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, October 3, 2001

• 1540

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): I now call the meeting to order.

We're going to allow Mr. Breitkreuz to put his comment on the record. Mr. Hill has the floor.

Is it all right, Mr. Hill, if we make you wait for a moment?

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, PC/DR): Yes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I sit here in protest at what we're doing. I do not believe this committee should be deciding the fate of these bills. I believe all private members' bills should be made votable if the person submitting it wants it to be that way.

By participating in this process, I'm actually sanctioning it. As you know, the House passed a motion last June to examine this entire issue. I just don't agree with what we're doing here.

I will be submitting a minority report that will go along with the report of this committee. So I do not wish to participate in any way in deciding what things.... I think that is an affront to democracy, to what goes on in the House.

Everybody should have a right, if they wish, to have their issue debated in the House of Commons and then voted on. So I really am not in favour of what we're doing here today.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Jamie has just pointed out to me that the Standing Orders require us to meet within ten days of the draw, so that's why we're meeting today. Until such time as the House decides to change the way they have votability on private members' bills, we're going to have to continue with what we're doing.

The other thing Jamie pointed out is that a minority report isn't automatic. In fact, the committee, at the end of the debate, will vote on whether they can attach your minority report. Of course, you can always bring it up in the procedure committee as a notice.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes. Can you do that now, decide whether I can have a minority report?

The Chair: I don't see why not.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay.

The Chair: I'm coming back to you, Mr. Hill.

Does anybody here have any objections to Mr. Breitkreuz's putting a minority report in to the procedure committee?

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Yes, I do.

The Chair: Or a subcommittee.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: A minority report as to the substance of a committee's report is one thing, but a minority report that recommends that the committee do something that's not within its power is not a minority report; it's a report that's outside the purview of the committee. Therefore, I don't think the committee should allow it.

Is Mr. Breitkreuz speaking on behalf of the Canadian Alliance here, or is he speaking on behalf of himself? Either way, I'd like to know why the Canadian Alliance is sending somebody to this committee who doesn't want to do his job, because the job here is to pick which motions will be votable, not to extend a debate that should be taking place somewhere else—and which has taken place somewhere else—to an inappropriate venue, which is this committee.

This committee may someday not exist if Mr. Breitkreuz has his way. Fair enough. But he hasn't got his way yet. So the committee exists to do a job that it has been mandated to do by the House. If he doesn't want to do his job, then he should get out and send somebody in here who wants to do the job, but he certainly shouldn't be filing any minority report.

The Chair: Okay. We operate by consensus, and we have a strong objection. So there will not be an official minority report. But what I would recommend you do, if you want to bring this subject up at the procedure committee, is give a notice of discussion at the procedure committee and have it discussed there.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Chair, consensus doesn't mean unanimous.

The Chair: No, but actually I agree with Mr. Blaikie. We've all debated this thing since I was elected in 1993. We've been around the tree 56 times. Each time we've put a survey out, and each time we haven't had a definitive response, even from within our own members.

We have a committee struck to look at revamping the rules of the House. If they have not included this as a recommendation in their report next week, then I don't know how many times you can beat it to death.

If you choose not to participate, that's your choice. As I suggested to you, you could probably find something more interesting to do than sit here if you're not going to vote.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: So can I.

The Chair: We have a lot of people waiting patiently, who have other timetables, and we would like to hear from them.

Mr. Hill, do you have a brief remark on this?

• 1545

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes, I do. I think many members from both sides of the House, from all parties, agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Breitkreuz. As well, I think the mandate of this committee is inappropriate in the sense that all private members' business motions and bills that are lucky enough to be drawn should be votable, and I want that on the record as well at the outset.

But bearing in mind what Mr. Blaikie said, and what the chair said, I will be participating, even though it's under protest. Perhaps all the members from all the parties who are sitting present in this room would agree, and I guess we're all sort of under protest, but we do have a job to do—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm not here under protest.

Mr. Jay Hill: —so let's get on with it.

The Chair: I'm only here under protest because I keep getting stuck with chairing this, and I keep protesting so they'll give me something really neat.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, let the record show that I'm not here under protest—at least not about that.

The Chair: No, I'm not under protest at all.

Actually—and I've expressed my fear before—if we make everything votable, then nothing is important any more.

We're going to continue. Boy, does that ever put you guys in a good frame of mind before you come up here and present. Nobody wants to vote for you, so you might as well just forget it.

Anyway, we will start with our first presenter, Ms. Lill.

Rest assured, all of you who are sitting there, we will be making the proper selections today. We will be making selections.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much for taking the time to listen to me. I come before you today with Motion 372, that in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize and uphold, in its treatment of requests for the royal prerogative of mercy, the principles that the lives of all Canadians, including the lives of persons with disabilities, must be treated and be perceived to be treated equally under the law.

I brought this motion forward after an outpouring of concern from persons with disabilities after the death of Tracey Latimer and the subsequent conviction of her father, Robert Latimer. What led me to formulate the motion were the actual words of the Supreme Court on January 18, 2001, which upheld the life sentence of Latimer but also suggested that, given the difficulties surrounding minimum sentencing, an application for the royal prerogative of mercy was a possibility. I have the relevant sections of the judgment here for distribution in both languages.

I'm putting forward this motion because I think Parliament should have the ability to give cabinet advice on the principles by which the royal prerogative of mercy should be used. I'd like to mention the way I believe this motion meets the criteria of private members' business.

It meets the first criterion that motions must be drafted in clear, complete, and effective terms. This motion specifically sets out the parameters that the cabinet should use when looking at granting mercy. The motion does not deal with any specific case, because that would not be appropriate for Parliament. But given that the lawyer for Robert Latimer has said that an appeal for clemency will be coming forward within the next year, this is timely for the cabinet; it's timely for Parliament to give cabinet advice on this principle as soon as possible.

It also meets criterion two, that motions be constitutional and concern areas of federal jurisdiction. This motion is entirely constitutional. I would suggest that it reinforces the section guaranteeing equality for Canadians with disabilities. I know from personal experience that many parents of children with disabilities feel that even if government support fails them, the charter is there to protect their rights.

It meets criterion three, that motions should concern matters of significant public interest. In the words of the Supreme Court, the court's role is to determine the questions of law that arise in this appeal. The matter of executive clemency remains in the realm of the executive, and it is discussed later in these reasons.

The law has a long history of difficult cases. We recognize that the questions that arise in Mr. Latimer's case are the sort that have divided Canadians and have sparked a national discourse. This judgment will not end this discourse. According to the website robertlatimer.com, in discussions with people close to the family it is understood that an application for clemency will come much sooner than the two years that was speculated upon in the days immediately after the Supreme Court released its decision. This is primarily because of the overwhelming support for Robert Latimer and his family shown by the Canadian public.

• 1550

I think there's no question that this issue has significant interest and certainly significant interest to people with disabilities, who are very nervous about this petition for leniency.

It also meets criterion four, that motions should concern issues that are not part of the government's current legislative agenda and that have not been voted on or otherwise addressed by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament. The government has said nothing on the specific case of Mr. Latimer. In this Parliament there has been one statement in the House from the member from Elk Island and four petitions have been presented on the issue. There is no listing in the Hansard index for clemency, executive clemency, or the royal prerogative of mercy. This silence in Parliament is in sharp contrast to the debate that is raging across the country on this issue.

Finally, I believe this motion meets criterion five, 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 can assure this committee that the concept of clemency and disability is not a local issue nor is it a partisan one. I dare to say that all parties in the House will have divisions on this matter, and it makes it truly a private member's item.

Thank you. I would be glad to entertain any questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Lill.

Just so it's clear in my own mind, currently an application for clemency goes to the Governor General. The Governor General then dispatches it to the relevant minister. You're suggesting that in the relevant minister's considerations there should be a debate in the House?

Ms. Wendy Lill: My understanding is that the requests for the royal prerogative of mercy find their way to the cabinet—

The Chair: Right.

