SPRI 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]

Tuesday, May 5, 1998

• 0940

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): The meeting is now called to order.

Chuck, you know the routine.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair, for this chance to make a presentation on motion 318.

The motion reads:

In the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation making the tax deduction for contributions to charitable organizations no less than the tax deduction for contributions to political parties.

There's obvious disparity, of course, between the two types of giving. Both have an altruistic side to it—I hope and think—but for every $100 contributed to a political party a donor receives a $75 tax credit to encourage giving, whereas to encourage giving $100 to a non-political entity, but a charity, for that a donor will receive only a $17 tax credit from the federal government.

Obviously there is a difference between the two. The logic in the past has been that we must do all we can to encourage both charitable giving and political contributions, because both are good for a free and democratic society.

I'll skip down to what the Standing Committee on Finance recommended in its pre-1996 budget. You'll see it further down on the first page in the background. The Standing Committee on Finance recommended that “the government consider enhancing the charitable tax credit for donations to charities currently funded by governments to make it as generous as the current political tax credit for small donations to political parties”.

In other words, in 1996 the full committee, the Standing Committee on Finance, made that recommendation in the pre-budget submission to the finance minister, and it was not implemented. That recommendation was implemented in neither 1996 nor 1997, and neither again in 1998. The assumption—and I am only going on an assumption—is that the minister felt that while the country was in a deficit position, there wasn't any chance he could afford that, or didn't feel it was one of his number one priorities.

However, I would argue that this recommendation is still valid today. It's still the same tax system. The government has already made some moves to increase charitable giving. They have, for example, allowed a greater proportion of your income to be given to charity.

So I think they understand the value of increasing charitable donations, but this particular one may or may not cost money to the government. Now that the budget is balanced, it is an opportunity to examine this type of option.

I would note again that this motion is not as specific as the finance committee's recommendation that they change the charitable donations to make it more advantageous to give to charities. It just says they should be the same.

What the government may choose to do, then, if this motion were to pass... Right now, for example, you get a $75 tax credit on $100. You might choose to make the $100 donation somewhere in the middle. You might say it's a 50% tax credit for political donations, and the same for charities.

This motion doesn't preclude any mix of that. It would just give direction to the government to consider some way of making charitable donations as advantageous as political donations.

To quickly summarize, then, I believe it would be simpler. There's just one system. You have one stack of bills. You gave to charities and you gave to political parties. It would be no more advantageous to give to one over the other. I believe it's efficient that way.

Personally, I think people give because they believe in a party or the process, not just for the tax credit, but either way it would take that tax incentive out of it. They would both have an incentive.

It would make it very fair. I think right now some people feel they give $100 to the Salvation Army or whatever and they get only a $17 tax credit, when somebody who gives to the Reform Party gets $75 off. They don't think that's fair, and I would agree with them.

Again, it just reinforces the government's trend to enhancing the role of charities in our country. I think it's good for society as a whole. For my own benefit, I went through the criteria you follow in order to make something votable, and in my opinion, this motion fits all of the criteria. Others may as well, but this one at least fits all the criteria, and I think it is therefore a good candidate to be votable.

• 0945

Let's talk about the chair. She's not around, so we can talk about her now.

The Chair: You cannot.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Oops, she's listening.

The Chair: I'm a former teacher, so I can do two things at once.

Ken, go ahead.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Chuck, I'd like to ask you what kind of support you have for this. Has there been a huge demand? Has it been solicited by you or has it been voluntary? Have you had petitions? What's the degree of support out there in the real world for your bill?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: For example, the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy has made presentations to the government and to the Globe and Mail last year specifically, and they talked about the need to find ways to increase charitable giving. The all-party committee of the House of Commons also made that recommendation, so it cuts across party lines. I think there's support for this across party lines. I know in our own party, certainly there's an emphasis on trying to find ways to increase charitable giving. So there's good political support.

I have newspaper articles that describe the need for it. I don't have petitions on this. I haven't submitted or been given petitions, but I know, just anecdotally, that when people fill out their tax forms, this is the kind of thing that really grates on them: that it seems political contributions are valued more by the government than charitable donations. Most people... Well, I just don't think that has wide support at all.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. If we were to vote on this, because that's why you're here—strictly on the question of voting, not to debate the subject of your bill—would that have huge implications to the government on its revenue side? I think it would. Have you examined at all how big a problem that is?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, yes.

No, this motion wouldn't necessarily have big ramifications on the government on the revenue side, because rather than do exactly what the standing committee recommended, which is to change it so it's all the same as the political party contributions—and I happen to think the political party contributions are too generous: there's a 75% tax credit on the first $100—what the motion says is that charities and political parties would be treated the same under the tax system.

So if they wanted, they could make it revenue-neutral, even. They could say they're going to increase the help for charities and decrease it for political parties, or some balance in between. They could pick the numbers in there. That could be part of the debate as well. But this motion doesn't necessarily cost the government money. It's up to the government, after this motion is passed, to find a way to make them both be treated equally.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. So it could in fact save the government money, because you might cut back on the degree of support for political parties.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, it could, but again, it doesn't give direction in this motion. It just says make them the same and find a way to do that. They may even refer it to the committee to come back with a recommendation; I don't know.

Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Chairman, I'm finished. My answers are all on the record.

The Chair: Your questions are all answered?

Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I would like to ask two questions. First, do we have an idea, percentage wise, of the amount of contributions given to political parties and of those given to charitable organizations?

My second question is about the motion. I think it's an interesting motion but I'd like to have your opinion. Don't you think we should review the criteria used for charitable organizations because we know that there is a great number of charitable organizations?

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Of course that's another issue, and that is a good debate.

The amount of money given to political parties in 1997 was about $23 million; that's all. It's lots, but it's not astronomical. It costs the federal government, in credits, about $13 million to do that. Contrasting that, of course there is far more given to charities. There is more than $1.3 billion given to charities.

• 0950

I would just re-emphasize that in the last two budgets, the government has wisely targeted charities in both budgets to find ways to increase people's ability to give to charities. There is a hole being filled by charities because of government cutbacks. The social needs that used to be done by governments are now often being done by charities. The government has recognized that and has increased the ability of people to contribute to charities.

What this would do, especially for small donors... The system is set up so that big donors to charities receive a big benefit. That's good. I don't mind that. For the small donor, the $100 donor, who gives $10 here, there and everywhere, if you give $100 it doesn't benefit you nearly as much as $100 to a political party.

What I'm trying to do with this bill is to find a way to encourage more giving to charities and to establish the habit of giving. I think if people give $100 to charities and they start that habit in their early lives, as they go through life they will become philanthropic. They will give more money steadily to charities. Say you start with $100. The government recognizes that, gives you a big benefit, and as you go through life that benefits society.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In fact, political parties could become charitable organizations. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: They would be funded far less than charities. Right now they're funded far more than charities. People gave $23 million and the government paid back $13 million. It cost the government $13 million to support the political system.

I think they're still going to get some support under this motion, but it may not be as much. People would be able to say I gave money to a charity and I got more money back on my taxes, so I could give more money to charity. I think it's just a better balance. That's my hope.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I would like to ask something to Chuck. In his statement, he talks about equalizing the deduction for charitable gifts and political contributions. I want to be sure I understand correctly. You don't want to change the present deduction for political contributions but you would like to even that it out.

A moment ago, when you were answering Mr. Epp, you mentioned that the advantage given to charitable organizations would be compensated by a reduction of the deduction granted for political contributions. Do you want to even out things or do you also want to change the deduction for political contributions?

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: My objective is to make it level. Personally, I don't have the research available to me to know how many donations were small donations. I don't know; that's why I was reluctant to say let's change it all to the current political system. That may cost $1 billion. It may be too expensive.

If we were to just accept the principle that political parties shouldn't be treated more generously than charities, which is what this motion does, then the government could come back with a proposal to say that for the first $100 you get a 50% tax credit. Right now, political parties get a 75% tax credit and charities only get a 17% tax credit on the $100. The person who has $100 in their hand is saying if I give it to the Conservatives, I get $75 back. If I give it to the Canadian Cancer Society, I only get $17 back.

The government is supporting political parties far more than it's supporting charities. Let's try to find some middle ground. Maybe be a little more generous to the charities and not quite so generous to the political parties and level that field somewhere in the middle so that it's an affordable yet a level playing field. They could do either one, but this motion allows the government to come back with a proposal one way or the other to make it even and level.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Chuck, I'm curious. I don't want to debate the motion with you because I'd have a ball. We should make it votable just so you and I can go head to head on this one.

• 0955

You know, of course, there's a sliding scale on political donations and there's an upper limit, after which you get absolutely nothing back. So you're getting rid of all the big donors to cancer and everything else if you do this.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, you're not, because again, the motion doesn't tell the government exactly how to structure that. They could keep the system the way it is and allow charities to change. But again, that doesn't make sense, because there are big donors to universities, patrons who give hundreds of thousands of dollars. So you want to encourage that.

On the other hand, at the small donor level, let's face it, most donations, both political and charity, are small. People give a couple of hundred dollars a year, or whatever it is they give.

The Chair: Okay. You've made your point. So it's kind of like sucking and blowing; you want the low donations to be generously rewarded and the high donations not touched, or left at the same level.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Right. Again, the government can do as they want on that. I don't think they would touch the large donations, but they would just make it a level playing field.

The Chair: There's one other thing you haven't brought into this that would be absolutely essential to me. I was on a subcommittee of caucus back in the last Parliament that looked exactly at making charitable donations much more easy for everybody to do. I think some of the results you've seen in the last two or three budgets are because of that committee.

The one major problem we had was accountability. In a political donation, the paperwork is horrendous. The thing is audited and so on. In most charitable organizations, despite the fact that everybody out there believes there is, there's very little accountability. Very little. You don't even have to produce audited reports if you're a large charity.

If you're going to make it a level playing field, I think your motion should have addressed that. I think the rules governing the two organizations have to be similar as well. Otherwise you'd have an amazing amount of money going into charities with no accountability.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I agree. I think if it was a private member's bill, that's the way I would have done that. What this attempted to do... Mr. Bryden has written a book on that. There's a whole series of problems with charities in the country as well, and I understand that, but to address it in a motion is almost impossible.

There should be two steps to it, Carolyn. One, I think, is to make the system level. The other issue though, is a much bigger one. It involves the accountability of the charity organizations in Canada. That is a huge subject that you can't address in a motion. That's something the government should well look at, but I can't do it in a motion, I don't think.

