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]

Wednesday, October 28, 1998

• 1535

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I call this meeting to order. We have a quorum, so we'll proceed.

As I understand it, Miss Grey, you'll be leaving shortly, and Mr. Konrad will be taking your position.

Mr. Blaikie advised me prior to the start of this meeting that he in fact would be in and out periodically, so we look forward to his presence at the appropriate time as well.

I have a very pleasant task to do today, and that is to introduce to you a parliamentarian from the United Kingdom, Mr. Martin Jones.

Mr. Jones, thank you for joining us. We'll try to be very civilized and try to do things not unlike you might see in the U.K. It's good of you to join us. I understand you're with Jean Augustine's group. Welcome, and welcome to the committee.

We have a very long meeting today. It's probably going to go three hours, and we have a lot of work to do, so why don't we get started?

Just at the outset I want to note that out of the private members' business items of the bills, we have to select three. And with respect to the motions, we will—and I think we should, with your concurrence—select one, and then we're caught up to a point where we can in fact—

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): A maximum of three?

The Chair: Yes, a maximum of three. We don't have to necessarily select, and if we thought that it wasn't required we wouldn't do so. But we have up to three to select, and I would suggest at least two of those, and possibly three, and certainly one on the motion side as well.

We have a list prepared in terms of the members we've asked to come and appear before us. We have Mr. Forseth first with respect to Bill C-207. I'm sure everyone knows the rules in terms of five minutes to explain why your item should be selected and why we should then proceed.

Mr. Forseth, you may begin your comments, please.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Thank you very much.

If you remember anything about my presentation today, it should be that this bill is about protecting children. You're going to hear a lot about various bills, but this particular bill identifies a particularly unique gap in the administration of justice at the street level, and it's mainly aimed at protecting children.

I received complaints that in some circumstances people can trespass on property, causing a public disturbance and destroying any sense of community or livability for children, especially in smaller communities where the main action is the local hockey rink or the community centre or the library, and there are not a lot of other social alternatives for families to use public facilities. Yet, that being the case, we also have problem individuals, even those who want to familiarize themselves with kids and become drug dealers or whatever.

The people in charge of these public facilities have to use various methods to ensure the safety of children and the usability of the public facility. For example, we know that even a local shopping mall is a place for maybe youth to hang out, especially at the food fair. And if the security of the mall is forced to remove a problem person and they're removing that problem person legally, that person could just simply, once they're taken to the door, go across the street and have a smoke and then come right back in and then start the whole scenario all over again. So the hour or the two hours of the successive warnings and so on that the security guards approached in this successive hurdle approach to remove this individual can be just simply started all over again. There's no legal sanction against that, unless the individual somehow committed another offence while in the process of being removed, such as resisting and so on.

So there's no place in the Criminal Code that states that a trespasser must stay off property for any moment of time, and the only way the person can be charged is if they resist being removed from that property. Therefore, if the person never resists, the act can continue over and over again.

• 1540

One of the most interesting situations where this occurs is in domestic disputes. For instance, we may have a divorce, and the law provides that the father may have supervised access. But he shows up drunk to the house in the afternoon and knocks on the door; the child may even let him in the door. He's causing a particular problem, and the mother is defenceless. She doesn't know what to do, so she calls the police. The police come down and the mother clearly indicates he doesn't live there, he has no right to be there, he's in her living room and he won't move. The police can then use whatever reasonable force is necessary to remove him from the property for the protection of the children and the peace of that home. That guy can go across the street, turn around, and come right back onto that property and knock on the door again. And there's nothing that can be done about it.

There are accesses to restraining orders, which are long and complicated. The divorce order or the child custody order may not deal with that particular problem. The only law we have in Canada is if that same father who is drunk or abusive or whatever came and knocked on that private residential door at night, he could then be charged under the criminal code with trespassing by night. There's a very clear gap in the law there on these domestic disputes, and it's a tremendous frustration to local police agencies who are called into those situations. So this bill would satisfy that particular concern as well.

Trespassing per se is not currently an offence under the criminal code, and I'm not about to make it so. My particular bill would only involve a summary conviction offence if someone had already been legally removed from a property by a security guard or a policeman or someone, and then deliberately went back and caused that circumstance all over again. Then that person would be committing an offence.

The effect of the law would be preventive, in that when a person's being removed they would then be warned that if they go back in, they're going to be charged with an offence. Generally, because there is actually a legal consequence, the warning would have an effect, which would have a tremendous preventive effect on preserving the peace in our community.

In summary, this bill is all about protecting children. I hope it'll find favour of becoming votable in the House of Commons.

The Chair: Thank you very much for that very good outline.

Ms. Grey, do you have any questions?

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): I find it interesting that this would deal with kids in a mall, a food court, a school, a curling rink, or whatever, and you think it would be good to be able to prevent that. But then you take it to one next level, where you talk about non-custodial parents coming and creating holy havoc in someone's house. You're saying this bill would deal with both of those instances, one of which seems meddlesome or troublesome, with a bunch of kids. But there's a far more serious element to that.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, and that is the main thrust of why I am presenting the bill. As you know, I spent 23 years in the criminal justice system in British Columbia, and part of my role was as a divorce mediator, family court counsellor, and parole officer. I was often getting called on cases in which I was particularly involved in the circumstance around deciding who should get custody. Often during those times I clearly saw the inadequacy of restraining orders and other limits of the Criminal Code. Just to preserve the peace for children, I came up with this particular unusual narrow circumstance that hasn't often been thought of before.

Miss Deborah Grey: Okay, thanks.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Dalphond-Guiral, please.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I'm reading the English text and the French text and I'd like to ask Mr. Forseth if, when it talks about someone entering a house or a place—

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'm sorry.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'll wait.

[Translation]

I'll start over. I compared the English version and the French version and I need a clarification. Where, in the English text, it says a person who "has been lawfully removed from", in French it says someone who enters "alors qu'il en a déjà été éloigné". Trespass means entering a dwelling or a place. Am I to understand that the person you're referring to has been removed or prevented from entering as the result of a police action or of a court decision or for some other reason?

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: This is always a problem in providing direct parallel translation and having to rely upon the expert translators, and I'm not an expert on that.

The intent is to create an offence only when someone has already been removed. So we are not developing a trespass law per se in the first instance.

• 1545

The act is similar to other sections in the Criminal Code. For instance, we have a section on the personal serious injury offence, in which a more serious approach is taken because of a previous act. If that's repeated, difference consequences of the Criminal Code apply. So in this circumstance, someone would have to have been legally removed from a house, library, or hockey rink.

That provides the check that this would not be abused. Authorities, security guards, and police know what the legal requirements are to physically remove someone from a property legally. So this could not be just done in a haphazard manner that would be unnecessarily creating a nuisance in the community.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Winter is coming. It's already cold in Canada, in some places anyway. I'm thinking, for example, about homeless people who go into a shopping center to get warm. Would a bill like yours apply to them?

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: No, because for someone to be legally removed, there has to be a complaint—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: There could be one.

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: —and there must be some other consequences, like causing a disturbance. So the police in Ottawa will normally not remove someone who is in a bank teller situation and covered by a blanket unless someone feels they have been threatened or the individual is causing a disturbance. There seems to be a working street understanding among local police forces as to how to deal with those kinds of individuals. This law would not change that current working understanding.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I just have a couple of questions. Let's say a security guard at a hockey rink removes somebody. Is that now documented?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Usually those things are documented.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm just wondering how we know if it's the second time.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It would be up to the evidence of the person who would do the removing. If they saw the individual coming in again, and they wanted to charge that individual, then the onus would be on them to provide the evidence. They would have to write a report in the normal instance.

This is the same as if they arrested someone because they did a smash and grab in a mall or destroyed property. Security would hold the person for the local police to arrive. In the normal circumstances there, they would give evidence as to what they had seen and heard.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It's the same type of circumstance.

Mr. Joe Jordan: My other question is are they taken into custody if they return? Where's the protection?

Mr. Paul Forseth: All the rules would apply under the summary convictions act. So normally police do not permanently arrest someone on a summary conviction offence.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Say they just go across the street and come back. If they continue to do that, these people aren't thinking rationally anyway. Say the police can take them into custody the second time and get them out of that situation. I'm just wondering how this plays out.

Mr. Paul Forseth: How it plays out is that certain individuals who want to hang around the school grounds and who frustrate the school authorities know exactly what the law is. They're pushing the limits. Then they go “Nah, nah”, or whatever, at the security guards. They can just literally destroy a local business or the enjoyability of a local skating rink or whatever. Then the police have to come down and spend disproportionate resources, always being there waiting for that bad element to go away. But they know the limits of the law, so as soon as the police are gone, they're back again.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Forseth. That gave us a good overview. The clerk will be in touch with respect to the disposition of this.

• 1550

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you very much.

The Chair: I would now call Mr. Solomon, please, on motion M-53.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thanks, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to make a request with respect to motion M-53.

This motion originated out of a set of very unfortunate circumstances that captured the attention of Canadians just about two years ago at this time. I'll circulate some clippings that pertain to the issue, and I hope you'll have a quick peek at them.

The motion deals with an issue that has outraged not only Canadians, Mr. Chair, but people in Saskatchewan in particular. It has helped to feed the general cynicism about all politicians. First of all, then, I'll give you some background.

