SMEM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 6, 2002

¹

1540

The Chair (Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull--Aylmer, Lib.))

Mr. Herron

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords--Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Ritz

Mr. Herron

¹

1545

Mr. Bellehumeur

Mr. Herron

The Chair

Mr. Hearn

Mr. Herron

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Herron

¹

1550

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. White (North Vancouver)

The Chair

Mr. White (North Vancouver)

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Ritz

Mr. White (North Vancouver)

The Chair

Mr. Hearn

Mr. White (North Vancouver)

The Chair

Mr. Kenney

The Chair

º

1600

Mr. Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg--Transcona, NDP)

Mr. Kenney

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Kenney

º

1605

The Chair

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Grewal

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Murphy

º

1615

º

1620

The Chair

Mr. Bellehumeur

Mr. Murphy

Mr. Bellehumeur

Mr. Murphy

Mr. Bellehumeur

Mr. Murphy

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

º

1625

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. Bellehumeur

Mr. St-Julien

Mr. Bellehumeur

Mr. St-Julien

º

1630

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. St-Julien

Mr. Ritz

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant)

The Chair

Mr. Speller

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Speller

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Speller

Mr. Ritz

The Chair

Mr. Speller

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

The Chair

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose)

Mr. Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose)

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose)

º

1645

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose)

The Chair

Mr. Stoffer

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Bellehumeur

Mr. Stoffer

The Chair

º

1655

Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

»

1700

The Chair

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Breitkreuz

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Breitkreuz

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Blaikie

Mr. Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Bergeron

»

1705

The Chair

Mr. Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

»

1710

Mr. Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Bergeron

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Bergeron

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Bergeron

Mr. Bill Blaikie

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Bellehumeur

The Chair

Mr. Bellehumeur

The Chair

Mr. Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

»

1715

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Keddy

»

1720

The Chair

---

CANADA

Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 011

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 6, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull--Aylmer, Lib.)): Members have been given a chart or grid. You can take notes and after we've heard from everyone, we will recap in order to arrive at a consensus.

[English]

    Okay, let's start with the first one, motion M-384.

    Mr. Herron, you have five minutes.

    Mr. John Herron (Fundy--Royal, PC/DR): I'm hoping I won't even take that amount of time.

    Mr. Chair, with the recent announcement that Canadian soldiers have been deployed in a dangerous mission in Afghanistan, it's hard not to think about the millions of Canadians, men and women, who have been serving and have served overseas, protecting freedom and basic human rights around the world.

    Part of what it means to be a Canadian lies in our history and the legacy of the veterans who have fought in all our wars and conflicts. That legacy is continued today by the men and women of Canada's military, who continue to make Canada proud. That's the spirit behind my private member's motion M-384, which was drawn recently.

    The motion simply states that, in the opinion of this House, the government should establish a fund to maintain local cenotaphs now in a state of abandonment or poor maintenance. This is particularly acute in rural Canada. Unfortunately, many of Canada's cenotaphs are in states of disrepair and require urgent attention.

    Since we all promise each year “never to forget”, when we attend the Remembrance Day ceremonies on November 11, it's important that we honour our commitment to incorporate the legacy of Canada's veterans into our daily lives. The cenotaphs and their monuments are monuments to the untold sacrifices made by those who paid the ultimate price and play a vital role in the process of remembering and understanding the sacrifices made by the heroes who gave their lives on our behalf. We must ensure that the cenotaphs in the communities across Canada are well maintained.

    When we go to these Remembrance Day ceremonies, we often utilize the phrase “lest we forget”, and we're probably all capable of reciting the very issue that “At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them.”

    Well, the truth is, in a lot of the smaller communities in Canada, with the more urbanization that we've had in the country, some of these villages that might have been large or more vibrant at one point in time are now smaller and may not even have a local council as they once had. Yet the cenotaphs and their legacy remain, and I think it's the minimum we owe our veterans to ensure that we're very genuine on this issue.

    We all go to the Remembrance Day ceremonies and the parades, and we see each year that fewer and fewer of our veterans are on parade. They've either passed on or have now become disabled due to age. I think it's the minimum commitment we should have. This is possibly one of the only departments that may actually have decreasing demands on its budget, with the passing on of more and more of our veterans, although we have had numerous populations of armed forces deployed in peace-keeping operations as well.

    This is not one issue that I would have naturally been engaged in upon being elected, but I represent a rural riding and a lot of these smaller towns, and the legion memberships are now smaller because there are fewer veterans. It has usually been the legions that have put their swords to the wheel to maintain these kinds of cenotaphs, and I'm very scared that, with that decreasing population, there won't be someone responsible for making sure these cenotaphs don't go into disrepair.

    So I think it's the very minimum that we should do, and that is what this motion is about, to encourage the government to utilize its funds in Veterans Affairs to ensure that we truly do remember them, that we really mean it when we say “lest we forget”.

    I haven't tried to put the Government of Canada in any kind of box in terms of how much this fund should be. It probably could be a standing fund that communities could apply to. Moreover, I think it would be something that Veterans Affairs could ensure, that it has a proper inventory of these war memorial cenotaphs. They'll know where the money is required most and the ones that are in disrepair.

    The origin of this was that my mom comes from Anagance, New Brunswick, a vibrant village at one point in time, that has over 25 names on the cenotaph. They probably don't have 25 people in that village now.

    Is the legacy of those individuals who put their lives on the line going to fade away just because those individuals in a village aren't there to keep that cenotaph in place? If this one-hour debate I have raises the issue, that's grand. But a really special signal we could send to our veterans across this country is that we will ensure the monuments that signal and commemorate their efforts will never go into disrepair.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any questions?

    Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords--Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): I have one quick one.

    The Chair: Go ahead.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Have you any idea how many of these there are across the country, John, and what kind of a budget are you talking about?

    Mr. John Herron: No. The fact right now is there is no budget. If there was a standing fund of $2 million or $3 million established by Veterans Affairs, a particular legion that has traditionally had cartage of or looked after a monument could apply for a $1,000 grant. These are areas that don't have anywhere else to raise the moneys to do that, what with the competing charities out there. They have no place to access cash. Just having the fund in place I think is a step in the right direction. I'd almost argue that even if it were an infinite amount of cash, there's a moral obligation on behalf of parliamentarians. But I don't suspect there will be a lot.

    I'll give you an example in my area. I've been approached by three legions over the last couple of years about helping to repair their cenotaph. The three combined were looking for about $3,500, and I suspect that probably exists across the country.

    The real problem is this is a step in the right direction because the cenotaphs are maintained mostly by the local legions. Legion memberships are beginning to shrink. So who is going to look after them? The legions and the individuals there would probably take a little pride, if they had a place to tap into to make sure the monuments don't fall into disrepair.

    It's embarrassing going to some of these cenotaphs. As a member of Parliament, I'm there to show respect to our veterans and to ensure we will remember them, and the only monument we have in that legacy is sometimes decaying. I'd just like to have a fund established.

¹  (1545)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier--Montcalm, BQ): In my riding, cenotaphs are the property of the municipalities. I've been an MP since 1993 and I know for a fact that Rawdon and Louiseville, a former municipality in my riding, cover maintenance costs themselves. However, if your motion were adopted, it would apply to federally owned cenotaphs as well as to those owned by municipalities or private organizations.

    Mr. John Herron: The same is true in my riding as well. A number of municipalities cover the costs of renovating the cenotaphs. It's possible for a municipality to apply for funding. Sometimes, these monuments are tended to by relatives. The first ever request I received for funds to cover maintenance costs was from two New Brunswick municipalities.

