SMEM Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 15, 2001

• 1533

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): I'm ready to call the meeting to order.

Let me thank the substitutes very much. This is a bit of an onerous committee, in that it goes sometimes three hours, but it's very kind of you to replace the regular members.

Here you're given a little cheat sheet, so you can put notes on it. We're told today that we can select up to three. That means if you only see one you like, we pick one, if you see three you like, we've got space for three. After everybody makes their presentation and answers questions, I ask you to give me your top three—I ask Marcel, and so forth. There's no point in debating 15 bills if we're all focusing on our top three. Then we do a little give and take, and it usually works quite well, only because of the superior quality of the MPs who agree to do this job, and the staff. Diane is amazing, and Jamie is equally amazing.

Have you all found your little tally sheet?

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): We have a problem with delivery, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I got to the bottom of that. One of the problems is that the member's name is drawn, not the bill or motion. Once your name is drawn, if you've got three bills in there or three bills already presented at first reading, you get to choose. Some of these little sausages do not choose until the last minute, so it's very difficult for the staff to put it together.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: When is the last day?

A voice: It's a number of days. They had until yesterday afternoon at 5 p.m.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Why did this only come into my office here on Parliament Hill at ten after three this afternoon? That's the problem I'm referring to. We have the same problem with agendas that come in, convocations. They come in at the last minute. This came this afternoon in my office at 3:10.

• 1535

The Clerk of the Committee: Can I explain why?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Why?

The Clerk: Because the draw was last Thursday. Members had until 6:30 last night to choose which items would go on. So we had to get the bill, put all the packages together, send them out. I had to do the agenda accordingly, and I had to call them. I didn't know what items they were choosing.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay. May I suggest—and it's not going to be before the summer—that in the future we keep an extra day for preparation, so that we can get this material.

The Chair: We normally do. It was very difficult this time.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay, but then every time we have meetings, it's difficult. We get the agendas at the last minute also.

The Chair: Actually this was the last, last minute, this one, we've ever had—and that was not even English.

The Clerk: Usually the committee has ten sitting days to meet, but next week is a break.

The Chair: And we have to meet Tuesdays and Wednesdays, because Monday is not possible.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We could have met the week after.

The Chair: We couldn't have met the week after. Marcel, stop being a pain. I tell everybody what a nice person you are.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

The Chair: I'll stop saying it.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay. Please do.

The Chair: Okay. Gary is going to present first.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz, M.P. (Yorkton—Melville, CA): I am lobbying to make M-331 votable. Maybe I should use the Mr. Caccia approach and say it's hopeless, but I'll put it through anyway.

The Chair: Don't get smart. It only works once.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: The farm income crisis has been with us for years, and the situation will not simply be solved by pouring more money in. So my private member's bill, M-331, proposes to fix two of the key structural problems that have actually aided and abetted the farm income crisis for prairie grain farmers. The primary objective of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is misguided, and the government's inflexible attitude towards protecting this monopoly have really hurt farmers.

The two problems that have cost prairie farmers lost income and a lost opportunity to diversify is what I'm addressing, and they have come at a great political cost, by the way, to the Liberals across the prairies, and with a significant loss of political support even to the NDP in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That's the politics of this thing. I think, personally, it's time we addressed these two Canadian Wheat Board issues, got into a serious debate, and voted on it. The more people find out about this situation, the more they sympathize with prairie farmers.

The National Post published a very timely editorial on the weekend, and it makes my key point. In part they said:

The Canadian Wheat Board, which administers the federal monopoly over Western grain sales, is focused on exports, to the detriment of domestic value-added agribusinesses. So stringent is the board's monopoly, and so strident is its enforcement of it, that a farmer who wishes to use his own wheat in his own commercial pasta plant on his own farm faces jail time if he does so without first selling the wheat to the board, then buying it back at a premium price, even if the grain never the leaves the bins in his yard.

Not surprisingly, such regulations have driven investment away from the plains. In the absence of the wheat board, dozens of large and small food factories would have already sprung up close to the source of their ingredients. This would have revitalized many dying small towns and given farmers healthy competition for their grain.

Instead, the board's intransigence has meant most wheat continues to flow out of Canada, and with it the chance to diversify the Western economy.

Organic grain growers on the prairies are the latest victims of this unrealistic and damaging approach to economic development and diversification. I'd like to give a couple of examples here. Arnold Schmidt has diversified into organic wheat production. Mr. Schmidt has gone further than just being an organic producer. He's developed markets for flour, milled from his own grain. Unfortunately, Mr. Schmidt cannot get an export permit for his organic flour from the Canadian Wheat Board.

