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, February 3, 1999

• 1538

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. My apologies for the delay. We have a number of people who want to make presentations today with respect to their bills and/or motions.

We have M. Marceau sitting in today on behalf of Madame Dalphond-Guiral, and certainly we welcome you to this committee.

We have a list of people who wish to present, starting with Mr. Vellacott. I'm wondering, Mr. Vellacott, if you would proceed now. You have five minutes to make your case.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott, M.P. (Wanuskewin, Ref.): It's a pleasure to speak to you today concerning motion 528.

Under current law, parents are allowed to use physical correction to discipline their children, as long as it's not abusive and it's reasonable under the circumstances. The relevant section in the Criminal Code is section 43, which reads as follows:

Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

Actually, prior to the enactment of this part of the Criminal Code, there was no legislation placing limits on the use of physical correction, nor were there any government agencies designated to protect children from abuse. It was precisely to protect children from abuse that section 43 of the Criminal Code was passed into law as a protection for children. So it's ironic that some people who want to remove section 43 argue that it protects only parents' rights, when in fact the original intent of why it came into place was to protect children. Those individuals who want it removed, in my view, have totally missed the wise intention of Parliament in giving us this part of the code for the protection of children.

• 1540

It's a good law, section 43. It was well conceived. It has served its purpose well and continues to serve us well today.

In the fall of 1998, a group calling itself Justice for Children and Youth submitted an application to the Ontario court, general division. They asked the court to declare section 43 to be in violation of the charter and therefore unconstitutional. If this group succeeds in having section 43 struck down, the result will be absurd, in my view, and totally unconscionable. Good and loving parents who believe there are circumstances—maybe rare—in which the best and most responsible means of discipline is judicious physical correction...those loving, responsible parents would be made into criminals and charged under the Criminal Code.

That's why I introduce my motion, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should defend section 43 of the Criminal Code in the courts

—first off—

and should invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if necessary.

So the aim of this motion is to enable parents to do the best job possible of raising their children to be responsible, well-adjusted individuals and members of society. It protects the right of parents to raise their own children in accordance with their own beliefs about effective child rearing; their knowledge of their own children; their understanding of how best to discipline children, derived from their own parents and their own experiences as they grew up.

The motion itself accomplishes this goal in two ways. First it requires the government to defend vigorously section 43 of the Criminal Code in the courts. That's the first measure. Then, in the event that one or more court rulings strike down section 43, this motion would commit the government to invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This motion clearly meets the eleven criteria set out in Beauchesne's for votable items for private members' business. But I'd like to conclude by adding some additional specific reasons why the motion should be regarded as an important one.

First, as I've already indicated, if section 43 is struck down, millions of loving, responsible, law-abiding Canadian parents will be branded as criminals overnight. For Parliament to allow that to happen would be an unconscionable thing. The public gets frustrated enough when they hear about bizarre court rulings that pose a threat to their freedoms and the well-being of their families. The recent British Columbia court case would be one case in point there.

Second, if section 43 of the Criminal Code is struck down, it will lead to a massive intrusion of the state into the private sphere. The state generally has no business being in the family rooms of the nation. The state makes a lousy parent, a poor parent, and should not presume to tell parents how best to shape the moral character of their children, as long as abuse is not involved.

Third, it's not automatic that the government will defend section 43 in the courts. I take you back to a case in point where last year the justice minister gave us written assurance that the government would defend the current definition of spouse in the federal Income Tax Act. Yet when the Ontario Court of Appeal changed the law, the government had a chance to appeal that decision all the way to the Supreme Court but decided not to do so. That failure to defend the law in the courts, made as recently as this past summer, gives me reason to say that we need something more of a nudge and pressure to be sure the government is doing what it is in writing committed to doing.

With respect to section 43, the minister's office has indicated that they think it's a good law and it should remain in place. Yet in my view we need something more than that to be sure there's the follow-through on it.

Last, I would say that parenting has always been a challenge. I have a son who's in second year of college, a daughter in grade 12, and then, 12 years later, a little guy in kindergarten. Things have changed some, even in that span of years. Raising children to be responsible and law-abiding members of society has always been a challenge, of course, but it's more of a challenge, I think, today than ever before. The surge in teen violence and some of those other things during the past decade testify to that.

So now is not the time to handcuff parents in their role as moral guides. I'm really asking no more than what the Minister of Justice commits in respect to the pornography case, to defend it vigorously in the courts—that's what we're asking for in the motion—and then if that is struck down, use the notwithstanding clause so that we retain the law in Canada and section 43 remains as law.

Thank you for your time.

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

Without getting into the actual debate of the bill, I think we have some questions, maybe to the point.

Mr. Jordan.

• 1545

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): As a father of a four-year-old, this is landing on fertile soil with me.

I have just a technical question, and I'm asking you because you've researched this. Is abuse defined? Is there somewhere else in the Criminal Code where that's defined?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's defined specifically in section 43.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I can read the section, but in there it says these things are abuse... To me, that seems to be the—

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It doesn't get specific. It says “what is reasonable under the circumstances”. The courts in the past—and in my view these people should pay the full price and experience the full extent of the law. People have been convicted because they have violated section 43, and a judge or jury has determined there's been a violation of section 43. It has not been reasonable under the circumstances, so as a result there were criminal sanctions brought against them.

So it was brought in to protect children.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That's a very valid point.

Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other questions of Mr. Vellacott?

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Do you understand French?

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Not very much, no.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: We could rely on the simultaneous translation services.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It sounds as though your English is pretty good, actually.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I do speak the language a little.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, fire away.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'd like to know when section 43 was last revised. Is this an old or a relatively new provision?

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You're talking specifically about the challenge in the Ontario court by—

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: No. Is the wording of section 43 of the Criminal Code current or not? Or does it date back fifty years?

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: There has been no change. This enactment has been in place for some time now. There was nothing prior to section 43. That was put in place and it has stood the test of time, in my view. But it's been in place.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: When was it introduced into the Criminal Code?

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I should know a date on that. It's within the last couple of decades.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Like my colleague, I'm also a father. I have two 11-month-old sons and this debate is of some interest to me. You say that the state has no business being in the family rooms of the nation. Don't we run some kind of risk by making provision for different forms of correction which would target not only children, but spouses is well? By so doing, we would be opening up the door fairly wide.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's right. That's why I said the state generally has no business...and that's the whole point of section 43, because determination is made in the court of the land by way of section 43 that there has been excessive physical force used. We've had cases like that in this province, in the Maritimes, across the country.

If my son is only two years old—and I think that's probably the last time I had to use “physical or corporal” correction with respect to him—and he's going to head across the street, there's danger. I can't use natural consequence, I can't use isolation at that point, I can't use any other method. So the thing basically was to proceed and give him a light spank on his bottom. I don't think he felt it; he was wearing Pampers or whatever at the time. I would be thrown in jail, that would be called assault, and I'd be a criminal if section 43 were removed. As a parent, you would not have the right, under any circumstance, to use any method of corporal correction.

There is the provision of section 43 for somebody who uses it in an excessive manner, for a criminal charge to be brought against that person and for them to be thrown in jail because of that. And they should be, in my view.

The Chair: Very good. Thank you very much.

Are there any other questions? Miss Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Thank you.

Do you know anything about the time line of some of these groups that want to get this in here? How quickly do they want this to be put through?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: They started on this road about a year ago now, and your guess is probably as good as mine in terms of when it gets through the court system and comes up before us. The point of this motion is to be well in advance of that. There was some action in the fall of last year. There are different groups now making approaches in terms of intervenor status. So there is something happening right now in Toronto in respect of this very thing.

• 1550

Miss Deborah Grey: So you're saying this is important enough that it should be acted on pretty quickly.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes. It's not like it's a decision coming down next month or whatever, but probably sometime in the fall we can expect some ruling on it. So this would be anticipatory.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Vellacott. We'll be in touch with you as to the disposition.

Mr. Karygiannis, with respect to motion 329.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis, M.P. (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Thank you for inviting me to be here today. This is very important to me, as it is to many more Canadians.

The purpose of this motion is to give official Canadian recognition of the Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1923, during which over 1.5 million Armenians were subjected to systematic extermination through a policy of deportation, torture, starvation, and mostly massacre.

