SMEM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 30, 2002

¹

1540

The Chair (Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.))

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

¹

1545

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Davies

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Vellacott

¹

1550

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

º

1600

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

º

1605

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Michel Guimond

º

1615

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Mr. Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Mr. Grewal

º

1620

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

º

1625

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

º

1630

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Brent St. Denis

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Brent St. Denis

The Chair

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP)

º

1640

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

º

1645

Mr. Cannis

The Chair

Mr. John Cannis

The Chair

Mr. John Cannis

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. John Cannis

º

1650

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Jordan

Mr. John Cannis

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. John Cannis

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. John Cannis

º

1655

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. John Cannis

The Chair

Mr. Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

»

1700

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

»

1705

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

»

1710

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mrs. Desjarlais

The Chair

»

1715

Mr. Inky Mark

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Inky Mark

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Libby Davies

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Ms. Libby Davies

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Inky Mark

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Borotsik

»

1720

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

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

»

1725

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

»

1730

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

---

CANADA

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

---

NUMBER 014

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 30, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)): Welcome to this interesting subcommittee on private members' business. Are we ready to roll? You know the game: five minutes to pitch, five minutes for questions on the five conditions. Right? It's all yours.

[Translation]

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present the reasons why I feel this motion should be votable. The motion simply says that the government should amend the Patents Act in order to prohibit patenting of life forms.

[English]

    Mr. Chairperson, I'm very pleased to present the case for why I think it should be votable. The motion is presented to you, I believe, in very clear and complete terms. It is to the point. It calls simply for the government to amend the Patent Act to prohibit patenting of life forms. It's absolutely within federal jurisdiction.

    As you know, there is presently before us a Patent Act, which many would consider to be outdated and needing very much to be reviewed and to be brought up to date with modern science and new developments that have occurred over the last 100 years. It was certainly indicated recently by provincial governments that this is a matter for federal jurisdiction and ought to be reviewed by the Parliament of Canada, with a view to making changes to make our Patent Act fit with modern times and appropriate for new developments.

    That was stated in a document I have here from the Ontario government that relates to the difficulties they are facing dealing with an issue that you've no doubt heard about involving Myriad Genetics, a U.S. firm that identified a two-gene sequence that can indicate a greater likelihood of breast cancer. That company holds a patent on the gene sequence and rights to any diagnostic test or therapy that uses the sequence. Ontario and other governments are looking at that issue because of the costs incurred for the health care system as a whole and their understanding that this is contrary to the understanding and spirit behind the Patent Act.

    I would also point out, with respect to the fact that it's a matter of significant public interest, the work of the health committee recently on reproductive technologies. Our committee reviewed this whole area for many months and heard testimony, and as a committee we unanimously agreed that in fact we needed to send a strong recommendation to the government to look at the whole area of patenting over human biological material. In fact, we recommended patent protections be lifted when it comes to human genes, DNA sequencing, and cell lines.

    That matter was discussed today before officials on Bill C-56, and it was indicated to the health committee that this was a matter not for the health committee but for the industry minister, as the Patent Act falls under his jurisdiction and that we should pursue it that way.

    Also, I want to reference the recent report by the Biotechnology Advisory Committee. They made an interim report last November to Parliament indicating the need for Parliament to review this area and recommending that there at least be an initiative to prevent patents on higher life forms.

    I don't need to point out to members here that this matter is also before the Supreme Court as a result of the decision by Canadian officials to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal ruling that patent protections on the OncoMouse would be permitted. Clearly there is a great debate raging in the country today as a result of this Supreme Court ruling, and all signs point to the need for Canada to review its patent law and to upgrade the legislation.

    There are currently hundreds of applications before the Patent Office involving stem cell research. There are actually more than a couple of dozen foreign applications before the Canadian Patent Office seeking patents on genetically engineered human stem cells. I imagine that the Patent Office is holding off on a decision, as this issue is resolved first at the Supreme Court and hopefully by Parliament. I would simply make the case that this is a matter of great interest for Canadians, because of the significance it has for the cost to the health care system and for the right for discoveries in the area of human genetics to be the purview for the public good and not private gain.

    That's the debate I think Parliament needs to have. I think we all probably understand that the Supreme Court is there to interpret the law, not to make the law. It seems to me that everybody is prompting us to review the law and to update it, and the proposal is to have that debate in Parliament and, because of its significance, to make it votable.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any questions on this?

    Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ind. Cons.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    My question is, are there any other countries in the G-8 that currently have provisions to prohibit patenting life forms?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. First of all, I should point out that the World Health Organization has made a recommendation that patenting life forms or higher life forms should be prohibited. There are countries in the G-8--and excuse me if I don't have the list--that have actual legislation to prohibit patenting life forms, higher life forms. Canada has indicated it is imperative that we actually review this area, because of the international scene and the developments in that regard.

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Inky Mark: Is your bill definitive enough and broad enough to answer all the questions? I'm sure there's quite a scope of life forms. I haven't seen your bill; I'm just reading from your summary.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The motion really just references life forms. Some might suggest that's too broad, others that it's limiting.

    My understanding of the definition of life form is that it includes everything from cells to full-sized animal and plant species. It would give us the opportunity to have a debate on those many issues Canadians are concerned about today.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any other questions?

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): As I understand it, there are a number of court cases now. There are challenges going on and various studies. Some stuff is happening at committee. But is there anything in current legislation that prohibits the patenting of life forms?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The act we have is more than 100 years old, and it is currently the focus of attention at the Supreme Court. There are debates going on about whether that law written 100 years ago applies to these modern developments. There are those who say it is not applicable, because science has changed so much.

    I think all sides point to the need for Parliament to review the act and be clear about patenting life forms in general. All of us understand that the Supreme Court is there to interpret. As someone said recently, the courts are a pit stop, not a replacement for better laws. I think I'm here to propose a better law in the area of patenting.

    The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, members of the committee, for the opportunity to discuss the value of motion M-387 to Canadian public policy and therefore the importance of making it votable. The motion here urges the House to appoint a committee to conduct an independent public inquiry into Canada's sentencing, corrections, and parole systems for the purpose of identifying measures to provide meaningful consequences for offenders, reinforce public safety, and to instill public confidence.

    I think all of us are aware of the frustrations that people express at one time or another. Sometimes we may not in fact agree with them. We may think things are better than they would sometimes express; nevertheless, Canadians do express frustrations with some of our justice system issues.

    I think the government is aware of that, and to their credit, they have over the course of a number of years, over the past nine years, had some various reforms, but I think it would be a mistake to assume that all the problems have been fixed and that there aren't things that we still require to be done. This motion is designed to be an important step in that process of amending Canada's justice system in order to restore faith in it among the Canadian people.

    I think the most important purpose of the justice system is public safety, and probably falling short on the heels of that is the appearance it guarantees and that perception among the public whereby they have confidence in the justice system.

    I think there's evidence, all of us would probably agree--and I suppose might go farther that way than others--that the public has lost some confidence in the justice system. Each time polling is done that produces that kind of result, somebody trots out a study to show that the crime rates have gone down and therefore public perception is out of line with reality. But if this issue before us were so black and white and all the data pointed in the same direction, one would expect that particularly the justice system professionals, including the police officers themselves, would see no need for reform of our sentencing, corrections, and parole system. But they, being right close to it, intimately involved in it, are probably sometimes the ones to bring us the best of advice on that.

    Each one of us, on an annual basis, has the police come before us. They lobby us on different things, and I think we might in fact even agree that the fact that Canada's police forces feel that increasing need for political activism is unfortunate, but maybe it's necessary in the circumstance.

    So we have two Canadian police associations, the Canadian Police Association and the Police Association of Ontario, that have joined up in a campaign called “No More Club Fed”, and these are the very concerns they want to address: reforms and sentencing, corrections, and the parole system.

    They cite examples, obviously, that are close to their hearts, those of convicted cop killers being released early from prison, removed to comfortable, what they call “Club Fed”, kinds of surroundings or institutions that fail to reinforce the message to criminals that their crime was a terrible, unacceptable act. So they cite examples--and you would know those examples; they're reported in the paper from time to time--of a convict who's out, released on early parole, and he kills again. That would be just one of a number of examples, I suppose, that we could appeal to.

    So the motion here would really indicate to Canadians that this House, this place, the Parliament of Canada, is more serious than ever about resolving some of these outstanding problems in our justice system. I think it would give the House some impetus to develop a concrete timeline for dealing with these problems. It's not blaming the government; it's just saying we need a little bit of a nudge in this direction.