As another example, Ron Tetoff is an organic producer from Kamsack, Saskatchewan—that's in my own riding. In February he had arranged a sale to a buyer in Europe that would have given him $9 a bushel for his organic wheat at his farm gate. The sale fell through. Mr. Tetoff was forced to go through the Canadian Wheat Board buy-back system. The price the board charged him for his own grain made it impossible for Mr. Tetoff to complete his sale to Europe.

• 1540

Even the Canadian Wheat Board has identified the need for legislative change. A paper published by the CWB states, and I quote:

If an exemption were presented as an option to organic farmers, it could not be done right away since there is no clause in CWB legislation to allow an exemption and the legislation would therefore have to be amended.

So my motion would fill this legislative vacuum with the proposed opting-out provision for a minimum of two years, which would allow entrepreneurial producers to test the free market and allow the CWB to prepare and plan for serving grain growers who wish to remain in the pool. So, in conclusion, my motion asks the government to change the object of the Canadian Wheat Board from marketing in an orderly manner to maximizing the return to producers. If the board exists, it exists to maximize returns to producers. If marketing in an orderly manner accomplishes this objective, then the government shouldn't mind saying so up front.

So I believe that motion M-331 meets all the criteria for the selection of votable items as approved by this committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Okay, now just before we see if there are any questions, I'm going to check to make sure Mr. Casey's got all his stuff.

Do you have a sheet that looks like this with little boxes on it?

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): I don't have any little boxes.

The Chair: No little boxes?

Mr. Bill Casey: No little boxes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Bill Casey: And I don't have motion M-331 either.

The Chair: Okay, it'll be in your package. It'll be a sheet of paper. It's probably not in order. If you look through there, you might find it. It's just a little paragraph.

Okay, Bill? Everything's copacetic?

Mr. Bill Casey: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, in your little tally sheet, the first one Peter Adams doesn't want to be votable. Bill C-327 doesn't want to be votable.

[Translation]

Une voix: May I ask a question?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, we can do that in one second.

I'm just going to get everybody caught up here. So number one, Peter Adams doesn't want to be votable. Now we're going to question Mr. Breitkreuz.

Yes, Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Does our colleague have any idea of the impact this motion may have on the number of farmers who would escape from the Canadian Wheat Board?

[English]

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you.

This only affects farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. It does not affect farmers anywhere outside of those three provinces. The number of farmers that would be affected at this point is difficult to estimate. I think that you'd have to get the experts in on that, but it only affects three provinces. Only wheat and barley growers are affected in those three provinces. If you're from Quebec or Ontario, you are not affected by the Canadian Wheat Board. This is only a restriction on those three provinces and only on wheat and barley producers.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Okay, could we get Ms. Desjarlais out of across the hall? Because our next person, Mr. Moore, is not here yet.

You'll also go forward...yes, we're running into the same problem.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: It's the same thing we discussed the last time.

The Chair: I know. There's no way of fixing it.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Can we not change it?

The Chair: We can't.

We have to book them so many apart, and then when somebody—

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We don't have to book them apart.

The Chair: Cluster them?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Sure. That's what we had discussed the last time. We're going to be stuck here until six o'clock again.

The Chair: No, we're going to start phoning.

• 1545

Mr. Marcel Proulx: What do we do to change this, change the rules?

The Chair: After tomorrow, when we decide everything's votable and it goes to the committee on reforming the House and it makes them all votable, we will vote ourselves out of existence.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: When is this?

The Chair: Tomorrow afternoon we're going to meet to go over the survey results, which are in your office right now. We're going to make a recommendation directly to the committee that's looking at reforming the House.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Do we meet directly with them?

The Chair: No, we meet here, go over the results, make our conclusions, and send them to that committee.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That's tomorrow.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: When did you send those over? I never saw them.

The Chair: I received mine yesterday or this morning.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: What are we talking about?

The Chair: Survey results.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We had them this afternoon at 3:10.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I haven't even seen mine.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: That's why I said we all received the package at the same time.

The Chair: Do you mean this one, with all the results in it as well? Did you get that?

An hon. member: Yes, fine.

The Chair: Thanks, Bev.

Bev is number eight, Bill C-284. Thanks for hopping across the hall.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais, M.P. (Churchill, NDP): No problem.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: You'll have a copy of the memo. I don't know if you've had a chance to read it. If you have, I won't read through it.