I would like first of all, so that we're clear about what is at the heart of this motion, to read to you the Oxford dictionary definition of genocide. It defines it as “the deliberate extermination of a race or nation”.

The facts of the Armenian genocide are well known and I will not take up your time with long lists of historical references. I would however like to point out that the recognition of the death of 1.5 million victims is long overdue.

This Parliament passed a motion with regard to this event in April 1996. The motion was changed however in a critical manner by dropping the word “genocide” and replacing it with the term “tragic event”. To my mind, the sinking of the Titanic and the great Halifax fire were tragic events. What happened was and is nothing other than a genocide, and to call it anything else is to deny its existence.

In March and April 1980, the Ontario legislature and the Quebec National Assembly passed a resolution asking the Government of Canada to recognize and officially condemn this genocide and the atrocities committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenian people. The United Nations recognized the Armenian genocide in 1986. The European Parliament voted to recognize this genocide in 1987. I believe the House made a mistake by trivializing this horrendous act of barbarism, and I would ask you, the members of this committee, to make this a votable motion so that the House can take the necessary steps to right this wrong once and for all.

The other sections of my motion, such as the designation of April 24 as a day of remembrance, would, I believe, be most fitting under the circumstances and would not involve making it a national holiday.

The condemnation of attempts to deny or distort what happened during the years of the genocide is to ensure that the Ernst Zundels of this world cannot refute what is fact.

Based on the statements I've made, and most importantly, based upon your knowledge of the importance of this issue, not just to Canadians of Armenian heritage but to all Canadians, I ask you to make this motion a votable item.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Karygiannis. Are there any questions?

Miss Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you, Jim. Where was this wording changed, and by whom, to “tragic event”?

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: The wording was changed on the floor of the House in April 1996.

Miss Deborah Grey: Okay. Secondly, under e), designate April 24 of every year a day of remembrance of the 1.5 million Armenians who fell victim...and make it a national holiday, did you say?

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: No, I'm not asking it to be made a national holiday, just a day of remembrance.

Miss Deborah Grey: Okay. What did you say, though, after you read that section?

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Do you want me to repeat... The other section of this motion, such as the designation of April 24 as a day of remembrance, would, I believe, be most fitting under the circumstances and would not involve making it a national holiday.

Miss Deborah Grey: Okay, good. Thank you for clarifying that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Blaikie.

• 1555

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): The motion from 1996, was it a private member's motion?

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Yes, it was. I believe it came from the Bloc.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Where did the amendment come from? Was this the condition the government put on the motion in order to get it passed?

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Yes.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Do you have any reason to believe the government would be any more open to it now than it was then?

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: If it's a votable item and it's brought on the floor... Give it a chance. That's all I'm asking. We made a mistake back then, but maybe the government will see things differently now.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: This is not to argue whether or not it should be votable. It just seems to me that, unfortunately, all of the forums you cited as having recognized the Armenian genocide—and I'm not against recognizing it—tend not to be governments. The European Parliament is not a government. The United Nations is not a government. Even the U.S. Congress is not a government. Governments, it seems to me, are the problem.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: There's the Ontario legislature.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That's not a national government. It doesn't have to deal with Turkey, in other words.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: This has nothing to do with Turkey.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: As far as the Turks are concerned, it has to do with Turkey.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Bill, the Turkey we know today came into existence 75 years ago.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I know that.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: They just celebrated their 75th year. This has something to do with history. It was the Ottoman Empire that did this.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I know all the history about it. I'm just saying that I think this is, unfortunately, the problem. I think governments should show more courage in their relationship—

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: The Government of Australia has accepted this.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: All right. Well, there's one.

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: The Government of Greece has accepted this. There are many more, and I can certainly bring them to your attention.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I can understand the Government of Greece. Australia is more of a—-

The Chair: We're not going to get into the debate right now. We take the point, and I think we understand most of the history.

Mr. Harvey, do you have a question?

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I'd like to know if the European Parliament, one of the institutions that has passed this resolution, has named the people responsible for this genocide. Have those countries which have adopted resolutions acknowledging that a genocide occurred identified the country responsible or named names?

[English]

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Is your question what governments have already recognized it? Are they explicit—

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I'd like to know which country is responsible for the genocide. Has Turkey been singled out?

[English]

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: I think we have to make a distinction. Turkey as it stands today did not exist at that time. That time was at the end of the Ottoman Empire. So what we have to deal with and what we have to recognize is that the Armenian genocide occurred. We cannot hold the present-day government responsible for that because the present-day government of that country was not in existence at that time. The events that occurred at that particular time gave birth to the Turkey we know today.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I understand that the French National Assembly recently acknowledged the Armenian genocide and that Turkey protested this action quite loudly to the country' s current majority Socialist government.

[English]

Mr. Jim Karygiannis: You're quite right. I'm sorry I forgot about this. France did recognize the Armenian genocide, and, yes, in my estimation there was a problem between the two countries. Turkey as it is today, 75 years old, had nothing to do with this at that time.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Merci.

The Chair: Very good. Thank you very much for your presentation. We will get back to you at the end of the discussion in terms of what happens.

Mr. MacKay could not make it, but Mr. Bernier is here in his place with regard to M-508. Mr. Bernier, please.

Mr. Gilles Bernier, M.P. (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be here today on behalf of my colleague, Peter MacKay, to outline why motion M-508 should be deemed a votable item. Mr. MacKay sends his apologies to the committee for not being able to be here himself. He asked if I would stand in, and given my interest in the issue of young offenders, I was happy to do so.

• 1600

Motion M-508 reads as follows:

That in the opinion of this House the government should increase the federal share of financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50/50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.

The Young Offenders Act is another example of an important tool of our law enforcement community that has financial issues that require immediate attention. Regardless of how the federal government proceeds with new youth crime legislation, if it does not assume a fair share of the costs, it cannot realistically hope that the new law will improve upon the current YOA.

The Minister of Justice herself admitted in October that substantial extra funding is needed to successfully reform Canada's youth justice system. Motion M-508 provides an important opportunity for the House to express its collective will in favour of fair funding for addressing youth crime.

The original commitment of the federal government was to share the risk of implementing the Young Offenders Act. This included the financial risk. The federal government therefore undertook to contribute an amount equal to approximately 50% of provincial spending on young offender programs and services. Although the formula remains, it resulted in a persistent disparity among the provinces when the federal government did not pick up its 50% share.

Regardless of this disparity, the fact remains that all provincial and territorial jurisdictions have suffered at the hands of the federal government. This is another example of federal downloading that needs to be corrected before any realistic overhaul of the Young Offenders Act can happen. The provinces and territories are rightfully upset about this abandonment by the federal government. They are currently funding the majority of the costs for a national average of 70% of young offenders' programs that are constitutionally a federal responsibility.

Motion M-508 will allow legislators to tangibly demonstrate that we are committed not just to changing youth crime legislation but to ensuring the law is adequately enforced. As we all know, laws are only as effective as their ability to be enforced. The Minister of Justice and the Liberal government can acquire credibility in their efforts to renew the youth justice system by increasing the federal share for young offenders' programs.

Thank you.

The Chair: Very good. Thank you very much.

Are there any questions to Mr. Bernier?

Miss Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey: Are private members' bills allowed to specify funds and ask for specific money for things? I just don't know.

The Chair: It's a motion, yes.

Miss Deborah Grey: Okay.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Do you want me to leave this copy here?

The Chair: That would be helpful. You can leave it with the clerk, please.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Moving on to number 4, we have one of our new procedures in place. Mr. Discepola will be speaking to a bill that actually has the required 100 signatures on it, under the new rules. Certainly, you're making history, Mr. Discepola, and we welcome you to this committee.

Mr. Nick Discepola, M.P. (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Thank you, Chair, and I hope you will make history by making it a votable bill.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Joe Jordan: We don't want to make too much history in one day.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Mr. Chair, we luck in sometimes in politics, and I was fortunate this morning to read La Presse, and low and behold, all the justification I need for my private member's bill fell into my lap.

I'll give you just a brief history. As you know, Mr. Chair, I only found out yesterday afternoon that I would be the new sponsor of this private member's bill. Mr. Paradis could not continue in that capacity because he was named parliamentary secretary. I'm pleased to take this over.

