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, November 21, 2001

• 1538

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): I'm going to call the meeting to order. I'm going to have Charles make his presentation because he's in a hurry. Then I need to go in camera for a second and ask a few questions of my colleagues.

Go ahead, Charles.

Mr. Charles Caccia M.P. (Davenport, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is indeed a great pleasure to appear before you for a second time in the same year.

An hon. member: Hear, hear!

The Chair: You're a lucky man.

Mr. Charles Caccia: I appreciate very much your attention and support given the first time with Bill C-287, which created a much greater amount of work than we ever expected.

This time the subject matter before you is one related to our democratic process. It is a proposal to amend the Canada Elections Act. The effect of the amendment, if carried, would be simply that a voter would have an option on the ballot when voting to decline to vote. Strange as all this may seem, there are an increasing number of electors who express their displeasure with the choices given to them by our system on the ballot on election day—

The Chair: None of them are in your riding, though.

Mr. Charles Caccia: —usually by either refraining from going to the polls or by making their ballot null and void, with some entry that disqualifies the ballot, like several crosses or some nasty observations.

• 1540

The intent of this measure would be to offer an alternative to those who want to express displeasure with the options offered by our electoral system.

If pressed by you or other members of this committee, Madam Chair, I would admit there are other bills presented by my colleagues that are of greater social significance or greater urgency than mine. Nevertheless, since this has a significance in making our democratic system more significant, I'm very grateful for the opportunity of presenting it to you today for your consideration.

The Chair: Are there any questions for Mr. Caccia?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Do you know if this option is offered elsewhere, in other democratic systems?

Mr. Charles Caccia: No, I am not aware of any democratic system similar to Canada's where such an option exists, but our democratic system has always provided for our being pioneers and for introducing new options. But no, I am not aware of any such case.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, PC/DR): I'm sorry, I didn't hear that exchange in French. I'm not bilingual, Madam Chairman, so...

Mr. Charles Caccia: The question was whether there is any similar measure in other democratic jurisdictions such as Canada's, to which the answer was, to the best of my knowledge there isn't. One may exist, but I'm not aware of it. That does not preclude Canada from being a pioneer in this type of legislation, as it is in many other respects.

Mr. Jay Hill: Just so I'm very clear on this, are you bringing it forward because you've heard substantial comment from your constituents in support of this type of initiative, or... where do you feel the support is?

Mr. Charles Caccia: It's a combination of comments of that kind and the not indifferent numbers of spoiled ballots that are registered, calculated statistically by the Chief Electoral Officer, and it's a category that is increasing in number.

Now, the increase in number is also due to the fact that the number of electors is also increasing, and one would have to take that into account. But there is, between a low turnout at the polls and the increasing number of people spoiling their ballots, a problem that needs to be somehow addressed. This would be one way of addressing that problem.

Mr. Jay Hill: I don't understand the nuances of the difference. A spoiled ballot is a way to protest that you don't like any of the choices on the ballot, and your suggestion is that you have a separate category on there—none of the above, or something. When they keep track of all of the spoiled ballots, I would think it would be very similar in rationale to the argument you put forward for keeping a separate statistic of none of the above being acceptable. It wouldn't differ that dramatically from spoiled ballots.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Yes, you put it very well in the sense that by adopting this amendment, a voter could put the cross next to a special line that would indicate they were not satisfied with any of the above options, rather than having to mistreat the ballot per se, spoil it in the process, which could be interpreted in many ways, not necessarily in the clear fashion it could be interpreted in by way of an extra line giving the voter the option of expressing dissatisfaction.

The Chair: Are there any further questions?

Monsieur Proulx.

• 1545

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): I don't think it's relevant as far as our decision today is concerned. If we open the door to this one, would there not be another category or other categories to be added on there, where somebody would say, well, I want to vote for the leader of the party, but I don't want to vote for the candidate? Or then somebody would say, I want to vote for the candidate, but I don't want to vote for the leader. The system is a voting system for a candidate. You vote for the candidate, or you don't vote.

Mr. Charles Caccia: The dilemma you're referring to exists already, and we hear it many times, depending on who happens to be wronged, so to speak. But the system has resisted that particular option, so I think it will continue to resist so long as level-headed parliamentarians are around.

The Chair: There's a sample ballot on the back of your notes.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Instead of saying, “I decline to vote for any of the above candidates”, maybe we should just say, “I want this ballot to be considered spoiled”. So we're back to square one.

Thank you.

Mr. Charles Caccia: But the message would be somehow less clear. The purpose of putting the cross next to the message you are suggesting would be just to spoil the ballot, whereas as proposed in this bill it would be the expressed will of the elector to say that he or she declines to vote, the options that are available not being satisfactory.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: So it would then be tabulated as saying, so many for such a candidate, so many for another candidate, so many who don't want to vote, and so many ballots spoiled.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Correct.

The Chair: Thank you, Charles.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Thank you, Madam. Thank you, gentlemen.

The Chair: Before we go to the next presenter—actually, I've changed my mind because we've got quite a crowd. We'd have to ask them to leave the room if we went in camera.

I just want to make a point. Mr. Harb was here. We didn't have a quorum and he had to chair another committee, so he left. He wanted you to know that he cares very much about making this bill votable. I'm sure you've all read it and looked it over. Just make sure you understand that just because he's not here, it doesn't mean he doesn't care. I think he was a little distressed that he had to leave. But it's technically our fault; we weren't here on time.

The next presenter is Mr. Perron. Welcome.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron M.P. (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: I don't think I've ever seen you here before. Do you know what the rules are?

Mr. Gilles Perron: Please explain them to me.

The Chair: You spend up to five minutes explaining to us why you want the bill to be made votable, not necessarily why you would want us to vote for your bill. Then you're subject to questioning.

Mr. Gilles Perron: Okay. I didn't understand that.

[Translation]

I believe that today, given the reality of marriage, separation and divorce, we are in a new...

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill: On a point of order, just so I understand, which one are we doing right now?

The Chair: It's Bill C-397.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

[Translation]

Thank you.

Mr. Gilles Perron: We are living in a situation in which section 118 of the Income tax act must be updated so as to continue to be fair to both parents in a joint custody situation. We know that today the trend, in the majority of divorce and separation cases, is for joint custody of the children.

At the present time, it is the parent who receives support payments who is entitled to deduct child-rearing costs. My bill C-397 would allow, on the basis of a minimum period of 50 days, because parents often keep the child for the weekend or for the week, the parent to deduct, for 100 days, 100/365 of deductible child-rearing expenses.

This is a fair and equitable bill that fits with the needs of today's society. If bill C-397 did not become votable, reducing it to simple wishful thinking, then it would not have the same impact as if it were votable. I am therefore asking, in the name of fairness and justice, that this bill be made votable.

• 1550

It is now your turn to ask questions, Madam.

[English]

The Chair: Do I have any questions around the table?

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Perhaps I just have one quick one. Do you know of any province that might have something similar?

Mr. Gilles Perron: Quebec has it.

Mr. Jay Hill: It already has the deductibility from provincial income tax?

