SMEM Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

SOUS-COMITÉ DES AFFAIRES ÉMANANT DES DÉPUTÉS DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 14, 2001

• 1535

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): Order.

We've got to get finished today so we can get our debate done, because we have to do our selections today. We're going to all be really quick. Questions are going to be short and concise. Answers are going to be concise. Black marks against those who give long answers, and then they don't get to be votable.

Mr. Chuck Cadman, M.P. (Surrey North, CA): I've never been accused of being long-winded.

The Chair: I guess we can start.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to go first, since I'm watchdogging Bill C-7 for us.

I want to thank the committee for the time to present comment toward convincing you to make my Bill C-233 votable. It's a relatively simple proposal to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. It's only a little over a page long, but I think you'll see from its summary that the intent is relatively short and sweet.

Essentially, what I'm attempting to do is to encourage federal inmates—and that is those who receive two years or more of imprisonment—to stop playing games with parole applications. Too often an offender applies for parole and then withdraws the application at the last minute. In the meantime, the corrections authorities have expended time and money to prepare for the hearing, the parole board and its staff have expended time and money to prepare for their review, and often victims have expended time, money, and substantial effort to prepare submissions and to attend the hearing, as is their right.

This amendment is fair to all sides. The offender is not affected unless the withdrawal is made within 60 days of the date set for the review, or after the midpoint between the date set for the review and the date the offender was notified of that date. For instance, if the offender is only given 30 days notice of the date of the hearing and chooses to withdraw the application, he or she must do so prior to 15 days before that date. If the offender withdraws the application without sufficient notice and without valid cause, then he or she must wait another two years for reapplication.

Of course there can always be an exception for reasons beyond the control of the offender—for example, illness, incapacity, or any other cause beyond the offender's control. That decision on the validity of the reason will be left to the parole board.

The committee will see that I am proposing to amend a federal statute and it will only affect those serving federal time. I do not foresee any constitutional difficulties, as we are only dealing with parole applications for those who have been legally convicted and incarcerated. The proposal is more than fair. It merely imposes a consequence to those individuals who apply for parole hearing and then back out without reasonable justification. It is meant to discourage offenders from playing with the parole process.

The bill has the support of our legislative drafters for being clear and complete, and I believe it will also be effective to accomplish its aim to save both the taxpayers and victims the unnecessary expense of preparing for a hearing only to have it delayed for little reason.

I believe this issue is in significant public interest. As we all know, the public is always interested in justice issues. The public is always concerned over what is perceived to be the lenient treatment of serious criminals.

I do not believe this matter is on the government's legislative agenda for this Parliament. I introduced the same proposal in the last Parliament. It was Bill C-388 in the first session of the 36th Parliament and C-328 in the second session. I was unable to have my name drawn in order to get it to debate. The House of Commons, to my knowledge, has never debated this issue.

The proposal of this legislation is an ideal private member's initiative. It is non-partisan. It transcends purely local interest, in that parole hearings are being held every day right across this country. I would suggest that almost every member of Parliament may well have a constituent who is directly affected by our present system whereby we permit an offender to unilaterally withdraw from a parole hearing for no reason, with little consequence.

Victims attending those hearings may have to expend significant personal funds on travel to another city or another province. They are in a sense re-victimized when they are unable to present their comments to the parole board because of cancellation by the offender.

All I'm trying to do is convince the offender that the parole process is a serious business that affects all kinds of people other than just themselves. If they wish to withdraw from their application on short notice, without valid reason, that is their choice, but there must be a consequence to discourage this type of selfish behaviour.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: What brought this problem to your attention?

• 1540

Mr. Chuck Cadman: A number of cases have been brought to my attention, but one in particular is the case of a family in Alberta who on a number of occasions actually made arrangements to travel to the east coast for a parole hearing only to find out that the offender—

The Chair: This is the family of a victim.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Yes.

If I remember correctly, there also was the case in B.C. involving the “paper bag rapist” where the victims were already in the parole hearing room, and when he walked in and saw them, he decided he didn't want to do it, so he walked out again. So that's what this is about.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Are there any questions? Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik, M.P. (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Cadman, I'm sorry I was late coming in here.

The consequence of this, as I understand it, is that you will not be able to apply, then.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: They cannot reapply for two years.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So if you do withdraw—

Mr. Chuck Cadman: For no reason.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can you explain to me who would identify “for no reason”?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: That would be up to the parole board. That's written in there. The parole board would make the decision as to whether there was sufficient reason for the withdrawal of the application.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But that's judgmental, then.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Obviously, it's left to the parole board's discretion. That's why I've covered off things such as any kind of illness and incapacity. Obviously, those are valid reasons for withdrawal. But it would be left to the parole board to make the decision as to the validity.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Have you spoken to anybody in the justice department to get their feel on this?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No, I'll be quite honest, I haven't. It's something we put through the legislative counsel, and we did our own research on it. We certainly have on record people who have been impacted by this type of decision.

What I'm trying to do is send a message to people who make their parole applications that they just can't do these sorts of things, that they have to be responsible, and that there are other people involved in this.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chair: In the last Parliament we did a huge sentencing bill, and all this stuff was looked at. Was this addressed?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: The CCRA review, yes.

The Chair: Was this addressed?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I believe Steve Sullivan brought it up once as a witness, and I think that's the last anybody ever heard of it.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): But as it is now, nothing happens.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No, nothing happens. What can happen is that they will cancel the parole hearing on a whim—I'm not suggesting they all do it, as this isn't rampant—and then reapply the next week. We had the case of Abbey Drover, the 12-year-old girl who was held in a dungeon for six months in Port Moody, B.C. When the perpetrator came up for his parole hearing a couple of years ago, he did essentially the same thing.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can I ask another question?

The Chair: Be really brief.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: How many incidents do you know of?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I'm aware of three myself.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is this an ongoing occurrence? How many would there be on an annual basis? Are we talking half a dozen, a dozen?

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I would suggest there would be more than that.

They might not necessarily impact the victims that way. But the other part of my bill addresses the fact that they impact Correctional Service and the National Parole Board, because they have these things scheduled months in advance for timing reasons. So it's not necessarily just victim related. This is related to the cost to the taxpayer in preparing for these hearings.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Cadman. By the way, one case is one case too many. We don't play numbers games here.

An hon. member: Why do you want to know the numbers?

The Chair: I asked yesterday about the numbers when we were discussing the whales, so it's okay.

Next is Mr. Benoit. You'll note that Mr. Benoit is distributing this himself because he has it in only one language.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Do you have it in French, Mr. Benoit?

Mr. Leon Benoit, M.P. (Lakeland, CA): No.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): It won't take too long to translate, I would imagine. It should be a relatively simple process.

[English]

I'm sure you will take good note of that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Shall I go ahead, Madam Chair? I've answered the question.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: This bill involves allowing the cost of purchasing, insuring, and replacing mechanics' tools to be deducted for tax purposes if it's a condition of the job that the mechanic or the technician must supply their own tools.

• 1545

This bill has a history. In fact, I presented this bill back in 1997, and it was debated in the House. I have submitted this bill on a couple of occasions since then, and a Bloc member did as well. It was drawn, debated, and passed by the House last year, I believe it was, and it was waiting to go to committee when the election was called. So I don't think I have to talk about whether this bill should be made votable. I think that's something that has been decided. I don't think I really need to get into that discussion. The discussion here is which bill should be debated.

I was shocked yesterday to find out that someone else had chosen this bill to be the one they would like to try to have made votable, the bill they chose when their name was picked in the draw. I understood that bills that were substantially the same were weeded out at the drafting stage. What the letter shows is that I submitted this bill to the draftspeople on December 1, so I thought that as of that time no one else could submit a bill that was substantially the same.

The only difference between the Bloc bill and the bill I presented here is that the amount of the tools that can be written off entirely is $200 in my bill instead of $225 in the Bloc bill. In the bill I submitted in 1997, $200 was the amount. It is important to know that the $200 wasn't just drawn out of the air. There's a reason for that. My bill is consistent with the current Income Tax Act. As a farmer I knew this. For small-business people, when they purchase tools, anything under $200 can be written off that year for tax purposes, and anything above $200 has to be claimed through a capital cost allowance. So there's a good reason for having that number. I suggest that the Bloc bill is inconsistent with the current Income Tax Act and that for that reason my bill should be chosen over the Bloc bill. It seems to me that's the kind of discussion we're into here.

I submitted this bill in 1997. I found out yesterday, again to my shock, that a bill on the same issue had been submitted in 1992, I think by a Liberal member, if I'm not mistaken. I looked at the bills, and there were no specifics in that bill. I was unaware of that bill at the time I introduced mine and had mine drafted back in 1997.

So what I'm saying is that I don't think it's really quite right to have my bill taken by someone else and chosen when in fact I had submitted it to the draftspeople possibly before the other one—I don't know, I'm not aware of when the Bloc member submitted his for drafting—and when it's exactly the same as the bill I had debated back in 1997.

Those are my submissions. Again, I don't think it's necessary to discuss the issue of whether or not it's votable. It was passed by the House last year. The issue is whether my bill should be the one that's debated and made votable.

The Chair: Leon, can I just stop you for a second? I was under the impression yesterday from Mr. Guimond that it was his bill that was votable in the last Parliament.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It was. But mine was debated in 1997. Then he took mine, changed the number from $200 to $225, and he got drawn—

The Chair: Now it's $250, actually.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's $225 in—

The Chair: They upped the ante. It was $250 yesterday. Do we hear $300?