I served on the industry committee back in 1993 with Mr. Berger, and at that time we undertook an extensive review of small business issues, and the issue of service charges was certainly one of them.

I would remind the members of the committee, with your indulgence, Chair, that, if my memory serves me correctly, members of Parliament in the last three parliaments have tried to address the issue of service charges and the excessive charges banks lay on their customers, and no one has really been successful in changing the law despite, I would say, a clear demand on the part of our constituents for legislation to address those issues.

• 1605

To that end, with the help of Mr. Paradis and others who have this issue at heart, we have been able to garnish the support of 164 members of Parliament for this initiative—the majority of each party, with the exception of the Reform Party. We have 85 Liberals, 18 Reform Party members, 27 Bloc Québécois, 20 NDP members, and 13 Conservative members supporting this initiative.

It's a rather simple bill; we have tried to keep it as simple as we can. What we're asking Parliament to do is mandate the industry committee, in this case, to review the service charges that banks charge their customers. I won't read the bill since you already have it, but our objective here is to get some transparency into the system. Far too often, you try to find out what the service charges are, but it's a nightmare to try to even find out. All you do is look and read, and you find out later that you've been charged $1.25 for an ATM transaction.

What a journalist from La Presse did—and I apologize that it's only in French, but I just got it this morning—was visit eight institutions. He asked each one of them what they provided in terms of services. He has listed eight or nine packages in terms of the number of transactions, the number of cheques you write, the number of invoices, the number of times you go to the counter, etc. I have to tell you that out of the eight institutions that he has scored, with each of the offerings they have—and they've categorized them as those accounts that you should stay away from and those that you should abide by—in general the CIBC offers 60 products, of which 10 the paper recommends to use, which is 17%; the Laurentian Bank offers 9 out of 45; and the Bank of Montreal offers 10 out of 70 that you should even consider. In other words, the banks themselves offer a varied number of packages. They give very nice, handy names to them, but the costs are exorbitant.

As for some of the costs that we are talking about, if you are overdrawn in your bank account, for example, they charge you 21%, or $20 to $25 for an NSF cheque. Here is one. If you want a confirmation of what the bank service charges are in your institution, they'll charge you between $10 and $12 for it.

The caption here is “Les frais de service: du vrai vol”. In other words, the banks are making a killing on bank service charges. There's no accountability for them, and I'm pleading to you to allow us to change the Bank Act in order to allow Parliament's appropriate committee to simply ask the banks to come in front of it at its request in order to justify the service charges. At that point in time, Parliament would then at least have the facts in hand and then would be able to judge the procedures. We do that with the CRTC when an application comes in for a rate increase. I think it would only be appropriate to have the same treatment for banks.

So I plead your indulgence to make this bill a votable item, please.

The Chair: Thank you very much for the presentation.

We should point out that we have Monsieur Paradis, who actually wrote the bill, in attendance. Thank you very much for joining us.

There are some questions, starting with Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you.

Is that $12 fee to find out what the charges are from a specific bank?

Mr. Nick Discepola: It varies between $10 and $12.

This individual created a beautiful chart. The green reflects those accounts that you should try to get, because those are the best value for your money. As I said, the range of the service offerings in each institution that are good is between 17% and 20%. You see an awful lot of red there.

What he had to do was sit down with each clerk and say he wanted to open an account. He asked what kinds of product offerings they had and what charges there were. He has it in a nice form. If you tell me you want four cheques and three ATM transactions, or if you want to get your bank balance—by the way, at the counter, there's a charge for that—he has added up the number of transactions. You pick your profile, you go to this chart, and then you can find an institution. It's not bad. The point is—and this is another revealing thing—here are the profiles, A through J, and within the lowest charge in that profile and the highest bank charges in that profile, you can have variances of 142%. For example, one institution would charge $7.50 where the highest institution could charge $14.50. The prices are just all over the place, so just try to tell me that the banks justify their fees based on their costs of operation. I don't think so. It's more a question of how much they can get away with without the consumer really knowing it.

• 1610

In the United States, when you use an ATM, “For this transaction you are charged $1.25” is printed on the slip. We don't have any transparency in our system. That's what we're trying to obtain with this private member's bill.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Do we have some idea of the total amount banks collect annually in banking charges?

Mr. Nick Discepola: The Canadian Bankers Association would have us believe that this figure amounts to barely $2 billion. The vice-presidents would argue that these charges represent only 4 per cent to 6 per cent. Even though they submitted the figures to us, it is impossible to make sense of them. We do know, however, that the total amount varies anywhere from $11 to $14 billion, or between 7 per cent and 14 percent. It is difficult to know exactly what the total amount is because we don't quite have all the facts.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Presumably, if the committee were to examine this problem, we could come up with the figure.

Mr. Nick Discepola: What we are looking for is some transparency.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I understand. Thank you.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I'd like us to compare what different banks charge for an NSF cheque.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Very good, thank you. Are there any other questions?

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I just wonder why you felt it was necessary to get the Commons to mandate this to happen, get over 100 signatures, and get a majority in the House of Commons, when this can be done annually by a Commons committee. All you have to do is persuade the majority on the committee to do this.

Mr. Nick Discepola: But the committee would not be able to impose or restrict the fees charged by these institutions. All the committee could do is report on them.

What we're saying is to let the committee report. Through an order in council, the government could then take action to restrict the increases of the service charges themselves. “Service charges” is defined in there, so you're giving the committee more teeth. At least you could then restrict the amounts you're going to charge and you could get a bit more uniformity in those service charges.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you very much for attending.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Thank you.

The Chair: We'll move on to Mr. Bigras, with respect to motion M-381.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras, M.P. (Rosemont, BQ): Thank you for having me here today to speak to motion No. 381 which calls upon the federal government to undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana for health and medical purposes.

For the first time ever on February 19, the House of Commons will be debating an issue of critical importance to many Canadians. Several scientific studies, including ones undertaken by the Harvard School of Public Health, the New England Journal Of Medicine and the US National Institute of Health, have shown that in the case of some illnesses, the use of marijuana does have some health and medicinal benefits.

Dr. Donald Kilby, a scientist with the University of Ottawa health service, has publicly supported various efforts to have this substance made available to persons suffering from HIV, multiple sclerosis and epilepsy as well as to chemotherapy patients. On Friday, the eminent Dr. Réjean Thomas, who is participating this week in a conference on HIV in Chicago, spoke out in support of the efforts of many sufferers. Another name that comes to mind is that of Jean-Charles Parizeau, an AIDs patient from the Ottawa area.

• 1615

Scientific studies have shown that the active ingredient in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, has therapeutic and medicinal benefits for sufferers of HIV, multiple sclerosis and epilepsy and for chemotherapy patients.

Pursuant to the Narcotic Control Act, these persons are liable to six months in jail or a fine of $1,000 if they use this substance. In my opinion, it is unacceptable to consider these individuals guilty of some crime. In December 1998, in the case of Terry Parker, an Ontario court ruled that the portion of the Narcotic Control Act governing the simple possession of marijuana by persons suffering from a chronic illness was unconstitutional.

By bringing in this motion, I hope to rectify this situation so that persons suffering from certain illnesses can take marijuana as an alternative form of treatment.

I won't delve any further at this time into the reasons for tabling this motion because I have circulated a fairly detailed document to members, but I would like to briefly review the 11 guidelines adopted in October 1984 which your committee will look to in making a decision.

The first guideline focuses on national, regional and local significance. Clearly, this motion has an impact not only on small regions, but on the entire country as well.

Moreover, the motion must not be trivial or insignificant. It is neither trivial nor insignificant, in my view, to consider the fate of thousands of patients who take a drug and in so doing, face of possible six months in jail or a $1,000 fine.

To be designated as votable, the subject of the motion or bill should be different from specific matters already declared by the government to be on its legislative agenda. Although the government had indicated to us that the matter was under consideration and that a decision would be made ultimately, we are still waiting, nine months later, for it to tell us when it plans to proceed.

The sixth guideline states that depending on the context of political issues and events, the number of times a topic has appeared in the House may be of significance. This topic has been front-page news many times across Canada and more recently in Quebec.