Mr. Gilles Perron: Yes, my friend. There's a copy here from Quebec, and they've got it; they changed it, and so forth and so on. It's available in Quebec. There's the article.

[Translation]

My bill closely resembles the Quebec piece of legislation.

[English]

The Chair: Are there no further questions?

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Perron: I hope that you will vote in favour of my bill. Thank you, Madam. Thank you, gentlemen.

[English]

The Chair: The lack of questions does not indicate a lack of interest. It means you explained yourself very clearly.

Mr. Gilles Perron: I hope so, Madame.

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

I don't need to explain anything to you. You used to sit on this committee.

Mr. Yvon Godin M.P. (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I wish to address Bill C-218.

If we have the time, I will probably get the notes very soon. I will be able to distribute them to the committee for your information after if you want to get back to it.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for the opportunity to argue the merits of Bill C-218 on behalf of my colleague Peter Stoffer. Unfortunately, Peter had parliamentary commitments that prevented him from being here today. Peter is presently on the west coast with the fisheries committee conducting hearings. That's the reason he's not here today.

Bill C-218, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, was first introduced during the last session of Parliament and was reintroduced February 5 of this year.

Although my colleague has several private member's bills before the House of Commons, when his name was chosen in the draw on the other two orders of precedence, he felt this bill was so important that he chose Bill C-218 to place on the order of precedence. I too think it is a very important piece of legislation, and I hope you will select it as a votable item.

This bill is very important because it will add more democracy to the Parliament of Canada. It will make Parliament more comfortable for the voting public, who put their faith in their elected official to represent their interests in the House of Commons when they choose to vote for them and who also believe they were voting for a person who belonged to a particular political party with specific ideologies.

Regrettably, many Canadians view politicians and political processes with a great deal of cynicism. Much of the cynicism comes from a feeling of isolation from the political process. The purpose of the bill is to help restore faith in the political process and put a little bit of democracy in the hands of the voters.

When a member of Parliament chooses to cross the floor to join another political party, he or she takes for granted both the right of voters to choose their elected representative and their expectation that the representative will honour the commitment made during an election.

With only 50% of eligible Canadians coming out to vote, there is clearly distress in the democratic process. Voters need to be given the assurance that when they vote for a member who has been endorsed by a political party, that person will respect the electorate's choice. Canadians must be given the right to approve or disapprove their representative's change of political affiliation.

• 1555

Since Confederation, there have been 200 members of Parliament who have broken their party affiliation—134 MPs have actually switched party allegiance and crossed the floor; another 66 have left their parties to sit or run as independents. All parties have, at one point or another, lost or gained members by switching political affiliations.

The CCF and NDP have actually benefited from MPs switching affiliation. Since it's inception more than 65 years ago, the CCF-NDP has had only four MPs leave the party, while it has gained nine members.

In the last 20 years, only 21 MPs have actually switched party affiliations. This does not include the newly formed PC/DR or several MPs who have sat or run as independents. Of the 21, only 10 were successful in being re-elected.

MPs are elected to represent the people based on the principle of party affiliation and policy. Every time a member crosses the floor, it gives the impression that we, collectively as members of Parliament, are taking the voter for granted.

Bill C-218 requires that a by-election be called when a member of Parliament wishes to cross the floor and join another political party. Under Bill C-218, members of Parliament who are in disagreement with the philosophy and direction of their party are free to sit as independents, and may at any time rejoin the party they left. However, they cannot switch political parties without taking it to the voters first.

When a member crosses the floor, the Speaker must be notified. The Speaker will then address or warn the Chief Electoral Officer to call a by-election—clause 6. The bill also requires that those elected as independents shall continue to sit as independents until the end of their term—clause 4.

It is important that this is a votable item because it is an issue that needs to be debated publicly and openly in the House of Commons. The electorate needs to see that democracy is alive and well and that all MPs and their constituents can be heard in Parliament. We may have differing views on the issue, but it is important that those views are expressed on the record for all Canadians to see and hear.

This bill is significant and important and should be votable.

[Translation]

I would now like to say a few words on my own behalf, since I have up until now been speaking on behalf of Peter. Personally, I would like to see the committee make this a votable item. I believe that the time has come for us to have this debate in the House of Commons. It is really important that we have such a debate. I have talked to people close to my area who have seen their MP change party. For example, a 74-year old woman stated that she would never have voted for such and such a party, but that an individual had convinced her to vote for her. She said that she was not crazy and that she was well aware of the party that person represented. But this person left the party to join another one for which this elderly woman would never have voted. She said that she felt betrayed.

Canadian men and women feel betrayed when someone does that. The best solution in such a case is to become an independent and to go back to the riding and face the music.

[English]

You face the music. That's it. And if they want you back—

The Chair: You're 45 seconds over time.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You've got it, it's yours.

The Chair: It's not mine. We have a question from Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, has there been any research into the legality of this? It's my understanding it has only been in recent parliaments that your party affiliation was on the ballot at all. I think traditionally our system has been such that it's viewed, rightly or wrongly, that electors are electing individuals, not parties or party leaders. I wonder about the legality of stipulating that an individual cannot change his or her mind. I'm not getting into whether it's right or wrong, because that's not our role here.

Mr. Yvon Godin: To be fair, I don't have the answer to that question. Maybe it should be looked at, whether it is legal or not. If it is illegal to do it, then people should not go around saying they're running under the NDP, or under the Canadian Alliance, and here are the politics, and then walk in here and say, bye, bye, guys, I'm going over there. As far as I'm concerned, it should be illegal to do that. The people have voted for someone with certain ideals.

The Chair: Yvon, I don't think it's illegal. It might be fattening and immoral, but it's not illegal.

• 1600

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, I said that's what should be illegal. I think you've got me wrong there. I said that's what should be illegal—to do it. It's not illegal, because they're doing it.

Mr. Jay Hill: I was just pointing out that I don't have a legal opinion on this in the sense—

The Chair: That's why we have Jamie here. Jamie, do you have an answer?

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): No, I don't believe it would be illegal to do this. It would be a case of whether it's advisable or not.

You are correct. Up until 1970 or 1974, political affiliation was not shown on ballots, and certainly members now are elected as individuals who happen to be members of a political party, but they are voted as individuals.

If the House did decide to pass this bill, it would not be unconstitutional to do so. In India, there used to be a provision in their constitution because of the problem of people being elected under one party label and then changing to another one. They actually had a constitutional amendment that required exactly the same thing this bill would impose, which is a by-election.

Mr. Jay Hill: My other question deals with item 3 under making something votable, which is that it has significant public interest. I'm not saying it's not out there, but I haven't heard a large hue and cry across the country. I haven't seen polls, for example, where the question was posed of the general electorate on whether this is of significant interest to them.

Furthermore, under item 5 in the list of criteria, I wonder if Mr. Stoffer has provided any evidence beyond perhaps some of his own constituents saying they're upset about this. Is it something that's coast to coast, where people are PO'd about this? Maybe it is and I'm just not hearing it.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't know, I think if we make it votable and we get all this debate, we could hear from across the country how they feel about it. Many times we pass a bill and we don't have all the information when we present it to the committee here. But I can tell you this. In my riding, for example, I hear it very loudly—you have been elected there and you better not make a move. If you want to make it, well, resign and come back. But that's how the people... it's very loud in my riding. I don't know how they feel in other ridings.