Mr. Leon Benoit: That makes it even more inconsistent with the Income Tax Act, and I think that's important. Mine is completely consistent. It was based on—

The Chair: What I need to have absolutely clear in my head is when you debated your bill in 1997, was it votable?

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, which is very interesting. Why wasn't it votable when last year the Bloc bill, which was the same except for a $25 difference—

The Chair: Leon, you're getting excited.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —was made votable?

The Chair: The bill Mr. Guimond put in that contained a different numerical value, after your bill in 1997, actually was debated and was votable and came pretty damn close to being implemented.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It was passed through the House at second reading.

The Chair: Okay. That's all I wanted to know.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It was substantially the same as mine, with that slight difference, which was inconsistent with the Income Tax Act.

The Chair: If you were both from the same party, you guys could just co-sponsor it, couldn't you?

Mr. Leon Benoit: If we were in the same party we could.

I have a problem—not that you would probably care a lot about this, but I've done a lot of media work on this. I've worked with the associations a lot, and I've been doing interviews on it. I thought it was a done deal that it went before this committee. I wasn't assuming the outcome, although I said to the media, why wouldn't it be made votable when it was last year? So that's the little quandary I'm in here.

• 1550

The Chair: And we do care—deeply.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well...

The Chair: No, I'm not being sarcastic. This is very difficult; I understand your position.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I guess the question I have is Mr. Guimond did take this bill forward. It was deemed votable by this committee, although I didn't sit on the committee and maybe others did not as well.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So did I, two years earlier.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. You didn't get the committee's approval to have it votable. It has been votable.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. That's a whole other issue.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, issues or not, there was—

The Chair: Can I just interrupt for a second? I've been off this committee for three years, but I was on it for two and a half years. I want you to view the bills like a beauty contest.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thanks a lot, Carolyn.

The Chair: Or let's make it a dog show.

An hon. member: That's even better.

The Chair: Well, I'm an animal rights person. Beauty shows are politically incorrect now.

The contestants change. Each time the contestants are different. So a bill that may not be votable in one draw will be votable in another draw because the contestants are weaker. So it's not inconsistency in appreciation for the bill, it's a difference in the competition.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's not really the issue here.

The Chair: No, no. I just wanted to clarify that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's something I've thought about.

The Chair: Okay. Fast question.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you for that explanation, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Which did you like, beauty contest or dog show?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The dog show, actually. I rather appreciated that.

The question I have is very simple. Mr. Guimond has had this drawn previously, and has taken it through the House almost to the second reading stage—well, to the second reading stage. Yours was not votable, and his was. You're both fighting for the same issue, and I commend you both on that. I think it's a great issue, and I support the issue. You can count me down as a yes in your vote. The question is, would you support Mr. Guimond with his bill if yours doesn't pass?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I did support him last time, and very strongly. But I would certainly be willing to have this co-sponsored if he is willing to do that. It would solve the problem. I'd be happy to.

The Chair: We can't do it legally, but we'll worry about that later.

Madame?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's pretty much what my colleague said. I'm sure that neither one of you wants a particular group to get singled out for special treatment. At the very least, their working conditions should be recognized. I can ask Michel if he will support it, at least for the record.

Assuming that one of these two bills is selected, I am confident that both of you will support it. Otherwise, it wouldn't make very much sense.

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: No. Absolutely.

Of course we both want the recognition that goes along with it. I know I've done a lot of media work with radio and print media.

The Chair: We're here for the good of mankind. We're not here for publicity.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well this is for the good of mankind. You get the message out and you're far more likely to be able to encourage government to get it to committee and get the job done.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Humankind, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Sorry. I was trying so hard—I dropped the beauty contest.

Any other questions? Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Benoit, let me tell you to start with that I'm disappointed that this is not bilingual.

Let's forget the fact that it's not consistent with the Income Tax Act. Should we not give a higher value limit, rather than your $200? Why don't we use the other one in—what is it—Bill C-222, 223? The other one is limited at $250 instead of yours at $200.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're going to be telling farmers who live under the rule of $200 now—

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Excuse me, sir, excuse me.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —that they shouldn't be allowed the same limit as—

Mr. Marcel Proulx: You don't refer to farmers in this. You don't refer to farmers.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That doesn't matter. I'm saying that's what the Income Tax Act says.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: You're referring to mechanics.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The Income Tax Act says that now farmers and other small-business people can write off completely and in the year they purchase them any tools under $200, and through capital cost allowance any tool $200 or more. So I'm saying that inconsistency would discriminate unfairly against farmers and other small-business people.

The Chair: We're just discussing. We're going to try not to debate this with Mr. Benoit. We're going to try to stick to questions that clarify in your mind whether it should be a votable bill or not.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I don't know how difficult—

The Chair: There isn't a question on the floor right now, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Sorry.

The Chair: Okay. Any other questions?

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, CA): I have a procedural question, which maybe we could talk about when we get to the decision session later on.

The Chair: Yes. It will give Jamie some time to think.

All right? Thank you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

The Chair: As always, an invigorating presentation.

• 1555

Bev, welcome. He's a hard act to follow, but I'm sure you can do it.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais, M.P. (Churchill, NDP): The purpose of the bill before you is basically to lower the voting age in federal elections—

The Chair: You NDP guys have been trying to do this for seven years.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: What I do want to say with regard to this is that I know it has been talked about before, but when I first heard about this when I came to Parliament in 1997, I thought this was absolutely ludicrous. I'm going to be totally honest with you. But when I go around the riding, I make it a point to mention to schools that if they want me to come and talk on government and Parliament, I will do that. I have been truly impressed with the amount of debate, discussion, and interest students have in the whole process and to see that they are extremely knowledgeable. Once they are in grade nine and up, they are taking more courses about municipal, provincial, and federal government, and they have been greatly involved in the process. I make a point of mentioning this type of bill to them. There are those who favoured it and those who didn't.

What finally did it for me was the low voter turnout in the last federal election. I think what we have is a very apathetic society with regard to voting.

The Chair: And a very poor voters list.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, there are a variety of reasons. But I firmly believe that by lowering the voting age we will involve more people in discussions at an age when they have a chance to get more information, and we can involve them in a family process.

The Chair: Bev, I understand why you want the bill. Why do you think we should make it votable? There is a part two.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I think it should be votable because it involves the democratic process. I think this is very much a part of the democratic process. By allowing the discussion to take place with members throughout Canada, we will be aiding the democratic process. I think Canadians just don't feel that we are significant in that area any more. I think people have some doubts.

The Chair: Your B section is quite different. The two pieces don't fit together as neatly as I would expect in one bill.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: In order to put in the age of 16, there has to be a rider in there to address this issue within the bill. That's what we were told by the legal department.

The Chair: In proposed subsection 22(5) it says:

he or she may, with the approval of the Chief Electoral Officer, appoint a person who is qualified as an elector but does not live in the electoral district.

Why is that in there?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It's because there needs to be someone who can decide whether this person is able to be part of the voting process. It was recommended by the legal department. My concern when I gave them the necessary information in order for them to create the bill was the age of 16. They said this part was necessary, so I'm just going by what they told me was required.

The Chair: That's fascinating. Maybe Mr. Robertson can clarify this for us.

Number one, you talk about the voting age—

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I know. We were told it was—

The Chair: Number two, someone has pulled a fast one and slipped something into your bill that says you can appoint a returning officer who doesn't live in your riding. The two are not related.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm just giving you the lowdown on what was mentioned.

The Chair: Okay.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just to tie along with that one, I was listening to some of the discussion about those other bills. This isn't part of this bill, but I was under the impression that when the last Parliament ended, any private member's bill could come forth under anybody's name.

The Chair: Yes. This is a new Parliament.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: A member who was re-elected hadn't put in their private member's bill, but when I went to put it in, I was told I couldn't do that because they had been re-elected.

The Chair: They still own that bill. It's copyrighted, is it not?

The Clerk of the Committee: Was it voted on?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: No.

The Clerk: Then it's no one's property.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Just a minute, I shouldn't say that, because it may have been voted on. So it's not as if it totally ends.

The Chair: Lorne, you're going to ask a question; you're not going to give a speech. Is that right?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I haven't said anything yet.

The Chair: He's warming up. I can see him.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: You've never seen me abuse the rules.

My question is simply the following. One factor in determining whether something should be votable is whether it's unique and different and Parliament has never really addressed it. Has this issue of lowering the voting age to 16 been voted on in Parliament before through either a private member's bill, an amendment to the Canada Elections Act, or on an opposition day, as far as you know?

• 1600

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Not that I'm aware of. I'll be honest, though: I haven't done an historical background on it. I did do an historical background as to what other countries have done on the issue of age 16.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Has there not been an amendment suggested to the Elections Act, the last changes that were done?

The Chair: It was done at the procedure and House affairs committee. They attempted it there. As a matter of fact, you attempted it there. But it has never been discussed in the House.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Not in the House itself.

The Chair: That was in committee.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: But I know it's been discussed elsewhere in North America. Actually, four states in the last five years have discussed it. It's ongoing in two. It has been defeated in two states, but right now is ongoing in two, with Minnesota being one of them.

The Chair: With the way the electoral list was managed in the last election, a 16-year-old would never get on. There would be 64 reasons. It was abysmal.

Another other questions?

Okay. Thank you. And James is going to find out how you ended up with two parts to that bill that are unrelated.

Randy.

No one is offended by my use of first names, I hope.

Mr. Randy White, M.P. (Langley—Abbotsford, CA): Thank you, Carolyn. Thank you for the opportunity.