Ms. Wendy Lill: —and what I am saying is that Parliament should instruct cabinet on a very important principle around leniency, and this is that the lives of all Canadians, including the lives of persons with disabilities, be treated and perceived to be treated equally under the law. I'm not trying to be obscure here. I'm basically trying to put in words that are non-inflammatory the fact that if there is a large percentage of Canadians who are threatened, who feel strongly threatened by this issue of leniency being addressed by cabinet for this case, then they have to be given some guarantee that their concerns are going to be—

The Chair: What you're saying is it's a one-time only instruction rather than—

Ms. Wendy Lill: No, I would not say it's a one-time only instruction. I would say that I would gather that, as with any kind of request made, this would become a criterion by which the cabinet would make their decisions, and I would imagine others could be included as the need is demonstrated.

The Chair: Mr. Hill

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Ms. Lill.

I'm trying to understand what is it that leads you to believe that the government or the cabinet wouldn't already consider that all lives are equal when a request for mercy comes before them now under the present law. By imposing this principle that the lives of all Canadians, including ones with disabilities, must be treated equally, something must lead you to believe that presently they wouldn't consider all people to be treated equally.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I believe there is a groundswell for leniency for Latimer. We have all seen petitions across the country. We have seen them in our offices. I have had them in my offices. I have also had a lot of concern expressed to me from disability groups, from persons with disabilities, that any kind of show of leniency for Latimer would in fact be a direct threat to their own security, to their own sense of security under the law.

I'm not going to say one way or the other what is the truth, but this is something we have to give these people; we have to give persons with disabilities a very strong message that their concerns are going to be addressed when this request for mercy goes behind closed doors in the cabinet and it's going to be considered.

• 1555

Mr. Jay Hill: In other words, if I understand you correctly, there is nothing that would lead you to believe that the government, in acting on a request for mercy, wouldn't already consider that the lives of everybody are equally important and they would already consider that. What you're seeking here is to put this down as binding on them; it's really meant to reassure people with disabilities, just in case the government wasn't to treat everybody equally.

Ms. Wendy Lill: It is a concern I have that at this point in time the optics—we know this battle is being fought out in the public, and we're not immune from it. We who are sitting in the House of Commons are all being buffeted about by the issue. It is very important to me to be able to give assurance to persons with disabilities that they are not going to be rolled over on this very emotional issue, which is now being played out in the media. I never feel that there is ever too much assurance given to minority groups, to people who are threatened or marginal in society, so I guess that would be the....

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Lill, I have somewhat the same...

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill: Sorry.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I was sure you were perfectly bilingual.

The Chair: I was thinking the same thing. I watched her and I thought—

Ms. Wendy Lill: I know I look that way, but—

Mr. Michel Guimond: Excuse me.

The Chair: We were impressed.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I'm sure your French is as good as my English is. I'm from a francophone region.

Mr. Jay Hill: We all wish we were.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I merely wanted to show that I shared the concerns of my colleague Mr. Hill in so far as identifying a particular category goes. I assume that if this matter is examined by the Governor in Council and by Cabinet, the views of all Canadians will be... We could identify various categories. There have already been cases of crimes committed by the police involving the murder of natives. Would this mean that if the perpetrator of the crime could obtain a pardon, the life of a native person would be deemed to be of lesser value? This is a rather delicate matter.

My second concern is your reference to the Latimer ruling. To my knowledge, Mr. Latimer himself did not request clemency. I recall one question put to the Prime Minister in the House. Mr. Latimer did not personally ask for clemency. In fact, he told groups offering to defend him that he considered it normal that he should serve the two-year minimum sentence imposed on him and then after that, he would see what might happen.

Would you care to comment?

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill: There's no doubt this is a sensitive matter. What I am trying to do with this motion is to give Parliament an opportunity to reflect on the royal prerogative of mercy, on the implications it can have in an incredibly volatile case that's in the middle of the news and playing on people's emotions. I'd like them to be able to reflect on that. I think it's important for people with disabilities. I certainly think it's important for native people. I think it's important for all Canadians to feel that they are being protected under the law. I don't believe that's the case now. I've had some very strong demonstrations that people do not feel protected under the law. This is an opportunity for parliamentarians to discuss that very concerning issue that people are not feeling safe under the law. That's where I'm coming from on this, and I rest my case on that.

The Chair: Ms. Lill, you're doing a great job, but your answers are a bit long and you have a holding pattern behind you like Pearson International Airport, so if we could just keep the questions brief and keep the answers brief. I'm really sorry. This is our fault because we took a while getting started.

Mr. Breitkreuz, who is not voting, is going to ask you a question.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I thought he wasn't participating.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): If we know offhand that he's not going to participate, why should we let him intimidate, or question, or ask anything of the members?

• 1600

The Chair: Mr. Guimond, on a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: On a point of order, Madam Chair, I do not pretend to speak for Mr. Breitkreuz, as he is quite capable of defending himself. Earlier, as a sign of openness and intellectual honesty, he informed us that he did not intend to vote. I could decide to do exactly the same thing. I could keep my options open and for some reason, when the time came to vote, I could leave. I think Mr. Breitkreuz was honest in revealing his intentions to us.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: He stated his position for the record.

Mr. Michel Guimond: He is a member of the committee. Perhaps he will find the whole process so exciting that he will decide to vote later. Let's give him a chance.

[English]

The Chair: Have you withdrawn your point of order, Mr. Proulx?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Sure.

The Chair: Okay. Continue, quickly, with one question, please.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Oh, with a question—

The Chair: Yes. I made my ruling.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: The whole reason for this discussion is that we want not so much to look at the merits of your bill, but to decide whether it's votable. Do you have any evidence to suggest that Canadians want us to debate this issue in Parliament fully and then vote on it?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Could you tell me what issue you're talking about?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: The particular issue you raised before this committee. Do you feel there is enough interest out there, that it has merit to be debated fully in Parliament? Do you think the Canadian people want us to debate this in Parliament fully, and then decide on it as members of Parliament?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Well, I believe the issue of leniency is definitely one that is important to Canadians, and I think if you've followed the news on this case as it has wound through the courts over the last five years or whatever, you would understand it is a hot-button issue. I don't want it to—

The Chair: Ms. Lill, you've made the case. We've all read the papers. I think that question's been answered.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, just by way of following up on the last intervention, Madam Chair, if all items were to be votable, it wouldn't matter whether the Canadian people thought it should be debated or had merit or anything else. Things would just be selected as votable no matter whether they were completely worthless, trivial, or beside the point—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Chair, you allow people who are not happy that I'm sitting here to make comments about that, and yet you don't allow me to respond. I don't think that's right.

The Chair: I don't think Mr. Blaikie was actually criticizing you. I think he was—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: He did previously, and he's getting at it again.

The Chair: All right, Mr. Blaikie, try to behave.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I can do so again, if you'd like, but I was just making a comment on the issue.

The Chair: Let's just question the witness, okay?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I just wanted to say to the member from Dartmouth, she's certainly made the case for the virtue of discussing this, but I wonder—and perhaps this isn't relevant to our ultimate decision—has she given any thought to what the effect would be if this came to a vote and was lost? Your argument has been about the need for Parliament to air this, and perhaps for the courts, the cabinet—everyone who may have some responsibility on this—to hear what members of Parliament have to say on it. And I think there's a very strong argument to be made for having this discussed in Parliament. But I wonder, would the disabled people of Canada or the community of people with disabilities feel safer if, at the end of the day, this motion was defeated in the House of Commons?

The Chair: Have you given that any thought?

Ms. Wendy Lill: I haven't been around here very long. I guess it would seem impossible to me that this would be voted down, but obviously—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I've seen many fine things defeated in my time.

The Chair: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: My goal certainly is not to turn the clock back or to cause any more insecurity for people with disabilities. Obviously, my hope would be that this would give people a sense of their concerns; it would give cabinet a sense of their concerns; and it would provide some guidance.

The Chair: But as you speak right now, you do want this to be made votable, despite the cautionary tale from Mr. Blaikie?

• 1605

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I know, when he speaks everybody has to stop and listen, because we wonder, but....

Ms. Wendy Lill: One wonders why he hasn't spoken earlier.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: “Thanks, pal” would come to mind.

Mr. Jay Hill: He's on your side, right?