I've never resigned; nobody has ever resigned from my riding. But when they see it happening—I can speak on behalf of my riding—people are not pleased. They say “I voted for that person. I put trust in that person.” People take it for granted that when they vote for that person, they can do anything they want. They say, no, we should go back to the people who put... the grassroots. I think you know the word “grassroots”. When the grassroots make a decision, we should honour that grassroots decision.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Godin, I think you've answered the question.

We're not really going to debate it, are we, Mr. Hill?

Mr. Jay Hill: The point I was just making is that Mr. Stoffer, in all fairness, has not provided the committee with evidence that it's of substantial public interest as per the criteria, or that it's outside of his own riding. That's the point I was making.

The Chair: Okay. Are there any other questions?

Mr. Yvon Godin: He doesn't want to argue. I'm just defending it.

The Chair: That's good. You've done a good job.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Have a good day.

The Chair: Bye-bye, Mr. Godin.

Madame Girard-Bujold, welcome.

I don't know if you've been here before. Have you? Yes? Then welcome back. Don't be nervous. We're a pretty nice bunch.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold M.P. (Jonquière, BQ): This is an issue that is very close to my heart, Madam Chair. Earlier today, I tabled in the House the names of 460 other petitioners I had. Most of them are young people. They wrote down their age, most of them being between 10 and 15 years of age. They came to see me and asked me to intervene. Most of them are victims of sexual abuse.

Madam Chair, allow me to give you a bit of background to this petition. A petition was circulated in Quebec in 1997. It had 38 000 signatures and my colleague, the member from Laval-Centre, Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, tabled it in the House of Commons in 1997 because, as you are aware, my predecessor, Mr. André Caron, whose assistant I was at the time, died.

André Caron had made a commitment to the people who had come to see us: he had promised to table a bill aimed at imposing harsher sentences on people guilty of a sexual offence involving a minor.

Four years later, Madam Chair, on February 2 of last year, I tabled a bill amending sections 151 and 152 of the Criminal Code and suggesting minimum sentences for those people found guilty of sexual offenses involving minors.

• 1605

In the case of a first offence, the sentence would be two years, and for a second offence, the minimum sentence would be five years. Bill C-208 would not change the maximum sentence, which would continue to be 10 years.

The reason I am suggesting that there be a minimum sentence is very simple: there is none at the present time. Consequently, people guilty of such offences could do a few months of prison time for acts of pedophilia. It is even possible that they not even go to prison because six months could pass before the verdict is even handed down. If they were sentenced to six months, they would not even be incarcerated.

You are aware that the Criminal Code as it now stands provides but very few minimum sentences. I could mention as an example second degree murder. I am of the view that sexual offences involving minors are, after murder, the most heinous of crimes. One of your colleagues, John Finlay, tabled a similar bill in 1998. He said the following: "Because, in this type of assault, you are killing the soul, the self-esteem and the very spirit of the child".

Madam Chair, those who offend a child's modesty and guilelessness oftentimes get away with a few months behind bars. This situation is to my mind an anachronism and has no meaning. We, the members of the House of Commons, have the opportunity to tell the young people who signed this petition that we have heard them and that we intend to act.

Madam Chair, there are more and more cases of pedophilia. I believe that the time is right. You know how much young people are suffering from insecurity these days. They feel insecure and those people know how to take advantage of children.

Furthermore, given the high incidence of repeat offences by pedophiles and the number of such habitual criminals who defend themselves by saying that they suffer from an uncontrollable attraction to young children, my bill provides for changes to section 271, such that these people would receive treatment during a given period in order to limit the risk of a repeat offence. Furthermore, my bill provides for follow-up when a pedophile is granted parole. I would stress here that these treatments will in no way compromise the physical integrity of the person.

My bill also provides that the victims of such acts will benefit from psychological follow-up. At the present time, Madam Chair, there is no psychological follow-up for the victim nor for his or her parents. My region has the highest suicide rate for young people. We know that young people are a high-risk group in this regard and even their parents are simply abandoned. We must therefore provide for psychological assistance for them in the bill.

In conclusion, my bill, Bill C-208 transcends party discipline. All I am attempting to do is to respond to the demands of these 40 500 persons who are asking for legislation enforcing harsher sentences on pedophiles and offering psychological assistance to the victims of their crimes. I hope you will deem my initiative well-founded and that you will make my bill votable.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam.

Are there any questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien: There are several aspects here. There is one that was not covered in the presentation. It seems there are changes to the definitions of the offences themselves. I would like to get a better grasp of this. Is there a new definition of sexual offence involving a child? And why is this exactly? Is the existing definition not a good one?

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: As I stated earlier, there is no such definition in the Criminal Code. The legal clerk of the House of Commons, my colleague, Michel Bellehumeur, and myself drafted this bill. It is important that we have a definition of the terms “offence involving children”. This is why it is included in the bill. This in no way contradicts the Constitution nor the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because we are not talking here about physical treatment, but psychological treatment. There is a psychological phenomenon at play with both the pedophile and the young person. The House of Commons' researcher did some research and this would not contradict the Canadian Constitution.

• 1610

[English]

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Madam.

[Translation]

Mrs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Thank you, Madam.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Tremblay is here, out of line, so we're going to put him next, number seven in your package.

Well, let's keep going. Come on, Mr. Tremblay, you've been waiting.

Mr. Calder, you don't mind waiting a minute do you? Are you in a big hurry?

Mr. Murray Calder M.P. (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Not at all.

The Chair: Okay.

It's number seven in your package, M-365.

Mr. Tremblay, have you been here before?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay M.P. (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Yes? Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Thank you, colleagues.

The motion I tabled last spring and that was recently drawn is the reflection of my interests and thoughts regarding globalization and international economic agreements. The question here is the role of parliamentarians in the direction being taken by globalization and by international economic agreements.

I believe that with globalization, the role of parliamentarians must and will change. The role of parliamentarians must change because there will have to be greater involvement and greater cooperation between the parliamentarians throughout the world but even more so, in the case of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, between parliamentarians of the Americas.

I believe that better cooperation between parliamentarians could make international agreements more democratic, were they to participate. The problem is distance. It is very difficult for parliamentarians to meet several times a year in a given location. There presently exist various parliamentary groups, and this is because of the absence of parliamentarians in specific circumstances. For example, the Free Trade Area of the Americas brought about the creation of the Parliamentary Conference of the Americas and of the Interparliamentary Forum of the Americas. These are organizations whose purpose it is to increase the role of parliamentarians, but the problem is that these people only meet once a year.

Modern technology would allow us to set up what we might call a cyber-parliament or cyber-committees. In brief, the idea is for Parliament, here, to give itself the necessary virtual communication tools so as to be able to hold meetings with parliamentarians elsewhere and to allow for our work as MPs to take on a new dimension, a more international dimension. You will say that this is a very revolutionary idea.

