SMEM Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 13, 2002

1630

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

1630

1635

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Ms. Venne

1640

The Chair

Ms. Pierrette Venne

1645

The Chair

Mr. Ritz

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

Ms. Pierrette Venne

Mr. Guimond

The Chair

Ms. Pierrette Venne

Mr. Guimond

Ms. Pierrette Venne

The Chair

Ms. Pierrette Venne

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, Lib.)

Mr. Bryden

1650

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

1655

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

The Clerk of the Sub-Committee

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo--Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Mayfield

1700

The Chair

Mr. Ritz

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney--Alouette, PC/DR)

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. Grant McNally

Mr. Tirabassi

1705

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.)

The Chair

1710

Mr. Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Bélanger

1715

Mr. Ritz

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Mr. Ritz

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Clerk

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey--White Rock--Langley, PC/DR)

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Meredith

1720

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

1725

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

Mr. John Cannis

Mr. Guimond

Mr. John Cannis

1730

Mr. Guimond

The Chair

Mr. John Cannis

The Chair

Mr. John Cannis

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ)

1735

The Chair

Mr. Ritz

1740

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Duncan

1745

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

1750

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg--Transcona, NDP)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Ritz

1755

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Ritz

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Guimond

Mr. Martin (Winnipeg Centre)

1800

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. McNally

1805

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay--Columbia, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Abbott

1810

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

CANADA

Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 012

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 13, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º (1630)

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

I'm pleased to be here today. I'll just give you some quick background on my perspective and why I would bring such a bill before Parliament.

For 22 years, before being elected, I was a probation officer and youth worker under the Young Offenders Act dealing with families and the street reality of those in conflict with the law, as well as the social disruption of families that is associated with that.

So I was trying to translate the Criminal Code and public policy at a practical street level--the consequences of that. Of course, one of the things that has been a great difficulty in my community that I've had to address as a lawmaker since being elected is street prostitution, especially the ease with which juveniles can get involved in the front end of the trade.

It's a national tragedy with this country. It's too easy for a young girl who gets mad at her parents to, in a tantrum, go down and stand on the street corner. She can very easily get involved in the street trade of prostitution. And it's very easy for her to be shepherded, mentored, or whatever, by those who are monitoring the trade, who can then enmesh her into deeper difficulty.

We know that street prostitution is controlled by biker gangs...and the lack in the law. What this bill would do is change the balance of the law from having it in the biker gangs' control to having it somewhat in the control of municipal authority. It's to respond to the juvenile issue, the easy access into the trade. It provides some tools for flexibility so local authorities can better identify those who control, mentor, steer, and shepherd those who may be getting into the trade.

There's some deception in the bill in the way I had to word it. I'm amending only a very small portion of the code, basically taking a purely summary offence that has a very circumscribed set of procedures and making it electable--that's the trade word.

In other words, the local authority has the choice to proceed summarily, if they have evidence, or by indictment. The purpose is to be able to arrest, identify, and perhaps then release the individual on recognizance. Otherwise, basically the policeman is in the position of issuing a traffic ticket, and we know how weak that is.

It also relates to the allocation of police resources in the community. A police chief and a police board are not going to allocate a lot of resources to a purely summary offence.

Often when someone looks at the bill the criticism is to say I'm trying to come down with the heavy weight of the law, because it says “an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years”. That's the consequence of the wording you have to use in order to make the offence electable.

Now this particular item has appeared in a long list of the federal-provincial negotiations that the justice ministers and attorneys general dealt with on the special task force on prostitution. It was one small item that I thought was making some headway with the previous justice minister, but then it got lost in the shuffle with elections.

So it's a very small item, and to make it clear, the only change here is to take a purely summary offence and make it electable. It's to provide flexibility for the local police officer to decide which way they want to go for the purposes of identification and potential arrest, in order to control things when street prostitution really gets out of hand, when we have particular guides, shepherds, and representatives of the biker gangs who start taking control of the younger ones.

It's to try to cut off the pass from this wide-open scope where any young girl, or young fellow for that matter, can just go stand on the street corner and the local authorities have very little in law to reduce their access to the trade.

Now, we know we're not going to eliminate street prostitution or prostitution in general, but this is a reasonable approach that has been discussed at federal-provincial conferences before, to simply change “summary” to “electable”. It's not to envision the consequences. It's the same as breaking and entering a dwelling house. The maximum is life in jail. Who has ever heard of a juvenile or young adult who's done a B and E receiving life in jail? It has to do with the list of offences related to relative seriousness. That's why. That's a parallel circumstance here.

We're not looking at the end product of the potential penalty. What we're looking at here is a procedural thing to provide the flexibility to the local policeman for identification and control to change the balance from biker gang control to community and municipal control.

º (1630)

Do you have any questions?

º (1635)

The Chair: Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

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

I thank our colleague for his presentation. From the outset I will note that I am not, have never been and do not intend to become a consumer of these services.

A serious question occurs to me. It is one that I discussed during the Young Offender Act review process and I spoke to friends who are street workers in downtown Quebec City, where prostitution is perhaps not as much of a problem as it is in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, but where it nonetheless exists. Consequently, I spoke about this issue with street workers who wondered whether greater repression would necessarily mean that the prevalence of prostitution involving this type of individual would be reduced. Apparently, now, this trade involves looking at classified ads, personal messages, phoney studios or massage parlours and so on. Prostitution is now practised in a different form.

My specific question to my colleague is this. Did I understand him correctly when he told us that his bill, by imposing a stronger penalty of imprisonment, would curb this scourge of society - street prostitution?

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: I must respond that the member has fallen into the traditional trap of the arguments we've heard many times before. It's part of the consequence of the type of mental runaround we go through that we have this problem in our communities.

The point is not to increase any penalties. The point is to provide, first of all, flexibility to the local officer. It's to provide an option instead of no option. The option is identity and the ability to arrest and/or then to provide an interim court order setting out conditions; for example, that a person shall not be in contact with a youth or must stay out of a particular area. I tried to point out to you that the object here is not the end penalty, but to provide a flexible tool to the local police forces, which have been asking for this for years. But it always gets lost in the typical type of argument I'm beginning to hear here, and it misses the point. We want to provide flexibility to the local authorities to exercise their own judgment in any particular local situation, so that instead of issuing a traffic ticket when they do have evidence and some problem individuals are involved, they could actually make an arrest.

It's not changing from summary to indictment; it's making it electable, so that the local authority in the local situation has the choice. That's the point.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

The Chair: Next is Madame Venne. She has switched with Mr. Bigras because she has an important appointment at 5 o'clock. It's called something like a plane or a train.

Madame Venne.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno--Saint-Hubert, BQ): I take pleasure in appearing before this sub-committee today to present my motion, M-414.

[English]

I suppose you all have the motion before you? Yes?

º (1640)

[Translation]

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: The purpose of this motion is to ensure that the government amends its regulations to prohibit the use of fishing sinkers and jigs. I will immediately point out that sinkers are lead weights and jigs are lead lures that contain only lead. “Sinkers” and “jigs” could refer to something else. They could be made of steel but in this context the terms always relate to lead sinkers and jigs.

By acting in this manner, the government is complying with the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, which is the enabling legislation that provides for the Governor in Council to make the necessary regulations to carry out the objective of this Act, which is to protect migratory birds, including the loon, and their nests.

