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

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 27, 2001

• 1529

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): We can start, Stan.

Mr. Stan Keyes, M.P. (Hamilton West, Lib.): Madam Chair, I've provided the clerk of your committee with bilingual documentation pertaining to my bill. With your permission, may it be distributed? Thank you.

Members of the subcommittee on private members' business, I took the time to read transcripts from previous meetings of your subcommittee. I noted that first and foremost you expect a private member's bill to meet five criteria that act as guidelines for your eventual selection of votable items. I'm pleased to report that Bill C-305 meets, and even exceeds, the criteria.

• 1530

Specifically, Bill C-305 is clear, complete, and effective. It's federal in its jurisdiction. It responds to a significant public concern. It does not interfere with the government's current legislative agenda. It goes far beyond addressing a concern in my constituency of Hamilton West and addresses concerns in each and every member of Parliament's riding.

“Brownfields” is a term that describes properties that lie vacant or neglected because of environmental contamination. It could be an abandoned gasoline station in an urban riding or an abandoned industrial site in a rural riding.

The way I see it, we have a problem. And to solve the problem, you first have to identify the problem. Bill C-305 would amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to expand an existing registry—a list of sites across the country—so any member of the public can report suspected contaminated sites with the purpose of building an easily accessible national registry of brownfields.

To date, we only have a list of projects that are under assessment. We need a list of all the brownfields. It is only once we know where these sites are that we can begin to assess the costs of the cleanup. And of course, cleaning up these environmentally hazardous sites leads to the revitalization of our downtown cores, combats urban sprawl, and makes commercial lease sites useful once again.

That in essence is a summary, Madam Chair, of Bill C-305. I want to thank you for the privilege of appearing before you and your colleagues today.

The Chair: All right. I'll open the floor to questions.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Have you thought, Mr. Keyes, about the cost of that national registry and have you put any thought into how that would be established?

Mr. Stan Keyes: The national registry is an expansion of an existing registry. There is already a collection of sites across Canada on a list at the Department of the Environment where brownfield projects are underway.

What I'm trying to do is back that up one step so we can get the list of these brownfield sites currently across Canada so there is no reinventing of the wheel or of an administrative process.

All we're saying is there's an opportunity now to identify where these brownfield sites are across the country. The next logical step would then be that, if there is a list somewhere, provincial, municipal, federal governments, and the private sector can start to network with one another.

If a private sector environmental company sees there's a piece of land in a particular area of town, they might say, “I know where that is; maybe I'll call the owner of that piece of property.” They would call the owner of that property and say, “I understand you're on this list, this registry, as a contaminated site. I know the site and I know what's wrong with it. Why don't we work together to try to clean this site up?” Possibly we could move into a whole new area of creative thinking and creative financing for cleaning up these sites.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: What's happened in many instances with sites that have suffered environmental degradation is the owner of the property can't afford to clean it up. Sometimes the owner of the property doesn't even know there was an environmental problem there before they buy the said property.

But it's very much provincial jurisdiction, outside of nuclear power plants, nuclear waste, perhaps the Cape Breton tar ponds, and the areas that would have some federal jurisdiction. How do you balance that federal jurisdiction and the provincial jurisdiction?

Mr. Stan Keyes: You're absolutely right when you say there is a jurisdictional situation. You'd be surprised, I think, at how many areas and brownfields there are across this country that are actually federal in jurisdiction because there happens to be a bird sanctuary, a fish habitat, a pipeline crossing the property—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: National Defence.

Mr. Stan Keyes: —National Defence. So there are all kinds of areas of federal jurisdiction. But what I'm trying to promote here is creating a list, then whether you're municipal, federal, provincial, or a private sector person, you can access this list of contaminated sites in order to start.

As you mentioned, the property owner has a problem cleaning up this property because it's too expensive. Well, I'm trying to move it even one step sooner, because it's too expensive in most cases for companies or individuals or gas station owners to clean up the property because they can't even afford the assessment at the first blush. Never mind cleaning up the site; they can't even afford the assessment.

• 1535

So by creating a list, we start the ball rolling on what I like to say is a three-part plan. First, we start the list to identify where all these contaminated or brownfield sites are in Canada. Then we move on to assessing these sites. Maybe at step two in my overall plan down the road, we'll be able to convince the federal, provincial, and municipal governments to work together to help fund assessments of these sites.

But I want to make sure that I'm biting off only what I can chew. Sometimes you get bills before you that are very lofty in their nature; they're very good but they're pretty hard to achieve.

I think we begin the process by first being able to identify the sites. We then move on to the next phase down the road once they're identified. Here we bring the different levels of government together to try to work in partnership with the private sector or come together as a group and say, “Look, we all know this is a problem. How can we work together to finance the assessment stage?” This is the very first stage—never mind the cost of cleaning up the site itself—of the assessment stage.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CA): Why do you feel the federal government should be doing this?

Mr. Stan Keyes: It is because I feel it's a problem that exists right across Canada. And I think a brownfield site knows no jurisdiction, whether it's a municipal, provincial, federal authority. So by the federal government merely amending existing legislation in regard to the registry, we're able now to identify the brownfield sites in each and every one of our ridings—whether we're sitting here or sitting in the House of Commons, because every riding has them and they're right across the country.

With a master list of all the sites accessible to all—any level of government including the federal government—I think we can start to realize what the problem is. Once we've identified the problem, we can move on to the next steps in subsequent bills or even approaches to the federal government to work to try to help people who own these properties.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: The reason I ask is that the criteria we have to judge whether private members' bills are votable or not include the following: Is it an area of clear federal jurisdiction? And who would bear the cost? I didn't really find out the cost of what you're proposing.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Actually, as I mentioned before, the costs would be minimal because a registry already exists of brownfield sites. Unfortunately, this is only a list of sites where we've already reached the project stage, not the assessment stage.

What I'm trying to say is if we can start the list or registry one step back by simply amending the CEAA—the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act—to achieve the beginnings of a national list at the assessment stage, I think that would show everyone the extent of the problem across this country, and how we can begin to address the problem of assessing.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: In other words, I'm just wondering who should bear the cost of the assessment, because the assessment—

Mr. Stan Keyes: That would be multi-jurisdictional and involve, I think, the private sector.

First we identify the problem. Once we have identified the problem with the list that's created, then the next stage would be either to go to the Minister of the Environment—if the ministry is sympathetic to this idea—or to create another private member's bill to take the next step. That next step would be to sit down, federally, provincially, municipally, and the private sector, to help these property owners pay for the property assessments so they know exactly what it would take to clean them up.

So this is stage one of a three-stage process.

The Chair: Are there any other questions? We've talked about jurisdiction. We've talked about cost. Is there anything else?

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger, M.P. (Calgary Northeast, CA): Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee on private members' business, the introduction of my bill—the age of consent bill—simply raises the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16. It's a very simple bill, but its ramifications are quite significant.

This bill represents legislation that is badly needed to restore innocence to youth and to curtail and incarcerate sexual predators.

• 1540

For too long we have allowed the exploitation of society's most vulnerable, that is our children, by those who would extinguish their youth and replace it with mistrust, suspicion, and lasting psychological and sometimes physical damage.

I am pleased to be able to reintroduce this bill, which seeks to raise the age of sexual consent from age 14 to 16. It would thus make it a criminal offence for an adult to engage in sex with children under the age of 16.

We can't afford to turn our heads away from the plight of children and ignore the danger that sexual predators pose to our communities.

I believe it is time to allow the age of consent bill to become a votable item. We cannot waste another minute in the fight to save one or more children from sexual exploitation. So I appeal again to the better nature of every member of this committee and our Parliament.

The widespread concern over child pornography, child prostitution, and child sexual abuse in this country makes it even more urgent for enactment of this legislation to protect the young and vulnerable in our society from predators amongst us.

Project Guardian, a cooperative law enforcement and child welfare effort targeting sexual child abusers, concluded that Canada's current age of consent law has been used to entrap children in dangerous and exploitive situations.

Consent must go hand in hand with responsibility. It is incumbent upon members of Parliament to protect and to ensure that the law cannot be manipulated or corrupted by criminals to suit their own twisted ends.

The law is also about prevention, ensuring that criminal activity is not given fertile ground to flourish but that its roots receive no nourishment. That is exactly what this bill is all about: protecting children and preventing abusive situations. That is why we need an age of consent bill as much today as we ever have.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hanger.

Any questions? Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Just to clarify this, are you saying it becomes illegal for two 15-year-olds to have sex?

Mr. Art Hanger: If you look in your Criminal Code, you will see that it pertains to adults and children—between adults and children.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Okay. So somebody who is 18 and somebody who, in your estimation, is under 16—that becomes illegal.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, it could become illegal.

An hon. member: Could become?

Mr. Art Hanger: It could become illegal.

The Chair: Would become.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm sorry, I'm not as clear about what goes on between 15-year-olds. Again, is that an illegal act for two 15-year-olds to engage in sex at this point in time? I just don't know that.

Mr. Art Hanger: This deals with sexual activity, exploitation, and abuse between adults and children under the age of 16.

The Chair: Jamie, do you have any idea what's in the Criminal Code right now?

Mr. Jamie Robertson (Committee Researcher): I'm afraid criminal law is not my expertise.

I think Mr. Hanger is clear that there is a distinction between two young people engaging in sexual activity when they are the same age and when you have somebody who is over the age of majority and somebody under the age set out in the Criminal Code. That current age is 14. So if an 18-year-old has sex with somebody who is 13, it would be captured under the current provisions. Under his proposed amendment, it would raise that to 16. So an 18-year-old and a 15-year-old would be engaging in illegal activity...

Mr. Art Hanger: There are also case law directives to direct the court to continue on when it comes to young people of say equal or almost equal age having sexual intercourse.

Ms. Wendy Lill: One other question. Do you have any idea about the age of consent in other countries? Is what you're proposing being done in other countries, say the United States, Britain, and France? What is the age in other countries?

Mr. Art Hanger: No. I'm not aware of other countries'... I think it varies in the United States from state to state, depending on their legislation, since their criminal code is presented in each state in a different form.

• 1545

My efforts here are to curtail the activities of adult abusers directed toward children, much like, as I've mentioned here, Project Guardian, which was a joint effort of law enforcement and child welfare agencies to identify those who have been abused and to rout out the predators. In this particular investigation, there were 67 predators who had targeted children.

The Chair: Just for clarification of the questions you're asking, Anne McLellan did focus groups on the age of consent in the bill she has introduced in the House to protect Internet luring—that catch-all bill. I'm not debating the bill, but the difficulty she found was that the age of consent then affects the age of marriage and then affects the age of... Let's say you're a parent of a 15-year-old daughter and you don't like the boyfriend your daughter is going out with. There are huge ramifications of this. I don't know if she has come to a conclusion, but I would presume...

You say this is the second time you've introduced the bill.

Mr. Art Hanger: This is the third time I've introduced the bill.

The Chair: If it makes you feel better, you've inspired quite a few focus groups, and Anne McLellan has done a lot of work on this. So you're to take the credit for it.

Mr. Art Hanger: I believe there's a considerable amount of pressure to have Parliament look at this in a very real way and to debate it. I don't think that has happened yet in this Parliament. I think it's high time there was an accounting, and I believe it would be well received out there in the public.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hanger.