My purpose today is not to bring in the technology, but rather to send a clear political message on behalf of parliamentarians. Yes, it is true that we have a role to play in the direction globalization is taking. We must occupy the territory that is ours.

How is it possible for you to do in-depth serious work if the meetings are only held once a year, if there are transportation problems, time difference problems and when you come back the following year, it is no longer the same parliamentarians who are there?

Therefore, with adequate telecommunication tools, we would be able to hold weekly meetings or whatever. I believe that this could be a small revolution of parliamentary government. If nothing is done in the coming years, we can be sure that something will come later and it will change our way of doing things as MPs.

Here, in brief, is what my motion asks: that the House do install virtual telecommunication infrastructure so as to allow us to be in regular contact with other parliamentarians in the world.

I am at your disposal to answer your questions.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

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

This is obviously a substantial undertaking. How much would it cost?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: I will make no pronouncements today as to the cost. Let me say that, personally, I am looking into the technological aspect. What I am realizing is that this should be possible soon and that the cost should not be that great. But I do not wish to talk about costs because the motion aims at stating that we, the parliamentarians, believe that we must play a greater role, that interparliamentary cooperation is necessary and that we are hoping to get the necessary telecommunication tools.

• 1615

I am not going to delve further into the plumbing of the thing before knowing how this would be accomplished. The tools themselves are not my concern. I am an MP, a politician. That will have to be taken care of by computer specialists and telecommunication engineers.

All I am hoping to accomplish with my motion is to send a clear message: that parliamentarians wish to have greater cooperation.

[English]

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: But many countries in the world may not be able to afford this, and you'd have to have it in all those countries before it would be worth anything. So without the cost, I'm...

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: This has to start somewhere. I believe that here in Canada we already have some of the most advanced technological infrastructures available. I agree completely with your question. It will perhaps take several years before countries in the South are hooked up, but I am saying that it is up to the countries in the North to test this new way of doing things. For the time being, we perhaps have to limit this type of experiment to the Europeans. If at some point parliamentarians in the North are convinced that this is the way to go, then I see no reason why... hooking up the parliamentarians of the rest of the world could, for the North, become a reason to finance the South. This is something that would be spread out over several years. This would be but a start.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: My question might be more appropriate for the clerk. I'm concerned about the wording of the motion.

Obviously I'm only reading the English version, but my understanding is that most motions—I don't know whether it's a requirement or not—should instruct the government to consider drafting a bill, or instruct it to draft a bill or bring forward a bill; it instruct the government to do something. The English version of this one says,“that this House do install an accessible and functional telecommunications infrastructure...”.

I'm a little unclear as to whether a motion like this would be in order in the House, were we to pass it, because it would commit the government to a substantial financial obligation. Is this in the proper order?

The Clerk of the Committee: Yes, it is. It's already been through the procedural clerks at the journals branch. It was taken into consideration and they've decided it could go ahead. That's why it was accepted.

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, then I've just learned something new for when I'm drafting my motions.

The Clerk: Yes, everything that goes on the order paper is checked through by a procedural clerk in advance.

Mr. James Robertson: You are correct that most motions in private members' business bills do call upon the government to do something. In this case the motion is worded for the House to do something, which it would do by having the Board of Internal Economy include in its budget and its estimates the costs for implementing this motion.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay, that's all.

The Chair: Are there any other questions? Thank you very much.

Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two bills to deal with here today.

The first is C-312, the census bill. This bill allows access to historic census records through the National Archives after a 92-year waiting period. A safeguard to protect privacy allows citizens to object to the release of their information during this period.

There's been very wide interest in this bill from across Canada. I've presented petitions in the House this year alone of more than 11,700 Canadians from all provinces, and similar numbers have been presented in the Senate. I imagine all the members of Parliament have been getting letters and correspondence on this issue. It is of great interest—largely to genealogists—but also there's major interest from historians and medical researchers tracing genetically inherited illnesses.

About 7.5 million Canadians are engaged in genealogy.

On September 26, 2001, the House passed a motion stating:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.

• 1620

Genealogy groups have surveyed MPs on whether or not they would support a bill of this nature, and to date 139 have responded favourably, 7 against, and 155 are non-committal or haven't responded.

Also, an expert panel appointed by the former Industry Minister, John Manley, released a report last year strongly supporting the 92-year rule and concluding that there was never a promise that records would be sealed in perpetuity. Its recommendations were consistent with this bill.

Most recently, confidential legal opinion from the Department of Justice dated August 1, 2000, concludes that there was a clear intention that records should be transferred to the National Archives after 92 years and that their release should be subject to the National Archives of Canada Act and the Privacy Act. Bill C-312 is consistent with the approach taken in this legal opinion. Also, the justice legal opinion concludes that records prior to 1918 can be released through the National Archives with no requirement for legal change on the records after 1918. It recommends clarification and concludes. This bill is also needed to counter an overzealous interpretation of the matter by Stats Canada.

If you have any questions, I'd be...

The Chair: I have two questions. If Mr. Manley did a study and thought it was such a good idea, why didn't he bring a government bill to that effect or change it?

Mr. Murray Calder: I don't have a good answer to that, but I looked at it and decided to bring forward a private member's bill.

The Chair: Secondly, did not Senator Milne bring a bill like this forward?

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes. She has an identical bill within the Senate right now.

The Chair: And it's working its way through the Senate.

Mr. Murray Calder: It's working its way through too.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Murray Calder: When that comes to the House of Commons, if it comes to the House of Commons, I'll be supporting it also.

The Chair: Is it exactly the same as yours?

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: If the House passed this—and I remember us debating it and passing it—why is it necessary to have a bill? We've already passed the motion.

Mr. Murray Calder: They won't release the records.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Even though the House passed a motion?

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes, they won't release the records. So I'm trying to get it right now that they will release the records. That's what this bill is all about.

The Chair: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, just following up on the chair's first question, I would gather you have some reasonable assurances from the government that they're not intending to bring forward this legislation. I'm referring to item 4 under our criteria that we're to judge whether to make something votable or not if it's the intention of the government...

Following up on both the chair's first question and Mr. Breitkreuz's question, it seems incomprehensible to me that they don't intend to do something with that motion that was passed. It appears as though they're in favour of it. Then I guess my question would be, why should we make this bill votable if the government's going to do it anyway, which is the issue of item 4 on our criteria?

Mr. Murray Calder: To answer your question, I am not aware of the government moving in this direction. So I decided to, because I have been approached by genealogists and it does have some medical need to research diseases. The Bernardo twins are a good example of that. They came over here as orphans. Their records can't be released. Therefore, if there was some hereditary disease, you can't really tell, because once you hit the 1911 census, you've just run into a brick wall.

So I don't see the government right now coming forward with legislation to take and do what this private member's bill is going to do.

Mr. Jay Hill: So to your best knowledge, the government is not about to or going to or intending to bring forward their own legislation or amendment to allow for this.

Mr. Murray Calder: That's correct.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): I wonder what the rules are in other jurisdictions. There are a lot of other jurisdictions, I believe, that have a much more open system than we do. Is that not right?