[English]

    The Chair: Let's try to keep it brief, because what we normally have is a five-minute presentation and five minutes of questions. But let's go ahead with this one. We're almost there, but that's fine.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC/DR): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I just want to say that I certainly agree. Recently I've been approached by a number of legion branches, which right now are made up mostly of auxiliary members. We have very few legionnaires left. An old Irish song says--well actually, an Australian song, I suppose--year after year, your numbers grow fewer. As to these few legionnaires who put their lives on the line for us, the only thing we have to remember those who are no longer with us are the monuments that are left, and quite often there are not enough people left within the ranks to try to maintain that. I think it's up to us to make sure we help them anyway. So I'd certainly support the motion.

    Mr. John Herron: We're talking about the concept of a fund here. We'll give the Government of Canada full latitude to say this is something the House wants to do. We'll put it on our wish list of budget items to go into. I think that would be a really good signal.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): I'd just like to thank John for bringing this forward. We've all been to various ceremonies, cenotaphs of various sizes and the plazas that surround them. This is my first time on this committee. I imagine much has to be worked out, but your intent is quite clear here.

    When you speak of the cenotaph, are you referring to the main monument, the main memorial stone, as opposed to the area...including around the cenotaph? Have you given that any thought? Is that too specific?

    Mr. John Herron: That may be a little bit too specific. I'm referring to making sure the rock and the granite are in proper repair. Fixing the grass and...usually that can be done with elbow grease. It's the actual cost of materials that the communities are having the toughest problem with. The grounds themselves are usually not that difficult to maintain locally. In my experience, the requests have come on the stonework.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I would agree. I just wanted to see what your thoughts on that were. That's it.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you.

    The Chair: Everybody is hearing you loud and clear.

    There's a bit of a change in the schedule. I understand Mr. Breitkreuz is going to be a little late, so we'll go to M-422. Mr. White will be pinch-hitting.

    You have five minutes, plus five minutes for questions.

    Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'm speaking for Chuck Cadman.

    The Chair: It's all yours.

    Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I do thank the committee for its indulgence in having me substitute for Mr. Cadman. He had to go to a funeral, unfortunately. I will do my best to argue his case.

    Do I need to read the motion? There was some trouble finding it.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: No, you don't.

    Mr. Ted White: That's fine, then.

    I think I should go ahead and address the five criteria that need to be considered. The first is that bills and motions must be drafted in clear, complete, and effective terms. The motion is definitely clear in its intent. Canada has long been considered a highly desirable destination for refugee claimants. Obviously, it's a great place to live, and we have a fairly high acceptance rate for refugees.

    Unfortunately, and I know this as an immigrant myself, this means that sometimes there's a very long waiting list to get into the county if you're a genuine immigrant. This has encouraged some asylum-seekers to queue jump by arriving at our doorstep and claiming refugee status in order to try to get around the problem. I think all of us have experienced that in our ridings, where we've heard people say to us that they were told to come and claim refugee status. It certainly happens in my riding.

    So the motion is clear in its intent. It sets out to make a list of safe third countries from which we would not accept refugee asylum-shoppers. That would allow the system to concentrate on genuine refugees and to quickly get them approved into Canada.

    The second criterion is that bills and motions must be constitutional and concern areas of federal jurisdiction. There's no doubt that the motion is constitutional. It focuses strictly on an area of federal jurisdiction. It refers directly to an area of legislation already in existence, and it should be completely safe from charter challenge.

    The current legislation states in subsection 101(1) that:

A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division if(e) the claimant came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country designated by the regulations, other than a country of their nationality or their former habitual residence;

    Perhaps in the past there has been an unwillingness or a tardiness on the part of governments to actually establish a list of safe countries. This has become an area of major concern since September 11, obviously.

    This relates to one of the other criteria, which is whether or not this issue is on the present government's agenda. There has been some activity recently in the area of immigration with Bill C-11 and some negotiation with the United States to try to get an agreement in terms of not accepting one another's refugee claimants.

    It would be incorrect for me to say that this motion deals exclusively with areas that are outside of government jurisdiction. However, it encourages the government to bring back to a legislative reality an area that it really wasn't addressing previously, and that is to get us a complete list of safe countries from which refugees shouldn't be accepted.

    The next criterion is that bills and motions should concern matters of significant public interest. Obviously, this is an area of high public interest, again particularly since September 11. But it has been an issue for Canadians for decades. Unfortunately, we're getting more and more examples of abuse of the system appearing in the media, particularly of queue jumpers. We have difficulty identifying them when they turn up on our doorstep, especially if they're determined to get in here without the correct documentation.

    The final criterion is that, all other things being equal, higher priority will be given to items that transcend purely local interests, are not couched in partisan terms, or cannot be addressed by the House in other ways. I think the motion meets this criterion. It's clear that it's a national issue. Refugees come to Canada by air, land, and sea. Admittedly, most of them turn up in Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver, but other parts of the country also receive their share of the refugee load from time to time. I think the committee must agree that the motion is in non-partisan terms. It addresses a serious public concern.

    Other than asking the House of Commons for unanimous consent to make it votable, there really is no other option than to ask this committee to make it votable. I hope you will support the motion when you come to your deliberations.

    I'll do my best to answer any questions about the motion.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any questions? Mr. Ritz.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Ted, this basically has to do with what people refer to as safe third countries.

    Mr. Ted White: Yes.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Do you have any idea of the percentage of refugee claimants that come from these particular countries now? How many of them are legitimate and how many of them are illegitimate?

    Mr. Ted White: I've seen varying numbers from the government, who, for example, say there are more claims coming from the United States into Canada than we have going from Canada to the United States, which creates problems. I've seen some figures from the Fraser Institute that as high as 40% are coming from safe third countries, and I think there's a very large question out there as to people who change planes in places like Frankfurt, Amsterdam, or Heathrow. They're coming from some other place and making a conscious decision to change planes in what is really a safe country. Nobody could argue that Germany, Britain, or Holland is unsafe for a refugee to make a refugee claim, yet many of them change planes there and continue on to Canada.

    The triggers are a bit blurred, but I think there's ample evidence that it's fairly high and that we really should address it, because it's unfair to people who are going through the proper process to get approved.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any questions? Yes, go ahead.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Chairman, one concern with that would be the reverse of it, allowing the people who might intend to go to the United States to change planes in Canada. If the United States looked upon it as we are looking upon it here, of course you'd have the reverse, and I don't know how that would skew the figures.

    Mr. Ted White: Well, I think that would be an issue for debate. If Canada and the United States have an agreement not to accept one another's refugee border-crossing asylum-seekers, then it would very quickly get out into the international community that we've set some pretty tough rules, and it would probably stop the flow fairly quickly.

    The problem seems to have been that over the last couple of decades there really hasn't been any attempt to enforce any strict rules, and more and more people are taking advantage of the option of just coming through our borders and claiming refugee status.

    The Chair: Are there any other questions?

[Translation]

    Are there any further questions? All right then.

[English]

    Thank you very much.

    We have two late arrivals. I see Mr. Kenney. Let's go to Mr. Kenney and Bill C-297.

    Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): You have copies of the bill; is that correct?

    The Chair: Yes, we do. You understand that you have five minutes and then another five for questions if there are questions.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Jason Kenney: This is Bill C-297, which is essentially the same bill I introduced in the last Parliament. It seeks to formally recognize, and calls upon Canadians to observe, a two-minute moment of silence on Remembrance Day every year.

    The motive behind the bill was the widespread observation that Canadians in recent decades have seen a diminishment in our recognition of the enormous nation-making sacrifice of Canada's military men and women during the major conflicts of the last century. In particular, what motivated me to introduce the bill was reading the results of a poll that had been done by a non-partisan organization called the Dominion Institute, which said that fewer than half of young Canadians could identify the first Prime Minister of Canada and fewer than a quarter of young Canadians could identify any of the great historic battles, like Vimy Ridge or Ypres, that were really formative in Canadian history.

    I think this is something I don't need to elaborate much on. Jack Granatstein did a brilliant job in his book, Who Killed Canadian History?, of talking about this growing historical amnesia, particularly among younger generations and particularly with respect to the contributions we have made in some of the great conflicts of the past century.