This bill is the result of a lady by the name of Rosie in Windsor, Ontario, who contacted me about four years ago. She was brutally beaten and left for dead by an individual. This lady had assurances that this person would not bother her again. Lo and behold, when he got into prison he changed his name, changed his identification while in prison, got back out, went into her community, and pursued her for a second time.

I thought this was a pretty disgusting approach from one of these people. How did he ever get to change his name? I pursued it and found out that this in fact is not uncommon at all. I've since found so many individuals who are doing this that I have, quite frankly, lost count. There are more than one can even find out.

The difficulty here is that once they change their names and identification, it's almost impossible to find out anything because they are protected by privacy laws.

I'll give you just a brief story about a fellow by the name of Robert Gordon Stevens, who is a dangerous sex offender. I know his victims very well. He met another individual in Mountain Institution, whose name was Willowby. Willowby was also a dangerous sex offender who changed his name to Oatway while in prison. Robert Stevens got together in prison with Willowby, who became Oatway, and started a relationship with him. He then changed his name to Oatway as well.

One of these two individuals got out into the public and nobody knew who this guy was. He changed his name, his driver's licence, his ID. The only way we actually found this particular situation was when I was going after this particular individual for some things he had done, one of his victims said that I wasn't dealing with the right person, that this guy's name was Stevens, not Oatway. We found out later that he had changed his name while incarcerated. Again, we saw the repetition of what we saw in Windsor.

Since then there have been numbers of people I have followed. I won't go into each story, but suffice it to say that the parole board told me that a dangerous sex offender—there seems to be some repetition with sex offenders—has changed his name and moved to another province. Since then, we believe he has entered into the substitute teaching domain again and is back in the classroom.

The difficulty we are having is tracking these people down, of course, because privacy laws say that is their business.

This bill purports to disallow individuals who are convicted of serious, vicious crimes—murder one, murder two, and sexual offences—from changing their names while in prison or even later, depending on a court order. It's not something that Corrections Canada does or the parole board does. If they are deemed to be very serious offenders then there can be a prohibition for them changing their names for a period of time until such time as the court determines that the risk has passed. That's what it does.

• 1605

To be votable, Madam Chair, really just puts the issue in front of the House to determine whether we all think it's high time that we prevented the obvious and protected people who really don't know who they're living next to. Some people say that the police know if they change their name. They do. They know in Quebec, perhaps, but they don't know when the person moves from Quebec to Saskatchewan. They really don't know. So if you think your kids are out watching the fellow next door wash his car and his name is Brown, it could very well be somebody other than Brown.

An hon. member: It could be White.

Mr. Randy White: It could be White, right.

That's the reason why, and that's why it's here in front of you.

The Chair: Do you believe it would take three hours to debate this in the House?

Mr. Randy White: I'd like to think it would take a very short time to debate it in the House, but the fact is that it has to be votable to get the Criminal Code changed. That's the difficulty. Otherwise, I'd say no, use an hour. But you and I both know, Madam Chairman, that one hour of debate in the House does absolutely nothing for the innocent victims out there.

The Chair: Any other questions? Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: The fact is that a name change is regulated by provincial law. How do we look at this and say this is federal jurisdiction? Is it because these people would be convicted under the Criminal Code?

Mr. Randy White: That's right. It comes under the Criminal Code, but in the bill itself it says it's really the jurisdiction of the courts, which is provincial. So it permits courts to basically—the judges, provincial judges, federal judges—put that mandate on it. It's a condition, really, much as they put any other condition on a sentence.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

The Chair: Lorne.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: A tiny question, Randy. I assume it supersedes the Marriage Act, so that if some woman were in that category and decided to change her name when she got married to somebody then she couldn't do it, as well.

Mr. Randy White: There's no relationship to the Marriage Act, Lorne. I'm not sure I get the question.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Sometimes a woman will change her name when she gets married, to take on the husband's name.

Mr. Randy White: Yes.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Sauf dans la province du Québec—there's a difference in Quebec.

I'm not arguing, I'm just asking a question. Would this then prohibit the woman from doing that, if it was a woman who was a serious offender and then she got married and... It's not a big deal, but I'm just wondering.

Mr. Randy White: It's a good question. We have found no female offenders, in particular serious, of whom there are not very many, who do change their names. I think the court would have to look at that, as they would every other individual case.

My findings on this have been that they are serious offenders, usually murder one or serious sex offenders, who are doing it, and they're not doing it for the good of their health. They're doing it for obscurity in our society.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes.

The Chair: Rick.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. White, do you have in your legislation that this condition would be placed at sentencing?

Mr. Randy White: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: At sentencing. Is there any option for appeal? If the judge in his wisdom decides that it will be twenty years as a time criterion, is there any appeal process?

Mr. Randy White: Yes, there is. Actually, if you look at the bill there is availability in there for a judge to even change or amend if the situation arises that they think it's possible for this person to...

I wouldn't like to see an individual have this tagged for life, if situations change. My experience, however, thus far is the individuals who have changed their names are not individuals who are likely to change. They're very serious offenders.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Have there been any legitimate name changes, in your opinion?

Mr. Randy White: The ones I have run across thus far are, without exception, murder one or dangerous sex offenders.

I would have no problem at all if an individual in prison who's in there for a five-year rap for drugs or that sort of thing changed their name if they felt it would help them get along. But it seems as though the ones who shouldn't be changing their names are changing their names.

• 1610

The Chair: In other words, you're going to put it in as a sentencing condition; therefore the judge's good judgment will come into effect at that point.

Mr. Randy White: That's right.

The Chair: That's very good. I'm impressed.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Marlene.

Ms. Marlene Jennings, M.P. (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I'm going to switch with Mr. Grewal.

The Chair: All this switching and cooperation, I don't know...

Go ahead, Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal, M.P. (Surrey Central, CA): Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and happy Valentine's Day to everyone. I hope all of you have talked to your partners.

Since today is a day of hearts, my heart and soul is in my private member's bill today. It's very important, for various reasons, which I will explain.

First of all, I think I should read the wording of the motion, or should I dispense?

The Chair: Dispense.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay.

This motion, M-232, deals with a very important issue, which is education. First I will describe the motion and then I will tell you some daily life stories of various new Canadians or Canadians who are facing difficulties in this field.

This motion is very clear, it's complete, and it's drafted in effective terms with the help of legislative experts on the Hill.

This motion, M-232, is fully constitutional. Within the purview of the federal government, I believe departments like HRDC and Immigration will be directly related to this bill. It will foster cooperation between provincial and federal governments and it will help to establish education standards. Therefore many other advantages will pursue from that.

This issue is of public interest. It is of interest to everyone living in Canada, particularly new immigrants. When they come to this country, they face serious difficulties, as I did when I came to this country only ten years ago.

It will help the integration of various communities in various provinces. It will help to counter brain drain in Canada. It will help to counter the shortage of professionals in certain fields, for example, nurses, computer scientists, and so on. It will prevent drainage of funds from taxpayers by various governments on education because we will be making the best use of the education that is obtained by taxpayers' money in other countries.

It will particularly help the local part. It will help the mobility of various Canadians from one province to another. Of course, it will foster unity in Canada and it will be compatible for transfers from one province to another.

M-232 is not a part of the government's grand legislative agenda, and to the best of my knowledge this issue has never been brought to the floor of the House, either in the current session, of course, or in the previous session.

Of course, there was some mention of this issue in the throne speech, but there is only a component of it. I'm going in much broader terms, and the way this motion addresses the issue it goes much further than that.

M-232 is a non-partisan issue, so the members of the House don't need to look through the lense of politics. This issue is near and dear to the hearts of all of us. It completely transcends the local interests all over Canada, from one province to another.

Madam Chair, once I was in my office and there were six PhDs sitting in my office, because they arranged the meeting. Of those six PhDs, who were new immigrants, one of them was a double PhD, and that was in environmental sciences. Do you know what he was doing? He was pumping gas. That gentleman had written 49 internationally renowned research papers. He worked in Germany and in many other countries. When he finally migrates to Canada—he was associate professor of environmental sciences, and I don't know which branch of environmental sciences—why does he have to work at a gas station? That's a complete brain drain from my point of view. When we have brain drain in the country, it is particularly so because we don't make the best use of brain gain in Canada.

• 1615

Some other people came to talk to me in my office. They were from different provinces. I did extensive work on this. Various diplomas, certificates or degrees from various provinces are not recognized from one province to another, particularly some of the professional credentials. For instance, if you have a diploma in dental surgery from one province, it's not recognized in another province. That restricts the mobility of people.

I think as elected representatives of the people we have to take this issue very seriously—

The Chair: You're running out of time.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I'm done, Madam Chair.

I believe this issue is so self-explanatory that I don't need to go too much into the details. But I would urge this committee to see that this important issue should be looked at through the lens of clarity and the lens of millions of people in Canada. It should be made votable so that some concrete action can be taken and we can move forward to standardize education in the country, and then apply the same standards to recognize foreign degrees in this country.

I will end there. I will not to go into further details.

The Chair: Are there any questions?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Grewal, in your motion, you call for a feasibility study to be performed on the negotiation of a national standardization of education in Canada. This would seem far from constitutional, in my view, since education and education programs fall squarely under provincial jurisdiction. I can understand your talking about diploma equivalency, but the national standardization of education seems highly unconstitutional, in my opinion.

[English]

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Chair, I thank the member for the question. I knew someone would ask this question.