• 1625

Mr. Murray Calder: I'm not exactly sure. The point I get from the census people is that they have a feeling there is a promise made not to release any census documents. As far as I'm concerned, after a 92-year waiting period—and the people still have the option of saying no, which is the other thing—this material can be released.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: But are any census records older than that released?

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: What's the limit now?

Mr. Murray Calder: To give the short answer, I think it's just released when it goes into the National Archives. I'm not exactly sure. But I do know that with the 1911 census there was a problem with Census Canada—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: But is the 1901 census available?

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes, as far as I know.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I was just wondering whether the 1911 census was going to be available 10 years from now. Or did they change the rules after the 1901 census?

Mr. Murray Calder: I think part of it is that Census Canada takes a look at the fact that, in their interpretation, there was a promise made not to release these records. I'm coming back and saying that, after 92 years, I can't really see the difference, and I have legal opinion here that says the same thing. There is value in these censuses if they're released. Hereditary disease is one thing, genealogy another.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I would imagine most people are doing it more for genealogical reasons.

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes, but there are medical reasons as well.

The Chair: Marcel.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I apologize; I was outside for a few minutes.

Murray, refresh my memory. Is this not dêjà vu? Isn't this something we've talked about lately, these censuses being released or available?

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: What was the discussion? In what context did we discuss this?

Mr. Murray Calder: As I stated in my presentation, on September 26, 2001, the House passed a motion stating:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.

The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but was that an opposition day? What was that?

Mr. Murray Calder: I don't know. I just pulled down some information. I had only a set number of minutes to make this presentation.

The Chair: But there was an actual vote in the House.

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes.

The Chair: You're sure it wasn't a one-hour debate?

Mr. Murray Calder: As I said, the House passed a motion, and “passed” means there had to be a vote.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Somebody had to vote on it.

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Have there been any results since then?

Mr. Murray Calder: No.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Because there was a motion, I guess we cannot come back with a bill.

The Chair: Bibiane is going to call and find out the genealogy behind this bill.

Mr. Murray Calder: Sure. Do you want me to go on to the other one while she's doing that?

The Chair: No, not yet.

Jay, you go ahead.

Mr. Jay Hill: Just following up on this line of questioning, it just kind of registered, when you read out that motion, that the government should do everything...

I forget; can you read it again?

Mr. Murray Calder: All right:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider taking all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.

Mr. Jay Hill: That was passed. The government has been instructed by the House to do that. What I'm wondering is, are you aware that there's some problem acting any faster than that? It just seems to me that, given the way the motion is worded, there must be some requirement that the government has to wait until they are deposited in 2003 before they can do anything. So passing this bill will not hurry it up until it's deposited in 2003.

Mr. Murray Calder: Well, there is right now some resistance from Census Canada to release the 1911 census. I'm saying that this bill right here, if it's passed in the House of Commons, will in fact allow the 1911 census to be released—

Mr. Jay Hill: Before 2003?

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes.

Mr. Jay Hill: Before it's put into... Well, then, why did the motion read that way?

Mr. Murray Calder: That's the way it reads.

The Chair: There's been only six weeks to do something about it if it did pass the end of September. I think we've been a little busy since September, so you can't really fault the government for not instantly doing something about it.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: As was pointed out, it says when it's deposited in 2003.

• 1630

Mr. Jay Hill: I'm just wondering, Madam Chairman, about the legality of the government releasing something before it's deposited in 2003. The individual who put forward the bill obviously has done the research to know whether it's even possible to release it before it's deposited, whoever it's supposed to be deposited to.

The Chair: Good questions, Jay. I'm not objecting to your questions. I think you're doing a great job.

Bibiane is going to track this one down. In the meantime, are there any other questions on it? She'll come back and tell us the exact—I'd like to use this word again—“genealogy” of this bill.

You're going to go on to the Senate bill, Murray.

Mr. Murray Calder: I'm speaking on behalf of Bill S-22, which is Senator Murray's bill on the Canadian horse. This bill went all the way through the Senate. It is now in the House of Commons. It's the same as my own bill, Bill C-311. There's an amendment, within the Senate bill, to use the more common English spelling of “Canadian” horse on the Canadian aspect of the bill.

This bill is supported by horse breeders across Canada. Such other countries as Peru and Mexico recognize national horses. Currently Canada does not. The choice of this particular horse is appropriate in that there is no serious opposition from breeders of other horses.

The Canadian horse has a long history in Canada since its arrival in New France in 1665 from the stables of Louis XIV. The Canadian horse is a foundation of many breeds prevalent in Canada, and has a vibrant horse history today. The Morgans, the standardbreds, the Tennessee walking horses, the saddlebreds—all are of Canadian ancestry. It has had a long history in this country as a workhorse, tilling the soil in New France and carrying Canadian troops to battle. Its strength, endurance, and determination make it a fitting Canadian symbol. In the nineteenth century it faced extinction, but has rebounded thanks to dedicated breeders.

The national recognition will enhance its marketability and value and ensure its continued survival. Canada recognizes other animal symbols, such as the beaver, the loon, etc. These other animals are all native to Canada. The Canadian horse, like our immigrant population, came from abroad and has adapted itself to our Canadian climate.

The Chair: How could you do that, Murray? You made it multicultural; what a stretch. Nice try.

Mr. Murray Calder: There are not many things I can't do.

The Chair: Now, you say you also have this bill in the mix, so when your name was drawn, you chose to do the census bill over this one.

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes. I knew that I'd already done some presentations in the Senate in front of their agricultural committee. I knew that the Canadian horse was going to make third reading within the Senate and be into the House of Commons. I just looked at... this one'll be here, and I'll bring this one to...

The Chair: If I may, Murray, I would just pursue this for a second, because it's a bigger issue for us. Perhaps you would just be patient and answer my questions.

Mr. Murray Calder: Sure.

The Chair: You say you've made presentations to this in the Senate. Did Senator Murray come up with this himself or was he encouraged to do so by members of the House of Commons?

Mr. Murray Calder: Senator Murray came up with this one himself. I think he has reviewed my bill, because his is almost an identical copy to mine, except for the fact that I was using “Canadien” because the horse originated in Quebec. Senator Murray, when I was talking to him, as far as I was concerned... With national recognition, the breed becomes very valuable.

The Chair: What's Senator Murray's interest? Is he a horse breeder? Is he a farmer by trade?

Mr. Murray Calder: I would say his interest was that he was looking for a Canadian issue, and he found one, the Canadian horse.

The Chair: Does anybody else have any questions of the witness? No one?

Thank you very much, Murray.

Mr. Martin, welcome. You've been here before, so you know the rules.

Mr. Pat Martin M.P. (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): I do.

The Chair: You know how to dazzle us.

Mr. Pat Martin: Short and to the point.

• 1635

The Chair: I see it's out of order.

Mr. Pat Martin: My motion is out of order?

The Chair: No, you're out of order. You should have been here sooner. You're lucky we're listening to you.

Grovel, please.

