happen, therefore he was advised to do his own private member's bill.

Mr. Peter Goldring: It is too important to the members of Edmonton Centre East to have them be properly identified with a name change, and we currently are at a real impasse in carrying it through in an omnibus method. Time is time, and I would like to proceed with it as a bill to have the certainty of having it attended to and listened to properly in the House.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): We are not trying to stop your purpose, because I think it's possible we will fast-track on Friday a lot of modifications in about 13 or 14 ridings in this country. I think it is very important to talk with your House leader right now about it. It's my perception that you must check it. My own riding will be changed. I think we will have 13 or 14 modifications in the ridings. I am surprised about your....

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I had some of the same questions. The other part is, Peter, have you any indication how your constituents feel about this idea?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, I do. I've polled them on several occasions, and I've posed the questions at repeated town halls. The general feeling is surprise, because they're delighted with the idea to be included, so the people in the city centre finally have an identity with one of the ridings. So yes, I have definitely polled them.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: As James said, this generally takes place very quickly. There is never a three-hour debate on the matter. We must remember that it is incumbent upon this sub- committee to divide up the motions and bills where we feel it is important to hold a three-hour debate.

• 1600

I do not know if there is some way that you're going to find out what is going on, because we have two for four openings. It's difficult. As far as I'm concerned, I find this a little bit difficult to accept, because I am sure that this can be done some other way.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: We have attempted to look at other ways of doing this. We have been in the collective gathering to do this, and it has not been successful. We initiated this bill to change the names so that the citizens of Edmonton Centre will finally have recognition. I feel that it has gone that far that I would like to carry it forward.

The Chair: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Goldring. We will look at this further.

Our next member is Mr. Szabo.

As you know, Mr. Szabo, you have a maximum of five minutes, during which you might want to focus on explaining why your item should be selected as votable. Perhaps you want to identify your bill, your motion, and proceed when you wish.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to be here. It's also nice to see the Forum for Young Canadians being represented here, seeing us at work. That's great.

This is motion M-69 on your docket, which has to do with the issue of obscenity and, generally, the subject of pornography. It seeks to change the definition of obscenity in the Criminal Code. I've circulated it to you, and I apologize that it's only in English; I just printed it off the Internet.

The current definition of obscene publication is the definition in the Criminal Code of Canada. If I may read it into the record, it says:

For the purposes of this Act, any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one of more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to bo obscene.

As you know, colleagues, the issue of pornography, particularly child pornography, is very topical. The concern about the Internet and pornography, or obscenity on the Internet, now becomes more important to parliamentarians and to legislators with regard to such matters.

The current Criminal Code addresses only publications. So the change to the definition that I'm proposing deals with two issues.

The first is to replace “publication” with the words, “any matter or thing”. That, I'm advised, is the proper language, which basically is an umbrella terminology for things like not only publications, but the Internet and any other forms or depictions of something obscene or a matter that may be judged to be obscene.

I've kept all the rest of the definition in, but the second thing I've done is to add one more part—that is, the phrase, “through degrading representation of a male or female person or in any other matter.”

The concept of degradation, of basically being disrespectful to another human being in the depiction, whether direct or implicit, is a concept that the courts have been fighting about. Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental matters dealt with in terms of the discussion of democracy, and the courts have had great difficulty dealing with this whole issue of obscenity and pornography.

Being a motion, it gives parliamentarians an opportunity to put on the record our views based on what we know from our own experience and from our constituents about how parliamentarians, our legislators, feel about pornography and obscenity and about what it means to us in terms of our current social values.

• 1605

There's the current case from B.C. that's now before the Supreme Court and has been heard. We haven't received a definition yet or a decision on that particular case, but you well know that this issue is very sensitive to the people of Canada.

I believe Parliament should take the opportunity to let Canadians know how we feel about pornography and obscenity. I believe this motion gives us that opportunity, without making undue changes to the Criminal Code.

As you know, motions are in the form of “to consider the advisability”, so it is primarily brought forward as an opportunity for us to put the views of Parliament on the public record, and I thank you.

The Chair: I want to thank you. Just before I ask if there are any questions, I want to remind you that any information you bring to our committee must be in both official languages, so we can't officially accept that.

Mr. Paul Szabo: My apologies.

The Chair: Have we any questions on Mr. Szabo's motion?

Thank you for your information.

[Translation]

Pardon me.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The meaning I give to the word "obscenity" necessarily includes a sexual connotation that goes along with the degradation of the individual. In the definition that you suggest, sexuality is but one of many things. I will give you an example. Let's say that in a Canadian prison, there are some prisoners who are treated in a truly degrading fashion, who are put in isolation, who are given a minimum amount of food, all of these things which degrade the individual. Would that be deemed to be an obscenity? When I read your motion, that's what I understand.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: As I indicated, the changes here are twofold. One is to replace the word “publication” with a “matter or thing”, so that it gives us a broader umbrella, as it were, with regard to what we're talking about.

The other change to the current law is the introduction of the concept of degrading representation of a human being, and I have many cases. I have printed out a lot of the reference cases here, and I have had some very interesting arguments about what constitutes obscenity.

Interestingly enough, those cases go in the other direction from what you're talking about. They're suggesting that things like that aren't obscene, and yet the people who would maybe make the charges are in fact laying those charges because they feel that anything in the range that's included in the current law, and continues in the proposed definition.... Sex is one part, absolutely, as well as violence, crime, or cruelty.

I think the case you gave certainly would be on the table for discussion. Whether or not society, who I think is ultimately the judge of the current social values, is the judge of what constitutes obscenity is what the courts are dealing with, and they will look to us as well.

I think it is a law and an issue that will continue to evolve over time, as many issues have in the past. They are not set once and for all time. Value systems change, social and family and moral values change, and society is becoming a little bit more accepting of certain things. Whether or not we will ever change our view about what constitutes degrading representation of a man or a woman, including children, I doubt very much that the fundamental principle will change. Degradation of a person, the disrespect for a human being, and in many cases for the gain of others or for the purposes of others that are not consistent with a healthy society, I think help to define obscenity, but I don't believe there will ever be a definitive definition that will pass the test for today and for all time.

The Chair: Merci.

Seeing no other questions, thank you very much.

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

The Chair: Our next witness or witnesses are not here yet, so we'll pause for a moment.

• 1610

• 1612

The Chair: Members, I had hoped that each of you would have with you a draft letter we're looking at sending to all members of Parliament concerning Standing Order 87(6). I just thought if we had time we could look at that. I don't think we have to do it in camera, following your approval.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Is that letter dated?

The Chair: No, there's no date on the letter. It's just that if we could approve it, or not....