The Chair: No, we haven't.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: So I'll read it through.

The Chair: Give us an overview.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Okay.

The bill I'm dealing with, Bill C-284, is an act to amend the Criminal Code for offences by corporations, directors, and officers. The bill acts upon recommendation 73 of Mr. Justice Richard's inquiry into the Westray mine disaster. And I'll leave Mr. Justice Richard's recommendation there, because a lot of people already know generally what it's about.

This bill is virtually identical to the bill that was first introduced last year by the leader for the NDP in the first session of the last Parliament. The difference between my bill and the original is that my bill proposes a maximum fine of $2 million for corporate manslaughter through negligence, rather than $1 million. This can be found in paragraph 467.3.(3)(a).

The case for making this bill votable is strong, because on two separate occasions members of the House of Commons have indicated a desire to act on Mr. Justice Richard's recommendation. The first such occasion was on March 21, 2000, when the House passed a recommendation from the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough's private member's motion M-79.

The second occasion the members of the House indicated a desire to act on Mr. Justice Richard's recommendations was on June 6, 2000, when the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights unanimously passed the following motion: “That the Committee recommends that the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice bring forward proposed legislation”, and it goes on.

Bill C-259, referred to in the motion above, was, at the time, the designation of the NDP leader's version of this bill. The government has never responded to the justice committee's June 6, 2000 report. And they are now not required to do so, because Parliament was dissolved for the November 27 election.

It's now been almost a year since the report was tabled in the House, and the government has not brought forward any legislation or initiated any studies. My understanding is that still has not taken place to this day.

I believe the government has had ample time to proceed with this, and they have not done so. So I think it's appropriate.

Indeed, I believe it's our responsibility to bring this matter back before the House in the form of my bill and to make it votable, so that members of the House in this new Parliament can express whether or not they share the desire expressed by the last Parliament to act on Mr. Justice Richard's recommendations.

The Chair: Thank you, Bev.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: One of the criteria of this committee is to ensure that the legislation that's being proposed doesn't contradict other legislation we have. One of the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada is that you're innocent until proven guilty. This would reverse that complete onus. How would you defend that?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: That thought has come out about this bill the way it was presented before. I'm not convinced that's the case. It still would mean that charges would have to be laid, and then the investigation and everything would go forth, the same as with any other criminal investigation.

• 1550

What the bill recognizes is that there is nothing within the Criminal Code right now to address this particular crime. That was the reason for Justice Richard's suggestion that Parliament come up with legislation to address this. It would still have to go through the process of a trial and the whole procedure.

The Chair: Bill.

Mr. Bill Casey: What happened to the bill in the last Parliament? Did it not get read?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: It was a private member's bill, and when Parliament dissolved that was where it was left. As well, the standing committee's recommendation also ended with that point. It's been a year now since the government had a chance to bring this forth, and they have not done that.

The Chair: Any other questions?

Thanks, Bev.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

The Chair: We're going to have to see if we can start calling people and stacking them a little bit.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I am not very familiar with the way our committee operates. If someone cannot attend a meeting, can we still make a decision on his or her Bill?

[English]

The Chair: Technically, we should give them the opportunity, because they were given appointment time. We're the ones who are ahead of time, so we're going to call the next presenters: James Moore, Vellacott, Stoffer, and Williams. Let's see if we can get them in here quickly.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): What gave you the idea, Garry, this would do away with burden of proof or reverse onus or whatever?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It is shown that the corporations that have committed the act or omission... The burden is on the corporation to show it was unauthorized. The burden of proof is on the corporation. That's a reverse onus. That is the opposite of what we presently have in the Criminal Code.

Mr. Pat Martin: Where did you see that?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'm reading the summary.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): Page 3, subsection 5, at the top.

Mr. Pat Martin: I see. “Where it is shown that the act...”.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: The onus is on the corporation to show that it's not guilty. In essence, I'm paraphrasing.

Mr. Pat Martin: This is actually after the crown prosecutors have already made the case that you are guilty. “Where it is shown that the act or omission took place and was committed”—that means that somebody has already investigated, found that there was enough evidence, and laid a charge. Then the onus is obviously on the guilty party or whatever, the accused, to prove that they're innocent. That's the same as you shoplifting, or something—you have to prove your innocence.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I wouldn't say this is not votable for that reason, but I think it has to be pointed out that if this came to Parliament, people analysing this bill more carefully than I am would probably point that out.

Mr. Pat Martin: Fair enough.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'm just being a bit of a devil's advocate here.