    The motion also recognizes the concern that the different components of the justice system are interrelated and that valuable reforms must be made in the context of the whole system.

    For example, if you have a change to the sentencing process that seems good in and of itself, but proves maybe completely meaningless in real life because there's some loophole in the parole process, then that makes the sentencing amendment easy to sidestep. So you have to take it as a whole, and by having an independent inquiry, I think you would be able to bring it all together in a holistic fashion.

    The motion doesn't propose the final solutions. Members around this table would have their ideas. We might quite agree, in fact, on many of them, but there would be a variety of ideas put forward.

    The motion here commits the House, not just the government, to an open and purposeful debate about the basic elements of Canada's justice system, what it should look like if it's going to live up to its responsibility to provide safety for the public, a debate that will lead to legislation, then, that will benefit all of us, and for the elected people of Canada, those whom we represent on these and other important matters.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Are there any questions?

    Ms. Libby Davies: Our work sheet and the sheet that was handed out say M-388, but we are doing M-387.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It was changed yesterday by consensus in the House.

    The Chair: I understand there was unanimous consent yesterday to change this.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    When you talk about appointing a committee, would it be a new committee? Is it not possible to do this within the justice committee?

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: With an independent public inquiry, you could have others besides the members of Parliament involved in the process. As things stand right now, if you're talking of a House committee, it's obviously just for members of Parliament. I think you would want it to be broader so that you could bring in individuals, and they would be able to be actively involved in questioning the witnesses and so on.

    The Chair: Is there anything else? Are there any other questions?

    Thank you.

    I understand that you only have to get up and sit down again.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's right. I respectfully say to the committee, if you do not deem that one votable, then I have another one here that may be even better.

    The Chair: Are these the choices you're giving us?

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This one is actually on behalf of my colleague, Myron Thompson. He happens to be a member of my party, but if Liberal members ever want me to present on their behalf--or Bloc, Conservative, or NDP--I would probably do that too.

    This particular private member's bill, Bill C-399, was introduced to the House by my colleague, Myron Thompson of Wild Rose, Alberta. I'm happy to be able to speak on his behalf because he was unable to be here.

    Members of Parliament who have first nation reserves in their ridings--and I think that would take in most members of Parliament--often have first-hand exposure to--and I put it that way--allegations of fiscal mismanagement on reserves, and the allegations come from grassroots aboriginal members. In some cases, they'll charge a band leader or a council member with abusing the financial resources provided by the Canadian taxpayer through the federal government, and they often allege criminal activity. In numbers of cases that I'm aware of, it has in fact led to some degree of RCMP involvement.

    The stories told by the grassroots have a similar ring to them. The chief and council are accused of having mismanaged or misappropriated money, and as a result there's no money for housing. In some cases there aren't enough houses on the reserve or the housing is inadequate. There isn't any clean drinking water, and there are squalor, despair, and suicides.

    Then there's the other problem of election irregularities around our country, and we could cite other things as well.

    To be fair, we should make it clear that not all reserves are as bad as the picture I've painted here.

    But many of the 600 or so reserves across the country have some degree of problems, allegations of either corruption or election fraud, those kinds of things. Living in hopelessness is obviously a problem for these people. These are concerns that have been raised by aboriginal band members with members of Parliament from all parties, I suspect.

    We had a chance a few years back to do accountability summits across the country. One of the grassroots aboriginals involved--one of the members here would be aware of this lady--was Leona Freed from the Dakota Plains First Nation in Manitoba. After that summit Leona set up an organization called the First Nations Accountability Coalition, and they had individuals linked to that across the country.

    The coalition has called for accountability for band leadership and for a first nations ombudsman as one of the means to foster this accountability. This person would function in much the same way as the Auditor General of Canada. This person would serve as an impartial and independent investigating officer for the aboriginal peoples of Canada. An auditor would be part of this as well to deal with the fiscal side of things.

    The role of the ombudsman in particular would be twofold: he or she would investigate complaints brought by aboriginal persons, and if there were no resolution, then he or she would report on that investigation to a wider audience, including members of Parliament. The aboriginal ombudsman would also provide guidance, support, and dispute mediation to aboriginal peoples in Canada.

    The bill I'm speaking about today was drafted to create the ombudsman who would perform those roles and also a first nations auditor to look into some of the financial matters from time to time.

    On behalf of my colleague, I'm asking that the bill be made votable so that it will have a chance to become law. The reason is simple: it's needed not just in particular areas but all across our nation. The problems on reserves are real and troubling, and I think your heart goes out to many of these people caught in that situation.

    Do I still have a minute or two?

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: You're done.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm done, okay.

    I want to state very quickly that the RCMP is aware of the problems, as well as the United Nations, saying that we're ranked thirty-fifth in terms of the aboriginal community, whereas we're first or second for the rest of the country. The Auditor General has also talked about the need for accountable measures.

    With that, this act to establish a first nations ombudsman and a first nations auditor to assist with the administrative and financial problems, I think, would contribute to building a higher qualify of life for our first nations people in this new millennium.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Michel, did you have a question?

[Translation]

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

    Mr. Vellacott, I believe that the first part of the bill which deals with the creation of an ombudsman position is completely new in law. This is something that does not exist and which perhaps should. We should perhaps even have a much more general citizens' advocate position, such as the one found in certain provincial legislatures. In Quebec, for example, we have a citizens' advocate. Those are my comments pertaining to the first part of the bill.

    As for the section that deals with the First Nations auditor, do you think that there would be some redundancy or duplication with respect to the work done by the Auditor General? We currently have in Canada an Auditor General whose role it is to audit—I apologize for the pleonasm, but I cannot think of another word— to investigate and to analyze how taxpayers' money is being spent in all the departments; that is her role.

    By singling out the first nations, are we not creating a presumption of bad management? There have been cases of bad management in certain bands or Indian reserves, but right now, we are also witnessing certain cases of bad management in some departments. Do you not think that the second part of the bill would be redundant with respect to the work currently done by the Auditor General?

º  (1600)  

[English]

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Good question. The Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, who is in that role presently, only has access to how the department--INAC itself--spends money. She doesn't have access to individual bands across the country when any of these irregularities come up. This person could go specifically into looking at the books and doing the forensic audit, or whatever it would require, on a particular band. The Auditor General does more with respect to the INAC itself--the departments. She doesn't have the kind of access we're saying this person would have.

    I don't think it suggests the reserve situation is all bad because you have an auditor in place, any more than it suggests that the Government of Canada is all bad because you have an Auditor General. It's obvious you need that in the Government of Canada and in all the departments for the money that's there. Likewise this is on a more micro-level. So that's their intent--to go to the specific band situations, as required across the country.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, this answer leads to another question. The First Nations do have some autonomy. Can the federal government oblige the First Nations to start doing audits, to audit the way that they are managed? The Auditor General audits how the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development allocates its money and how the money is administered by the First Nations, but can Parliament impose such a thing? If that is what we want to do, why not also make it mandatory for certain communities or certain groups in society?

[English]

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, you would. As long as it's public moneys that are in that situation. If it's reserves' money--funds that have been raised by a sawmill or oil or whatever--then according to a Montana case, you would not have access to those things. But otherwise on the books you would, and you could get at that in a way the Auditor General cannot because she's auditing just the department moneys.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Mark.

[English]

    Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    My concern is twofold. First, I agree with my colleague from the Bloc that there is no federal legislation to establish an ombudsman across the board.

    The other issue is the Indian Act, and the minister is going to bring down a new bill. It would be easier to comply. I agree with the intent of the bill, but how do you deal with the legalities and enforcement? There's probably a greater chance of application to the Indian Act amendment than through an independent act such as this.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right. One of the criteria is it can't be dealing with something that's on the government's current legislative agenda, unless you know something or have access to the first nations governance initiative. We sit on that committee together. I'm not privy to what will be coming out in the months ahead. But on that question, I don't know if an ombudsman has been proposed.

    On the other thing, it's true we don't have an ombudsman. We don't have any kind of across-the-board legislation. It's not verboten to have an ombudsman, as far as I understand it, from the federal point of view. It's within the realm of possibility.

º  (1605)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Good afternoon, Ms. Dalphond-Guiral. Welcome. You know the way that we operate. You have five minutes.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I am pleased to be here. I am replacing my colleague, the Member for Longueuil, in order to present her motion, which deals with a problem facing many people, both in Canada and in Quebec, and even throughout the world: the problem of deafness.