Are there any other questions? Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

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

I would ask that you refer to the bill. I have a question relating perhaps to a technical detail or a lack of consistency. If I understand correctly, all of the Criminal Code provisions that presently apply in the case of people aged 14 years would be adjusted to 16 years. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. Art Hanger: As reflected here in these sections.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: My question relates to proposed subsection 161(1.1), on page 3 of the bill. There is a line drawn in the margin, which means that this is new. I see in three places here mention of the age of 14 years. Take for example line 35 of subsection 161(1.1) that reads:

[English]

in respect of a person who is under the age of fourteen years

[Translation]

On line 5 of the next page, we read:

[English]

attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of fourteen years

[Translation]

I would also refer you to the rest of paragraph 161(1.1)b), line 14, at the end, that states:

[English]

in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of fourteen years

[Translation]

At the top of the page, at clause 5 of the bill, it reads: “Subsection 161(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:”. Why then, in subsection 161(1.1), are we still talking of persons 14 years of age?

[English]

Mr. Art Hanger: Sir, I believe you have pointed out something that should be corrected in the bill, in this piece of recorded legislation, and I appreciate that. It should be 16 throughout. I believe this particular copy—and I don't know if it's consistent with some of the others I've had when I introduced it earlier. I can check on that, but I don't think it is.

The Chair: I don't think it would affect our debate on votability. It would be something that could be amended in the House. Don't be concerned about that. That can be fixed.

• 1550

Were you finished, Mr. Guimond?

Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

When I look at subclause 150.1(2), and then we go into paragraph 150.1(2)(b), what you're saying in essence is that children above the age of 12 could legally have sex unless the offender is two years older than the complainant. So if the complainant is 12 years old, their partner can only be 14 years of age. Right?

Mr. Art Hanger: It's not a defence.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: If it's not a defence, in answer to my colleague's question, what this is telling us is that as of age 12, two teenagers or two children could have sexual activity legally as long as one is not two years older than the other one.

Mr. Art Hanger: If I understand the code correctly, when it comes to the sections dealing with those under 12 years of age, which we classify as under the provision of child, there are separate provisions for those particular age groups.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I see.

Mr. Art Hanger: I don't have that in front of me, to be able to reflect directly onto it, but my intention of course was to deal with this increased age.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay. As a quick question in reference to your comment a little while ago, what does the Department of Justice say about this? Have you talked to the minister? Have you talked to any officials at the justice department?

Mr. Art Hanger: I haven't specifically done so, but I know that there have been inquiries into this particular bill or into this particular provision before by the Minister of Justice. They are hedging on it.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay.

You mentioned a little while ago that this the third time you've introduced it.

Mr. Art Hanger: That's right.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: What happened the first two times?

Mr. Art Hanger: I had the opportunity to speak on it, and it was non-votable.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: It was non-votable.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Well, I guess it was a different—

The Chair: It was a different Parliament. In my opinion, you can always start again.

Mr. Art Hanger: It was a different Parliament.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: What about the second one?

Mr. Art Hanger: I just trying to reflect again back on the first Parliament. Of course, it was introduced at that time. I don't know if it was drawn.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: One of them was, and it was non-votable.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

Mr. Art Hanger: I've had one hour of debate on this particular topic.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay.

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

As a reminder, not a criticism, because we have a couple of people here who are substituting, our prime focus is votability, not whether we like the bill. It's good to point out to the proposer the mistakes that are found, but those things can be amended. It's the concept of the bill. Do we want it to be votable or not?

I often vote for bills to be votable that I absolutely wouldn't support in the House, but it's a good debate, it's a good issue to talk about in the House, and there's a lot of interest in it. That's really what we're looking for here. We're making sure it fits the criteria, and that's why Mr. Keyes' questions on jurisdiction were good. You're looking at jurisdiction. You're looking at interest. You're looking at whether it would be a good three-hour debate in the House. Okay?

Mr. Cadman, welcome.

Mr. Chuck Cadman, M.P. (Surrey North, CA): Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I should go out and buy a lottery ticket, since it's my second time before you in less than a month.

The Chair: Some guys are just lucky.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Yes, I know. I had one drawn in the whole last Parliament, and now two in the first month of this one.

I'm back here again to convince you that another of my private member's bills should be votable. In this case, I am proposing a mandatory minimum sentence for anyone who is convicted of stealing more than one motor vehicle.

For the past number of months and years, but I think most especially in the recent concerted effort by the Canadian Police Association, we've seen how organized crime is increasingly of concern. So in a very small way, I am attempting to address some of this concern through Bill C-250.

As was the case with my previous submissions, I'll specifically cover the list of criteria as determined by the House.

• 1555

First of all, was the bill drafted in clear, complete, and effective terms? Again, it is a relatively simple amendment to the Criminal Code, two clauses in length. The first removes the motor vehicle from the present theft section, because I suggest that the theft of a motor vehicle be treated differently from theft of other property. The second clause creates the new offence of theft of motor vehicle, together with separate punishment provisions.

For a first offence of motor vehicle theft, nothing changes from the current Criminal Code provisions. It is the repeat offenders who are to be treated differently.

The second clause includes what we mean by a “subsequent offence”. The bill was merely imposing a greater punishment to those convicted of stealing a motor vehicle and subsequently convicted of stealing another one. The bill will not increase the punishment to a young offender who takes the car for a joyride. That's not the intent. The bill is after chronic and professional car thieves. I think the subsections of the second clause make this clearer.

Secondly, is the bill constitutional, and does it concern federal jurisdiction? The bill amends the Criminal Code, which, as you know, is a federal statute. The proposals are constitutional. They merely follow similar changes to other legislation whereby it is decided to be in the public interest to impose mandatory minimum sentences for specific offences.

I'm referring to mandatory minimum sentencing for specific firearm misuse, bookmaking, living on the avails of persons, wounding with intent, and some of the impaired driving provisions, just to name a few. There are precedents for mandatory minimums.

Does the bill concern matters of significant public interest? I believe this is the most important criterion to be addressed with this bill. I do not have much time, so I will just say that we are all aware of the concern of the public, of the police, and of politicians of all stripes and levels, over the increased illegal activities of organized crime. We also see increasing car insurance rates due to escalating motor vehicle theft. We should be able to take judicial notice of these facts and agree to what is common knowledge.

Just this past week, the president of the Canadian Police Association listed auto theft as one of the major activities of organized crime.

Constable Jim Messner of the RCMP auto theft squad out of Calgary says that his city has become a shipping hub for stolen high-priced vehicles for organized crime rings. He stated:

There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of unrecovered stolen vehicles is a result of organized crime. We know organized crime groups use stolen vehicles for a number of things, including transporting contraband.

I could probably find similar quotes from almost every major city in Canada regarding organized motor vehicle theft rings. The Insurance Council of Canada reported that there were 165,000 cars stolen across Canada in 1999. The council estimates the cost of auto theft to policyholders to be about $600 million. In one weekend last year, 31 vehicles were stolen in Burnaby, B.C. In seven days, 128 vehicles were reported stolen from the streets of Ottawa.

According to Statistics Canada, about 450 vehicles are stolen every day in Canada. All these statistics are in spite of car owners having to ensure their vehicles are locked each and every time the vehicle is left alone, and in spite of anti-theft devices and car alarms. Motor vehicle theft is a matter of significant public interest.

Has this issue been part of the government's agenda, or has it been otherwise addressed in the current session of Parliament? No, and there is no indication as such in the throne speech. Neither was it addressed in the last Parliament, in which I was unsuccessful in getting this bill drawn.

Should the legislation receive a higher priority because it transcends purely local interest, is not partisan, and cannot be addressed by the House in other ways? This is an issue of interest in almost every community in Canada. There is nothing partisan about legislating for the benefit of law-abiding citizens who invest in and rely upon their motor vehicles. There's nothing partisan in taking on organized criminals and other habitual car thieves.

I was going to make some comments on ministerial support, but I would suggest that, with all due respect, the minister is part of the politics of this place, and we will very rarely see ministerial support for an opposition initiative. So I think the time for that is if it gets to committee; then I would seek the minister's support.

I thank you for your attention, and I am prepared to answer any questions.

The Chair: I'm not being facetious, but I am assuming that values exceeding $5,000 must be a particular cut-off point.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: Theft over $5,000 is grand theft.

The Chair: You're not just encouraging people to steal jalopies.

Mr. Chuck Cadman: No, they can't sell them too well.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: In your introductory remarks, why did you exclude vehicles that are stolen for joyriding? In my province, in Regina, there's huge problem with that. That's mainly the root of the problem. I'm wondering why you would differentiate what the purpose of it was.

• 1600

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I agree with you, but I think that can be addressed through other means. This bill is specifically targeted at organized crime, people who make their living from stealing cars. That's what it's all about. In my community of Surrey alone we've had some horrible tragedies occur in the last couple of years from kids joyriding. There are other ways to deal with that. This is targeted at the organized auto theft rings.

The Chair: Are there any other questions? Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Would you not agree that your bill would override the authority of judges, what in law we call—and I am a lawyer by profession—“judicial discretion”, given that it is very unusual to set a minimum sentence for any given crime? In most cases, the legal construct of the Civil Code of Canada is such that maximum sentences are set precisely to give the accused access to a full and complete defence: and this is why we have judicial discretion. I do not believe that what is suggested here is commonplace. I understand full well that your bill targets repeat offenders.

My colleague asked a very pertinent question concerning the case of young kids out to party who steal a car as opposed to members of a theft ring. I find that a maximum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years, in the case of a subsequent offense committed by a person who does not belong to a ring or to organized crime... perhaps if we had stronger anti-gang legislation we could target rings. My question is therefore the following: do you believe that incarceration is the solution to the problem of motor vehicle theft? Is that your belief?

[English]

Mr. Chuck Cadman: I can give a short answer and say probably. What I would argue is that you make a case for judicial discretion. I went through areas where we already have mandatory minimum sentences. They're getting to be fairly common throughout the Criminal Code. We have them for offences committed with firearms.

With regard to the repeat offender who is not part of organized crime, if the person who is convicted on the first offence of auto theft realizes that on the second offence they're looking at a minimum of four, I would hope that would be a deterrent. But I'm not specifically targeting those people. If they choose to become a repeat offender knowing full well they're looking at a four-year minimum, that's their choice. But, again, I'm more concerned about organized crime. I'm certainly not going to take on the whole issue of organized crime through one simple private member's bill. I have no intention of doing that. But I think this is part of it.

The Chair: Are there any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Cadman.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit, M.P. (Lakeland, CA): Good afternoon, everyone.

The bill I'm asking you to make votable today is Bill C-245, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding search and seizure without a warrant. Bill C-245 affects part III of the Criminal Code as enacted by section 179 of the Firearms Act.

The purpose is to remove the power in subsection 117.04(2) to enter and to search and seize without a warrant in cases where no offence has been committed or is suspected to have been committed. I think many of you would find it surprising, even though you followed this bill through the House, that search and seizure is allowed where no offence has been committed or where none has even been suspected of having been committed. This removes the unusual search-and-seizure provisions put forth in Bill C-68 and brings them more in line with other search-and-seizure provisions, which is what many Canadians have been asking for. I'm sure some of you could attest to that.