We are in the middle of a series of trials in Saskatchewan regarding allegations of fraud, theft of public funds, and breach of public trust. The charges dated back to the period 1986-91 and involved members of the previous provincial government. In January 1995, eleven current and former MLAs, including the former deputy premier and now Senator Eric Berntson, were trying to evade testifying in a preliminary inquiry into charges against the former PC caucus communications director. The Court of Queen's Bench at that time ruled that they had to testify. By October 1996, one staff member and twelve former MLAs had been charged, of whom five had been convicted by then, three were acquitted, and one committed suicide.

Two years ago at this time, former Lloydminster MLA Michael Hopfner was on trial and he had called Senator Berntson as a witness. A subpoena was issued, but the police could not serve it on the senator on the Parliament Hill precincts because of his parliamentary privilege. In any event, as a matter of parliamentary privilege, the senator was not required to answer or even acknowledge the subpoena. Senator Berntson would not discuss his reasons for this action with the media, but the Senate's legal counsel, in a letter to the senator's personal lawyer, Clyne Harradence, confirmed that Senator Berntson was entitled to refuse the subpoena altogether as part of his parliamentary privileges and immunities.

I'll go to the specifics of the privilege issue shortly. To continue the story, though, the issue was raised at that time by several members of Parliament, and was the subject of media stories in several columns and editorials. There was a public outcry against the way the senator seemed to be hiding behind his parliamentary privilege, and even a suggestion in some quarters that by appointing him to the Senate, the former Prime Minister was deliberately availing the senator of his potential cover.

Three weeks later, the senator wrote an open letter claiming that he was not trying to evade testifying by invoking his Senate privileges, and he eventually took the stand. Three months after that, on January 24, 1997, Senator Berntson himself was charged with breach of trust and two counts of fraud, as were five other individuals. The senator resigned the next day as deputy leader of the opposition in the Senate, and also from the caucus that he represented, pending both the preliminary hearing held this time last year and his trial that will be held in January 1999.

We all know that senators and MPs do not have the privilege to avoid arrest or escape criminal charges. However, they may not be compelled to appear in court as witnesses or to serve on jury, according to citations 89 and 90 in the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. Citation 89 refers to the privilege I'd like to abolish; namely, that no member may be compelled to appear in court as a witness.

The sixth edition of Beauchesne's was published in 1989, and citation 91 states, “Neither the House nor its Members have ever made any specific claims to freedom from service of process within the precincts.” No sooner was it published and the situation changed when, in March 1989, Edmonton member of Parliament David Kilgour was served with a subpoena in his riding office to testify in court about a meeting he had had with constituents a few years before. I've also circulated an article that he wrote at that time about the case.

Speaker Fraser ruled that “The service of a subpoena within the precincts of the House of Commons is improper without the permission of the Speaker”. Mr. Kilgour was asking Speaker Fraser to extend the definition of privilege to encompass something akin to a solicitor-client privilege between an MP and his or her constituents. Speaker Fraser declined to do so. Now, Mr. Kilgour may have a point in wanting to extend our privileges on that score, but I'm seeking to limit them in another of the related privilege issues referred to here.

• 1555

I do not believe MPs and senators should have an unfettered privilege to refuse to testify in court as witnesses.

Beauchesne's and Maingot assert that the two Houses of Parliament have the first call on the attendance of their members. Fair enough, but the way that principle was elaborated into the specific rules of privilege was conditioned by historically specific circumstances. At that time, Parliament was called for a session that lasted some months, and the only form of transportation was the train. MPs and senators had to travel up to a week and maybe more sometimes in order to attend and depart from the session.

Today, a parliamentary session is never prorogued until just before a new session is announced. The House and the Senate adjourn regularly and even predictably, and MPs and senators can get to any part of Canada within a day. The rules have changed, and I think it's a modernization approach with respect to this matter.

I believe it's unnecessary to assert the primary claim of Parliament to members' attendance by giving members an unfettered right to avoid testifying as witnesses in court. I also believe this unfettered privilege, as currently described, is one that makes Canadians believe parliamentarians are above the law, as seen in the attached column by Bob Fife of the Ottawa Sun, and editorials from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix and The Hill Times.

Many people in Saskatchewan told me two years ago that they thought Senator Berntson was exercising his privileges not out of a sense of the importance of his work in the Senate, but to avoid giving testimony in one trial that might later lead to his own criminal charges. I won't comment on the matter that's currently before the courts, but I can say it was fairly easy for one to see how they might come to that conclusion.

I think the motion should be votable because it relates to the privileges enjoyed by every member of Parliament, privileges that are protected in the Parliament of Canada Act and the Constitution Act, 1982. A proposal to change those privileges should come from a private member, such as myself or others, and should be voted on by every private member and other MPs.

I should also add that when I originally submitted the motion, the legislative clerks considered whether or not it was asking for a constitutional amendment. They determined at that time that, with this wording, it was not. I therefore first tabled it during the last Parliament, and then resubmitted it last fall after the election.

This matter has never been voted on in the House of Commons. It's an issue of national importance, in my view, because it deals with equality of justice and affects the confidence of Canadians in Canada's very important institution, namely the House of Commons. Therefore, I welcome any questions as a result of that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Solomon.

Ms. Grey, will you lead off, please?

Miss Deborah Grey: Actually, I think I'll defer to my partner here. He's from Saskatchewan, and he might have a few more questions.

The Chair: Mr. Konrad, please.

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Thank you for your interesting presentation there, John. I notice you have all the press releases that we all read in Saskatchewan with some interest, and I presume you're subtitling this “The Senator Eric Berntson Bill”.

Mr. John Solomon: No, it's just a motion with respect to the rules and privileges as laid out in Beauchesne's.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Okay. I really don't have too much to say. I think it sounds like something that should be done. I think our privileges are going too far when they subvert the natural course of justice in our country. Maybe you would want to comment on that just to—

The Chair: Mr. Konrad, excuse me, but we're here really to determine whether or not this should proceed to votability. We're not here to get into a debate about the merits, so let's be careful in our questioning.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Okay, then maybe I'll just let Miss Grey take over.

Miss Deborah Grey: No, that's fine. I think you presented your case really well.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you very much.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: No, no, we have a round here, Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: Oh, okay.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I learned something today: I didn't know we had privileges.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): You're lucky.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: So, thanks for your presentation.

Mr. John Solomon: You're very welcome.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: I would also like to congratulate you, Mr. Solomon, for your analysis. Do you have an estimate of the number of cases where this privilege has impeded a judicial process?

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: I don't have all the details—

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Cases from recent history.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: —Mr. Harvey, but I know that the most recent example arose two years ago. I know it has been used in the past mainly because we were a different country when it was established in 1867. We had different transportation systems and we had different terms.

• 1600

I remember that members of Parliament from Saskatchewan even in the fifties and early sixties would take the train to Ottawa in September and would return in June because the sessions were all fall and spring ones. In many cases they either didn't see their families or their families moved to Ottawa with them. In those circumstances, I think it was an important element of our Constitution and of our rules and privileges. But I was just talking about the aspect of being a witness. I think members of Parliament should be treated equally under the law as witnesses and that we should not be protected from appearing as witnesses.

I do still support the fact that MPs should not be members of juries. I think I have been called four times to act as a jurist during my political career. I have been excused because of that privilege only because it conflicted with the sittings of the legislature or the House of Commons. It has been provided, and I think it's something all members should continue to have not necessarily as a privilege, but as a protection from each other in terms of being elected officials and citizens.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm in the same boat as my colleague. You're asking me to vote to take away something I didn't know I had.

I just have a couple of questions. First, this wouldn't remove the protection we have when the House is sitting. I think there are very clear reasons for why that protection would be there. For somebody who would be required to be at a certain place at a certain time, it might take them away from the House.

Mr. John Solomon: As a matter of fact, Mr. Jordan, it deletes the privilege regardless of when the House is sitting. As I indicated in my remarks, there was an election in June 1997. The House was called in September, and we've been in the same session since September 1997. It hasn't been prorogued, so we technically have that privilege whether the House is sitting or not. I believe we should be available to the courts—maybe not during the three weeks out of four that we're actually sitting, but certainly during the one-week break that we're down or at Christmas or during the summer.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I absolutely agree. I just wouldn't want to have to have somebody appear at a certain date and time, independent of what might be happening here.

Mr. John Solomon: I just want to give the flexibility to the courts, I guess. They could arrange trials around the schedules. In the House of Commons, we do have schedules set up a year in advance, so that would give them some opportunity to arrange things.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Just technically, then, are you making amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act, or are you reversing what has been essentially interpreted by various speakers over the years?

Mr. John Solomon: It's been ruled by the clerks that we consulted in the House of Commons that it would not require a constitutional amendment. Obviously, a constitutional amendment would require seven out of ten provinces with the majority of the population of Canada.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon, I need a little clarification on an answer to a question that Mr. Jordan asked. I think what you're saying is that the courts would in fact have the opportunity to call at any time and wouldn't reschedule based on anyone's particular schedule. Am I missing something in what you're saying versus what you're actually proposing?

Mr. John Solomon: Well, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't be too technical here. The intent of the motion is that MPs or senators should no longer be protected by privilege because they are elected or appointed politicians. Obviously, when you are called to court as a witness you can negotiate with those who call you in terms of the availability of your time.

I really can't answer that question with precision, but my sense would be that it would be those particular days on which the House does not sit. As we know, though, we do a lot of different things as MPs when the House is sitting, and for various reasons. Whether they're in our constituency or representing our country somewhere, we do have that flexibility. But maybe I'll consult with my parliamentary assistant here.

The Chair: Ms. Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thanks. I just had a question for the chair.