Mr. Pat Martin: It's a good point.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'm going to make a pitch at the end here.

The Chair: Careful, we're not in camera yet. We're not discussing how we're voting on these bills; we're merely discussing the content of them. You don't want those spies at the back of the room to know how you're voting, do you?

Mr. Pat Martin: The only question I'd have is that when it went to the justice committee it was a specially called meeting of the justice committee to deal with just this issue. The justice committee unanimously agreed to go to the minister and ask her to do a bill like this. The outcome of this is if it were votable and it passed, it would wind up at the committee. It's already been at the committee and been dealt with, although in the last Parliament. Do you see that as any kind of reason to not go with it?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I don't think so. There are often things that go to committee and they don't make it through Parliament, and we bring the whole issue back and it goes back to committee. I don't think that's a conflict.

Mr. Bill Casey: Did you say it went to committee? Why did it go to committee? Just as a subject?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes.

Mr. Bill Casey: But not as a motion or a bill?

Mr. Pat Martin: No, it didn't go as a bill.

I remember when the steelworkers were on the Hill lobbying about this. They were going to every MP's office. After they went to visit the Minister of Justice, she called a special meeting of the justice committee to deal with just the Westray recommendations from Justice Richard.

• 1555

Mr. Bill Casey: What was the conclusion of the committee?

Mr. Pat Martin: They wrote a unanimous report recommending that the minister bring in legislation to satisfy Justice Richard's recommendations, which is essentially this bill to introduce the concept of corporate manslaughter if it can be shown there was gross negligence and a wilful blindness to safety. It's a pretty stiff burden of proof, though. You have to show that it was negligence to the point of being criminal.

The Chair: Could you also call Mr. Stoffer and Mr. Williams?

A voice: Sure.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: There are a lot of people at the end of the list.

The Chair: They all wanted to be at the end.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Well, yes, but if we call the ones in the middle and get them to come early we'll still be sitting here until...

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Exactly.

The Chair: Let's call all of them. Just start calling and tell everybody to come.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Tell them we're waiting, and if they don't come within ten minutes they can't present.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I don't understand why we didn't do that to start with, but that's okay.

The Chair: I think getting ready for today's meeting was taxing enough without trying to change the system. Today is a disaster, and it's because we're away next week.

Mr. James Robertson: We have had situations where there have been 15 minutes of questions per member, and you start getting other members backed up. That's the other extreme.

The Chair: We haven't had that for a while, though.

Mr. James Robertson: No.

The Clerk: Mr. Guimond wanted something done the last time, and I talked to Jamie about calling four or five to come at the same time, but I didn't really have the instructions to do it. If next time that's what you'd like...

The Chair: I don't think there's going to be a next time.

The Clerk: All right.

The Chair: I think this new stuff is going to go through. It will be the end of our function as we know it. We'll all be sad.

An hon. member: If it's accepted.

The Chair: They seem keen to do something. This is one that's a little carrot for everyone.

Do you think one should chair a committee like this for two or three years and then you go away and never have to come back? I did it for three years, and then I was a PS for two years. Then I thought, okay, I've been there, done that. They said “No, no, we just need you for a little while”. It turned into a six-month placement. I have to say, I enjoy it once I'm in here. It's just getting ready for it that... And there was no getting ready today; it was just the bad timing.

Let's make a deal: the first one who walks through the door we make votable.

An hon. member: As a reward.

An hon. member: That will probably be Mr. Moore.

The Chair: Did you see Mr. Moore's?

Mr. Pat Martin: They should be here half an hour in advance.

The Chair: It says on the instructions Bibiane puts on the front, “Note: Please be here 15 minutes in advance of your appointment”. But they're not here.

It's all right. We're going to get finished soon and we'll start discussing it.

You know what I would suggest you do? Go ahead and read through the bills and the motions as you're sitting here, because if we get really fed up we'll just make a decision without the presentations.

I'd like to put my own private member's bill in. It says that senators are appointed for five years, with one five-year term renewable. That would taper them off.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, it would.

The Chair: Five years, with one term renewable of five years.

An hon. member: Only if they're good.

The Chair: If the government changes in the middle, wouldn't that be interesting.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes.

The Chair: Clean out.

Mr. Pat Martin: A purge.

The Chair: A putsch.

Bill C-300 is Mr. Dromisky. He's withdrawing it in the House tomorrow. It's the one on wearing war medals when you're not supposed to.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: So we're not going to deal with that one?