• 1605

This bill also makes provision for restitution of loss or damage resulting from the entry and search. It takes into account, though, whether the loss or damage was reasonably necessary in light of the evidence collected and in light of the behaviour of persons on the premises at the time.

I'll just go through the eleven criteria you use to decide on votability.

The Chair: We're down to five. We only have five criteria.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Oh, really?

The Chair: Yes. Anyway, go ahead.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. That's very interesting, Madam Chair. When was that change made, just out of curiosity?

The Chair: Two years ago.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You have to be kidding. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

I'll just use the eleven, and I'm hoping it will work out okay.

The first one asks whether or not the issue is trivial. Clearly, it isn't. It's the most important issue in parts of the country.

The second is the issue of whether this discriminates against one region of the country or one group, and it certainly doesn't. It's to be applied equally across the country.

The third is the issue of whether it deals with certain things such as electoral boundaries and constituency names. It doesn't.

The fourth, it's clear it is not the intent to put into place something that is redundant.

The fifth is whether the subject of this bill is different from specific matters already declared by the government. The government hasn't declared. I think you would know that they wouldn't declare that they would move something like this.

The sixth is the number of times this topic has appeared in the House. That's an interesting point. This topic has been debated in the House and in committee under different pieces of legislation probably hundreds of times, and yet, to my knowledge, there has never been legislation brought forth to deal with this.

The seventh is how this would be prioritized. I think this bill should be given a higher priority because there are no other means, really, for an opposition party to bring this forth, and the government certainly isn't going to do so because they passed it in Bill C-68 just a few years ago.

The eighth is the partisan nature. There is certainly nothing partisan about this bill in the intent or in the language.

The ninth is the issue of whether there is anything unconstitutional or that may contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There's clearly nothing unconstitutional about this private member's bill. It does not infringe on provincial jurisdiction, either, and that's the other question brought up there. In fact, the legislation that would be implemented if this bill were to pass would remove parts of Bill C-68 that have been questioned with regard to the constitutionality and their infringement on provincial jurisdiction. We've had a majority of provinces and territories challenge that in fact this is an area of provincial jurisdiction and that this may contravene the charter for improper search and seizure. So, clearly, this bill would remove part of that, rather than introduce a new aspect that may infringe on the Constitution in any way.

The tenth point is whether this has been made votable in the House or whether there is anything else before the House, and to my knowledge there isn't.

The eleventh point is regarding related issues in this session that were made votable. Again, my research indicates there have been no issues substantially the same that have been selected as votable.

I would just like to conclude by saying there should be no doubt that Bill C-245 meets the criteria you use to judge. I would suggest that probably the eleven points I've brought out would cover the five that you've kind of condensed and make your judgment on. I ask for your support to make this bill votable.

The Chair: Are there any questions on the votability of the bill, but not on the content?

You've done an excellent job, Leon. There are no questions.

• 1610

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Do you feel, Mr. Benoit, that there is significant public interest out there? That's our third criterion.

Mr. Leon Benoit: As you would know, Mr. Breitkreuz, from the hours of media you do every week on this matter, it is an issue of great concern and interest right across the country. Just listen to any talk show, read the letters to the editor, go into your constituency, especially in rural parts of the country, but even in cities. The issue of the registry, of course, comes up, but also this issue of the special search and seizure provisions. They just come up, again and again. I think you would know that.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay. Do you think that—

The Chair: Was that a logged question?

Mr. Leon Benoit: It wasn't actually. We hadn't planned it, but it's a good one.

The Chair: I thought you guys never did that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's a good one, though.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: This is a technical question, and I don't know if you can answer it. The government has introduced amendments now in the new bill, this omnibus bill, and in it they are going to be making allowance for privatization of the enforcement you're referring to here. Would this apply to the provincial police forces, the private enforcement agencies that may now be set up just to enforce this bill?

Mr. Leon Benoit: It absolutely would. This would change the Criminal Code, and I think the urgency of this, the urgency for its being debated, is only increased by this possible change of privatization of enforcement. It's something I think should be talked about before the government makes a final decision on whether to go ahead with private enforcement.

The Chair: Any other questions?

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. St-Julien's not here.

Mr. Leon Benoit: As my final comment, Madam Chair, I'd like to say that a guy can only take rejection so often, and it's been quite a few times already.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Yes, but you're just so lucky that you keep getting drawn.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

The Chair: There are some among us who've been here since 1993 and have never been drawn.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Given that we have a break between our next two colleagues, I would like to mention that earlier, when I said that I saw a consistency problem with the bill, you very kindly, gently and subtly explained that it was not necessary to ask questions on the drafting of a bill. But if I read the first criterion, Madam Chair, it states that bills and motions must be drafted in clear, complete and effective terms. If there is a contradiction in a bill as drafted, this could have an impact on our decision to make it votable or not. It opens up a can of worms. It opens up debate. I believe, much to the contrary, that it is appropriate to ask questions on the drafting of a bill; this is one of the five criteria.

[English]

The Chair: You've been gentle and sweet and kind in your correction of the chair, but you're absolutely correct. We're in such a good mood with each other, it can only benefit you.

Mr. Pat Martin, M.P. (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Hello. I can see that. There's just a good feeling in the air.

I'm very glad to be back again. I was fortunate enough to have my name drawn for a bill this time. The bill that I'm putting forward is numbered C-203, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act. The object of the bill is that in the event of a company going bankrupt or insolvent, any back wages owed to employees, or pension contributions, or any type of back pay, would be the first order of business in paying out what little assets are left in the company. It would in fact give employees the same status as creditors. So it's quite simple.

There are a number of high-profile cases that brought this to light. One was in Ontario with the company called Rizzo Shoes, a quite famous case in 1989, I believe, where 850 employees lost their jobs and a lot of back pay was owed. It went through ten years in the courts, as the Ontario Labour Board ordered payments, the Ontario Court of Appeals reversed the order, and finally it went to the Supreme Court of Canada, and they upheld the payment of all back wages as the first order of business. By that time, unfortunately, the company had actually paid dividends to their other shareholders with the money they were holding to pay employees, so there was no money to go around. With the passage of time, those employees lost $2.6 million worth of back wages that would have been paid out.

• 1615

More recently, Giant Mines in the Northwest Territories is a very sad story. That was where there was the violence and explosion. Ultimately the company did go bankrupt. Peggy Whitte left the country and left people holding the bag. Those employees are even now in a long struggle for back pay, severance pay, pension contributions, and any number of payments owing to them.

We believe, in the matter of why it should be votable, it wouldn't be any cost to the government. There is no cost factor, in that whatever assets are left over when a company is insolvent, the first payment would be to back wages.

That's it in a nutshell. I would be happy to answer any questions.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Martin. It is, of course, a commonsense bill, and I appreciate that. It seems to me there was a slight contradiction. If the Supreme Court has already ruled on this, does Parliament need to pass legislation in this area?

Mr. Pat Martin: It wouldn't have taken ten years to get a favourable ruling if there were legislative authority to draw from. We don't believe it's a good practice for employees to have to fight a ten-year legal battle to get justice.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Do other employees now have to go through the same fight, once the Supreme Court has ruled? Is this not deemed to be the law of the land?

Mr. Pat Martin: It's based on the merit of each individual case, I guess. The actual ruling originally said the company isn't liable for the back wages, because it wasn't the company that terminated it, it was the act of bankruptcy. So it wasn't an overt act on the part of the company, it was something that happened to the company. That's the point of law that had to be established at that level. We're just seeking to save all other employees the grief and aggravation.

In fact, there would be a cost saving to the government, because back in 1980 André Ouellet and a special committee looking at bankruptcy established a fund, a pool of money, from the consolidated revenue that any employee owed back wages can make application to and get paid up to $5,000. This does happen from time to time. It wouldn't need to happen were the law changed to make the company accountable, instead of the federal government or some company going backrupt.

The Chair: Any other questions?

It's crystal clear. Thank you.

Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Madam Chair, I have a question. First thing: when a colleague fails to appear, as is the case of Mr. St-Julien, is it because we are ahead of schedule or what? Do we wait for the member? What happens when a colleague does not show up?

[English]

The Chair: I'll tell you how I would rule. We are ahead of schedule and we are going to take people as they come in. If we complete business and begin our deliberations, and the people we've skipped do not appear, they're out of luck. You have a fixed appointment, and if you can't make it and you call—have we had a call from Mr. St. Julien? Sometimes people get tied up somewhere. We still have the bill, so the bill still needs to be considered. If we terminate hearings and we start into our deliberations, we don't stop. Okay?

Who is lined up next? Mr. Moore. However, we have no other bodies here. Could we make a few phone calls and see if we can stir up some excitement?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: We are on schedule, though, aren't we? It's twenty after, and they should be here. We're not ahead of schedule.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If we can't get people, Madam Chair, within ten minutes, why don't we end deliberations? We can still consider them, whether they had the opportunity—

The Chair: We can fit them back in when they come.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Have they been given specific times?

The Chair: Mr. Guimond.

• 1620

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Excuse me, Madam Chair. You thought I was not saying much in earlier meetings, but you will find a change this time.

Would it be possible, Madam Chair, in order to improve efficiency, to indicate on the agenda prepared by the clerk the times at which our colleagues are being scheduled, for our information? It would allow us to keep tabs on where we are in the schedule. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Guimond.

If we keep improving this, it's going to be perfect.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: By then we'll polish our work.

The Chair: No, by then they'll want everything votable and we'll be out of a job.

Mr. Moore. Thank you for arriving a few minutes early. We were waiting with bated breath.

Mr. James Moore, M.P. (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, CA): Thank you very much.

Should I just go ahead?

The Chair: You're brand new, so I'll give you just a quick little lecture from Mom at the front.

Your comment should be directed not on whether it's a great bill or it's not a great bill. We really don't care. It should be based on the fact that you think it should be votable. That's all we're deciding here. We're not deciding whether we're going to vote for it. We're merely going to decide whether it inspires a good debate and whether it would be votable in the House.

I also need to tell you how lucky you are to have had a bill drawn, since you have only been elected these past few months. Some people sit here seven years and never get one, so—

Mr. James Moore: I'm told that.

The Chair: —you should be out buying lottery tickets.

Mr. James Moore: Right. I appreciate that.

My private member's motion is really quite straightforward. It is that, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce legislation that offers GST relief to the victims of premature building envelope failure who are eligible for compensation through British Columbia's PST relief grant program and to make any and all consequential amendments required.

I have a copy of the motion that has been passed around and the five criteria that were presented to me by the standing committee based on the criteria in order to make this motion votable. It's available in French and English, so hopefully it has made its way around the table.

The motion itself is actually very straightforward. I suppose it's most effective if I speak directly to those five bullets that were mentioned in terms of the eligibility and the criteria for making a motion or a bill votable.

The first one is that bills and motions must be drafted in clear, complete, and effective terms. The motion, I think, is quite straightforward. It's clear in its intent and in its language.

The motion not only addresses a course of action for the government upon passage, but offers the direction to fulfil that specific course of action.

This motion would lead to the effective distribution of benefits directly. In essence, what I'm asking for in this motion is that the government move forward and remove the GST from the repairs of leaking and rotting condominiums, as was recommended with the 80th of 82 recommendations by the Barrett commission of inquiry into the quality of construction of condominiums in British Columbia.