For some years the poisoning of wild species through ingestion of substances containing lead has prompted questions that were directed at the government and, in addition, the issue was the subject of a study conducted by Canadian Wildlife Service researchers. These researchers underscored the fact that the ingestion of lead sinkers and jigs was the main cause of mortality in the loon. Furthermore, one of the most serious problems associated with lead is the ingestion of small sinkers and jigs, because even the smallest of these devices will kill any diver that swallows it. The term “diver” refers to the loon. This is the main cause of death recorded among adult loons in North America during the breeding season.

In the opinion of Canadian Wildlife Service biologists, the ingestion of a single stray lead weight at the end of a line would be enough for the bird to suffer a fatal nervous degeneration as a result of the chemical degradation of the metal. The failure of the organs as a result of lead poisoning can kill a bird in a few days or cause it to die slowly from weakness or hunger.

In 1991, in order to reduce the level of lead lost in the wild, Canada prohibited the use of lead shot in certain parts of the country. However, realizing that the problem was greater than had initially been imagined, in 1999 the government required non-toxic shot to be used throughout Canada for small game hunting.

As for lead sinkers and jigs weighing under 50 grams, in 1997 the government prohibited their use under the Canada Wildlife Act and the Canada National Parks Act. Notwithstanding the fact that this limitation was implemented, since it was taken for granted that aquatic birds could not ingest lead weights that were larger than two centimetres or that weighed over 50 grams, the Canadian Wildlife Service feels that an absolute prohibition should be considered to reduce the environmental contamination resulting from the decomposition of lead that then finds itself into the food chain.

Furthermore, despite the implementation of these legislative measures, a large quantity of lead is still lost in the wild. Anglers lose about 500 tons of lead sinkers and jigs in Canadian waters each year.

Considering that lead takes decades or even centuries to degrade in the environment, my initiative is clearly very much in order. Although the measures that have been taken represent a step in the right direction, the process remains unfinished. There is still work to be done.

In addition to addressing a concern raised by the Canadian Wildlife Service, which has already spoken in favour of a prohibition such as the one I am proposing, my initiative would logically follow on from and complement the measures already put forward by the federal government. It would therefore be an excellent way of completing the process.

Lastly, it would also be in the interests of nature lovers for this kind of protective measure to be passed by Parliament so that future generations can also enjoy the pleasures associated with outdoor activities.

For these reasons, I ask you to declare my motion votable in the House of Commons.

Thank you.

º (1645)

[English]

The Chair: Merci, madame Venne.

Are there any questions? Gerry.

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords--Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): One short point. You mentioned this was already in place in national parks?

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Yes.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: So it's just outside of national parks that needs to follow their example?

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Excuse me. So that I understand, say that again, please.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: During your presentation, I seemed to catch that this particular ban is already in place in national parks.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Yes.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Okay. So you're asking for it to be extended outside of national parks, coast to coast, fresh water or salt water.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Yes.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you.

The Chair: Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Venne, you mentioned the loon as an example of a migratory bird. To your knowledge, are there other kinds of birds that are affected by this measure?

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Yes, all the birds known as divers are affected. Unfortunately, I do not have the list here, but it is not just the loon. I mentioned it as an example, of course, but it is not the only one.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I'm not a hunter. I imagine that the duck...

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Some kinds of duck.

Mr. Michel Guimond: O.K. You said that this has repercussions in the food chain. I imagine that sportsmen who hunt duck, goose, Canada goose...

Ms. Pierre Venne: They are now prohibited from using lead. They use a shot that...

Mr. Michel Guimond: No, no. Fishing...

Ms. Pierre Venne: It's because these birds dive to get their food.

Mr. Michel Guimond: O.K. So, sport hunters may consume ducks and geese contaminated with lead.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: That might happen, but it would be surprising because they would die first.

Mr. Michel Guimond: O.K. Here is my second question, Mr. Chairman. Is an organization such as...

The Chair: You said that it was the birds that would die first, is that right?

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Yes, I was talking about birds. I was not talking about hunters.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Is an organization such as Ducks Unlimited aware of this issue? Ducks Unlimited is involved primarily in wetlands restoration. Has this organization already made comments on the subject?

Ms. Pierrette Venne: No, but some others have done so. Pierre Gingras, who is a commentator for La Presse, was really put on the right track by people from the Canadian Wildlife Service. It was the Canadian Wildlife Service that did all the work on the subject and that gives us all the statistics on the number of tons of lead lost in Canadian waters each year.

The Chair: Ms. Venne, I have one small question. It seems to me that it is not a problem that was recently recognized. To your knowledge, has this subject already been discussed or addressed by the House, not in the context of birds but rather in the context of fishing?

Ms. Pierrette Venne: No, I don't think so.

The Chair: Fine. Are there any other questions? Thank you, madam, have a good trip.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Thank you very much. You have been very understanding. I would particularly like to thank my colleague, Mr. Bigras.

The Chair: You will make arrangements with him. Thank you, Ms. Venne.

[English]

John, don't we see you here often?

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, Lib.): No.

The Chair: Do you buy Lotto tickets? Could you buy Lotto tickets if I gave you the money?

Mr. John Bryden: Yes indeed.

The Chair: Okay, you know the rules. Go ahead. You have five minutes.

Mr. John Bryden: This proposed legislation to change the oath to citizenship is very near and dear to me. I first got involved with it eight years ago when I was a member of the immigration and citizenship committee as we reviewed the Citizenship Act. I asked the witnesses, many of whom were new Canadians, what they thought of the current oath of citizenship, and they all, to a person, decried the fact that the oath was an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and they couldn't understand why Canada, being one of the most admired countries in the world, didn't say something of itself in the oath.

I did some research on it, and it turns out that the current oath that begins “I swear I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty” is actually an oath of allegiance that is more than 200 years old. That was never used as a citizenship oath in Britain until 1981. It was an oath of allegiance that was imposed by the British on their colonies because the colonies--New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa--were perceived to be places where not only the English would arrive, who were to be considered citizens, but other strangers. The British crown felt it important to have an oath of allegiance to impose. I'll remind you that this is precisely the oath of allegiance the Acadians rejected, which led directly to the Acadian expulsion.

I've discussed it with the witnesses who came before the committee, and there were a number of them who could not swear allegiance to the Queen. Jean Augustine, one of our colleagues, is one of them. She comes from the Caribbean. The reason, of course, is that many of the people in the islands associate the crown with the slavery their ancestors had to deal with.

I undertook to create an oath that might reflect Canadian values. What you see before you is that I tried to write something that reflected the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The key thing to look at is that we are a people who want to uphold the principles of equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights, and the rule of law. This wording went through many incarnations. You might recall I even had it as an amendment towards the Citizenship Act, which was defeated, but the words were different then. These five principles have remained with the wording I've put forward on every occasion.

Then there is an incredible coincidence. I put forward this version you see before you in June of last year. I finally thought I got the words right, in consultation with my colleagues and with citizens, particularly after my earlier failed attempt. I submitted it in June.