    On the bill itself, you might ask why we need to do this in a bill, since it's a custom anyway. Well, I would argue--and the Royal Canadian Legion and the many veterans organizations in the country would join me in arguing--that while civic-minded Canadians, those of us who are in public life and those who are veterans, observe the moment of silence as a custom on Remembrance Day, the vast majority of Canadians don't. If you read the history, if you were there at the time, you know that once upon a time, in the twenties and thirties after the first war and in the fifties after the second war, the nation stopped to halt at 11 o'clock in the morning on Remembrance Day. Factories would stop, unions would have in their agreements that they would allow that as a moment of silence, broadcasters would broadcast dead air, shops would not be open, of if they were they would use their PA to invite people to join in a moment of silence.

    We've lost that sense of the sanctity of that moment. It's just one moment when everybody in the nation, regardless of their politics, their heritage, their ethnicity, can stop and say this is an important moment. I got the idea from a private member's bill that passed in the Ontario provincial parliament in 1997 and a private member's bill that passed in the Westminster Parliament. It was actually a motion that passed there in 1996.

    This bill meets all the criteria of the committee. It's clear. It is clearly in federal jurisdiction. It's a matter of significant public interest. It is not part of the government's legislative agenda and it's not being dealt with in any other way in the House. It is non-partisan.

    Let me close with this. I think the best reason you should make this bill votable is that it has attracted more petition signatures in support of it than any other bill before Parliament. In December, I tabled 55,000 petition signatures, which are now deposited with the clerk's office, in support of this bill, which has been endorsed by the Royal Canadian Legion, the army, navy, and air force, and literally dozens, probably hundreds, of local legion halls across the country. As I said, it's something that has been done in both the Ontario and the British parliaments. So that's my presentation.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any questions?

[Translation]

Any questions?

[English]

    Yes, Bill.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg--Transcona, NDP): One of the other bills we have to consider here is one that would make Remembrance Day a holiday. I wonder if you see any necessary conflict between your idea and that idea, or whether they could be complementary.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Well, they could be complementary. In fact, there are four bills or motions before the House as private members' items right now. There's this bill, Bill C-297, there's the bill for Remembrance Day as a holiday, there's another motion to the same effect, and there's a fourth bill that deals with Remembrance Day in some other--

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Cenotaphs. There are a couple that deal with that.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Cenotaphs, that's it.

    So what the members from all parties are saying to you as a committee is that we want to have a chance, as Parliament, to speak about the importance of this day, this moment, and the commemoration it represents. I don't suppose there's any ideal way to do it. It would be nice to have all these things passed, but I'd like to suggest that this bill, Bill C-297, has had broader coverage and broader support. It came out of the Royal Canadian Legion's observance of two minutes of silence. That was very much the focus of the veterans organizations. As far as I know, they haven't asked for a holiday on November 11, but they have asked for a formal proclamation of the two minutes of silence.

    So I'd like to see all these things happen, but I would just hope that you all take the message from the fact that there are four items on the docket as Parliament speaking, hoping that something can happen here.

º  (1605)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Are there any other questions?

[English]

    Thank you very much. On M-376, Mr. Grewal. You've been before this committee before, haven't you?

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): It was a few years ago.

    The Chair: You have five minutes for questions.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I have a package for all the members. Should I distribute that?

    The Chair: Bilingual?

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes.

    The Chair: Yes, distribute it.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Colleagues, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee to tell you why I think my item, M-376, should be made votable.

    You have a package and you have the wording of the motion.

    Mr. Chairman, should I read the motion?

    The Chair: Translation would like to have a copy of this. They do have it now. Thank you.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chair, I will dispense...I will not read the wording of the motion because you have a copy, but I would like to point out that arson fires and explosions in, for instance, schools and marijuana grow operations in B.C. and elsewhere have threatened the lives of Canadian firefighters with hidden devices such as rigged crossbows, explosives, and other booby traps.

    According to experts and newspaper articles, over 30% of fires in Surrey, for instance, are arson fires. Fires and explosions in residential areas are linked to methamphetamine labs and other drug-related operations, often rigged with hidden devices designed to kill or injure anyone who interferes with them, particularly public safety officials.

    When firefighters working in cooperation with other law enforcement offices are used on the front lines to break down the doors of drug-related operations and drug labs, the armed police officers are standing behind the firefighters, who are an unarmed first line of defence. The law enforcement officers are protected under the Criminal Code, but the firefighters, doing a similar job under similar circumstances, are not. It is time our laws afforded protection for our firefighters, serving and protecting our communities in the line of duty.

    Firefighters have a job that already has an on-the-job mortality rate four times higher than that of other occupations. Mr. Chair, currently there are glaring deficiencies in the Criminal Code, which fails to afford firefighters, who put their lives at risk for the people, the same provisions under law as for on-duty police officers. There is a need for amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada to provide protections for our professional firefighters, who have a dangerous and hazardous job to do.

    When I wrote these concerns to the former justice minister, she thanked me for informing her of the importance of this public policy.

    So, Mr. Chair, motion 376, a copy of which you have in front of you, is intended to clearly and effectively convey the importance of the issue and lays out clearly the course of action the government has to take. This motion asks the federal government to take steps to amend the Criminal Code to protect firefighters. Since criminal law is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, the motion clearly falls within the power of this government.

    Also, Mr, Chair, M-376 asks the government to put criminal acts that injure or kill firefighters onto its legislative agenda to provide an effective deterrent against such actions. I sincerely believe that this motion deals with matters of significant public policy interest since our neighbourhoods are vulnerable to fire incidents at any time.

    Mr. Chairman, I have also received many letters of support for my motion from firefighter groups locally in Surrey, which is my constituency, and nationally. The International Association of Fire Fighters, on behalf of their 17,000 Canadian members, supports my motion and appreciates my efforts. To my knowledge, Mr. Chair, no other motion or bill has dealt with this issue so far in this session, although there is another private member's bill on the order paper that deals with the same topic.

    Finally, Mr. Chair, M-376 should be made votable since it goes beyond purely local interest, and other jurisdictions have already taken steps to correct this. For example, eight states in the United States have amended their criminal codes recently, and they have implemented those policies in their criminal codes. Firefighters, whether in New York or in Canada, deserve equal protection. Thus, I think that it only makes sense for Canada to bring itself in line by adopting M-376.

    There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Chair, that all parliamentarians would support an initiative like M-376 since it is a non-partisan issue. This motion is completely non-partisan and will serve our communities, constituencies of all members, thereby correcting an injustice to our firefighters.

    If it is made votable, then the wisdom of all members in the House will initiate an action on the government benches to amend the Criminal Code. Mr. Chair, I will be more than happy to answer any questions of the members of the committee, and in my opinion the committee members will use their wisdom to make this motion votable.

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any questions? Des questions?

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: I just have one small one. It says “that addresses the death or injury”, and I'm wondering how you're going to...death, everybody can understand that, but injury? How do you tie that in? I mean, it is a dangerous job.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Ritz, for asking that question. What happens is that when those organized criminals set booby traps and the firefighters become trapped, sometimes they are maimed or their bodies are injured or some part blows off because of the explosion.

    Of course, the Worker's Compensation Board can take care of that. But to deal with the issue I think the Criminal Code should be amended, not only for death but also for serious injuries that are caused by deliberate actions by those organized criminals or arsonists.

    The Chair: Yes, Bill.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: I just want to comment on this matter. It seems to me that the term “bodily injury” is a concept that's employed in the Criminal Code on a number of occasions, and probably has its own meaning within the context of the Criminal Code, so you could amend it.

    As someone who has done a lot of work with the IAFF, I just want to commend the member for bringing this forward. I know this is a matter of some concern to them, as are many of the other changes that they would like to see, which they persistently put before MPs in their national lobby day, which I think is coming up again.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: May I quickly comment on this?