    As Caroline was so kind as to prepare a very good text, I will read it. I speak well, but sometimes I speak too much. I am convinced that, after listening to this presentation, you will all understand that we would be sending a very clear signal by making such a motion votable. Disabled people everywhere have said that something must be done. We now have the opportunity, as parliamentarians, to give our opinion on a simple gesture that would restore true equity, particularly between francophones and anglophones.

    In Canada, 10% of the population is hard-of-hearing. That makes for a lot of people. Since have a population of 30 million, we are talking about 3 million people who are hard-of-hearing. In Quebec, 750,000 people have this problem. In this Parliament, we have parliamentarians who are partially deaf. Generally speaking, people, particularly when they are young, prefer not to talk about it. When we grow older, we are more willing to do so. So we cannot say that this observation is insignificant. It is important, because when you hear, you are able to community with others. So that is the purpose of motion M-367.

    Caroline's motion pertains primarily to television captioning. As we grow older and are hearing problems become more significant, we lose, to a certain extent, our ability to get around, making television, for many people, a fundamental source of information and entertainment and a pleasant way to pass the time.

    When we do not hear what is being said, we have to assess things based on what we see. Right now, broadcasters are not obligated to provide captioning for programs. Consequently, only 40% of the programming in French is captioned, whereas 90% of the programming in English is. We have all watched the parliamentary channel and we can see very clearly that, on the English channel, there is a sign interpreter. That is not the case in French. The CRTC has made it mandatory for English-language television to provide captioning for their programs but the same requirements do not apply to French-language television. This is quite surprising. It seems that in this wonderful, extraordinary country, where we are so proud to say that there are two official languages, there should be some tangible evidence of the fact that some type of equity is being established. The only way to do this is to enable parliamentarians to talk on the matter. I am convinced that this motion would be approved by the House.

    We need a subsidy program in order to develop the technology required to provide captioning. Money, it is always about money. Right now we are throwing money at all kinds of things. Why not throw some that way?

    Since 1993, the Bloc Québécois has suggested several ways to do this. Moreover, two motions were adopted by the House. Unfortunately, none of these motions resulted in any concrete action by the government. Perhaps the time has come to once again give parliamentarians the floor so that they can clearly and unequivocally argue in favour of providing French captioning for television programming, particularly for Question Period at the House, which is often very exciting.

º  (1610)  

That would at least be a start.

    I won't keep you any longer. One thing is sure; if captioning of french programs were to become a reality, that would be one way of showing clearly that people with hearing-related disabilities are granted all of the status to which they are entitled. That would further the integration of people who are deaf or have a hearing loss, especially as we are well aware that higher noise levels are aggravating the deafness problem. People are suffering hearing loss younger and younger. So perhaps it is time to improve their ability to communicate.

    Integrating people with disabilities is not just wishful thinking. In the case of people who are deaf or have a hearing loss, it is a step in the right direction, or should I say a picture in the right direction.

    The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions?

    Michel.

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

    Ms. Dalphond-Guiral, in a former life...

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I have never been deaf.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: In a former life, you were a nurse and, I believe, taught practical nursing at a CEGEP. I would like you to tell us about the importance of recognition for people with disabilities. How can Parliament give people who suffer from this disability a bit more dignity as human beings? How can we bring out the human side of it? That is my first question.

    Secondly, you lost me when you were talking about captioning. There is also sign language. Those are two different things. When you listen to CPAC in english and see someone signing in the oval, that is one thing. It seems to me that captioning is a black strip that runs along the bottom of the screen.

º  (1615)  

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Caroline is proposing that sign language also be used in French.

    The Chair: Excuse me, but we must not have the same text. I was going to ask you. You were focusing on French before. Are you explaining Motion M-367 to us? Perhaps we don't have the same text. That's not what it's about, is it, Michel?

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Read me what you have. I don't have the actual motion.

--That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should:

(a) take all measures necessary to encourage, facilitate and actively support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired;

    Is that the text you have, Mr. Chairman?

    The Chair: Yes, but that is in (a).

    Mr. Michel Guimond: And here is the rest:

(b) act without delay to set up a real program to fund the research and development of technologies relating to closed captioning;

    The Chair: That still refers to captioning, not sign language... Read (c) if you don't mind.

(c) draft a bill to amend the Broadcasting Act to oblige all broadcasters to carry visual programs with closed captioning.

    The Chair: What I take from that, first of all, is that no distinction is made between French and English, and secondly, there is no reference to sign language. It only refers to captioning.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It would be a matter of showing the text of the questions. Can you explai to me why that is done in English and not in French?

    The Chair: I don't know. It is Ms. St-Hilaire who tabled Motion M-367, and we are here to hear the arguments and to see whether the motion meets the listed criteria.

    Are there any questions?

[English]

    Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): In reading this, I see it has three parts to it. The first part is, “take all measures necessary to encourage, facilitate and actively support the right to communications of the deaf and hearing impaired”.

    I notice there's no mention of movie theatre productions. Is that because this falls outside of the CRTC and you're trying to bring it within federal jurisdiction?

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The CRTC is responsible for regulating radio and television, and radio and television broadcasters have to follow the CRTC's rules.

[English]

    Ms. Val Meredith: If the hearing impaired go to a movie theatre, unless there is closed-captioning they can't follow the movie. Is there nothing under the CRTC that restricts the showing of films by movie theatres? Does the CRTC not regulate whether it's family rated, restricted, or that kids under 18 can't see, that sort of thing?

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: As a matter of fact, the presentation my colleague prepared refers to the television programs we watch at home, not commercial films. We know that many films are subtitled for people who are deaf or have a hearing loss. Those people are as able as you and I to read the subtitles in the language that suits them. Ms. St-Hilaire's speech referred specifically to television shows and captioning. We know that the captions are sometimes extremely hard to read. Even though screens are getting larger and larger, they are still not very big. In addition, she referred to subsidies that could lead to better quality captioning. As you know, research and development don't happen all by themselves; it takes money.

    The Chair: Joe Jordan.

[English]

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I think maybe it's a question of constitutional law. Because television waves go across provincial boundaries, it has to be under federal jurisdiction, whereas when you show a film, you do it within a province. So the provinces deal with the age rating and things like that--

    The Chair: Until you show that film on television.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes.

    The Chair: Any other questions? We're running late on this, so if we could keep it brief.... That's it? Merci.

    Madame.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I am sure you will make the right decision.

    The Chair: I am sure of that.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I confused sign language with written language, but because you are all intelligent, that surely won't stop you from making the right decision.

    The Chair: Because we have had the opportunity to listen to you, we have understood everything.

[English]

     Mr. Grewal.

    You know the way--five minutes for pitching and then five minutes for questions and answers.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): I was under the impression that I had 10 minutes, but anyway....

    The Chair: No. It's a total of 10. It's five and five.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I'll try to be very brief.

    First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of the committee for allowing me to have this opportunity to present my case to make Bill C-202 votable.

    I assume the members have a copy of the bill. You will find it a bit technical in nature, but you will also find that the bill is drafted in very clear, complete, and effective terms.

    Mr. Chairman, I have spoken to various members from all political parties. Some of them have been long-standing members on the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, like Mr. Derek Lee, who has been a member for 13 years. They are supporting this bill.

    This issue is absolutely non-partisan and is perceived as very crucial across party lines. This bill is of very significant public concern since regulations and statutory instruments affect every Canadian. Most of them fall within federal jurisdiction, and in nine years this has not been addressed in the government's legislative agenda.

    Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my bill is to amend the Statutory Instruments Act. This enactment would establish a statutory disallowance procedure that would be applicable to all statutory instruments subject to review and scrutiny by the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. This enactment would ensure that Parliament will have the opportunity and the ability to disallow any regulations or statutory instruments made pursuant to authority delegated by Parliament or made under the authority of cabinet.

    Disallowance is a means at the disposal of Parliament to control the making of delegated legislation. Parliamentarians are given an opportunity to reject a subordinate law made by a delegation of Parliament.

    The lack of a general disallowance procedure as a means of asserting parliamentary control of delegated legislation prompted a great many recommendations that such a procedure be put in place.

    Mr. Chairman, I'm sure members are aware that following the recommendations of the McGrath committee, and as part of its own regulatory reform strategy, the government introduced the disallowance procedure in 1986. But it was on a temporary footing. It is not on a statutory footing. The Canadian disallowance procedure doesn't have a statutory basis. We are probably one of the very few countries in the G-8 or OPEC--the developed countries--that does not have these disallowance procedures on a statutory basis, which means through amendments to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, to which the government agreed.