The motion would lead to the effective distribution... Again, whenever one is asking the government to use a mechanism to distribute focused benefits to Canadians, there are always concerns about the effectiveness of it. This bill is actually quite effective in doing that.

The second criterion I was presented with was that bills and motions must be constitutional and concern areas of federal jurisdiction. This clearly does. It's direct, simple, constitutional, and it is an entirely federal jurisdiction.

The third criterion was that bills and motions should concern matters of significant public interest. On page two of the document I've sent around, I have the impact of this issue—of leaking and rotting homes—to thousands of Canadians. It is of tremendous public issue and consequence. This very recommendation—this part of a proposal to give relief to the people with leaking and rotting homes—was, as I said, a recommendation of the Barrett commission, and it is of substantial public interest.

The fourth criterion I was presented with was that bills and motions should concern issues that are not part of the government's current legislative agenda, and which have not been voted on or otherwise addressed by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament. The Minister of Public Works has not indicated that this is a policy priority for him. It was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It has not been mentioned by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Public Works himself. This government has not made any mention of this issue at all. The introduction of this motion will be the first time that this House will have the opportunity to discuss and debate this issue in this Parliament.

The fifth criterion was that—all things being equal—higher priority will be given to items that transcend purely local interest, are not couched in partisan terms, or cannot be addressed by this House in any other way. So in a sense, the fifth criterion asks three specific criteria within it.

This issue is not a purely local interest. It affects 24 of 34 ridings in British Columbia—ridings represented by three federal political parties. The very fact that in the last federal election campaign three of the five national parties represented in the House of Commons took positions on this issue speaks to the fact ipso facto that this is a national issue, otherwise political parties that are national wouldn't take positions on the subject.

• 1625

The motion is not couched in partisan terms at all. The motion itself was taken from the Barrett commission, and Mr. Dave Barrett, as most people will know, was the former NDP Premier of British Columbia and I'm an Alliance MP presenting his proposal to the House. It's not partisan in any way whatsoever.

The Chair: Could it be otherwise known as an unholy alliance?

Mr. James Moore: Yes, precisely.

The third criterion was that this issue cannot be addressed in any other way—other things being considered. The very fact that this motion calls for the application of public funds to a public good—a focused handout, if you will—to a specific group of Canadians means there is no better avenue, no better arena, by which this can be addressed and should be brought to the public light than the House of Commons itself.

Those are the five criteria that were presented to me in terms of the standards that must be met in order for a motion or bill to become votable—a private member's bill. I am absolutely confident that my motion meets all five of those criteria. I know that there are thousands and thousands of Canadians who are living in leaking and rotting homes who would be glad—thrilled, frankly—for the first time in this country's history that this issue would see the light of day in Parliament.

The Chair: Questions. Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm not trying to negate the fact that this is a huge issue in British Columbia—without question—and a number of federal political parties have taken a position on it. At the same time, private members' business is not supposed to be strictly regional in scope. I understand what you're saying, that it would affect a number of federal ridings in B.C. But is it strictly for the province of British Columbia that the boundaries would operate, or do you read this as being something... Because you mentioned eligible for compensation through British Columbia's PST relief grant program.

Mr. James Moore: Right. Well, those are the parameters under which this grant proposal was mentioned in the Barrett commission and those are the parameters of this motion. We think that the fact that it comes from the Barrett commission adds significant credibility to the idea of the motion. But the fifth criterion, the one to which you were referring, asks that this not be of purely local interest. I would deduce this as meaning that a member of Parliament steps forward and says that this is of interest to his or her one of 301 constituencies. This motion is not. This is of concern to 24 of 34 constituencies in British Columbia held by Alliance, NDP, and Liberal members of Parliament. I think it does transcend local interests, as is required here.

I also suggest that I don't live in a constituency that has one square acre of farmland, but I voted in the House on a farm issue. This evening I will be speaking to a motion that this House should make an apology—or request that the Governor General make an apology—to Acadians. I don't have any Acadians in my constituency. That's a private member's motion that's been deemed votable that I'm going to speak on in the House.

Based on the five criteria, I think that I've met that standard, and based on precedent of current bills and issues that are before the House, I think the precedent has been set that this meets the standard.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Mr. James Moore: Thank you.

The Chair: I saw Mr. Nystrom. He flew by.

I would call Mr. Abbott and Mr. Assadourian. Everyone has been called. Good.

It's a good opportunity to point out a couple of things to you.

The people who are permanently on this committee have received a draft copy of the survey that we are going to be giving out to members. What I've suggested to Jamie is that since we're running a little short on time, I would like you all to take your time and look at it, make your corrections, send it to my office, and then I'll take the bundle over or send it to Jamie. He'll bring us back a draft that shows, in bold, the changes we've suggested. Otherwise, we'll be here for three hours tonight. We'll set up a meeting that has nothing to do with selecting private members' bills, but is just a little mechanical meeting that we can go through and get the survey corrected. We will then hand it out after the two-week break in April, if that's all right with everyone.

• 1630

This just gives you a little bit more—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Is that for the survey that comes back?

The Chair: It will be circulated for all of us, with our corrections or additions in bold. We'll then have one quick meeting to look at it and to decide what to put in and what not. Jamie will then circulate it after the April break.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I thought we had decided—or was it just a suggestion—that we would all survey our... each political party would have one person surveying it.

The Chair: No, for the survey itself, for the wording of it, we want everybody to read it thoroughly, to decide if they like the wording, and to make any changes they want to make. We're just perfecting the survey. A perfect version will go out right after the April break, and then we'll survey every member of our caucuses.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That's what I was asking about, Madam Chair. I thought we were going to actually do the survey, not send it out.

The Chair: If you would prefer us to give you the bundle for the Canadian Alliance caucus, I don't see any problem with that, unless one of your members objects.

Generally, we'll be sending them out to all members of Parliament, and then there will be one person designated to go around and talk to them with a little clipboard. But we'll do it whichever way you want, as long as we don't get accused of not distributing them their surveys.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't understand your question, Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: We had discussed this earlier, a month to a month and a half ago. It was decided at that point that in order to get a better sampling and to make sure people returned their surveys, we should actually have each political party go out and survey their own members with some kind of a standardized form like this one. We'd then have a better indication of how they feel on private members' business.

The Chair: What we're actually talking about right now is the questionnaire itself. Jamie has given us a draft. I want everybody to... You don't have it; Mr. Borotsik has it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I understand that, Madam Chair. I read it over this morning. But I don't understand why you would send it out. You have a committee to deal with it. Why put it out to the entire political caucus? That was the question.

The Chair: We're surveying 301 members of Parliament—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: To find out how they feel about private members' business and whether it should be votable.

The Chair: There will be a designated person in each caucus to round them up and bring them back.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I understand that, exactly. But I'm not understanding the question raised by Mr. Breitkreuz. I've obviously missed something.

The Chair: What Mr. Breitkreuz is assuming is that he will be the custodian of the surveys for his 66 members, and that he will go around to survey them. What we're suggesting for the rest of the caucuses is that we'll just mail them out, and someone we designated—that being Mr. Borotsik—will go around to collect them.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, I'm sure Mr. Borotsik will have his own opinion of that, Madam Chair, but as the member replacing him today, I would question why you would have your committee do that work. The committee members could certainly contact each and every member of any given political party, but there is no reason for them to gather them up individually.

The Chair: No, I don't think so either, but what we're trying to do—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's not what a committee does.

The Chair: What some people are trying to do is get a better return on their surveys.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: There are other ways to do that besides having individual members of Parliament pick them up. It takes the confidentiality and a number of other issues out of the survey if you do that.

The Chair: Make sure you make your concerns known to Mr. Borotsik—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I will.

The Chair: —and we will call a meeting in about a week or so.

Okay. Mr. Nystrom, here you go again. You're like the bad penny that keeps popping up.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom, M.P. (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Uh-oh.

The Chair: No, a good penny.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Thank you, Madam Chair and fellow members of the committee.

I've circulated a little bit of information around, both en français and in English, for a bit of background.

I'll be very brief, Madam Chair. The motion I present today is a motion to consider the possibility of incorporating a measure of proportional representation into our electoral system. If the committee does recommend the system after a study, it really says to strike an all-party committee here, Madam Chair. Then, if that committee recommends a system there, it would be put to the Canadian people in terms of a referendum.

This is exactly the same motion I had in the last Parliament, Madam Chair, and that was motion M-155. It was drawn in the last Parliament, and your committee, in its wisdom, decided to make it votable. We had a one-hour debate in the House, but then we had the Prime Minister call an election, of course, so we didn't have hour two, we didn't have hour three, and we didn't have the vote. So I have submitted exactly the same wording, the same motion, calling for exactly the same thing. That's why I'm asking you to consider making it votable at this time, like you did a year or so ago.

As a little, tiny bit of background, before I did it last year, the last time a private member submitted a motion on PR to the House of Commons was 1979. It was Jean-Luc Pepin—he was the Liberal member from Drummondville in those days—and it was non-votable, according to the Library of Parliament. Again according to the Library of Parliament, the last time there was a vote in the House of Commons was 1923, which was a long, long time ago.

• 1635

I think the time has come now to engage people in a debate on the idea of proportional representation. It's becoming more of a topic among the people out there, the citizens out there. There are people talking about PR. There are people contacting our offices looking at trying to reform the voting system, the electoral system, and trying to make it more democratic.

One problem is the turnout at election campaigns has been plummeting. I was quite horrified in 1997 when only 67% of the people voted; it used to be 75% or 80%. That was compounded last fall, with only 61% of the people voting. More and more, for some reason people are being disengaged from the political system in this country.

If you look around the world, Madam Chair, we are one of the few countries in the world that use the pure first-past-the-post electoral system. There are now about 12 countries that do. Only three countries with over eight million people have the pure first-past-the-post system. That's the United States, India, and ourselves.

In Great Britain, under the new government, they moved to incorporate some PR in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament, and in Northern Ireland. All the members of the British Isles are elected by PR to the European Parliament. We are one of only three countries in the world that use pure PR with a population of over eight million people.

I think it's an idea worth looking at. It's an idea worth debating. It's an idea that has been accepted by almost all the parliaments in the world. The most recent one to switch was New Zealand a few years ago. One of our friends in the Alliance Party, Mr. White, is quite knowledgeable about the system down there and what they did.

By the way, Mr. Breitkreuz's motion as drafted is quite consistent with what happened in New Zealand, where they had a referendum before they actually implemented a new system as well, trying to make it as democratic as possible.

The last point, Madam Chair, is you will notice in the motion I didn't spell out a specific model. That's not for me to decide or to recommend at this time. The idea behind the motion is to have a general debate on the principle of incorporating a measure of PR into our system.

We're not saying it should be totally PR. We're not saying it should be like Israel, or like Ireland, or places that have 100% PR, but a measure of PR. That could be 15% of the seats, or 20%, or 50%, whatever Parliament in its wisdom decides it should be in the end.

The main thing is to have a debate on the principle of proportional representation. If we have a consensus in Parliament over a model, then put that model to the Canadian people in a referendum.