Mr. James Robertson: This follows from the meeting we had about 10 days ago, at which time the issue of the 100 signatures, the provision of the Standing Orders in 87(6), was referred to the subcommittee for review and recommendation. It was decided that we would send out a letter to all members asking for their input or suggestions. We gave them, in the text of the letter, some questions, more to try to get some feedback.

It would be proposed that, if it's acceptable to the members of the subcommittee, we would send this out, with a request, I would suggest, for comments in about two weeks' time, giving a deadline of about two weeks. Then we could provide a summary to the subcommittee as well as copies of any responses. The subcommittee could then decide whether it wishes to hear from the members—assuming some members will wish to appear and testify—and then decide what it wants to recommend to the full committee.

The Chair: Any comments on the letter and the procedure?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You just read it.

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

The letter has been well designed, perhaps, by our excellent staff. It offers all members the opportunity to be involved with regard to the 100 signatures.

Any questions or concerns?

• 1615

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I wish to make two comments. I wonder whether or not it is useful to indicate, in the second paragraph, that this does not deal with Bill C-206. If that is the case, we don't need to say so; by doing this, we are giving people the impression that this was the aspect that resulted in this. Consequently, I just wouldn't indicate it at all. Okay?

Secondly, I'd like to have some information for members of Parliament. We know how many bills or motions backed by a hundred signatures have been tabled. It would be interesting to see the list of these motions and bills since this procedure was implemented. This would provide our colleagues with information.

There are my two suggestions.

[English]

The Chair: I see agreement around the table. Any comments on that, or any other points?

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): The point is, I think, that there's an unintended consequence here. We put in a procedure that we thought would fast-track but that in actual fact is worse. You have a better chance in the draw than you do with the 100 signatures. That became apparent last fall, when we saw how this thing was unfolding.

Maybe we could get specific about the number in the queue of 100-signature.... I don't know whether we want to list them or not, but maybe the number....

The point is, what looked good on paper has been counterproductive in practice.

Mr. James Robertson: I agree; we could take out the information in brackets in the second paragraph. I had originally added that because I thought it would help, but on reflection I think it might be more confusing than helpful.

What we could do is add in there a sentence that says, first, to date, two of these bills have been added to the order of precedence, and second, that x number—we will get the actual number—have actually been filed with the clerk. That way the members will realize the numbers.

I think one of the questions—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Should there be more?

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: —is trying to find out if members considered using this and decided not to because it was more lengthy or less likely to be successful than the other procedure.

But we will add in a sentence to that effect, if that's agreeable to members.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Bravo!

The Chairman: Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: All the same, I would tend to leave in the reference to Bill C-206, in the second paragraph, because all of the members of Parliament have been informed of the issue and that may motivate them to pay closer attention to the content of the letter. Consequently, I would prefer to retain the reference. This will stir up a bit more interest. Otherwise, a letter... No big deal.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Can we find out about Bill C- 206 like that, over the phone?

[English]

The Chair: Can we get a little more around the table on whether we want that sentence in or bracketed or out or whatever?

Yes, Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I would support keeping it in simply because I think it's a way for everybody to understand what the problem is with the process. I think it provides that clarity. On the other hand, I think everybody in the House by this time understands what the problem is. It's not that big a deal. I see no problem with leaving it in.

The Chair: Are there other comments on this letter and/or the sentence in question? It's sort of a “sense and sentencing” bill.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Are we in or are we out on that?

Mr. David Chatters: In.

The Chair: In? Unless we have another objection, I guess we'll leave it in.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I will not go to battle on that. My name is not Mr. Bryden.

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

I didn't hear that.

Thank you.

Mr. Yvon Godin: What didn't you hear?

The Chair: Mr. Bryden's name.

We have another member here, Mr. Garry Breitkreuz. Garry, are you here representing...?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Maurice Vellacott.

The Chair: Okay. You may have a seat when you wish, then.

• 1620

As you know, you have five minutes maximum to perhaps explain why this motion should be decided to be a votable motion. You might want to identify yourself and proceed when you're ready there, colleague.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for allowing me to come before the committee to present the case on behalf of Maurice Vellacott.

Maurice apologizes that he cannot be here. He is very sick. I received this brief from his office at the last moment. I support what he's doing, but I don't know if I'll be able to answer all your questions later on. I will simply present this on his behalf. Every time he refers to “I” here, it's Maurice Vellacott who's speaking.

To begin, then, under current law, parents are allowed to use physical correction to discipline their children as long as it's not abusive and is reasonable under the circumstances. The relevant statute in section 43 of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

Prior to the enactment of this section of the code, there was no legislation placing limits on the use of physical correction; nor were there any government agencies designated to protect children from abuse. So when section 43 of the code was passed into law, children had, for the first time, legal protection from physical abuse.

It's ironic, therefore, that some parents who want to remove section 43 argue that it protects only parents' rights. That is clearly not the case. This part of the code balances the rights of parents to correct behaviour and the rights of children not to be abused. It is a good law, well conceived, that has served its purpose well and that continues to serve us well today.

That is why it is disconcerting that some children's rights advocates want to see section 43 declared by the courts to be a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In December of last year, a group calling itself the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law asked Ontario's Superior Court to declare section 43 to be a violation of the charter and therefore unconstitutional.

If this group succeeds in having section 43 struck down, the result will be absurd and totally unacceptable. Good and loving parents who believe there are circumstances in which the best responsible means of discipline is judicious physical correction would be made into criminals and charged under the Criminal Code.

That is why I introduce my motion, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should defend the constitutionality of Section 43 of the Criminal Code in the Courts and, if necessary, should take legislative action to reinstate Section 43 in the event that it is struck down, including invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Charter and Rights and Freedoms (Section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982).

The aim of this motion is to enable parents to do the best job of raising their children to be responsible, well-adjusted individuals and members of society. It protects the rights of parents to raise their children in accordance with their moral and religious beliefs about effective child rearing, using their personal knowledge of the unique characteristics and circumstances of their own children and their own understanding of how best to discipline children, gained from their parents and their own experiences during childhood.

The motion accomplishes this goal in two ways. First, it requires the government to defend section 43 of the Criminal Code in the courts. Second, in the event that one or more court rulings strike down section 43, the motion would commit the government to invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Notwithstanding a court's decision to strike down the law, section 43 would remain the law of the land.

Finally, the motion clearly meets the 11 criteria set out in Beauchesne's for votable items for private members' business.

I'd like to conclude by adding some additional specific reasons the motion should be regarded as an important one.