The Chair: He's gone, finito.

• 1600

Do you want to take a little bit of heat?

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chair: I heard a few phone radio shows when he did the first reading in the House. Had it been mine, I would have been happy with it after the election and not before.

Mr. Sorenson doesn't want it votable?

An hon. member: Usually there's a note at the bottom of the list.

The Chair: Do you know, it's interesting, this idea of making everything votable. We have three different MPs who do not want their bills votable today.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Exactly.

The Chair: I wonder how we're going to handle that.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: They just wouldn't table their bills, that's all.

The Chair: That's right, no more wasting an hour in the House.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: There you go.

The Chair: You're right.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes. That was one of the points, remember?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Moore, welcome.

Mr. Pat Martin: Nice of you to drop by.

The Chair: Were you not in the draw last time? You're an amazing character. Do you buy lottery tickets?

Mr. James Moore, M.P. (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, CA): Not a lot.

The Chair: You know, there are people who have been around here for eight or ten years and have never got drawn.

Mr. James Moore: Yes, I know, and this is two draws in a row.

The Chair: And your first two.

Mr. James Moore: Yes. I drafted the first one and it got pulled. So I said I'd better throw one back in the mix just so I have one there, and sure enough...

My private member's motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take measures to provide that the Governor General summon only fit, qualified and democratically elected people to fill Senate vacancies for provinces that have legislation providing for the election of Senators.

I'll address all five of the points that have been specifically required.

“Bills and motions must be drafted in clear, complete, and effective terms.” This motion is absolutely clear in its intent and purpose. The motion not only addresses a course of action for the government upon passage, but suggests a course of action that has been successfully followed in the past. It just encourages the government to entrench that into law.

“Bills and motions must be constitutional and concern areas of federal jurisdiction.” This bill does precisely that.

“Bills and motions should concern matters of significant public interest.” Well, as a new member, I remember when people were campaigning for the position of Speaker, and almost the singular issue that was raised was the issue of parliamentary reform. As has been stated by just about every political party in the House, either publicly, or for some parties, privately, the issue of parliamentary reform needs to be put forward, and I think it's time to have this debate. Canadians are more engaged in this issue than ever before, and I think this needs to happen.

The fourth point says “Bills and motions should concern issues that are not part of the government's current legislative agenda...”. The government hasn't tabled any legislation on this subject in this Parliament. In the research that I've done in the brief period I've had since it was drawn, there has not been a vote on this issue in the last three Parliaments combined. That spans over a decade.

“All other things being equal, higher priority will be given to items which transcend purely local interest...”. This is Canada's upper chamber, Canada's Senate, and Canadians deserve to have this debate.

I was reading some of Canada's founding debates, and John A. Macdonald, in a sidebar comment with somebody, said, “Canada's Senate should be, in the long term, elected, because it would be an act of democratic faith in modernity”. Well, here we are 140 years later, still discussing the issue, and I think it's time modernity move a little quicker.

The Chair: Are there any questions? Pat.

Mr. Pat Martin: Wouldn't this take a constitutional amendment?

Mr. James Moore: No. The Constitution only says that the Governor General shall appoint senators on reference from the Prime Minister, but there's no written law at all that says how the Prime Minister selects the name that he gives to the Prime Minister.

Seeing how these representatives are there to represent the regions and provinces of the country, this would allow provinces that have decided on a mechanism, to find that person through a democratic means. This would force the Prime Minister to respect the provinces, because they're their representatives.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Also on that point, I could make note, to prove it is not necessary to have a constitutional change, that it has been done already. Alberta has had a senator.

Mr. James Moore: Precisely.

• 1605

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Maybe this is getting a little picky on the wording, but in your motion, why do you include the words “fit” and “qualified”? If the senators are democratically elected to fill these vacancies from the provinces, would not the onus be on the provinces to demonstrate that they are fit and qualified? Can you defend the wording of that?

Mr. James Moore: The language that is in there is a copy of some of the language I was talking about when I was referring to some of the founding debates. That was the language that was in there.

As the sponsor of the motion, I would be open to amendment. But I think that language is fine, because that language appears in fit and qualified people for the Supreme Court, fit and qualified people for all sorts of offices. In fact, I believe the Canada Elections Act refers to fit and qualified people seeking our offices.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Would this put an onus on the provinces to then bring forth legislation? The federal government can do nothing to fill those vacancies in certain provinces that would not have this legislation. How would you address that deficiency? I think only one province now has that.