I think this would be the kind of thing that is a good topic. It's new, it's novel, it's topical, and people are chatting about it. I think it's up to us to take a look at it as parliamentarians.

The Chair: We hang around with different people.

Questions? Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Nystrom, since you are suggesting a national referendum on the subject, what sort of question would you put to the voters, the citizens of Canada? That is my first question.

Here is my second. I would like you to answer it before the first, please, because that might be included in the text of the referendum question. You want to change the first-past-the-post system we have presently. You mentioned other countries in the world who introduced some measure of proportional representation, but you also know that Canada is one of the last Commonwealth countries to still have the one-round system. Are you looking at a system with two rounds of voting?

Are you leaving all of this to the all-party committee to decide?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes, there is a possibility of having two rounds. I know the system used in France. There is a first round and, two weeks later, a second round of voting. To be elected deputy in France, one needs to get at least 50% of the votes cast in a riding. This is also a possibility. It is another way to have a more proportional system.

My motion is only a general motion asking that different models that could be used in our country be examined.

I am talking about a referendum. I believe it is important to hold a referendum when a significant change is made to our electoral system. In New Zealand, for example, they had not one, but two referendums: a first one to decide on the principle of proportional representation and a second one on the precise model.

• 1640

I believe we need to have a more democratic system here and that it is the Canadian people who should decide if we want to change our electoral system.

[English]

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Nystrom, would your proposal here allow for discussion of other models, such as preferential ballots?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I don't see anything in here. I gathered by the comments you just made that you're open to that, but it's not included in your motion.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: It's not there, Mr. Breitkreuz, because I kept the motion very general. In the writing I've done on this I recommend looking at the preferential ballot or the single transferable vote. I do not believe in a system of PR where the party leaders choose who's on the so-called list. I think that should be a list selected in an open, democratic way, whether it's a process such as you had for your leadership or an open convention, region by region or province by province.

Also, I think once the party determines who is on that particular list, the population should have a choice, through a single transferable vote or the preferential ballot, as to who the MPs are from that list. I may be chosen number one, you're number two, and you're number three in a particular party, but the population may see him as number one, you as number two, and me as number three. But I didn't have that in the motion, Mr. Breitkreuz, because I think the important thing now is to discuss the principle and look at all the possible models.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes.

Our third criterion is significant public interest. Have you gathered any evidence to show that this is the case?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I think it is. After this campaign, for the first time, there's been a national organization set up called Fair Vote Canada. There's a chapter in Toronto. There was a conference at the St. Lawrence Centre about three weeks ago, Madam Chair. There's going to be a national conference on Parliament Hill on the 30th and 31st of this month, which is this Friday and Saturday. There is more and more being written about it, more and more on the Internet about changing the voting system. It has a broad cross-section of support.

If I can just tell you who the two co-chairs of the conference will be, they are Walter Robinson, who's the national chair of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and on the right side of the spectrum, and Judy Rebick, who is a well-known feminist and writer in Toronto and on the left side of the spectrum. So it contains a broad sweep of public opinion. It's not as if it's the big issue of the day in comparison with health care and taxes and so on, but it's an issue that is starting to gain momentum as people are looking at a system that's more inclusive in engaging the Canadian population.

I should also say there's been an indication of support from more and more members in all the mainstream political parties, as you call them, the five parties represented on the Hill. There are supporters of the need to look at this in all five caucuses. And it is, of course, supported by the smaller parties, like the Green Party, the Canadian Action Party, the Marxist-Leninists, or whatever they're called, as well, as Mr. White could tell you.

The Chair: I'm going to let Ms. Lill ask a question. I think in adding to that—I'm not here to help you, but I'm not here to hurt you either—the fact that our voter turn-out is dropping off is probably a indication that people are getting pretty fed up with the system we've got.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes.

The Chair: Our mandate at the procedure and House affairs committee is to review the Elections Act after every event. It wouldn't suit you to do it there?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: No.

The Chair: You'd prefer to have it in the House.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: That was the mandate last time, as you said, to do it after every election campaign, and I think the time has now come for the House of Commons to look at the issue and to talk about changing our system. Parliamentary members in many ways should be used to debating new ideas that are relevant to a lot of people out there, and the last time we voted on this was 1923. The last time we had a motion, a non-votable motion, was 1977 with Mr. Pepin.

I want to mention one more fact, because it shows this is not a partisan motion. We now have three provincial governments where the leading opposition party got more votes than the government. Mr. Charest and the Liberals got more votes in Quebec than the Parti Québécois, yet you have a majority PQ government. In the province Garry and I come from the NDP got 38% of the votes, and yet we have the government; the Saskatchewan Party had 39%, and they're in opposition. Similarly, in British Columbia the NDP government had fewer votes than the opposition Liberals.

So you get these distortions in the electoral system, and they exist right here. We all know the distortions in our own House, and it affects all parties differently at different times, Madam Chair. When the Canadian people look at that, it makes them cynical about the Canadian electoral process. They see that the composition of Parliament doesn't reflect how people vote. This is not the be-all and end-all, but I think it's one way of trying to improve the system.

The Chair: Ms. Lill—and I'm sorry I took your time.

• 1645

Ms. Wendy Lill: Actually, I want a point of clarification here.

Mr. Nystrom's motion was on the floor of the House of Commons, so obviously it meets the criteria. But the election came along and knocked it out.

A voice: It intervened, yes.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm not the sitting member here, so I haven't been through this process before, but are motions that were already on the floor given any kind of priority in this particular...

The Chair: Unfortunately, no. What happens is that it's literally the luck of the draw.

And how you ended up having this drawn again... You're a very lucky fellow.

What happens is—I shouldn't use this analogy—it's like a beauty contest. You have 14 very good bills and motions in front of you. The composition changes from year to year and from draw to draw. Our job is to pick up to three. So this may have been a spectacular motion in another draw, and, in fact, it may be a spectacular motion in this draw, but it's always comparative. So it's whatever group is drawn at that moment in time; you're going to prioritize them. And, no, there is no special privilege. Just like government legislation, it dies when you move through an election.

Art, we had a lot of stuff die as well.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

The Chair: One of the things we did change in the last Parliament, or maybe the one even before that, is that, if the House is prorogued and there's a private member's bill on the floor, it gets carried over like government legislation. Before they used to figure that was a great way of getting rid of the bills, but we fixed that.

Any other questions? Okay, thank you.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian.

And then, Mr. St-Julien, we'll flip you in. You missed your spot, you know. You'll have to just be patient for a second.

Okay, Sarkis, begin.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian, M.P. (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Colleagues, first of all, I'd like to remind everybody that today is March 27. Four months ago, November 27, at this time, everybody was out there hustling for the votes, and everybody who was seeking re-election here as a team got re-elected. So I just wanted to make sure that we start on a good note.

Madam Chair, this motion that you have in front of you—I assume you have a copy of the motion?

The Chair: Yes, we do.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Basically, it's similar to previous motions introduced by opposition MPs or opposition parties in the last 25 to 30 years, but this one expands to include the last paragraph as a follow-up to the third report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, where they decided to establish research facilities on genocide within one year.

This issue, Madam Chair, has been discussed in Parliament for many, many years, and, as I said, motions have been introduced by different parties and different individuals. But I want to bring to your attention that in 1999 one Liberal MP introduced a motion in the House regarding the same subject. In reply to the motion from the government side, the Honourable André Ouellet decided to set up a committee to discuss this issue. As a consequence of that, the committee decided that further steps should be taken. The reason I say that as background is that in asking my question in the House of Commons on June 10, 1999, Julian Reed, then parliamentary secretary of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and all others who worked on this process.

On behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I wish to inform the House that, together with all Canadians, we remember the calamity inflicted upon the Armenian people in 1915. This tragedy was committed with the intent to destroy a national group

—that's the same definition used at the UN when they defined the word “genocide”—

in which hundreds of thousands of Armenians were subject to atrocities, which included massive deportation and massacres.

So that's by way of background. What I'm trying to say is that the last government, before this election, went as far as describing that as an intent to destroy a national minority. Since then, I think many countries have adopted a similar stance. The latest one is the Government of France. I have copies of their resolution here. It's only in French; I'm sorry. I didn't have time to translate it. If you pass that... it gives you an idea.

Thank you very much.

• 1650

The translation of this says that the republic of France recognizes that what happened from 1915 to 1922 is nothing short of genocide. So the Parliament of France and then the Senate passed this resolution unanimously, and at the end of January the President of France, Mr. Chirac, signed this declaration in France. Now it is French law that genocide took place, and you cannot deny that the genocide of Armenians took place, similar to the Jewish Holocaust. If you deny it, then you are subject to prosecution.

So basically, what I'm trying to do is pass a similar motion here in Canada so we can be in step with other nations that have done so. As I said, the latest one is the republic of France.

I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you.

The Chair: Sarkis, haven't you had this bill here before?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: As I said, I had a similar one but not with—

The Chair: What happened to that one?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: That one went to discussion and died in the order paper.

The Chair: Okay. Any other questions?

It wasn't votable that time, I think.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: No, it wasn't. I think the only time we had a vote was when an opposition day from the Bloc Québécois took place—in 1996, I believe it was. Then there was a motion from the Bloc Québécois to recognize that. Also there was a motion from the Alliance to do similarly. But we changed the motion to call it “atrocities” or “tragedy” of 1915. Check the records—

The Chair: Okay. You seem to have it all down pat.

Thank you very much, Sarkis.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien, M.P. (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): I am not asking for anything. I came to ask you not to make this motion votable because I do not need a vote on it. Where I would have needed a vote was on Bill C-220, the other day, regarding the retail price of gas.

You are doing a good job and you work hard. I ask you not to make this motion votable because it is never the same person who takes notes. And then on the Friday you make your decisions.

[English]

The Chair: So you don't want this to be voted on?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: No. Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thanks for coming.

It's all very unusual.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: It is never the same person.

[English]

The Chair: I think he meant that his other bill was more important, and we didn't make it votable; therefore, we could all shove it.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes. I think he meant that he doesn't think very much of us, or maybe of the committee.

The Chair: That's too bad.

Okay, we're waiting for Mr. Abbott, Mr. Caccia, and Mr. Robinson.

A voice: Except Mr. Abbott is only coming at 4:30.

The Chair: He said he was coming at 4:30? At 5:30 or 4:30?

A voice: At 5:30.

The Chair: At 5:30? He better hope we're still here.

Just so that you know, when we start going in committee to do our discussions, there are spaces right now in the order paper for three votable motions or bills. What I do is go around the table and, instead of discussing every one ad nauseam, you each pick your three favourites. Okay?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: What a good idea.

The Chair: Then we all write them down, and the ones that have all the votes right off the bat we don't have to talk about. The ones that are within shooting distance we discuss briefly. Okay?

Yes, Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'd like to know what our criteria should be for our favourites, because you basically said what we're looking at is that they're all votable. These all appear to be votable except for the ones that have decided they don't want to be votable. If you say it's like a beauty contest, are we looking for long legs, or shiny hair, or what are we looking for?

• 1655

The Chair: We're looking for... First of all, Jamie has the original lawyer that was astutely advising us—we now have Mr. Asselin, is it? They'll tell us if it meets the criteria as far as private members' bills are concerned, and we were told that they're all fine. None of them contravenes the Constitution.