The Chair: I'll tell you what, Ms. Lill. We have a whole stack of people. If in an hour or two you decide Mr. Blaikie's words have frozen you in your place, get the word back to us. Until that time, I consider it up for votability.

Okay?

Ms. Wendy Lill: All right.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you. Happy birthday.

The Chair: Thank you. No singing, please.

Okay, next it's Mr. Martin.

And the rest of you, be forewarned, I'm going to be keeping your questions short out of respect for our colleagues.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): She gets tough when it's my turn. She lets everybody else yammer on.

The Chair: No, we just had to get everybody relaxed. We were a bit too tense to get started, so I did that thing mothers do and let the kids just chat. Okay?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, I know. It's like having a fight in the second period of a hockey game. Then you can get serious and play hockey after that.

The Chair: That's right. Okay.

Mr. Pat Martin: My motion is about pension surpluses. Given that workers' benefit plans' funds are the largest single block of capital in the world today, larger than the Catholic Church.... In fact, over 50% of the trading at the New York Stock Exchange is actually workers' benefit plans moving their money around. This is of great interest to a lot of employers when there's a pension surplus, an actuarial surplus.

The treatment of pension surpluses has gone all over the map in recent years. The courts and labour arbitrators have ruled sometimes that the money should be viewed as the deferred wages of the employees and therefore as belonging to the workers. Some have ordered that it's all the employers' because they paid into the plan, and some have split it somewhere down the middle.

Our point of view—or at least the union movement's point of view—is that all pension contributions, whether they're made by the employer or by the employee, are part of the wage benefit package. In other words, if you negotiated a pension contribution rather than a wage increase, it's still part of your wage package. Therefore it's yours, and it's being held for you in trust until such time as you need it.

Therefore when there is an actuarial surplus—in other words, more contributions have been put in than are necessary to give the benefit you were promised—that money should be used either to raise the benefits you will receive or to give a contribution holiday to the employee, if in fact it's a joint contribution plan.

We argue that the courts need some guidance. I know this is just a motion, and the best we can do is say that in the opinion of this House we feel X, Y, Z. But the courts really have been wrestling with this. The recent Bell Canada case is a case in point. It's a joint contribution plan, and after wrestling for five years on what to do with the surplus, they split it down the middle essentially, 40-60.

The Chair: I'm going to bring you back on track a little bit. What you are supposed to be doing.... No, you're presenting your bill quite well. I assume when you do it in the House, you'll do an even better job. But we don't get to vote yes or no to the content of the bill.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's true.

The Chair: We have to decide if it's votable.

Mr. Pat Martin: So I'm arguing the merits.

The Chair: Yes, you are.

Mr. Pat Martin: So you want to know why it should be debated and voted in the House of Commons.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jay Hill: It's going to be debated regardless.

Mr. Pat Martin: Oh, that's true. I have one hour anyway.

Pension administrators—the money managers—need guidance in this matter because it speaks to whether or not you should ever let a pension surplus build up and grow. Trade unions are certainly very concerned and have been asking for satisfaction in this regard.

We've talked personally to the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans. They represent 6,000 money managers across North America. They feel that given such huge and burgeoning surpluses out there, and that employers are very keen on taking some or all of them back, it's very timely that we get some real guidance on how these surpluses should be treated.

I believe there is broad public interest and a genuine need. To give you an example, my own union is a relatively small union, yet we have $40 billion in our pension plan—forty billion. We're a small union compared with the Ontario Teachers' Pension plan or some of the larger unions.

• 1610

The Chair: And the government hasn't figured out a way to grab this stuff?

Mr. Pat Martin: They just did. The federal government just took $30 billion out of the public service pension plan without one penny going to the employees. That was by an act, by legislation. They passed a special bill that would enable them to do that.

Again, this motion, if debated, wouldn't change the way anything is done, but in the event of a disagreement on how to use the surpluses there would be a record and some guidance for the courts or arbitrators to draw or to lean on.

The Chair: Are you willing to answer questions?

Mr. Pat Martin: I certainly am.

The Chair: Do I have any questioners?

He's done an obviously very clear job—with my guidance.

Mr. Pat Martin: Or else nobody's interested at all. It's one or the other.

The Chair: No, no. I don't think that's true, by the way.

Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Madame Guay. I thank you for waiting so patiently.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair and by the way, Happy Birthday.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Monique Guay: Madam Chair, my bill concerns the preventive withdrawal of pregnant and nursing employees.

This matter has come up for discussion before in the House of Commons. In fact, it has been a topic of debate here in Ottawa for the past six years. Several parties have tabled either motions or bills, or have proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code with a view to protecting pregnant and nursing employees under federal jurisdiction. Until now, our efforts have not proven successful, Madam Chair.

I myself tabled a bill 12 or 18 months ago calling for amendments to the health and safety provisions of Part II of the Canada Labour Code. I wanted amendments to be brought in to recognize the preventive withdrawal of pregnant and nursing employees. However, my efforts were unsuccessful.

Therefore, today I am tabling this bill which meets all of the criteria for being deemed a votable item. I sense that there is considerable interest in this matter among voters and among my colleagues from all parties. In fact, I have discussed my bill with a number of them. Women in particular are especially interested in this bill and it has garnered substantial support from women's groups, professional women and in fact, from virtually all organizations representing the female work force in Canada.

I'd like to summarize for you the new realities of the workplace. Since 1971, the number of women in the workforce has increased substantially. Today, women account for over 45% of all salaried workers. Pregnant women tend to continue working longer than they did in the past because their financial situation is often tenuous. Furthermore, after the birth of their child, they return to work sooner then they once did. Women also tend to have fewer children, and they have them much later in life.

Let me quickly compare for you provincially regulated female employees with those under federal jurisdiction. Quebec's female employees who are governed by the provisions of the Canada Labour Code are enjoy less protection that those women governed by Quebec's Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Quebec's female workers under provincial jurisdiction who withdraw from their job for preventive reasons are compensated for the first week by their employer and subsequently, by the province's Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, or CSST. They are entitled to receive 90% of their salary.

In contrast, Quebec's female workers under federal jurisdiction who withdraw from their job for preventive reasons are compensated by means of special EI benefits equivalent to only 55% of their salary. Furthermore, they must have accumulated 600 hours of work in order to be eligible for such compensation. This results in an extremely trying situation.

In conclusion, Madam Chair, I would like to give you a very striking example of what can happen. I met with a lawyer who specializes in preventive withdrawal and she told me about one of her cases which I found totally unacceptable in this day and age. A young woman working as a flight attendant for a Quebec airline was scheduled to work on an international flight. She was seven months pregnant. The flight was scheduled to last six hours, but there were some delays and she was forced to spend an extra four hours on duty. She lost her baby. Had this woman been able to avail herself of the preventive withdrawal provisions, she would not have lost her child.

• 1615

Often, women don't stop working early on in their pregnancy because they are only entitled to receive 55% of their income. That's not enough when one is expecting a child. Furniture must be bought and many varied needs must be met. That's very hard to do with anything other than a full salary.

Madam Chair, the government should be setting an example with this bill which should be deemed a votable item and which should be the subject of an in depth-debate in the House. In my view, this would be an important step. I sense that my colleagues would be willing to engage in a debate of this nature and I hope that if this bill is selected as a votable item, we will all vote the right way.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup. Any questions?

Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Ms. Guay, subsection 132.1(2), as amended by clause 1 of your bill, reads as follows:

132.1(2) After informing the employer, the employee makes application to the agency appointed by the province [...]

In Quebec, that would be the CCST, and in other provinces, other agencies.

[...] for the purpose of administering provincial occupational health and safety legislation and the agency may refuse the application.

This means that in spite of everything, the application could be rejected by the provincially appointed agency.

Ms. Monique Guay: It could refuse the application in both instances. If, as a provincially regulated employee, I file an application and it is rejected by the agency for some reason or another, because I fail to meet the criteria, the outcome could be the same at either the provincial or the federal level. The same criteria would, however, be applied, to ensure compliance with the same standards. We can't have two different sets of standards.

Mr. Michel Guimond: That's how we should interpret the bill's provision whereby a provincially appointed agency, namely a provincial workers compensation board, could refuse an application.