Mr. Pat Martin: I actually swapped with somebody else.

“Grovel, please”?—you're putting me off my game here.

The Chair: That's the general idea.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay.

I know I'm not supposed to argue the merits of the motion or the business that I bring forward, so I won't go into the details of the Dudley George incident at Ipperwash. I think most people here are aware of the facts leading up to the Ipperwash incident. People living in Ontario especially will know that it's come up a number of times in the Ontario legislature and elsewhere. I'll limit my remarks to why I believe it does merit debate in the House of Commons and a vote in the House of Commons. My motion would give direction to—or, more correctly, urge—the government to call a full public inquiry into the details surrounding the death of Dudley George.

I guess I could start by saying who else joins us in calling for an inquiry just by way of illustrating that there's broad national interest in this issue. The United Nations dealt with this matter on March 26, 1999. The United Nations Human Rights Committee said, in their observations, the following:

The Committee is deeply concerned that the State party so far has failed to hold a thorough public inquiry into the death of an aboriginal activist who was shot by provincial police during a peaceful demonstration regarding land claims... The committee strongly urges the State party

—meaning the government of the day—

to establish a public inquiry into all aspects of this matter, including the role and responsibility of public officials.

I should point out that the actual police officer who shot Dudley George has been charged, tried, and convicted for killing Dudley George, an unarmed man. So the courts have dealt with it. We're not looking to punish any police officers. Our interest is deeper than that—namely, was there political interference? In other words, did the premier or members of the legislature direct the police to act in a certain way?

As more and more facts unfold, there's a disconcerting amount of evidence that this is the case, and this is why the provincial ombudsman asked the provincial legislature to call a public inquiry.

Ron Irwin, the Minister of Indian Affairs, asked the provincial and federal governments to hold an inquiry. The Liberal Party of Ontario as recently as yesterday was in the provincial legislature calling for an inquiry.

Amnesty International calls the killing of Dudley George an extrajudicial execution, which is very worrisome. It smacks of police state. Both opposition parties in Ontario called for an inquiry. The family of Dudley George has begun a class-action suit, which is bankrupting them. They have said publicly that they will withdraw their suit if a federal public inquiry or provincial public inquiry is called.

At this time we feel this is an opportunity to recognize that in this country an unarmed protester should not die at an otherwise peaceful demonstration. Given Bill C-36, I feel it's even more timely. If we want to assure Canadians and aboriginal people that bills like Bill C-36 aren't going to override civil liberties, we believe this is an opportunity for us to condemn the idea of political policing or excessive policing, because that way lies a police state.

The last thing I would say is that there have been public inquiries into other police actions, such as the APEC riots, where no one was killed. It smacks, again, of a race-based decision. When a bunch of middle-class college kids are inconvenienced, there's a huge national public inquiry, and when an aboriginal person in a peaceful protest is killed, it passes relatively unnoticed by comparison.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hill, do you have a question?

• 1640

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes, Madam Chair.

My question deals with item two of our criteria, which stipulates that it should be federal jurisdiction for us to consider making an item votable.

I noticed in your remarks that the intent of the inquiry, at least in your view, would be to see if there is any government interference in the process that led to this unfortunate death. But it's the provincial government, and I just wonder how it is that the federal government, or the federal House, or the federal level of government should be involved in this particular issue. Wouldn't it be better, or more appropriately, served in Queen's Park?

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm glad you asked that, Mr. Hill, because there are two examples in my notes here that deal with just that.

Ron Irwin, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs at the time, felt it should be a federal investigation as early as a week after the incident.

The Chair: That's right; we shipped him to Ireland.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's not a bad gig. I'm up for that if you ever want to get rid of me.

Being that all aboriginal affairs and matters dealing with Indian lands are under federal jurisdiction, Professor Bruce Ryder, the constitutional law expert we've quoted here, felt it was ultimately the jurisdiction of the federal government to oversee this.

Mr. Jay Hill: Is that because of the fiduciary responsibility of the federal government for native peoples?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, and because the issue was really over treaty land. The Canadian military borrowed a chunk of the reserve to use as a training area during the Second World War, with the written promise that the land would be returned to them at the end of the conflict, as they termed it. Since 1945 they've been trying to get that land back.

Again, seeing as it deals with DND, then, and DIAND was the root of the whole issue, it's a federal matter.

Mr. Jay Hill: Has your research into the need for this inquiry—and I'm not disputing a need for an inquiry, just this issue of whether it should be provincial versus federal—shown any other instances in the past where the federal government held a full-blown inquiry into something where the feeling was a provincial government overstepped their bounds, or their power, or however you want to put it? Are there other examples in the past where a federal inquiry actually delved into a provincial government involved in, for example, directing police action?

Mr. Pat Martin: I don't have any examples. If there are any, I don't have any in my research.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Can we ask our researcher—

The Chair: You can ask him whatever you like.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: —along the same lines as the last question, where do we stand as the federal government in terms of stepping into the provincial government doing, or not doing, something?

Mr. James Robertson: I think I would agree with Mr. Martin that the federal government's legislative power under section 91 with respect to aboriginal people does provide a basis for the federal government to launch a judicial inquiry in this case. At the same time, the province clearly has jurisdiction as well, because it involved provincial police. So it's a case where both levels of government would appear to have the authority to launch inquiries, as I understand the issue.

Mr. Pat Martin: If I could add one thing, I have a copy of a letter from Herb Gray to the OPP when he was asked for armoured cars and other military DND equipment. The correspondence says, yes, we will provide this, and they ultimately did provide military equipment to the DND—providing it would be painted OPP colours. So the federal government was integrally involved in the whole conflict, even prior to the breakout of the violence.

The researcher is absolutely right, subsection 91(24) provides a solid constitutional basis for a federal inquiry surrounding the fatal shooting. This was the legal opinion of Professor Bruce Ryder, a constitutional law expert.

• 1645

The Chair: Mr. Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: In the end, what you want is that Parliament pass a resolution asking the government to carry out an inquiry, but I imagine that those people have already asked the government to lead an inquiry. Has there already been a request that the federal government undertake an inquiry? If so, what has the response been to date?

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: The answer is, yes, a number of groups have gone to the federal government asking for them to begin an inquiry. I don't know if I have their official reaction. I don't have which groups specifically went to them, other than Ron Irwin recommending that the federal government be the one to do the inquiry. But the coalition that's been formed for Dudley George, which includes the United Church, the Canadian Labour Congress, and a number of other organizations, has been concentrating to this time on a provincial inquiry and bringing Mike Harris to testify. The courts have only recently ruled that Mike Harris and two senior cabinet ministers would have to testify if an inquiry was held. In other words, they would not be immune from testimony.

The Chair: Mike Harris is testifying today, in camera, though, is he not? It was on the news this morning that they have him locked up for two days, asking him questions—just not in public.

Mr. Pat Martin: Ah, but that's part of the special investigations unit. It's not an inquiry, not a public inquiry.

The Chair: One would presume, if they found enough bad answers, or as many bad answers as they might be looking for, that they then could instigate their own inquiry, could they not?