First, as I've already indicated, if section 43 is struck down, millions of Canadian parents will be branded as criminals overnight. For Parliament to allow this to happen would be unconscionable. The public gets frustrated enough when they hear about bizarre court rulings that pose a threat to their freedoms and the well-being of their families.

Second, if section 43 of the Criminal Code is struck down, it will lead to a massive intrusion of the state into the private sphere. The state generally has no business being in the family rooms of the nation. The state makes a lousy parent, and should not presume to tell parents how to best shape the moral character of their children, as long as abuse is not involved.

• 1625

Lastly, while parenting has always been a challenge, raising children to be responsible and law-abiding members of society is more of a challenge today than it has ever been. The surge in teen violence during the past decade testifies to this. Now is not the time to handcuff parents in their role as moral guides.

That's where Maurice ends this and says thank you.

I just want to make a personal note in addition to this. There is a lot of protection from abuse for children in law right now. I think some of the people who counter this and say we should remove section 43 forget that this protection from abuse is there.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your patience. I think I went over five minutes.

The Chair: Fine. I thank you, Garry.

Mr. Jordan may have a question or a comment.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I just have a question for the clerk. I have a very wild five-year-old: do I declare a conflict on this?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Well, there are a few other conflicts of interest, perhaps, that are older than five....

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I know that you said you can't speak for the one who made the motion, but you were talking about the parent and the home and not getting into conflict with the parents' responsibility to raise their child. Was he at the same time looking at the public, such as, for example, school or a teacher? I know some will feel.... To go back to the belt they used to put underneath the horse...they used to treat the kids that way, you know: you behaved yourself or you got it across the face. I didn't think I was a bad kid when I was young and I surely did receive it.

Now you know how I feel about it.

Do you think he was going with his motion the same way in regard to public institutions that are responsible for our children for a good period of hours in the day?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes. I think the proposal here is to leave section 43 in the Criminal Code. Many school boards are very sensitive to the issue of abuse and, I think, are addressing it. There isn't a problem in that area. I don't think there is. That's why it's actually an argument to leave section 43 as it is.

The Chair: I think you've done a very good job at the last minute in filling in, Mr. Breitkreuz. I appreciate your submission. Thank you very much, Garry.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Next we have Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Thompson, as you know, you have a maximum of five minutes to explain why your item should be selected to be a votable item. Perhaps you would wish to identify your bill and proceed.

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm disappointed that the students had to leave, because I think most educators and students would find this bill of great interest.

As you know, Bill C-428 is an act establishing Samuel de Champlain Day. It's a very straightforward bill. It's a little over a page in length. What it does is to establish Samuel de Champlain Day as a recognized day on the Canadian calendar, not—and I want to emphasize this—as a paid holiday or a public holiday, but simply as a day recognizing the importance of Champlain.

After talking to Canadians from coast to coast, I guess, and after my years as an educator, I think that one thing we don't do as Canadians is recognize people who have been important to this country of ours. As you know, Champlain is regarded as the father of New France.

Once I introduced it into the House of Commons, I had a great deal of coverage on this bill from the province of Quebec, from all forms of media, I guess, who were really fascinated with this piece of legislation. Their question was, you're not from Quebec, so why did you introduce this? Why the importance of Champlain?

Well, the truth is that the little island, St. Croix Island, which is described in the bill, I believe, is within a quarter of a mile of my home. Every day as I leave my driveway I'm looking at this little historic island and recognizing that it was the first settlement, if you wish, in the New World. I don't want to go through a history lesson, but as you know, Champlain eventually went up the St. Lawrence and to what we know today as Quebec. He was the cartographer, the man who really mapped Canada from the very early days.

• 1630

Mr. Chairman, just to go through some of the reasons why I think this bill, aside from the historical importance, is important to us in the House, I think it would be a good bill to be discussed in the House because I think that type of debate would be good for the House of Commons. It's non-controversial. No party has taken a position on this. It's non-political. There's no expenditure of money; we're not asking the taxpayers to spend money if the bill is passed.

Again, the historical significance is what I fall back on. The importance for me personally, as a New Brunswicker, is the year 1604. We're going to be celebrating the 400th anniversary of the founding of this little island, which eventually proved to be basically the founding of what we consider to be modern-day Canada.

The U.S. government, believe it or not—and this bill has nothing to do with the U.S. government—is actually recognizing the importance of this little island. The island is situated on an international boundary of water, so the Americans are doing their best to recognize this individual and the importance of this event.

That's what I'm attempting to do with this bill. I've also written the minister responsible for the post office, requesting that we have a stamp to recognize this event. The Province of New Brunswick is going to have a “huge event” recognizing the year 2004 as a very important piece of history.

This bill is basically the start of a process recognizing people that we consider important to the founding of what we today consider Canada. Again, Mr. Chairman, I think it's non-divisive. I think it's something that can pull us together in debate within the House. I look forward to your comments and questions regarding my bill.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Just a quick question, Greg: do we have any other days on the calendar that get similar treatment?

Mr. Greg Thompson: We do have some of what we consider to be “days” on the calendar. This one might be laughable when you hear it, but, for example, we have Valentine's Day. We recognize St. Valentine. We have Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. But in terms of days on the calendar.... In my discussion with the heritage minister, Ms. Copps, she even recognizes that Canadians do a very poor job of recognizing people who have made a difference to this country.

So the answer to your question is that we do have other days, and some of them are recognized holidays. There has been discussion as to maybe Sir John A. Macdonald or Laurier, Cartier, whatever; the list is basically endless.

But the point of this is that I think it would be a very positive discussion within the House, and I think it should lead to more of us, regardless of what part of the country we're from or what constituency we represent, bringing these types of issues forward.

As I was saying earlier, Joe, again as an educator, I think it's something that our children.... I guess it's getting a sense of being about our province, about any province, any part of Canada. I think this is one of these debates that could heighten our awareness of these very important people.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would just like to respond. I was very surprised to see that you have put Valentine's Day and Saint-Jean-Baptiste's Day on an equal footing with a remembrance day for Samuel de Champlain.

First of all, Saint-Jean-Baptiste is a saint, a martyr. He had his head cut off, the poor fellow. For a long time, Saint-Jean- Baptiste Day was the holiday for French Canadians. Today, Saint- Jean-Baptiste Day, which is celebrated on June 24, is Quebec's national holiday. So it's not exactly the same thing, nor can it be compared with the Feast of the Assumption, the Acadian national holiday which is celebrated on August 15. I don't think so. I just wanted to make this clarification.

The Chairman: Thank you.

• 1635

[English]

Mr. Greg Thompson: As you must know, again, I think I attempted to point out that it's certainly not the same thing. The point I'm attempting to make in five minutes or less is that Champlain is an important individual for the province of Quebec. He's important, I think, for every province in this country.