This was the first bill to be read in the House of Commons after September 11. I raise that issue to you because I believe it suddenly becomes very relevant for Canadians to express who they are, not only in terms of a national sovereignty, which is under some pressure right now for all the reasons we know, but also because suddenly the values that are enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms become terribly important, not only for Canadians but around the world. I would ask you to think of that significance as you consider whether this bill should go forward and be votable.

I will say one other thing about it. I learned two things that led to the form you have before you. Some Canadians wanted God put back in the bill, in the oath of citizenship. Some Canadians equally strongly felt it should not be there. Consequently, you see the two options here, an affirmation that does not have the word “God” in it and one that does.

Secondly, I did have the option of doing the oath you see before you with “Her Majesty” in the preamble. I submit to you that if it goes without “Her Majesty” in the wording and it does survive a second reading, then an amendment will surely be moved that will want to put the Queen back in the oath. Then we will have a debate about whether or not at this point in time, at this point in our development as a nation, we still feel it's necessary to swear allegiance to the Queen as well as to Canada. Certainly if I had left the Queen in the original version, I have to tell you, I would have failed the expectations of the many new Canadians who came before our committee in those years past and said it really ought to be Canada, not the crown.

º (1650)

The Chair: Thank you, John.

Are there any questions?

[Translation]

Michel.

M. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bryden, the beginning of the new wording of the proposed oath of citizenship reads as follows: “I pledge allegiance to Canada, and thus take my place among Canadians, a people united by God....”

If some current residents of Canada, Canadians, were of the opinion that they were not part of this people united by God, that they were residents of a province that currently has the status of a province, who did not see themselves as members of this people united by God, what would be done? This is an example that I am giving.

º (1655)

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: The “God” reference is really a reflection of what's in the charter now and in O Canada. But the thing to focus on isn't the reference to God; the thing to focus on that unifies us--and I would suggest to you it unifies us regardless of whether we're separatists, whether we're from Quebec or British Columbia, or whatever else--is the five principles.

I never thought, during the entire referendum crisis, that Mr. Guimond didn't have the same passionate adherence to the principles of democracy and the rule of law that I felt. In fact, I would submit to you, throughout that period of what some of us saw as a crisis, it was the fact that the Bloc Québécois adhered to the principles of democracy and the rule of law that has enabled this country to move forward and will enable us always to move forward.

I would also like to draw to your attention that my seconder in this bill is Yolande Thibeault. I felt it was extremely necessary to make sure it was the two nations, if you will, the official founding nations of this country, those of us who came from an English-speaking background and those of us who came from a French-speaking background, that built together the respect for the five principles.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

John, you mentioned that this had been read after September 11. Did you mean that it was tabled...? The title would have been read, but it wasn't the bill. This is the first time...it's not the first time?

Mr. John Bryden: It was read.

The Chair: Yes, when you tabled it.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, it was a complete coincidence. I put it in at the end of June.

The Chair: I can understand that, but I'm just wondering, has this been treated before? No, it hasn't.

Mr. John Bryden: No.

The Chair: Fine. I just wanted to make sure.

Are there any other questions? That's it. Thank you very much.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Mayfield.

[Translation]

M. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, allow me to interrupt you.

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

M. Michel Guimond: What is happening to Mr. Strahl?

The Chair: I am told that he will not be coming at all.

M. Michel Guimond: Will his motion be debated nonetheless?

The Chair: No.

M. Michel Guimond: When a colleague does not turn up, can his motion be debated in any case?

The Chair: This could be taken under consideration.

M. Michel Guimond: What was done previously? I no longer remember.

The Chair: Nor do I. This will be discussed soon, when we are sitting in camera.

Mr. Michel Guimond: O.K.

The Clerk of the Sub-Committee: I believe that all items have to be considered unless the MP asks for them to be withdrawn.

The Chair: He has not withdrawn his motion. He simply said that was not going to be coming to present it. In that case, we will discuss it.

M. Michel Guimond: O.K.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mayfield, good afternoon. You have five minutes.

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo--Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): You bet. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the opportunity.

As you can tell by my motion, I am requesting that this motion be votable in the House. It deals with the issue of the infestation of mountain pine beetle, which is an enormous epidemic at this time. The motion is in two parts: first asking the federal government to deal with this problem on its own affected lands, and also to offer assistance to the province with the enormous problem this has become.

This is almost entirely a weather-related problem. Normally there are infestations approximately every 60 to 80 years, and these infestations are controlled by cold weather, of minus-40-degree temperatures or lower. Unfortunately, we have not had those temperatures, and we have had this growing epidemic.

In the year 2000, more than 8 million hectares were infested and more than 72 million cubic metres of lodgepole pine were infected. In that same year, the epidemic spread over an area some 700 kilometres long and more than 400 kilometres wide, representing 5.7 million hectares, and it had infested 40 million cubic metres of pine with a lumber value of $3.4 billion. In the year following that, the epidemic increased to 17% of the provincial working forest and consumed enough timber to keep every sawmill in British Columbia operating for a year. The lumber value of the infested timber last year topped $6 billion. So we have a rapidly growing problem here.

I have urged the federal government in previous years to deal with the fir bark beetle, which is another type of infestation, on its own lands, namely, the Chilcotin military reserve, and that was not done.

The epidemic has run its course. There is dying timber. Now that the pine beetle isn't there, we're looking at an area that could possibly be windblown and have downfall so that it becomes a sterile area useful for nothing. I've seen areas where this has taken place.

In this bill I am asking that the federal government initiate eradication procedures on its own lands and then assist the provincial government in dealing with this weather-related emergency, which affects not only the economy of British Columbia, which is a major contributor to the Canadian economy, but also of Canada. It is in the interests of British Columbians and of all Canadians that this be controlled.

This is no less an emergency than storms that produce ice damage or floods. In this instance, it's an epidemic of bugs that's weather related. British Columbia is seeking assistance from the government, and in the House I will also be encouraging the government to assist the province in this regard.

Thank you very much. If you have questions, I'd be happy to answer them if I can.

» (1700)

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

Mr. Ritz.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: When you get this tangled undergrowth, and stuff that has been killed by the beetle falls down, does that increase the risk of fire? Does it spread faster?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Indeed it does.

I should say that one of the means of treating the infected forest is controlled burning, which kills the bug and cleans up the wood so that there's not this downfall.

One of the areas where I saw this downfall is so sterile that not even a mouse can live there. It's so covered that there is no growth. It is just dead.

We are faced with a situation where this is happening to lodgepole pine, and it would be a catastrophe.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney--Alouette, PC/DR): Has this infestation hit other provinces or only B.C.? Has it shown up anywhere else?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'm sure it shows up. I can't answer that question with certainty, but if there are lodgepole pine, undoubtedly there would be pine beetle infestations there.

Mr. Grant McNally: It seems to me that there was one on the east coast too.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I worked on a municipal council in southern Ontario at a time when we dealt with two such infestations. One was zebra mussels and the other was gypsy moth, which was an attack on tree life. I can't recall the federal government's involvement, if any, or the province's involvement because it was some time ago.

The way we dealt with it most effectively was more or less from a bottom-up approach. We had to take steps immediately, especially with the infestation of gypsy moth, because it happened all in one season.

Have there been any initiatives locally? I can appreciate that we have to take steps on our lands, and all the rest of it. What other initiatives are under way if this is such a grave problem, which I know it can be?