    Mr. Chairman, I would mention two features of this procedure that are taking place now on the status quo. The first is that the procedure applies only to the House of Commons, not to the Senate. It's very strange that only the House of Commons can deal with the disallowance, not the Senate.

    Second, the disallowance is limited to those statutory instruments that are made by the Governor in Council or by a minister of the crown.

    So there is a lack of statutory basis for the procedure.

    These two features are considered to be defects by advocates of better parliamentary control of delegated legislation. These defects can be addressed by replacing the current disallowance procedure with a statutory procedure covering all statutory instruments.

    For instance, Mr. Chairman, for the curiosity of the members, the Parliament of Canada delegates authority to an agency or to a department to make regulations. There are costly government organizations that are delegated the authority to make legislation, but when they make the regulations, the committee that is delegated the authority to scrutinize the regulations has no authority to scrutinize those instruments.

    So in a nutshell, Parliament has given authority to costly government organizations like the National Energy Board or the Canadian Transportation Agency to make regulations, but Parliament has no authority to scrutinize those regulations.

    As the members know, 80% of the law that Canadians face in their daily lives comes by way of regulations of statutory instruments. What we debate in the House is probably about 20% of the legislation. So it's very important that this committee make this particular bill votable.

º  (1620)  

    Many members on the scrutiny of regulations committee are of the view that we need to have this disallowance procedure put on a statutory footing, and my bill will accomplish that.

    When I talk with stakeholders in the industry, such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, chambers of commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, all of them support this initiative.

    In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, I will answer any questions, but in my opinion the committee will look at this as a very important issue for regulatory reform and democracy in the country.

    The Chair: Thank you. Libby.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Could I get a clarification, Mr. Grewal? Am I understanding correctly that your bill would apply only where delegated authority has gone to crown corporations or whatever to make regulations, or are you saying that everything would be covered? I wasn't quite clear on that.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you for that question. Mr. Chairman, it's a very technical issue, so I will take time to explain it.

    It is not only that, but this is one component of what the bill will be covering, that category which is the so-called excluded category: the agencies and boards and so on.

    Other than that, it will also lay out the procedural aspect. At this moment, the procedural aspect in the House of Commons for disallowance is very vague. It was actually in 1986 that it was decided to have it on a temporary basis, an experimental basis. After 16 years we are still dealing with the experimental phase. I think this is the time for modernization, with all the things that are happening and the particular focus on democracy and accountability and transparency. I think we need to put it on a new footing--from the procedural point of view as well.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Could you give an example? If this bill were in effect now.... For example, the immigration committee was recently dealing with all of the immigration regulations. There were hundreds of them. Is this something you would see this applying to? I'm sorry, I don't feel that knowledgeable about it.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Sure, I would be glad to help you on that.

    Mr. Chairman, so far this committee--the scrutiny of regulations joint committee--has only been able to disallow nine regulations in 14 or 15 years. There are about 900 files in the pipeline, and they are clogged because the procedure is not clear. I'll give you one example here of one particular regulation.

    Let's say if the disallowance report is tabled in the House, within 15 days the minister has to make a response. When the minister responds, the minister has the right to oppose it, and if that is the case, then a one-hour debate takes place. After the debate, if the House orders disallowance of the particular legislative instrument, it goes to the legislative-instrument-making body. They may accept that order of the House or they may not, since it is not on a statutory footing.

    So there it is: after all the work the committee does and all the work members of Parliament will do, and when a disallowance actually takes place in Parliament, there is no guarantee it will be disallowed, because it depends on the regulation-making body. Again, it cannot be enforced in the Canadian Supreme Court. So there is a conflict of interest, or there is a potential for confusion: a regulation that is disallowed in Parliament effectively cannot be disallowed because it is not on a statutory footing. The gravity of the situation in my opinion is very serious.

    The Chair: Inky.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Having sat on that committee, I understand the cumbersome nature of it. The question I have is, even with, you're saying, this disallowance legislation, and despite the recommendation of the committee for disallowance of, say, a regulation, it still may not necessarily pass the committee stage.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Absolutely. That, Mr. Chairman, is another very serious issue, because this committee is different from all other committees in the House.

    The Chair: You have one minute left.

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay, I'll be very quick. This committee is different; it's probably the most non-partisan committee in the House. The problem the committee is facing is again the statutory footing of the disallowance procedure.

    If we knew the procedure was clear, in my opinion the pipeline would be clear, so that all those files would be dealt with speedily. Some of the files have been in the pipeline for 25 years. There is a committee feeling that these regulations should be disallowed, but they cannot be disallowed. And 25 years is a very long time.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chair?

     The Chair: Yes?

    Mr. Inky Mark: Even though there's agreement at the scrutiny of regulations committee, when it's referred to the standing committee of the House and that doesn't go anywhere, where's the beef--even with the legislation?

    Mr. Gurmant Grewal: In my opinion, it's a communication problem. In this committee we cannot talk to each other, and I think that's one problem. Probably the procedure and House affairs committee will look into that.

    The justice committee is the one I'm referring to because that's under the jurisdiction of the justice committee. In my opinion, members need some orientation on this issue. Many members are not aware of it.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. St. Denis.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-409. I'd like to start out by pointing out something you'll never see, I don't think, in all your time here. My bill refers to April 9, 1917, which was the key day in the battle of Vimy Ridge. My bill ends up being numbered C-409, which is April 9 in terms of the numbering. That's quite a coincidence, which I hope speaks to the good luck I will have in convincing you that this is...in fact it's destiny.

    The Chair: Would it also be your birthday?

    Mr. Brent St. Denis: No, it's not.

    I have given it to the clerk, who I believe has passed out two letters. These are two letters among virtually dozens, perhaps hundreds, of letters I have received in support of declaring April 9 of each year Vimy Ridge Day, a day not to be a holiday, but a heritage day, as we have other heritage days on our calendar. It would be more a day to allow our legions to have another day to honour our veterans and our past warriors and peacekeepers.

    I also ask in the bill that on that day the Peace Tower flag be lowered to half mast. With the cooperation of Minister Copps, this in fact was done for April 9, 2000, and April 9, 2001. On April 9, 2002, we had the Queen Mother's funeral that day so the flag was at half mast for both reasons.

    I think everybody's familiar with the fact that there was a battle. I left one of these books with the clerk. These are available from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It's a fabulous set of photographs and some of the story around the actual Battle of Vimy Ridge, a remarkable testament to the courage of our soldiers who were there.

    I'd like to point out, Mr. Chair, that I have a list of the battalions that were involved, a list of over 100,000 Canadian soldiers. There were Canadians from every region, and I daresay from every province, of Canada.

    There were four Victoria Crosses granted that day. One was for a trooper from Lachute, Quebec. Another was for a gentleman from Victoria, another for a gentleman in Ontario, and the fourth one I could not identify where he was from.

    We have records of the fact that the people came from virtually every area of the country. It was a national effort, but most significantly on that day, Canadians, for the first time, were grouped together in four divisions of a dozen or more battalions. They fought under a Canadian commander.

    By the way, the Battle of Vimy Ridge had acquired, up to that time, the loss of 200,000 British and French military soldiers. It was a ridge critical to the German defence, a ridge that, when taken by the 100,000-plus Canadians--at significant cost, mind you--really opened the door for what was a successful outcome in World War I. Up until that battle, the progress by the allied forces had been slow, yard by yard, or metre by metre, as we'd say today.

    There were about 4,000 Canadians killed over those few days and among 10,000 casualties.

    In the letters I presented to you, the Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command has endorsed this bill; the Minister of Heritage has expressed her support, in writing, for this bill. I have verbal support from other key members of the government. I've written a letter. I don't want to give names. Most importantly, I have the significant support of legions right across Ontario, support from school groups, and so on.

    This is not an attempt to try to represent every battle that Canadians ever fought on a day of the year. The Battle of Vimy Ridge, in my mind and in the minds of many people, represents all battles, all efforts by Canadians, be it in wartime or in peacetime.

    With that, Mr. Chair, I would be glad to indulge your questions, and I would ask that you allow this to proceed as a votable bill. I think you will find that there is good support in the House for it.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. St. Denis.

    Are there any questions?

    Mr. Inky Mark: If you have the support of the government, the support of the minister, can't the minister just designate the day and it's done?

    Mr. Brent St. Denis: Traditionally, as I understand it, dates like this were brought forward by private members, but I appreciate that the minister, rather than taking this on, has supported a private member. I think it is important that private members be given the opportunity to bring forward what is in fact a grassroots initiative.

    I should have in my opening remarks given credit to a constituent of mine, Bob Manuel from Elliot Lake, and his legion, who in fact brought the idea to me.