Certainly he was an individual worthy of recognition, which is not to preclude other individuals. I think that list could extend far beyond what I'm capable of mentioning at this table today. But I think it's a healthy debate.

What I personally would like to see is for other members to bring forward names like this so that type of debate can be encouraged in the House of Commons. I think we do have something to tell as a country, as the founding nations of this country. We do have, if you wish, heroes out there, and I believe Champlain is one of those heroes that we should recognize in name, dedicating a particular day to this individual—starting with the year 2004, because it's the 400th anniversary. So this anniversary date would kick in in the year 2004 and, every year forward from that, would be considered a Champlain day. I think it would be nice to see that on the calendar—Samuel de Champlain.

With that I'll end my case, unless there's other discussion.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey, please.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: You know how much I dislike it when we go overboard with partisanship, but as a Quebecker, I would first of all like to thank my colleague because his bill and his intent have received a great deal of press coverage. My colleague's initiative has generated a lot of comments in New Brunswick. Accordingly, I would at least like to thank him for his initiative. It will then be up to this committee to decide whether or not the people who put this on the map in the first place deserve some recognition.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity.

The Chair: Our next member is Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

You have a maximum of five minutes to explain why your item should be considered to be votable. You might want to focus your remarks on that after you introduce your motion. Proceed.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

[Translation]

I would like to thank all the members of this committee for giving me an opportunity to present this motion and explain why I'm recommending that it be deemed a votable motion in the House. In my opinion, this is a very important issue for many Canadians and it is a subject of national interest.

[English]

You have before you a written submission indicating some reasons for why I believe this motion should be votable. I'll try to summarize them very briefly.

You know this is a motion we're all familiar with. It's around the question of genetically modified foods. It is specifically a motion to call for a process of labelling of all products and components of processed foods that are genetically modified.

I would like to make four points based on the list of criteria that you have presented as criteria for determining whether a motion is votable.

I believe it meets the first criteria that it must be clear, complete, and effective in the way it's worded. I believe the motion clearly outlines the need to have a debate in the House around the labelling of genetically modified foods.

I believe this motion is clearly within federal jurisdiction and is something around which the Government of Canada has jurisdiction to act.

I believe the motion is of significant public interest. I probably don't need to make that point here. Many members have had calls, petitions, and letters around this issue. It's in the news a great deal. It's been the focus of much discussion at the community level. I certainly have had a lot of interest in Winnipeg, and others have had the same. The media has been quite regularly covering this issue. So I think it is of significant public interest.

Although this motion has been raised in the House through questions, petitions, and in debate generally, there has been no specific opportunity to debate this issue and have a particular discussion around whether or not genetically modified foods should be labelled. So I believe this is the first opportunity for the House to actually debate an issue of significant public concern.

• 1640

Finally, as I said at the outset, I believe this is an issue of national interest. It's not specific to one locale, one region of this country. I think we're hearing from all parts of the country on this matter.

I would just conclude by saying this is an issue of tremendous.... I can't say, as my previous colleague did, that it's a non-controversial issue. It is an issue of controversy. It is an issue of much debate. There is growing concern around what genetically modified technology means, and what it means in terms of health and the environment. This motion doesn't purport to address the whole complexity of the issue, but simply to acknowledge one aspect of it and the call by consumers and others for the right to know.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Have we any questions from around the table on this? Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I just point out, Judy—not to misinterpret the fact that we have no questions—we have two very similar motions on this before us today.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I understand that there are two of us who picked a similar kind of motion. I think what that says is further reinforcement of the fact that it is a major issue for the House.

The Chair: That's a very good answer. Are there any other comments?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Maybe we could combine the two together.

The Chair: We may as well make some history, since there are no rules here on this.

Okay. We thank you for your presentation and your time.

I guess it would be fair at this stage of the game to take a two-minute break.

• 1642

• 1644

The Chair: Okay, colleagues, thank you.

Next we have Mr. John Nunziata. Mr. Nunziata, you know you have a maximum time of five minutes to explain why your item should be made votable. You may identify your bill and proceed.

• 1645

Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.

This bill involves section 745 of the Criminal Code, and I don't think I have to get into an explanation of what section 745 is about, except to say that it involves the penalties for murder in the Criminal Code.

In 1976, capital punishment was abolished and one of the compromises that ensued was the insertion in the Criminal Code of section 745, which in effect permits those convicted of first- and second-degree murder, who have parole ineligibility periods in excess of 15 years, to have the parole ineligibility period brought forward so that inmates who were convicted can apply. Clifford Olson applied, a whole group of people have thus far applied to have their parole ineligibility reduced, from either 25 years if it's first-degree murder, or if it's second-degree murder from whatever the parole ineligibility period was down to 15 years.

This issue has been the subject of considerable national discussion and debate. It has been debated and discussed and voted upon in the House of Commons in the past, as most members are aware, in particular those who were here in the previous Parliament. I have reintroduced the bill and it's before you. I'd be happy to answer any questions any colleagues might have with regard to this bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nunziata.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: John, if I'm reading this right, the bill would repeal it retroactively?

Mr. John Nunziata: That's right. The effect of that would be to preclude anyone who presently might qualify from in fact qualifying, so that there's no grandfather or grandmother clause.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It means gone; it's off the books?

Mr. John Nunziata: That's right.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

Mr. John Nunziata: If my own personal view is of any relevance, I'm opposed to capital punishment. I believe in the sanctity of life. But on the other hand I think most Canadians would agree—and this is my own personal view—that in cases of first-degree murder in particular, which is a planned and deliberate murder where someone actually goes through the thought process and decides to take a life or the lives of other people, in those cases, a minimum sentence of incarceration should be 25 years.

I'm not advocating throwing away the key for life, although in some cases that should be the case—in Paul Bernardo's case and Clifford Olson's case. But I believe that in certain situations, if someone serves 25 years, then they should be eligible at the 25-year period, not at the 15-year period or anywhere in between.

This, by the way, was voted on on a previous occasion. I don't know whether this is a factor that might be of relevance, but it did pass at second reading in the House of Commons by a vote of a 136 to 103. The majority of those 136 members who voted were on the government side. Regrettably, it ended up in committee, where the committee failed or refused to report it out, and in fact it was effectively defeated by the justice committee.

The Chair: I'm sure that now, or when we're discussing this further later, we'll ask for the opinion on that of our research staff, unless they wish to have any comment available now.

Mr. John Nunziata: Would it preclude a bill from being voted on a second time if it's voted on once?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Only if it's been before the House in the current session, which started in September; so no.