Let me put it like this. Of course education is in the provincial jurisdiction, but on this issue that's why they have established the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada: to coordinate. For quite a long time one province will not talk to another province to accept their standardization because each province is autonomous in that relationship. But some initiative has to originate from somewhere so that standardization in education can be accomplished in Canada. The best way to do it is to have the initiative taken by the federal government, because the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada comes under the federal jurisdiction. This council will do some feasibility studies first to identify what are those areas that need to be standardized and why the standard varies from one province to another, and the territories as well.

That's why I have talked carefully about that, and I have put it like this: there should be a feasibility study done first so that they can recognize those areas and identify them and probably establish some equalization standards, and then come up with the real work that has to be done. No work has been done on this standardization so far, to the best of my knowledge. That's why I suggest in this motion that this should be referred to the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I'm just curious. Who represents the federal government on this board you're talking about?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I don't have any idea.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Are we represented?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: No, we are not, but the federal government has to do the best because the other members are of course probably the education ministers of various provinces.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate this opportunity, and I hope this bill will be votable so that we can take some action.

The Chair: Thank you.

Marlene.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: We switched.

The Chair: You're deferring again? You will just cooperate yourself right off the schedule.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I switched with Mr. Grewal, and that meant I dropped—

The Chair: You're just enjoying listening to the presentations, and learning.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: That too.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl, otherwise known as Chuck, we're ready.

• 1620

Mr. Chuck Strahl, M.P. (Fraser Valley, CA): Thank you.

I am just going to distribute an information packet to everyone.

Some of you may recognize this bill. It was introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-244. It had first reading in October 1999. It was deemed votable by this subcommittee in November 1999 and went to the House. It received unanimous consent at second reading to be sent to committee. We had two days of committee hearings in the year 2000 and then it died on the order paper due to the election call. So that's the history of this as a bill that I've brought back from the last Parliament and on which I had unanimous support in the House.

I'd just like to read you a quote. This is the history behind this letter. If I could just give you why I originally put this together, this is a letter I had from my constituent, and it goes like this:

...my eldest son was involved in an incident at work (Canadian Tire in Abbotsford) a few weeks ago which has raised a large question for me. He helped apprehend a would-be shoplifter and in the scuffle some blood from the accused came to be on my son. My son is now on medication from the AIDS Prevention Society... in Vancouver. We won't be able to test him to see if he has contracted any disease until after three months. However, all it would take is for the accused to take a blood test to see if he has any such disease (he's a known heroin addict to the RCMP in Abbotsford). The accused refuses to take such a blood test and the law, I've been told, supports him in his refusal. Here again is a case where the victim is being punished and the accused's rights take precedence over the victim's rights. What can we as a family do? What, as our MP, can you do to help us, to help my son?

Following that, and following consultation with a lot of people—including, as you'll see, an article here by Isobel Anderson, who's been just as faithful as could be on this issue, and I just included that as one sample of a newspaper article—we put together this bill.

This bill would allow for... First I'll describe the current system. There is no provision in Canada to get a blood sample from someone unless they volunteer, unless they offer it. That means that people who may have been infected with HIV or hepatitis C or hepatitis B have no idea what course of medical action they should take. They have no idea whether they can have intimate relationships with their partners or with their children. It damages a person's physical well-being if they go on a drug regime that may be unnecessary.

I think all of that can be addressed with this bill. As you can appreciate, front-line emergency workers have a very difficult job at the best of times, but this blood sample act corrects the problem encountered by my constituent and hundreds of other front-line emergency workers, including firefighters, police officers, emergency workers of all kinds. This would allow a blood sample to be taken upon order of a judge, obviously not willy-nilly, but on the order of a judge, and would allow for some protection for these emergency care workers.

I do believe the bill is clear. Just to go through the criteria, no one had a problem with it last time and I think it is still very clear and concise.

I also believe the bill is constitutional. In fact, since I last presented the bill, the constitutional experts we had in the committee made the argument that any question about the bill's constitutionality would be put to rest, ironically, if the gun control bill was deemed constitutional by the federal government. Although property rights are normally deemed of provincial jurisdiction, the Supreme Court ruled that where they had a Criminal Code prohibition in place and it was because of a failure to do something—in the gun control case, failure to register your weapon, in this case a failure to give a blood sample—then criminal sanctions were in order.

So the case actually has been strengthened since I last brought it to the committee, because the gun control legislation of course was deemed constitutional and we now live with that change in our constitutional division of powers.

The Chair: Do you agree with that?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Do I agree with what?

The Chair: The fact that gun control is deemed constitutional.

A voice: Don't answer that question.

The Chair: If he wants my vote, he'd better answer the question. This is a rock and a hard place.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't disagree with the Supreme Court ruling. I do disagree with the political wisdom of asking all provinces who disagree with it to go forward with it. But that, Madam Chair, is really a debate for another day.

• 1625

This bill also, I believe, meets charter requirements. Basically, you're looking at a balancing of rights between a perpetrator or a sick person or an injured person and the front-line emergency worker who has come in contact with bodily fluids and been exposed to this danger. We had witnesses at the committee over that two-day period who confirmed that.

It is, I think, a matter of significant public interest. Yesterday a police officer was bitten in the line of duty in Calgary by someone who then told him, “By the way, I have HIV. I hope you get it too.” There was a huge brouhaha in Calgary because of that same case.

It is also, as far as I know, not part of the government's current legislation. I would happily withdraw this bill if the government would include it, but I have not yet seen that to be the case.

I would draw your attention to your packet. On the frequently asked questions about this bill, just a little further on I made a list of the 70-some organizations across the country who have supported this bill, national organizations, including the Union of Solicitor General Employees, the Canadian Police Association, the 20 or 25 hospital boards from across the country.

I've included also a representative sample of letters from those organizations in all parts of the country that support the bill in support of either their emergency front-line workers or hospital workers that have to deal with this issue day in and day out.

The problem is a huge one. It's not perhaps a daily problem in every city, but it is a big problem in many cities. I have had hundreds of e-mails since I started this process. All these organizations have asked me to continue with this in support of the bill.

I would ask if you would make it votable. I think Parliament's decision last time was right, which was to approve it in principle at least, and send it off to committee. As I've offered to them before, and I would offer again, if there are things we can do to improve it, by all means let's have those suggestions. But let's not leave front-line workers without this protection.

The Chair: Thank you.

Any questions around the table?

We normally work on consensus when we're selecting votable bills. I'm sure you won't mind when we come to your bill if we use a secret ballot system so that Mr. McNally can vote freely and without any restraint. Is that okay with you?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have coerced him already.

The Chair: You don't mind if we do a secret ballot on yours.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, it's okay.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You're bad.

The Chair: Yes, I am bad.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You are mixing a lot of agendas here, Madame Chair.

The Chair: I am, I am. I don't often get to talk to you where I'm in charge and you're not, so I'm enjoying this.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You're enjoying this, aren't you?

The Chair: You wouldn't want to spoil my fun.

Thank you very much for coming in today.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Your presentation was excellent.

Sometimes he's right. What can you do?

Marlene, are you going to actually belly up to the table? You may have just lost the one votable position we had.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): That's a chance I'll take.

The Chair: No, we have ten spots.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: First of all, thank you for hearing me. As you know, it's not my bill; it's a Senate bill. It's a bill from Senator Grafstein that would create the position of poet laureate of Parliament, parliamentary poet laureate.

I am sponsoring the bill in the House of Commons, as I did in the last Parliament. This bill would in fact create a position of poet laureate. There's a mechanism in the bill to set up a committee, which would be comprised of the parliamentary librarian, the national archivist, the commissioner of official languages, and the chairman of the arts council, which would submit the names of three poets to the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate, who between them, through consensus, would decide on one name and would appoint that poet as the parliamentary poet laureate for a term of two years.

The role or responsibilities of the poet laureate would be to compose poems for state occasions or on request by Parliament for specific events that are deemed to be of national importance or interest, to advise the parliamentary librarian on acquisitions for the library, and also to sponsor poetry readings in the schools, in education institutions, and in communities in order to bring poetry to the fore in Canada.

• 1630

It's a unique bill. There has never been a poet laureate in Canada.

There is a tradition of poet laureates in the world, particularly in the Commonwealth and Scandinavian countries. The first poet laureate was appointed in the 15th century in Scandinavia, I believe, and the first poet laureate of the British Parliament was appointed in the middle of the 16th century. William Wordsworth was a poet laureate, just to give you an example, and Lord Tennyson. The United States has had a poet laureate since the mid-thirties, poet laureate of the Library of Congress.

It's an honorary position. It's not a salaried position. The poet laureate would receive an honorary stipend and obviously a budget for travel. It would be the committee, the Speaker, and the House that would determine what the stipend and travel budget would be. There's nothing about that in the legislation, because we feel it's the Parliament itself that should determine that.

I think this is a unique occasion for Parliament to actually acknowledge our great Canadian culture, the importance language plays in culture, and the fact that in Canada, in terms of our society, poetry has played a really big role. There are people who have made jokes by saying, for instance, “There once was an MP from Nantucket”, etc. I don't know the rest because I'm not a poet.

Let me give you a couple of examples of events that have taken place in Canada just in the last couple of years where if we had had a poet laureate it could have been commemorated in a poem. One is the death of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Whether or not one liked him or supported his politics and the actions of his governments, he left an indelible mark on this country. We simply have to look at the outpouring of grief—in some cases happiness—at his passing. If we had had a poet laureate, that person could have embodied everything that Canadians were feeling—the good, the bad, everything—in a poem, which would live on for generations to come.