» (1705)

Mr. Philip Mayfield: It's such a fast-growing problem that it outstrips the provincial resources to deal with it. Indeed, there have been massive efforts in cutting, which is the main means of dealing with this. But the cut has to be so large, the problem is what to do with the timber when it is cut. How do you store it? That's one of the major problems.

In dealing with smaller areas, there's the expense of taking out the so-called host tree or mother tree, and then eradicating the bug in a small patch. This is a very expensive way of dealing with it. There's the cost of controlled burning over large areas. That's another means of dealing with it.

Eradication measures are in place, but it's such a rapidly growing problem that we need the assistance of the federal government to keep ahead of the increase.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mayfield, I thank you for presenting your motion. For your information, I will tell you that in my former life, that is, before I became an MP, I worked for 14 years for Abitibi-Price, which was the largest producer of newsprint in the world. In the 1980s we saw the spruce budworm attack forests in Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick.

I would like to ask you if you have taken account of one of the criteria for your motion to be votable, namely the jurisdictional criterion. It seems to me that in that case the Canadian Forestry Service was responsible for developing a vaccine, a product known at Bt, a biological product that replaced other chemical treatments. Bt, which was biological, had been developed by Dr. Smirnoff, of the Canadian Forestry Service. It seems to me, however, that responsibility for eradication and all the investment in forest treatment were assumed by the province.

I have made this long digression to explain to you that one of the criteria, in our view, that will enable us to comment on your motion, is that it must be constitutional and concern areas of federal jurisdiction. Mr. Tirabassi made this point in his comments.

In your view, is this an area of federal or provincial jurisdiction?

[English]

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Certainly in the area of federal lands it is entirely federal, and the government has not fulfilled its responsibilities even there.

On the provincial forests, this is a weather-related catastrophe. In the same way that the federal government provided emergency relief for floods and for ice storms, I believe the provincial government is entitled to that kind of emergency assistance in dealing with this. It is a severe problem that affects not only the economy, but the society of British Columbia and those who depend upon the forests. There is a loss of revenue to British Columbia and to the country as a whole.

This is a loss for all of us. In this instance, the provincial government, even in its own forests, is worthy of more than the scientific research the federal government has done. In fact, the money for the remedial costs of this infestation is well within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Guimond.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayfield.

[English]

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you sir. I appreciate that very much.

The Chair: Have a good day.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I am going to have a note distributed in both languages.

The Chair: It's bilingual?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Absolutely.

The Chair: Welcome, Mr. Bélanger, you have five minutes.

» (1710)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You have before you notes that were prepared according to the criteria that you, as a committee, use to decide whether a motion or bill is votable.

This relates to Bill C-407, the purpose of which is to add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act, that is, linguistic duality. This would be in addition to the five other principles. As for the first criterion, the question is whether it is drafted in clear, complete and effective terms. It is, insofar as the House law clerks can do so.

The question about adding the sixth principle is also clear: it is one line. Three other subsections are then added to section 12. The first relates to the need to develop a program for access to health services for the linguistic minority in each province while naturally taking account of certain factors in each case.

The second subsection deals with the obligation of the province to provide health services in the language of the linguistic minority.

The third subsection relates to the management of facilities in the province that offer health services. Where the number of users from that linguistic minority justifies such a condition, this subsection requires these facilities to be managed.

I believe that the first criterion has been met.

[English]

The second criterion is whether the bill and motion are constitutional and concern areas of federal jurisdiction. I would argue that yes, even though the management of health care is a provincial responsibility, and recognized as such, this bill is amending the Canada Health Act, which is federal legislation and governs the conditions upon which transfer of money can be made. It also, I believe, would have the effect of ensuring harmony between the Canada Health Act, the Official Languages Act, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in that sense is very much in the federal jurisdiction, which has an obligation with regard to linguistic duality.

[Translation]

The third criterion is that the issue should be of significant public interest.

I think this is patently obvious. Mr. Chairman, you are very well aware of this because in the National Capital Region there has been a situation that has gone on for a number of years involving the Montfort Hospital, which has become an essentially national situation. In that case, the need for tools so that the government could try to improve the situation was obvious. I do not know what more to say, except to ask you what could be more in the national interest than ensuring that people have access to health services in their own language.

In my opinion, this is a criterion that has been met.

[English]

The fourth criterion is that bills and motions should concern issues that are not part of the government's current legislative agenda and that have not been voted on or otherwise addressed by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament. That is the case. It hasn't been. It is not in the government's legislative agenda. It hasn't been voted upon in this or previous sessions, for that matter.

[Translation]

The final criterion is that, all other things being equal, higher priority will be given to items that transcend purely local interest, are not couched in partisan terms or cannot be addressed by the House in other ways.

I think it has been demonstrated that this is an item of more than purely local interest. This bill does not refer to any party. I know that the subject might be very controversial, but it is in no way partisan, and this item has never been addressed in the House or in its committees. I think that the bill meets your five criteria for the selection of votable items. I would like this to be the decision that the Committee reaches as a result of this discussion.

I will answer any questions that you may have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

I must congratulate you because you are one of the few who has kept to the five minutes allocated to demonstrate that your bill may be acceptable, instead of trying to convince us of its merits. The idea is not to sell us on the merits of the bill; the idea is to sell us on the fact that it should be a votable item.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, thank you. There is no secret to this. I previously had an opportunity to sit on this committee when there were 10 criteria. We know the nature of discussion and it is very difficult to separate the subject itself from the criteria that you have to use, I agree. We are all human.

The Chair: Are there any questions?

» (1715)

[English]

Yes, Mr. Ritz.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: You talk about health care being in the foreground, in the news, and so on. You're absolutely right. But a lot of the discussion centres around there not being enough dollars to provide the health care. Do you have any idea of the cost of this type of a program?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Theoretically there could be none, sir. It depends on how it's administered. We're getting into the essence of the substance of it.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Yes, I realize that.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If an institution has the time and the will to plan how it would offer services to the linguistic minority, that can be achieved, again, without additional cost if it's planned and executed on....

If you tell me that it has to be done tomorrow, yes, there would be costs and disruptions, and so forth. But if there's a plan and a time arising that is reasonable to achieve it, then you can plan on personnel, you can plan on programs, you can plan on recruitment, and overall, you could be working within existing envelopes.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Okay.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If indeed it does occasion additional expenses, then I believe that has to be reflected in what the government does in terms of transfer payments.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Guimond, vous n'avez pas de questions?

[Translation]

M. Michel Guimond: No, that was very clear.

[English]

The Chair: Tony?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger, thank you very much.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have one question, may I ask it?

The Chair: We make no commitment to answer.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Can you tell me when and how we will know your decision?

The Clerk: The report has to be submitted to the plenary committee, that is, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I hope that this will be done tomorrow. Then, the Chairman of the Committee has to lay it before the House. You might know by Friday, but it remains to be seen whether...

The Chair: It will be soon.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

[English]

Ms. Meredith, good afternoon.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey--White Rock--Langley, PC/DR): Good afternoon.

The Chair: You've been here before. You know the rules.

Ms. Val Meredith: Not for a long, long time, but I'm here again.

The Chair: Well, we have five minutes for you to pitch.