Mr. James Robertson: There used to be a clearer—

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, when we had eleven.

Mr. James Robertson: Under the old criteria, the number of times it had come up was considered more relevant. I don't think now it's particularly relevant, and as Mr. Jordan says, “in a previous Parliament” is certainly long enough ago. As a result of your experience and other people's experience, this committee recommended that private members' bills that are sent to committee not be allowed to get stuck and not come out of the committee. There is now a 60-sitting-day limit in which the committee must report back to the House. So the experience you had could not be repeated there.

• 1650

The Chair: Thank you, John, very much for your—

Mr. John Nunziata: May I make one final point before I leave?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Nunziata: With regard to the general process of private members' business, I've always believed in the importance of private members' business and I've always advocated that every private member should have the right to introduce and have debated and voted upon in the House of Commons a bill, in rotation or in a fair fashion. I think that would impact on the relevancy of private members. It would result in another avenue of producing laws in this country, and I think it would lead to members on all sides of the House working together in the public interest.

In any event, thank you very much for your time.

The Chair: Thank you for sharing your time, John.

Our next witness, our next member, is John Reynolds. John, do you wish to come forward? John certainly has served his country and this House before this term, and as you know, John, you have five minutes maximum to explain why your item should be made votable. You may wish to introduce it. Please proceed.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to present my arguments for granting votable status to my private member's bill, Bill C-334, an act to amend the Criminal Code (the wearing of war decorations).

This bill would allow a family member or relative of a deceased veteran to wear any decoration awarded to such veterans without facing criminal sanction as currently contained in the section 419 of the Criminal Code. The decoration must, as my bill stipulates, be worn on the right side of the relative's chest and only on Remembrance Day.

At the outset, allow me to say that my initiative is not meant to dishonour or diminish the service and sacrifice of our veterans or debase the dignity and tradition of Remembrance Day ceremonies or the medals and decorations that acknowledge bravery, gallantry, and commitment to our nation. In fact, my initiative is meant to enhance our remembrance of those who served and those who were awarded such decorations.

I believe the time has come to follow the lead of Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, our Commonwealth partners, and allow relatives to wear these decorations on Remembrance Day. I believe the sanction of the Criminal Code that was incorporated in 1920 to disallow the wearing of such medals had a specific purpose for that time and is no longer realistic as our veterans pass on. These war honours sit in dusty trunks or find a temporary home in flea markets, where they're at the mercy of hucksters out to make a buck.

Section 419 of the Criminal Code is derived from the time that legitimate veterans did not want those who had not served to buy medals and wear them, thus insulting the courage and bravery of those who did serve. As I said, in many cases medals awarded following the two world wars have today ended up in some dusty trunk or the flea market. I consider this a diminishment of the honour and respect those medals should garner and exhibit.

My motivation for this bill comes from individuals whose family members who were awarded medals have passed on. They wish to honour their deceased war heroes. One individual in particular, Christine Ballantine from my riding, has mounted a national campaign to see this initiative realized and has gathered support from many legion branches, including the one where she is a member, in West Vancouver.

To give you an idea of the cross-section of support for this bill, may I quote from a letter I received from the Sooke, British Columbia, branch of the Royal Canadian Legion. It reads: “We consider it would strengthen reverence of Remembrance Day”. The Whitehorse, Yukon, branch of the legion writes: “It would enhance Remembrance Day services by allowing family members to bring medals out on Remembrance Day and thus perpetuate the act of remembrance”.

As our veterans pass on, legion membership is dropping. If we wish to sustain interest and support of this institution and the good work that it does, I believe it's important to allow family members who may be inclined to join the legion to wear the medals of their deceased veterans. Today, 40% of the legion members are over 65 years of age. A life has to pass on, but should the medals of these brave people be hidden from view and thus pass on as well? I believe these medals are a birthright for family members of those who are awarded them and they can no longer display them. Being allowed to wear them is a wonderful way to honour their family member and the sacrifice that the family member made.

I also believe that if granted the honour to wear these medals, individuals given the privilege will wear them with dignity and the respect they deserve.

Mr. Chairman, I submit to you and committee members that the time has come to join with many of our Commonwealth countries and amend the Criminal Code to allow the wearing of these medals. As such, it is important that my initiative be granted votable status to see this realized. Let us not forget, but also let us not make criminals of those who wish to remember their deceased family members.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

First we have Mr. Jordan with a question or comment.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thanks, John. I want to touch on a couple of things. Certainly this is something that would come out if the bill went to committee, but if I had two grandparents, could I wear both their sets or would I have to wear one person's?

• 1655

Mr. John Reynolds: I think you could wear both. I think that's something the committee—

Mr. Joe Jordan: Sure. I'm just curious.

Mr. John Reynolds: As some of you are probably aware, the legion itself said no to this, as a headquarters group. But now loads of the legion branches are starting to write letters. I'm getting them. I just quoted two, but I've gotten them from right across the country. They're saying they don't agree, and they think this is a good idea.

I had a very good letter from John Blatherwick, who has been our chief medical director in B.C. for a long time. He's quite a war hero himself. Maybe he quoted Will Rogers, but he said “The problem with common sense is it ain't so common.” He said this is just a common sense bill, and that, sure, they should have the right to do this. He said he would like his kids to be able to do it. I've had lots of legion members tell me that.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But Dominion Command came right out and said no?

Mr. John Reynolds: In the initial letter that they wrote to the minister, they said they don't like this idea.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I ask because I attended a regional meeting and I know they were for it. I concur with what you're saying there.

Mr. John Reynolds: I think what's happened is that they have a bureaucracy just like everybody else. Somebody saw this bill and they had to make a comment, so they said they didn't like it. Now the movement is taking place and there are lots of letters coming in. With the bill being debated, I think we'll all get an opportunity. I'm sure every legion in the country is going to be writing a letter in one way or the other, and we'll get a real opportunity to see what they would like.

But I think it's not only their decision. I have a grandfather and a father who got medals. I go to remembrance ceremonies like the rest of them, and I'd like to be able to wear those. They're both dead now.

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: Yes, I too have support for the bill, because I have relatives' medals as well that I would be proud to wear. My concern, John, is that you're introducing the legislation that would make that possible, yet there's nothing in the act that would protect the validity of the person wearing them. Anybody could buy a set of medals in a flea market and end up wearing them, and I think that denigrates the medals. There's nothing in your bill that would protect from that.

Mr. John Reynolds: Well, you have the same problem today. If people who are veterans go into the legion wearing a medal, nobody checks them on a daily basis to see if their medals are legitimate. You would have to assume that they are. I'd be quite open to saying that it still could be an offence to wear medals that weren't yours, to fraudulently wear them, but I think the whole thing here is to allow relatives to wear them in the family.