Another example is the visit of Nelson Mandela, who spoke in the House of Commons. That was an historic occasion. It marked, I think, a lot of Canadians. That would have been another occasion on which, if we had had a poet laureate, it could have been commemorated.

Now I'm going to raise an example that might raise the hair—the War Measures Act. We have a poet in Quebec, Michel Garneau, who wrote a poem on the War Measures Act and the impact it had on all Quebeckers. Whether we were or were not in favour of independence and the War Measures Act, it marked our society and culture. That is a poem, and those could have been poems that would ring a bell and resonate within Canada in the same way as “In Flanders Fields the poppies grow”. It evokes a whole event in Canadian history and captures the imagination and brings to the fore what the First World War meant to our society. It still does it today with generations who were not there at the time.

So I would ask this committee to deem this bill votable, and I will attempt to get support for this bill in the House.

The Chair: Thank you, Marlene.

Are there any questions? Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Poets, as we all know, express themselves through words. This is a bilingual country. Assuming that this bill is selected as a votable item and passes into law, would the works of a French language poet have to be translated or would that poet also have to be able to write in English? Some people are perfectly bilingual.

• 1635

Translations are never quite the same as the original work. What I'm saying applies to the French and English poet equally. All I'm saying is that there should be some provision for alternating.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: First of all, there is no question in this bill of alternating between French and English poets or of translating poetry. Clearly, poets will be free to write in the language of their choice. We're talking about poems written centuries ago, some in English and some in French, which have subsequently been translated for the enjoyment of people from many cultures.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: They were not poet laureates though.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: No. I understand that, but I think that as far as translation is concerned, we have highly skilled translators in this country who could translate the essence of these poems. There is a long-standing tradition of translating poetry as well as literary works for the enjoyment and appreciation of people who don't speak the source language. The poet, however, would be free to compose in his or her preferred language.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: We have Mr. MacKay and then Mr. Bergeron.

We have all the big guns today. Ooh! We're lucky. No fooling around here.

Mr. Peter MacKay, M.P. (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Madam Chair, members of the committee, I'm pleased to have an opportunity to make representations to you on this private member's motion.

I'm going to have Jim pass out a copy of a report that was tabled by the current speaker, Mr. Milliken, and Senator Oliver in the other place. This report bears directly on the substance of the motion.

The Chair: I was on that...

Mr. Peter MacKay: You're intimately familiar with the subject matter.

The Chair: Hours and hours and hours of listening.

Mr. Peter MacKay: With that in mind, Madam Chair, I would simply make the following points with respect to the motion, which I believe justifies and supports the notion of having this issue not only debated but made votable before the House of Commons. There appears to be unification on this issue already, based on my reading of the report. There appears to be an all-party acceptance of the fact that a code of conduct for members of Parliament would go a long way to perhaps removing some of the tarnish that has appeared over the past number of years. This united front, I suggest, would bode well for presentation before the Canadian people on an issue that I think is very timely and very relevant to the Parliament of Canada.

It's also something, as I said, that's timely. It was something that was being discussed just prior to the election call and has again resumed early in this Parliament. It is aimed very much at enhancing and protecting the integrity of members of Parliament. It is something that I think would signal to Canadians that we are serious in our efforts to govern ourselves and the conduct of individual members here.

It was interesting to note that during the debate on the previous supply day, which was voted upon last night, the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in the House, Mr. Derek Lee, made the following comment, and I'm quoting from Hansard on Thursday, February 8, Madam Chair, at page 444:

There is no code of conduct. For all of those here who are holding forth, there is no code of conduct for members of Parliament. They are very willing to hoist upon the other officeholders a code of conduct, but not one element of a code of conduct applies to members in the House. That is business that we have to do.

Madam Chairman, failing to address this issue, I would suggest, is a missed opportunity for us. If we are to go forth and comprise this code of conduct... a lot of the legwork has been done. It is something that I believe could be done fairly quickly, although there would certainly have to be further consultation.

• 1640

This report I've circulated is the basis for that work that has been done, which you are intimately familiar with. I would suggest that it isn't currently part of the government's agenda, because there's no reference even in passing in the current throne speech, and it is therefore open to private members to examine the issue in an impartial way.

There wouldn't be any whips applied if it were to be a votable issue. It's the sort of debate, I would suggest, that would be passionate but not partial. It would be an opportunity to counter some of the cynicism that is currently out there about members of Parliament. If we profess to be a self-governing body, we should be, not unlike other professions—like the medical profession, the legal profession—prepared to put in place a code of conduct that clearly defines what the rules are, and that is something that I suggest is sadly needed.

There is this grey area about what is and what is not proper conduct for members of Parliament, both here in our capacity in the House and on committees and also within our constituencies, and I would suggest that it would go a long way to clarifying what is ethical behaviour by members.

My final submission to you would be a submission that I'm sure you've all heard as members of this committee, but if we don't do this... It's a damaging statement to say that this is the type of issue that is not going to be voted upon, and I would suggest it's an issue that is going to continue to emerge. It's not something that's going to go away. There's ample opportunity now and the time is right to put something like this before members to establish the rules that should guide us in our behaviour as members of the House of Commons.

I'd be willing to take any questions.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: One of the things we have to do is check to see that this meets the five criteria. Would you submit to us that this meets all the criteria?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes, I'm familiar with the criteria, having appeared before the board. I don't believe you'll find anything untoward about the motion and the way it's drafted. As I've said, not to complicate this, but the report itself really is the basis for which I've drafted the motion. I'm not married to the wording or the way in which it is currently before you, but it is the concept of having a code of conduct. So it's a means to an end. Having this brought before the House and made votable would ultimately, I would suggest, result in a committee, as the starting point, looking at this report.

The Chair: I would like to make a couple of comments, because I was on that committee. It's unfortunate that you have a final report here that was greatly compromised.

The minutes would indicate a lot of testimony from very respected lawyers and people right across the country who kept telling us we already had a code of ethics. We have the laws of the land governing us and we have professional standards. We do go before the public to be elected and re-elected. Many of them felt that a specific code of conduct would be, first of all, very difficult to put together, and secondly, there would be rules to guide those who wanted to circumvent the natural code of conduct that should come from within.

So I don't know—and I don't want to argue with you—whether this by itself is a good piece of evidence, even when this becomes votable and goes into the House. I think you need to get those minutes and have a good long look at them, because a lot of people, very expert people, felt a code of conduct was impossible for members of Parliament.

I am also really taking poetic licence here by disagreeing with your comment that people in Canada hold politicians in very low esteem. I think when they're being constantly hammered in the House and the media picks it up... we're contributing to our own demise, and I find it very sad.

Mr. Borotsik—

Mr. Peter MacKay: If I could just reply to that very briefly, Madam Chair, I don't believe I used those particular words about where Canadians hold politicians in their esteem, but I must state that certainly there is a problem in terms of the perception, real or perceived, about how members of the House of Commons are held in terms of other... You've seen the surveys. We're very much at the bottom of the pecking order. Whether this code of conduct would improve that—

• 1645

The Chair: A lot of us are lawyers.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That could very well be.

The Chair: They're even lower than we are.

Mr. Peter MacKay: With respect to your other comment about whether it would necessarily improve it to have it written down, this has always been an age old debate about Cartesian thinking versus common law, where things are out there and if it isn't specifically stated it's okay. My submission is that this hasn't been working particularly well, because there do appear to be problems, where transgressions are close to the line, if not over the line, and there is no way to really determine it. Yes, we're bound by the rule of law, obviously, in the country. Yes, there are other professional standards that apply, as members of a bar or as members of another professional society, but for the 301 individuals who are here, which is a very unique honour and a very special profession, there is nothing that applies specifically to what we do.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay, there wouldn't be a single code of conduct that you could give me that would make me change my behaviour. I behave according to my own conscience and I do what I think is right.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I fully respect that.

The Chair: I think 301 people in the House of Commons do that, but we shouldn't be doing this.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have a couple of points.

First of all, you also mentioned as part of your tenet the comment about respected lawyers, and I think that in itself is a bit of an oxymoron. So we'll get back to the issue at hand.

Mr. MacKay, a request for a code of conduct or a code of ethics... In your experience, do you find that there are provincial jurisdictions that in fact fall back on a code of conduct? In your experience, are there any private sector organizations that would also have for their employees a similar type of code of conduct, a code of ethics? This is not something new. We're not inventing the wheel. Is this something that's in place now in the private sector and in other governments?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Absolutely. As I mentioned, the obvious ones that came to my mind were the medical society and most bar associations. Other provinces have codes of conduct.

The Chair: Could you be specific?

Mr. Peter MacKay: I believe British Columbia currently has a code of conduct.

The Chair: Well, that's understandable. Are there any others?

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm ashamed to say I don't have that research in front of me, but...

The Chair: Jamie is bailing you out. He says Ontario does.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): Most provinces have a code of conduct for their provincial legislatures. All provinces have some form. Some of them are slightly different, but certainly Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, and I think virtually every other province have some system in place.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So it's specifically aimed at issues of conflict of interest, issues of the behaviour of members of Parliament. Arguably, this highlights the point. Why should the federal Parliament, which should be the model for the country, have any lower standard than provincial jurisdictions?

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron, M.P. (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Madam Chair, members of the committee, I am very honoured to appear before you to humbly speak to the motion I introduced in the House. I believe it meets the criteria established by the House subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

To begin with, I'd like to say that this motion was drafted in cooperation with the former Clerk of the House and that in every way, it respects not only the Canadian Constitution, but also the oath of allegiance pledged by each and every member of the House of Commons. The former Clerk of the House expressed his surprise that such a motion had apparently never before been tabled in the history of Canada. Therefore, I think I can safely say that this motion meets all of the criteria set out for the selection of votable items.