When my colleague asked a question in our round, he made a comment and asked for a comment in reply from the member about privilege. I thought it was fairly on topic, but he was cut off because we were asking questions on votability. We have now been around the table, and it seems to me that every member here has asked a question about the content of the bill. There has been sweet nothing about votability. Could you straighten that out for us? What kinds of questions are we supposed to ask?

The Chair: Well, I thought we were going down the path of getting into the debate itself. That's why I cut him off.

• 1605

Miss Deborah Grey: It seemed to me every member around the table has done exactly that.

The Chair: No, I think in fairness there was some discussion about the intent of this motion. It was just the way Mr. Konrad phrased it. If you had another way of phrasing I'd be more than happy to entertain a question now if you want to.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: It's okay.

Mr. John Solomon: Just to respond, I'll clarify again what the motion's intent is, now that I've been clarified by my parliamentary assistant.

Right now you cannot appear as a witness when the House is in session because the sessions are very long and they are indeterminate at the call of the government. So I am proposing that when you, as an elected or appointed politician in this country at the national level, are called as a witness, you appear as a witness, taking into consideration that you are not protected by the fact that the House is in session. It's very general. It's not too specific.

The Chair: Very good; I think that clarifies it. Thank you, Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you very much.

The Chair: We'll move on to Mr. Shepherd with respect to Bill-401.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me this time to introduce Bill-401 to you.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Holidays Act and other acts to provide for a national statutory holiday for Flag Day. As you probably know, flag day is currently recognized as being the 15th of February. My bill intends to make the third Monday of every February a national holiday called Flag Day.

I'm not the first member to bring this sort of a bill before the House. Indeed, the issue itself has a rich history within these buildings. At various times it has been called National Heritage Day, Heritage Day, and even International Peace and Goodwill Day. This issue was debated in the House as early as 1980.

As you know, our flag is known and easily identified around the world. I believe it is the culmination of our heritage and our ideals of freedom. As our country enters the next millennium, I believe it is important to identify and honour our symbols of unity. As we move forward into the future there is no better such symbol than our flag.

Canada has currently ten statutory holidays. The United States, France, and Australia all have eleven, and many countries have many more. Some will question the sheer cost to business and others of implementing a new statutory holiday. Let me say that hours of work have not diminished appreciably in this country in decades. I can remember my own father rejoicing at not having to work part-time Saturdays. This was well over 40 years ago.

Here is what the Heritage Canada Foundation, which is supporting this bill, has said:

Over the years there has been a growing movement in Canada to have such a holiday. Far from being a drain on the economy, as some have argued, it would create many new opportunities, especially for tourism within Canada. In many areas winter activities are best in late February. For a variety of reasons, we believe this holiday is desirable.

Canada Day of course is another such day that celebrates the very birth of our nation, as opposed to one that celebrates the anniversary of our flag. As it falls in the summer months, I've often thought that some of our young people haven't had the opportunity to properly celebrate our heritage and traditions and focus on our national unity. For this reason, this holiday is one additional focus on this, in that it falls within the normal school calendar and allows our young people to participate in that.

I've become quite enamoured by this day. In my own riding I promoted the day within our school systems. I initially started off with one school and now I have so many schools that are participating in this that obviously I can't get around to all of them. But I think it's a very healthy thing that we're trying to promote. It's who we are as a country, as a nation. As we look at the next millennium, I think it's appropriate that we examine our symbols of national unity.

• 1610

As you know, it wasn't long ago that we had a major discussion on this issue in the House of Commons. I note that the member from Edmonton North was here. I thought she expressed herself quite well:

I was 13 years old in 1965 when the flag debate took place. I was proud to see the end of the flag flap. I was a teenager, and I love the Maple Leaf. I have travelled Europe, and the Maple Leaf was sown on my backpack.

I think that sums up a lot of positive things of how people feel about that, and I think it would be good for us to have a debate. I think it should be votable. I think it's something that stirs the natural feeling of pride in our country, and I think it's something we should go through prior to the year 2000. Hopefully, by the year 2000 we can celebrate this as a national holiday.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

I'm looking through the list here and we're trying to decide, of course, as the chairman pointed out, that we would have a maximum of three votable bills. I guess my question to you is would you really set your bill above something like a balanced budget act or say an act to prevent profiteering or the Criminal Code trespass act, which was proposed by the member for New Westminister—Coquitlam—Burnaby?

Mr. Alex Shepherd: By all means.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: On what grounds?

Mr. Alex Shepherd: On the grounds that I think there's more to a country than its intermittent laws. There are the symbols and identity that unite us as a nation. As I look out this window I see the flag flying. I think that's important to unify this country. We've lived through some hard times, and maybe we're going to continue to live through some hard times in questioning ourselves as a country. I think it's time we had a debate, maybe even nationally from this Parliament building, about who we are as a country as we enter the 21st century. So that's why I would think it's paramount that all members of Parliament participate in this.

The Chair: Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I have one question, and it might not be fair. Did you support Reform's supply day motion on the flag?

The Chair: Mr. Konrad, I don't think that is fair. It's a good sucker question.

Thanks very much.

[Translation]

Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I have a question to ask out of curiosity. Adding a legal holiday is very costly. Do business people, contractors, industrialists and even the Canadian Public Service approve of it?

[English]

Mr. Alex Shepherd: To answer your question directly, no, I have not. I have actually heard some people express concern such as you are raising here today. In fact, I have contacted Statistics Canada about whether they could estimate the cost to business of providing that holiday. It's very difficult to assess, because of course what is a natural thing to happen is that people will try to supplant that production day by hiring more people.

In fact you can argue the flip side of this coin. It may be an asset to reducing unemployment in this country as we create more opportunity for people to fill those work spaces.

[Translation]

The Chair: Is that all, Ms. Dalphond-Guiral?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's enough.

The Chair: Yes. Thank you.

[English]

Thank you very much, Mr. Shepherd. The clerk will be in touch with the deliberations of the committee.

Moving on, we have Ms. St-Jacques with Senator Cohen. It's somewhat unusual to have a Senate bill coming, but it's good of you both to attend. I understand that, Ms. St-Jacques, you're stickhandling this through the House of Commons on behalf of the senator.

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Pardon?

The Chair: You're proposing this bill in the House of Commons on behalf of the senator?

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Not on behalf of the Senate. I'm presenting the bill, but it came from the Senate.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Dear colleagues, I'm glad to have the chance to speak here today so I can invite you to consider Bill S- 11 as being worthy of being put to the vote.

As you can see, I have invited my friend Erminie Cohen to accompany me, because I believe that her exemplary commitment to the most destitute in our society and her exceptional contribution to the cause of human justice make her an ideal ally to help me in this effort which is particularly dear to my heart. Moreover, she will share the time which has been allocated to me to defend this bill.

• 1615

You are all aware of the particular interest that I also have in the cause of poverty, and particularly in the destitution that afflicts many children in this country. So, you won't be surprised to see me explaining today this law's reason for being, initiated by Senator Cohen, which, in essence, is aimed at giving back dignity to a group of citizens that is excluded from the social, economic and cultural life enjoyed by the rest of the population.

Poverty continues to be one of the main barriers to equality in our society. The poor, who are often treated as second-class citizens, are faced with outright discrimination when they do things as simple as applying for a job, looking for an apartment or opening a bank account. Add to that the shame of having to stand in line at soup kitchens and the anguish of uncertain tomorrows, when they don't know if they'll be able to house and feed their children properly.

You will agree with me that these citizens are in dire need of legislative recognition that will protect their rights. I emphasize "protect their rights" because this initiative, which supports and reinforces both the intention and the goals of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, does not give the poor in Canada any special privileges. Its only objective is to explicitly recognize poverty and everything that goes with it, such as living on social assistance, and ban discrimination against the poor in areas that come under federal jurisdiction.

Moreover, this bill in no way impinges on the legislative powers of the provinces because the Canadian Human Rights Act only protects those sectors that come under federal jurisdiction.

That being said, you should be aware that a number of provinces have already extended human rights to the poor and some others are presently thinking of doing so.

Furthermore, I contend that the protection of these rights could turn out to be one of our most powerful tools in the fight against poverty because it promotes human dignity, justice, equity and equal opportunity.

The Human Rights Act can in fact help create social behaviours that will gradually help people and institutions better understand the phenomenon of poverty.

In short, I would ask you to consider the possibility of looking at the poverty issue from the point of view of human rights. It is my contention that the poor of this country are faced with prejudices that are similar to those endured by the marginalized groups listed in the Human Rights Act. However, poverty is not always recognized legally as a direct and major source of inequality and disadvantagement in Canadian society.

I therefore invite you, dear colleagues, to give us the chance to rectify this deplorable legislative shortcoming. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, madame.

[English]

Senator Cohen.

Senator Erminie J. Cohen (Saint John, PC): I'm pleased to appear before all of you today to speak about Bill S-11, which would add social condition as a prohibitive ground of discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

This bill is above partisan politics. It is about basic human rights and granting protection to the poorest and most marginalized of our citizens. It is about recognizing the right to the dignity of person and agreeing that everyone is entitled to be treated with respect.

This bill is that simple. But it is because of this simplicity, however, that people seem to get confused and ask why it is important and what it will achieve. Bill S-11 does not confer any special privilege on Canada's poor. It does not make poverty itself a violation of our domestic human rights. All this bill asks is that the poor, whether elderly or disabled, working or in receipt of social assistance, man or woman, not be prejudged and discriminated against. It will not change the financial situation for those living in poverty, but it will prevent discrimination in areas of federal jurisdiction, such as banking and the media.

Ladies and gentlemen, if we can't put the dollars back into the pockets of the poor, then at least let's help them to live with self-respect by letting them know they matter.