Mr. James Moore: Some provinces do. British Columbia does, Alberta does, and Saskatchewan is having the debate. In Ontario, some members are having the debate.

Of course, as I said, it has been noted in the past that perhaps the way to go is to have provincial legislatures elect their senators, as was originally the case in the United States, which again John A. Macdonald and George Brown both thought was the appropriate task before we went to a full elected body.

But that is the current case. I think that only strengthens the point, which is to say, if provinces have decided that this is the mechanism by which they want their representatives to be chosen, the Government of Canada has the obligation to respect that.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: I think you put a problem here with “only fit, qualified”. If the provinces elect people, they have to decide who's fit and qualified before they elect them, and each province might establish a different set of criteria for that. Nova Scotia might have one set of qualifications, and Alberta might have a completely different set. Who decides who's fit and qualified?

Mr. James Moore: The electors. I trust the public.

Mr. Bill Casey: But it says the Governor General will summon only fit and qualified people.

The Chair: I think “qualified” is already established in the Constitution. You have to be Canadian citizen, and you have to be... I don't know, what is it, James?

Mr. James Moore: The language—

The Chair: There are property requirements as well.

Mr. James Moore: On some of the precise language, I should note that I'm not a lawyer; I don't have legal training. My legislative assistant does, and when this motion was first drafted, it was bandied about between four lawyers over coffee for over an hour, and they arrived at the final language of the motion. They said there was precedent and that's the appropriate way in which it should be framed.

The Chair: Who paid for the coffee? If there were four lawyers there, I don't know, I bet you were stuck with the bill.

Mr. James Moore: So on the surface it may seem that way, and again, I'm not prepared for a legal defence of the specific language, but counsel, including the lawyers who I know work for this committee itself, have given this motion a green light.

The Chair: If that wording “fit” and “qualified” appears in the legislation now, then one would assume you just picked it up and carried it forward. You're not going to change the criteria; you're simply going to change the way they're appointed.

Mr. James Moore: Yes.

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

Garry.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: For bills and motions to be deemed votable by this committee, they must be demonstrated to be of national or federal concern. Seeing that my colleague from Quebec isn't asking this question, I would ask you, do you have any evidence that this is of concern in all provinces, including Quebec?

Mr. James Moore: Sure. A reform of the Senate has been pushed by some provinces, including the province of Alberta, which has already elected two senators-in-waiting, and the province of British Columbia, with the B.C. Liberal government, that has pledged Senate reform as far as the provincial government has jurisdiction in finding mechanisms to put forward the most qualified people as vetted by the public. They have said that as well.

The fact is, as soon as one or two provinces go down this road, it instantly becomes an issue of national concern, because it's a national institution.

For example, of the senators we have, suppose tomorrow the Prime Minister were to say, Mr. Burt Brown, I respect the fact you were elected; I'm going to appoint you to the chamber. The fact of appointing one senator who is elected in one province would dramatically change the dynamic of the entire upper house, and that is of concern to everybody, from Charlottetown to Victoria.

• 1610

The Chair: Okay. Now we see what happens when we get three or four MPs in a holding pattern. Now we have three or four MPs, and of course this is when you guys decide to ask a lot of questions.

Okay, next we have James Lunney. Tunney? Thank you very much. Tunney or Lunney? Are you Tunney or Lunney?

Mr. James Lunney, M.P. (Nanaimo—Alberni, CA): Lunney.

The Chair: Lunney. Sorry about that.

And then we have Mr. Williams, and then—who else is here?

Larry, are you here? Are you presenting?

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): No. What is this? I think I'm in the wrong meeting.

The Chair: This is the private members' business committee, where we're collecting bills to be made votable or not votable. And I didn't see your name on the list.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: No, no, no. I thought there was a briefing on that.

The Chair: You missed that. That was last Tuesday. I was there.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: Well, I'm getting a report; then I'm leaving.

The Chair: I would do a private briefing for you if you'd like that. You can sit around and watch.

Mr. Larry Bagnell: I'll go out in the sun.

The Chair: Bye.

Mr. James Lunney: Madam Chair and members of the committee, it's a pleasure to speak to you concerning motion M-246 today. The motion concerns a subject in which a large number of members of Parliament have taken an interest in the past year or so. I'm here, by the way, representing Maurice Vellacott.

The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) condemn the Sudanese regime for the recent attacks on civilian populations and humanitarian agencies working in Southern Sudan and its denial of urgent humanitarian assistance to specific needy civilian populations; (b) review its policies and relationship with the present regime in Khartoum; and (c) make it clear that the continuation of such crimes against humanity against identifiable groups of people constitutes genocide, and that these abuses must end immediately.