While some may find at first glance the wording of my motion somewhat extreme or even ostentatious - although it is very respectful, even reverential, toward her Majesty and the language used is entirely appropriate under the circumstances—let me assure you that this is not so. I will endeavour, Madam Chair, to explain as best I can what I hope to accomplish with this motion.

• 1650

First of all, I wish to point out to the members of this subcommittee that I am not introducing this motion as a member of the Bloc Québécois. I'm doing as a Quebec Member of Parliament of Acadian descent. My ancestors settled in Port Royal in what is now Nova Scotia. They helped found the small community of Sainte-Anne along the Saint John river, which today bears the name of Fredericton. I'm a Quebecker today because of an event of major significance in the history of Acadia, namely the deportation to the four corners of the British Empire of most of the Acadian population. While a number of Acadians later returned, other fled to Quebec to escape this tragic fate. I'm a descendant of one such Acadian.

I want to be very clear that this motion is not intended as an expression of animosity whatsoever toward anyone associated with the British Crown or as a request for reparation of any kind. That is not my intent.

What Acadians refer to as "le grand dérangement" or great upheaval has become a kind of taboo subject in Canada. The deportation is a defining event in the history of Canada and of the Acadian people, but too little mention is made of it for fear of opening up old wounds or another Pandora's box. However, Madam Chair, you know as well as I do that Acadians view this major event as the defining moment in their history.

I realize full well that we cannot look to today's values and principles to judge events that occurred several centuries ago. However, if the deportation were to happen today, those responsible would likely be brought before the International Court of Justice.

When we review events like this that have occurred throughout the history of humanity, the main problem observed - and the experts agree on this - is that people acted with impunity.

I'm not trying to change history with this motion. I'm simply saying that we should take the time to reflect clearly on our past.

The pharaohs of Ancient Egypt understood that the best way to wipe out any trace of a person or event in history, and in the process, eliminate the chance at immortality, was to erase all references to this event. I've traveled a little in my lifetime, notably to Germany and to Japan. While Germany has acknowledged and dealt with the consequences of its role in World War II, a fact that has enabled it to be more at peace with its past, the same cannot be said for Japan where the subject is considered taboo. There are those who refuse to acknowledge that the war ever took place or to accept any responsibility whatsoever.

Madam Chair, if the House of Commons isn't willing to examine and acknowledge this country's past, who will? May I remind this committee that this very same House of Commons passed a motion in 1995 recognizing the historic contribution of the patriots of Lower Canada and the reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment of our democratic institutions and of responsible government. The very idea of adopting such a motion would have been unthinkable 10, 20 or even 30 years ago and yet, the House of Commons made a conscious decision to look at Canada's past. A majority of members passed a motion recognizing the role of the patriots. I am urging you to agree to a debate on this pivotal event in the history of Acadians, namely the deportation, so that everyone has an opportunity to express his or her views on the subject in a democratic manner.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any questions?

Mr. Bergeron, has this subject ever been addressed by Parliament?

• 1655

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, Madam Chair. As I explained to you at the start of my presentation, it seems that never before in the history of Canada has this motion been introduced in the House of Commons. It's an issue that...

[English]

The Chair: I didn't word my question well. Has it been addressed at any level at all? Has there ever been a historical attempt to right this or to bring attention to this, by museums, by...

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, of course, Madam Chair. The deportation is a recorded historical fact. Historians agree on the facts. The number of deportees in terms of families and individuals is well recorded and these records can still be accessed today. Several years ago, I visited Nova Scotia and toured several historical sites where factual evidence of the deportation is presented.

Therefore, the facts surrounding this event are well known. However, the political powers that be have never really acknowledged that the deportation did in fact take place and that is the purpose of my motion.

[English]

The Chair: And the only government that would be truly embarrassed by all of this would be Great Britain.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In my view, there is no cause for anyone to be embarrassed, Madam Chair. As I said earlier, the aim of this motion is not to seek reparation of any kind, but rather to ask the British Crown today to acknowledge formally that this event in fact occurred and to request an apology to Acadians on behalf of its predecessors. I don't think there is any need to be embarrassed. It's a simple matter of acknowledging an historical event.

[English]

The Chair: I must tell you right off the bat that it wouldn't worry me to embarrass them at all. But you are assuring us that this is not partisan; this is strictly historical.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As I said, Madam Chair, when the House of Commons passed the motion concerning the patriots of Lower Canada and the reformers of Upper Canada, no one in the House was afraid of a political or partisan backlash. There never was - and you can verify this for yourselves - any kind of partisan backlash against the passing of this particular motion.

In fact, the House acted very deliberately and showed considerable maturity when it passed this motion, so much so that several years later, in 1998, it even went so far as to name an electoral riding after the patriots. I have the honour of representing the riding that bears that name. Therefore, there was no partisan backlash of any kind. I would even venture to say that this cause transcends partisanship since I believe Acadians are represented within most political parties in the House of Commons, and can be found in virtually every province of Canada.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, how long have you had this motion in the draw? Have you put this in in previous Parliaments?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I introduced this motion in the final days of the last Parliament, but only two draws were subsequently held and my motion was not selected. However, as luck would have it, my motion was drawn this time and I do hope that you will weigh it on its merits.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have just a very quick question, Mr. Bergeron. Have you discussed this with your Acadian colleagues from New Brunswick, with respect to their opinions on this type of motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: To be honest, Mr. Borotsik, I did not discuss this matter with my Acadian colleagues from elsewhere in Canada or from other political parties, much less discuss it with my Bloc Québécois colleagues.

Last summer, I attended the Acadian World Congress in Louisiana. When I came home, I felt it was important to do something to acknowledge our past. After consulting with a certain number of people well-versed in Acadian history, I resolved to draft this motion. I also mentioned that I discussed the matter at some length with the former Clerk of the House of Commons and the wording is in every respect consistent with the phrasing that should be used when one addresses Her Majesty.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

I might even stay in the House for that debate and learn something.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Madam Chair.

• 1700

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Casson.

Mr. Rick Casson, M.P. (Lethbridge, CA): Madam Chair, I have some handouts here. Some are in both languages, but the letters of reference are only in English, and I apologize for that. The legislative report is in both French and English, and then there is the list of letters of support from police agencies across the country.

The Chair: So you haven't been able to get the letters translated. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Rick Casson: That's right.

The Chair: Okay. Is it all right, Madame Dalphond-Guiral, that we hand these out?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It's going to take another ten years for people to realize that Parliament has access to a translation service. When a member tables a bill and when it's possible that it may be drawn one day, a little foresight is warranted then. Provisions should be made to have it translated.

[English]

Mr. Rick Casson: I have no objection to not tabling those letters, then.

The Chair: I think, interestingly enough, that the amount of time from the draw to the presentation is very short, so it makes it difficult.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, but when someone tables a bill, I would think that the provisions have already been thought out. Otherwise, why would someone introduce a bill or motion without having given the matter any thought?

[English]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: How recent are these letters?

Mr. Rick Casson: They're not. They're from the last time.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: It should have been done a long time ago. No, I apologize. I have a French version. They offered French or English.

The Chair: The rule is, Mr. McNally, that you as a parliamentarian can hand anything you want around the table, but to have the clerk do it, it has to be—

Mr. Grant McNally: I know the rule.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Casson.

Mr. Rick Casson: Madam Chairman, I have a cold, so I hope I can get through this. My wife got her Valentine's Day wish when I got laryngitis. But I'll try to get through this.

I want to thank you and the members of the committee for having me.

I have a written statement I'd like to read. It's a great privilege for me to come before the committee and discuss with you the merits of Bill C-247. This bill is virtually identical to Bill C-321, which came before this committee last year and was made votable. The only modification to the bill has been a change to the wording to address some of the concerns raised by the government in the previous session.

Bill C-247 would allow a court that convicts a person of an offence under the child pornography provisions of the Criminal Code to order the forfeiture of anything by means of which or in relation to the offence was committed.

Before I share with you why I believe my bill should be made votable, I want to give you a brief legislative history of the child pornography provisions of the code.

Prior to 1993 the code did not contain specific provisions dealing with child pornography. The obscenity provisions that criminalized possession of obscene material for the purpose of distribution and sale did not differentiate between obscene material depicting adults and obscene material depicting children. In mid-1993, following a Supreme Court ruling in R. v. Butler, which stated that prohibitions against child pornography were reasonable limits of personal freedom, Parliament passed Bill C-128, which criminalized all aspects of child pornography. Much has been said about this law recently and about the supposedly rushed manner in which it was passed, but the questions for the most part have been put to rest with the recent Supreme Court ruling.

One side effect of the speedy passage, however, was the omission of forfeiture provisions, which are the subject of my bill. In that context I believe that Bill C-247 is simply a continuation of the process that began in 1993 and honours the responsibility parliamentarians have to protect those who are least able to protect themselves—our children.

In the context of the five criteria this committee uses as a guideline, I'd like to share with you why I believe this bill fits all of those and should be made votable. The bill is a straightforward amendment to section 163.1 of the code. It is plainly written and drafted in clear, complete, and effective terms and is similar to the many examples of forfeiture orders that are currently contained in 55 different federal statutes as well as in the Criminal Code. Furthermore, the wording has been slightly modified to address concerns raised by justice department lawyers in the last Parliament.