Some of them are a little questionable on jurisdiction. I think you guys were asking good questions on the first bill. So on those ones, if there's that much question in your own mind, that wouldn't be one of the ones you'd pick.

So what you're going to do is look at all of them and say, gee, I've got six here that are great, but if I were flicked in the fire and had to pick three, these are the three I'd pick.

Ms. Wendy Lill: So really it's the ones that we find the most interesting in terms of public debate.

The Chair: Yes, because what we get around the table, then, is if six of us all pick one particular one as votable, there's no point in discussing it—it's votable. If we have ones that are, let's say, your fourth choice, and the rest of us picked it as one of our first choices, you'd say, well, gee, I have no problem with that. That's generally how we work here. It works a bit faster.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think, Madam Chair, that the question does have another answer. It's not just your choice of your favourite three. There are still some that meet the criteria better than others.

The Chair: And you're not going to pick a bill that you'd necessarily vote for. What you're going to do is pick a bill that's going to inspire a lot of debate in the House, in your opinion.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And meet all of the criteria, and you think that it best satisfies the criteria.

The Chair: And you also have to remember, is it going to fade before three hours in the House? If you have a bill there that looks like it's going to take three hours to debate, that's probably a better choice.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Okay.

The Chair: I'm being facetious when I say it's a beauty contest, because what happens is that sometimes people will have a bill drawn in one draw. It's not made votable; the next draw it is. They ask, “What's the matter with you guys?”, or, like Mr. St-Julien, think that our judgment changes from day to day. It doesn't. The bills in front of us change from draw to draw.

Sometimes one that's considered to be spectacular in a poor group doesn't make it in a group where they're all spectacular. It's a bad analogy, but I can't think of another one. Call it “dog show”, and then you really get everybody upset with you.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Chair, did you say only three?

The Chair: We have space for only three votable bills and motions. That's why when we had—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: How does that come to a vote? How come there are only three?

The Chair: Because you have a draw. The first big draw we had was thirty. We were allowed to pick up to ten.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes.

The Chair: Had we filled that completely, we would be picking no bills today unless one had already gone through and been voted on. That's why I always caution you to be careful at the beginning because, if you fill all the spaces, then you'll have a group like this come in, and we'll say, “gee, sorry”.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: How long does that ten apply? When can we—

The Chair: As one moves up through its three hours, is voted on, and disappears off the order paper or is designated for voting. Then we can replace it.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: With one.

The Chair: With a votable one.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Why did you pick fifteen now if we can only choose three? Why didn't we just have six people be—

The Chair: Because for the ones that are not votable, those hours are getting used up quickly. They've been through the House, and you need space for more one-hour debates.

The Clerk of the Committee: Two of the items at a time, ten votable items. So we were down to fifteen, but we still—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That answers my question. Yes.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We picked ten the last time.

The Chair: You may or may not have had a space this time. It depends on if any have been disposed of yet. If you defer a vote until the end of the week when this meeting is held, you can plug in another one. You can pick another one. We also changed that in the last Parliament. It used to be that, until it was actually voted on, you couldn't replace it.

That's why when everybody gets terribly enthusiastic on the first draw, I always say calm down, guys.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: There would have been a draw anyway, because—

The Chair: Yes, because you need the non-votables. The draw selects the order that they go into the House. So if you have all non-votables running in first and then the votables drawn at the end, then you've run into a problem too because you've got all those spaces for one-hour debates.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Why don't we wait until all of the ones in the House have run their course before we draw some more?

The Chair: Somebody else has to answer that.

The Clerk: I know the answer.

The Chair: Bibiane knows the answer.

The Clerk: Because before the draw last week there were fifteen items left. So we can't wait. There was a draw, fifteen more items drawn. We had to pick the votable items right away in case one of the newly drawn items goes up to the first to be debated, and the subcommittee hasn't decided yet if it should be votable or not. So you have to get the new people in the draw as things change.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Why don't we wait until almost all of the ones in the House have run their course? Then we would have more opportunity to pick votable items.

• 1700

As it stands, we might want eight out of these fifteen to be votable, but we can't designate them as such, and they're dropped off the order paper once they've run their one-hour debate.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Are they off the paper?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes.

The Chair: They get their one hour and that's it.

An hon. member: They don't get back into the drum.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: They're gone.

The Chair: Members could resubmit it.

An hon. member: They resubmit.

The Chair: Yes, they could resubmit it. Albina did that. She made it to a vote three times.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Who is in the next time slot?

The Clerk: It's Mr. Caccia at 5:10.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: What happened to Mr. Abbott?

The Chair: He wants to be postponed until 5:30. We'll do it if we have time.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I thought our meeting was over at 5:30.

The Chair: Our meeting is over at 6:30, unless we finish sooner.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Do we have anybody lined up after 5:30?

The Chair: Bibiane has the list.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Line them up until 6:15.

The Chair: We should start doing what doctors do in their waiting rooms, book three for one time slot and then let them wait.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Or book they all for 3:30. First come, first served.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's incumbent upon the members to be here. They can't keep on saying no forever. The bills or motions are before us and we can still deal with them.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's up to them to show the interest.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We've given them appointments.

The Chair: We're going to start clustering them the next time we do this. We'll give three a four o'clock appointment, three a 4:15, and three a 4:30. And they'll just sit here.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Absolutely.

The Chair: This is the first time this has happened.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's a big issue to have your name drawn, and certainly when your name is drawn it's incumbent upon you to be here. If you have to sit around for half an hour, well, so be it. It's only going to happen once in a while.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Exactly.

Maybe we should space them by ten minutes, allowing five minutes for presentation and five minutes for questions.

The Chair: They are spaced.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We are the authors of our own misfortune today—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Absolutely.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: —because we have called them in at specific times.

The Chair: No, but I think we'll start doing...

Mr. Marcel Proulx: When's the last appointment?

The Clerk: They're called in at ten-minute intervals, but at the last minute Mr. Abbott couldn't make the 4:50 slot. He wanted to come at 5:30, so I have an empty slot.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay. But when is our last one? Aside from Mr. Abbott at 5:30, when's the last one?

The Clerk: 5:50.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We have them lined up until 5:50?

The Chair: Then we finish our debate. We'll be finished by five after.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: It's five o'clock now.

The Chair: We're not really voting. We'll have consensus. That's why with everybody picking their three, it goes very fast.

In the good old days, they used to sit there and debate every single bill around the table for hours. Then they let me be chair.

I had a piano teacher named Keddy when I was a kid, and he was... You remind me of him. You look like him, you sound like him. You're a little cranky around the edges like him, because I never practised.

It's Mr. Caccia. Welcome to you.

Okay, Charles, this is a good one.

Mr. Charles Caccia, M.P. (Davenport, Lib.): Would you like it in less than four minutes, or less than three?

The Chair: No, you can have it in five minutes.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Five minutes.

The Chair: Tell us why we should make it votable, other than to cause the government to grow grey hair.

Mr. Charles Caccia: I have no illusions, and I don't think you will make it votable.

• 1705

I want to thank you for inviting me here, but you will not make it votable, because it's too controversial. Therefore, I can save you the five minutes by saying simply that this bill proposes something proposed or moved before by other colleagues—for instance, Madame Alarie of the Bloc.

[Translation]

She too had a bill.

[English]

It was a very good one.

I had one in the last Parliament, but the Government of Canada will not touch the subject with a ten-foot pole. Therefore, if you make it votable, you will have a very disrupted chamber.

The Chair: But may I ask you a question, young man?

Mr. Charles Caccia: Nevertheless... “Young man”—yes, of course, he will be very glad to answer questions.

It is Bill C-287, to amend the Food and Drugs Act to label genetically modified food. Only to label it would seem to be very innocent, innocuous, straightforward. Yet there is such tremendous corporate pressure against it that it will not see the light of day, as far as I can see.

The Chair: That's a really bad attitude.

Your name was drawn. Why did you select it, if you didn't think we'd pick up?

Mr. Charles Caccia: It's my duty to do my best.

The Chair: Is this your favourite one of the bills you have rolling around in your head?

Mr. Charles Caccia: Yes, it is.

The Chair: You're like a Tom Sawyer handing me the paint brush and saying “Here, do you want to show me how to paint the fence?”

Mr. Charles Caccia: I never thought I was that subtle. Thank you for the compliment.

The Chair: Would you not suggest that a debate in private members' might be a good release for some of the steam building up on this?

Mr. Charles Caccia: Oh, definetly. I would agree.

The Chair: Then you should help me justify this. If it's this controversial and my colleagues and I make it votable, you have to help us defend ourselves.

Mr. Charles Caccia: The collective judgment of this committee is far superior to mine.

The Chair: You're bad.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I would have looked forward to debating this.

This is not a corporate concern in Saskatchewan. I will guarantee it to you. That's one incorrect thing you've said right off the bat.

Mr. Charles Caccia: I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, but you've already said you don't want it votable.

The Chair: No, he didn't

An hon. member: He didn't say that.

Mr. Charles Caccia: No, no. I said I don't have any illusions that it will be made votable.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay. That's reverse psychology, putting pressure on us to—

The Chair: It is. It's Tom Sawyer letting you paint the fence.

Any other questions around the table? Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I assume you believe this bill meets all of the criteria set out here in terms of its being votable.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Yes.

Ms. Wendy Lill: And that it should be votable.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Yes.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Is this the first time you have brought this before the committee?

Mr. Charles Caccia: Before the committee? Yes.

I introduced it also in the last Parliament, but it was not drawn. This is the first opportunity, which I appreciate very much.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have a question, Madam Chair, and it's really a bit out of order, because it's not dealing with the criteria we're here to deal with.

On this issue—and it's a tremendous issue of great interest to many Canadians—what happens if this goes to committee and the structure of your bill is changed to the degree that you feel, as the author of the bill, that it no longer reflects the legislation you put forth?

For instance, you're very clear on what you are calling genetic modification. But all kinds of genetic modification has gone on in agriculture, and will continue to go on, that's not cross-species, but certainly deals with DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid—and you've specified that—in vitro.

As someone believing genetic modification can be an important tool, especially in agriculture, if you stay away from cross-species, and you specify this, if it is changed, does that take away the validity of the bill as you would see it presented?

• 1710

Mr. Charles Caccia: If the definition of “genetically modified” is changed in committee to make it mean less, then it will be a meaningless bill. However, I don't think parliamentarians in the appropriate committee will do that unless they come under serious pressure from outside. I think they would want to retain it. A number of colleagues from each of the parties in the House view positively the necessity to label, in a meaningful way, products that are genetically modified.

So I don't think that will happen in committee. I think it could be given meaningful elaboration in committee. It could be reworked and maybe even strengthened. Public concern vis-à-vis genetically modified substances is happening not only in agriculture but in aquaculture as well, which is growing, as we know.

The public is expecting from our institution some meaningful discussion and possibly some legislative steps that would at least bring us up to speed at a minimum level—that is, the level of informing the public, when it purchases a substance, as to whether the substance is or is not genetically modified.

The Chair: Can I ask you a question that has nothing to do with that?

Mr. Charles Caccia: You can ask me any question.

The Chair: Do you think some genetic modifications are good? Or are they all bad?