In December 1999 former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy sent a special envoy, John Harker, who spent three weeks on an investigative mission. The reasons why Canada should dispatch such a special envoy to Sudan are now well known. Exhaustive, reliable investigation has shown that civil war and famine in Sudan have displaced some four million persons and resulted in the deaths of over two million people since 1983.

The ruling National Islamic Front has engaged in systematic abuses of human rights including forced starvation; systematically bombing hospitals, churches and other religious centres in the southeast and in the Nuba Mountains; massacring civilian populations; forced conversion to Islam; so-called peace camps; and giving support to the practice of slavery by the militias.

These human rights abuses are neither rumours nor wild accusations. They've been systematically documented and reported by the United Nations, special rapporteurs, the U.S. State Department, human rights organizations, etc.

In recent days, Canadian members of Parliament and Canadian church leaders have travelled to Sudan and have gained some sense of the extent of the destruction being visited on the people of Sudan.

Clearly the situation is a desperate one. Clearly Canada has shown and continues to show a keen interest in the matter. The motion before us gives expression to the grave concerns that many MPs have already voiced publicly. Therefore, making this motion votable would allow Parliament, if it chooses, to signal to the Government of Canada that it should treat the killing and human rights abuses in Sudan with heightened moral outrage, determined political will, and renewed diplomatic energy.

Now, you'll notice that this motion says nothing about Talisman's involvement in Sudan. You may know that debate has raged in Canada over Talisman's role in Sudan's civil war. There's widespread agreement that the company's oil development in Sudan has been financing the Sudanese government's civil war effort. Moreover, Talisman's airstrips are being used by the government of Sudan to mount attacks on civilians living within a 100-kilometre area around the oil fields.

Motion M-246 omits any mention of Talisman and so avoids the contentious issue of whether Talisman should leave Sudan or not. Instead it calls on the Government of Canada to clarify and toughen its position with respect to the government of Sudan in Khartoum, something that all sides in the debate on Talisman have agreed needs to happen.

It hasn't happened sufficiently yet. So let's move forward. Let's engage the government of Sudan and begin to apply some pressure. The motion promotes this, and I think MPs should have a chance to vote on it.

Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any questions?

Don't take that as a bad sign.

Garry.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't know if you could answer this question for Mr. Vellacott, but in reading through this, this seems to be an urgent matter. Has he made any attempt to introduce this in the House and get unanimous consent to have it debated and made votable immediately?

• 1615

Mr. James Lunney: I'm sorry, Garry, I can't answer that. I really don't know.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay, because if this goes into the mix here, it could be months before it ever comes forward for debate. So it seems to me that might...

Mr. James Lunney: It's certainly an urgent matter, and if there's some way to accelerate it, it would be very well advised.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: That's a good question. Do we know when this was tabled or when this was put in the log? Do we have dates on these?

Mr. James Lunney: The date on this submission is today's date, May 15, so I presume it's pretty current.

The Clerk: February 7.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Feburary 7?

The Clerk: But Mr. Vellacott's name was chosen last Thursday.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: No, I appreciate that it was the date.

The Clerk: But notice was given when the House came back in February.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Williams.

Mr. John Williams M.P. (St. Albert, CA): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm here to speak on behalf of motion M-296. It is requesting that the House adopt the report called The Business of Supply: Completing the Circle of Control.

At this point in time, as you may recall, the throne speech by the government last January indicated that parliamentary reform was very high on their agenda and that the modernization committee was struck. These things follow on the initiatives of previous years, including The Business of Supply: Completing the Circle of Control, which was commented on by Mr. Bob Marleau, former clerk of the House of Commons, who said it was one of the best reports on parliamentary procedure in 50 years. It contains, I believe, 52 recommendations for change.

I would like to emphasize, Madam Chair, that the report is quite often referred to as the Catterall-Williams report, the authors being the current whip of the Liberal Party, Madam Marlene Catterall—another major participant in the committee was Mr. Pagtakhan, who is now the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific—as well as myself. We were the principal players in the committee, and the report received all-party support.

I want to emphasize that, Madam Chair—it received all-party support. It was presented to the procedural and house affairs committee and subsequently tabled in the House in December 1998, and the response by the government was received. It wasn't that promising. Therefore, I put it forward again and said that Parliament should be masters of their own house.