Ms. Monique Guay: That is correct.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Therefore, if I recall correctly the rules respecting preventive withdrawal, the agency in question could reject the application.

Ms. Monique Guay: Much like we see happen...

Mr. Michel Guimond: There is no danger for the unborn child, therefore an employee's application is refused. That's the meaning we should ascribe to: “may refuse the application”.

Ms. Monique Guay: Correct.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Fine. Then...

Ms. Monique Guay: This already happens at the provincial level. The same legislation applies. To avoid piling regulation upon existing regulation and creating another system, the exact same system already in place is used. This way, we don't have two different sets of standards.

One last comment, Madam Chair, before I conclude. I realize that we are somewhat pressed for time.

In my opinion, all women are entitled, particularly in this, the 21st century, an era of small families and even childless couples, to have a healthy pregnancy and to withdraw from their job if the life of their unborn child is in danger.

I hope that you will give this bill the full consideration it warrants.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Have you discussed this bill with the Department of Labour?

Ms. Monique Guay: We've already tried to make some improvements.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: What kind of feedback are you getting?

Ms. Monique Guay: They are receptive to the idea, but I think we need to press the point. Sometimes, one needs to devote more energy to certain causes. I think this is one of them. While they may appear receptive, I cannot wait any longer. We've already been waiting a long time to help these women. We need to act now and adopt legislation quickly. We can't wait ten more years for the government to finally do something. There is a general willingness to act on this matter and that's why I've tabled this bill.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you.

Ms. Monique Guay: You're welcome.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madame Guay.

Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Welcome. It's going to be a strange thing to have you on that side of the table.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

A voice: It's in both languages.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I knew it would be.

• 1620

[Translation]

Madam Chair, it is a great pleasure for me to be seated at this end of the table. Having occupied one of those seats and listened to my colleagues, I know how much thought goes in to the process of selecting votable items. Needless to say, I've come before you in the hopes that my motion will be deemed a votable item.

My presentation will be brief. I've decided to read in its entirety a speech that I gave last April. Following this, I will report briefly to you on that evening's events and explain why I believe my resolution should be selected as a votable item. Let me know if I'm boring you and I'll try to be a little more punchy.

My dear friends in the Armenian community,

There were at least 600 or 700 people in the audience.

The commemoration of the Armenian genocide of 1915 that brings us together this evening is the beacon that symbolizes your people's duty to remember.

Despite the passage of time, the Armenian people do remember. They do not call for vengeance, they only want the genocide of their brothers and sisters to be recognized, the deaths of more than a million human beings and the deportation of hundreds of thousands of others not to fall into oblivion like a passing news item.

Perpetuated against the Armenian people on April 24, 1915, it has been engraved forever in our collective memory; this aching scar can never fade away, because it is the result of a deep wound caused by the brute force of one people used against another people in an attempt to break them forever.

The first genocide of the 20th century was and still is a crime against humanity, as are the subsequent Holocaust of the Jews during the Second World War, the massacres in Rwanda and Burundi, and the recent atrocities in the Balkans.

Since 1993, Quebeckers have chosen to send to Ottawa significant numbers of Bloc Québécois MPs. Your community has always found in our party tangible and unreserved support in the campaign you have been leading for too long to obtain Canadian recognition of the Armenian genocide. It was because of this that a few weeks ago, with the unanimous backing of my Bloc colleagues, I tabled the following motion: “That this House recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemn this act as a crime against humanity”.

On Tuesday, April 24 [...]

The anniversary of the genocide,

[...] around ten past two in the afternoon, I addressed the following request to the Speaker of the House of Commons in the form of a Member's statement:

On April 24, the international community commemorates the Armenian genocide of 1915 which resulted in the death of over one million persons.

On March 24, 1998, Robert Kotcharian, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia at the time, called for international recognition of the genocide, which was not, and I quote, “the tragedy of the Armenian people only”, but a tragedy for “all of humanity and is a heavy burden for the Armenian people because it has gone unpunished and, worse yet, has not been condemned as it ought”.

In North America, the Ontario Legislature, the Quebec National Assembly and the states of California, Delaware, Massachusetts and New York have recognized the Armenian genocide.

The Bloc Québécois hopes that Canada, in keeping with its values of justice and compassion, will have the courage to adopt the following motion:

That this House recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemn this act as a crime against humanity.

Without memory, life cannot go on. Without memory, the events that nourish our existence are lost beyond the frontiers of consciousness. Your respect for history and for freedom is an example to all of us, because it is the memory of the living that pushes back the frontiers of death. As Émile Henriot wrote, "the dead live as long as the living think of them". Thank you for your fidelity to your people.

• 1625

A little over three weeks ago, an event transpired that shook our everyday existence and coloured our view of reality. It is truly remarkable how we feel as one when tragedy strikes all of humanity. Everyone knows full well that the September 11 attacks targeted not only the United States, but ultimately, the entire international community.

I was not the only person to address the audience that evening. For many years now, the Armenian community has been inviting a representative of each federal and provincial party to speak. Therefore, in attendance was a Liberal MP, a Bloc MP and, for the very first time, a representative of the Canadian Alliance.

At some point during the proceedings, a petition circulated among the 600 people in attendance and the vast majority of parliamentarians present signed it. If I recall the address given by the representative of the government party, the message was that the time had come for the Canadian Parliament to refer to the Armenian genocide as a genocide.

This will be at least the third time since 1993 that we have summarily discussed the Armenian genocide. The first was during an opposition day set aside for the Bloc Québécois. At the time, we amended our opposition motion and deleted the word "genocide". As I recall—and perhaps Michel can confirm this—we used the expression "terrible tragedy" or something similar.

Our colleague Mr. Assadourian subsequently tabled a motion which was not deemed to be a votable item. Now you must decide whether or not to select this motion as a votable item. In my opinion, it is time for Canada to join with the international community and recognize the genocide, following the lead of the European Union, France, Belgium, Greece and a host of other countries. I realize that economic interests speak loudly, but when these interests prevent us from hearing the message, serious mistakes are sometimes made.

Madam Chair, I'm ready to answer your questions and I'm confident that we'll be able to vote collectively on this motion.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any questions?

Mr. Blaikie.

[Translation]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: As mentioned, it is indeed a very different experience to have Ms. Dalphond-Guiral appearing as a witness. I just have one question for you.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: He's speaking French! That's amazing. Do you realize what's happening?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'd like to know who Émile Henriot is.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Émile Henriot was a French statesman who lived in the late 19th or early 20th century. I'll check on that. He was also a writer, like yourself.

Are there any other questions?

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'll be happy to come back.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

[English]

Okay, Mr. McTeague, you're up to the batting box again. McTeague, you use this committee more than anybody else in the House.

[Translation]

Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): I believe the strength of this committee ensures that occasionally, the system does work. Of course, the system doesn't always work as we would like it to, particularly when our bills are not selected as votable items,

[English]

but there is some give and take, Madam Chair, and I respect and understand that.

I'm here today, colleagues, to talk to you about a bill that I had proposed some time ago. I don't want you to roll your eyes when I mention the Competition Act, because we've been down that road a few times.

• 1630

Bill C-248 is a bill that would effectively plug a serious deficiency in the Competition Act. The section, of course, is known as section 96, and it's an exception where a merger can occur. A merger having an anti-competitive effect will ultimately find itself harming the competitive process, yet if you can demonstrate that there's a gain in efficiency—and this is the terminology that is used—that gain in efficiency will outweigh the impact it has on the larger Canadian consumer and the competitive process.

I turn your attention here...because I have a note and I'm willing to submit it.

[Translation]

In the interests of Mr. Proulx and of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I just want to say that the documents are also available in French. I'll send them to you at the conclusion of my presentation.

Let me share with you the comments that were made.

[English]

Notwithstanding the fact that the Competition Bureau found that in the ICG and Superior Propane case, which is a very important case given all the work we've done on energy last year, and the cost of energy.... Superior Propane, so you will understand, bought out ICG. ICG was its main competitor. The effect of this was to virtually give a monopoly to one player. The bureau decided they had to challenge this because it would create terrible anti-competitive effects and would ultimately harm consumers. The tribunal the case was referred to stated the following:

The Tribunal finds that the merger is likely to prevent competition in Atlantic Canada and lessen competition substantially in many local markets across Canada, as well as for national account customers.