The ninth criteria states that bills will be set aside in the selection process if they are clearly unconstitutional in that they infringe upon provincial legislative authority, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other entrenched constitutional rules. This motion, on the contrary, seeks to regulate the situation since an Ontario court has deemed certain provisions in the Narcotic Control Act unconstitutional. The purpose of this motion is to offer reparation. Legalizing the use of marijuana by persons suffering from the illnesses that I mentioned for medical and health purposes could rectify the situation.

These are the guidelines the committee will look to in making a decision. Fundamentally, the issue here is compassion. All necessary steps must be taken to redress the current situation. Of course, the issue must be debated, but we must take things one step further and call upon the government to undertake all necessary steps to make this drug available to people who are gravely ill. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Bigras. Are there any questions? Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: As I understand it, you are not seeking the widespread legalization of marijuana, but rather its legalization for very specific purposes. Would the use of this substance be controlled? If so, how? How would this drug be made available?

• 1620

Mr. Bernard Bigras: First of all, it is important for the government to recognize the therapeutic value of THC and marijuana. I am also calling upon the government to look at how this drug could be made available to persons who are ill. A number of options have been considered, including the possibility of turning to Ottawa's Experimental Farm which has the necessary infrastructure to grow marijuana.

Of course, this drug would be made available only to seriously ill persons, following a proper medical diagnosis, and could be obtained from a pharmacy. But first, the issue of legalizing the drug must be addressed. That is a far more pressing consideration.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I have one technical question. I guess I don't really know that much about this, but I've heard a lot about the health effects in the news. You certainly have done a lot of work to put this together.

It seems to me there is not only a stigma, but there are health risks to smoking. Why don't they extract the THC and put it in some kind of pill form if THC is the drug that benefits? We have morphine and other plant-based drugs in pill form. Is that possible, and is there a reason why this route isn't being explored?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: There are two ways of ingesting THC: orally and by inhalation. The drug marinol is currently available in pill form and may be administered to HIV patients. However, the general consensus is—and I attended a press conference with Dr. Réjean Thomas last Friday where he confirmed this—that ingesting a pill is not as effective as inhaling marijuana. Remember, a person suffering from HIV must already consumed a variety of pills. You can imagine how that person would feel having to take another pill.

Nevertheless, there is no denying that smoking marijuana does have some side effects. However, for a person suffering from multiple sclerosis or AIDS, the benefits of THC clearly outweigh the harmful side effects of smoking on the lungs. Any doctor or pharmacist will admit that all drugs have some side effects, including AZT. The chemotherapy that patients suffering from chronic illnesses must undergo also has some side effects, but the benefits of the treatment are greater. The same is true of smoking marijuana.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to congratulate our colleague, Mr. Bigras, for his excellent presentation.

I'd like to know if there is a drug equivalent to THC on the market. If so, that would settle this issue.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Your comment brings me back to my colleague's question. Yes, there is an alternative drug, marinol, which does contains a derivative of THC, but as a treatment, it is far less effective than smoking marijuana.

Mr. André Harvey: Has this been proven scientifically?

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes, it has. A report released by the National Institute of Health in United States shows that the dosage of THC administered can be regulated depending on the illness and that consumption of this substance has significant beneficial effects on people's health.

• 1625

One has to understand that marinol in pill form does not produce the desired results and that a person afflicted with HIV and AIDS who is required to take this substance in addition to the ten other pills prescribed daily often runs the risk of rejecting this drug, thereby cancelling out its effects.

In my view, the issue here is compassion. This is the first time that the House of Commons will be debating this topic. More than just a debate is warranted, however. The government needs to make a decision, as well as a commitment.

Over 26 US states have already passed legislation governing the use of marijuana for medical and health purposes. In six U.S. states, referendums were held during the last elections and those consulted were all in favour of this action. The latest Angus Reid poll conducted found that 80 per cent of Canadians support the legalization of marijuana for health and medical purposes.

The courts have ruled that certain provisions in the Narcotic Control Act are unconstitutional. The only thing left is for the lawmakers to act.

Quite frankly, I don't think we should let the courts act in our place. Legislators have a duty to decide and to make a commitment. This motion does not seek to impose restrictions. It simply calls upon the government to undertake all necessary steps to legalize marijuana for health and medical purposes. It still leaves the door open for consultation and other measures.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Thank you very much.

Moving on, we go to Mr. Cadman, with respect to Bill C-260. I think there's then one more motion, potentially, from Ms. Hardy.

Mr. Chuck Cadman, M.P. (Surrey North, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to address you with respect to Bill C-260. I'll be reading from some prepared notes that I've made, but I wish to state that I believe this bill does meet all the criteria. Otherwise, I would not be here. Of course, I expect you've heard that from pretty well every other member who has appeared before this committee.

First of all, I will have it noted that the bill is certainly not long or complicated. It merely alters section 7.2 of the Young Offenders Act to provide for a dual procedures form of punishment. I urge you not to be deceived into thinking that this change is trivial or insignificant. The change is very important, and I'll attempt to convince you of that.

Canadians have been severely critical of the Young Offenders Act, and it has been my personal experience that individuals who agree to an undertaking before the youth court to supervise young persons fail to take these responsibilities seriously. Anyone who voluntarily agrees to a court undertaking but wilfully fails to comply should be susceptible, in the proper circumstances, to the more serious ramifications of an indictable procedure. I've used these words carefully to include the rationale and the intent of the offence as listed in our present legislation.

As I've already stated, I merely wish to change the law from a simple summary conviction punishment to a dual procedure. As we are amending the Young Offenders Act with this bill, we would, of course, be applying our laws in a uniform manner across the country. All provinces and territories would have the same offence and the same range of punishment.

The bill has the certification of the House of Commons legislative drafters. It is a simple amendment that increases a sanction to a dual procedures offence. It is worded in a manner similar to many other sections of the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act. Being so straightforward in its intent, I believe you will find it to be satisfactory in regard to the legal drafting.

The Minister of Justice does have significant change to the Young Offenders Act on her agenda, and I won't get into the debate as to when we're ever going to see that. She has distributed her strategy for renewal of youth justice, but nowhere in her planning or in her public comments does she indicate any desire to address the issue of this private member's legislation. The issue of the court undertaking to supervise young persons has not attracted her public interest in any respect. The topic has not been addressed by the House previously, to my knowledge.

This is an issue of which I have personally become quite familiar due to the murder of my son by a young offender in 1992. That young offender was free in our community pursuant to an undertaking signed by the offender's parent before the court. To wit, that young offender was under a court-ordered curfew from dusk to dawn, but the murder occurred at midnight. Evidence was to the effect that the parent had little intention to properly supervise, and a more serious crime resulted.

• 1630

Since that tragic incident, similar occurrences have been brought to my attention, and pressures have been exerted to change this law to increase the punishment for failing to seriously abide by the court undertaking to properly supervise accused young persons. There can be little argument that this change is constitutional. It merely changes the degree of punishment. It does not affect federal-provincial relations as the punishment still comes within the provincial jurisdiction.

This issue has not been brought previously before the House in this session, and I doubt whether it has ever been the specific subject of parliamentary debate, other than perhaps upon the introduction of the act itself in 1985. But you can see that this bill meets all the criteria for determining whether or not it should be considered to meet the requirements to become a votable issue.

It is a simple amendment to a highly controversial piece of legislation. The change from a simple summary conviction offence to a dual procedure will illustrate Parliament's intention toward the seriousness of participation in a court undertaking. It will provide the crown with another arrow in its quiver, so to speak, to combat crime and disobedience toward our laws. It will provide additional security toward the safety of our citizens. It is fair and it is practical, and I urge you to support the decision to make it votable.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Jordan, please.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Chuck, you are close to this issue, because you're talking like a lawyer, and I didn't understand. If I got this right, what you're saying is that if my son gets into trouble and the court releases him in my care—

Mr. Chuck Cadman: On an undertaking.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes. So I'm saying that I'm going to take responsibility. The other option is that he's—

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Detained in custody.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So what you're saying is that if I don't follow that—

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Wilfully is the key word, and that's in my bill.