Ms. Val Meredith: I'll be brief.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be here representing my private member's bill, Bill C-292. As you can tell by the number, it has been in the hopper for a long time waiting for the luck of the draw.

This bill makes it unlawful for the killing or capturing of wildlife...or the unlawful sale of wildlife parts an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. This bill would give the provincial wildlife authorities and crown counsel the option of proceeding with charges under the relevant provincial legislation or, if they believe the case is more egregious, under these sections of the Criminal Code.

This bill does not contradict or overlap the current species at risk legislation before the House or any other federal legislation, but rather, would complement it. This bill was designed to target the organized poaching of big game animals or the illicit sale of animal parts. While these activities are currently illegal under provincial legislation, the limited penalties that provincial legislation can impose have created little deterrence, and in many cases they are viewed as just the cost of doing business.

This bill does not intrude on provincial jurisdiction, but rather will enhance it. Provincial officials will have the sole determination if offences prosecuted within their jurisdiction are proceeded with under provincial legislation or under this federal legislation. This is similar to previous parliaments deciding that the most serious motor vehicle offences should not remain strictly provincial offences but must be prosecuted under the Criminal Code.

This bill also incorporates the proceeds of crime legislation to remove any financial incentive for committing these types of offences.

Mr. Chair, I feel this bill would be a very good votable bill. It is an issue that all parties could see themselves commenting on. Certainly it's something that has shown itself to be a problem with bear parts particularly, in my part of the country, as well as with bighorn sheep in the Rockies. I just feel this would give the necessary officials who have to deal with it the opportunity to treat it in a serious enough manner that perhaps we could stop the poaching and illegal killing of big game animals.

I rest my case.

» (1720)

The Chair: That was quick. You still have two minutes to go. Can we ask questions during those two minutes?

Ms. Val Meredith: You bet.

The Chair: Questions?

Ms. Val Meredith: It's pretty straightforward.

The Chair: Well, thank you very much.

Ms. Val Meredith: Well, thank you.

The Chair: Good job. Well done.

Good afternoon, Mr. John Cannis. You've been here before, John.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): I have not been here for a very long time, Mr. Chairman. I know the difficulty sometimes for private members' initiatives to come to fruition. Nevertheless....

The Chair: You know the rules.

Mr. John Cannis: I know the rules. I will stick within my timeframe.

The issue I bring before you, my private member's Bill C-429, is an initiative that, given the circumstances, given the times, given what's going on around the world, not necessarily within our country but unfortunately at times within our country as well.... I think the time has come for an initiative like this to come forward. This anger I've seen--and I'm sure you all have seen it on television, in demonstrations--is expressed by certain acts, acts of defacing, burning, mutilating, destroying national symbols, specifically the Canadian flag and the provincial flags as well. In my view, this is not the way to express anger or upset with a certain initiative.

My colleague Mr. Bryden earlier talked about the rule of law, and I'd like to just pick up on that. We have the Constitution, we have the Charter of Rights. These charters are there to protect individuals, to make sure we govern ourselves within rules and regulations. We often hear individuals invoke their rights. The question then becomes how these symbols speak about their rights.

It is my view, Mr. Chairman, that if we see such an act being carried out, we should in return send some kind of a signal by not just saying you shouldn't do that again. I think it's incumbent upon us as representatives of the people.... If you canvass the people out there, as I'm sure you have, you will hear them also saying that it is totally unethical, uncalled for, and unpatriotic, if I may say, for many individuals who have the right to demonstrate.

I'll refer to the recent G-20 demonstration here in Ottawa. The cars that were parked, the window displays, were not the reason that a person or a group was or was not permitted to demonstrate. I don't find, in my righteous mind, that somebody has the right to deface a car, for example, or break a window display or burn a flag, for that matter. There are guidelines. If anybody who wishes to demonstrate sticks within those guidelines, I believe they can express themselves fully.

Through my bill, I'm asking for certain amendments to be made within the Criminal Code for certain offences, for a first offence, a second offence, as you can see, to save time. I'm certainly hopeful that in the wisdom of this committee, they recommend this to be a votable item. I think today we are looking towards calming the rhetoric that is out there internationally, and I believe we can accomplish that through this initiative.

Thank you. I'll be glad to answer any questions the committee might have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cannis.

Any questions, gentlemen?

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not want to get bogged down in technical details, Mr. Cannis.

You included the flags of the provinces. In Quebec we still remember when fanatics trampled the Quebec flag in Thunder Bay. Do you recall?

» (1725)

The Chair: In Brockville.

Mr. Michel Guimond: In Brockville? That's right. It seemed to me that it was...Thank you.

You included the official flags of the provinces and territories. Why in the title, did you simply say: “Destruction of the national flag”? Why were you not more explicit in the title of the bill?

[English]

Mr. John Cannis: Thank you for the very good question. Let me assure you it includes all the provincial flags, and that's what I referred to as national symbols. Of course, the Canadian flag is titled as such, but it includes the provincial flags as well. I recall the incident you rightfully pointed out--a shameful act, if I may say so. I believe the provincial flag reflects the area and identity of a certain province, as the Canadian flag reflects the nation as a whole.

So my bill includes the destruction, defacing, and mutilation of provincial and territorial flags of Canada, as well as the national flags of other countries.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: You also introduce the mutilation or destruction of the flag of another country as a sign of protest. For example, if someone burnt the American flag in a demonstration in front of the US Embassy, that would be a punishable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. John Cannis: You're correct, and I think we have an obligation when we have embassies here. Our country is represented in different countries through our embassies. I would find it just as offensive to see any other nation's flag being burned in this country, as to see our flag or any provincial flag being burned in any other country. That only increases the rhetoric, in my view.

We've heard about international leaders going to different forums, given the crises that are unfolding now before us, to try to find common denominators. When they see their national emblems, their flags, being destroyed, as human beings they cannot help but be bothered. If any national leader or citizen of any country tells me it does not bother them, to me that is being intellectually dishonest.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Guimond, in Mr. Speller's bill, which had been examined last time, the major point was that it in no way related to the flags of provinces or territories. It was strictly the Canadian flag.

» (1730)

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, I made the comparison.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

A voice: Or other countries.

The Chair: It didn't include other countries.

Are there any questions?

I have a quick question. I want to go back to the first question Mr. Guimond asked you. Why are you restricting it to the destruction of the “national” flag? Is this a legal term? Why not say “national flags” or “ flags”? The first impression one gets--and this has nothing to do with whether or not it's votable--is that it means the national flag, but in the definition you say “of a province or territory in Canada or the national flag of another country.”

Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Chairman, as you and all of my colleagues know, we cannot impose our legislation on any other sovereign country. I tried to do it in such a way that it would reflect that it's strictly a Canadian initiative in terms of our national flag and the flags representing the provinces and territories

Somewhere along the way you try to send a signal that indeed we're going to respect and protect the national symbols of other countries within our jurisdiction. With regard to what happens in country A or B with our national flag, I'm hopeful those nations will address that.

My reference to the national flag refers strictly to Canada.

The Chair: In the sense of other countries, I can understand that, but in the sense of the provincial and territorial flags.... That's okay. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's votable .

Mr. John Cannis: We tried to broaden it as best we could.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Chairman, I think the times call for something like this, and I hope we will get your support. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Have a good day.