The majority of the tribunal, Mr. Justice Marc Nadon and Laurence Schwartz, dismissed the application by the commissioner. All this is to say that we have in our own Competition Act a shortcoming that has to be addressed by Parliament. Right now this decision has been referred to, and it was challenged successfully by the Competition Bureau at the Federal Court. It took about a year and a half for this to happen. And this is not to mention the impact this had on the merging parties. Whether we agree or disagree on the subject material is irrelevant.

The reality is that the Federal Court then quashed the decision by the tribunal and upheld the decision by the Competition Bureau, and it ultimately felt that the efficiencies gained had to be more than simply saying two companies can get together; they're worth half a billion dollars each, they save by putting this together, and there are certain efficiencies in scale. They save $30 million and they pocket the money. Instead, what this bill proposes to do is a reflection of what the court ultimately did—and believe me, I had no way of influencing the justice of this country, I assure you—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I hope not.

Mr. Dan McTeague: —but to ensure that the efficiencies gain is passed on to other interests.

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

I realize there are other issues here before you today. The problem is that there is a dangerous precedent that has been set by the competition tribunal. It is at arm's length from Parliament, as it should be. Parliament I think has to act.

I should also tell you that in the case of Superior Propane, there was a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

This affects more than just one community, or one sector of the economy. It clearly affects all Canadians in terms of price, but more importantly it does nothing for and diminishes the underlying concept of our Competition Act, which is to preserve and enhance the competitive process for all players, not just large and small.

I can tell you, and assure you, that there's plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this is something we ought to tackle as a Parliament. The fact that we may be in an odd position of having rule-made law does little to reinforce the perception and the role of members of Parliament that we ought to be addressing things that are fundamentally important to Canadians.

I've made my case. I should also point out to you that the European Commission as well has made several comments on the issue of the efficiency defence as far as they're concerned. Of course, without getting into too much detail, there is for them at least a clear limit for the efficiency defence, which is the elimination of competition. Therefore, even if the parties can prove that an agreement would bring about high efficiency gains, these efficiencies are not able to justify an elimination of competition.

I think it's a question of Canada also being able to get in line with our international partners. I think this bill would address that. It would certainly bring us up to speed with paring our Competition Act to ensure that it reflects these important changes and significant jurisprudence-type changes that have taken place.

Madam Chair, happy birthday, and thank you.

The Chair: God, for a non-noteworthy birthday, I've had more “happy birthdays” today. No one has been rude enough to ask me how old I am.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That could be arranged.

The Chair: No, thank you.

Any questions? No questions? Well done, McTeague.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Thank you, Madame Chair. Thank you, colleagues. Merci.

• 1635

The Chair: Mr. Martin, did you bring samples?

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): I brought so many samples. How many samples and what kinds of samples did you want, Madam Chair?

The Chair: It's my birthday.

A voice: In both official languages.

Mr. Keith Martin: One thing that would probably be a very limiting step for votability is for somebody sitting in this chair to ask your age. Happy birthday.

The Chair: It would be very limiting. Thank you.

Mr. Keith Martin: Bon anniversaire.

The Chair: Actually it's not a big secret. It's the roundest one you can have, two big fat fives.

Mr. Keith Martin: Really.

The Chair: A pretty ugly birthday.

A voice: Madam Chair, we are going to have to evacuate the building.

A voice: There's a suspicious package at the side, so we want people to leave right now. Sorry about that.

The Chair: We going to suspend until we are allowed back in.

• 1635

• 1642

The Chair: Dr. Martin, you may begin. Blaikie's not here, but he's a quick study.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We'd like to say that we had the last event for dramatic effect, but that would not be telling the truth. But we feel a lot safer with Mr. Gallaway here to be sure.

Mes amis, Bill C-344 is an act and a bill to decriminalize simple marijuana possession. The reason I've introduced this is to really put this bill in line with public thought, with the trends that are taking place today, and also to enable our law enforcement officers to be able to focus their limited resources in a more constructive fashion.

This is not legalizing. Legalization is very different. Under this bill, if you're convicted of simple possession of either marijuana or hash for the purposes of your own use, you receive a ticket, a fine, of $200, $500 to $1,000. It gets people right out of the courts and it will save us a significant amount of money, and I'll get to that a little bit later.

Public interest. Pot use is the most common illicit drug use in Canada. Of respondents between the ages of 20 and 34, about 43% had used marijuana or hash in the preceding 12 months. In a Gallup poll in 1999 it showed that 75% of Canadians feel the current laws are out of date.

In fact, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the RCMP released a directive on drugs. I think this directive on drugs by the RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which is in your document, is very telling. They first begin by outlining their opposition to the legalization of simple possession of marijuana, but then they go on to say this:

Alternative justice measures be established...for summary conviction offences of possession of cannabis. A range of options should include, but not be limited to: drug and life skills counselling, fines, community service or a combination of alternative measures.... The RCMP and the [Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police] have heeded calls by experts to alter the approach to the first time cannabis/marijuana user, and modify the consequences they face.

So both the RCMP and the Association of Chiefs of Police support the decriminalization of marijuana, transferring it from the courts into a system of fines. And that's what this bill is simply all about.

• 1645

In fact, the Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan, has echoed similar statements. In April 1999, she said we as a government take the resolutions of the police chiefs very seriously. They have concerns about maximizing their resources, and certainly this is part of a much larger debate about how we should deal with certain aspects of the possession of drugs.

As for the national interest, just to demonstrate the cold, hard figures, in 1998 there were about 71,200 drug offences reported by the RCMP; 62% of these were for possession, and 80% of these involved pot. The overall cost of law enforcement involves about 1,000 officers, and about $400 million is spent every year in direct law enforcement costs just as a result of drug-related offences and convictions. The bottom line is that about $150 million of this would be simply saved by removing the possession of marijuana or hashish out of the court system and putting it into a fine system.

The purpose of this bill is to take that $150 million and enable our courts, our police officers, and the other arms of our justice system to be able to use that to deal with the really serious offenders, those who are involved in organized crime, who are involved in trafficking of drugs, and also, hopefully, on preventative measures. The police chiefs and the RCMP are in line with this, as appears to be the government.

Looking at the criteria for votability, which is what I'm begging you all to agree to here, the bill must be drafted in clear terms—which it is—and involve federal jurisdiction—which it does. Does it involve significant public interest? I think I've demonstrated that 75% of the public believes the current drug laws with respect to simple possession are out of date and unacceptable.

The motion is not part of the government's current legislative agenda, has not been voted on or dealt with, and lastly, this bill obviously transcends the local interest. It is an issue of national interest, it is non-partisan, and the only way we can deal with this is to have it addressed in the House. I think all of us have constituents who are very concerned about this, all of us are aware of this, and we could certainly broker a new way of dealing with simple possession in a manner that would be more constructive, more cost-effective, and indeed, bring us in line with a number of other countries that are pursuing it, not only Holland, but London, England—in Hackney, they are experimenting with a method of putting out fines, which is working very well.

One question I might want to pose, that may be asked, is, does this lead to increased use of hard drugs? The experience in Holland demonstrates that when they decriminalized simple marijuana possession, the use of heroin went down.

That is the end of my presentation, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

The Chair: Are there any questions?

Thank you. That means you were very clear and very concise.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. I hope you have a wonderful birthday today.

The Chair: Thank you. The whole world is apparently finding out, thanks to you, Bill. I've even revealed my age!

Okay, Ms. Bennett—and you're not allowed to comment on Dr. Hill's bill, okay?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Okay.

I am pleased to bring this motion before you. I actually had two motions drawn, and my choice of this motion was because it was brought to me by an outside group that has worked very hard on this. That's the Hepatitis C Society, the Canadian Hemophilia Society, a number of people who are very worried that we are losing the war on awareness in Hepatitis C.