Mr. Joe Jordan: —wilfully, then I'm liable. What does the law say now? What happens if I don't follow that?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: It comes under section 7.2. I'll tell you right now that most crowns don't even know about this. In our case the crown wasn't even aware of this section. Right now, it's punishable under a summary conviction.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Which means what?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: That means a maximum $2,000 fine or six months imprisonment. Now, this is where the crown option comes into it. The crown will make the decision as to whether it will be a summary offence or an indictable offence. If it's made indictable, it would be liable to up to two years' imprisonment and a fine.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That decision would be based on the circumstances.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Yes. There are certainly cases where kids go off their curfew and really do nothing other than get caught off their curfew, and in that case it seems reasonable to proceed under summary offence. But, as I said, in our own personal case, the failure to supervise resulted in a murder.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I don't want to get into the details here, and the chair will certainly stop me if I do, but are people told this in court? If you're in charge of this person, are you told what happens to you if this doesn't work, or is it just sort of accepted that you would know this?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: As the parent, you have to sign the undertaking before the court that you agree to supervise.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Thanks.

The Chair: Mr. Cadman, I just want to be really clear in terms of what you're attempting to do. You're attempting to inject more flexibility. Is that correct?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Yes. It's a dual procedure where the crown will have the option to proceed as the law is now written, which is under summary conviction as a summary offence, or if a more serious offence occurs because of the failure to supervise, they can go to an indictable, which would increase the penalty, the sanction.

The Chair: So it's not an either/or position. It's rather you have a choice—

Mr. Chuck Cadman: It's one or the other. The crown decides whether we go summary or by indictable. The crown would make that decision depending on the circumstances.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there any other questions?

Thank you.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you. I do have copies of my presentation, if anybody would like one.

The Chair: Yes, the clerk would be more than happy to receive those.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: My apologies, Mr. Chair, I don't have them available in French because I didn't have time.

The Chair: We're going to make a switch here because I understand there are some flight implications. So, Mr. Breitkreuz, if you would, please go ahead.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz, M.P. (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to present my Bill C-278. The title is Firearms Law Sunset Act.

I'll just read my prepared notes and then answer your questions.

The opposition to ineffective gun control laws is growing. The rally on the Hill last September was bigger than the one held four years earlier. In this Parliament alone I have personally introduced 1,751 pages of petitions with 40,910 signatures calling on the government to repeal Bill C-68, the Firearms Act.

• 1635

The Provinces of Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the two territories are taking their case to the Supreme Court and are refusing to administer gun control laws in their respective jurisdictions. Every survey ever taken of front-line police officers shows that between 76% and 99% oppose Bill C-68 and, especially, the registration of all rifles and shotguns. This is not a healthy situation for our criminal justice system.

These petitioners plead with the government to stop the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars and to redirect these funds toward real crime-fighting measures, such as putting more police on our streets and highways, busting biker gangs, fighting organized crime rings, enforcing child pornography laws, and putting more resources into crime prevention programs and young offender programs. The list of criminal justice priorities goes on and on.

These petitioners say that fighting crime isn't about making criminals out of law-abiding gun owners if they simply fail to do all the paperwork the government requires. They also say that fighting crime isn't about tying up 7,000 firearms dealers with so much red tape that it drives many out of business. They tell me that fighting crime isn't about forcing police officers to chase duck hunters to see if their shotguns are registered. They say fighting crime is about putting scarce tax dollars where they'll do the most good, and that's what Bill C-278 is all about.

If passed, this bill would require the Auditor General to review all gun control laws over the next five years and to administer a public safety test. His independent audits will determine which gun control provisions are cost effective at increasing public safety and reducing the number of violent crimes involving the use of firearms. For those gun controls that are effective, he will recommend to Parliament that they be continued. Both a review committee and the House would have to concur with the Auditor General's recommendations for the particular gun control provisions to be extended. People and politicians of all stripes, in all 10 provinces and both territories, would overwhelmingly support gun control laws that have passed the Auditor General's public safety test and have been proven to be cost effective at reducing violent crime and improving public safety.

The trouble with the current system is that there are never any independent audits of the gun control measures passed by Parliament to prove they are doing the job they are purported to do when passed into law. Politicians argue but never resolve the issue. The debate goes on and on. In the end only the real criminals win because tax dollars are not going toward supporting crime-fighting measures that would do the most good.

It's time for the Auditor General to tell us which gun control measures work and which ones don't. It's time to make our gun control laws the best in the world. That's what Bill C-278 is about. This bill, by the way, meets all the criteria for the selection of votable items, and for the sake of the criminal justice system, I respectfully request that you allow three hours of debate so that all MPs have the opportunity to represent their constituents' wishes on this important and vital piece of legislation.

By the way, the Auditor General himself has said that we should put this in place, that we should determine whether or not previous gun control laws have been effective before introducing new ones.

Thank you very much. I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

The Chair: Thank you for the presentation.

Are there any questions?

When you said the Auditor General said that, where did he state that?

Mr. Gary Breitkreuz: He made that in a recommendation in 1993, I believe it was.

Mr. Joe Jordan: When they look into whether or not the legislation has been effective, what kind of measure would they use to capture actions that weren't taken maybe because of the law? Would they compare the crime rates to previous years when the legislation wasn't in effect? Is that the instrument? How do you envision that?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It wouldn't be up to me to determine all the instruments the Auditor General would use. I think you would have to give him the independence to determine this. There have been many studies done on this. I think he is probably the most independent person we have available at this time. I don't think he's subject to any political interference. A committee would look at what he has to say, and it would then go before Parliament. He wouldn't be making the final decision, but he would make recommendations.

• 1640

Just as a little aside, I think this is the kind of thing that probably could be applied to other legislation as well.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I was going to ask if he does that now with other legislation.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: No, but I think it may be time. It would be a great savings to the taxpayer, because sometimes bureaucracies are developed and—

Mr. Joe Jordan: Not around here.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Oh, no.

I think the principle is very sound, and the legislation has been thoroughly checked by the Library of Parliament and lawyers. I don't think anyone can disagree with the principle of this. I think you'd get all-party support for something like this, because it's really a non-partisan review of a law that has been put in place and is being challenged by the provinces, as I pointed out.

The Chair: Very good. Thank you very much. We'll let you get out in time.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you very much.

The Chair: You're very welcome.

Mr. Mark, with respect to Bill C-312, please.

Mr. Inky Mark, M.P. (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Thank you for hearing me out, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

My private member's bill, Bill C-312, is about levelling the playing field when it comes to tax deductions. I think this bill will do service to not only the people of this country, but also to politicians. As you know, the perception out there is that politicians tend to have the advantage some of the time, if not all the time.

This bill was debated as a motion in the House last year. You may remember being involved in it. Bill C-312 is about charitable donations of $1,150 or less. I believe they should be put on an equal footing with political donations. There is a discrepancy there. The first $200 donated to charity results in a tax credit of 17% of that amount, anything over $200 donated to charity results in a tax credit of 29% of the amount, and the maximum tax-creditable amount is 50% of the filer's income. For a political donation, the first $100 of a political donation results in a 75% tax credit, the next $450 results in an additional 50% tax credit, and the next $600 results in an additional tax credit of one-third of the amount donated. The maximum tax-creditable amount is $1,150, which results in a tax credit of $500.

In 1993 the average charitable donation claim was $626. Subject to standard rules, the tax credit was $158. As a political donation, that same $626 resulted in a tax credit of $325. In other words, there's a difference of $168.

What are the revenue implications? According to the Library of Parliament's reference branch, these figures are very difficult to nail down. Estimates are that under present levels of donations this would result in the government taking in about $800 million less. I guess we could consider that a tax break.

The key reason for the uncertainty on revenues is that increasing a tax credit for charitable donation could encourage people to give more to charities. At a time when government is able to do less, I think we should encourage increased givings to charities.

I believe this bill is about treating Canadians equally. You and I have heard for many years that politicians really shouldn't have the edge when it comes to collecting money for their political causes, any more than do charitable organizations.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for the presentation.

Are there any questions? Miss Grey.

Miss Deborah Grey: Did you say that if this is the political one and this is the personal, you want to up the personal?

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes, raise it and level it off.

Miss Deborah Grey: Raise it to the political, or lower the political?

Mr. Inky Mark: No, raise the charitable donations to be equal to the political one, so that there's a level playing field.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: You said the average charitable claim was somewhere around $600.