After working with the poor these many years, I have come to understand how very important this bill is to them, and all they are asking is that they be treated the same as you or me. I know it is very difficult for us in this room to understand. We take our rights for granted because we've had them for over three decades. But the poor still lack this protection, and sadly, negative stereotypes and social stigma are a fact of life for Canadians living in poverty. These stem from the myth that their poverty is their fault. No one wants to live in poverty, and this myth allows us to treat the poor unfairly and in ways that diminish them as people. As a result, poverty continues to be one of the greatest barriers to equality in Canadian society.

• 1620

Our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms proclaims the importance of basic human rights for all people living in Canada. Specifically, section 15 states that every individual has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. The poor, however, do not currently receive equal protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I ask you to take this opportunity to honour the International Decade for the Eradication of Poverty and the fiftieth anniversary of the International Declaration of Human Rights by bringing this bill to the next phase. The United Nations has repeatedly asked us to change our domestic human rights legislation to more closely reflect what we have signed in international agreements, and it has urged our government to empower the poor as part of the strategy for empowering our nation. I humbly suggest to you that this is a good place to start.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator.

Might I point out to the committee that it's somewhat of a rare honour to have a senator with us. This doesn't happen all the time.

Senator Erminie Cohen: Thank you.

The Chair: It's very good of you to attend—and certainly Madam St-Jacques, in terms of the sponsor in the House of Commons.

Mr. Konrad or Ms. Grey.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Given that the Human Rights Act is not necessarily proactive and that the government is always actively involved in putting forward legislation to help the poor to become unpoor, how do you see this doing anything to alleviate their condition, by just adding a long list of non-discrimination items to the Human Rights Act, as opposed to something proactive within Parliament?

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: To begin with, we are looking for ways to solve poverty-related problems, which are continually worsening. This is one way of giving dignity back to those people.

These people suffer in different ways. Some of them used to have money and lost it all. They found themselves in the street and in the soup kitchens. So, they aren't even left with their dignity.

I don't know if you've heard it on the radio, but it's easy to talk about these people as though they have no sense of honor, as though they don't belong to any social level, because they're poor. Immediately, they're marginalized.

I think that, by putting this condition into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we would be giving back their dignity and ensuring them fairness. Doing that doesn't cost anything.

[English]

Senator Erminie Cohen: This bill will not make them unpoor. They'll still be poor, but what they can do is walk with their head held a little bit higher. If this is implemented, when an open-line show maligns them and calls them welfare bums living on the state, they'll have recourse. They can go to the Human Rights Commission and say “They can't talk about me like that”. Right now, if you listen to these programs, it's terrible.

The Canadian Bankers Association recently issued a new edict to all their bank tellers with regard to sensitivity training for dealing with people in poverty. I have a copy of it in my office. I phoned them and thanked them for listening. They would not have issued that proclamation if they did not realize that there was discrimination in banks when people of poverty want to open accounts.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam.

[Translation]

A Member: That's enough.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): You mentioned that some provinces have adopted this. Which ones are they?

[Translation]

Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Quebec added social condition to its Charter. And Ontario too. I don't have the complete list.

[English]

Senator Erminie Cohen: It has been adopted by all of the provinces except New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and the Yukon. Although, unfortunately, New Brunswick is not working on it, the other two are.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Blaikie.

Thank you very much, Senator and Madam St-Jacques, for attending today. The clerk will be in touch with you regarding the disposition of deliberations. Thank you.

Senator Erminie Cohen: Thank you very much.

The Chair: We'll now move on to Mr. Stinson with regard to Bill C-236. Mr. Stinson.

• 1625

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): With regard to Bill C-236, I believe my bill to repeal the firearms legislation and to enact tough new penalties is in order. It is of major concern for the public out there today, as witnessed even by the demonstrations here on the Hill. But I want to be clear here: my bill does not question whether the Government of Canada has the authority to pass Bill C-68. Therefore, it is not on the same topic of all that is before the courts now.

I believe it should be made votable due to a number of factors. As members of Parliament, all of us have heard concerns from our own constituents about the perceived increases in crime and the penalties being imposed, especially in regard to firearm usage in crime. Before the new firearms legislation came into effect, there was a section in there that fairly adequately addressed the criminal misuse of firearms, and it has been overlooked. In my bill, I would like to go back to that section to increase the penalties to some extent for the criminal misuse of firearms. That is the main gist of it.

Let me tell you what I would like to see imposed here. If a firearm is used in the commission of a crime, even if it is not discharged, the sentence should be not more than 14 years but not less than five years. If the firearm is actually discharged in the commission of the crime, then it should be not more than 14 years but not less than 10 years. This is not to be bargained away, as with what happens here. The sentence imposed by the courts has to be adhered to. What's happened here in regard to crime and firearms—and one of the reasons we have such an upheaval today in regard to firearms legislation—is that the courts have tended to bargain away this section of the Criminal Code, so I would like to see that enacted again.

The Chair: Very good. Thank you very much for that overview.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you, Mr. Stinson.

I note from the criteria for the selection of votable items that bills will be set aside in the selection process if they are clearly unconstitutional in that they infringe upon provincial legislative authority and other things like that. I think Bill C-68 has been referred to as interfering in provincial authority from the start, so I take it you would see this as an important first step in allowing the provinces to assert the authority that they have to regulate private property, such as firearms.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: I would see it that way too, yes. But more importantly, I also don't want to lose the aspect of the sentencing part for the criminal misuse of firearms.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: And you feel this should not be open to discussion, should not be opened by a committee that would look into this if it happened to pass in the House of Commons?

Mr. Darrel Stinson: I would have no problem with that at all. What I would like to see is that this is put for debate on the floor of the House of Commons in order to have everything out there so that people fully understand exactly what is involved here.

I really don't see any problem with it. In 1993 and 1997, in debate in public, all parties in the House had grave concern about the criminal element of our society. To me, this is one way of addressing it. I believe that if you're going to address the criminal misuse of firearms, you must do it very stringently and forcefully. That's the only way it'll work.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I take it that when you talk about the Firearms Act being repealed, you're talking about the registration. Is that what you mean?

Mr. Darrel Stinson: That is part of it, yes.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: So you're talking about the whole act.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: You want the whole act repealed, not just the registration part.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: The whole section of that act, yes.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: The whole shooting match, no pun intended.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jordan.

• 1630

Mr. Joe Jordan: No questions.

The Chair: Okay, then I thank you for presenting today, Mr. Stinson.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Loubier is next, with respect to Bill C-375.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Bill I'm tabling before you today deals essentially with budgetary balance; that is, it's an anti-deficit bill. Why are we tabling such a bill and why do we think it's votable? There are three direct reasons, as well as three that are a little less direct.

The first of the direct reasons is that when we do an objective analysis of the budgetary situation of the government and when we consider the surplus that has been built up in the employment insurance account, which is expected to reach 20 billion dollars in 1998-1999, compared to the surplus of 15 billion dollars the Minister of Finance could realize, we see that there's an objective deficit of about 5 billion dollars for this fiscal year. When they say the government has a surplus, in my opinion, that's a bit theoretical. In fact, if the government hadn't taken 20 billion dollars from the employment insurance surplus, paid for by employer and employee contributions, it would have an objective deficit of at least 5 billion dollars for this fiscal year.

Secondly, this bill would allow us to avoid repeating past errors. You know about the old mistake where the federal government keeps increasing the debt by running up deficits year after year, as it has been doing for the last 30 years. That could easily happen again.

Thirdly, should Canada go into recession between now and the end of 1999 or in early 2000, it would have to dig into those funds, perhaps jeopardizing once again the budget balance, which makes such a project worthwhile.

The three other, more indirect reasons, are the following. The bill makes the Minister of Finance accountable to the House of Commons for any budget overrun.

Secondly, it also forces him to account for his accounting methods. As you know, the Auditor General has already warned the Minister of Finance three times that his accounting methods are questionable. Among other things, he criticizes the fact that, in the last fiscal year, the Minister of Finance counted 2.5 billion dollars for the Millennium Scholarship Fund when that program will only come into effect in the year 2000. That wasn't a very honest thing to do. He did the same thing with the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and with the 800 million dollars intended for harmonizing the GST and the provincial sales taxes in the Maritimes. That's three times the Auditor General told him not to do that.

Thirdly, the bill makes him responsible for the quality of the figures he presents to us. Those figures have to be credible. In the last budget he tabled, he forecast a balanced budget for the next three years, a zero deficit. So, we should conclude that the surplus or deficit will be zero this year, as well as next year and the year after that. It isn't normal to fiddle with the numbers like that. This bill forces the Minister of Finance to justify all his figures, his accounting methods and the deficits he runs up or could run up to the Commons. It forces the Minister to present a plan for eliminating deficits over a six year period.

I'll be glad to answer your questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

[English]

We'll start off with Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you very much.

This is an interesting piece of legislation that you're proposing here. I just want to know what you think Canada would look like if this had been in place fifteen years ago. Will it make Canada a better place for all provinces if it is adopted?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: The general situation of public finances would in fact be better. We could have avoided the errors we made over the last 15 or even 25 years. If successive governments had been more accountable to the House of Commons than they were during those years, I'm certain that we wouldn't be faced with the problem of this accumulated debt that's approaching 600 billion dollars.

• 1635

In a democracy, it's not just a matter of getting elected once every four years. You have to be accountable to the people and show the true face of changes in public finances. This is something that, in my opinion at least, Quebeckers and Canadians have not seen in the last four years. Figures are shamelessly manipulated and the Minister of Finance is not accountable to anybody.