Hepatitis C is a relatively new disease. When I was in medical school, we didn't have hepatitis C. It was only named in 1989. We used to call it non-A, non-B. We knew they had something really bad, but we didn't know it was a special virus.

Of the 210,000 to 275,000 people who are infected with it, only 30% know they have it. So it is a serious case of needing an awareness campaign, because you need these other people to decide to go and get tested.

• 1650

We're still getting 3,000 to 8,000 new cases a year, and because it's like hypertension or the diseases where there are very few symptoms, people don't tend to go and get checked. They need to actually have an awareness campaign that says, did you do any of these things that might put you at risk? I think the Health Canada website is pretty good in terms of, “Did you know that body piercing, tattoos...? You can get it from your mother.” All those sorts of things.

When I saw that Journal or Newsworld piece that 50% of those in Joyceville penitentiary right now have hepatitis C.... It is seriously worrying in terms of what that means actually to the sustainability of our health care system. It is the most common need for liver transplant. We can't afford this. Liver transplants, in fact, are supposed to double or triple by 2008. So if we could actually get in now and get people knowing about it, we would be well served.

March is liver month—yes, and Christmas and New Year's.

The people have been very clear that they have not been well served by this—liver disease affects a very diverse group—and other kinds of illnesses that aren't as clear in terms of an infectious disease.

It's like putting AIDS under immune system. We have needed a separate campaign for AIDS because it is preventable and we need people to know about it, and therefore it's really important.

Prevention promotion is obviously the most important thing in terms of promoting awareness. Health Canada is planning a campaign, and the hepatitis C people meet every May—there is some stuff happening. It would be really important to have a full month dedicated to this.

One of the other things is that some people feel very alone and don't know very much about hepatitis C. A lot of family physicians still don't know a lot about it. So the awareness campaign is also about support groups, where people could also find out about better treatments that may not all be available in terms of national scope. Maybe some of the smaller centres across Canada aren't as aware of what is actually available. I think that's important.

Obviously, like all health conditions, an awareness campaign can sometimes help raise additional dollars in terms of research, treatment, and prevention. We think the debate would be important, but obviously if we could have this votable and have it acted upon, it would be even better.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bennett.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Jay Hill: I have one quick question. I don't think I missed it during your presentation. Why May? Is there any particular reason?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Yes. There are already some, but May seems to be the least taken. I think that's why the hepatitis C people chose it. I have a list of the days we have in May. On May 1, they've traditionally held a candlelight ceremony, and they feel that it would be difficult to shift to March. So I think they've done their homework. May has other weeks and days, but as far as a month is concerned, this is the one they've picked and the one they've traditionally used, the one they've held their national conference in, and the one that the national conference in 2003 will be in.

This was obviously one we had hoped for, for their conference this May, but that didn't happen. So we hope we can do it for them by the next one.

The Chair: Does anybody else have questions?

By the way, when is liver month?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: It's March.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hill is next.

This is not a conflict of interest, Mr. Hill?

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, that is why, with all due respect, I've asked one of my colleagues to make a presentation on my behalf.

The Chair: But Galloway? You really do cross all party bounds, don't you? You're your own little United Nations.

Mr. Jay Hill: I try, Madam Chairman.

• 1655

I'll refrain from asking any questions of this witness, for obvious reasons—

The Chair: So would I, really.

Mr. Jay Hill: —and I'll refrain from speaking on behalf of my own motion, when it comes time for the voting later this evening.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Gallaway, shoot.

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Thank you.

I'm pleased to be here to speak for Mr. Hill on this.

This motion has been lifted out of a report called For the Sake of the Children. It was the product of a joint House of Commons-Senate committee that tabled its report on December 9, 1998.

This is a matter of divorce. It is clearly a federal matter. There is no room for anyone else in all of this. I have to say, it makes reference, in paragraph (b), to divorce in this motion. I want to make that very clear because there is a lot of confusion around the terms “divorce” and ”family law”. Divorce law is exclusively federal.

The question, of course, is whether this is of significant public interest. I would point out to you that polls carried out in 1998-99 by Ekos showed clearly that 90% of Canadians understood there was something fundamentally wrong within our divorce system. It simply reflected what the committee had heard during its travels and its considerations in 1998.

There is a huge interest in the Canadian public around the issue of divorce law, and specifically the children of divorce. This is not part of the current legislative agenda of the government. In fact, there has been no discussion in the House of Commons since about 1995, when an act was passed that touched on the issue of child support. But that was the last time.

There have, in fact, been three committee reports since that time that have called upon the minister and the Department of Justice to do something about it. But six years after the last legislative round, nothing has been heard.

There has been a series of bureaucratic hearings that were fuelled by $1.5 million of Department of Justice money, whereby the bureaucrats engaged in political discussion with select Canadians, who appeared by invitation. That occurred in the late spring and summer, but there has been no debate in the House of Commons around anything to do with divorce. It's an issue that three committees of Parliament have called upon the minister and Justice to address. I think this is an important opening to Parliament and the House of Commons to debate that.

The final point is that every year it is estimated—and it's agreed upon by all expert sources—that there are 50,000 Canadian children who enter into the regime of divorce. These children have no place in our courts; there is no place for them to express their views. Sometimes children of divorce are five years old, but sometimes they are fifteen. Orders are made around not only where they will reside, but who will pay. They have no voice whatsoever in our divorce regime, as it is.

This past summer there was the case of a young man by the name of Clayton Giles, from Calgary. He was a child of divorce who was forced to live with his mother, but through a series of court actions, managed to move to live with his father. That's not a criticism of the mother, but in the course of a child's life they sometimes decide, when they're a teenager, that they ought to be living with the other parent, for whatever reason. They're not afforded that opportunity—in fact, they're ignored.

Clayton Giles bicycled from Calgary to Washington to Ottawa—in fact he was to meet with President Bush on September 11. He met with the Prime Minister last week. Along the way he collected thousands and thousands of signatures on petitions that will be presented shortly in the House.

This is not a local matter; this is a huge Canadian matter. This is about a system that is broken and needs to be addressed, not by bureaucrats in workshops, but by those elected to do so. This is not only a national issue; this is an international issue because it's just as big in the U.S. That's why he was able to draw interest in the States he passed through.

• 1700

In closing, I would say this is an extremely clear motion. It meets all of the criteria, as laid out, that the committee considers, and I think it certainly merits being voted upon by the House.

The Chair: Jay, you really put in a ringer when you put him in.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Hill was quite clever to call upon the services of one our colleagues who happens to be an eminent lawyer and who was a well-known prosecutor before entering the political arena. Nevertheless, I do have a question for Mr. Gallaway.

Like you, I'm a lawyer myself. As law students, we're told by our professors to ask our clients questions to which we know the answers. Therefore, let me ask you one such question.

Have you verified the legality of this motion under the Quebec Civil Code and in relation to certain provisions respecting divorce? Earlier, you started to say that the Divorce Act was strictly a federal matter. That may be true, but the Civil Code makes provision for certain things. Did you know that pursuant to the provisions of the Quebec Civil Code, a party may request that a psychosocial expert meet with minor children to determine which parent it would be best for them to live with? Did you also know that counsel for one of the two parties may ask the judge to meet the children in his or her chamber to talk to them, much like a grandparent talks to his or her grandchildren?

I know this for the fact, because the first divorce case I heard as a lawyer was my own. That's how I gained some experience. I had two minor children and that's what happened. That's how civil law works in Quebec.

[English]

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I'm quite aware of the provisions of the civil code. We certainly heard about them. We heard, in particular, how the civil code of Quebec has allayed a lot of the problems that exist in common law jurisdictions, with respect to grandparents.

I'm not going to dispute because I don't know a lot about the civil code, but I would just point out that in the province of Quebec there are groups of men disenfranchised from their children, there are groups of second wives who have come together, and there are grandparents' groups. They have come together to form organizations to lobby for change at the federal level.

I understand there is some interplay between the civil code and the Divorce Act, but I also understand that in Quebec the civil code has greater bearing in cases where the Divorce Act doesn't apply—where there has been no marriage. Of course, when there has been a marriage, the federal act prevails.

The Chair: Mr. Guimond, did you ask a question that you already knew the answer to? Were you satisfied?