Mr. Inky Mark: In 1993.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Was that just total donations to charity?

Mr. Inky Mark: That was just for straight donations.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But we don't know how many charitable donations were inside this window or outside.

Mr. Inky Mark: No.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So in terms of levelling the playing field, are you calling for an abolition of the upper limit to the political donation?

• 1645

Mr. Inky Mark: I'm making an amendment to the—

Mr. Joe Jordan: But right now, what's the limit I can give for a political donation?

Mr. Inky Mark: $1,150.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So charity wins at the top end. With the two systems, it isn't a case of the political donations getting all the benefits. It's just where it is.

Mr. Inky Mark: The problem is that charitable donations are tagged onto your income tax return.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But if you're going to make them equal, are you calling for the abolition of the upper limit for political donations?

Mr. Inky Mark: No, the upper limit will still be $1,150.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

The Chair: Any other questions? Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes. I was following Mr. Mark's argument quite well. I have a great deal of sympathy for it, but, for the record, I think it's mixing apples and oranges to talk about what we do in order to finance democracy and what we do in order to finance charities. There may be an argument for upping the charity thing, but I don't think you do your argument any good in some quarters when you try to mix the two.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Judging from what my friend Bill has just said, your premise is that people, whether rightly or wrongly, do not trust politicians. Isn't this a bit like comparing apples and oranges, given that charitable organizations and political parties pursue totally different aims? This is a very poor comparison for a number of reasons. The objectives sought are not the same. Moreover, charitable organizations are not subject to the same restrictions as political parties. Isn't it somewhat like resorting to demagoguery to argue that politicians are entitled to these benefits, whereas those organizations that deal with the poor and the sick are not?

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark: Well, that kind of response I only receive from a politician. When most people donate or give, they give from their heart for whatever purpose they believe in, for what they're giving to. When a politician says it's really a case of apples and oranges, I really don't accept that argument. It's personal giving, and what this really does will probably up the givings of people who are less capable of giving as things exist today for political organizations. You basically open the doors for people to give more, but at a lower amount in terms of getting more back as a tax credit.

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

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

The Chair: Moving on, we go to Ms. Hardy, with respect to motion M-265.

Ms. Louise Hardy, M.P. (Yukon, NDP): I'd like to thank you for hearing me today.

The essence of my motion is to get rid of the defence of provocation. The defence originally came to us when we had a death sentence for murder. We no longer have that, so the defence of provocation is actually a mitigation of murder down to manslaughter. The real problem is that it's based on honour, it's based on insult, it's based on a wrongful act that can be interpreted in many ways. The defence has gone unchanged, except for one alteration in a hundred years. Unfortunately, it's used in instances to excuse men for killing their wives in fits of rage; it's actually an excuse that our law gives for rage, whereas we don't offer that same excuse along the lines of compassion.

At this point, I think it's time for us to rethink our ideas on justice, certainly, when it comes to killing on the basis of honour, on the basis of a person being caught in an adulterous situation, in regard to the idea that it is therefore all right to use these things as excuses for murder. It actually excuses murder on the basis of just an insult, not actually someone defending himself.

It's national in scope, it doesn't discriminate against any particular area, and it's certainly not partisan. Over the last year and a half, I've presented petitions from almost every province and territory in the country asking for the defence of provocation to be removed.

The Chair: Are there any questions for Ms. Hardy?

Miss Grey.

• 1650

Miss Deborah Grey: This is one of those emotional issues that is just so powerful and should cut across all these other things. Like you, I have followed the Susan Klassen situation; her sisters and her father live in my constituency. For someone to be able to say, “I was provoked by that bitch” or whatever, is just not good enough somehow.

Have you met with a lot of resistance to this point? Why haven't we just done this? It's just so dreadful.

Ms. Louise Hardy: I had a community meeting in my constituency, and it is an incredibly powerful issue. One of the legal arguments that comes forward is that we want our law to understand human frailty, but do we want to make excuses for just an insult? We can understand someone having to defend his or her child, but why doesn't that belong under self-defence? We can understand someone having to defend perhaps a stranger in a dangerous situation. Sometimes we don't even make allowances for that, but we will make allowance for, generally, a husband who is enraged.

There is some argument to keep it in there based on race, when people have been taunted and provoked year after year just because they're black or because they're native, but I think we can deal with those situations in other ways. Whatever our standard is, I don't think it should be based on the idea that someone called someone else a name, so therefore the first person just lost it. You're not claiming insanity. You just lost it and felt you had the right to kill somebody.

Miss Deborah Grey: But if you talk about a crime of passion, where all of a sudden something just exploded and I had this violent behaviour on a really explosive spur-of-the-moment thing... In that particular case, the guy drove from southern Alberta to the Yukon, so you could hardly call that a crime of passion, one in which, oh, for goodness' sake, he just kind of lost it right there.

Mr. Joe Jordan: He just kept getting madder and madder.

Miss Deborah Grey: Right.

It seems to me we should be able to just get this through as a matter of course, to say that surely it is just not good enough that you were provoked, to say that the responsibilities come along with the rights.

The Chair: Ms. Hardy, just on that point, I thought there was a consultation paper that the Department of Justice had looked into. Do you know the status of that?

Ms. Louise Hardy: I've asked, but I haven't received any answer, and that has bothered me. I want to keep this out in the open, because I think it's that important.

If I could just comment on what Deborah Grey said about that case, the woman who was killed was 36. She was a storyteller in the community. She was really an exceptional woman. Every argument that you would use to condemn someone for that murder was actually turned around because of this defence. Here was a man who had gone to a theological seminary. He was a minister. He held himself morally and intellectually above the rest of the community. Here was someone who absolutely should have known better, who should have had control over his behaviour, but all of those criteria were turned around: this man was so smart, he was so ethical, and this was just an aberration. But these are the conditions in which we should have been saying this man should have been held more accountable for his action, but he was less accountable. He will be spending less than five years in jail for having strangled his wife and tying a pillow case around her neck, and then saying it wasn't murder.

This is an example of what we're dealing with, and I know this defence doesn't go to the heart of the matter. In effect, the lawyer wasn't allowed to use this defence. Instead of the word “provocation”, all he said was that the victim had taunted his client and drove him to it. If you happened to have known this woman, there was never an exceptional word that would have come out of her mouth. It was a terrible tragedy, and it's just one of them.

This defence allows things to be turned around, and it also has certain implications for those in the homosexual community in that killing a homosexual person is then allowed because perhaps they made a sexual advance on a person. It does have very broad implications, and I think it's something we need to debate.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Just quickly, Ms. Hardy, in abolishing this, prosecutors still have the flexibility to look at what happened and make some judgments about what charges are laid, right?

Ms. Louise Hardy: Yes, they will. The thing is, we don't have the death penalty. If someone's charged with murder, he's not automatically facing a death sentence, and the judge still has all the criteria that he would use for sentencing.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Keeping in mind that one is too many, do you have any idea how many times this is used as a defence in a year?

• 1655

Ms. Louise Hardy: It's used quite regularly. There's been a lot of study done on it. You would think that women who have been abused over long periods of time could use it, but there's a criterion in it that someone had to have acted suddenly on an impulse and there had been no previous taunt or insult before that. Because of this, if a women who has been beaten defends herself and happens to kill her husband because of that, she can't use the defence because she knew that she was going to be beaten and therefore she wasn't allowed to defend herself.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Thanks for the good presentation.

Moving on, we have our friend Mme Dalphond-Guiral. We miss you on this side of the table.

[Translation]

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, M.P. (Laval Centre, BQ): It's nice to know that you miss me. I hope that the remainder of the afternoon will be pleasant and that you will not spend the entire night debating this.

Before I introduce Bill C-299 to you, I would like to give you a little bit of background information.

In late 1997, four of my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and myself each tabled draft legislation aimed at improving the employment insurance legislation which, since its passage, has had rather dramatic consequences for the people of Canada and Quebec, from coast to coast. It is a well-known fact that the Employment Insurance Act needs to be amended in order to meet the real needs of members of the public.

Therefore, I hope you will hear me out and recognize that this bill must be selected as a votable item. In so doing, the subcommittee would be choosing to send the government a message that it is absolutely important to take the side of those who are in need. In a society like ours, there is no reason why the poverty level should be where it is, or that the Employment Insurance Act should be a contributing factor to this ever increasing poverty rate. That concludes my opening remarks. I would now like to speak to the substance of Bill C-299.