Mr. David Chatters: Maybe it's out of line to suggest this, but you might consider amending your bill to continue to make it an offence to wear them fraudulently.

Mr. John Reynolds: I don't have a problem with that, and I don't think most people would have a problem with that.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your very interesting information.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you.

The Chair: Next we have Mr. Nystrom, with motion M-155.

Lorne, as you probably know, you have a maximum of five minutes to explain your item and convince the members of this committee why it should be votable. After you introduce it, you may wish to focus on that.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Okay, I'll be as brief as possible, and I'll let you ask some questions instead.

What I did first of all, Mr. Chair, was write a four- or five-page memo in English

[Translation]

and in French, to explain to everyone why we should hold the debate on proportional representation.

[English]

I want to begin by saying that according to the Library of Parliament, if we decide to debate this and have it votable, it will be the first debate on proportional representation since 1979, when it was proposed by then Liberal member Jean-Luc Pepin. That's going back 21 years, so it was a long, long time ago.

What my motion would do is basically strike a committee of all parties to look into the idea of proportional representation that we can mix into or incorporate into our electoral system. That committee, of course, would present a report to Parliament, and if the committee agrees upon a system and Parliament agrees upon a system, it would be put to the people in the form of a referendum at or near the time of the next federal election. It tries to be as inclusive and as democratic as possible.

The reason I'm doing this, Mr. Chairman, is that we are now one of only four countries in the world with a population of more than one million people that doesn't have some kind of proportional representation. The four are the United States, Britain, Canada, and India.

Even in the United Kingdom, in the Mother of Parliaments on which our first-past-the-post system was modelled, Prime Minister Tony Blair has already brought in some PR in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament. In fact, all the British members to the European Parliament are now elected by proportional representation. And even in the U.K. itself, according to the Jenkins report, in the election after next, in all probability there will be a mix of proportional representation in the English Parliament itself. We will then be one of only three countries in the world with a population of more than a million without some form of PR.

• 1700

An important thing to note is that in my motion I do not say what kind of PR system we should have. There are many different models. I just say we should look to work out a system of and incorporate a measure of PR into our present system. There are all kinds of systems. There's the German system, where it's 50% PR and 50% riding-by-riding. There's the French system, where you have the runoff election. There are many different ways of having a more proportional system.

The reason I did this is, when I lost the election in 1993 and I had four years out of this place, I started to look at why people are feeling alienated from Parliament and why the turnout is dropping. I think people feel disconnected from all of us. It's not a party thing. They feel their vote doesn't count, their vote is wasted, parliamentarians don't listen to them. They elect parliaments that do not mirror the way the people elect the members.

When I was first elected in 1968, the turnout was 80%. That's when Trudeau won, in 1968. That was a typical turnout, about 80% of the people. In the last election it was 67%. And in every single provincial election in the last 20 years, the turnout has plummeted. My own province of Saskatchewan used to be 80% or 85%. It's down to 63%, 65%, or 66%.

[Translation]

and it's the same thing in every Canadian province now.

[English]

That says people are not engaging in the process as they really should.

I have one more point. I don't think this is a partisan measure at all, because it affects all parties in different ways. Our parliaments are very distorted. In the present Parliament, for example, the Bloc and the NDP have the same number of votes. We had 11% in the last election. We had 21 seats and the Bloc had 44. The Reform and the Conservatives had roughly 19% of the votes each. The Conservatives elected I think 19 members, and the Reform 59 or 60 members.

The Liberal Party, which you represent in your province of Ontario, has 101 out of 103 seats. Yet the Liberals in Ontario got a minority of the votes. They had 49.7% or 49.9% of the votes. So a minority of Ontarians voted Liberal.

In terms of my own party, we now have three provincial governments where the government in power has fewer votes than the leading opposition party. One of them is the NDP government in B.C. It has the majority of the seats, yet the opposition Liberals have more votes than the NDP.

In my own province of Saskatchewan, where Mr. Romanow now forms a coalition government with the Liberals, the Romanow NDP received 38% of the votes last September. The Saskatchewan Party got 39% of the votes.

[Translation]

In the province of Quebec, Mr. Charest's Liberal Party has more popular support than Mr. Bouchard's party, however Mr. Bouchard is now the Premier of Quebec and he has a majority government.

[English]

So it cuts all ways, and we end up with a parliamentary system that does not mirror or reflect what the Canadian people or the people in the provinces are electing.

That's my appeal. My appeal is that we have to modernize our democratic system and modernize our electoral system. Almost every country in the world has. I've intentionally not set up a model and said “This is the model”, because if we went around this table, even if we all agreed to PR, we could have about 10 or 12 different models. But the committee should start the discussion and come up with a model that's appropriate to our unique federal system and our political history.

That's it.

Mr. André Harvey: Do you have a French copy for us?

[Translation]

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes, I provided a French copy to the clerk. I sent both copies yesterday.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Congratulations.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Thank you. There is a four-page summary.

Mr. André Harvey: I have all of my documents here and I did not find it. I don't know if you have it. We can get it later on.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Nystrom, it was available in both official languages?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Oh, yes.

The Chair: Well, we will come up with both copies and make sure we have them. Some do and some don't, so we're sorry for that.

Are there any other questions on this interesting presentation? If not, certainly with your experience, you know you have closing remarks.

Oh, go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: It's simply to have an example. What would happen in a province where the percentage could go from one side more than from the other, despite having a higher number of members of Parliament? Could you give us an example of what would happen? You refer to Ontario, where there are 105 members of Parliament. If you had a system of proportional representation such as the one you have mentioned, what would happen? I think that it would be interesting to know how things would pan out in reality.

• 1705

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I have all of the results here.

[English]

on page 3 of my notes.

What a proportional representation system would do is elect a Parliament where the composition of the members is in rough proportion to the number of votes. So, Monsieur Godin, if a party received 30% of the votes, they'd receive about 30% of the seats.

In the last Parliament, for example, the Liberal Party got 38% of the votes, so they would get around 38% of the seats. In other words, we'd have a minority Parliament. The NDP and the Bloc both had about 11% of the votes, so they'd both get, as parties, about 11% of the seats. And the Reform and the Tories both had about 19%. So the Parliament would be in rough proportion to the number of votes actually cast.

May I add one more thing, Mr. Chair, on this?

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: An intriguing thing about this is it would probably radically change voting patterns. For example, you could vote Liberal in rural Saskatchewan and feel your vote is not wasted. You could vote Reform in Newfoundland and feel your vote is not wasted. You could vote NDP in, of all places, rural Alberta and feel your vote is not wasted, because every vote would be equal. Every voter is empowered and all the votes would count.