For the sake of the healthy management of public finances and the future of upcoming generations, I think it would be good to adopt such a bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Sir.

[English]

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'll pass, thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yvan, there is one thing I would like to ask you. You say that this bill would make the Minister of Finance accountable to the House. Would this accountability only be audited at the time of the budget speech or could there be an audit made by the Auditor General every three or four months rather than just once a year?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: As we see it, follow-up on what is happening with public finances and budgetary balance could be continuous. If, when he tables his budget, the Minister of Finance predicts a zero deficit and then he notices, perhaps six months later, that he's heading for a deficit, he would have to give account and explain why that was happening.

I would like to make a little aside. Some people have said that such a law on balanced budgets would harm social programs and aid programs for the needy. Certain stipulations in the bill would give the Minister of Finance the right to run up a deficit in certain cases, for example, in times of economic recession or if the economic or social conditions of Quebeckers and Canadians worsened. The Minister of Finance could justify the budget overruns by saying he wanted to help the most needy in times of crisis, of conflict or of deteriorating general economic conditions.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: A thousand thanks.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

Moving on to Mr. Grewal, with respect to Bill C-442, I understand the clerk has distributed a handout from the honourable member.

Thank you very much for being here today, Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I very much appreciate the opportunity to present the case for Bill C-442, an act to prohibit profiteering during emergencies. The purpose of the bill is to prohibit persons from engaging in profiteering in respect of essential goods, services and resources during emergencies that seriously endanger the lives, health, safety or property of persons in Canada.

In British Columbia, for example, we know that the lower mainland is prone to earthquakes. We have seen tremendous floods in Manitoba, and an emergency could arise from the year 2000 computer problem. Next week we are expecting meteor showers that will fall on the earth, even though they are said to be not posing any serious danger. Ontario, Quebec and some parts of Atlantic Canada most recently have experienced a crippling ice storm. So we know that Bill C-442 has national significance, Mr. Chairman.

There is no discrimination in favour of or against a certain area or region in the country. Different areas of the country will use this legislation to deal with different calamities that cause emergencies in those particular areas.

During the ice storm, Mr. Chairman, we heard reports of increased prices for gasoline, diesel fuel, batteries, water, generators, candles, firewood and materials like that, which were required to fight the circumstances being dictated by natural causes. These price increases were not technically illegal, but they are morally wrong. Many countries in the world have anti-profiteering laws, Mr. Chairman. We need to prevent the negative impact of free marketing that can result when things like electricity, clean water, heat, medicines, or even food are scarce or non-existent. My bill is submitted to provide rules of conduct to be followed during future calamities.

Mr. Chairman, I have letters from the Better Business Bureau and from the Consumers Association of Canada, which are supporting this bill. They are attached in your packages, and I believe more letters of support may be on the way. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the bill does not speak to a matter that can be deemed trivial. It's very significant.

• 1640

I've clearly checked that there is no defect in the drafting of Bill C-442. It's clear in its meaning. It's effective in terms of implementing its own intent. It's not redundant to any existing law. The legal drafters show no other laws with which Bill C-442 conflicts and no other law that accomplishes what this bill proposes.

I have found nothing on the government's legislative agenda to deal with the incidence of profiteering during emergencies, and nothing has appeared before the House in the past. But there has been a full-fledged debate in the House on the ice storm in central Canada, and many mentions have been made of floods in Manitoba. There have been some references to inadequate preparedness to deal with emergencies like earthquakes, or the year 2000 millennium problem.

I have many media reports concerning the incidence of profiteering during the ice storm, the Manitoba flood and the Saguenay flood in Quebec. So this bill is extremely important to address the issue in terms of protection of consumers.

The important thing to note here is that this is a non-partisan issue and should be treated that way. Legislation is required to achieve anti-profiteering during emergencies. I cannot think of another way for the House to deal with this matter. Only laws that are on the books will deter profiteering during emergencies. Most importantly, when we are hit by one disaster we should learn to prepare for the next disaster. We should put a law in practice before we face the next disaster anywhere in our country. We need to prepare our communities for the serious disruptions of everyday life that can occur from those disasters.

I am very confident all members of this committee will be pleased and honoured to declare the bill votable. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Grewal, for that good outline. And thank you for the handout; that's useful as well.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you very much. I have a couple of questions.

In Quebec and Manitoba—possibly different answers will come—how serious was profiteering and how much extra did it cost victims and Canadians? Do you have any idea from your research?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I have collected a whole lot of newspaper articles and there are more in my office that I didn't bring along because they are in the original copies of the newspapers. One of them says a convenience store charged $1 extra for every bag of rock salt during the ice storm. The cost of a cord of wood was hiked up by $10. A gas station increased its price by 3¢ per litre. A green onion slapped an $82 parking ticket on a frozen car that was left on the street.

So not only businesses but the whole system will benefit from this bill. Medicine, food, candles and generators—all of you know their prices were hiked, and the victim was the consumer, the ordinary Canadian, not the businesses.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madam Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In s. 1 of the bill, the short title of the bill is: "An Act to Prevent Profiteering during Emergencies" (in French: «Loi réformiste sur la prévention des exactions»). I must confess that that surprises me a bit. Since 1993, I have never seen a Conservative act, a Bloc act or a Liberal Act. I believe that when we pass a law, it becomes a law of the Canadian Parliament. Can you explain why you called it that? That would clear things up for me.

[English]

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madame has a legitimate question. Most private members' bills don't refer to any party or name, but I'm just doing it because of a precedent I have noticed. I have here a bill that was a private member's bill in the House not too long ago, and it was referred to as the Godfrey-Milliken Bill. In the past I had another private member's bill in the House that I refered to as the Reform. It is just like putting a preface on a book you write and has nothing to do with politics. Again, since other people have done it in the past, I'll follow the tradition. It's not done very frequently, but some people have done so and that's why I put it.

• 1645

I don't have any objection to withdrawing that if it causes any obstacles to making this bill votable. I would be pleased to leave it there if there is no objection or it doesn't affect your judgment in making the bill votable.

The Chair: I enjoyed your comment that it has nothing to do with politics. That is pretty good.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you very much. It doesn't, Mr. Chair. If we look throughout the land, this bill has nothing to with politics at all. Our sole target is the people who elected us and sent us here—to protect the average consumer on the street so they don't suffer when there's a shortage of anything due to natural calamities.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I think if the bill had to do with the ordinary sort of profiteering that goes on in the marketplace it would be very political, but it doesn't and it isn't.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: As an MP whose region was hit by the ice storm, I am intrigued by this bill. I'm just wondering, how do you see this working, and how was it done in other countries? Are you looking at a bill that's going to put certain parameters on profit margins? How is this technically going to work?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Let me put it like this, before I answer this question. There is some other legislation in place. For example, liquor or cigarettes cannot be sold to someone under a certain age. Those bills are there and some of those rules and regulations of law are in the marketplace. Whether they're followed or not, that's another thing.

On this one, I spent quite a bit of time since the ice storm getting it drafted, rechecking it and doing whatever was possible, so there is no technical problem.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I know that, but take me through this. With the person who's selling the rock salt at a higher price, when does it become an offence? How are you going to determine when it's profiteering?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: It would be when we see there's a diversion from the average normal prices in the market.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. But an emergency puts merchants in a situation where their costs are higher. To bring gas into the area during an ice storm is more expensive. To expedite generators from the United States in a two-day turnaround is more expensive. I'm just wondering how you're going to do this. I just want to know if this is enforceable.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I think it's a valid question. What could be done? There are two ultimatums I could suggest, but when we have debate probably more ideas will come. One is variance from the average pricing. The second would be total cost plus profit margin. You know what the average profit margin is, so if the cost increases, naturally the price will increase.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay, good. We're getting into a debate and we're not supposed to.

The Chair: Thanks, I appreciate it. Are there any further questions?

Thanks, Mr. Grewal. Certainly the clerk will be in touch with you as to what this committee decides.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

We will now move on to Mr. Gilmour with respect to Bill C-382. Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't take a lot of your time, as my bill is relatively simple. It deals with an elected Senate. It's an act to allow the electors of a province to express an opinion on who should be summoned to the Senate to represent the respective province.

This issue has been before the House. It's been in the newspapers. We had two elected senators in Alberta. To my knowledge, individual members have not had the opportunity to put their own wishes before the House. We've had an awful lot of party politics, but nothing from the individual members and particularly people in the individual provinces.

We all know senators who were appointed who are competent. We all know senators who were appointed who are either not competent or purely political. This bill is very simple. There should be a Senate election in those provinces first, to allow the people whose names come forward to be representative of those provinces. It meets all the criteria of votable items. I know for many of you, as soon as you hear the word Senate there's a collective groan. The good part about this bill is it requires no constitutional change. We've already had elected senators, for example Senator Waters in Alberta.

• 1650

This is simply a mechanism to make our Senate work better and be more representative. I think all of us should be representing our constituents in our provinces because the Senate is supposed to represent the provinces. It now doesn't. This is an opportunity for all members to show, debate, and be able to vote on their views on an elected Senate.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Simple and straightforward.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Gilmour. You are right, that is very short and succinct, and we appreciate that.

An hon. member: That will work in your favour, Bill.