Bill C-299 targets two aspects of the Employment Insurance Act, the first being employment insurance premium rates.

At present, premium rates are set by the Employment Insurance Commission, with the approval of the Governor in Council, and ultimately, of course, on the recommendation of the minister. What this means is that workers and employers, as well as parliamentarians, because this is in issue that interests them, are left cooling their heels, never knowing when the decision regarding premium rates is to be made.

We want premium rates to be set solely by the tripartite commission. The reason for this is quite simple. The commission is responsible for analysing the current situation and for making projections, using the reliable instruments available to it.

Since the start of the 1990s, the government has no longer been contributing to the employment insurance account. However, it continues to be part of the tripartite commission. We are not asking that the government be excluded because it no longer makes contributions. It is reasonable for the government to sit on this tripartite commission and that shouldn't change. What has to change, however, is the need to obtain the approval and consent of Cabinet. The obvious benefit of such a change would be to increase transparency.

The bill makes provision for the Commission to hear representations from persons directly interested in premium rates. They would be invited to appear before the Commission to give testimony. Notices of these hearing would be printed clearly in the newspapers. The Commission would hear from witnesses no later than six months after the coming into force of this bill or an equivalent amendment to the Employment Insurance Act, and every two years thereafter. That is the first change we are seeking.

• 1700

The second change concerns the infamous surplus in the Employment Insurance Account. It is really quite amazing to see a surplus like this. When I have a surplus in my bank account, I'm extremely pleased. As everyone knows, the surplus in the employment insurance account is due to the difference between the revenues generated from employee and employer premiums, and the benefits paid out to workers who have lost their job. We want the difference in the account to be credited to a separate account.

That concludes my presentation. I would now be happy to answer your questions.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Thank you. Are there any questions? Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Was it not the Auditor General who recommended that it be put into consolidated revenue? Do you know the rationale for that? It was before my time.

[Translation]

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The Auditor General has stated on several occasions that it is rather odd that the government sets the rate and that it would be preferable if this were the commission's responsibility, since it represents the contributors to the account. Workers and employers are the ones who contribute to the employment insurance account, not the people seated here at this table.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions?

[English]

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I just wanted to say, without prejudice as to whether any have been determined to be votable or not, that I certainly share the view that the status quo, with respect to the employment insurance premiums and the way it's accounted for and collected and who gets to make the decisions, is totally inadequate. I just wanted to put that on the record.

An hon. member: There is no record, Bill.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: There is a record.

The Chair: We actually had doubts about how you felt, Mr. Blaikie.

[Translation]

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Blaikie's views will be duly noted.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

[Translation]

Thank you.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It was my pleasure. Next time, I'll sit in for Richard. Thank you, Richard, for agreeing to replace me. He's really a fine person.

[English]

The Chair: Very good, thank you.

Mr. Gallaway, please speak to us with respect to Bill C-393.

Mr. Roger Gallaway, M.P. (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm pleased to be here to explain why I believe Bill C-393 should be deemed votable. It's not familiar, Mr. Blaikie.

In general terms this deals with negative-option marketing or negative billing. What those practices do is to reverse the traditional buyer-seller relationship so that customers are offered new products or services and are required to opt out or expressly decline or expressly say no to these new offers to avoid being charged for them. Simply put, if you fail to respond you are deemed to have given your consent and you are billed for it. In my opinion, it's a rather perverse way of doing business.

It's unfair to consumers and it represents a serious threat to competition in this country, especially when one considers that negative-option marketing is employed by big banks or cable companies. The provision of new products and services through negative-option billing does not encourage consumers to shop around. In fact, many consumers may not even be aware that they have a choice in the matter.

As an example, I would point out to you that when a person obtains a mortgage with certain banks, they are finding out that in fact they have also, in the scheme of things, purchased a term life insurance policy and they were not even aware of it. Usually they're paying a premium for a term life insurance policy that, had they shopped the marketplace, they would find they would have been able to purchase cheaper.

So what I'm saying is that this stifles competition and further concentrates market share with the dominant players. I can tell you, and it's in the package I've given you, that the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada has expressed concern over negative-option marketing for this very reason.

• 1705

I'd like to point out that in 1996 the federal Office of Consumer Affairs in Industry Canada released a study on negative-option marketing that contained the following warning:

Negative option marketing has the potential to be an important marketing tool in the financial services sector. Examples include the sending of unsolicited credit cards and changes in account structure made without consumers' consent. The industry is seeking new sources of revenue, offering new services and changing old ones. Ever increasingly powerful computers make it easier and cheaper than in the past for the industry to effect these changes. ...the new technologies could allow industry to profit by slipping new charges and services past unsuspecting customers.

Last year, on October 31, the Toronto Dominion Bank employed a negative-option scheme to deprive bank customers of their privacy. The federal Privacy Commissioner made mention of this in his 1997-98 annual report to Parliament.

The Toronto Dominion Bank's new privacy brochure also moved many to call, objecting to the bank's requirement that customers opt out of its plans to share information with subsidiaries. Customers had until October 1997 to indicate their preference. No news meant the information would be shared. While privacy advocates prefer active over passive consent, opting out meets the consent test set out in the Canadian Bankers Association Privacy Code, and the Canadian Standards Association Code on which it is modelled.

On something as basic as protecting a customer's privacy, the bank's definition of consent includes someone not responding to their junk mail.

This is the little flyer they sent. On page 6 of the flyer, if you read it when it came with your bank statement, you had to contact or write to your bank and say “No, you're not going to share my personal information with your subsidiaries”. It's a great way of doing business.

Bill C-393 is about protecting the consumer's right to express his or her consent prior to purchasing a new good or service from a federally regulated undertaking, such as a bank or an insurance, cable or telephone company. It would amend the Competition Act. It does not propose an outright ban on negative-option marketing. There may be situations where a consumer could benefit from such an arrangement; however, for this to be the case, consumers must be able to make an informed decision.

That's why this bill proposes that certain steps be taken for a negative-option scheme to be legal or acceptable. These steps include increased disclosure, three months' notice, and, most importantly, the express consent of the customer or consumer.

The bill proposes fines for those who contravene the act and also requires an annual report of complaints filed with the Competition Bureau to be tabled in Parliament, so we get some reading of what is happening in the marketplace. This is a similar approach to that taken in Bill C-20, which deals with deceptive telemarketing.

Finally, I want to briefly address your committee's criteria for the selection of votable items.

First, consumers want the protection this bill delivers. This was evident during the 1995 consumer cable revolt against negative billing. It was evident during debate on C-216 in the last Parliament. It's evident from numerous stories and editorials in major Canadian newspapers. So this bill is not trivial or insignificant.

Secondly, it does not discriminate in favour or against any certain area or region in the country.

Third, it has nothing to do with electoral boundaries or constituency names.

Fourth, as drafted it will make the necessary changes to the Competition Act to protect consumers from negative-option marketing abuse by federally regulated businesses or undertakings.

Fifth, the subject of this bill is not currently part of the government's agenda. This issue has been raised numerous times in the House, and I would suggest it has been raised on many occasions in the various party caucuses.

All other factors being equal, the passage of this bill is the only way for the House to adequately respond to consumers who have demanded action on this issue. This bill is not partisan and addresses an issue members would likely find difficult to oppose. Let's face it, we all represent consumers no matter what party or region of the country in which we live.

• 1710

The bill addresses a subject that is clearly within the federal jurisdiction. The subject of this bill has not already been voted on in this session of Parliament, and there are no other votable items on this subject.

In conclusion, I would urge you to support this bill by making it votable. In making this request, I can tell you that this bill has received the support of the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, and the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada.

I would also point out to you that in your package there is an editorial from yesterday's Hamilton Spectator endorsing it, and the Toronto Star has written an article on it. So it hasn't even gone anywhere and it's getting editorial support.

Canadian consumers have demanded that we protect them from negative-option marketing abuse, and by making this bill votable, we can accomplish that goal.

If there are any questions, I'd be pleased to respond.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Roger, I'm confused, because I thought you had already done this.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: No.