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you. Excellent.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Thank you, and happy birthday.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: When are they going to cut you in half and count the rings?

The Chair: Oh, oh! Out of here.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: It's so funny to see your name as Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Indeed.

The Chair: You are Svend.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I think it's probably quite appropriate that Mr. Gallaway just spoke to you about divorce, as I'm here to speak to you about marriage.

The Chair: Nice segue.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'll be brief. The bill I am seeking to be made votable is one that would legislate the opportunity for gay or lesbian couples to marry. Currently, there is no federal statute that bars gay or lesbian couples from marrying—no statute whatsoever. There's a common law provision. It's a case that goes back to 1866 called Hyde v. Hyde. The judge in that particular case said that marriage was a union between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. That remains the common law today, as the courts have interpreted it.

• 1705

That's being challenged in a number of different jurisdictions in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec.

[Translation]

Two couples in the province of Quebec have issued a challenge.

[English]

This is an attempt to say that Parliament should show some leadership here, and not do as we so often do and just leave this up to the courts to decide. We should be saying that those who are gay or lesbian should have the choice of secular marriage. This is not religious marriage. It doesn't in any way influence long-standing religious traditions in a number of different faiths; it's strictly secular marriage.

That's the purpose of the bill. It's a very brief bill with only a couple of clauses. So I would certainly argue, just looking down the criteria, that it's been drafted in very clear, complete, and effective terms, which is the first criterion. It's very straightforward legislation.

The bill must be constitutional and concern areas of federal jurisdiction. Clearly this bill is within federal jurisdiction. The Constitution states that it's up to the federal government to determine who's eligible to marry, and it's up to the provinces to determine what's called solemnization of marriage—details around issuing of marriage licences and so on. But actual eligibility for marriage is within federal jurisdiction.

The bill should concern a matter of significant public interest. I don't think there's any doubt that this is a matter of significant public interest. Indeed, when I introduced the bill on Valentine's Day, on February 14 of this year, I was accompanied by members of almost all parties in the House—colleagues from the Liberal caucus, Bill Graham and Carolyn Bennett.

[Translation]

Some Bloc Québécois members were present as well.

[English]

The bill was supported by a Conservative member of Parliament, Scott Brison. Interestingly enough, I tried to find an Alliance member, but wasn't able to find one to join us.

The Alliance family issues critic, Grant Hill, made a very interesting statement. You may recall there was a bit of controversy around the Governor General sending a message of greetings to a gay couple that was uniting—not in marriage because they weren't allowed to marry. She sent a message saying congratulations, felicitations and there was quite an outcry about that. People attacked her for doing that. Grant Hill, the family issues critic, said on behalf of the Alliance, “Look, this is beyond the role of the Queen's representative. Changes to marriage should take place on Parliament Hill, not in Rideau Hall.” Right, well that's what this is. This is Parliament Hill.

The Chair: Boy, are you ever stretching his intentions.

Mr. Svend Robinson: No. He would argue it's not up to the Governor General, it's not up to the courts, and we should have the debate here. You're absolutely right, Madam Chair. One of his colleagues has tabled another bill that says explicitly that gay and lesbian people shouldn't be allowed to marry. But that's all the more reason, I would respectfully argue, for this issue to come before Parliament.

Let's have a good debate on the issue. There's a bill out there that says no; there's my bill that says yes. I happen to have been drawn. But there's a huge amount of interest in this issue. It seems to me if there were ever an issue where a private member could take the initiative and say, “Okay, let's have a good solid debate here on both sides of the issue”, this is it.

Just briefly, on the two final criteria, it's certainly not on the government's legislative agenda, so there's no problem in meeting that criterion. Finally, it talks about items that transcend purely local interest. This is an issue, obviously, for people right across the land.

[Translation]

In all provinces, in the territories,

[English]

there are people who are affected by this, who believe they should have the right to make this choice. Frankly, there are other people who feel just as strongly that marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals. But there's a huge amount of interest in this issue.

There's been advancement in other countries. The Netherlands have moved ahead in their debate. It's now before Belgium, and a number of Scandinavian countries are doing it. I think it would be really valuable for us to have a good discussion on this issue, and if the bill is advanced to committee, to hear from Canadians as to what their concerns might be.

Finally, it's not couched in any partisan terms. I mentioned before this is a bill that has support across the political spectrum. The issue itself is certainly one that is of interest across the political spectrum, as well.

• 1710

I've made a number of submissions to this committee in the past on different issues. I'd like to say that, in terms of the criteria and in terms of having a good debate on an issue that's an interesting and important issue, and one that might get some public interest as well, I would hope the committee would seriously consider allowing a fuller debate than the usual one hour and then it just drops. I think members of Parliament should be given an opportunity to be heard and to vote on this issue.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie, are you going to ask him the Ms. Lill question?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: The what?

The Chair: The Ms. Lill question.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Oh, no. I don't think that concern applies here.

I did have one question. Of course, I could ask Mr. Robinson this any time, but he made the distinction between a secular marriage and a religious marriage. I just wondered what thought he or others who were concerned with this issue have given to how that would affect the status of religious marriage in the sense that, in many cases, they're sort of folded into the one event, or into the one jurisdiction, if you like, in the sense that provinces give authority to churches or ministers of churches to solemnize marriages.

If the bill were to pass, for instance, what would you see as some of the consequences for people whose definition of religious marriage would be different, but who would still have the civil authority? Although this isn't relevant to whether it should be votable or not—

Mr. Svend Robinson: No.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —I guess what I'm asking is whether or not this would lead down the road to a separation, if you like, between the religious solemnization of marriage and the civil solemnization of marriage? Is that one possible consequence, given that there might be churches disagreeing with marriage being open to both heterosexual and homosexual couples? That may not be something they want to understand themselves to be doing when they exercise the civil function. Would you then see a sort of separation between the two coming about at some point? Do you understand my point?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I think so.

The Chair: Actually, you lost the entire—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: We can follow it up again.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Just briefly, I guess there are two responses. One is that there is a separation right now, in fact, because there are couples who don't celebrate their marriage in a religious or faith ceremony. They just do it before a justice of the peace or something like that. So I would argue it's already separate.

Also, there are a number of churches, including the United Church, your church, that have indicated that, should the law change, they would welcome the opportunity to celebrate and affirm religious marriages within the context of their faith community as well. Conversely, there are others that wouldn't have anything to do with it, frankly. There's no question about that. I don't have a problem with that at all. If this is something that is.... My adopted Haida mother is Pentecostal, and she finds the whole idea absolutely abhorrent. She's one who doesn't think this should be happening. Well, nobody's saying it should happen within the context of that.

The last thing I would say, just briefly, is that the early experience so far—and it has been a little less than a year that the Netherlands have had their law in force—is that there has been a complete separation. I think that would continue to be the case.

The Chair: Do you have another question?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I might be wrong about this, but I think the language the United Church has used has not talked about...I think it may actually have talked about being willing to bless or celebrate. I'm not sure it has actually used the word “marriage”. That may indeed be a point or a nuance that—

Mr. Svend Robinson: I don't know.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —the bill would settle.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

The Chair: Next, we have Mr. Harvard.

• 1715

Mr. Harvard, I need to explain something to you before you begin. By some sort of agreement between the two Houses, Senate bills are automatically votable in the normal scheme of things. But this committee has, on principle, not recommended the ones that weren't chosen in the normal scheme of things. In other words, if the group decides it's a votable bill after you leave, following your presentation today, it's a non-discussion. But that's fine. In the past, we have not chosen some of the Senate bills. We have referred them to Procedure and House Affairs, our full committee, and they've made them votable.

So if it's chosen on its own merits by this committee, that's one thing. If it's not chosen on its own merits, it will go to procedure, and you may be asked to present there again.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): That's totally understandable to me. Thank you very much.

Happy birthday, by the way.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. John Harvard: If I were as young as you, it truly would be a wonderful Wednesday.

I have a written piece from which I will not read, but I just thought I would share it with you—and it's in both languages, Michel—if my assistant is allowed to distribute it.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: Carolyn has already indicated that this is a Senate bill. You can tell that by the letter “S” in front of it. It was originated by Senator Sheila Finestone, and I agreed to shepherd it through the House, so that explains why I'm here.