    I was remiss about mentioning him, so I'm glad you've given me the chance, Mr. Mark.

    He brought this idea to me when Elliot Lake was undertaking a celebration of Heritage Week in February 1999. Some three years later, finally, the bill has been drawn. It has taken a little while, but I appreciate this chance.

    I appreciate that as a private member I can take this forward with the government's support, rather than it being taken on by the government. I hope we'll see more of this in the future.

    I would certainly appreciate your support.

    The Chair: Mr. Nystrom, how are you, sir?

    You know how this subcommittee works. You have five minutes to explain, to pitch, five minutes to impress us, and then five minutes so we can then impress you with our questions.

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I don't think I will take my five minutes.

    I've handed out a bit of background information. It's on one sheet. There's English on the back and French on the front.

    I'm interested in pursuing this because I think it's a new debate for Parliament, something new and quite novel we can discuss. It hasn't been discussed for a long time in terms of a motion or private member's bill, and that is the possibility of increasing the vacations of workers who fall under federal jurisdiction by one week per year.

    Today about 1.2 million Canadians fall under federal jurisdiction, public servants, members of the RCMP, people who work for regulated financial institutions such as banks and so on. Currently under section 184 of the Canadian Labour Code, they get a two-week holiday, and after six years on the job they get a three-week holiday.

    My motion, Mr. Chairman, will increase this by one week, so these employees would be entitled to three weeks of holidays, and four weeks of holidays after they've been employed for six years. It's a very simple motion.

    I don't want to read all my notes, but you can see there the comparison between the federal labour code and the provinces. The federal labour code covers, as I said, 1.2 million Canadians. The provinces have various combinations in terms of vacation pay and holiday pay. Vacation pay is defined at 4% of your annual wage, or 6% of your annual wage after six years. You can see the comparison with the various provinces.

    How do we compare with other countries in the world? In 1998, the European Union passed a regulation providing at least four weeks of paid vacation for workers in member countries. This vacation applies to all professions, except doctors and those in transport and activities in sea industries. The U.K., Italy, Ireland, Germany, Greece, Belgium, and the Netherlands mandate 20 days of paid vacation. Japan, Denmark, Austria, France, Sweden, and Spain mandate 25 days, some five weeks of paid vacation.

    In the United States, it's very interesting. There is no mandated vacation time whatsoever. If you work in the United States, you have no federally mandated time for vacation.

    What this motion would do, Mr. Chair, is bring us a bit more in sync with other countries around the world. We're still a long way behind France and some other countries.

    The other point we should consider, I think, is what are the effects of overwork and workplace stress. In 1999, a Health Canada study found that visits to doctors in connection with work/life conflicts cost $425.8 million per year, which is really an awful lot of money in terms of workplace stress. Studies also show that you can lower the risk of death from heart attacks and many other diseases if people have more free time and vacation time.

    The last point I wanted to make is if we can pass a motion like this in the House of Commons, we can lead by example in terms of the provinces, encouraging them to also make it mandatory for people who fall under provincial jurisdiction. They, too, deserve more time off.

    That's really it, Mr. Chair. I want to move the period of holidays from two weeks to three, and from three weeks to four after six years, by increasing it by one week across the board.

    Thank you.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: Yes, Ms. Davies.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Nystrom, do you know how long this provision has been in effect? Has it been there forever, the two weeks plus the one week?

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom: It's been there for a long, long time. I can't recall exactly how long. I have a pile of research information here. I know it has been a long, long time since we made those changes in the Canada Labour Code, probably decades, not just years.

    Ms. Val Meredith: The Treasury Board is doing a restructuring and a review of the federal civil service. Do you know whether it as well is looking at this change in its review?

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I don't know, Val. I haven't heard of it, and we did some research on this in my office, plus the Library of Parliament, and it was not brought to our attention. So if it is happening, it's something we have not picked up in our research.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Okay, thanks.

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

    Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.

    The Chair: Merci.

    I saw Mr. Cannis here.

    Mr. Cannis, is your literature bilingual?

º  (1645)  

    Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): There is a bilingual version to it, but my colleague in Quebec has it, and I didn't have a copy of it today.

    The Chair: I'm sorry.

    Mr. John Cannis: That's all right. We'll hold on.

    The Chair: This subcommittee decided a long time ago to respect everybody. If we're going to distribute anything, it has to be bilingual.

    Mr. John Cannis: And we respect that, too, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Of course.

    Mr. John Cannis: It's just that we couldn't get our hands on it today.

    The Chair: You have five minutes of pitch and then we'll ask you the questions in French for five minutes. I'm just kidding. We'll ask you questions.

    Mr. John Cannis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

    With regard to my motion, M-452, its meaning is basically requesting our government to support a motion sending the message to Great Britain that they consider seriously returning the Parthenon Marbles to their original place of origin, where they belong--the Parthenon--which is located in Greece.

    One would ask--and I have been asked as I've talked to people right across the country--what are the Parthenon Marbles. Committee members and Mr. Chairman, the Parthenon Marbles are slabs from the relief of one of the wonders of the world, the Parthenon, which I'm sure every one of us at some point in time in our readings has heard about.

    These marbles, Mr. Chairman, were removed by Lord Elgin almost 200 years ago without the consent of the Greek people during the Ottoman occupation. Today the request from the Greek government for the return of the marbles to their place of origin has been made, not necessarily on behalf of Greece for the Parthenon, but in the name of world cultural heritage.

    It has been a firm and just request by the Government of Greece since 1982, when, upon the initiative of the late Melina Mercouri, they requested and it was submitted to the Council of Ministers for the cultural member states of UNESCO in Mexico. In 1999, Mr. Chairman, the European Parliament also ruled in favour of returning the marbles to their place of origin.

    The resolution of the 10th Intergovernmental Council of UNESCO for the promotion of the bilateral talks between Greece and Britain show the growing interest and importance this issue has on the international community.

    Mr. Chairman and committee members, I'm asking for this motion to send a message to the U.K. that indeed it would be the right thing to do. I'd like to point out that most recently in the National Assembly in Quebec there was exactly the same motion and it was unanimously supported and passed.

    Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out that the conditions under which the marbles were taken today have been questioned tremendously. Even ancestors of Lord Elgin are defending this position very strongly, members of Parliament from the U.K.

    I have in my office, and will be presenting over the course of the next little while, the names of tens of thousands of Canadians from all over Canada from the east to the west, from Quebec to Ontario, the Prairies, and all over. I've spoken to students at universities and all over who are saying that yes, in today's climate these treasures should be returned to their place of origin.

    It is not being requested, Mr. Chairman, so as to set any type of precedent here; on the contrary--although, I will point out that precedents have already been set. Permit me to give you two examples, members.

    Most recently, the Canadian government set a precedent by returning the Vasari painting, The Wedding of Cana to Hungary. At the same time, the head stone of Scotland was most recently returned by England to Scotland.

    When we look at these precedents, we are not asking for this to set a precedent, but we believe that treasures that belong to certain origins, certain countries, must be returned to their rightful ownership. It is being proposed, Mr. Chairman, if I may say it in this way, as a shared trusteeship.

    The argument in years past as to why they could not be returned was because Greece did not have a proper facility to protect these treasures. I point out to you, members of the committee, as we speak, that there is the most sophisticated state-of-the-art facility now being completed just below the Parthenon, to be ready for the 28th Olympiad to house these treasures.

    The gentleman I spoke to is Bruce Tattersall, a descendant of Lord Elgin, who is defending this position very vigorously.

    In closing, Mr. Chairman, I ask for the consideration of this committee to look at this proposal seriously and encourage it and promote it, so that indeed we here in Canada can set an example by making this votable and supporting such a motion.

    I'm open to any questions.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cannis.

    Michel.

[Translation]

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

    Mr. Cannis, you are a seasoned parliamentarian, given that you have had a seat in the House for a few years now. I do not know whether you were elected in 1988 or in 1993, but I, myself, have known you since 1993.

    I find the motion itself interesting, but you know that we have here five criteria for deciding whether a motion may be votable. You pointed out that the Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous motion. True, but we are in a different Parliament. The Quebec National Assembly may have its own criteria for adopting motions, but I would rather stick to our own criteria, and I would like to stress one in particular.

    Can you satisfy us that this is a matter of significant public interest?

[English]

    Mr. John Cannis: Thanks for the question. It was 1993 when we first met. And the criteria are different, you're absolutely correct, from provincial, to municipal, to federal.