    Mr. Chair, I had many motions and bills in my private member bin before the House on the Order Paper. I have particularly selected this motion because, as the honourable member has said, it is really important from the point of view of justice being done in the Criminal Code for the firefighters.

    Moreover, to address the issue of bodily harm, Mr. Chair, I am quite flexible. When the motion is before the House, I am open to any amendments to the motion or making it better by the wisdom of members. I am flexible as regards Criminal Code issues dealing with bodily harm or death.

    The Chair: Okay. That's it. Thank you very much.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity and thank all the members for patiently listening.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Murphy has been very patient. Then we'll go to Mr. St-Julien afterwards.

    Shawn, on Bill C-414. You've heard the rules--five and five. It's all yours.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. I'm presenting to this committee my private member's bill, Bill C-414. Ladies and gentlemen, it's an act that would designate the first week in the month of October in each and every year as verbal abuse prevention week across Canada. The reason I'm putting forward this bill, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, is to raise public awareness about the impact words have in our society. Verbal abuse is very much a component of emotional abuse and includes, but is not limited to, blaming, ridiculing, insulting, swearing, yelling, humiliating, and labelling.

    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we recognize that verbal abuse has emotional, educational, and health costs, and it's very much the precursor to abuse and violence. With all the recent suicides and incidents that we have with younger people across Canada and the United States, I believe we as legislators are compelled to raise awareness and develop prevention and education efforts on this whole issue in all our communities.

    The creation of a national verbal abuse prevention week addresses the first part of this necessary sequence of events, and that, Mr. Chairman, is to raise the awareness on the whole issue.

    When I initially undertook this issue, I received many letters of support from organizations, citizens, and legislators across the province of Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island has already adopted the same week as the verbal abuse prevention week in that province, and it's worked out very well, Mr. Chairman. It has raised the awareness.

    One of the letters of support that I did receive was from Ann Nicholson. She is the chair of the Eastern Kings Family Violence Prevention Committee. In her letter she stated that many of the victims of abuse that her organization has assisted over the years have described verbal and emotional abuse as the most devastating form of abuse they have experienced.

    Mr. Chairman, this type of abuse has no witnesses, there's no corroboration, it leaves no scars, there are no black eyes, but again, it does cause a lot of stress on the system. It affects the workplace--increased stress, anxiety, loss of self-esteem in one's professional competence, avoidance behaviour. It negatively affects interpersonal relationships and it causes loss of job satisfaction.

    However, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it's most devastating on children. Children depend on those who are closest to them for their own self-image. If children are told at an early age they're worthless, they come to believe that is true. And these negative feelings are very difficult to discard as children grow and mature. Children who experience verbal abuse may develop impaired ability to perceive, feel, understand, and express emotion.

    Mr. Chairman, research has indicated that abused children are more likely to become victims of abuse later in life, become abusive themselves, and/or become depressed and self-destructive later in life. A 1991 study on the effects of verbal abuse of children indicated that the more frequent the rate of verbal aggression by the parent, the greater the probability of physically aggressive or delinquent behaviour in that particular child.

    Mr. Chairman, it affects all levels of society and all age groups. It also goes beyond the direct victims. It causes pain in those who sit silently by and see their loved ones subject to abuse.

    Mr. Chairman, I believe this private member's bill will help set a process in motion raising awareness of the effects of verbal abuse. It will also increase the amount of education people have access to about the impact of words, which may then cause people to reflect on what they say to others.

º  (1615)  

    The bill can also promote better conflict resolution skills and highlight the need for better ways of solving problems--which all happen to be skills that are fundamental to crime prevention.

    And finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill may result in improved access to information for victims and perpetrators of verbal abuse and better education as to where Canadians can seek professional help.

    I believe the bill meets all five requirements that this committee considers. It's national in scope, it's non-partisan, and it's an issue that I believe we as legislators ought to consider in our job as parliamentarians.

    I'd be pleased to attempt to answer any questions you might have, and I thank you very much for your consideration.

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bellehumeur.

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: You want to designate a particular week as verbal abuse prevention week. It seems that just about every week on the calendar is dedicated to something or other.

    Do you know if legislation had to be enacted to designate persons with disabilities week? That's my first question.

    Secondly, while legislation is all well and good, the mere fact of having a law designating a particular week as verbal abuse prevention week won't necessarily achieve the results you're hoping for.

[English]

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Yes, I agree with you 100%. This is not going to be the be-all and end-all to the whole problem of verbal abuse. All this is, is one small step in the right direction.

    I agree with you that there are weeks, but this will allow parliamentarians, society, interest groups, organizations, schools, educators, the whole scheme of people, to put some focus onto the problem, which I think will gain awareness, and it is gaining awareness as we speak. This week will allow that focus to develop, and hopefully it will develop in public education, in public awareness.

    But again, I'll come back to my original statement. It's not going to solve the problem, but I think it is one step in the right direction.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: What was the answer to my first question?

[English]

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Was that about the different weeks?

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: And is legislation always required to designate a particular week or day as, for example, seniors day or crime prevention week?

    Must legislation be enacted, or is it more a matter of political will?

[English]

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: It's my understanding that it requires legislation, and these different weeks are coordinated by the Department of Canadian Heritage.

    The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: I have just a very brief comment, Mr. Chairman.

    Without prejudice to whether one thinks it should be a votable item or not, I think it's a good idea to have some debate on this matter, because it certainly runs contrary, and appropriately so, to the conventional wisdom for so many years, at least when I was a kid. We'd say sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me. It seems to me that there was always a kind of falsehood in that. Physical injury was the only kind of injury that really mattered, and emotional injury and injury to reputation and to self-esteem didn't really count. I think we've come a long way since that little rhyme, and your efforts in that regard are appreciated.

    The Chair: So it wasn't a question. It was just a....

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: I said it was a comment.

    The Chair: You were just backing him up. Do you have any questions?

[Translation]

Are there any further questions?

[English]

    That's it?

    Thank you very much, Shawn.

    Monsieur St-Julien.

[Translation]

    Mr. St-Julien, you're an old hand when it comes to procedural matters. By that I'm not alluding to your age, but to your experience.

    You have five minutes to make your presentation, following which there will be five minutes for questions.

    Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Why did I move immediately to table this motion as soon as the House of Commons reconvened? It was in response to demands from people in my region as well as in other resource regions. The motion calls for a federal economic development initiative for the Abitibi, Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean, James Bay, Nunavik, North Shore, Gaspé and Magdalen Islands regions. The Témiscamingue region will be added to this list.

    Why have we requested this initiative? Quebec already benefits from the Canada Economic Development Agency, Quebec which oversees economic development initiatives throughout Quebec. In recent years, a special economic development agency, FedNor, has been operating in Northern Ontario. The Maritimes have the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency while the West benefits from Western Economic Diversification Canada.

    In accordance with the list of criteria, this motion is constitutional and concerns an area of federal jurisdiction as well as a matters of public interest. The primary role of such an agency would be to coordinate the efforts of all departments. We know from experience that when an economic analysis is conducted in the regions, sometimes the outcome isn't known for two or three months. The findings go to Montreal, then on to Ottawa where the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. People in the field wonder why special criteria cannot be put in place for resource regions. FedNor and ACOA have special programs that target these regions, and even Northern Ontario. Mostly we understand that our resources are shipped to large urban centres in Quebec and that promoters cannot easily learn about certain program criteria.

    Programs are undergoing considerable change at the present time. I understand that there is cooperation in the case of certain programs initiatives, both from Quebec and from the federal government. Recently, Quebec opened a number of regional economic development offices. However, our objective in requesting an agency or federal initiative for those resource regions identified is to provide assistance at the second and third processing stages. Currently, this is difficult to do because very stringent criteria are applied.

    Hence our reason for wanting a set budget to be drawn up for these resource regions. We have nothing against large centres. We realize that they can be designated as special tax credit or taxation zones. However, a federal economic development initiative for resource regions similar to FedNor in Northern Ontario will help people find jobs.