[Translation]

Mr. Bigras, do you still feel like waiting or if you want...?

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Bigras was second on the list, but he gracefully traded places with Madame Venne, who had an important meeting or had to catch a train or plane

Monsieur Bigras, you're now on.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont--Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all the Committee members. Naturally, it is part of the responsibilities of the Committee to receive us, but I nonetheless wanted to take the time to thank you and to tell you that I am going to be quite brief but at the same time quite precise. I am aware that time is pressing and that it is increasingly difficult to hold the attention of colleagues. I will therefore try to be as brief as possible. Thank you.

You probably had a chance to read Motion M-432, but I will venture to re-read it, because it is quite short. It asks the government the following:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should take the necessary steps for Canada to ratify the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

Mr. Chairman, I recall that the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture was signed in December 1985 and came into force in February 1987. I also recall that the Organization of American States was the depository of this Convention. Furthermore, this Convention comes under the Inter-American Commission (another important point to know) for the procedures involved in its implementation.

To fully appreciate the scope of this Convention, I will take the trouble to read Article 6 to you, which is worded as follows:

The States Parties shall ensure that all acts of torture and attempts to commit torture are offences under the criminal law and shall make such acts punishable by severe penalties that take into account their serious nature. The States Parties likewise shall take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction.

First, I think that it is the right of parliamentarians and the duty of Canada to express their determination to fight against torture in the Americas, whether it be in Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru or El Salvador. Consequently, parliamentarians must now express their determination to fight against torture, particularly, in the case in question, in the Americas.

Why should this motion be votable? Basically, to ensure that Canada is consistent with regard to this human rights issue. We should recall that Canada has already ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Consequently, Canada has already signed this kind of UN Convention, but it has not ratified the same kind of Convention within the Organization of American States. Consequently, this is the second reason why this motion is votable, to ensure Canadian consistency on human rights.

Finally, why make this motion a votable motion and ensure that parliamentarians express their opinions on the Convention? Because this needs to be put in the context of the current Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) negotiation process. In the context of this negotiation process, Canada should clearly indicate to the rest of the countries of the Americas that it intends to make important issues out of human rights and the fight against torture; it should indicate that it agrees with a form of free trade, but that human rights and fundamental rights are also important.

Consequently, the essential purpose of this motion is to ensure that Canada is not in an awkward position regarding the fight against torture in the world and to recall that there are currently over 100,000 individuals who are being arbitrarily detained and that half of the countries of the Americas are subject to, or engage in, torture or comparable crimes. I think we need to give serious consideration to the matter. One statistic is revealing. As you know, Mr. Chairman, 25 of the 35 member countries of the OAS have currently ratified this Convention, but Canada is not yet a party to it.

Consequently, I think we need to put an end to the paradox. Parliamentarians have the right to express themselves on this issue. I think a swift vote is needed to ensure that human rights become a Canadian priority in relation to all other issues that might be addressed. Thank you.

» (1735)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

Questions?

Yes, Mr. Ritz.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Is there any contradiction in the Canadian definition of some acts of torture that may contradict acceptable or religious practices in other countries? Are there any grey areas there?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: What you are asking me is what would be considered torture if Canada were to ratify this Convention. I refer you to Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention, which reads as follows:

...Torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose.

This is the definition set out in the Convention.

The Chair: Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bigras, I gather that the reason why you are asking us to make this motion a votable item lies mainly in the message that would be sent to the other countries of the Americas.

In other words, by devoting three hours to a debate followed by a vote, the supreme democratic authority of Canada, the House of Commons, would send a message to the other parties by means of a vote in favour of this motion - I imagine that this is what you are hoping for, that you have not presented it to be defeated - contrary to what would happen if we held a one-hour debate that would not be followed by a vote. The message in the Americas would not be the same. This is the first point on which I would like to hear your comments.

I have two other points, Mr. Chairman.

Second, are there any international protest organizations that have a position on the matter? If so, which are they? For example, Amnesty International occurs to me. Does Amnesty International have an opinion on the subject? When you prepared this motion, did you validate it? Were you prompted to draft it on the basis of an Amnesty International position?

Third, to give us an idea, in April 2001 the Quebec Summit was held and 34 countries were represented there. Thirty-four heads of state were seated at the same table extolling the merits of globalization and trade between countries. Of these 34 countries, are there some that are not signatories today? That would give us an idea of the oil stain effect that our gesture might have in these countries with which we often maintain significant trade ties.

» (1740)

Mr. Bernard Bigras: In answer to the first question, I do indeed believe that we are at a point where we need not only a debate in the House of Commons on this issue but also a vote. You made the connection with the Quebec Summit and you were right to do so, because it would enable Canada, not only the government but its parliamentarians too, to show real involvement in the FTAA negotiation process, insofar as possible, in order to demonstrate to the Americas that the issue of human rights is a fundamental part of this process.

This would be a message that might be expected because, I would remind you, we have always denounced the fact that parliamentarians on either side of the House have not been sufficiently involved in this negotiation process. In that case we had an opportunity to send a clear message on the issue in the context of the Quebec Summit.

As for the organizations question, yes, I received support from Amnesty International, which hopes that Canada will ratify this Convention. I know that Amnesty International pressed the government on this issue again yesterday. So, yes, in this context I have the support of Amnesty International, which has led an intensive campaign among citizens.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Any other questions?

Thank you and enjoy the rest of the day.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Are you not another usual visitor to this committee?

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Am I another usual visitor? This is my second time in nine years.

The Chair: When was the first time?

Mr. John Duncan: I don't remember, it was so long ago.

The Chair: I thought it was earlier than that. We were going to ask you to buy lottery tickets for us, but I guess you're not that lucky, are you?

Mr. John Duncan: You don't want to go with me. I've been through so many draws without a winner, you wouldn't believe it.

The Chair: Welcome. You have five minutes to make your pitch.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay, my bill is for a personal retirement account. Just to make it clear, this account is in addition to RRSPs, not to replace RRSPs. Most contributors would choose both investment vehicles.

The major difference between an RRSP and a personal retirement account is that the personal retirement account is a contribution of after-tax earnings put into retirement that can grow and not be taxed upon withdrawal. It is just the opposite of an RRSP. It's the conclusion of senior economic analysts at the Library of Parliament that the personal retirement account is a better vehicle for retirement savings than the current RRSP. This is confirmed by other jurisdictions.

My proposal limits contributions to $5,000 per year, although the motion leaves it open for enabling legislation to determine the limit.

In 1998, the U.S. adopted such a vehicle, and it has been successful beyond predictions. This way of saving for retirement allows more certainty for retirement planning because it is not taxed when taken out after a specified age. Once again, I haven't specified that kind of detail. The age they specify in the U.S. is 59.5 years.

The effect on government revenues is positive in the early years because people pay tax on what they put in, unlike RRSP contributions, and negative in the longer term, although the government could influence this greatly by allowing RRSP conversions to personal retirement accounts, which would create a tax windfall. Any negative long-term revenue impact to the government would be offset by the fact that retired persons would be more self-supporting.

I can give you a flavour of the kinds of suggestions I would make, if the government chose to have enabling legislation on this. They would be consistent with the way this has been done in other jurisdictions.