    I applauded the move from the Quebec National Assembly, not only because they are proponents and advocates of protecting and promoting culture--that was one of the areas--but it was also because I think they understood not just the diversity but the fairness, in terms of artifacts, treasures, that should stay where they belong or should be returned, should they have been taken under conspicuous circumstances, which in this case has been proven over and over again.

    When we talk about culture, I don't think culture has specific boundaries and I don't think it should be dealt with under federal jurisdiction, or provincial jurisdiction, or municipal jurisdiction. I think culture, for us, is right across the board. I think the signal was sent by the Quebec National Assembly that indeed this is the case. When we commenced this effort some years back, we really didn't want to jump on it initially and say, let's go ahead and do it. We wanted to consult with the provinces, the municipalities, each and every institution that was out there.

    What would be one criterion that I think would apply here, Monsieur Guimond? I think one criterion is the fact that Canada would be looked at internationally as a country of peace, as a country of consensus, as a country that brings people together, as a country that wants to move forward, a country that indeed looks for the common denominator. They would indeed apply that principle when it comes to culture as well, saying, yes, we too believe in fairness as a nation. We too believe these artifacts, these treasures, should be returned to their rightful owners. Had we had something that was stolen from us in Canada, we would I think be asking the same thing--not only federally, but provincially, municipally, regionally, culturally. If we had some artifacts stolen from our first nations people, we would speak federally, provincially, municipally, and through local councils and what have you.

    So I think the criteria are defined in terms of do we believe in culture and do we believe that those cultural artifacts should go where they belong?

º  (1650)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I have a second question, but I am going to wait until the second round in order to give other colleagues a chance.

[English]

    The Chair: Joe.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Gentlemen, the motion says:

....the government should call upon the United Kingdom and other countries or members of the international community at large, to return the Parthenon Marbles....

    Why do you add “other countries or members of the international community at large”?

    Mr. John Cannis: It's a very good question, and maybe in retrospect it should have been reworded. We talked about “other countries” because I mentioned UNESCO, for example; I mentioned the European Parliament. This has not been one effort by one sole country, Greece, versus the United Kingdom; it's been a collective effort. That's why I took the opportunity to talk about when it was first presented in 1982 by the late Melina Mercouri, which we are familiar with. That's why UNESCO picked it up.

    So what would we be doing as a nation by, let's say, supporting this motion? We'd be working hand in hand with many other countries. For example, under the umbrella of the European Parliament, there are I believe 15 countries; I'm not sure how many, but certainly more than 10.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Doesn't this suggest that we're calling upon other countries to return the marbles, that we're calling upon members of the international community at large to return the marbles? That's what it sounds like to me.

    Mr. John Cannis: I agree with you. As I said, I didn't want to change the wording at the last minute, but really the intent of it is to call upon other countries to support the return of the marbles, because the marbles really are situated in the London museum and nowhere else.

    By the way, if I may point out on this question, there are other artifacts there that are not being requested either from England or any other parts of the world. This is just a very unique piece.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Inky.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The motion's intent is honourable, no doubt about it, and I think most of us would agree that what belongs to another country should go back.

    As a case in point, most of us have been to Taiwan. Half the cultural artifacts of mainland China are in Taiwan. What if the mainland wanted their treasures back? That's the problem. We're opening a can of worms, and where do you end? Does that mean Canada is getting involved in the middle with every country in the world that has heritage problems? That's my concern.

    Mr. John Cannis: I think that really is the question here that we have overcome, but first of all, you're looking at two nations that are members of the European community--Greece and Great Britain--whereas if you look at the relationship that you related it to, you're looking at some hostility, if I may use that word constructively.

    Again, a precedent is not being sought here, although precedents have been set, and I provided two examples: one, here in Canada where we've returned; and England to Scotland. This has been very clearly stated, but as clearly as it has been stated, you're absolutely correct that China and Taiwan could pick up on this, and maybe through efforts such as this we could find more cooperation between mainland China and Taiwan, to say, well, it has been set already with Canada, Scotland, England, and now Greece. Maybe this will create a better climate for cooperation between those two nations.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Michel, we're already over time, so very briefly.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: The point I wanted to raise has already been touched on, that of the first criterion, which refers to drafting in clear and effective terms. I was anticipating drafting problems with Great Britain, but Mr. Cannis agreed that perhaps some adjustments were in order. So I have no more questions.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Cannis.

    Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Chair, in closing in 30 seconds, I thank the committee members who pointed this out--

    The Chair: We shouldn't give you the 30 seconds. You're already over time. We know what you're going to tell us; you're hoping we're going to make this votable.

    Thank you, Mr. Cannis.

    Mr. John Cannis: Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): What we are distributing, Mr. Chairman, is in both official languages.

    The Chair: I asked the question, Mr. Bélanger. You have the floor.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

    First, let me apologize to Mr. Guimond. Tuesday, in this room, as I was identifying the subcommittee members, I did not recall his name immediately. This will not happen again, Mr. Guimond.

    Thus, Mr. Chairman, this is the third time that I appear before this subcommittee for the same bill. The first time, you even praised my presentation. You will find a copy of it inside the pocket on the right. This is an analysis of Bill C-407 based on the five criteria for determining whether or not a bill or a motion is votable.

    For those who were not present, and I see several new subcommittee members here today, let me say that Bill C-407 would add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act, which is respect for both official languages; this is found in the first section. Then we find measures for implementing the principle.

    Mr. Chairman, during my first and second presentations, I only went so far as to determine whether or not the bill met the criteria. I thought that this was the proper way to go about it. I still believe that it is and I declare, as I did then, that Bill C-407 meets the criteria. I will come back to this at the very end of my presentation.

    The second time I appeared before the committee, I asked about the criteria that were not met by the bill; and then you told me, Mr. Chairman, that it was not up to you, the subcommittee members, to answer questions from those appearing before you, but it is up to us to convince you. I feel somewhat perplexed about not knowing what criteria the bill does not meet, I must say. But as I already said, I'll come back to this at the end.

    The one and only question that was put to me then dealt with the substance of the act and it was put by the representative of the Canadian Alliance, it was not Ms. Meredith, but her predecessor. It was about costs, and I answered that in my opinion, if this bill were adopted, it could be implemented without necessarily increasing costs. In fact, if this were done over a relatively long period of time and if we provide proper training for the professionals, then the respect of both official languages, in the delivery of health care, could be put into practice all over the country without necessarily incurring additional costs. But there could also be some, given the fact that provinces are responsible for the implementation of health care delivery, as is done in Quebec.

    This bill is important for one and a half million to two million Canadians who speak one official language or who are living in a minority situation. Mr. Romanow, during his tour of Canada, heard groups in each province that asked him to deal with this matter and to include their request in his report.

    Let me come back to my basic premise; and I am glad that Mr. Guimond brought the previous witness back to the subject of criteria, because in my opinion, the debate on the bill itself and the final decision must proceed in the House. If the Canadian Alliance wants to vote against the bill, it is free to do so, but this should be done in the House and not here in the committee. We, the members, should have an opportunity to debate the value of this principle before the Canadian public so that we can make a decision about the bill; this is of the utmost importance. Therefore, I insist on the fact that in my opinion, it is up to the House to decide. I have a minute left.

    Let me come back to the criteria, Mr. Chairman. I will ask my assistant to hand out an opinion that I have obtained. You all know this book.

    A voice: Bilingual?

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The book is bilingual and what I am about to distribute is also, naturally, bilingual. This is our bible, the book by Marleau and Montpetit. From one of the authors of this book, Mr. Montpetit, I obtained an opinion on Bill C-407; it is being handed out to you and I want to read the conclusion of this opinion, found on page 4, Mr. Chairman, and I quote:

It is my opinion that Bill C-407 of the First Session of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament, sponsored by MP Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier) and placed on the order of precedence for Private Members' Business, meets the five specific criteria established by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the selection of votable items.

    It is signed Camille Montpetit, May 21, 2002.

»  (1700)  

    In English, it's on page 4 of the report.

[English]

    I would like to quote what Mr. Camille Montpetit, co-author of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which is our bible, says, and I'm quoting:

It is my opinion that Bill C-407 of the First Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament, sponsored by M.P. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier) and placed on the order of precedence for Private Members' Business, meets the five specific criteria established by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the selection of votable items.

    It is signed, Camille Montpetit, May 21, 2002.

[Translation]

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm ready to answer all your questions.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

[English]

    Are there any questions for Mr. Bélanger?

    We'll start with Monsieur Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

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

    I wanted, in all fairness, to give Mr. Bélanger an opportunity to make a presentation. I simply wanted to understand.