    Currently, at the federal level, we're told that certain initiatives do not fit in well with the program. Yet, there's no problem with FedNor and ACOA programs, as we can see on the Internet.

    That's why I've chosen to table this motion first, on behalf of the public, workers and business people. Although I've tabled somewhere in the neighbourhood of 48 motions in the House of Commons. this one is especially important. At stake is the future of residents and business people who want to create jobs for the second, third and fourth processing stages.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St-Julien.

    Are there any questions?

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Can we amend the text of the motion to include the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region?

    Mr. Guy St-Julien: Yes, it's already mentioned in...

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Does this motion call for implementing...I recall not very long ago that during the election campaign, the government pledged $300 million to these regions. Is this the vehicle through which the $300 million committed to these regions in the 2000 federal election campaign will be invested?

    Mr. Guy St-Julien: During the last election campaign, no specific amount was mentioned.

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur:I recall a figure of $300 million being mentioned.

    Mr. Guy St-Julien: Some people mentioned the sum of $300 million, but I argued that a new initiative was needed. I never said: “I promise”. This initiative must be launched with the help of local residents. Reports from the Abitibi--Témiscamingue region and from Amos in particular told how business people were disheartened by the fact that in the case of refundable contributions, decisions are announced after a three-month wait. Yet, when these same business people turn to their bank managers, they can an answer in one week. In resource regions, managers can authorize loans of under $100,000. However, the aim of this initiative is to expand, in the case of resource regions, the level of financial assistance and coordination among all departments.

    We're well aware of what's happening right now. The economy is struggling in the Gaspé as well as along the North Shore and in the Magdelen Islands. Much was said about these problems during the election campaign. That's because locals were giving us an earful as well.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: Are there any further questions for Mr. St-Julien?

[English]

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: I have one short point, sir. The fifth bullet in the list of criteria says “cannot be addressed by the House in other ways”. We were hearing that there were things promised in the budget or in the election that did not happen. Is there no other way the House can address this type of thing? Would it take a motion to get their attention?

[Translation]

    Mr. Guy St-Julien: Yes, it's number 5 on the list of criteria.

    My motion is not partisan in nature, given that similar federal economic development initiatives have been launched in other regions. We're looking at all of Quebec's vast resource regions. My riding covers an area of 802,000 square kilometres and has few urban centres. La Tuque and Berthierville, where I attended college, are small communities in need of assistance on the economic development front. That's the message that was delivered to us many months ago, well before the election campaign.

    The best approach is to table a motion and to find solutions. That's why I would like us to vote on this motion. One hour isn't enough time to explain everything about Quebec's vast resource regions.

[English]

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Speller, how are you?

    Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant): I'm fine, thank you.

    The Chair: We have two simple rules--five minutes for your pitch, five minutes of questions, maximum. It's all yours.

    Mr. Bob Speller: I understand.

    The Chair: We're on Bill C-330.

    Mr. Bob Speller: It has been a number of years, because in the early years I put in a lot of different motions and bills and never, ever had one chosen to be voted upon. So I gave up a bit. Actually, I did have one motion given unanimous consent, but that was after my House leader and everybody was out of the House, and guys such as Bill here, from the other side, helped to get my motion agreed to with unanimous consent.

    But the one I have here is a bill. I've decided to come back and try again, because I was approached by members of the Royal Canadian Legion in my area and by a number of people who felt there was a need at this time to amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence to wilfully defile, deface, or burn the Canadian flag.

    A lot of that feeling came out of incidents that people saw in the past. We saw, for instance, the Quebec flag being stomped on at certain times. We've seen that done to the Canadian flag at the same time. It was felt by these people that the government needed to adjust this in some way.

    I know a number of people would say this has been debated before, and it has been debated before. But in fact when I looked through the previous bills, they decided they wanted to have a jail term for somebody who has done this. I've talked to a number of people and have come to the conclusion that in fact a jail term just wouldn't work. I don't think it would be appropriate for this offence. But certainly a $500 fine, which I propose for the first offence, and going up on a sliding scale to $15,000, would send a message to people that in fact Canadians in all parts of this country don't want to see something like this happen.

    I know some would argue too that this would violate the charter under section 2 in terms of freedom of speech. I believe it goes beyond that. I believe that in fact this is not an expression of speech. If someone has a disagreement with our government or governments in the future, I think most Canadians would agree that defiling the flag is not an appropriate way to express that displeasure. There are a number of different ways, and certainly all of us know about the one at the ballot box. I don't think you'd get any agreement amongst Canadians that defiling the flag is any way to express yourself.

    I'm looking through this, colleagues, because I had a student write this up for me, and I want to make sure that I use the work of these young people.

    In fact, what we're talking about here is patriotism. I think most Canadians would agree that patriotism cannot be forced on people. Certainly I don't think a law like this would help in that way, but I think most Canadians would feel that burning the flag would violate these values and this patriotism that people feel for our flag. I don't have to tell anybody here about the importance of the Canadian flag around the world. If you look around the world, many countries do have laws similar to this. This bill would bring Canada in line with those laws. In order to deal with this issue, which has been previously looked at, we need to have a vote in the House. I would ask for your support in doing that, not only in giving me my first opportunity after 13 years of having a vote on a private member's bill, but certainly giving everybody in this House an opportunity to show Canadians what they believe about these symbols.

    I'm not sure what they do in Quebec, but I'm sure after some of the incidents we've seen in the past, maybe some of the provinces themselves might want to follow suit, if we in this House led the way.

    I appreciate you giving me this opportunity, and I would be pleased to answer any of your questions.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Ritz.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: I have one point of clarification. When you talk about the Canadian flag, are you talking about one this big by this big, or are you talking about a flag on a T-shirt?

    Mr. Bob Speller: No, we're talking about the Canadian flag, as everybody would recognize it.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: There are all sizes, from this big right on through.

    Mr. Bob Speller: I understand that. I think a stand-alone flag is what we're trying to put there.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Okay. Thank you.

    The Chair: Are there any other questions?

    I have a question for you, Mr. Speller, if you will allow me. Are there any reasons you wouldn't include the provincial and territorial flags in your bill?

    Mr. Bob Speller: I don't believe we would have jurisdiction over that. I think it would be incumbent upon them to make that decision. I stuck solely with the Canadian flag. But I believe this would be an impetus for this to happen across the country. I would bet that if we did do this, you would very quickly see it being undertaken in the provinces.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Are there any other questions?

    Thank you.

    Mr. Bob Speller: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: I saw Mr. Thompson in here. We're on Bill C-252.

    Mr. Thompson.

    Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The bill was drafted by Darrel Stinson, but I'm standing in for him today.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I was just going to raise a point of order. Mr. Chairman, in the listing of people who are here, Mr. Thompson is listed as the member from Red Rose. It's Wild Rose, just for the record.

    The Chair: Yes, that's because of his nice disposition.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I thought it might be that.

    The Chair: You realize that, do you? It was also a question of saying “only in Canada”.

    We apologize, Mr. Thompson.

    Mr. Myron Thompson: That's okay. I'm sure that will work in my favour.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: Okay, C-252.

    Mr. Myron Thompson: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present this on behalf of Darrel, who is basking in the wonderful sunshine of Mexico as we speak. Spoilt little brat.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Why do you tell us these things?

    Mr. Myron Thompson: I don't know. Because there's no point in just me feeling bad, I guess.

    The purpose of this bill is to address statutory release in our Criminal Code. I'll just read the summary of the bill, to start it off:

    “The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that all inmates applying for statutory release establish that they are rehabilitated to an extent that public safety and the safety of individuals is not jeopardized by their being at large. It also requires all those on statutory release to be subject to a mandatory supervision order. Statutory release would not be granted if the offender has shown behaviour that raises reasonable doubt about public safety or the offender complying with a supervision order.”

    Basically, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I think that speaks for itself.