The Chair: Chuck, the next time... You very efficiently have addressed the eleven criteria in the back—and number eight says “Motion 318 is not couched in partisan terms”. But right on page one, in brackets, you say “The Reform Party has also gone on record in support of increasing the tax credit for giving to charities”. I probably would have left that little paragraph out, if I were you.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Again, the motion doesn't, but in my talking points I was just trying to build the case that there is broad political support in all parties.

The Chair: It's just the teacher in me, Chuck, just trying to perfect your presentation.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): I shall begin?

The Chair: Yes, you shall.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you very much.

I'll review this motion with you. This would give the government some leeway, but what we'd basically be asking for is that the debate and a vote be held in the House of Commons whenever we are going to put troops in a foreign country.

I've left it rather open. In the past, we've talked about specific numbers, but I think it's important that we leave those numbers out, because the government does need the flexibility. If it wants to send 20 troops somewhere overnight, it would of course not be possible to have the debate in the House and to have a vote. So we're talking about significant contingencies, on a very specific plan, such as Bosnia or Haiti or some missions like that.

I think the history of this type of involvement, of course, goes back a long way for Canadians. It's something Canadians are very proud of, and have remained very proud of, despite a few little hiccups in the road. But I believe that Canadians are not well informed about what's happening in international affairs. Having it debated in the House of Commons, having it open for members to ask their questions... In fact, we could talk about how that debate would go. I believe it should follow an information session and then an open presentation by the parties in terms of their positions, with a vote to follow. I see it as much as a...debate probably is the wrong word; it's more of an information sort of thing.

• 1000

I think it follows along with the transparency and accountability Canadians are asking for from parliamentarians. They want to know what we're doing with our troops. We have men's and women's lives at stake in all of these missions. I think Canadians want to know more about that.

As I say, we want to build in flexibility here for the government, and not get into a ridiculous situation where we've got somebody in Kosovo just on the border right now. We have one person. Obviously we're not going to have a debate and so on in the House about that. That, logistically, was a decision we would expect the government to make.

Probably an important part of this whole thing is that in something like Bosnia... I was over there, helped supervise the elections, was part of a team, and got a feel for what the country was really like. I believe that's something Canadians should learn more about and I think parliamentarians should know more about—the real faces of the situations we go to.

So often in the foreign affairs area we go off and we learn all about this stuff, but it's very difficult to communicate it to Canadians. This would give us the stage to do that. Usually we have all-party support on these sorts of missions. It's not like a controversial subject.

I suppose what really motivates me to put forward a motion like this would be what we did last week in the House, where we had an announcement, made on a Monday night on national television, that we were extending our mission in Bosnia, and then we had a debate on Tuesday night as to what we thought about this mission.

That has happened now five times. All parties, every one of us on the foreign affairs committee, felt that this is kind of not the way democracy should work, not the way we really should be dealing with the lives of our troops and with the information of the Canadian public.

The motive here is to provide a means by which we could inform parliamentarians, inform the public, vote on the motion, and show that we have unanimous support. I think our troops over there, wherever it is, would feel much more secure with the fact that the Canadian Parliament is behind this: they voted on it, they stood up to be counted, just as we're asking these men and women to do.

By the way, visiting troops, whom I've now visited in five or six countries, are doing a fantastic job. They're proud Canadians, and when we run across them over there, we're darned proud of them, too.

It just would add that extra impetus, and I feel it's an important motion for that reason.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I want to congratulate our colleague for this initiative because it is true that the public does not often realize the importance of our troops. I think that the national crises we have gone through lately, like the floods and ice rain, have allowed us to better appreciate how important were our young people. I hope as well that this made us indirectly realize that we should think of them a little bit when they are far away.

I would like to ask my colleague if a vote that would renew our commitment or on a new commitment could lead us to take decisions on essentials aspects of our military, including equipment. We all have in our families or people close to us young people who are in the military and they often tell us that it is really unfair to ask them to work with the best soldiers in the world and sometimes against the best soldiers in the world with such poor equipment.

• 1005

They often tell us that they wish we would consider more seriously what they ask for, because their requests are quite legitimate.

I would like also to ask him if this could lead to more general concepts like the importance of our army and of our equipment. I think, and I'll end on that, Madam Chair, that there is a new feeling these days on the importance of our military. I think we should take advantage of it and try to go a bit further.

[English]

Mr. Bob Mills: Exactly. Again, I don't want to talk about debate in the traditional sense. To hear one speaker of a party who really knows what they're talking about and then 10 more following along isn't what I have in mind. What I have in mind is more of an information-type session, where the House as a whole hears the information, then you hear the presentations of the parties, and then you vote on it. I believe we could attract public interest in that because it wouldn't be those traditional long and boring speeches.

When we did that, I think the profile and the pride... Pride is a wonderful thing, and pride in your country. For instance, when I went to a school in a little village in northern Bosnia and saw a Canadian flag beside the Bosnian flag, there was pride there, and I don't think Canadians have seen enough of that.

I think this is one way we as parliamentarians could put that emphasis on it. We don't want to see our troops driving around in 35-year-old vehicles.

So I believe that would greatly enhance our ability to deal with that issue.

Mr. André Harvey: Merci.

The Chair: Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have a couple of comments, Madam Chair.