The Chair: Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: One of the reasons advanced by the Prime Minister to deny the appointment of senators is that it would require a constitutional amendment. Do you feel your bill will serve the purpose of putting pressure on the Prime Minister to take advice on where he makes his selection?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I think so. The fact that it doesn't require constitutional change and has already been done proves that. It will be a message to the Prime Minister of whatever government that the Senate should represent the provinces—that's what it's set up to do—not political parties. That's what we'll have a chance to voice in the House, either for or against.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I notice that Mr. Grewal included letters of support in his presentation. Have you canvassed for wide support on whether this bill should be votable?

Mr. Bill Gilmour: In Alberta alone, 800,000 people voted. British Columbia had a Senate election act that has since lapsed. This would be an encouragement to the premiers of the various provinces to put those individual acts forward within the provinces because they have to be in place. But it's a move to change this federation. There are many areas that aren't working now. It's just a voice of all the parliamentarians to say they want some changes made in the upper house.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: I have a question I would like to ask you, Mr. Gilmour. Has the abolition pure and simple of the Senate been proposed yet? I know that the former Prime Minister offered the provinces to abolish the Senate, but that would require unanimous agreement.

In your bill, have you thought of simply proposing the abolition of the Senate? We know that the Legislative Council of Quebec, which was the equivalent of the Senate, was abolished. Or are you going for a more complex reform? It's because, to begin with, that would be anti-constitutional, Mr. Chairman. There isn't much we can do.

[English]

Mr. Bill Gilmour: I would differ with you. It isn't unconstitutional, because it's already been done. I'm not saying to abolish the Senate, because in my view, if we abolish the Senate we would have the central provinces of Quebec and Ontario running the country, simply because of their population in the lower house. By having a Senate that works, people in British Columbia or P.E.I. would have their representation. So I'm clearly not calling for abolition. I believe we need a Senate, but we need a Senate that works. This again gives members a chance to voice their opinion.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It says in the preamble here it's an act to allow the electors to express an opinion, but then the act makes that opinion binding.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: The opinion would go to the Prime Minister, who would then let the Governor General know.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But he has to abide by that decision.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Exactly. It's a step-by-step process.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

The Chair: Good. Thank you very much. The clerk will be in touch with you as to what the committee decides.

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Thank you all.

The Chair: Thank you for attending today.

We will move on to Mr. Hart, with respect to Bill C-402.

Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Thank you very much.

I'd like to start by saying something you probably haven't heard today. My bill is a non-partisan bill.

The Chair: That's a novel idea at this committee. Thank you.

• 1655

Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Chairman, Bill C-402 deals with a situation that happened in my riding, and I truly do believe it is a non-partisan issue. I think any member of Parliament, regardless of party, who had to face the situation I did last year at this time would also take the same course of action I have taken.

Last year, 51 families from the Driftwood Mobile Home Park, just outside of Penticton, British Columbia, were evicted from their homes after Health Canada deemed the sewage treatment facilities there were totally inadequate. Now, when this situation arose, they were renting their mobile home pads on reserve land—federal Penticton Indian Band land. The residents, many of whom had lived in Driftwood Mobile Home Park for decades, fell into a grey area of the law. I think this is particularly important as we see more economic development on Indian lands across the country.

Nobody at the federal or provincial level had been inspecting the sewage facilities to ensure they met all health and safety guidelines. By the time Health Canada inspected the sewage facilities, it was far too late, some 20 years down the road, and the situation was totally out of hand at that time.

This incident brought to my attention the danger faced by thousands of Canadians who rent land on federal Indian reserve land. My constituents face the tragedy of being evicted from their homes. Luckily, no one suffered any health-related risks, but I would like to point out this tragedy could have been much bigger had the inadequate sewage facilities lead to an outbreak of disease, which would have been very possible.

What is needed is effective legislation to ensure this or any other similar incident never happens again, and this is the point of Bill C-402. It's designed to prevent future Driftwoods from happening again by making existing provincial tenancy legislation apply to leases granted by the crown. Both the crown and the sublessor, the locatees, will be subject to provincial authorities that enforce the obligations of landlords and tenants. For example, the British Columbia Residential Tenancy Act ensures that a landlord maintains land and residential premises in compliance with health, safety, and housing standards set by law. The crown and the sublessor, if my bill passes, will be responsible in meeting standards set out under the various provincial residential tenancy acts.

Bill C-402 is a simple amendment to the Indian Act that will prevent other Canadians from facing the tragedy faced by constituents in my riding last November. It could save the taxpayers money by preventing problems down the road. It will also protect Canadians in every province of this country. Every MP in this room who rents a residence here in Ottawa is surely aware they fall under the Ontario Residential Tenancy Act. All we're asking here is that people who rent land on mobile home parks or other developments on native land also fall under the legislative authority of their provincial tenancy act.

Therefore, I would ask members of this committee to make Bill C-402 a votable item in the House.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hart. That was a very good outline.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: To help me decide whether this should be votable, I'd like to know who exercises the final authority. Does this force the federal government to adopt provincial laws and standards as the standards for the lands used for trailer parks and other lease areas? And who do you presume should be doing inspections? Or is this all still to be worked out? Do you have further plans?

Mr. Hart: No. There is already provincial tenancy legislation in place in each province. The grey area is in developments on native land.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: On reserve lands.

Mr. Hart: So what this would do is simply keep the legislation that is in place. If you were in B.C., you'd fall under B.C. tenancy legislation. If it were a development in Ontario, it would be the Ontario legislation. Those authorities are already in place; the problem is they're just not happening right now. It's a grey area. So this would ensure provincial legislation would apply in those situations.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I have one more quick question. Is the Penticton Band in agreement with this proposed bill?

Mr. Hart: The Penticton Indian Band was very much involved. That's a really good question. During this time we pulled together the chief of the Penticton Indian Band, we met with the Minister of Indian Affairs here in Ottawa, and we met with the mayors of the communities. Everyone was pulling together trying to solve this problem. It did result in the 50 evictions at Driftwood Mobile Home Park.

• 1700

The headlines in the paper in Penticton were “Tenants given the boot”, “News sparks anger”, and “Residents protest eviction”. There were 220 families, because there were other mobile home parks in the area that this could have affected as well, and still might. They may have to move.

Then there were the people who came in to buy these mobile homes, which couldn't be moved because there was frankly no place to move them for $1,000 to $5,000. This was for homes that were $20,000 or $40,000 in value.

So it was quite a devastating situation. My research shows that everyone who has been involved in this situation is quite supportive of this type of legislation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hart. Are there any other questions? Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Jim, I'm just wondering about this, because it's kind of a double-edged sword. Generally, if I were opening a mobile home park and I had to put in the proper facilities, that would be reflected in the rental rates of the sites.

Do you have any information about the people who were renting these sites in Driftwood? Were they paying the market rate, or was this significantly less than market rate?

Mr. Jim Hart: No, they were paying the market rate. It was being managed by a professional management company.

Here's what I see as the root cause. When the mobile home park was established 20 years ago, the sewage treatment plant that was installed at that time was substandard and it wasn't inspected. Over time, while other mobile home parks on non-native land would have had regular inspections, this literally got to the point where there was raw sewage coming out of the ground.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Now was that inspection triggered by the landlord and tenant act, or was it triggered by some sort of environmental legislation?

Mr. Jim Hart: On non-native land?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes.

Mr. Jim Hart: It's required by the British Columbia Residential Tenancy Act that there be inspections.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thanks.

The Chair: That's very good. Thank you very much, Mr. Hart.

Mr. Jim Hart: Thank you.

The Chair: Moving on, we have Mr. Martin with respect to motion 300. Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you. Good afternoon.

The Chair: Proceed.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thanks very much. It's the first time I've done this, Mr. Chairman. I'm not quite sure of the process. I did ask our House leader how it goes. The one thing he said was that we're not here to argue the merits of the case so much as we're trying to explain it. So I'll try to limit myself that way.

The subject of this motion is job creation through energy conservation. It's the idea that there are enormous job creation opportunities on the demand-side management of our energy strategy rather than building new hydroelectric stations.

For obvious environmental reasons and job creation opportunity reasons, we can reduce our harmful greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs, and save money on operating costs, etc., by using our 50,000 publicly owned buildings as the pilot project, essentially.

A further benefit exists, in that we don't have to use taxpayers' dollars. There are many groups who are willing to fund these things up front and be paid back slowly out of the energy savings, if there are any energy savings. It's called the ESCO system, which means energy services contracting.

That's the recommendation. I believe it would meet the criteria to be votable, from what I've read. It's truly national in scope; it's not regional in any way, and it's certainly not partisan. In fact it's more national than any other type of energy initiative, in that the available jobs are spread evenly across the country rather than concentrated in one hydroelectric project or nuclear power plant, etc.

The argument really is that a unit of power harvested from the existing system is exactly the same as one produced at a generating station, except that it's available at about one-third of the cost. It also creates seven times as many jobs. It's available and on line immediately for resale to customers instead of having a ten-year lag period, such as the one they had when another Darlington pollution plant was built.

That's the argument. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

The Chair: Very good, Mr. Martin. That was certainly very succinct. We appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I was intrigued by your motion. I just wonder about the 50,000 buildings. That's a lot of buildings. What kind of a timeframe do you foresee on this kind of initiative? Obviously I think most of the jobs would be in Ottawa.

Mr. Pat Martin: No, actually not, sir. It would be really spread out over military bases right across the country, every post office, and every federal government building across the country. Most of them were built in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, and they're absolute energy pigs, frankly. If we can reduce our operating costs and clean them up—

Mr. Derrek Konrad: What's your total cost, though, and your timeframe? Have you got any ideas?