Because this bill would be an amendment to the Criminal Code, it is within the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. The provinces are responsible only for the administration and delivery of the code.

Colleagues, I wholeheartedly believe that reinforcing the Criminal Code provisions that protect our children is firmly within the public interest. In the aftermath of the Sharpe case, more than 300,000 Canadians signed petitions that called upon Parliament to take any and all action necessary to protect children from child pornographers. It is incumbent upon all of us to act.

• 1705

Bill C-247 does not address any issues that are part of the government's current legislative agenda, nor does it address any issues that have been otherwise dealt with in this current parliamentary session.

The sexual victimization of children is something that shakes our society to its core. The protection of our kids is not a partisan issue, nor is it a regional or local issue, as was proven by 300,000 Canadians from across the country who petitioned the government to protect children from child pornography.

Colleagues, child pornography is a despicable offence, and despite our having among the toughest child pornography laws in the world, digital technology has made the problem worse than ever before. In a report prepared for the RCMP Canadian Police College, University of Winnipeg sociologist Doug Skoog writes:

With the advent of the Internet and digital technology, the presence and distribution of child pornography has exceeded all previous levels.

Reports of child pornography offences are found in our news media almost on a daily basis. A particularly telling article in the March 28, 1999, edition of The Globe and Mail reported that child pornography is flourishing globally due in large part to the development of technology, particularly digital cameras and videos. But because most child pornographers are not motivated by profit, it is difficult for authorities to order the forfeiture of this costly technological equipment under the proceeds-of-crime provisions. My bill would change that.

The Chair: You're a little bit over your time. However, you had a slow start, so we'll let you go on a little bit longer.

Mr. Rick Casson: This bill enjoys the support of the Canadian Police Association and Canada's top child pornographer investigator, Staff Sergeant Bob Matthews, the officer in charge of Project P in the OPP child pornography unit. These high-profile endorsements are in addition to the 300,000 Canadians who petitioned Parliament.

The Chair: A point of clarification: after someone is convicted, they can have their car confiscated if they brought material over the border; they can have their computer confiscated; and if they're on the Internet, they can have their camera confiscated.

Mr. Rick Casson: Yes, upon conviction.

The Chair: Thanks.

Are there any questions?

It's very clear. Thank you very much.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Caccia.

Mr. Charles Caccia, M.P. (Davenport, Lib.): Good afternoon. Bonjour.

For those of you—and unfortunately I have it in only one official language—who would like to have an aide-mémoire for this brief presentation, I have a text here for distribution.

[Translation]

I apologize for not having the time to prepare it in French.

[English]

The motion, as you know, reads:

THAT..the Government should undertake a study of the issues posed by the fish-farming industry, with particular regard to ecosystem health.

By the word “study” I mean either an independent scientific panel or a House of Commons standing committee investigation. By “ecosystem health” I mean aquaculture's impact on water quality, on other species, such as marine species and birds, and on the genetic integrity of the wild salmon stocks.

As you know, there is a wide range of challenges facing the industry, including its long-term economic viability, the environmental impact of the extensive use of pesticides, the introduction of non-native fish species in rivers, the quality of the fish produced through aquaculture, and others.

In explaining to you why this motion merits to be made a votable item, I will begin with a description of the industry itself. I will describe the level of public concern, the federal government's involvement in promoting and regulating the industry, and the recent attempts by the House and the government to come to grips with the impact of this industry. Finally, I will briefly outline the evidence of the damage caused by this industry. All that is intended to demonstrate to you and your colleagues that the environmental impacts of fish farming in Canada are a significant issue of national concern and that this is an issue where there is an urgent need to provide a forum for Canadians to express their views and for an independent comprehensive study of its environmental impacts. This is the intent of the motion.

• 1710

The major form of fish farming is salmon farming. It currently accounts for over 60% of the total aquaculture production in Canada. Canada is the world's fourth largest producer of farmed salmon. B.C. and New Brunswick produce almost all of the farmed salmon in this country, and while fish farming takes place mostly on the east and west coasts, it is an issue of significance to all Canadians since the fish ultimately end up on the dinner table. In fact, a recent pilot study by a British researcher found that farmed salmon has higher levels of toxins such as PCBs and pesticides than wild salmon. Therefore this is an issue of concern.

The regulation of aquaculture and the promotion of this industry are the responsibility of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. So this motion is clearly within federal jurisdiction.

The federal government has provided substantial resources to support and promote aquaculture in the form of technical support, engineering assistance, moneys through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in the form of direct grants, etc., interest-free loans, training programs through Human Resources Development Canada, etc.

In August of last year, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced a $75 million support for the aquaculture industry. Such extensive government support calls for a balanced analysis of the benefits and the costs of the industry. The industry has been one of the most rapidly growing in Canada. Now it seems high time to come under close scrutiny in the public interest. A comprehensive study therefore by the government is an appropriate procedure to deal with this matter.

Many departments are involved in regulating the aquaculture industry, and therefore there is a patchwork of regulations applying to this industry.

I submit to you that ecosystem health through the cracks of an outdated regulatory system requires attention. We tried to close one of these gaps in 1998 when the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development conducted a review of CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. But concerns with the environmental impacts of the aquaculture industry have come up a number of times over the years in the House. Last December the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons contained a chapter entitled “Fisheries and Oceans—The Effects of Salmon Farming in British Columbia on the Management of Wild Salmon Stocks”. Then the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, in February and March 2000, held a few meetings to study aquaculture, the aboriginal fisheries strategy, and the Oceans Act, but no report was issued.

In June 1999 the commissioner—

The Chair: Charles, you're going to have to conclude. You're a minute over.

Mr. Charles Caccia: All right. I apologize, Madam Chair.

The Chair: That's okay.

Mr. Charles Caccia: I will then conclude by saying that the inadequacy of the current regulatory framework and the negative publicity that the industry seems to be receiving in recent times requires that the situation be corrected, and I submit this motion for your consideration.

Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any questions for Charles? Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Caccia, it's a very interesting topic and certainly one of sincere importance to the fisheries industry. Has this issue ever surfaced at the fisheries committee level and have they ever considered taking on a study of this nature themselves? You're right, it's under Fisheries and Oceans. Have they not considered this themselves in the committee?

Mr. Charles Caccia: Perhaps I was a bit too brief on that. In February and March 2000 the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans held a few meetings to study the subject but produced no report.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Did they not prepare to take that further?

Mr. Charles Caccia: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: They dropped it at that level at the fisheries committee. Can you tell me in 30 seconds why they wouldn't take it further?

Mr. Charles Caccia: I don't know. It is certainly a hot issue and a complex one and one that requires attention, and not being a member of that committee I cannot give you—

• 1715

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Have you talked to any members of that committee, Mr. Caccia? I'm sure you would have lots of support for this from members of the committee.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Yes, I've talked to some of them, and they indicated to me that time restraints and other considerations move them to investigate other matters.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Charles.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Pankiw, I'm sorry, I had this out of line. My agenda from yesterday had you after Charles, but come on up. Sorry to keep you waiting.

I withdraw the apology. Even according to the schedule you were after Charles.

Mr. Jim Pankiw, M.P. (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CA): Oh. I was going to say, does that mean I get an automatic votable?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Madam Chair, I do have one of these items that shows Mr. Pankiw ahead of Mr. Caccia.

The Clerk: That was yesterday, but I gave you a new agenda.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Oh, I see.

The Chair: Pay attention to the new agenda.

Mr. Pankiw.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I'll make this very brief.

The list of criteria is very clear as to what you would require to make a motion votable. You do have my motion before you, I assume?

The Chair: Yes, we do.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Just to go through the points in order, bills must be in clear, complete, and effective terms. I think clearly it meets those criteria.

Secondly, it must be constitutional and in the area of federal jurisdiction. In fact it seeks to amend the federal Criminal Code, so clearly that condition is met.

Bills and motions should concern matters of significant public interest. This is a national newspaper from Monday, and on the front page is the story of the Anna Kournikova virus. You're probably all familiar with it. It's making front page stories. In fact that very virus infected Parliament Hill. I don't know if you're individually aware of it, but if you check with your staff I'm sure they could confirm it. My staff received 212 e-mails of this Kournikova virus. So not only is it of significant public interest, but it's actually affecting Parliament Hill itself.

The next point is that bills should concern issues not part of the current legislative agenda of the government or that have not been voted on or otherwise addressed in the current session of Parliament. I think those conditions are all met as well.

Lastly it says higher priority will be given to items that transcend purely local interest. This is not of any local interest. Of course, it's national, even international, in scope.

It says that it not be couched in partisan terms. I don't believe there's anything partisan about this. In fact it would be my hope that all parties would see the wisdom and the need to include in the Criminal Code a separate category for these types of offences.

It says it cannot be addressed by the House in any other way. In fact if the government doesn't amend the Criminal Code there's no other way we can have a separate category of criminal offences for computer hackers and exporters of viruses.

I believe these conditions are all fully met.

The Chair: When did you draft this motion, Mr. Pankiw? Has it been in the hopper for a while, or were you psychic and saw this coming?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I don't know if I introduced it in the last session of Parliament or not. If I did it would have been right near the end.

The Chair: Did you purposely choose a motion over drafting a very detailed bill?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: This was the advice of legislative counsel, and I don't know what their legal reasons were.

The Chair: If it's a motion and it passes, it puts the ball in the justice department's court to draft your bill for you.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Yes, and this doesn't seek to settle exactly what the punishments should be. I'm prepared to leave that to the drafters and the wisdom of the Minister of Justice's department.