First, you mentioned that people don't want to hear boring speeches. Those speeches are never boring, Bob, especially when you're talking.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thanks, Ken.

Mr. Ken Epp: Second, you don't want our troops to ride around in 35-year-old vehicles. I do; why can't they? No, I'm just kidding.

I want to ask you how much support you have for this motion out there in the real world. Have you had a great amount of response on it, or is this strictly a personal initiative? It sounds to me as though it's very personal because of your experience on the committee.

Mr. Bob Mills: Sure, it's personal, because I've been there and seen that, and I've met with our troops. I know some of the morale problems they have and know they need that boost from the Canadian public. But certainly on various panels that we are on, in various types of situations, it's very often the question, well, how do you decide where to go and where not to go? Whether it's Zaire or Bosnia or Haiti or wherever it happens to be, there is a fair amount of concern as to why we are going there. It's, “Why should we support the spending of those dollars when you go out there?”

So you do have to justify it, and I believe this would help us to justify it even more because we had an open debate, and all parties supported it. Because that's what will happen in most of these cases—all parties will support it. You'll raise the profile, and thus, I think, get rid of a lot of those complaints that are out there.

There is an interest. Let's face it, all of these things are on the news every day. There's always an international story on the news every day. For those Canadians who are aware of those types of things, and if they hear Canadians are doing a job there, there's pride, and I think that's very important.

So I would say it's pretty widespread. The indications I have are that this would meet with a lot of Canadian approval.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

You've already indicated that on your foreign affairs committee, at least, support for this goes right across the party lines?

Mr. Bob Mills: Yes. I don't think there's any problem of there not being support within the parties. Some of the government members probably have indicated more support than others to this type of approach to legitimizing what we do in our foreign affairs and what we do with our troops.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

I think that answers my question.

The Chair: Madam?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No.

• 1010

The Chair: One of the reasons you do private members' bills is that you can't work through another system. If you're suggesting that the whole foreign affairs committee feels as strongly as you do, I'm a little curious as to why, as a foreign affairs standing committee that crosses all parties, you haven't done something more forceful there.

Mr. Bob Mills: There is, of course, more than one committee that would be involved with this. We would have defence, and we would have the monetary aspects of things.

Certainly as we debate these issues... On the one we did last week, for example, it wasn't the committee that put that on the table. The government simply said we will have a take-note debate tomorrow night. The committee really had no input into that at all. I guess there's something wrong when that happens. So through a private member's bill I attempt to address it that way.

Now, could I actively address it through our committee? Possibly that's another angle. I think this one, though, would allow all parties to participate equally, and get the issue on the table.

The Chair: The other question I have has to do with the fact that three hours in the House is a lot of time to debate this. The theme that keeps coming through your presentation is that it's good publicity, it raises awareness. Is there not another way of doing that?

Are you not saying that perhaps government is not doing a good job of educating the public on this, and perhaps that would be another way to do it? I don't delude myself that Joe Average in my riding sits there and watches three hours of private members' debate in our House.

Mr. Bob Mills: No. I guess this would help all of us get this as a higher profile. It would be the hope that the media would in fact hook onto this and provide that short clip that says Parliament supports our troops and wants to inform you about the international issue in which our troops are going to be involved.

The Chair: Are you actually saying with this motion that the generals and those who instruct the generals in this country will no longer have total control over our armed forces, that in fact it will be at the whim of the House?

Mr. Bob Mills: Well, the government already makes that decision, not the generals. So the government would make the decision that we're going to send 400 troops to the Persian Gulf. The government would make that decision now.

What I'm saying is why not have the House endorse that decision by informing the Canadian public and parliamentarians before the decision is actually made public? It's not going to get defeated in the House; that's not the point. The point is that you're going to inform the public, but more importantly you're going to inform members of Parliament, because this way you have it in the House. If you did it in the right way—and this is not part of this motion, really, but what I would recommend—you would have an information-based presentation, and then vote.

There's just no point in having each party put up ten speakers. That's not going to cut it.

The Chair: Okay. I don't want to debate the essence of the motion, but when you say it's not going to be defeated in the House, that's charming, but I don't believe there's ever a debate in the House that goes to a vote where you can predict the outcome. We've had a few shocks ourselves. So I can't base my decision on whether you should be votable on the fact that you're guaranteeing to me that it will never be defeated.

Mr. Bob Mills: No. I guess there is a situation where the government would say we want to send 400 troops to wherever and you would have a whole backlash there from all parties saying no, we just don't think this is a mission we should be involved with. The cost is too high, the risk to our troops is too high, whatever. There could be a whole bunch of reasons.

The Chair: And it would never happen that all the opposition parties would say this is a great way to embarrass the government, this is a great way to turn things around, or this is a political—

Mr. Ken Epp: No. I'd have a free vote on this.

Mr. Bob Mills: Not when you're playing with lives of men and women, father and mothers. You're just playing with too sensitive an issue. You'd better not be playing politics with this issue, because you're going to die if you do.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Bob Mills: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Madam Chair, committee members, I'll try to make my presentation brief. I'm here supporting the designation of M-386 as a votable item in the House.

As you can see, this motion states clearly that in the opinion of the House, “the government should create a position of Commissioner for the Rights of Victims of Crime, with a role similar to that of the Correctional Investigator”.