    In the tours through the various institutions over the last few years, there was one message we heard from the number of people who were working as parole officers or correctional case workers in the correctional institutions, whatever their capacity was. That message was how many times their work with an individual has forced them to indicate to the public at large, in whatever way they can, through the police or whatever method, that this particular individual should not be released, even though it is a statutory release date, for the safety of all Canadians.

    All of us in this room can probably think of some instances where the statutory release.... It was just too bad that it was done as a result of what they did once they were released. I can remember one of the first cases, when I was elected in 1993, and it's been a continuing thing. It was the case of Fernand Auger, who was released against the strong advice of the institution and case workers, and who eventually ended up being the killer of Melanie Carpenter. The Melanie Carpenter case attracted a lot of national attention. That's just one example of many that we have been dealing with over the last few years.

    We think of Kevin Machell, who killed his wife and mother-in-law in Summerland in an extremely violent manner. They were warned that he should not be released because he was not rehabilitated.

    Faulconer, a resident of Howard House in Vernon, met and moved in with a girlfriend on the west side. They said this person should not be released. They recommended strongly that they do something to retain him. You can't, under statutory release. The girl has been missing for some time. They suspect that she is dead and that he is responsible for her being missing and probably dead.

    There are just so many, too numerous to mention.

    A very recent repeat sex offender absolutely has proven to the authorities that he just was not ready for the real world, but statutory released caused him to be in the presence of people, where very quickly after his release he was once against under arrest for sexual assault.

    I don't believe the intention of this bill is to see to it that we don't provide statutory release, that it just not exist, because we often have that. But we must make certain that once we have made a decision that statutory release will apply to an individual, it be based on solid evidence from those who work with him or her on a daily basis, and that we have a strong assurance that this individual will not reoffend. Mandatory supervision would help in some of those cases where there might be some concern.

    We think the bill would do a great deal to enhance the safety of possible victims, and I think it's our elemental duty, as members of Parliament, to see to it that we take every measure we can to protect society.

º  (1645)  

    I would encourage you to make this votable and receive full debate in the House of Commons. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any questions? Bill.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: I wonder if Mr. Stinson is studying the Mexican prison system.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: From the inside?

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: He could be on the inside. I don't know.

    Mr. Myron Thompson: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Stoffer, it's all yours. You have five minutes to pitch and five minutes to answer. We're on M-6.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore, NDP): Yes. Thank you, colleagues.

    Remembrance Day motion M-6 would make November 11, our Remembrance Day, a statutory holiday throughout the entire country. This has been debated and discussed before. Many Canadians assume that Remembrance Day is already a statutory holiday, and it's not. It is for federal government employees.

    Some provinces have initiated holidays for their provincial employees. In a lot of cases, where a workplace is unionized, the union has negotiated November 11 to be a statutory holiday, in that regard. We don't have it nationally, but our neighbours to the south, the United States, do.

    Just to give you some points of fact as well, during the two world wars and Korea, Canada lost more soldiers, men and women, than the United States. The area of greatest loss was the province we welcomed into Confederation in 1949, Newfoundland and Labrador, which lost even more, if you go per capita. If you combine all of that, we lost a tremendous amount of our future on the battlefields of Europe, Asia, and everywhere else.

    The reality is that World War I has been cited as the defining moment for Canada, in that regard. We have very few World War I veterans or their immediate spouses with us today. We lose approximately 70 veterans of World War II and their spouses every day. Those are Legion statistics that we have out now.

    I believe that making November 11 a national statutory holiday would do a great service to those people who are left--the thousands of men and women who have served in our armed forces. It would also be a small recognition to all their families and descendants.

    With a personal note on my own family, I was born in Holland. My father was a prisoner of war. If it wasn't for the Canadian sacrifice, I wouldn't be before you today. My parents and oldest brother were liberated by the Canadian military in the liberation of Holland in 1945. My dad was a POW at that time.

    In 1956, when the decision to move to Canada came through because of economic reasons, my father said “If they have a military like that, can you imagine what kind of country they come from?”

    So as their descendant in the House of Commons, being in the chamber where the decision was made to send troops over, the least I can do, with my colleagues in the House of Commons, is say thank you to those veterans and their descendants by trying to initiate, with the assistance of my colleagues in the House, having Remembrance Day, once and for all, a national statutory holiday.

    I know the issue of cost comes up from the business community. In the United States they have a national holiday, and 85% of our economy is with them now. They don't seem to be too concerned about the cost of recognizing their veterans.

    To the business community, or those who would oppose it, I would say that if it wasn't for the sacrifice of our Canadian men and women, they probably wouldn't be operating their businesses today. I honestly believe that in my dialogue with many businesses, they said they would have no problem at all supporting this type of motion.

    I've received letters from throughout the country from various Legions and organizations. The Conference of Defence Associations, with over 600,000 members, are fully supportive of this measure.

    In conclusion, I ask for your support in making this a votable motion for proper debate, especially at this time when we have troops overseas. The end responsibility of any government is that our men and women in the troops pay the ultimate liability to their country. At any given moment, at any notice, they lay their lives on the line for you and me. We, as parliamentarians, should pay the ultimate responsibility to them, ensuring that their care, equipment, and families are well looked after.

    As an act of remembrance, making this a national statutory holiday would be a great symbol and a great honour to those who came before us, and those who will come after us.

    I'd be happy to take any questions at this time. Merci beaucoup.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any questions?

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I don't doubt, Peter, that we can't do enough to recognize those people who have served, and as the veterans try to continue on with their commemoration ceremonies there are fewer and fewer of them left every year and we all in common have attended many of these ceremonies.

    I do understand from the local legions in my area, and I apologize I don't know the exact names of the different levels of the Canadian Legion leading up to their national body, that this is an issue that is before them at present, at the provincial or national level. It's making its way up, and I know it's something I was told I would be kept informed of because I inquired some time ago, before I even knew you had this particular item before us.

    So I'm wondering, do you have any position from the Canadian Legion national body, any official position?

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: The command of the Legion, who are in Ottawa, right now are studying the debate. What they're getting from legions across the country is that the ones outside Ontario are supportive in most cases, but for some reason in Ontario the debate still rages regarding making it a national holiday.

    To this date when you ask command, or when you phone them, or when you call other legions, or for example when I spoke to many legionnaires at the Legion convention in Halifax on this question, they to date can't understand why and when you speak to those from Ontario for some reason they seem to skirt around the issue and don't want to debate it.

    I can't give you a definitive answer, but they are debating this. I believe eventually you'll see a recommendation from the command to make this a statutory holiday, but I believe that if parliamentarians show leadership in this issue and bring it to a debate you'll have an answer from them a lot sooner.

    The Chair: Loyola.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I have more or less an observation, Mr. Chairman, that in Newfoundland it is a statutory holiday and one that's kept on the nearest month, one that's kept on the actual date. And in our case in one of the famous battles, at Beaumont Hamel, our troops went over the top and only 13% answered roll call the next morning, so you see why we do it. But that's true right across this great country, and as people get older, as I mentioned before, we're on the brink of almost forgetting the sacrifice made by a lot of our people, and I don't think that should ever happen. So I congratulate the member on his initiative.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Any other questions?

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: As far as November 11 is concerned, you drew some comparisons with the United States. Do you know how many statutory holidays there are in the United States compared to Canada? I would imagine they don't celebrate the Queen's Birthday in the United States.

[English]

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: That is true, my friend. I'm sure, though, that if they had a monarchy they may have that day, but they also have Presidents' Day in the United States, they have Martin Luther King Day. They have many holidays that we don't in this country because of their culture and their historical preference as to who they wish to honour at whatever time.

    In terms of this particular one, Remembrance Day, I might say that many Acadians and many Quebeckers participated in the conflicts as well, and I believe, putting that aside on the provincial levels, this is one issue that all Canadians from coast to coast, be they francophone or anglophone or allophone, for that matter, can support. In many of my conversations with the veterans of Quebec they are extremely supportive of this type of initiative.