The other thing that's very unique about this is it would force all political parties to think nationally, because a vote is a vote is a vote, and they'd all count everywhere in the country. It would force the NDP to deal more carefully with Quebec, for example, where we don't have much support. It would force the Liberal Party to deal more carefully maybe with some of the prairie provinces. It would force all of us to think more and more nationally and have a national vision. Those are consequences of PR.

The most important thing, Mr. Chair, is it treats all voters equally. It empowers every vote. There would be no such thing as a wasted vote.

The Chair: Mr. Nystrom, if I'm allowed a question or comment, in some countries of course they've ended up with a system where it's part PR or you apply a certain percentage of seats to the results.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Yes?

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: That's interesting. When we examined Bill C- 2, which dealt with the reform of the Canada Elections Act, we unfortunately did not have the opportunity or the time to deal with this question, Mr. Chairman. But I can tell Mr. Nystrom that I will certainly use his arguments to try to get the ball rolling so that we can look into this issue in a reasonable amount of time. Proportionality can be applied in various ways. Part of the vote can be proportional. In short, this deserves to be studied in the not-too-distant future.

[English]

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: In response to both Mr. Chair and Monsieur Harvey—

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I would like to take this opportunity to ask you whether it would be preferable to do this through this motion or go through the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This is something that concerns all of us, and

[English]

I don't want to be too long.

[Translation]

All three of us sit on the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. When we were looking at reforming the Canada Elections Act, Bill C-2, we said, on several occasions, that we had to deal with this issue as quickly as possible, but that the study had to be exhaustive. I know that the study on proportionality is coming down the road, but would it be preferable to do it through this motion?

[English]

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: As private members who want to have a debate via the private member vehicle, it's very important that we do that as private members. There's nothing that says the committee can't debate it. In fact I appeared before your committee about a year and a half ago and made the argument that it should be looked at by your committee as well.

In answer to your question, Mr. Chair, in which you said a number of countries have a mix of PR, my motion actually says we should work towards incorporating a measure of proportional representation. I don't believe, for example, in the Israeli system, where it's 100% PR. That's a small country where it might work well, but we are a great, diverse federation, and I think there has to be a mix of it. The question is, what is the level of the mix? I don't think anyone's going to say that now. That's to be debated.

The Chair: I have to say we're past our time, but thank you very much for sharing.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Thank you very much for your time.

The Chair: Mr. Mancini, you may come forward when you wish. You have a maximum of five minutes to perhaps focus on sharing with the members why your motion should be votable in the House. You may identify your motion and proceed.

• 1710

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will.

It is motion M-268, number 20. I filed it with the House on October 28, 1999, and it says that, in the opinion of the House, the government should take into account regional unemployment rates when establishing or expanding government offices and agencies so that regions with high rates of unemployment are considered for any new job creation.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think this will come as any surprise to you coming from me, given the fact that I, along with a member of your committee, represent one of the areas that has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. It is a fact that in this country there are large areas that are not sharing in the economic prosperity that currently exists across the country. It's very difficult for my constituents, as I'm sure it is for your constituents and many others, to pick up some of the national newspapers that say Canada is on an economic roll.

One of the things that I think government can do and should do is use the services that government provides in two ways.

First, the government has to provide the service anyway, or should provide the service anyway, because it's the role of government to do so.

Secondly, in providing that service, it can be used as an economic stimulus in a particular region. It is not new to government. It has been done across the country in terms of decentralizing existing government departments. For example, Citizenship and Immigration is located in my riding—and thank heaven it is. When the Department of National Defence closed a base in Summerside, Prince Edward Island, a government agency was located there. Nunavut, the new territory, has committed to decentralizing services across the territory as a means of sharing the wealth that government creates in the services that it provides. The gun registry is another example, although I don't think it went to an area of high unemployment.

So it seems to me that when we are looking at where we should set up government agencies or expand government departments, a criterion should be locating them in areas of high unemployment. I think that increases the respect people have for government. Right now, in many parts of the country, quite frankly, Ottawa or the provincial capitals are seen as the areas that benefit from all the taxpayers' money. When we're home, I think we probably all hear that, as members of Parliament. So I think it has a unifying factor to it. It spreads some of the wealth across the country, and it also provides criteria.

We know—and I won't belabour the point—that the current regional economic expansion policies, through things like the Transitional Jobs Fund, have run into some problems. This way, I think we establish some criteria that allow people to feel government services are coming to them.

We're also told by the Minister of Industry that in this age of new technology, we can virtually do anything from anywhere in the country. The question is, if we're going to expand existing government operations, why should we force them to locate within Ottawa, when the same services can be performed in areas of high unemployment? That creates a stable economic base for the community in which it locates. This means that business investors will have more certainty investing in that community, and that some economic stimulus and growth can be provided.

Are my five minutes up? I'm not going to have time to have a drink.

I look at the criteria. The motion must be constitutional, and this one is, because it's within the area of federal jurisdiction. I think it concerns matters of public interest. All the citizens are taxpayers, and we all have an interest in how and where government services are delivered. This issue has not been dealt with in the current legislative agenda. And I think it transcends the local interests of my own riding and is in fact of importance to areas across the country; for example, northern New Brunswick, certainly the north, and perhaps your own riding, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I certainly should have interrupted you in order to mention that we probably wouldn't dock you too much if you did have a drink, Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Well, that's all right, but I think that's a quick summation.

The Chair: Excellent.

Mr. Jordan.

• 1715

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thanks, Larry.

I think you did a pretty good job going through the criteria, but just to editorialize a little bit, another issue would be that if areas don't have the telecommunications infrastructure needed to support these things, this may be a driving force to get government to realize that those are important issues in rural areas.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I think so. There is a great divide and, to be quite frank, I didn't realize how great the divide was until I became a member of Parliament. On almost every single issue, be it environmental or fiscal, the divide between rural and urban communities is growing every day. I think people outside the major urban centres feel they are not heard or their voices are not heard, and that the services are not received by them. I think this kind of criterion might help to diminish that.

The Chair: Very good.

Are there any other questions? Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I may just have a comment.

I'm sure we all know the member comes from Cape Breton, and we know the economic problems of Cape Breton now, especially with DEVCO and Sydney Steel. We know what's happening there, so I can see where the member's coming from. I can share his feelings too, coming from the northeast of New Brunswick, having lost all the fishery and everything else that has been lost.

At the same time, are you ready to say it will promote keeping the youth in those areas? Right now they're going to school, university and all that and they don't see anything for themselves at home, so they're just leaving the place. Will having those job spaces keep some of the youth in these areas?