• 1015

I have raised it this way for two reasons. First, there is no comparable position in the Canadian context. Secondly, demonstrating what the correctional investigator does adequately sets out the need for a similar role for victims of crime. So before I go into the thrust of the motion I'd like to give you background on what the correctional investigator does.

In 1973 part II of the Inquiries Act established the Office of the Correctional Investigator with a mandate to independently investigate inmates' complaints and report on the problems of inmates that came within the responsibility of the Solicitor General's department. The enactment of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act of 1992 did not significantly alter the authority of that office. Part III of the act clearly established that the function of the correctional investigator was one of an ombudsman for federal corrections and a person to clarify the authority and responsibility of the office within the well-defined legislative framework.

Section 167 of the act specifically describes the function of the office. The office is described as follows:

...to conduct investigations into the problems of offenders related to the decisions, recommendations, acts or omissions of the Commissioner or any person under the control and management of, or performing services for or on behalf of, the Commissioner that affect offenders either individually or as a group.

The authority of this office lies within its ability to thoroughly—and the key word here is “objectively”—investigate a wide spectrum of administrative actions and present its findings and recommendations to CSC.

In the event that CSC fails to reasonably address the office's findings and recommendations, the matter can then be referred to the minister and eventually to Parliament and the public through the annual and special reports.

So there is a very independent, arm's-length element to the Office of the Correctional Investigator. The Office of the Correctional Investigator plays an essential role as an advocate on behalf of inmates in our federal corrections system.

Now the gist of this motion is based upon the premise that there is no similar role in government. There is no person in government to fulfil this role as an advocate on behalf of victims of crime. So they do have a relationship with Correction Service Canada, but they don't have a go-to person, a person they can then approach if they are not satisfied either with the information exchange, the findings of a parole board hearing, or a Correctional Service Canada hearing. They do not have a person with whom they can interface in government in the same manner that a federal inmate does.

The Minister of Justice has announced her department's intention to provide an outlet for victims of crime. I'm suggesting that this is a vehicle to set up such an office. M-386 would create an outlet for crimes in two important areas of the Solicitor General's department: Correctional Service Canada and the National Parole Board.

I worked as a crown attorney, and time and time again I came in contact with persons who were directly affected by crime, significantly victims of violent crime, and the effect that had on their lives. Sadly, many times I felt that victims came away from the system feeling victimized again.

Although it's incumbent upon crown attorneys, and police and defence lawyers for that matter, to explain what is happening in the system, to take the time to ensure that victims do understand the process they are dragged into through no will of their own, I found that oftentimes there was still a feeling that they were not satisfied with what was happening. This is because of the pace and because of the way the system is set up.

It's very cold and sometimes institutional in a courtroom, and because of the caseload and the way the justice system moves, sometimes quickly and sometimes in a very slow fashion, victims were not satisfied with what had happened and the way they were treated.

I would suggest that an office that would have an ombudsman for victims would address this in a very real and significant way.

• 1020

Similarly, in the short time I've been here in Ottawa I've also had an opportunity to meet with victims on a number of occasions. We have dealt with some very significant cases at the justice committee, cases involving parolees—

The Chair: Peter, could you wind up, please? You've gone about half a minute over.

Mr. Peter MacKay: All right.

We had the cases of Raymond Russell, Michael Hector, and John Richardson, all parolees who had committed murder while on parole. I met with families of all the victims in those cases. They were very concerned that they had no outlet, no way to voice their concerns or to ensure that they were getting all the information that came out of studies that went into those cases where persons had murdered while on parole.

So that is the gist of my motion. I would submit to you that the eleven criteria set out by this committee do not preclude this motion. In my humble opinion, this meets the litmus test that is set out. It's clear, constitutional, and unique to the Order Paper. It's non-partisan and non-discriminatory.

I would also just like to add that I have asked many of the top officials in the Department of Justice. I have taken the opportunity to ask them when they've appeared before the committee. The CSC chair, the parole board director, the commissioner of the RCMP, the Solicitor General, and the Minister of Justice have all said that they want to see something similar to this. So I would suggest that there is support for such a motion. I would ask that it be made a votable motion.

I'd be pleased to answer questions.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Madam.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: All this is very interesting.

I'd like to ask you if there is, as far as you know, in provinces other than Quebec, an office which would be similar to the one your are suggesting.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: The province of Nova Scotia is the only province I can speak to directly. We have what's called Victims' Services Division, which is set up by the province. Victims' Services Division supplies a support person to go to court with the victim or with the victim's family. That's provincially funded through the province's Departments of Justice and Attorney General. Those persons are more in the role of counsellors and court support. They actually will attend a trial.

But in terms of an administrative office where a person would have the direct ability to access information through the parole board, CSC, or either of the Departments of Justice or Solicitor General, there is no such office I'm aware of. There are similar offices in other provinces, though.

So it's aimed more at individual support in the courtroom context during the course of a trial, rather than actual information access.

Does that answer your question?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, that's all right. Please go on.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I would like to ask one thing on the topic of the bill itself. It seems to me that right now in our system victims have no rights spelled out for them to speak of, or none at all. So what would be the purpose of a commissioner to assure that the rights of victims are looked after if there are no rights spelled out?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Well, in an ideal world I'd like to see a victims bill of rights or something enacted that would be more widespread—as you say, specifically spell out what a victim's rights really are in the justice system. An ombudsman would be a vehicle to...