Mr. Charles Caccia: The jury is still out. The British medical establishment published a paper in January, I believe, saying that the manipulation of genes, as seen over a period of time, is something they would like to express a certain degree of caution about. It is not ultimately clear what it does to the DNA configuration. Then the language becomes very complex, and difficult for me to follow.

We are facing an area here that we should definitely allow to unfold in terms of technological research, but at the same time, as a minimum, we should inform the public that a certain substance or product has been treated in a certain way.

We talk about transparency. We talk about accountability. We use very powerful terms in our parliamentary language. It seems to me that this is an elementary and very modest step. Without casting any shadow on the technology one way or the other, at least we're saying to people, “Look, this is what you're getting into”.

The Chair: That was a very long non-answer, Charles.

Mr. Charles Caccia: It's because I don't know. It's not a question of avoiding the answer.

The Chair: I'm just teasing you. I'm trying to make you smile, Charles.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Well, the subject is not one that would make me laugh, either, but I can smile, yes.

The Chair: Are there any other questions around the table?

Mr. Charles Caccia: The jury's still out on your question. I think as parliamentarians we have a big burden to carry.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you for coming.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson, M.P. (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you and to plead my case to have the motion I've selected be deemed votable.

The motion I am asking the committee to declare votable—I believe you have a copy of it before you—effectively calls on the Canadian government to show a leadership role at the United Nations to lift economic sanctions that have been imposed upon Iraq since 1991. Then it points out the very serious impact these sanctions have had on the people of Iraq.

I've had an opportunity to review the criteria before coming to the committee, because presumably what you want us to do is explain why this motion falls within the criteria of the committee. I'll just briefly touch on those criteria.

• 1715

The first criterion is that the motion must be drafted in clear, complete, and effective terms. I hope members of the committee would agree that this is very clear. It's precise, it doesn't spread all over the ballpark. It deals very specifically with the issue of lifting economic sanctions. It doesn't in any way suggest a relaxation of military sanctions against Iraq. We should not in any way let up on our concerns about mass production of weapons; but this does call for lifting economic sanctions.

The motion must be constitutional, and must concern areas of federal jurisdiction. Clearly, the federal government is the appropriate level of jurisdiction for this. It's the federal government that has responsibility for our international affairs and our role at the United Nations.

The motion should also concern a matter of significant public interest. As members of the committee are aware, I've been around this place for a while—it will be 22 years in a couple of months. But I have dealt with very few issues in the field of international affairs that have the same depth of interest as this Iraq situation.

I could point to the thousands and thousands of petitions tabled on this issue by members of all parties. I could point to the diversity of groups that are involved in this issue and have raised concerns: all the major church organizations, union movements and the business community. In fact, one of the key advocates on this issue is from the business community in Calgary, Alberta.

There's also been a particular interest from women's groups in Quebec. I spoke recently at a public meeting with Denis Halliday, the former UN humanitarian coordinator. We had over a thousand people there, and it was a remarkable cross-section of the community.

So in terms of that criterion, there's huge public interest in this issue. I think Canadians are concerned about what's happening there, and they'd like to see us take some action.

The motion should concern issues that are not part of the government's current legislative agenda, and which have not been voted on or otherwise addressed by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament.

Again, the motion meets those criteria. This is not an issue that's been voted on or considered by the House of Commons in this session, and it's certainly not part of the government's current legislative agenda. In fact I have a letter from John Manley, the current foreign affairs minister, sent just last month. It reaffirms that government policy requires continuing all sanctions, including economic sanctions. So this is not on the government's agenda. We meet that criterion.

Finally, this has to be an item that transcends purely local interest, is not couched in partisan terms, and cannot be addressed by the House in other ways. I can't think of anything more non-partisan than this situation.

In the last Parliament, Madam Chair, the foreign affairs committee unanimously adopted a report—and I emphasize that it was unanimous: the representative of the Alliance, the representative of the Bloc, etc. Every member of that committee called on the government to do what this motion calls for. It was Andre Bachand, the Conservative member at the time. Every member of that committee said we should lift the economic sanctions, that too many innocent people have died.

The last thing I want to say is that this would be an opportunity for Parliament to actually speak out on this issue. We can have the one-hour debate, but then people stand up and the topic just dies—that's the end of it.

I hope very much that this committee can recognize that on an issue like this, it would be a very important opportunity for us to send a powerful message to the government, on a non-partisan basis, of an issue that was already addressed by Parliament in the previous session. We can show some leadership on an issue that is literally one of life and death for thousands and thousands of innocent people.

That's my submission, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Questions?

Don't let that freak you out. It's very clear.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. No, no you just love talking.

There's no point in being efficient here if we're going to be penalized. So I think we'll do this clustering idea next time. Three appointments at 4 o'clock, three at 4:15. That's why we've always done it—we haven't been this good before.

Welcome, Mr. Abbott. Boy, you must be a lucky fellow. You're here a lot.

Mr. Jim Abbott, M.P. (Kootenay—Columbia, CA): Me?

The Chair: Yes. Since 1993, how many times have you been drawn?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Honestly, this is my second time.

• 1720

I too have looked at the list of criteria. Regarding the last two points, you should be concerned that if it isn't part of the government's current legislative agenda, this one would equal a higher priority. I hope to answer the first three questions in my brief submission.

The motion is drafted in clear, complete, and effective terms. A legislative committee would be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill to create an ombudsman position to oversee private disability insurers in Canada. The motion would cover insurance companies with federal charters, doing business in more than one province in Canada. This would answer the concern about federal jurisdiction.

I understand that administering the activities of these companies comes under the purview of the provincial insurance superintendents. But although some of them offer various forms of mediation services, depending on the province, they do not act as ombudsmen. The usual final dispute resolution is for the claimant to find enough money to launch legal action against the deep-pocketed insurance companies. That's highly unlikely if the claimant is out of work, saddled with a disability, and possibly not receiving disability insurance either.

The motion relates to issues raised by our constituents in our riding offices, at least two or three times a week. I would expect nods of agreement on that. It is an issue of significant public interest. People don't stand on the street corners with placards, and this item isn't frequently top of the national news, but it is a life-and-death survival issue for many Canadians.

The issue is desperation when private insurance companies refuse to honour their policies and pay benefits to people who suffer from long-term disabilities. Some of these cases involve Canadians who have put their own lives at risk with careers in the RCMP or the armed forces, or as peacekeepers. Others are ordinary Canadians who work hard at their jobs as nurses, teachers, or loggers, to provide for themselves and their families.

When Canadians in the workplace find themselves with a severe illness or disability that prevents them from performing their duties, they turn to their insurance companies—believing they have coverage to assist them in unfortunate circumstances. Their stress and anxiety from their illness or accident, along with facing the reality that they can no longer work and provide for themselves and their families, can be multiplied by the treatment they receive from their insurance companies.

First, these people are informed that their only option is to go on short-term disability. This is typically from 26 to 52 weeks—but it's payable only after they can provide medical evidence that they are severely disabled and unable to perform their employment duties. At the end of the short-term disability period, their insurance benefits are cut off and they're required to go through the process again, to prove they're still disabled. At that point, they may either be granted another period of short-term disability, or allowed to go on long-term disability.

Even if they are granted long-term disability, they are subject to a review—usually every two years. At this point, their benefits could be cut off. They are required to go through the whole process again and again with their insurance company.

Now, this is of interest to all Canadian taxpayers: at this point, if the claim is approved, the insurance companies require the employee, or victim, to apply for early Canada Pension Plan benefits—thus reducing their own payout. In other words, the insurance companies are downloading responsibility for their clients onto the Canada Pension Plan—which is the reserve all Canadians have paid into for their retirement pensions.

At each review, the insurance company will suggest other employment opportunities for the individual to pursue. Again, this is so they can lower their benefits paid. I quote from an insurance group policy:

For the first 30 months of total disability, “totally disabled” shall mean that an employee is wholly and continously disabled by illness or accidental bodily injury, which prevents him from performing the essential duties of his normal occupation. After the first 30 months of total disability, “totally disabled” shall mean he is unable to perform the essential duties of any occupation for which he is reasonably fitted by education, training, and experience.

I note that when you obtained your insurance it was insured at your present job. This tactic of periodically discontinuing benefits, or taking away financial support mechanisms and requiring individuals to continually prove they're incapable of working, is in itself a questionable ethical procedure.

We should keep in mind that even patients suffering from severe disabilities such as fibromyalgia or terminal cancer can have the odd good day. But these people could find their claims cancelled should an insurance company investigator catch them in any activity they might interpret as normal.

My solution is to create a federal ombudsman complaint process, with investigative powers and a mandate to resolve complaints.

• 1725

The motion is very clear that this be looked at. In other words, I haven't gone past the point of saying there should be a process of parliamentarians to look at these concerns, examine specifically what the federal component is, and sort out the differences between the provincial responsibilities that have been picked up by certain provinces. Ontario and British Columbia are two that come to mind. To the best of my knowledge, and I've researched this quite extensively, there is no ombudsman service per se for people who have not been able to arrive at a resolution of their claim with the insurance companies.

In conclusion, I've just underscored that these are the same people who likely will have had their disability benefits terminated and therefore they're in financial distress. They will no longer be able to be gainfully employed, which obviously increases their financial distress. They're physically incapacitated due to a disability, either by accident or illness, that further puts them under stress. Then as a final resolution at this point, we're asking them to get together $10,000 to $50,000 as a retainer for a lawyer to go after the insurance company to try to bring their issue forward.

My motion would be for us to take a look at the possibility of creating the role of a federal ombudsman for disability insurance.

The Chair: Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Abbott, the second criterion we need to look at is constitutionality and your motion deals with an area of federal jurisdiction. You addressed this briefly.

In my view, relationships between insurance companies and their clients are much more a responsibility of the provincial level of government. What would happen in provinces like Quebec or Saskatchewan which have a state automobile insurance scheme? Do you think there could be any implications for these plans?

Now, I am not totally convinced that your motion... The idea of an ombudsman in this area seems great. However, I am not convinced there would not be an infringement on provincial powers. We can ask our researcher to provide reassurance once we go into our discussion. But I am not certain you have proven your case. This is my first question and I am looking for your comments.

Secondly, do you think that in this matter insurance companies would be able to self-regulate, to implement an ethics code and to appoint an ombudsman, like banks have done, for example? You know that banks now have ombudsmen. There is one for each bank. I believe this was an initiative of the Canadian Bankers' Association. If insurance companies were to do the same, your motion would become irrelevant.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Those are two very good questions, and I appreciate the opportunity to expand.

With respect to provincial jurisdiction, each province has a superintendent of insurance. Each province, as in the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, or Saskatchewan, has the superintendent of insurance for their province, who is responsible for overseeing the administration that relates to the insurance company paying out benefits and so on and so forth.

• 1730

However, I am absolutely unaware of, and I don't believe there exists, an ombudsman service available from any of those superintendents of insurance from any of the provinces. The very most the superintendent of insurance will do is study the issue of systemic problems from a given insurance company. They will go after that, but they will not go after individual cases.

With respect to ICBC or Insurance Saskatchewan, perhaps you have the same kind of thing for automobiles in Quebec. My motion has nothing to do with that.

Now, please refresh my memory. Your last question was on the issue of...