• 1705

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, the cost is nothing to the taxpayer. As for a timeframe, you could release blocks of them, such as a couple of hundred at a time to the engineering sector for requests for proposals at 100 per RFP. It's not unusual for a whole university campus with 50 or 60 buildings to go out in a single RFP and be retrofitted in this way. So no, I don't have a specific timeframe to answer your question.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are you through, Mr. Konrad?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: It just sounded interesting. Thanks.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Well, we try to keep away from editorializing, but that's all right. I understand.

Questions? Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm just wondering about your research for this bill. I think the payback is the key.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I won't argue the merits, but you would want me to if I could, because I agree with you.

The Chair: No, no. Be careful.

Mr. Joe Jordan: The Toronto Atmospheric Fund has shown in their research that the payback takes about four to seven years. Is that similar to what your research is showing?

Mr. Pat Martin: It all depends if you pick the low-hanging fruit.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: If you only do the light fixtures, you can get a payback in seven or eight months. If you do the building envelope, such as a comprehensive energy retrofit, but you haven't done the lights already, then you average those two out to three or four years. CAESCO, Canadian Association of Energy Services Companies, find that customers aren't really willing to talk if the payback is longer than five years, as it's just too big a commitment. Nobody has that kind of a commitment to their property any more. They'd probably flip it before they would own it for five years.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Thanks.

The Chair: Very good. Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: We appreciate your time.

Moving on, Mr. Marceau has indicated that he wishes not to have this votable, so item number 11 is deleted.

We're waiting for Mr. Caccia and the rest. Perhaps we could take a five-minute break at this point.

• 1706

• 1709

The Chair: We'll reconvene the meeting.

We took a slight break, Mr. Caccia, while waiting for you, but we're in advance of ourselves a little bit, so I thank you very much for helping us out.

Mr. Caccia, as you can see, has a motion before us. It's motion 37.

Perhaps we could hear from you now.

[Translation]

Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Good day, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues.

• 1710

[English]

You know this issue as well as I do. Some of you have been involved in this battle for a long time. In essence, to make it telegraphic, we receive in Canada pollution that is measured in the Arctic from places as far away as Russia, China, India, and even Europe, if you like. In other words, there is a certain type of pollution called POP that travels enormous distances, and it is affecting the Canadian Arctic. The component of this pollution coming from southern Canada is actually minor.

The scientific community is solidly of the opinion that these POPs travel great distances and have to be addressed. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is very keen in moving along these lines. Last June, in the House of Commons, I proposed a resolution for its adoption but unfortunately couldn't get unanimous support. It read—and I'm only reading the last sentence:

Therefore, this House supports the need for a strong and comprehensive global convention to reduce the emissions of persistent organic pollutants, addressing key issues of technologies transfer, capacity and institution building and the need for Canadian aboriginal peoples to take an active role in the negotiations through membership of the Canadian delegation.

It's not a novel issue, and it is one the scientific community is solidly behind. It is also one that is affecting the health of our native people, as we are told that PCBs are found in mothers' milk in the north. As an initiative, it has the support from the Canadian Environmental Law Association. The Inuit Circumpolar Conference has indicated its support for the motion, as have the World Wildlife Fund, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and so on. That's basically all.

You may have noticed also that this kind of long-distance pollution finds its way into the Rocky Mountains. It has been recently measured by David Schindler and others; therefore, it is a phenomenon that needs to be addressed internationally, because one nation alone cannot do it.

So this is the rationale or the background behind this motion on what are called POPs, but it has very little to do with soft drinks.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Caccia.

Mr. Konrad, do you want to lead off?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Yes, I do.

In this issue, we see under the criteria that the motion or bill should be different from specific matters already declared by the government to be on its legislative agenda. You have listed that several government departments are already interested in it and that DIAND is moving on this issue. Are we in some conflict with the government on this? I'm certainly not discounting the importance of the bill, but is it being addressed elsewhere through other forums?

Mr. Charles Caccia: That's a good question. On Septmeber 21, the Minister of Indian Affairs wrote a reply to my letter of April 27. I'll read a paragraph:

Our next challenge— will be to encourage parties to the Convention to quickly implement and ratify the agreement.

That is the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.

• 1715

Then she went on to say:

The lead for Canada in the POPs negotiations— is being undertaken by the Ministers of Environment and of Foreign Affairs. However, I am continuing to provide assistance to our colleagues and I do intend to play a significant role in supporting them during the negotiations. I am intrigued by your suggestion of some hearings of the Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development as a means to increase the profile on the POPs issue. If this is to occur, I think that it may be most effective during the latter part of the year—

So in answer to your question, it is a partial yes and a partial no perhaps. Certainly there is an effort internationally in arriving at the convention, but now there is a need for pressure in order to get the negotiations going.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, I just want to commend the honourable member for Danforth for his persistence in these matters. Long before I arrived here 19 years ago he had a reputation for pursuing these kinds of issues.

I think it will be 10 years in January 1999 that we attended together a conference on the Arctic and the environment in Moscow, and these were matters of concern then. Unfortunately, progress in these matters is glacial, and in the meantime the pollutants accumulate and the possibility of dealing with their effects gets more and more difficult.

I realize I'm commenting on the merit of the motion, Mr. Chairman, but I think that the persistence of the honourable member is to be admired. The matter at hand is a very important one, and we'll certainly give it due consideration as to whether it might become votable.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Just to address my honourable colleague's question about it being on the government's agenda, I think that the word “decisively” would tend to separate it from, as Mr. Blaikie referred to it, the glacial rate of progress. But I think that Mr. Caccia's appearance here today in putting this in clearly shows that there seems to be some concern about meeting the need with the pace. I think that the pace at which it's dealt with is something that needs to be considered, and I think this seems to accelerate that pace and therefore is something that isn't on the agenda of the government.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Caccia.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Thank you.

The Chair: We'll be back in touch with you regarding the motion as presented. Thank you.

Mr. Stoffer, Motion 390.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): It's late in the day and we're getting grumpy, but following Mr. Caccia is a tough thing to do.

The Chair: But you're here anyway. Proceed, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: First of all, I wish to thank you on behalf of all the constituents in Sackville—Eastern Shore and many of the fishermen in this country who have asked me to present a motion of this nature in the House of Commons.

As you know, it's not a financial motion. I think it's a motion that all parties can agree to—that is, it's a symbolic gesture worthy of its merits. And the reason I say that is because of, as we all know, the devastating concerns of the downturn of the fishery, not just on the east coast, but on the north coast as well as on the west coast, and the difficulty our inland waters are now having within Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the far north, and our Great Lakes regions as well.

This country was built on small communities, the farmer and the fisherman, the person working the resources.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak to you about having an awareness week, not just on a national level but on an international level as well. This is quite fitting, as it is the International Year of the Oceans.

• 1720

The people who work the resource, who tender and care for the resource, are the ones we really should be submitting our questions to, for answers on where we should go in the future, especially in the new millennium. I believe this motion will go a long way in declaring to those people that not only the Government of Canada but the people of Canada respect and care for their long history and their attachment especially to the fisheries in the small coastal communities.

As we all know, a lot of these small communities, not just in the fishing industries but in farming as well, are under attack from change—a change in our society as we industrialize our farming and fishing movements to feed greater and greater populations. Unfortunately, in my particular riding— I'll mention a small town that is not in my riding, but is in Nova Scotia—the town of Canso. Unfortunately, after 400 years of self-sufficiency, they will be declaring civic bankruptcy in the new year because they no longer can afford to look after their own matters. Pretty soon they're not even going to have a volunteer fire department.

Issues of that nature are prevalent not just in Nova Scotia, but throughout Newfoundland, in Labrador, Quebec, New Brunswick, P.E.I.; and on our west coast. These communities are finding it hard to stabilize and maintain their existence. I believe this awareness of them would at least show them, as a symbolic gesture, that the Canadian people and government, especially all five political parties, are able to put aside their political differences and say to them, we care about you and we're concerned about you, and this week will be a symbol to show that Canada's not just made up of the urban centres that border the U.S.; it's made up of thousands of small communities throughout this great country.

I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you, and I'll be more than happy to answer any questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Stoffer, for that very good presentation.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I think I'll pass.

The Chair: Madam Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Can the Canadian government really create an international week. It could perhaps create a national week, but an international week?

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Although we just can't go to every single country and say they have to hold an international week, the resource in the ocean isn't just Canadian; it goes through all the waters. And what's happening in our coastal communities in this country is happening to other coastal communities throughout the world. It would be an impetus to say Canada could start, especially in the International Year of the Ocean, because we all share the ocean and the resources that are in it. It's not just Canadians. For example, in the North Atlantic region, 27 countries share the resource. So it would be a symbolic gesture for Canada to do that.

The Honourable Lloyd Axworthy did a wonderful job in terms of the landmines, and that impetus gained world stature. He should be commended for his hard work, as should the Government of Canada. A symbolic gesture like this by our own minister or representatives of the industry and government would go a long way in showing the rest of the world that Canada too cares about its communities.

Thank you. I believe they can.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: No.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: No.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think the rules governing whether we can or can't are very unclear, so let's just go ahead and do it and see who stops us.

I do want to say to Peter, I think this particular motion is of considerable significance because you've hit on something in terms of this sort of myth of production—and the myth of production is that there are no problems with the fact that we've depleted this resource. I understand what you're saying, but I guess we're really looking at—I hate to use the overused phrase—a paradigm shift. I think this is a very important item in the sense that we have to start looking at the full costs of our activities and the sustainability of our activities. So I appreciated your opening remarks. It's obviously an issue you care very deeply about, but I think it's an issue that's of importance to people all over Canada. I think it's important to our society, and I want to congratulate you for bringing it here.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Stoffer. We'll be in touch with respect to what happens to the motion.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you for attending.