Although those rights are not strictly defined, certainly people know what they want when they've been victimized. They know the information they would like to have. They know what they would like to see changed about the justice system. They know the various places they would go to to get that information. The difficulty is in getting the return and getting the respect, in simple terms, that they deserve.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, let me use an example then. Victims claim that they would like to know when the person who attacked and robbed them is going to be released.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: In your view, this commissioner would be able to get that information, and pass it on to those people?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Absolutely, by all means. Not only that, it would ensure that they did have a place at a parole hearing. The law hasn't evolved to the point where victims can actually speak at a parole hearing, but they can have input, they can sit there, they have a right to be present.

This victims ombudsman would ensure that this information was readily available, and they would have a point person to go to immediately to get that information.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, that's the essence of the motion.

• 1025

I'd like to ask you two questions that I ask everyone. First, to what degree do you feel you have the support of people within Parliament, other parliamentarians? Second, how widespread is the demand for this from the people out there?

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm pleased to answer both of those questions. I can indicate that within the justice committee it has been a topic we have discussed on numerous occasions.

The impression I'm left with is that there would be widespread party support for this, even on the government side. I think that the initiative the Minister of Justice has put forward indicates that this is something this government would like to see in place.

As I indicated earlier, this would be a vehicle to get the ball rolling. There are a lot of very topical issues before the justice committee at present, but this is one that I think should be given a priority.

As for support in the communities and among the population, again, I have to refer to my own constituency. I do keep in very close contact with the law enforcement community, people who are still working within the justice system. I have a sister in fact who works at a home for battered women. I used to be on the board of directors of this particular home. I know that they are often very frustrated when they come up against the system and don't have a person they can go to immediately to get information, or to ensure that victims are treated with the respect they need.

Confidence is lacking in the justice system right now. As an overall statement I would say that this would go a long way to addressing that, to giving victims a feeling of being more efficacious and having control in their own lives.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, I'm finished. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Madam Chair, I'm convinced that you will allow me to congratulate my colleague for its constant concern towards the most vulnerable people.

I'd like to ask him if the presence of an ombudsman, of a commissioner officially appointed with its personnel would considerably reduce the damaging effects of criminal acts on those victims. It seems that these days we see and hear almost every day on television outrageous statements on this subject. I am under the impression that there is nobody right now who is in a position to send daily messages. We need a commissioner, an ombudsman, who could answer all those questions. We will have to know as well what kind of impact on the country would be creation of an ombudsman have.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: I think that's a very good question, because I think the perception in the justice system right now is one we all have to be concerned about. I've heard the remark many times, as probably everyone around this table has, that it is the criminals, those accused and those eventually convicted, who have all the rights in our justice system. The system has been geared to protect them.

So having a position specifically designated as an ombudsman, as a spokesperson, as a defender of victims, sends a very clear and significant message to the Canadian populace that victims do have a very important role to play. They're not a forgotten group.

It is also consistent with a movement that is afoot. I can tell you about a movement in the justice system called restorative justice that puts the victim at the very centre of our system. When they suffer at the hands of someone else, if it's a personal assault, that victim is going to be included in the process of justice and is going to have a say and a voice. An ombudsman is a vehicle to do that. So it not only provides a tangible position, but it also sends out a clear message right across the country that victims are not forgotten, that they will be an integral part of the justice that occurs after the crime.

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you very much.

The Chair: I have a question. When you suggested the ombudsman would make sure that the victim had a seat at least, was that the hearing on a parole? I have some concerns with that, because if the crime was committed ten years before, if that person actually has been reformed—

Mr. Peter MacKay: Rehabilitated.

The Chair: —rehabilitated, he's there as a different person from what he was ten years ago. What would be the advantage of bringing the victim back?

• 1030

Mr. Peter MacKay: Well, I think the advantage is twofold. First, having the victim there... It's important that there is almost a confrontation. It's always up to the victim whether they want to participate in that. But if the victim decides that they want to be present, I think it is a very important part of the healing process. They see that perhaps, yes, this person who ten years ago victimized them or a member of their family has changed, has gone through a reformation or has been rehabilitated, and in some cases has paid a price for what they've done.

There's always that element of denunciation and retribution that we don't like to talk about in our justice system, but it's there. If somebody has robbed you or taken a loved one from you, there is a need for a person to go either to a parole board hearing or through the course of a trial and say yes, at least the system has responded in a measured or adequate way. So there's that element.

As well, there is the need for the person who has done their time to see that, yes, that person is still there, and a reminder that this person was victimized. They should always have that person's face in their mind when they might think about committing a similar crime again.

So that's part of the rehabilitation. It's part of the deterrent.

The Chair: I noticed that several times when you were answering questions you suggested the victims have no protection or no one there fighting for them. When you carry this debate into the House, are you going to take that tone, in fact that the whole judicial system is really here to protect victims as well, and general citizens?

Mr. Peter MacKay: No. There's a balance to be struck. I'm not one to suggest that the justice system has completely turned its back on victims, but I think we can do more.

I think there has been an evolution in our justice system. Whether it was intentional or not, the way the system has evolved is that the state put itself between the accused and the victim.

In many cases now I think the victims want to feel a little more a part of what's taking place, because much of the victimization comes from a feeling of powerlessness. The fact that the victim has been protected or removed from the entire system doesn't do anything to address the fact that they feel powerless.