Mr. Pat Martin: They could—but they won't.

The Chair: Oh, you of little faith. That's why the NDP gets a bad name around here.

Mr. Pat Martin: We're all sort of jaded.

The Chair: Any other questions?

Thank you very much. Good presentation.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Obhrai is next, and then we have Mr. Valeri of last night's CPAC fame.

I watched you.

Mr. Tony Valeri M.P. (Stoney Creek, Lib.): You did?

The Chair: I don't have a life. You did a good job.

I watched you, too.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai M.P. (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): You watched me too?

The Chair: What was it—anybody they could find in the halls, on television?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I hope you had a good sleep after watching my interview.

The Chair: No, Tony got me revved up.

All right, let's get into your presentation, which is on breaking and entering.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Absolutely.

The Chair: You've done this before.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I've done this before. I'm back to the same thing here.

The Chair: It's actually the same bill, is it not?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Absolutely.

The Chair: You're persistent.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: You didn't make it votable last time, and I remain persistent. I am bringing this bill back here.

As I said last time, I'm asking for a two-year minimum sentence for repeat break and enter offences. As I said last time, there is widespread support for this bill right across the country.

The Chair: Are you also asking for life in prison?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: No, two years minimum.

The Chair: I'm joking, come on.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: No, you bring up a good point. Right now, under the bill, you can send somebody to jail for life imprisonment for break and enter. It's there under the criminal act. The problem is, what happens is that one out of ten people only get more sentence. The majority of the sentences are either suspended or six months.

So what we have is a cycle of breaking and entering created, where it has become profitable for these habitual criminals to keep breaking and entering, to keep stealing. It becomes a business for them. They know that once they go back to the courts, they're going to get six months or a suspended sentence. There is no way, even if you go back twice, it's going to exceed that.

And this is repeat break and enter offenders I'm talking about, not first-time. We can understand a person, really, the first time, getting leeway, but the second time... What we are trying to do is break the cycle of habitual criminals profiting from this thing.

Breaking and entering has become a very serious issue. It leads to home invasions, and people are being victimized, some heavily victimized.

• 1650

There are a couple of the reasons why I've brought this bill here. First, we want to give direction to the courts to say we want the business people who habitually make money out of this off the street. That's why I'm asking for a minimum sentence of two years. The maximum we'll still leave up to the judge. As well, every jurisdiction has a different sentencing system. There's no consistency across the nation. An Alberta judge may give it two months. Somewhere else they will give it six months or eight months. So right across the nation we do not have consistency on break and enter offences, and it's becoming quite a serious issue.

I have received the support of practically the majority of the provincial ministers as well as the police associations and those I've talked to. I have had meetings with victims of these break and enter crimes. You should see their testimonies as well on what is happening.

So I'm back here again with an appeal to make this important issue votable. If you don't make it votable, I'll be back again.

The Chair: That left a negative message in our minds.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: And I'm sure you don't want to see me again, right?

The Chair: But you are so charming.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: The witness is trying to intimidate.

The Chair: He is trying to upset us, more to the point.

Does anybody have any questions? There shouldn't be any questions, because we've been here before.

Oh, make a liar out of me, Bill.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: He referred to the discrepancy now between jurisdictions with respect to sentencing. I was wondering, is Alberta one of the more lenient ones? You said in Alberta it could be two months and somewhere else it could be six months. Which provinces are the most lenient at the moment?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I don't think there are statistics anywhere that say who is lenient or who is not, but in talking to the police officers who deal with these things, and their frustration based on that... You know, it's based on a judge. I don't think it's based on a province, who is lenient and who is not. And I don't think there are stats anywhere in the country on this issue.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It sounds to me like the kind of thing the Fraser Institute might collect. You should probably check there.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Well, I don't think they want to go into this crime issue.

The Chair: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

Just following up on that, have you any stats to show what percentage of those convicted of break and enter get conditional sentencing? In other words, they don't get any jail time but just community service or whatever.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I actually do have that, but I didn't bring it here.

Mr. Jay Hill: How are you going to convince me, then, if you don't bring all the stuff here?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I thought I'd convinced you last time.

Mr. Jay Hill: This is the second time I've been on this committee—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: The answer to that, in fact, is you don't have to defend it here; you just have to make it votable. That's not why you're before the committee.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: No, but here is the question. I have a statistic—

Mr. Jay Hill: He has to convince me that it's important enough to make it votable in comparison with the others.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I thought last time you agreed. At any rate, I have it here. Just give me a second.

Only one in ten receives a sentence of two years or more. So the majority of them are—

Mr. Jay Hill: Less than two years.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes.

Mr. Jay Hill: Or nothing.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes. So it's a serious issue, as you know.

The Chair: Any more questions? No?

Mr. Jay Hill: One more quick one.

Has any analysis been done of what this would cost?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: What would cost?

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, you're saying that only one in ten receive two years or more now. If all of a sudden they were all made two years, you're taking 90%. I don't even know how many thousand break and enters occur, where somebody is convicted of that crime, in a year, but if you're going to incarcerate them all for two years or more, under your bill, have you any idea of what that would cost, or how many prisons we'd have to build?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: You are assuming that the rate of break and enters, under the minimum of two years, would remain constant, and I am telling you that the idea is to break this cycle of business they have, which means the rate will go down.

Mr. Jay Hill: So you have no idea.

The Chair: It would be a real economy booster.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Everybody knows it is big business for these break and enter offenders.

• 1655

Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Chair, my colleague on the committee here wants to defend him.

The Chair: No, no, no, that's not his job. You're here to ask questions. Questions only.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: The question is, would not the answer to that be that this would save the country a lot of money in lost property? I mean, it's a money-saving venture.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I agree with you. I thought he understood that.

The Chair: Thank you. Once again, charming.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you very much, Madam. You don't want to see me again, right? You'll make it votable?

The Chair: I enjoy every visit.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you very much.

The Chair: I even enjoy visits to Mississauga. You should drop by.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: You know, that would be a good idea.

The Chair: You do influence politics there, to a certain extent.

Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: You really were good last night. You were excellent.

Mr. Tony Valeri: I've never been here before.

The Chair: I'll tell you what the rules are. First, you are not here to convince us to vote for your bill, the subject matter of it; you're here to convince us that it's worthy of three hours of debate in the House and the option for everybody else to vote for it. So don't sit here and try to tell us why we personally should vote for it. You should just tell us it's crucial that it be given three hours in the House.

Ready?

Mr. Tony Valeri: I should first clarify that it's not my bill.

The Chair: Whose is it?

Mr. Tony Valeri: I'm really here on behalf of Gallaway.

The Chair: That's right, the Gallaway—Mr. “Good Luck” Gallaway.

Mr. Tony Valeri: I am here on behalf of Mr. Gallaway, who had asked whether I could come to the committee and speak on his behalf.

The Chair: Is he paying you?

Mr. Tony Valeri: No, he's not.

An hon. member: What's his excuse for not being here?

Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Gallaway is in Bosnia at the moment.