    The Chair: Other questions?

    Thank you, Peter.

º  (1655)  

    Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Good day, Mr. Bergeron. Are you running late today, or do you have a little time to spare? I'm wondering because Mr. Breitkreuz was scheduled to appear earlier, but was delayed.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères--Les-Patriotes, BQ): No problem. That's fine.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Bergeron is early. Mr. Bergeron, you know our little way of doing things--five minutes for your pitch and five minutes for questions. You're on.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton--Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

    I apologize. I was at a procedure and House affairs steering committee and it ran considerably longer than we thought.

    The Chair: You're on motion M-426.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, and to just review, the motion I'm advocating that you make votable is one I tabled on December 5, which was:

    “That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights fully examine the effectiveness of property rights protection for Canadian citizens as provided in the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and report back to the House whether or not the federal laws protecting property rights need to be amended in order to comply with the international agreements Canada has entered into, including Article 17 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states: '1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property'.”

    The key thing here that I would like you to note is that this would be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We need adequate property protection for citizens in this country, and there have been serious questions raised about this in recent times.

    I would like to point out that one of the things that is really essential to having a healthy economy is to have proper property rights protection, and the question has been raised frequently, in regard to our trading partners, of why we don't have that protection. It was omitted from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In my opinion, that needs to change, so I would like to see it properly debated in the House.

    I would like to just briefly quote, with your indulgence, the editorial that appeared across the country this January. This was in all the Southam newspapers. They said that an omission of property rights from the Charter of Rights is a grave omission:

    “The right to acquire, use, enjoy and transfer property--land, buildings, vehicles, intellectual property and more--is fundamental to liberty. And Canadians are naive to rely on governments to respect ownership rights without a constitutional guarantee, considering their patchy record. Aboriginal Canadians on reserves live with the corruption and economic desperation that accompanies insecure rights to property.”

    I would like to pause there for a moment. We are not dealing just with general property rights. There are specific groups within our country that are being severely disadvantaged because we don't have that entrenched in our charter of rights and our Bill of Rights.

    Citizens of Japanese descent saw their property confiscated and sold during the Second World War. Prairie farmers have been jailed for exporting their own grain grown on their own land. I can cite other things that are in this article, but I have only five minutes.

    Private property rights serve two purposes. They have an economic utility and they help guarantee political liberty, and that is something that most people don't realize. In order for a democracy to work in a healthy and effective manner, you have to have property rights. I can't go through all the arguments at this point. That's not my purpose here.

    I know how this committee operates. You need not hear all the arguments, because that's the purpose of debating this in the House. You have to know why it should be votable, so I rest my case. I have tried to do this previously. I've had many items come before this committee, more than a dozen, so I'm under no illusions. I have never had an item accepted as votable. I hope this time it will be different.

    Thank you.

»  (1700)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Are there any questions? Mr. Blaikie.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: One of the criteria for whether or not a motion or a bill is votable is whether or not it's constitutional and falls within federal jurisdiction. I would seek the member's comment on the fact that in the eyes of a lot of Canadians, particularly provincial governments, the whole issue of property rights is a matter for provincial jurisdiction. In fact, it's one of the reasons it's not in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As one who was here during that debate in 1981, there was an openness on the part of the Liberal government of the time to include property rights in the charter. It was opposed by, if you like, the right wing in Parliament at the time, because it was seen as an intrusion on provincial jurisdiction.

    I know you're here as a private member, but I just say by way of interest that given your own party's disposition to protect provincial jurisdiction, it's somewhat ironic that you want the federal government to do this with regard to property rights.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: With all due respect, Mr. Blaikie, your interpretation of the events is not what I have read. Two provincial governments blocked that. As you know, all provincial governments had to agree to the charter. That did not happen. And those provincial governments were on the left side of the spectrum.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: That's not the way I recall it.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Anyway, you're getting into a debate on this--

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: There was a left-wing objection to it as well, but there was a jurisdictional aspect.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That is something that can come up when we debate this in the House. I'm asking that this be referred to committee, and I think that's a legitimate request. I don't think this committee is in the position to debate the merits of whether or not we should have property rights. We're getting into that, and I don't think that's where we should go with this.

    I have put forward a case as to why it should be done. The charter and some provinces have property rights, but none of the provinces can protect the citizens of Canada from the federal government. The federal government has also to bring in property rights that apply to all citizens. I gave an example of people who come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and that's the aboriginal people. They desperately need this. We're going to have a lot of problems within our country unless we get the fundamentals right, and that's what I'm arguing for right here.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Are there any other questions?

    Mr. Blaikie.

[English]

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I wasn't trying to enter into a debate about the merits of the motion. I was trying to enter into a discussion about the jurisdictional matter, which is one of the criteria we're called upon to consider.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I appreciate that.

    Some provinces have protections for their own province, but they can't do anything about the federal jurisdiction. What I'm suggesting here is that we take a look at the area of the federal government.

    The Chair: You're looking at it with the eyes of the federal government.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Exactly.

    It should be in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in my opinion. But that's up to the committee to decide.

    The Chair: Are there any other questions? No.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you for your patience and for allowing me to come late.

[Translation]

    The Chair: We apologize for the five minute delay.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No problem. I'll give it another try.

»  (1705)  

    The Chair: We can do better than that, Mr. Bergeron. You have five minutes to speak to the committee about Bill C-388.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the sub-committee.

    I'm pleased to appear before the sub-committee to present Bill C-388. Indeed, it's a pleasure for me to see you again, Mr. Chairman, this time in your capacity of sub-committee chair. My last appearance ended on a relatively positive note, even though the outcome in the House was not what I had hoped for.

    This being said, getting back to the bill, the purpose of the proposed legislation is to regulate the conduct of ministers with respect to conflict of interest situations while in office and post-employment. The bill provides for a code of ethics primarily based on the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders and the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom. The code would be incorporated into the body of Canadian laws. Failure to abide by the code's provisions could result in sanctions.

    The bill also provides for the appointment of an ethics commissioner who would report directly to the House of Commons and would be empowered to hold inquiries and to report on the application of the code of ethics and the provisions of this bill. The Liberal Party had in fact pledged to bring in this initiative back in 1993.

    Mr. Chairman, this bill is the result of several years of work, not only by my staff but also by the legislative staff at the House of Commons. As I noted in my introductory remarks, this bill is based primarily on the existing code of conduct in Canada and on the code of conduct in force in the British Parliament, the mother of all parliaments, as some of my anglophone colleagues like to say. Therefore, in every respect, this bill upholds the British parliamentary tradition in the purest sense of the word.

    I'll spare you the details, Mr. Chairman, and focus rather on the main provisions of the bill.

    The bill lists the various obligations of ministers, incompatible offices, statements that must be filed as well as prohibited activities.

    In the section dealing with statements, mention is made obviously of the statement of the minister's private interests and the statement of divestment, along with post-employment compliance measures, which are very important, Mr. Chairman. The bill also describes the penalties that can be imposed for failure to comply with the bill's provisions or with the code of ethics.

    Of course, Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that if there was even the slightest suspicion on the part of the ethics commissioner that some criminal acts had been committed, the commissioner would obviously notify the appropriate police authorities and put the matter in their hands.

    The ethics commissioner would be more than just a watchdog responsible for ensuring compliance with the legislation and the code of ethics. The ethics commissioner would also serve as a legal consultant, as is the case at the Quebec National Assembly. He would be available to ministers to advise them on their obligations under the act and the code.

    Acting in this capacity, the ethics commissioner could assist ministers in the task of drafting statements. The legislation provides for an annual meeting between each minister and the ethics commissioner and a minister may request a meeting with the ethics commissioner with a view to having him clarify certain provisions of either the code of ethics or of the act.