If they're brought into the system and included... I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that I'm saying victims should have the final say, because a victim can't be objective about what should happen. But a victim should at least feel that they're consulted, and that their opinions and feelings matter. I think an ombudsman can address that.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Welcome.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Thank you.

Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my bill is quite simple, and is an issue of fairness in the income tax.

For a number of years in Canada those involved in agriculture with livestock herds, suffering through a severe drought, have been allowed to defer the income from the sale or destruction of that livestock for that taxation year. In light of the recent severe flooding in my riding, and in fact in all parts of Canada, it has been brought to my attention that the same provision doesn't extend to those who are forced to liquidate livestock herds in the event of other natural disasters—that is, flooding, wildfires, tornadoes, those kinds of things. It creates great hardship for those involved, on top of the fiscal and emotional trauma these people go through trying to rebuild their lives after these natural disasters.

To have a significant portion of the income from the forced sale of the livestock herd taken in taxes so that this money can't be used to replace the herd when they begin to rebuild their lives seems to be fundamentally unfair to me. I think it needs to be corrected, so I introduced this private member's bill to try to do that.

• 1035

The Chair: Questions? Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: The bill that you have says taxes of moneys paid. I'm sure you mean money received by the farmer, right?

Mr. David Chatters: Well, it can work either way. Again, I had an incident in my riding where an entire herd of purebred cattle were destroyed because certain animals had been imported from England, and there was a threat of the spread of mad cow disease.

The government does pay a small amount of money for the destruction of that, so there are cases where money is received from governments rather than selling the animals to the market. In the case of a natural disaster, usually the herd would be sold on the market and the money received from that.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. Now, this is not something widely known across the country, and of course when we judge whether or not a bill is votable, we have to ask, among other things, questions on how great the interest is in this issue. I'm sure that it's like victims of hepatitis. The victims are very concerned, and others are not so much so. In this case, is that probably the case as well? Is that your judgment?

Mr. David Chatters: Well, certainly it wouldn't involve great numbers of people—thank God that it doesn't. But it does seem that in the last number of years it has been affecting more people when we look at the floods in the Red River and the Saguenay, the wildfires last fall in southern Alberta, and the fires raging in northern Alberta in my riding right now. These touch the lives of those people in a very significant way.

My bill is simply an effort to bring some fairness and equity into the way these people are treated in the instance of natural disasters. You're right, it doesn't affect huge numbers of people. I think that is all the more reason why we should treat those people fairly and reasonably.

Mr. Ken Epp: How much support do you have among other parliamentarians?

Mr. David Chatters: Well, I haven't really been able to judge that at this point, simply because this bill crosses so many different ministerial or committee areas, and this bill has been around since the last Parliament. I brought it forward again.

I would judge that all fair-minded people in Parliament and otherwise would support the reasoning behind the bill, the fairness and equity that it tries to bring to the situation.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Just a short question. Mr. Chatters, are you in favour of differing the tax on the amounts granted after disasters like those? A number of regions in this country have gone through that type of situation.

[English]

Mr. David Chatters: It's simply a deferring of the income to allow that producer to use the money from the sale of that livestock to rebuild the herd in future years down the road.

It's in no way an evasion of the tax on the sale of the livestock; it's simply being able to use that money to rebuild the herd when they get the facilities, the fences, the crops rebuilt again in future years.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Chatters.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. It's a credit to your clarity that there are not more questions.

Mr. David Chatters: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. White, welcome.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Good morning.

The Chair: As if there's a real surprise to your subject matter.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: You keep trying.

Mr. Ted White: Well, it should only take me a couple of hours to get through this.

The Chair: Well, we have to be out of here by 10.55, so judge yourself accordingly.

Mr. Ted White: You're lucky it's just these two sheets.

The Chair: No, the piece you gave me, the actual bill, was thick.

Mr. Ted White: Yes, it's natural that I would be interested in this particular topic; it is my area of responsibility as critic.

This particular bill has taken more than three years to produce, so it has literally involved the work of hundreds of people, literally hundreds of people across the country who have had input into it.

• 1040

You can see that it's a lengthy bill, a substantial piece of what I like to call real legislation, and it has tried to overcome some of the problems and objections that various jurisdictions have had to the idea of citizen-initiated referendums.

We took into account the experience in New Zealand, which has had a citizens-initiated referendum bill since 1993. It didn't turn out to be the terrible attack on parliamentary democracy that some of the doomsayers had predicted. It has worked very well in the system. There have only been a few referendums in the last four to five years.

As members would be aware, Ontario is busy working on a citizens-initiated referendum package at the moment, so it really is the sort of thing that is in line with the times.

As I mentioned, through the extensive research that was done on this bill we tried to make sure that we covered all the problems and objections that have been raised. These include things like the fact that in California it's possible to buy votes on an initiative ballot to make sure that something actually gets on the referendum ballot. We made it illegal in the bill to buy votes, so you can't get that sort of industry set up here in Canada that you would have in California.

In the final analysis, this is really why I'm here. I mean, it's my role as critic. It has taken me well over three years to produce the bill because I wanted to get it right.

If there were nothing else for which I could plead, it would be that this would be my one votable bill in the entire time that I'm here. Certainly I believe it does adhere to all the principles that are required on the list.