    Soon, we will proceed with the selection of votable items. In the document prepared by our researcher, Mr. Robertson, we do not have Bill C-407. I would also like to have some information.

    Will Mr. Bélanger be coming back here endlessly with his bill? I admire his persistence, and I appreciate his effort to improve our brain power, but how many times will he come back?

    The Chair: Let us put a stop to this right away.

    House procedure allows a member to come here to discuss a bill as much and as long as he wants and to request as many times as he wants to be heard by the committee, on the condition that his bill has not been dealt with in the House, and the same applies to a motion. As long as that has not been done, he can come back to ask us for that again.

    If you look at the working document that was prepared for us, you will see, and it is clearly shown, that the bills or motions included in it were chosen by a draw on a given date. As for Mr. Bélanger's bill, it was not drawn on that date, but on a preceding date. Therefore, he is coming back. Our job is to add Bill C-407 to our worksheets and we will have to reflect on it and debate it.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I have come back twice and it was not put on the list either time although I wrote to you about it each time. If this is going to happen again, I would like my bill to be on the agenda.

    The Chair: Mr. Bélanger, this makes no difference whatsoever. The document we have, the one Mr. Guimond is referring to, is a working document that we provide freely to committee members. If a bill is not in the document, it does not mean that it will not be discussed. This document only deals with bills that were selected in the draw.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I hope that my colleagues on the committee and you, Mr. Chairman, did not think that I wanted to make a malicious comment.

    The Chair: Mr. Guimond, we would never think that about you.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Sometimes I might feel like it...

    The Chair: Should that happen, please warn us.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Bélanger, according to your reasoning, when the five criteria have been met, should the subcommittee automatically deem that the bill is votable if we follow the current system?

    What should we do then? If we have an hour left to deal with 14 issues and seven spaces, how will we go about balancing the 14 issues and seven slots unless we decide that some are more relevant than others?

»  (1705)  

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee's job is to determine whether bills or motions meet the criteria. If more of them meet the criteria than there is available space, then it must set some priorities.

    My problem, Mr. Chairman, is that the first two times I tabled this, the available spaces were not filled. I can only presume that my bill did not meet the criteria. Thus, I appealed to an objective outside authority to see if this was truly the case. I was told that it was not the case. As I believed, my bill did meet the criteria. Thus, I asked the committee to determine that it meets the criteria. I recognize the fact that if, perchance, there were more bills or motions than available space, it would be up to the committee to set priorities.

[English]

    The Chair: Ms. Davies.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I don't disagree with that. I think at this point we're not here to debate your bill versus another one. The committee will get into that debate. We're here to hear what you have to say and to ask questions. So you have a right to come back here.

    Mr. Romanow was at our caucus meeting. We had a very interesting debate with him. In fact, this question of the language duality came up. We were, I think, very open to that and saw it as an issue.

    There are many issues surrounding the Canada health and social transfer and the medicare system, including where it's at and where the problems are. From your point of view, why should this come forward as a private member's bill when we have the Romanow commission where we know there are some equally important questions and issues that need to be debated and that hopefully will be dealt with in his final report?

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We're getting into a debate of substance here, and I'm certainly willing to do that.

    This bill was first introduced in 1997, I believe--I'd have to check exactly when--and, subsequently, it was reintroduced and so forth. So this came about before Mr. Romanow was even appointed. This is also an idea that is a fairly vast one, and it is important to a significant number of Canadians from sea to sea to sea, and the support is growing.

    As a parliamentarian, I have a right, as do all members of the House of Commons, to present bills and motions within a structure and a system. I am abiding by that system, and I am asking the committee also to abide by that system. It is my choice to submit it within the structure and the criteria. That's where my argument is, that it meets the criteria.

    I don't think it is this committee's role to determine that something is to be defeated by making it not votable. That belongs on the floor of the House of Commons. I can't see why the previous two times I've been here it has been judged non-votable when there was room among the items that could be listed as votable. That's my only argument here. It may never pass. I'm going to do my damn best to see that it passes, because I firmly believe in the importance of this for the future of our country. But I'll be damned if I'm going to get hung up on procedures that are not followed properly. That's my only contention with this subcommittee.

    The Chair: Last quick question, Ms. Meredith, please.

    Ms. Val Meredith: I took exception to the fact that you pointed your finger at the Canadian Alliance. Not having sat here before, I don't know whether or not your assumptions are correct. We believe that all private members' bills should be votable.

    I wonder why you're going under the Canada Health Act instead of the Official Languages Act. If it's under the Canada Health Act and you're concerned about people who don't speak the language getting adequate health care services and being able to understand the procedures and processes they have to deal with, I'm a little concerned that you didn't broaden it to include all of those other language groups. In my part of the country, quite frankly, the French isn't the minority that requires language services. That would be the Chinese and the Punjabis who end up in our Canadian hospitals without an understanding of what's going on around them.

    Why did you choose the Canada Health Act instead of the Official Languages Act?

»  (1710)  

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There are three things in that question, Mr. Chairman. Number one, as far as singling out the Alliance is concerned, I'd invite Madam Meredith, for whom I have a great deal of respect, to talk to the gentleman who was representing the Alliance before.

    The Chair: Excuse me. On that point, you cannot assume that the Canadian Alliance voted for or against because that was done in camera. Your first intervention was correct. You said that when you came to this subcommittee, the only one who asked you a question that was not on one of the criteria--

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's what I said.

    The Chair: --was the Canadian Alliance. But don't assume that the Canadian Alliance voted for or against.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if she wishes to know, she could talk to the person who was representing the Alliance.

    Number two, why did I choose the Canada Health Act over the Official Languages Act? The official languages committee has been involved for a while now in a study of the Official Languages Act, part VII. There's a great deal lacking.

    I chose the Canada Health Act because all Canadians identify with that when they're talking about health care. It's also the act that governs the conditions that must be met for the money to be transferred.

    Why do I believe it should be there? The history of the country points out clearly that there are two founding peoples, the anglophones and the francophones, and there are two official languages in this country. I understand that there may be growing communities, and perhaps we can address that in another way. But in terms of the history of our nation and where we are today, we have two official languages, and we should at least start respecting those two.

    The Chair: Mr. Bélanger, would I be right in assuming that the Official Languages Act does not apply to hospitals, which are under provincial jurisdiction?

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We could probably have a very long and complicated argument from a number of people who say it might in some indirect fashion, but from my understanding, directly, no.

    The Chair: The argument could be made because it's Canada's Health Act.

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Right. But in constitutionality--and I'm learning about this--you have to have a...

[Translation]

conformity. There must be conformity between the basic legislation, namely the Constitution, and the legislation of the land like the Canada Health Act and the Official Languages Act. As it is now, we can say that there's a certain lack of conformity in some cases. This amendment to the Canada Health Act would provide the conformity that is now lacking between this act, the Canadian Constitution and the Official Languages Act.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

[English]

    Mrs. Desjarlais. Good afternoon.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Good afternoon.

    The Chair: You have five minutes to convince us, then five minutes to answer questions. You're on.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm sure I won't even need five minutes to convince you.

    Basically, the motion I brought before you--and I didn't bring anything additional because it's very short--while being a simplistic motion, has a great effect on a number of Canadians.

    In the course of the last year or year and a half, I have come to realize that under the Canada Pension Plan, earnings from Workers' Compensation payments are not allowed to have Canada Pension Plan premiums paid. As a result, workers who have been injured and want to continue paying into the Canada Pension Plan can't. They in essence lose their rights to the Canada Pension Plan if they're off for a long period of time, because you can only get the Canada Pension Plan for so many years of your last number of years of employment. It's strictly a federal issue, because the Canada Pension Plan is federal, and it would need the change within the legislation to allow Workers' Compensation payments to be considered pensionable employment.

    I have checked through research, and as far as I've been able to find out, it's never come up before for debate within the House or been brought to the attention.... I was actually quite surprised. I checked with a number of provinces, thinking initially it was something that might be the matter within the Workers' Compensation programs, but it's not. It's strictly the Canada Pension Plan legislation.

    The Chair: That's it?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: That's it.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Inky.

»  (1715)  

    Mr. Inky Mark: Just for verification, Mr. Chair, how would this affect federal disability pensions? Are federal disability pensions included right now with CPP?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, with CPP disability. It's not that workers wouldn't be paying this. They would pay it out of the Workers' Compensation payments. They would still be paying their premiums to the Canada Pension Plan.

    Mr. Inky Mark: What about the people receiving a federal disability pension? Is that accounted for?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: If you're already receiving disability pension, you wouldn't be paying anything to the pension.