Monsieur St. Julien, Motion 486.

• 1725

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie James—Nunavik, Lib.): Good day, Mr. Chairman. Good day, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee.

The motion I want to talk about today is the same as the one numbered 223 which was tabled on October 19 in the House of Commons. It proposed passing an act to pay a salary to parents who stay at home to raise children.

I was lucky. I tabled this same motion in the afternoon, at 12:05 and it was put into the Order Paper the next morning, October 20. It's the same motion. Only the number has changed. I was lucky. It was drawn by lot the same afternoon, the same day.

I could list the names of all the people that support me in Canada. There are hundreds of them. This motion was inspired by the actions of Ms. Beverly Smith of Calgary. Ms. Smith went to the UN to lodge a complaint. The United Nations agreed to discuss it in March 1998 and the Canadian government said it needed a year to study it. However, it did promise to prepare an answer for March 1999. I have a copy of the letter of the minister at the time.

The important thing is, in the case of this motion, which was tabled for the third time in the House of Commons, after June 1993 and last October, and which is supported by several groups in Canada, is to get three hours of debate and a vote. Why?

Several studies have been done on families in Canada and several on children. They talk about poverty. A government committee was even set up, at the request of the Minister of Finance, a group that met around MP Paul Szabo to find a solution. His conclusion was that a supplement should be given to families, to parents, to raise their children. In the present tax system, as I said on October 19, the number of children in a family isn't taken into consideration.

I know a family in Val-d'Or, that of Mr. Germain Côté and of Clémence Côté—I gave the example in my speech—, that has nine children and is expecting a tenth. This family can't even get the GST refund. Their child benefits were cut by $280 per month. Why? Because the father works at the mine and earns over $50,000. Last year, he earned about $55,997. So, they cut off his benefits and the GST refund, even though there are 11 of them in the family living on a gross salary of $55,000.

Several members spoke about this in the House, from whatever party whether Bloc Québécois, NDP, Reform, Conservative or Liberal. We have to discuss it for more than an hour, hear the opinions of all the parties, find solutions. It could be a supplement, for example. We have to find a way to study the question. With your help, members of the committee, we could try to get three hours of debate. I think it would be worthwhile, that it's important for children and families.

When we talk about the tax system or a salary for parents who raise children, we find ourselves discussing something else - we talk about the whole problem of poverty and of family and children, especially between the ages of 1 and 6 years.

I would add, in closing, that where I live, in downtown Val-d'Or, I'm surrounded by single parent families. The mother goes out to work, washing floors for $5 an hour. Her little 11-year old daughter keeps the two children at home. We look for the cause of school dropout that affects many children in Canada. The roots of the problem are deep. It's not only because they're 12 or 13 years old. It started back when they were young.

I would ask you to take a good look at my motion and to find a solution that would give all the members the time they need to study it. In an hour, not enough members get a chance to talk. If we could have three hours and take a vote, that would be a start.

• 1730

We know it's always the government that sets its own agenda, but that's a start. That would allow more people to talk.

During the recent debate on October 19, the members said that we would have to go deeper into the subject and discuss it longer. That's what I'm asking for: a three-hour debate.

Ms. Smith also said, on October 22, that she would like to help these groups, to get a three-hour debate and hold a vote. All the groups in Canada have been working for 20 or 30 years, in Calgary, North York, Edmonton, Port Perry, Medicine Hat, Fergus, Toronto and elsewhere in Canada, in Quebec, in Montreal and in Quebec City. There are many groups. That's why I'm asking for three hours of debate and a vote. Thank you.

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

[English]

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I just have a couple of questions to help me decide whether or not to vote in favour of making this votable. How do you propose to see salaries set? How does a family qualify simply by having children? What effect would this have on exemptions currently available under the income tax system?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: At the moment, the group set up by Beverly Smith, called Kids First, estimates the salary at $7.40 an hour for the person raising the children.

As for the cost of the project, in studies that were done a few years ago, it was estimated at 8 or 9 billion dollars, and could go up to 11 billion.

However, there's another thing to consider. I remember that the former minister Yvon Picotte thought we should institute a guaranteed family income and abolish welfare. We see families that get welfare for 10 or 12 years. I know people who can work and who are on welfare for 12 years, which I consider as a guaranteed income that we're paying.

As for tax system, that's something I haven't had to time to look into. Taxes are complex. All I know, what I have observed, is that the government makes cuts for large families, as I mentioned a while ago. The tax system doesn't take the number of children into account, and that's very bad for large families.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I just have one follow-up question. You said $7.40 an hour, but looking after children is a 24-hour-a-day job. I presume you're talking about 24 hours a day, or is it eight hours? That would help me get an idea of what we're really talking about here. It's either a little less than $75, or close to $200.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: The groups have calculated between 30 and 40 hours per week. I didn't bring all by documents. I have so many it would be hard to bring them all. I have the studies that Ms. Beverly Smith has done over the last 28 years. There's a Macdonald Commission study done a few years ago. I have papers. But everything has to be brought up to date in the light of today's context.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Dalphond-Guiral? Mr. Harvey?

Mr. André Harvey: No, thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie, anything?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: No questions.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: No.

The Chair: Good.

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you very much. I trust your good judgement.

The Chair: That's good.

[English]

Moving on to the last presenter this afternoon, Mr. Maloney is here with respect to motion M-263.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a little brief that perhaps I could circulate to the members to give a little more background on my motion.

To say that the Canada-U.S. relationship is a dynamic and thriving relationship I think is an understatement that doesn't do justice to it. It's certainly a complex relationship in both depth and scope. Our trade with the United States is booming, at roughly over a billion dollars a day. But our partnership is not just based on economics and geography. In dealing with important issues posed by a changing world, Canada and the United States have an extensive relationship of shared interests, and we often complement each other's roles. I suggest that this relationship is thriving because we've carefully nurtured it, and I feel that my motion will do, again, one small part in ensuring that this care is ongoing and on a priority basis.

• 1735

This motion has an interesting history. In 1987 it was presented to both houses of Parliament—the House of Commons and the Senate—and was passed by both, and similarly on the U.S. side, in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, declaring that the days between July 2 and July 3, 1987, be declared Canada-United States Days of Peace and Friendship. It was passed by both houses. In our house, Mazankowski introduced it, seconded by Herb Gray and by Lorne Nystrom. Coincidentally, Mr. Nystrom is here and would gladly second this motion this time as well.

In my area, there is a group that has what's called the Friendship Festival, in this specific time from June 30 to July 4. They were the ones who brought this to my attention and suggested that on their tenth anniversary perhaps we could do another motion similar to the one ten years earlier. Unfortunately, that motion died on the order paper when we had an election. When we came back to the next Parliament, the 36th Parliament, I reintroduced that motion, although you will notice that there is one small amendment. It refers to 1997. That date has obviously gone by, but I would make a motion that there would be no year whatsoever; I think this motion should go on in perpetuity.

It's no small surprise that the people in my riding of Erie—Lincoln, and specifically Fort Erie, have suggested that this motion be put forward. We have a very, very close relationship with our neighbours in western New York.

The Peace Bridge, which joins Buffalo, New York, and Fort Erie, will be twinned. The ground-breaking will take place, after 70 years, for a second bridge, in the spring of 1999. On November 20 of this year, a large duty-free store, the largest in North America, will open. It gives you some indication, certainly in my riding, of what a big relationship we have with our U.S. friends.

Communities such as Windsor and Detroit have what I believe are called Freedom Days. Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, have similar festivals. I'm sure as we go along the border from Vancouver Island to New Brunswick we would see similar relationship festivals uniting the two countries.

When I submitted or suggested this, I wrote to my colleagues, and I had a very good response from all parties, across party lines, certainly a lot of support. I also received from members of the cabinet compliments on the initiative.

I think it should be a votable motion. The relationship between United States and Canada continues to be very important, economically, culturally, politically, and so on. The strength and the character of that cooperation is demonstrated annually from communities across the country.

Canada and the United States are more than neighbours. We share a common past and many interests and objectives. We have become friends and we have become allies and economic partners, and our relationship is truly a model for the world. I think it would be important to foster this.

It has been done once before, for just that one specific year, 1987. I think it's something we should put on in perpetuity. Of course that would require a votable motion of the House.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Konrad, would you lead off, please.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I don't have any questions on this one. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: No.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: No.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I feel that I should declare a conflict, because I have a border town, and it sounds like I'm going to have to go to more parades.

Mr. John Maloney: Then you can confirm the feelings, certainly at your border.

There's another important point I might add. When I was telling you we're the best of friends, we have minor irritants from time to time. Most specifically now, we have the west coast fisheries. We have section 110 of the U.S. Immigration Act. We have differences of opinion from time to time on our trade disputes under NAFTA and the WTO. There are the mines removal initiatives. But notwithstanding that, this motion would also clarify and reinforce the friendliness and peace that we share between our two countries, and that is worth while as well.

• 1740

The Chair: Thank you very much for presenting. The clerk will be in touch with you as to the disposition.

Mr. John Maloney: I very much appreciate your time and consideration this evening, gentlemen, ladies. Thank you very much.

The Chair: To members of the committee, that completes our list with respect to members presenting. I wonder if we can take a three-minute break while we move in camera.

Mr. André Harvey: Right now, because I must leave.

The Chair: Yes, we have other commitments, so we're going to try to be as quick as we can. But we'll have a quick three-minute break, and then we'll move in camera.

Thank you.