M-298 is a motion that Roger feels should be votable. I know he provided a package, Madam Chair, of some of his arguments, but I understand you were not able to distribute it because it was not provided in both official languages. It is at the back table, and if members would like to peruse the package at their leisure, it's available for them to do so.

What Mr. Gallaway would like to convey to the committee is that essentially statutory holidays are, in the great Canadian tradition, a matter of shared jurisdiction. Provincial governments can proclaim certain days as statutory holidays, as is done in the province of Quebec, for instance, with St. Jean Baptiste on June 24. Similarly, the first Monday in August is a holiday, commonly referred to as “Civic Day”, and by reason of both provincial and federal concurrence that day is both a provincial statutory holiday and a federal statutory holiday.

There are certain “national” holidays, days where, by virtue of federal law only, a national holiday is proclaimed. There are two of these, as you all know. The first is July 1, Canada Day, and the second is May 24, Victoria Day.

Mr. Gallaway says this leads to the point of asking, essentially, what is the status of November 11 in law today? It is in fact a federal holiday for those who fall under federal labour provisions, such as federal civil servants and bank employees, who have that day as a statutory holiday. As well, certain provinces, I understand, have chosen to make it a provincial statutory holiday, while others have not. So there's disparity across the country. It's a statutory holiday based on, and depending on, where you live or where you work.

The motion put forward by Mr. Gallaway would serve to make it a national holiday. The obvious question is, why?

There's a representative sample in the package of press clippings, which you can source at your own leisure. In 1992, Ronald MacDonald, the then Dartmouth MP, had a private member's bill before the House requiring that November 11 become a Remembrance Day national holiday. That bill was opposed by the Conservative government of the day, and it failed to make it to a vote.

Who supports November 11 as a national holiday? The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Young Liberals, Jean Charest, veterans' organizations—some support it and some do not. I think that point needs to be made. In Ontario, the Royal Canadian Legion executives who oppose it also refuse to allow it to be put to a vote by their membership. So there is some widespread support for the actual holiday.

• 1700

The final point Mr. Gallaway would like to make on why it should be a national holiday is that 100,000 Canadians died in the last century in wars fought in the name of freedom. Making November 11 a national holiday would give all Canadians an opportunity to reflect on our contribution in the past and present, and present the achievement of peace and freedom. As well, 3,000 Canadian soldiers are now serving in Bosnia, and very shortly perhaps in Afghanistan. Our military is still an integral part of our country's identity, values, and foreign policy, both past and present.

By making this motion votable, you would give all members of Parliament in the House an opportunity to decide whether those who have served should be remembered by declaring November 11 to be a national holiday. The motion, I understand, meets all of the criteria necessary to make it votable. Mr. Gallaway would submit to you that this is an issue that has increased in importance in the post-September 11 world. For those of you who were present—and I know all of you were—at a cenotaph ceremony on November 11 just past, you would have noted increased significance and certainly increases in attendance.

The importance of Remembrance Day is not fading in Canada. Rather, it's become more important to us. Mr. Gallaway would urge you to make this a votable item so that members might have the opportunity to express the views of Canadians on this important topic by voting in the House.

The Chair: Now you have to answer the hard questions.

Mr. Tony Valeri: I do.

The Chair: You do, you do. You can ad lib.

Does anybody have any questions?

I have one. Did you say, unless I heard you incorrectly, that the legions don't support the idea?

Mr. Tony Valeri: There is some disagreement among the legions across the country. There are some members who do.

The Chair: For the ones who don't want it, do you know why they don't want it?

Mr. Tony Valeri: The main argument I've heard from those opposed to making it a national holiday is that they fear that children and individuals—families—would go out and travel rather than dedicate themselves to remembering that day. I know a lot of members of the legions do make a point of going into schools and performing ceremonies or encouraging students to remember. So that's where the opposition lies in the legions.

Mr. Gallaway makes the point, though, that the leadership of the Royal Canadian Legion, I guess, is opposed to putting this to their membership as well. I don't actually know why that is the case, but in local legions across the country I know there is diverse opinion here. Some support it, and would like to see a national holiday, while others do not.

The Chair: And you say the Federation of Canadian Municipalities supports it.

Mr. Tony Valeri: That's correct.

The Chair: They currently have the possibility in individual municipalities to declare it a holiday if they so choose.

Mr. Tony Valeri: I believe that's the case, as provinces have done as well. I think the point Mr. Gallaway is making is that it should be a national holiday rather than a patchwork across the country.

The Chair: Bossy Gallaway.

Yes.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Do you know if there is any acceptance from industrial or retail groups?

Mr. Tony Valeri: Whether they would oppose this?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Oppose or accept.

Mr. Tony Valeri: I don't know that.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Because it can be very costly.

Mr. Tony Valeri: I would suspect that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business or other groups might be concerned about another statutory holiday because of the costs associated, but I don't know whether there have been submissions made. The briefing document he has provided does involve a number of letters from individuals, from some associations, from some legions, from cities, and mostly from political representatives who are supportive of making it a national holiday.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien: You stated earlier that Parliament made a decision on this issue in 1992.

[English]

Mr. Tony Valeri: There was a private member's bill in front of the House, but it was not voted on. So it was never voted in the House.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: Very well. It is because you stated that the Conservatives were opposed to this.

[English]

Mr. Tony Valeri: As I understand it, the Conservative government of the day opposed the idea of having Remembrance Day as a national holiday, but it never made it to the House for a vote. I'm not sure what mechanism might have existed for private members' bills at that time.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Likely very much more... than we have now.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: It is simply for my own information because later on you stated that Jean Charest had supported it and that the Conservatives, at the time, were against the idea. I was simply trying to reconcile the two positions.

• 1705

[English]

Mr. Tony Valeri: In fact, there are letters of support in the package from Joe Clark and other—

The Chair: We're not allowed to see those.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Oh, sorry.

The Chair: And you know, Mr. Gallaway knows better. He has been to this committee so many times, and he has been made votable so many times, that he should know, if he is going to get Mr. Brien's support and the support of others, he should have a bilingual presentation.

Mr. Tony Valeri: I shall convey that message to Mr. Gallaway directly.

The Chair: Mr. Hill, do you have a question?

Mr. Jay Hill: It is more by way of a comment, Madam Chair.

Having talked to quite a number of vets, as I'm sure everybody around the room has, my understanding of the issue is that at the present moment, by not having a national holiday for Remembrance Day, young people are basically a captive audience. They are in the schools, there is a Remembrance Day service, and there are one or two minutes of silence. They have to observe it and they have to think about it because they are there. The worry is that it if becomes just another long weekend, people are off playing soccer, hockey, or whatever the case may be rather than thinking about the sacrifice that was made. That is the opposition from a lot of the vets.

The Chair: That's part of our debate rather than a question to Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Jay Hill: It was by way of a comment.

Mr. Tony Valeri: In terms of responding to the comment, by making it votable and allowing members to essentially state their preference, it also may reflect what some veterans have been saying across the country, which would ultimately put this issue to rest.

The Chair: Darn good answer, Valeri. You should hire yourself out. You could make quite a career of doing these presentations. That was a good answer.

Thank you.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]