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Could insurance companies choose to auto-regulate, as banks did, and show that they are eager to respect their clients by deciding to appoint an ombudsman, as banks have done upon the initiative of the Canadian Bankers' Association?

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes. Excellent.

Again, yes, they have such a board. However, it's really interesting, and this is from the insurance company's website. They boast about the fact they have this ability to be able to respond to concerns of people who are insured, and they boast about taking over a million telephone calls in a period of time.

When I actually went to this graph, it turns out, of the people who call the insurance companies, 40.1% call for product information, 27% for company information, 9% for other industry information, 9% for booklets, and 2.2% for policy research. Only 1.2% of the people who call are actually calling about complaints. That's from their own website.

At this point, for two to three days a week we will have a minimum of one person coming into our office with concerns about where to go. Many of them just throw up their hands in despair and give up.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

See, it wasn't a star chamber after all.

The Chair: No. We're good guys.

Have we've been able to get in touch with the other two? Do they know we're running early?

We're ready.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai, M.P. (Calgary East, CA): Actually, I think you will agree that it's a laudable thing. Everywhere on the media today it was said you are nice people.

How many minutes do I have, Madam?

The Chair: Five minutes.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: That's it?

The Chair: That's it.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Okay. Here I go.

The purpose of Bill C-290 is to have a minimum of a two-year sentence for a break and entering offence. I repeat, a break and entering offence. I must clarify that.

Eighty percent of break and enter is done by repeat offenders. The sentence they get right now is either for six months or they get off with a suspended sentence, which creates the cycle of repeat break and enter offences. These guys become habitual criminals going into this thing.

Break and enter is not only a property offence, but it's an offence that takes away a person's privacy with a devastating psychological effect.

Let me quote what the chief of police in Saskatoon said. He is supporting my bill, by the way. The chief of police in Saskatoon said “My primary concern is for those who are continually victimized by break and enter offenders where there is nothing to deter them from this habitual activity”. This sentence says “there's nothing to deter them from this habitual activity”.

• 1735

I have a letter here from some of my constituents who say how traumatized they are with regard to break and enter and that they feel a minimum two-year break and enter sentence is pretty appropriate.

The purpose is to take people and break their habit of turning to crime and going into a cycle.

I must clarify here that we are not talking of home invasion. We are talking of break and enter. Home invasion is where there's a criminal thing taking place, and it falls under another category.

I would like to—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Break and enter is also a crime.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes.

What I would like to say is even the minister is interested, and her spokesman said that the minister won't comment on Obhrai's proposal until it's debated in the Commons on April 30.

There's enough publicity out there. This is Canada-wide. I've been on radio talk shows explaining and getting support for this right across the country. It has nothing to do with my riding.

Under the present system there is no minimum sentence for break and enter. The maximum sentence on this one is life imprisonment. We have a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but there is no minimum sentence.

The problem is it's working in the worst way. With the minimum sentence, nothing is happening, and people are going back and back. What we are having is habitual criminals, 80% of them. We are not talking of the first time. We can understand the person who goes for the first time. We allow him the leeway he may have slipped or something back into rehabilitation.

So that is the essence of this bill, to create a minimum sentence in order to break this cycle of repeat break and enter offenders.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any questions? Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm just wondering if you have consecutive sentencing in mind. If somebody does a string of break and enters, how would your bill treat that?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: The first time there's a minimum two-year sentence for break and enter. If he's a repeat offender, the minimum sentence would be two years. After he's out, it depends on whether or not he's going to be a repeat offender. We hope he is not. So I don't see where a consecutive sentence comes into play. What will happen here is that when he's back, he'll get a minimum two-year sentence.

Ms. Wendy Lill: If he's caught after doing ten break and enters, does he get two years?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes, he would get the minimum sentence of two years for a repeat break and enter offender. The purpose is to break the cycle that is taking place.

The Chair: I think Ms. Lill was asking the question that was going through my head. Do you get twenty years for ten houses?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: The leeway for the maximum sentence is totally different. You have up to life imprisonment, and I'm not going anywhere near life imprisonment. It's up to the judges.

The Chair: Are there any other questions? No.

Your bill is so clear that we have no questions. Thank you, and thank you for coming early.

We're going to have to figure out a way to reschedule. We're so darn efficient now, we're getting through faster.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: If anyone wants a copy of the documentation with regard to the Saskatoon police or anything else, I'd be more than happy to provide it.

The Chair: No, that's fine, thanks.

Jay, are you ready? Welcome. You know the routine. You have five minutes to convince us not of the merits of the bill, but why it should be made votable.

Mr. Jay Hill, M.P. (Prince George—Peace River, CA): The bill is very straightforward. Bill C-272 seeks to make expenses dealing with the adoption of children tax deductible up to a maximum of $7,000. As well, if it were passed, it would pertain not only to this current fiscal year but to the two years previously. In other words, someone who has adopted a child in the past two years would qualify for the expenses being tax deductible. The bill outlines the receipts that would have to be presented to show the expenses are bona fide.

• 1740

I believe very strongly that adoption is something we should be supporting. There is considerable evidence that in many cases people don't adopt because of the costs involved.

Since I tabled this bill, I have received a substantial amount of support for it from across the nation. A lot of people have contacted me by phone, fax, and e-mail, as well as in person on a couple of occasions, and have told me stories of when they adopted when they were young. Usually when people are adopting, they're in their twenties or early thirties. It's a time when they're not as fiscally sound as they might be later on in life, so it can be a considerable expense. In the case of an international adoption, it can get into the tens of thousands of dollars.

I refer you to page 2. It's actually the third page down. We can just go through it very quickly, according to the criteria your committee has set out, and I won't bore you with the details.

Go down to the third item, that bills and motions should concern matters of significant public interest. As I say, since the introduction of this bill a month ago, my riding office has been inundated with about 50 e-mails, currently and counting; telephone calls; and letters of support. The sentiment is unanimous. No one has disputed the need for it.

As you see there, evidence and research that my office has done would indicate that in some cases of international adoption, costs can reach $20,000 per child, although it's not the norm. So I don't feel the $7,000 is out of line.

There are many advantages to the government and society arising from an adoption expense deduction that are beyond the social contribution. For a one-time tax break, adoptive parents will assume all financial responsibility for a child who might otherwise remain under publicly funded care. So there is even an economic benefit to this type of thing if it would encourage people to adopt children who are in a foster home or some similar situation or perhaps encourage a young mother to give up a child who would otherwise be raised on welfare. So there are not just the humanitarian and fairness aspects of the bill in having the adoption expenses tax deductible but also an economic one for the taxpayer.

The fifth item is whether it transcends purely local interest. Certainly this would.

It's not couched in partisan terms. Quite frankly, Madam Chair, I don't care who would bring this forward, I would be willing to support it. I don't think it's a partisan issue. It's something that I think all parties could and should support.

it would be similar to the good work that was done by the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. I'm just using that as a similar situation where the welfare of children was concerned, as in the case of this bill. There has already been a precedent set showing that the House of Commons and the Senate can work together cooperatively and do some good work and bring about some really good recommendations.

I write a weekly column that runs in all the newspapers back home. The column that ran last week explained the bill and why there is a need for it. I've included a copy for your perusal and a copy of the bill itself.

I'd be open to try to address any questions you might have.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Would this be just for adoptions within Canada? A lot of people are going overseas now.

Mr. Jay Hill: As long as they're Canadian citizens and filing their taxes here, they would qualify.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It's more expensive to go overseas.

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes, it is, and I referred to that in the notes you have. As I said, the research we've done indicates that in some cases it can reach as high as $20,000 for direct and indirect expenses. So I don't think $7,000 is out of line for a one-time, per-child tax deduction.

The Chair: Are there any other questions? Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think this is an excellent bill, especially since I tabled an identical one in the previous parliament. However, it was my bill on the tools of mechanics that was picked.

• 1745

If I remember correctly, I dealt more specifically with international adoption. It is true that the expense for a domestic adoption, the adoption of a child within Canada, is somewhat less costly.

However, we need to be careful not to give privileges to adoptive parents to the detriment of natural parents who do not get the same tax breaks. Make no mistake, Mr. Hill. I find your bill very good, especially with regard to international adoption. We know that presently two source countries are very popular, China for girls and Russia for boys. These are presently the two most popular countries. Indeed, one of my neighbours adopted a child from China and one of my cousins adopted one in Russia.

I wonder, Mr. Hill, since your bill would extend the deduction to Canadian adoptions, would there not be a concern that it create discrimination or provide an undue advantage to adoptive parents to the detriment of natural parents.

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill: I'd like to have you explain how it would do that. Quite honestly, I can't fathom that. What we're talking about here is legitimate expenses that are incurred by a couple, usually a young couple that can't afford it, in order to start a family. And normally it's because they can't have children under the natural process, if you will.

There's no advantage being given to these people. There are expenses they would incur as a couple in order to have a family that another couple wouldn't incur. It's not expenses of baby bottles, it's the expenses incurred by having lawyers and going through having forms filled out, etc., taking time off work and all that kind of stuff. Parents adopting have to go through all those hurdles, whereas natural parents don't have to go through those things. And, as I say, they're receipted expenses. It's not something they can concoct.

I was very fortunate myself. I'm the father of three children and we didn't have to adopt. We had our children naturally. But looking at it from a parent's point of view, I certainly would not be of the view that this bill... In fact, I would argue that it actually levels the playing field in a small way. As you say, and as Mr. Breitkreuz said, in the case of international adoptions it doesn't even level the playing field, because the couple will still be incurring some costs because they're normally well above $7,000. And you would know this, as obviously you've done some research on your own on this issue.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Is there any reason why we couldn't get your document in French, Mr. Hill?

Mr. Jay Hill: I just put it together about half an hour ago. I apologize for that.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

The Chair: Can I ask a couple of questions? Why are you making it retroactive? We don't do that with government bills. You said two years retroactively.

Mr. Jay Hill: I looked at it and I thought, in fairness to people who have just recently adopted, there would be some concerns. I didn't want to have an instance where there were people who were intending to adopt and if this bill was in the process they would hold off adopting a child who might be in a dangerous situation.

We all know that legislation doesn't pass through the House overnight. I think we've learned that much. So I didn't want to develop a situation where an adoptive parent, and maybe a number of them, because there will be a substantial benefit for them once the bill was passed into law, might consider postponing adoption until the law was in place and thereby place a child at risk if they were in an abusive foster parent or natural parent situation where there's always that potential. Or in the case of international adoption—

• 1750

The Chair: In your research, have you got any statistics on how many children are available for adoption in Canada?

Mr. Jay Hill: No, I don't, not yet.

The Chair: It's a very low number—very low. There's also very high adoptability for kids who are in foster care. Most of them get adopted before they hit about ten years of age.

You've stated your intention to help people form families. I'm wondering about the expenses involved with in vitro fertilization and all the people who are having difficulties conceiving and go through all these huge medical expenses. Have you considered those people?

Mr. Jay Hill: Not in this particular piece of legislation. Certainly it's something that should be dealt with by the government, but it isn't contained in this legislation. It's a totally separate issue, but certainly I would support looking at that issue on its own merit.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thanks very much, and thanks for coming early. I appreciate it.

We're going to go in camera.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]