The bill is pretty straightforward. It would remove what I would call an oddity or an anomaly that exists between two acts, the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act. The oddity is that there is intervening funding available under the Telecommunications Act, but there is none available under the Broadcasting Act. Of course, the purpose of Bill S-7 is to simply remove that difference, that oddity, that anomaly, and to put the Broadcasting Act on the same footing as the Telecommunications Act. Doing this would prove not only useful, but very important to a lot of groups who appear before the CRTC, because it's only the CRTC that, within its own powers, can decide whether a party, an individual, should be awarded costs or whether a particular party should be taxed for costs.

I don't think I have to remind you that many of the individuals and groups appearing before the CRTC do not have deep pockets. To appear before the CRTC and make a very strong argument and presentation, it takes resources. Before a presentation can be made, there has to be a lot of research, there has to be travel, and sometimes lawyers have to be retained to cross-examine witnesses on behalf of applicants, on behalf of petitioners. These interveners need the resources and they need the support of the CRTC, which could provide money, finances, funding, under the Broadcasting Act if this Broadcasting Act is changed.

On the other hand, members, I think you would naturally appreciate that many of the petitioners or applicants who appear before the CRTC have deep pockets. You can imagine a number of them, whether it would be CanWest Global, or Bell Globalmedia, or whomever. These are big guys in the game, and they have deep pockets. They have the money, they have the resources, to make sterling presentations before the CRTC.

In a way, when it comes to presentations or applications under the Broadcasting Act, it's really not an even fight. It's not a fair fight. You can just think of situations where someone is, say, as rich as Izzy Asper's organization—Izzy Asper is the head or the owner of CanWest Global, which is headquartered in my city—appearing before the CRTC with very deep pockets, and some public interest groups who represent their communities, when perhaps their communities are far away. Perhaps the panel appears in Ottawa or Vancouver—it depends on the size of the panel—and the group or the individual with something serious to contribute may come from a great distance, maybe from a riding as far away as yours, Jay.

• 1720

So I think intervening funding would be important and would level the playing field.

It's interesting that in this day and age, while you have two acts, the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act, the fact is there are so many issues before the CRTC that really intermingle. They come together, they mix. Yet just through the vagaries of these two acts, intervening funding would be available in one situation and not in the other.

The other thing—and I would pretty well close with this—is that if we really believe in citizen participation, if we believe in strengthening democracy, then I think we do have to support intervening funding under the Broadcasting Act.

I would conclude by saying the bill had, as far as I know, easy sailing through the Senate. There was no opposition, except for one, and that was the CBC. I'm not exactly sure why the CBC would be anxious about intervening funding, but maybe the CBC feels it doesn't have the kind of money that perhaps the CRTC would tap for intervening funding.

Even the government did not oppose the bill in the Senate. In fact, it supported it. I thought, given the fact the government did not oppose the bill in the Senate, it might introduce a measure of its own to supplant this private member's bill. That hasn't happened. So we have to go ahead and carry the work that has been started in the Senate on through the House.

So that's it, colleagues.

The Chair: Are there questions?

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Looking at the bill here, there seems to be quite a bit of reference to taxes, and I didn't get from your—

Mr. John Harvard: It's a legal term that means appropriating funds from a particular party. In other words, it's a lawyer's term, a judicial term. You tax a party for funds. We're not talking about government taxes.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

Mr. John Harvard: It's like when a lawyer charges a certain amount of money against a client, and the client disagrees with the charge, you can go to the court house and have it taxed. That's all it is.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Harvard, we're just trying to clarify a couple of....

Mr. John Harvard: Is that it? Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I would just make the point—and only half facetiously—that I think John's argument about the need to offset deep pockets is a good one, and some day I'd like to see our electoral system reflect that insight.

The Chair: You never miss an opportunity, do you?

Mr. John Harvard: I have long been in favour of public funding of elections, so I agree, Bill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Can I call relevance on that?

The Chair: Before we go in camera, I'd like to point out to everyone a couple of realities. Mr. Proulx has been called to speak in the House on another private member's bill at this time, and he's left me his list, given due consideration to the three who didn't appear as well, which I hope you're all doing. There's three.

Mr. Jay Hill: I wasn't aware of that.

The Chair: There's Mr. Mills, Mrs. Kraft Sloan, and Madam Venne.

Mr. Jay Hill: Oh, I see, yes. It says so at the top. I just didn't read it.

The Chair: He didn't want to delay our deliberation, so he's left me his choices, which I'm filling in on my little squares right now—without changing them. He said we can go ahead with our debate, and if we get stalemated, which I don't feel we will, because we won't have an interminable debate over whether these should all be votable.... You'll notice Mr. Breitkreuz has very nicely disappeared with the bomb threat. He evacuated, and he did it without a fuss. That was very nice of him.

If you want to take a second just to look over those three for which there were no presenters while I try to get Mr. Proulx's stuff on my chart, we'll then go around and get the list.

Are there any questions on Mr. Harvard's presentation, the votability of it, or anything else before we go in camera? That's all clear, how we're going to handle that?

• 1725

Mr. Jay Hill: There is, Madam Chairman. Since I'm new to the committee and I've never gone through the process of the Senate bills, maybe you could further enlighten me on your earlier statement that usually it's just a fait accompli that they become votable.

The Chair: There's a protocol we have. When they pass through the Senate, so far we have not held them up from being votable in the House—that doesn't mean they're going to pass in the House. We want a reciprocal arrangement when we send our bills to their chambers, so we've been pretty loose about not coming down on them hard.

What happens here is if you select it as a votable bill—now correct me if I'm wrong—it'll take one of our seven spaces. If we just send it off to Procedure and House Affairs...am I wrong on this?

A voice: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, forget that. I'm wrong. It doesn't take one of our spaces, regardless of how it gets there.

Mr. Jay Hill: It doesn't?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Jay Hill: So in effect, we could make eight, if we were to choose it?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jay Hill: All right.

The Chair: Now the other thing is, we have sort of the old boys on this team, three of whom are here—me and two others—and we have, on principle, in the past just referred it to the procedure committee. But if it's a pressing bill and we all say we're pretty excited about it, we could choose it here and send it through with our blessing, or we could just not comment on it and send it through to the procedure committee and let them decide.

Mr. Jay Hill: Just on the surface, again being new to the process, Madam Chairman, I would think it would be a common courtesy. I would expect if a bill in the House of Commons goes through all the...we were involved at the outset of the meeting today with the discussion on how at least some of us would like to see them all votable. So recognizing there are a lot of hurdles for a bill to get through to actually be voted upon, and then actually passed, in either House—I'm assuming it's not much different in the Senate—I would think, from my window, the common courtesy would be to make it votable without making them go that extra step of going to Procedure and House Affairs—unless somebody can tell me why you wouldn't do that.

The Chair: Yes, but the one difficulty we brought up—and Bill will probably address it in a far more articulate fashion than I can—is that we were concerned some people might bypass this system by getting someone to sponsor a bill in the Senate first.

Mr. Jay Hill: Would it not still have to clear all the hurdles in the Senate?

The Chair: Yes, it would.

Mr. Jay Hill: I'm assuming they're just about as difficult as the House.

The Chair: Jamie, did you have a comment? Then Bill.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): There is not the same procedure in the Senate. They do not have a draw, so all Senate bills can be voted on in the Senate. Traditionally, there are very few Senate bills introduced by individual senators rather than the government. So their chances of coming to a vote, being referred to committee, are much higher in the Senate. That is changing somewhat. There seems to be more use being made of private members' bills. When they are passed by the Senate, they are automatically placed on the order of precedence, but the question of whether they're made votable is up to this committee or the procedure committee.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you for that, Jamie, because that really puts paid to everything I just said. There would be a very legitimate precaution that this process could be abused by members of Parliament, I would think, given what you've just told me.

The Chair: Bill, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: No. I was just going to say I think this is relevant to our discussion of what we choose, and I think we should go in camera and begin that process.

The Chair: Okay. We'll move in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]