This account would be created regardless of other retirement schemes in effect. The money contributed would consist of after-tax dollars, and any contributions made would not be tax deductible. Any individual could contribute a maximum of $5,000 after tax in each taxation year to any personal retirement account, and they could use the unused portion of each year's allotted $5,000 in subsequent years if they didn't use it up.

You would be able to contribute to a personal retirement account regardless of whether you were an income earner or not. All personal retirement accounts would be fully transferrable on death, with no tax implications for the funds retained within the personal retirement account. Withdrawals from the account would not be treated as income for any purpose.

Those are just some suggested details, but of course the motion is very generic. I guess that puts it in a nutshell.

There's been a lot of very positive accounts of this option for retirement savings, as experienced in other jurisdictions. I think we need to look at it very seriously, and I'd love to see this motion votable.

» (1745)

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions?

I'm curious. There's probably something I've missed, but what's the advantage, aside from motivating people to save? Is it that the interest would not be taxable?

Mr. John Duncan: The main incentive for people is you don't know what your marginal tax rate is going to be when you draw from your RRSP, but you do know what your tax rate is now. If you did an analysis, many people in the middle and higher incomes, if they'd put their money into this in the 1960s and 1970s, would have a much better return this way than through the RRSP option because their marginal tax rates have, in some cases, gone up.

The Chair: But it has to be, because the interest that would accumulate over the 10, 20, or 30 years would not be taxable, somehow. Otherwise, there would be no advantage. Because now, as an earner, if you have after-tax money, you'll be taxed at a much higher rate than if you were retired.

» (1750)

Mr. John Duncan: The growth in a personal retirement account is not taxed. You put after-tax income in, it grows, and it's never taxed.

The Chair: Okay. So that's where the catch is. There are no taxes on accumulated interest.

Mr. John Duncan: That's the whole concept. It's never taxed.

The Chair: Okay. That's what I had missed.

Are there any other questions?

Thank you very much.

Mr. Martin. You're on, for five minutes.

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

The motion I've put forward today deals with the hours of work, the shorter work week idea that's gaining momentum around many parts of the world.

The country of France has introduced the 35-hour work week, and they estimate they have created 650,000 jobs in the first 18 months since it was implemented.

The reality in Canada is that even though we had the industrial revolution, the technology revolution, and the information revolution, the hours of work are actually going up. We all thought there'd be more leisure time. In fact, we all had this vision of the future that we'd be like George Jetson, flying around in a space car and having the work done for us. The inverse is actually true. The average Canadian is now working 46 to 48 hours a week.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg--Transcona, NDP): They're flying around in space now.

Mr. Pat Martin: They're flying around spaced out, that's right.

That's the issue. We believe it has merit. We believe it's of broad national public interest. It's a public policy issue that the federal government could influence in the public and private sectors with a multifaceted approach. The motion is vague and doesn't call upon the government to do anything specific other than to take public policy steps to bring about reduced work time and a shorter work week.

I point out that since the industrial revolution and since the fight for the eight-hour day, it really hasn't changed. In fact, it's been going in the opposite direction.

There are job creation issues, quality of life issues, and sharing of the work that is out there in terms of creating job opportunities for the unemployed. Samuel Gompers, a labour leader at the turn of the century, said that as long as one person is out of work, the hours of work are too long.

We believe it creates great opportunities if we work toward a shorter week. I would suggest that this multifaceted approach would be first of all with the public sector workforce. Secondly, slowly, over time, through contract negotiations rather than a wage increase, unions could negotiate a reduction in hours of work without any loss of pay.

Also, the federal government, with their tendering practices to federal contractors, could influence the labour practices of those contractors, and of course, through labour code amendments in the federally regulated workforce, the federal government could influence the hours of work there, too.

I think it has merit. One of the reasons I chose this motion as the one I would bring up for debate is that there's a very worrisome trend in some parts of the country. The Liberal government in B.C. has just amended the Employment Standards Act so that there are no unlimited hours of work now. You could work 80 hours a week with no overtime. Overtime kicks in after 160 hours a month. In other words, you hire a person to work two 80-hour weeks, you send them home and you bring in another person to work another two 80-hour weeks. It exploits things, and brings us back to the textile mills of days of yore in the 1800s.

I think it's topical, timely, important, and necessary for the federal government to give some direction on this public policy issue.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there questions?

Mr. Ritz, then Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Is this bill that they passed based on the idea of some of the agreements that have been reached where every second Friday is your free day? I've seen agreements like that. Are you building on that model, so it would be every Friday, not every second one?

Unless your pay scale stays the same and you're working fewer hours, you're actually going to create a poorer society. There will be more people working for less money. If I earn $1,000 a week now and you're cutting me back a day, I'm still going to earn $1,000, but work four days instead of five.

» (1755)

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes. This is why it has to be phased in over time. The goal should be a 30-hour work week, we would say. The first step would be to a 35-hour work week, without loss of pay.

Volkswagen and BMW have gone to a 30-hour work week without loss of pay, and their productivity has increased. They take off less time for personal reasons, like dental appointments, because they have time during the week. They have fewer child care issues and they lose less time due to sickness and stress, etc.

The empirical evidence is starting to build that there's currently no justification for the 40-hour work week.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: We're seeing a lot of people working two 20-hour work weeks, with two part-time jobs rather than one. That way they have no benefits at all. They're on that cycle.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, that's the working poor cycle. This really doesn't address that too much.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I just had occasion to point out to another colleague, before being an MP I worked for 16 years in human resources in the pulp and paper industry. In 1976 the 4-2 formula was introduced. In short, the 40-hour work week had been reduced to 371/3 hours on average over a six-week cycle.

This did indeed create jobs. However, a paper mill operates 24 hours a day. I agree with you that in the private sector, where they operate on a shift-rotation basis, this may create employment. However, if the government adopted this approach, do you not think that there would be a danger that the quality of service offered to citizens might suffer?

I do not know whether, recently, you have been into a bank or if you use automated teller machines, as is increasingly becoming the standard practice in society. Let's say, in passing, when a cashier in a bank offers to go and pay your bills through the ATM to save you the $1.25 fee that is charged at the counter but not at the ATM, she is working toward the abolition of her job. I had occasion to mention this to one of them. The day we process all our transactions by ATM, we will no longer need the services of a human when we go to the bank.

I do not know whether you find that customer service works well in the banks. For us in Quebec, in many banks, counter service is offered for 11 to 14 hours. If the work hours are reduced in the banks, it is not clear whether the banks, which make billions in profits, will create employment. They will tell staff members that on Friday, instead of finishing at 16:15, they will finish at 14:00 and that the door will then be locked. This is the worry that I have in relation to your...

Here is another example, one taken from the public sector. Next to my office, in my riding, there is a Human Resources Development Canada office - an Employment Insurance office. It is closed during the lunch hour. This made me angry. I went to see the manger to tell him that, by closing during the lunch hour, he was not offering good service to the public. For any number of reasons, the only time that some people have available to go to the Employment Insurance office is between 12:00 and 13:00, and the office is then closed, whereas it is a service offered to the public.