Just to wrap up, I'd say it would be a very worthwhile exercise to be able to debate this particular issue in the House. So I look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Looking at the detail in the bill, Ted, I don't know how you can do it in three hours in the House.

Mr. Ted White: Well, of course that's always a problem. It would be nice if we had a lot longer, but as I mentioned, I really wanted to make sure that this was more than just a little piece of window-dressing, that this was something that was well thought out and would produce a really good debate in the House.

If it was fortunate enough to be made votable and then actually passed, it would be the groundwork for an excellent piece of legislation that the government might even sponsor. The work has been done. The research is there to make it a really good piece of legislation.

Mr. Ken Epp: Ted, I know it's a very large personal interest of yours, and it's something that I guess a lot of us believe would be a great improvement to our whole system of democracy. How widespread outside your and my immediate circles do you suppose there is an interest in this?

Mr. Ted White: Well, the interest in this type of democratic reform is very widespread. For example, during this very weekend I was in discussions with Andrew Coyne, who you'll know is a columnist. He's very supportive of ideas like this. Gordon Gibson is also. They're so interested in the topic that both have asked specifically for copies of the bill.

More than 200 copies of the bill have been mailed out to interested groups across the country who requested it, and I received feedback. After we had got into the draft of the legislation we incorporated lots and lots of recommendations.

So there's been tremendous interest across the country. Most private members' bills, certainly including most of my own, have really been to address the interests of a small group, but in this case it was right across the country. There was input from everywhere.

Mr. Ken Epp: Do you have support from people outside your own party in the House of Commons? I imagine it's tough to guess at this stage.

Mr. Ted White: I think there are two aspects to that question. Do I have support outside the party for the specifics in that piece of legislation? I don't know, because I haven't had the chance to have it debated yet. But as I mentioned, at the time we were putting together the legislation there was input from various groups right across the country that have nothing to do with the Reform Party—for example, Canadians for Direct Democracy, and some of the columnists I just mentioned, Andrew Coyne, Gordon Gibson, in their critiques of this type of legislation elsewhere. So yes, we've had input from a variety of sources.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm finished. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Madam.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'm very impressed by the work accomplished. But I haven't had time to look at your bill.

When you talk about ideas which would be citizen-initiated, do you specify in your bill the number of citizens required or the origin of the citizens?

• 1045

A good idea may come from one person as well as from a thousand persons, isn't it true?

Does your bill defines somewhere what is a specific question? I'm sure it's in there and you are going to tell me.

[English]

Mr. Ted White: The bill is modelled along the lines of a similar bill that was produced in New Zealand. They have a very similar parliamentary style of democracy. So we were able to use the model they developed. They require about 3% of the voters of the country to sign a petition in order for a question to go forward. I've taken that same number.

Now it really becomes a question: do you use 3%, 5%, or whatever? I agree with you that a good idea starts with one person, but I think it's reasonable that one person should convince a certain number of others before you take it onto a ballot.

When you look around the world, places like Switzerland, for different issues, they require different percentages. I chose to have the 3% to allow people up to a year to get the signatures to make it workable.

In terms of the question itself, it would have to be vetted by an authority that would make sure through Elections Canada that the intent of the question was clear and that any cost to the crown was clearly identified.

I hope that answers your question.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Okay, just to bring the committee up to date, we're meeting at nine on Thursday morning. It looks like there won't be a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, so if we run over a little bit, it won't matter. Jamie has the report done from our work on the criteria, and it will be circulated. Maybe we can give it out at that meeting. I assume Randy White represented you at that meeting, so we'll give him the report as well.

I think you're going to get a little surprise. One of the criteria we decided as a group not to include was how popular this is across the country. We feel that individual members often bring something that's very unique to their own riding and own area of interest, and they don't have time to get everybody interested until it becomes votable or becomes spoken to in the House. It was one of the things we eliminated. We eliminated a few of them. We took it down to five or four criteria. “Priority shall be given to”... We even looked at bringing back in the concept of voting for one if it's unique to only one area, because that's where parliamentarians get their ideas.

Anyway, it will be circulated on Thursday when it's time for the discussion or final approval of it. I guess you and Randy will decide between the two of you which one will be doing that.

So Thursday's meeting will be from 9 a.m. until probably 11 a.m., and we'll make our decisions. There are two bills and two motions to be selected. From the quality of the stuff today, I don't think we're going to have any trouble this time. Then we will call together a very short meeting next week just to approve the report.

If you all send me a note back saying the report's fine with you, we don't need to call a meeting. We can just present it to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Okay? We'll try to be as flexible as possible.

Mr. Ken Epp: Now, when you say two bills and two motions, that's the maximum.

The Chair: To be selected, yes. It will be up to two bills and two motions.

Mr. Ken Epp: Really? So the slate is full.

The Chair: Yes, and we've got a printout of what's still there. We've got three bills and three motions remaining to be discussed, so we've got space for two and two.

We'll see you all hopefully on Thursday morning. Consistency is the key. If Mr. Blaikie shows up Thursday, we will politely dismiss him. I don't think there's any point in coming in halfway through.

Mr. Ken Epp: He asked me to represent him today.

The Chair: Oh, I'm sure he did.

Our Liberal is not here and did not get a replacement. I'll be speaking to the whip about that.

The meeting is adjourned.