    Mr. Chairman, in light of the many debates in recent years on government integrity and transparency, it's important for Parliament to enact this proposed legislation which, I dare say, will help to restore the public's faith in government institutions. I know that this is a concern that is near and dear to all of us.

    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am fully confident that you will give this bill favourable consideration.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

    Are there any questions?

    Mr. Ritz.

[English]

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Excellent. Very well put together.

    We're been waiting a long time for a commissioner who reports to the House, as opposed to the Prime Minister. You certainly have that in here.

    You talk about tabling the report within five sitting days and a reply within 15 days. Are those arbitrary dates, or was there a reason for that?

»  (1710)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In some respects, these are rather arbitrary dates. It was necessary to set a deadline for the tabling of the commissioner's report and for receiving a reply, based on parliamentary precedent. For example, on looking at the provisions in the bill respecting the Auditor General's report or the Chief Electoral Officer's report, we see that they are similar, albeit not identical.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

    Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

    This is my first meeting and my first time on this committee.

    I'm just quickly looking at the bill, the introduction page, which says “An Act to regulate conflict of interest situations for ministers and to provide for a code of ethics for ministers”.

    When I look at number four under the list of criteria for private members' business, it says:

    “Bill and motions should concern issues that are not part of the government's current legislative agenda and which have not been voted on or otherwise addressed by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament.”

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Excuse me. When you say “number four”, you're talking about...?

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: It's the list of criteria under--

[Translation]

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's correct, the criteria for the committee.

[English]

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Yes.

    If you look at the second part of that “and which have not been voted on or otherwise addressed by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament”, your personal views and my personal views aside, was this not dealt with in this session of Parliament, the appointment of an independent ethics...?

[Translation]

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No. To my knowledge, this matter was not discussed by the committee and was not addressed by any Member of Parliament during the current session. Perhaps on analyzing the matter closely, you may be able to ascertain whether or not it this question has in fact been addressed. Based on my inquiries, I don't believe the subject-matter was addressed during the current session of Parliament.

[English]

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: It was an Alliance motion.

    The Chair: I believe it was an opposition day motion.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Again, that issue aside, I'm just looking for clarification. Has it been dealt with in this session?

[Translation]

    The Chair: Any other questions?

    Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It was my pleasure.

    The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur.

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Perhaps the question arose at some point during an opposition day. However, criteria number four refers to “issues that are not part of the government's current legislative agenda...” This is not necessarily a reflection of the government's position.

    The Chair: If we continue, however, the text goes on to say this: “...and which have not been voted on [...] by the House of Commons...”

    Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That's right, the “...government's current legislative agenda and which have not been voted on or otherwise addressed by the House of Commons.” The reference is always to the government.

    The Chair: Thank you. We'll discuss this further later on.

[English]

    Mr. Keddy.

    Is that your fan club out there?

    Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC/DR): They're there for you guys. I have no idea what's going on, but there are a lot of them.

    The Chair: You have five minutes for your pitch and five minutes for questions.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chair, Jay Hill had item number 16, which was before you folks today. Just before I speak to my own motion, which there are some difficulties with, I would speak very briefly to Mr. Hill's motion. It was item number 16, private member's motion M-122, giving landed immigrants the right to vote in federal elections.

    Mr. Bill Blaikie: We don't have it on the list that was circulated to us.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: As all members are aware--

    The Chair: Hold on just a second.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Sure.

»  (1715)  

    The Chair: Okay, go ahead.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm debating the motion?

    The Chair: Yes, sir.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay.

    Just very quickly, it discusses the rights of landed immigrants, who most of us, or I'm sure all of us, realize have the rights of any Canadian citizen except the right to vote. I think, in some jurisdictions, at least municipally, they can hold public office, but I don't believe they can provincially or federally.

    Jay's motion is on the basis that landed immigrants pay taxes and therefore should be able to vote in federal elections.

    I'm here on behalf of my own motion. I did tell Mr. Hill that I would present the facts on his and certainly implore the jury here to find motion M-122 votable.

    The Chair: Okay, so we're back on track.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

    The motion I put forth I would still like to have as a votable motion. I would tell the chair and the members on the committee here that it's my intention to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to change the wording once I'm in the House.

    I put this motion in some time ago, and the wording actually says:

    “That in the opinion of this House, the Canadian Mint should restore the schooner Bluenose to the Canadian ten-cent coin immediately in the year 2001 as an uninterrupted commemoration of our seafaring and fisheries heritage.”

    Of course, 2001, if anyone hasn't noticed, has slipped by, and it's time to change the wording. Once it's in the House, I would ask for unanimous consent to change that. I can't do that here, so I have to present the motion I have.

    The history of the Bluenose.... The ship was built in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. The first Bluenose was launched on March 26, 1921, by Smith and Rhuland Shipyard. It was built to participate in the dory fishery on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, but it was also built to participate in the International Fisherman's Schooner Race. She spent a year fishing to meet the race requirements, and in the race she beat the competition out of Gloucester in the United States.

    It should be known--and I'll try not to take too much time on this--that the life expectancy of a fishing schooner at that time was approximately ten years. The Bluenose lasted for over twenty as a working vessel. She spent World War II with a converted diesel engine, owned by a West Indian trading company, and was eventually wrecked on a reef near Haiti in the West Indies in January of 1946.

    I don't think there are many Canadians who need to be told about the history of the schooner Bluenose, but the replica, Bluenose II, was launched July 24, 1963, and was later bought by the Province of Nova Scotia for a dollar. It is certainly a good ambassador for Canada all around the world. It has participated in a number of sailpasts and a number of sailing races from England, from Europe to Canada, and around the world. It has gone around Cape Horn a number of times. It's sailed in the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Arctic, and the Indian Oceans. The Bluenose II has been a great ambassador for the country.

    On the issue of having a continuation of theBluenose on the coin, I understand you don't make issues simply voting on the basis that they're a local issue. This is much more than a local issue, although theBluenose was built in Lunenburg, in the South Shore riding. The image has graced the coin since 1937.

    There has been some argument that this is simply a replica of a fishing schooner, yet the book The Royal Canadian Mint and Canadian Coinage--Striking Impressions, by J. A. Haxby, speaks about the coin designed by Emmanual Hahn--another good South Shore name--as being modelled primarily if not exclusively after the famous Nova Scotian ship the Bluenose and as being a prime representative of Canada's seafaring tradition and heritage.

    The Bluenose was removed from the Canadian dime for one year, in 1967, and again last year. The argument would be that the Bluenose would be put back on the ten-cent coin, and it's back on the ten-cent coin now. However, even to remove it for a year sets a dangerous precedent, and it's certainly a concern to me and to a number of people in the riding. I have a fair number of petitions, particularly from Nova Scotians but from other Canadians as well, asking that the Bluenose be put back on the dime. As I've said, it has.

    I do think it qualifies for a votable motion. It concerns an issue of national importance, as the Bluenose is a nationally recognized symbol, and the Bluenose II continues to represent Canada as a sailing ambassador around the world.

»  (1720)  

    The decision to change the designs of Canadian coinage affects all Canadians. There's a significant public interest, as I talked about. Certainly it's non-partisan and more than just a local issue, as The Bluenose is a national icon--the only non-human being, if I may say, that has been inducted into the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame.

    Decisions concerning images depicted on Canadians' coinage affect not only coin collectors, but every Canadian because of their prevalence, durability, and common usage. And I may also say that there are other coins far more collectible than the dime--the fifty-cent piece, and certainly the silver dollar--that can be changed and have been changed with some regularity, and I would think much more suitably, than the ten-cent piece.

    Anyway, I would ask that you consider my petition to you. I realize the wording is a bit awkward with the year 2001 in there. It's my intention to correct that with unanimous consent in the House, or maybe it's just a matter of putting “from the year 2001” in front of it.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Are there any questions?

    Thank you very much.

    In regard to M-383, you have a copy of a letter that was addressed to us by Mrs. Wayne.

    We will now go in camera.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]