    Ms. Libby Davies: So basically what you're saying is that if a worker is receiving short-term or long-term Workers' Compensation payments, they should be allowed to have a deduction made for CPP so they can continue with their contributions as a worker?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes. I actually have had two cases where due to back injuries and leg injuries, these persons have not been able to go back to work. They've been off for a long period of time, have had ongoing problems, and have realized that they will not be able to collect CPP.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Then what happens?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: They will end up without enough years in, because you lose those pensionable years.

    The Chair: I just want to understand something. What keeps the government from letting this happen?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: The will to do it.

    The Chair: Have you asked the government?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I've inquired and it was not seen as a major issue.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

    Mr. Inky Mark: I have another point for clarification, Mr. Chair. I know people who are on short-term disability. Are they currently paying into CPP?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm not sure. I imagine short-term disability plans are all different, but specifically--

    Mr. Inky Mark: Well, it's two or three years.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I haven't checked into that as such, but my view would be that possibly not, because of what's considered pensionable employment. I have not checked into it specifically for short-term disability, purely for Workers' Compensation.

    The Chair: Monsieur Benoit.

    What happened to him?

    An hon. member: He left and he may be coming back.

    The Chair: Well, we'll go with Mr. Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    First of all, when I was in the House recently--giving a riveting speech, I might add, on Bill C-55--I was informed that there was a time slot open at 5:10 p.m., so would I mind taking an earlier time slot. So that's why I'm here.

    Secondly, I would like to say to each of the members of this committee that I personally recognize the sacrifice that all of these members make on behalf of this House. I think you have done an exceptional job, and I believe very strongly in the job that you do.

    I am also very pleased not to have sat on this committee today, because I'd have to be in three places twice today. This was one of them.

    However, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I have been very fortunate in having a motion drawn. I have a lot of passion for my motion, and I can't obviously give it justice in five minutes.

    Currently, we recognize that there are issues in the agricultural industry, in the economy, that have a great effect on agriculture. One of them is the requirement of government, philosophically, to charge agriculture a cost-recovery fee in a number of areas.

    As I say, it is philosophically sound, but unfortunately there are some difficulties with that cost recovery. It's putting a grave burden on agricultural producers, particularly at a time when agriculture is under a lot of stress, not only because of commodity prices, because of trade issues, because of weather, but also because this is just another nail in the coffin of agriculture.

    There is currently a moratorium on cost recovery. This motion, however, speaks to a full understanding of how we can control the cost recovery itself. I'm asking for four requirements.

    Number one is to minimize their cost before asking the users to pay. This means the government should in fact have the departments be very efficient prior to their going to the producer and saying, “We want to cost recover our fees”. Let's make sure that the government department is being very efficient in passing the right cost on to the producer.

    The second one is that fees are based on a more accurate accounting of the cost of service provided. Well, wouldn't that be wonderful to say to a producer, “This is actually the cost of the service that's being provided to you and this is the value of the service to you”? That's all we're saying. Prove to the producer that there is a value there. They're paying for a service, which has a value, that they should be in fact responsible for.

    The third condition that I would like in this motion is that the full economic cost of fees is considered in the overall benefit to the cost of the regulatory system.

    Agricultural producers who put food into the system are asked by CFIA to pay the cost, but the consumer actually is getting the benefit to that. So all I'm saying is that there's a consumer benefit. Make sure the consumers share in that cost. This should be reflected in the moratorium of the cost recovery.

    The last and probably the most important is that in fact the stakeholders should have a mechanism for redress. Simply said, it should be an appeal process.

    I had a number of sessions with this department in particular.

    And the bureaucrats perhaps don't understand what it is and how they affect the producers. Shouldn't there be an appeal mechanism set into place where stakeholders, producers, can then appeal to a board, to a tribunal, to a panel that says, “Hey, listen, we would really appreciate your telling us the answers to these questions: what service is being provided, what are the costs of the department, and why is it that the rest of society isn't responsible for some of those costs?”

    So that's it in a nutshell. I believe very strongly about this. My constituents, my producers, feel very strongly about this. I would love to be able to have this made into a votable motion, and I do throw myself at the mercy of this particular panel.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

»  (1720)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Any questions?

    Mr. Inky Mark: Yes. It's a fairly open motion in the sense that it doesn't target any one area or department. I know there are numerous other areas where the public pays through the nose, where they increase fees.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: There are $4 billion worth of fees that are collected right now by governments. The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food is one of the highest three that is charged. My hope is that it be dealt with specifically with Agriculture, but there are other departments. I don't think other departments and other stakeholders and other producers should be impacted as equally bad as this.

    Every year $100 million is being charged to the producers.

    Mr. Inky Mark: I'd say national park users are heavily impacted in your area.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: And there is a moratorium on user fees that's in place right now. I just want to make sure that there are safeguards and checks and balances put into place to make sure they're not put in arbitrarily again.

    The Chair: Are there any other questions? D'autres questions?

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have to go back to the House. Thank you for allowing me to do this earlier than later.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. It's been very refreshing.

    Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): Good afternoon, sir.

     I want to thank you and your committee, Mr. Chairman, for arranging this so expeditiously for me.

    I believe my motion is clear. The financial information strategy was initiated in 1989 and relaunched in 1995. I believe it needs to be implemented; that isn't happening, and that is the reason for this motion, to encourage the complete implementation of this strategy in order to reap the benefits--that is, giving government managers better financial information to use in making day-to-day decisions; modernizing federal government accounting by bringing it in line with private sector and other public sector jurisdictions; and, most importantly, the financial information strategy will link the costs of programs to the results.

    I believe the motion is complete. All it is asking for is that the FIS, or financial information strategy, be fully and completely implemented, because that was the original plan. The word “immediately” is used because it has been thirteen years since it was first decided that this strategy was desirable, and it has been seven years since the present government deemed it desirable.

    The motion effectively communicates its intent, and I don't believe there is any ambiguity.

    The motion is constitutional and clearly concerns federal jurisdiction--I'm going down the list of criteria that you have given me.

    I believe there is progress being made. The government has great expectations for the financial information strategy, as do the taxpayers. The public has a significant interest in seeing this strategy embraced by all departments. There is a great deal of work yet to be done to complete this, and I believe it's the public will that this should be done for the benefit of us all.

    There's nothing in the concurrent legislative agenda that affects this motion. I know of no other way for the House itself to address this matter. I am aware of no government initiative to address this issue, remembering the fact that this strategy was intended for implementation by the current government by April 2001.

    This motion affects all areas of the federal government and is not limited to any local interests. I don't believe this is a partisan matter, and the motion is not couched in partisan terms. I believe it would be easily supportable by all sides of the House.

    The financial information strategy is not an easy thing to implement. In fact, what we're talking about, and what may be the most difficult part of this, is actually going from the culture of cash accounting to full accrual accounting, which is a whole different matter of wrapping your head around a different way of doing things. So it's not easy.

    The financial information strategy estimated cost was $635 million, and much of this has already been used. I believe progress should be made before more funding must be allocated to complete this important project. The funding for this is petering out, and the work is not yet complete.

    Finally, I believe this motion is a friendly reminder and a gesture of encouragement for the government to follow through on the completion of this project before further moneys have to be allotted to get the job done and so that taxpayers can begin to reap the benefits promised by the financial information strategy. It's in this spirit and to this end that I am requesting that motion M-437 be made votable after it is debated in the House.

    Thank you very much.

»  (1725)  

    The Chair: Thank you, sir.

    Are there any questions?

    Mr. Mayfield, have you approached the government on this? From what you were saying, it was due in April 2001. Have you approached the government and asked why?

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Yes, but the financial information strategy has not been completed.

»  (1730)  

    The Chair: I see. It's not a question of not implementing it then, it's a question of not having completed it.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: The process is well along. In some instances the cash accrual method is being used, but in others the reporting method is still cash accounting. This project on the financial information strategy needs to be completed, so we can all be singing from the same song sheet.

    I'm not personally an accountant, but I work in this area in Parliament on a regular basis. I've been advised that the economies, the thoroughness of reporting, the management of projects, and the understanding of how money is spent would be much improved. Further to that, accountability to Parliament would be much easier for the departments, and it would be much easier for Parliament to understand what was being presented, in terms of accountability.

    The Chair: Have they given you a clue as to when they expect to complete it?

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: No, they have not.

    The Chair: Are there any questions?

    Thank you, Mr. Mayfield. Have a good day.

    We will need about a minute or a minute and a half to go in camera.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]