Mr. Joe Jordan: What's the history of this?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: First, Mr. Blaikie referred to one that was in the last parliament. It passed the House of Commons and went to the Senate, where it was trashed around for a while, was given a slight amendment, and was sent back to the House.

You may not realize it, but the rules of the House are such that on a private member's bill, amended in the Senate, returned to the House, there is no time limit for debate, so you can never close it. It had three hours when the election was called. You can never bring it to a vote. It's one of the deficiencies of the rules, which I've spoken to committees about changing, but to my knowledge, they've never been changed.

Secondly, the bill to which you refer, Bill C-216, was an amendment to the Broadcasting Act. This is a broader base, and I must say, it's better drafted than the last one; one can see that. There was a lot of time spent on drafting this bill.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I wonder what the arguments are against this.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Well, you should have been in the last Parliament.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I realize we're getting into—

Mr. Roger Gallaway: It depends which industry you're dealing with. I would say that the arguments on the cable side have to do with broad cultural objectives. I would leave it at that.

On the consumer side, I know the banks have already been...in fact, I'm meeting with one of the banks tomorrow about this. They think in some way it's going to fetter their marketing schemes—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It will.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Good.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: —which they believe the consumer wants. I don't presume to speak for banks.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Gallaway, you didn't want to look more closely at what you referred to as the broad cultural objectives. The effect, either positive or negative depending on one's viewpoint, of the marketing strategy employed by the cable companies, is to offer French language specialty channels in areas where the francophone population is not large enough and otherwise would not have access to these services. The same reasoning applies to anglophone minorities in Quebec, outside the Montreal area, in the Outaouais and in the Eastern Townships. As I see it, your bill doesn't provide safeguards to these minorities, within the framework of existing television policies, to ensure that they have access to specialty services in their own language anywhere in Canada.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: As you know, the CRTC can order cable companies to make certain channels available to viewers. In such instances, they don't have any choice.

• 1715

You talk about minority rights in Quebec and outside the province. Two weeks ago, the CRTC said that cable companies should make certain channels available and that they have no choice but to do so. The issue here is not culture, but rather the rights of Canadian consumers. The issue is not one of language rights, but rather of consumer rights. The commission orders the country' cable companies to make certain channels available and they have no choice but to comply. We often see this happen. This bill is not an amendment to the Broadcasting Act. It doesn't affect this sector. Rather, it amends the Competition Act.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Earlier, Deborah asked why your bill had not been accepted. This led to several questions. I glanced at the editorial in the Hamilton Spectator, which you gave us copies of and which states the following:

[English]

that your bill was finished off by lobbyists who successfully argued that French-language specialty channels need negative-option billings because francophone markets aren't big enough to be financially viable.

[Translation]

Regardless of who they were, these lobbyists undoubtedly had some figures on which to base their assertions.

[English]

Mr. Roger Gallaway: But what you don't seem to understand is that the CRTC has the right to put on basic cable any channel it wishes. So you're talking about, for example, living in Manitoba, where there is a discernible French minority. How do we protect them? That is the role of the CRTC. This in no way touches that, because la Loi sur la radiodiffusion says the CRTC can order cable companies to put that on the basic cable as a must-carry. This act in no way deals with that. There's no way it can touch that. It in no way involves that. This act in no way gets into that realm. This act is much bigger than that. It's much wider than that.

If you're concerned about cable, this act would deal with the situation where I wake up one morning and find that I have the gardening network specialty, which falls outside the CRTC in terms of a must-carry basic. If I woke up one morning and found out that I had the gardening cable on my television and I found out at the end of the month that I was paying a dollar more a month for it because I had been surreptitiously misled by a cable company, then I wouldn't have to pay for that. It's a product I don't want. But it in no way touches the right of government to say that a certain television or media network must be carried and you must pay for it. It in no way pretends to deal with that, and it can't touch that.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I see. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I noticed that charities are now doing this. I subscribe to a charity, say, like Foster Parents Plan, and they write you and say “If you don't mind, we're going to crank up your quarterly payments by so many dollars, and if we don't hear from you it's okay. We'll take silence or non-response as approval.” So you'd actually have to write in and say “No, I'm really cheap; please do not.” You know what I mean, right? So it's kind of a coercion tactic.

• 1720

I just wondered if you were aware of this happening. It's the first time it's ever happened to me, but it did happen this year. And it worked. I didn't write in. I'm just wondering whether this is going on elsewhere and whether you would see it as falling within the scope of your bill.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I've never heard of that example, but I would, as a curbside opinion, say yes, it would fall within the purview of this bill. I find that an interesting example. I wonder, for example, if you were paying $20 per month and they proposed to put it to $30, and you have a pre-authorized debit, how a bank can then all of a sudden start taking $30 when you've only authorized $20.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, they do. They can do many things.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: And they do.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It seems to me that one of the things you might look at here... This is beyond the scope of the bill, but it reminds me of a friend of mine who works shift work, and of course he was constantly getting called during the day by telemarketers. You know, could they clean his carpets, could they clean his walls, or whatever. Without giving anything away, his job was such that it was easy for him to collect information as to who was doing this. So he'd find out who the presidents of these companies were and then he'd phone them in the middle of the night when they were sleeping at four o'clock in the morning and say “I'm just phoning to wake you up”. The guy would say “What do you mean, you're phoning to wake me up?” “Well, you woke me up when I was sleeping. I'm just returning the favour.”

I wonder whether we couldn't do something likewise and send something to all the banking executives and other businesses, and send it to them in the form of sort of political junk mail, which they wouldn't read. It would say “If you don't respond to this within 48 hours, your name will be put in a full-page ad in The Globe and Mail calling for the abolition of bank service charges”, or something, and see how they like it.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I like it.

The Chair: Maybe not in Ontario.

We've spent a lot of time, 20 minutes, on this. Thank you very much, Mr. Gallaway.

Ms. Venne, please, on Bill C-226. This is our last one, and then we'll go in camera with respect to decisions.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne, M.P. (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): My bill is subtitled “witness protection”. I didn't choose the subtitle. In fact, I think it should read “victim protection”.

The focus of this bill is the cross-examination of victims by accused persons who have refused to obtain the services of a lawyer. Pursuant to subsections 486 (1.1) and (2.3), a trial judge may prohibit an accused person from cross-examining a victim if the latter is under the age of 14. That is the current provision in the Criminal Code.

We are extending the scope of this provision so that it applies to all persons testifying in proceedings respecting a sexual offence or where violence was allegedly used, attempted or threatened. This prohibition would apply solely in cases where the accused person deliberately refused the services of a lawyer to represent him or him at the preliminary hearing or trial.

The purpose of this bill is to do away with legal anomalies such as the trials of Agostino Ferreira and Valery Fabrikant, to give you a few examples. Ferreira was allowed to question at will the women that he had kidnapped and raped.

I want to note that this bill is constitutional given the fact that the accused maintains his right to cross-examine witnesses and therefore his right to a fair trial. However, such cross-examination will henceforth be conducted by a lawyer.

• 1725

As for the guidelines the committee occasionally looks to, I remind you that this bill does not discriminate in favour of or against a certain region in the country. Nor does it require an obvious amendment to existing legislation. It simply modifies a provision in the Criminal Code. Neither is it part of the government's legislative agenda.

In conclusion, sexual assaults and violence in general are endemic problems in our society. An accused person who chooses to represent himself forces the victim to relive the horror and to experience further trauma. My purpose in tabling this bill is to avoid putting victims in the position of having to confront yet again the person who assaulted them.

This bill had been given second reading and had been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs during the 35th Parliament. Furthermore, when the vote on second reading was held on May 7, 1996, the results were 107 in favour, and 89 against. Unfortunately, my bill was not reinstated after Parliament was dissolved in 1997 and the only reason I was given was that Parliament had been talking about it for too long.

Organizations and legal experts have been calling me to inquire about the status of this bill. I had to tell them yesterday, because I was informed yesterday that the bill would not be reinstated, that we had to start the whole process all over again. That is why I am here today.

Therefore, if possible, I ask that you select this bill as a votable item. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mrs. Venne. Are there any questions?

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: No questions? Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take a two-minute break to get the translation switched. We go in camera, as you know.

[Proceedings continue in camera]