I have given some examples. I find your motion interesting. We cannot fault the merits of the motion and it is very commendable. However, the job-creation objective that you are pursuing by basing yourself on France's experience - I don't know whether it could be achieved here if such a measure were adopted.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: I think those items would be raised as the debate takes place. But I think the issue has enough merit that those things would be raised and, I would hope, voted on.

¼ (1800)

The Chair: You have to be careful when you talk about the bank tellers. In this case it's because he deposits. In our case it's because we withdraw.

What would happen to the salaries of MPs? I'm worried about that, because if you reduced ours--

Mr. Pat Martin: It's without a reduction in pay. That's the whole secret. That's why it has to be negotiated--

The Chair: That's the big point, without a reduction in pay.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's why it could take five years to get down to even a 35-hour work week. If you were at the bargaining table negotiating a pay increase that year, you might take 1% in salary and a reduction in time of one hour a week. So you wouldn't be losing any pay.

The Chair: I was prompting you with the example of an MP, but what you're saying is that the federal government and the provincial and municipal governments would all have additional costs.

Mr. Pat Martin: Not necessarily, because it would be phased in. Their costs would be going up incrementally anyway. If their payroll was going to be increased by 3% that year because of a negotiated settlement, they would pay 1% in cash and 2% in reduced hours. So incrementally there wouldn't be any shock.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you very much.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Davies, you're pinch-hitting, I understand, for Mr. Robinson. You understand that you have five minutes not to hit, but to pitch.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Yes. I've been here before.

Mr. Robinson is away with a parliamentary committee, so he obviously couldn't be here. I'm speaking on his behalf. He's very knowledgeable on this subject. I'll do my best to put forward his bill and describe why it should become votable.

Do you have the bill before you?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Libby Davies: It's Bill C-415. It's pretty straightforward in that it is seeking to amend subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code, which deals with hate propaganda. The bill is seeking to extend the grounds of the definition of an “identifiable group”. It currently reads: “In this section, 'identifiable group' means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.” This bill would add sexual orientation.

I spoke to Svend a couple of times to get some background on the bill. He told me that what's being put forward here actually had the unanimous support of the provincial and territorial attorneys general at their meeting last November. So it has been raised in other jurisdictions.

I also want to be clear that this amendment would not affect religious expression. In fact, paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code specifically exempts an opinion based on a religious subject. So that is not affected.

In terms of meeting the criteria of what is deemed to be votable and so on, Svend told me that he does have support from members of all parties in the House, which I think is important to know.

It clearly is within federal jurisdiction. I do think it's a matter of great public interest and concern. In B.C. we recently had the murder of a gay man, Aaron Webster, and it brought forward all kinds of issues about the incitement of hatred and what that means to the community and what kind of harm that creates. So I think this kind of amendment would be very significant in addressing a very important federal jurisdiction, and that is the issue of equality and justice.

It's not a partisan issue in any way. It has very broad support in the community. There has been a lot of debate about this. I think it's very timely, but it's not being addressed during the current session of the House. So it's coming forward as a private member's bill. I certainly hope the committee will consider the merits of it being a votable bill. I think it is very clear and non-partisan and clearly within our jurisdiction in the House.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: We've had some changes in the past, obviously, with omnibus legislation. I'm surprised this wasn't done already. Was it missed or ...?

¼ (1805)

Ms. Libby Davies: I'm not sure if it was missed, but it's clearly not been done. And it's clearly an issue in terms of still being a barrier to identifying the various grounds of what is an identifiable group. So from that point of view, in terms of addressing what I think we all believe in--that is, a sense of equality--this is something that is very much lacking.

The Chair: Any other questions?

Merci, madame, and have a good day.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you.

The Chair: The patient Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay--Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Being the last presenter in the long afternoon, I'm trying to think of what I can say to get people excited. How about “It's just about over”?

The Chair: Try us.

You know how it works. You have five minutes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Perhaps I'll take off my watch to make sure I don't go over.

The Chair: After five minutes we'll shut down the lights and pull apart the sound system.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay.

The motion, which is deceptively simple, is that in the opinion of the House, the government should draft legislation deleting subsections 30.8(8) and 30.9(6) of the Copyright Act.

This has to do specifically with radio transmissions. I know that Mr. McNally and Mr. Tirabassi will be familiar with this, and I think Gerry might be familiar with this as a result of representations from the broadcasters in Lloydminster.

This is a matter of national public interest. In the last go-round in 1996-97, when we redid the Copyright Act, these two clauses were included. I spotted them at the time, and the ministries, Heritage and Industry, chose not to do anything about them.

My concern about the inclusion of these two clauses was the fact that this basically gives an unintended copyright or an unintended benefit to artists. As a result of the changes to the Copyright Act--and I won't argue for or against the changes--new tariffs and new royalties were given to artists, and new expenses and new costs were borne by broadcasters.

What this one does is to allow artists, when music or a recording is being transferred from one medium to another medium--and I'll describe that in a second--to receive a royalty. It's an unintended royalty. It's just sloppy drafting, in my judgment.

What we were told at the time.... At the time, you see, five or six years ago, you were just at the start of the digital revolution of the recording industry in terms of CDs and so on, and their broad acceptance. It's now common practice in the broadcast industry to take cuts one, three, and five, or whatever the appropriate numbers are, off a CD, and digitally lift that information onto a main drive. Then the actual play of the recording occurs from the main drive, or the hard drive.

At the time, because this was sloppy, I brought up the issue. The artists, particularly the ones represented by a cooperative in Quebec, said very clearly that they were not going to take advantage of this. They recognized that this was an unintended consequence.

Unfortunately, various people in the industry today have not followed through on what I consider to be a commitment on the part of the artists at the time. As currently as this coming April, which is next month, the Copyright Board is going to be hearing this issue and setting the tariffs. So it becomes an unintended result, or an unintended benefit to the artists, one that was never conceived of. It's just a case of poor drafting of legislation.

At this point the minister is fully aware of it. I think Mr. McNally will recall when we were in front of the Canadian Associations of Broadcasters. When we made a presentation to them, I said that we needed to have an immediate amendment to delete these sections. It received a rousing ovation from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters at that particular point.

So it is something that is very current. We are simply trying to force the ministries to do something.

I don't think of this as being a raw political issue. In other words, this isn't Canadian Alliance versus the minister, except that I think the minister should be prompted into doing something on this. She has made one amendment relative to the Copyright Act that is currently before the House. This is the second amendment that should be occurring and is not occurring.

I would just finish with one quick story as to why I'm doing this. Some of us will recall that in the last Parliament, there was a member of Parliament from Calgary Centre whose name was Eric Lowther. He brought forward a bill that prompted the Solicitor General. Once it had gone through the House and once the House had expressed interest in this bill going forward, the Solicitor General at that point introduced his own bill. Because the hearings had already taken place on Lowther's bill, the two bills were put together and effectively we ended up with 80% of what Lowther was after.

I'm looking at this action, this motion, to basically force the minister or the ministry to do the same thing, to force the ministries to immediately address this issue. It's not just Sheila Copps; it's also the Minister of Industry. I hope this will be votable, because in my judgment it clearly is an oversight that occurred as a result of Bill C-32, the changes to the Copyright Act, and it's something that should have been cleared up before now.

¼ (1810)

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chair: Let's switch to in camera now. I'll take 30 seconds and just take a little walk.

[Proceedings continue in camera]