Mr. Peter Mancini: I think it does so in a number of ways. First of all, it provides a place for employment, especially for students who are studying high tech or who are advancing their education, because they can get a government job that pays decent money, and it's in their own community.

But there's a second factor. I think it acts as an economic catalyst. If you're a young entrepreneur and you want to open your own business, be it a day care centre, be it a coffee shop, or be it a clothing store, you know that every day on the main street in your home town, x number of people are going to be going by buying clothes, putting their kids in day care, or doing whatever it is they need to do. So I think it creates economic growth, and economic growth will keep young people in the communities, or may even attract young people from outside the communities, creating perhaps a more cosmopolitan society.

I guess what I'm saying is that government is going to spend this money anyway, so why not spend it in a way that creates economic growth in regions of the country that don't have it currently?

The Chair: I thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you for your time.

The Chair: Can I ask if it would be suitable to go in camera just for a moment? We have one more witness.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]

• 1719

[Editor's Note: Public proceedings resume]

The Chair: Ms. Lill is on deck and coming up to bat here.

Wendy, you can have a seat there anywhere.

Ms. Lill is making a presentation for Nelson Riis on motion M-259.

We may be rushing you, Ms. Lill. As you probably know, you have a maximum of five minutes to present the reasons. Mainly focus on why this motion should be votable in the House. You may wish to introduce the motion and put it forward.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you.

I am here on behalf of Nelson Riis, who was not able to be present. I feel very strongly about this as well, though, so I will certainly be involved in arguing this motion in the House if you choose to make it votable.

The text of motion M-259 states that, in the opinion of this House, the future of our cultural sector is crucial, and government should give consideration to exempting up to $30,000 of income from income tax as a gesture of support for those artists, writers and performers who work in Canada's cultural industry.

• 1720

First, I'd like to say that this particular motion meets private members' business criteria for the selection of votable items. It has national relevancy; it doesn't favour one particular part of the country; and it's of great importance to artists across the country, in every community and region.

I would say that the romantic image of the struggling artist is in fact a harsh reality. According to Shirley Thomson, the head of the Canada Council, who came before the heritage committee, the average income of artists in this country is $13,000. So every bit of financial support would count.

This motion is straightforward. It's a new and original addition to existing legislation, the Income Tax Act. The government often uses tax changes as a means to demonstrate a concrete expression of support for a specific economic sector. The scope of the motion provides a strong endorsement for the artist and the cultural community.

This particular policy change has not been previously proposed. It's a non-partisan motion. It fits the nature of a private member's motion in that it provides an opportunity for a private member to draw attention to a specific issue in the public forum of Parliament. It can generate and focus a healthy debate on the overall state of our cultural community and those who are vital to it.

Because it's a motion, it differs from a bill in that a motion expresses a resolution, and if the House agrees to it, it's only stating an opinion. Government will not be bound to adopt a specific policy or course of action. I say that only to allay any concerns about the intent of this motion in that it relates somewhat to government finances.

So why is this an important issue? Well, the arts and cultural industries are significantly labour intensive. Although Canada can boast many talented and well-trained artists, few of them are able to earn a satisfactory living. While other countries treat their artists as a national resource—Ireland being one good example, and I can give you some figures on that—there are no major provisions in the Income Tax Act here that give proper recognition to the special economic circumstances of artists and performers.

What we do have is the Canada Council, which costs Canadians $115 million per year. Much of that money is given in grants to individual artists, and some of that is taxed back. For each discipline within the cultural community, there are particular tax measures and some government initiatives that can apply, but this tax measure, this motion, would be applicable across the board, to benefit all disciplines, and is simple in its application.

In summary, I believe a vigorous government initiative in this area could be a real benefit to the general level of artistic activity in the country. A policy expressing support for artists is an expression of support for Canadian culture and clearly says that our artists are a priceless natural resource.

I think the federal government has a role to play in matters of vital concern to Canadians. We have seen fiscal restraint in this area. From 1992 to 1997, we have seen federal funding to culture fall by over 5%, and a drop of $13 per capital in terms of funding. The consequences have had an impact on Canadian artists.

The motion provides a practical and symbolic measure in cementing the federal government's role to nurturing culture, and I think the House of Commons is the perfect place for us to be having that debate—and an important debate, indeed, it is.

So that's my pitch, and I hope you'll consider it.

The Chair: It's certainly good, a pitch from one of our resident artists.

Mr. Jordan, followed by Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thanks, Wendy. I think you make a very good point in the fact that it's appropriate that it is a motion, because it is a complicated thing.

In terms of defining who qualifies as being an artist or who qualifies as being someone who works in a cultural industry, does internal revenue currently have job classifications, or would that need to be worked out?

Ms. Wendy Lill: That would need to be worked out.

That can be worked out. In Ireland, for example, they have exemptions for artists, depending on the different creations. It's based on whether they've done a book, or a symphony, or whatever. That's another method of doing it.

• 1725

I would say that would be the task of the Department of National Revenue, to figure out how they would discern.... They have definitions for students and for persons with disabilities, and they would have to come up with a definition of “artist” that we would feel comfortable with.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Do you have any idea what the approximate cost of this measure would be?

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill: I would say this would really not be of any great cost to the federal treasury since many artists don't have generous incomes. Going back to what the head of the Canada Council said, the average income for Canadian artists is around $13,000.

To a certain extent, this would be somewhat symbolic, but an important symbol, because it's basically saying that we value what you are creating and therefore you are a national treasure.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I have a second brief question. I hear a great deal of criticism, including comments about national organizations such as the Canada Council for the Arts. In Quebec, I hear a great deal of criticism about the Société de développement des entreprises culturelles. Many artists from our region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, complain that these national organizations are only interested in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. Would you prefer that we do away with these national organizations or that we slash their budget, since they have their customary preferences, year after year, and that more money be given to artists individually?

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill: I think these are totally separate issues. I believe arts service organizations play a very important role in supporting artists in terms of information, networking, in many cases lobbying politically, and acting as agents, and often even as publishing arms.

I don't know exactly what specific groups you are talking about, and I wouldn't be able to respond to that. I don't think that is part of this conversation; it's another one. It's a conversation about arts organizations, which ones are effective. Some perhaps are more effective than others.

The Chair: Thank you very much for sharing something about which you're very knowledgeable, and thank you for your presentation.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

The Chair: As the chair, I must say it's your call, but I expect we may want to go in camera for our selection of votable items. Then, if we finalize our comments on the letter, we probably will stay in camera, but I would ask that we go in camera for our selection.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]