The Chair: Can I pass on your compliments to the Minister of Justice?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Please do.

The Chair: I'm sure that will have an effect on it.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have a very quick question. How is it dealt with right now, Mr. Pankiw, if it's not under a separate section of the Criminal Code?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: It is being dealt with under existing sections, such as mischief, public mischief, things like that. There are two types of... for example, I believe public mischief can be either indictable or non-indictable.

So there are Criminal Code sections that deal with things like that, but nothing specific to the offence. This is becoming such a prevalent activity that I think we should deal with it in a specific section of the Criminal Code.

• 1720

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Just one very brief question. You're right, it is becoming very prevalent and more so every day. Is the justice department not considering some type of change themselves to identify or at least to deal with situations like this?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: That addresses the—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, no, I understand.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Not to my knowledge, no.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You haven't talked to the committee? You haven't talked to anybody else?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No. I do have the Library of Parliament doing research on this; unfortunately they didn't complete it by today. They said it would probably be ready by Friday. Unfortunately I didn't have their report with me. Otherwise I would have provided it.

The Chair: With the addendum that the Library of Parliament is excellent and does work quickly and...

Are there any other questions around the table? Thank you.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras, M.P. (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to my motion.

You've probably all received the two-and-a-half page text that I sent to your office and that outlines the thrust of my motion. You have? Fine then. Thank you. I have a copy of the motion in French with me, and several copies in English.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, and there was a document.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: The motion that I am tabling today calls for three measures to be taken in the fight against a serious crime that is still being committed in Canada, namely international child abduction. It is an issue with which I am personally acquainted. As you read in my open letter, in 1993, my wife's son was abducted by her husband, who is of Egyptian descent. The father took advantage of a Sunday outing with his son to kidnap the child and to secretly and unlawfully take him to his native Egypt. It is an issue with which I am very familiar, not only from a legal standpoint, but from a personal one as well. I know the heartache that international child abduction can cause to a family.

Under Canada's Criminal Code, a person convicted of this offence is liable to ten years' imprisonment. Regrettably, many countries still do not recognize this gravest of offences. For example, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction , in essence the only multilateral instrument available to combat the transborder abduction of children, has been signed by only 54 countries. Moreover, many countries, including ones subject to Islamic law, have yet to ratify the agreement. It must be borne in mind that the geographic scope of this Convention is very limited.

Bilateral treaties with other countries, in particular the one concluded with Egypt, are the second recourse available to parents seeking to regain custody of their children. Again, unfortunately, such agreements often contain no enforceable measures demanding compliance with a custody or access order issued by the court in the country of origin.

Finally, I fundamentally believe that Canada must take steps to avoid a recurrence of incidents like this one. How is it that little Karim, age three, was able to leave the country with his father, when it was in fact his mother who had custody? What documents were checked? Do customs officers and airline staff have the authority and training needed to prevent such incidents?

• 1725

In essence, my motion calls for three things: firstly, for Canada to assume some leadership on the international and diplomatic front with a view to increasing the number of signatories to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; secondly, for Canada to sign bilateral treaties requiring countries to respect custody and access orders issued by courts in the country of origin; and thirdly, for Canada to take steps here at home to fight international child abduction.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Thank you very much for coming today. I know it probably wasn't very easy for you, but we really appreciate it.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you.

The Chair: I'm going to take a break just to consult with everyone around the table. We have two choices. We'll listen to the rest of the witnesses, reconvene at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning, and hopefully get our decisions done by 10:30. The procedure and house affairs committee would like to take a look at them and table them in the House so that we can get the business of the House going. The alternative is to finish the next three people probably by 5:40 and then work until 6:30 and see how we do. I'm at the beck and call of the committee, because I can be here at 9 o'clock.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Who are the three people?

The Chair: You're one, along with Bill Blaikie and Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Obhrai and Mr. Blaikie are not here.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie is on his way.

How many people can stay until 6:15 or 6:30 if we have to?

Some hon. members: Until 6:15.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have to leave for five or ten minutes right now, Madam Chair. I mentioned that at the beginning. So I'll take off and come back and make my presentation at that time. It'll be two minutes. You can time me.

The Chair: It's more important to get your ten choices for your votable items.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have my ten choices already identified. Well, not quite. I have some left over.

The Chair: Do you want to do yours right now for three minutes?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Give me two minutes, and I'll do mine.

The Chair: Be fast, Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'll be terribly quick.

As the other members who have appeared before this committee have done, I would like first of all to say thank you so very much for the time of this committee to allow me to make the presentation of my private member's bill. I had submitted it previously. Then we had an election in the way, and I submit it now. It does maintain all of the criteria set out by this committee.

It's a very simple piece of legislation. It simply asks that all crown corporations and the Canadian Wheat Board be subject to the Access to Information Act. Madam Chair, this is in fact a national priority. I have had literally hundreds of individuals and corporations request that they be given the opportunity to have access to the Canadian Wheat Board and other crown corporations through the Access to Information Act.

This does not mean, as you are well aware, that all the information of any corporation need be made public. There is under the Access to Information Act a section that will allow crown corporations and the Canadian Wheat Board to keep sensitive commercial information away from any prying eyes. Therefore, this is simply a request that information that falls outside of that be made available.

Madam Chairman, that is my simple presentation of two minutes. I would love to see this votable, and there are many organizations and people out there who would love to see this go ahead. It is the tenor of this Parliament—

The Chair: Was it votable when you submitted it before the election?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It was not debated or discussed. I have never been chosen. I've never had it go to the House, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: It has been before this committee, in my time at least, twice over two Parliaments.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It may well have been, Madam Chairman, and I'm sure Mr. Robertson would be able to concur with that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. I'll be back.

The Chair: I'm sure.

• 1730

• 1733

The Chair: We're ready.

Mr. Bill Blaikie, M.P. (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): You have before you, I presume, a copy of the motion, which calls on Parliament to recognize the importance of the five K's of the Khalsa to the Sikh community and also to recognize the contribution of the Sikh community to Canada.

I should tell you that this motion is identical not just to a motion I introduced in the previous Parliament but also to a motion that was unanimously passed in the Manitoba legislature a couple of years ago. It was therefore the seed, if you like, for the idea of having a similar motion put before Parliament.

It seems to me that in many respects it's uniquely suited to be a votable motion, not in the sense of it being a controversial motion but rather one that would give the House an opportunity to express itself with regard to this particular group of Canadians. It is clear, complete, and effective on its own terms. It is constitutional. It doesn't contravene any areas of federal jurisdiction, as is the case with most motions, I must say.

• 1735

I think it's a matter of significant public interest, given the multicultural and pluralistic context of Canadian society, and given some of the concerns that the Sikh community has had from time to time with respect to acceptance of its religious practices.

It's not part of the government's current legislative agenda. It's not something that, as far as I know, we have voted on or dealt with before. It's not just a matter of local interest; this is a community you will find throughout the country.

In all those respects, I think it would provide a... If it were only to be debated, that would provide obviously a much more limited opportunity for members to speak. If it were to be chosen as votable, that many more members would get to express themselves on this. Of course, I think a vote in the House on this would certainly be of tremendous significance and importance to the community itself—that is to say, to the Sikh community as mentioned in the motion.

I'm at your mercy, Madam Chair, as always.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions around the table? It's not that complicated. Sorry you had to rush over here.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That's all right.

The Chair: Mr. Nystrom could probably have assumed the seat down there and done it for you. He's doing an incredibly good job replacing you. We might choose to keep him instead of you. He has a tendency to be cranky.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: He's the one guy in our caucus who had more experience than I did.

The Chair: You didn't want to saddle me with a rookie. Thank you, Bill.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai, M.P. (Calgary East, CA): Am I next?

The Chair: You're next. Hotfoot it into that seat. Welcome. You have five minutes to dazzle us.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Am I the last one?

The Chair: You're the last dazzler.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: So I guess I can go for ten minutes.

The Chair: No.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: This is a motion that I have put forward because the black community in Canada has been asking us to recognize their contributions and their heritage to Canada and to the world. Other countries and other cities have recognized this heritage by putting up Emancipation Day.

Emancipation Day was chosen as August 1 because that is when slavery was abolished in the world. Spearheading this initiative was the British House of Commons.

Canada played an extremely important role in helping abolish slavery. There was slavery in Canada, but important Canadians such as Lieutenant-Governor John Simcoe and Chief Justice William Osgoode worked very hard to abolish slavery in Canada, and they were successful in doing that.

So Canada has played an important role in abolishing slavery, and I think we should recognize August 1 as Emancipation Day in recognition of the contribution made by the black community. This has come about as a result of the Society for Black History. They have contacted us to do that. This month is black history month, as you know, so it's appropriate that this motion was chosen in February.

That's my pitch for this.

• 1740

The Chair: Thank you. I love it when people are concise.

Any questions around the table?

Thank you very much. That's it.

An hon. member: Concise and to the point.

The Chair: You see, when the bills are confusing, there are a lot of questions. When they're terribly complicated there are a lot of questions. That was very clear, so we don't have a lot of questions.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: All right.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you. I thought I was going to be offered coffee or something.

The Chair: You can have coffee, right at the back of the room—free coffee.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you.

The Chair: We'll have to wait until Mr. Nystrom and Mr. Borotsik come back. I think we'll suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes and then we're going to go in camera. Anybody who is not of the pedigree that is allowed to stay in camera must leave.

[Proceedings continue in camera]