This talks about major changes to the estimates process. It talks about an estimates committee. It talks about dealing with...as you know, we as parliamentarians, who are in charge of the public purse, only vote on approximately one-third of all the funds spent by Parliament in any one year—approximately $50 billion. But, as you know, the total budget for the Government of Canada is about $172 billion. So where does the other $120 billion get approved? Well, what happens is that when a piece of legislation is approved that calls for spending money, it has a perpetual funding clause attached to it.

If I can use an example, unemployment insurance was set up after the war. I think it was in 1948. In 1948 there was a clause in there that said unemployment insurance will be funded in the act, and that was the last time that parliamentarians voted on money to the Unemployment Insurance Act. That applies to every other spending authority. These are called statutory spendings. Parliament never votes on these after the bill is approved. It never, ever comes back to Parliament.

There are five fundamental areas of spending in the government. There is the statutory spending that I've just talked about, which is over $100 billion a year. There is non-statutory spending, which we do actually vote on, but the process of examination by Parliament is perfunctory at best. That's about $50 billion. There are crown corporations that are largely masters of their own destiny because Parliament has lost control to supervise them properly.

• 1620

There is what the Auditor General has called tax expenditures. He talked about the child tax credit, for example, where CCRA, the former Revenue Canada, writes a cheque back to Canadians, under certain circumstances, for the child tax benefit. That actually reduces tax revenue, which the AG has been critical of. Nonetheless, it never shows up as an expenditure, because it actually shows as a reduction in revenue.

The fifth one is loan guarantees that show up in the estimates as $1. There could be $100 million or $500 million of potential liability attached to that $1 item in the estimates. We approve it because it's only $1. If the loan doesn't go bad, no big deal. But five or ten years after we voted on that maybe the loan does go bad. Maybe the Wheat Board can't collect its money. Maybe the Export Development Corporation can't collect on its underwrite. These loan guarantees never come back to Parliament as a vote, except when they show up in the supplementary estimates with virtually no explanation.

So we call for the creation of an estimates committee to look at these on a year-round basis. Much as the public accounts committee looks retrospectively at the spending of government, we're suggesting an estimates committee to look prospectively at the spending of government, to deal with these items that don't normally come before Parliament, statutory spending, crown corporations, loan guarantees, tax expenditures. Of course, the committees would be involved in their own non-statutory spending and have comments on the others.

It's a far-ranging report, Madam Chair. It has all-party support. I'm asking that you declare it votable, so that we can debate it in the House and, hopefully, see it pass.

Thank you.

The Chair: Can I have a short answer as to why you think it wasn't implemented?

Mr. John Williams: In the last Parliament the government wasn't quite as committed to parliamentary reform as they are in this one. Now that they are committed to parliamentary reform, I hope they see the benefits this time around.

The Chair: That's a good answer.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you. How many marks do I get for that?

The Chair: You'll get your report later.

Have you brought this reminder to the attention of Mr. Kilger and the rest of the committee that's looking at the reform of Parliament?

Mr. John Williams: I've been busy, but I did bring it to the attention to our people, who, I think, have discussed it somewhat in the modernization of government. But we're talking about a small committee there, Madam Chair. Here we're talking about the 301 parliamentarians having an opportunity to speak on the amendments and the management of their own organization of Parliament of Canada. So this takes it to the floor of the House.

The Chair: In the same year, the 35th Parliament, we did the whole review for private members' bills. I think you guys had to pull a fast one to get that done too, didn't you?

Mr. John Williams: I would never participate in that kind of stuff, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I appreciate it.

Are there questions from the other members of the committee? Don't just ask him a question to be nice.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: My question, Madam Chair, goes along with what you're saying. If this has received all-party support, why do we even have to bring this forth as a motion? If we do bring it forth as a motion and it passes, how much difference is that going to make?

Mr. John Williams: That's an excellent question, because Parliament, we think—or like to think—is master of its own House. The report was tabled in Parliament, and the government came back with a negative response. Because all these recommendations, all 52 of them, call for changes to the Standing Orders. This has nothing to do with government departments. But as you know, the House has deferred its authority to the government. Rather than Parliament dealing with this issue, the government says, why don't we just decide it for you? That's why I think it needs to be brought to the floor of the House, so that we, as parliamentarians—I'm talking about all parliamentarians—can debate these issues, which are substantive, which did receive all-party support, so we can regain the notion that we're masters of our own House and these Standing Order changes can be made because we want to do it.

• 1625

Everything else goes through the procedure and House affairs committee. They change the Standing Orders. They table a report in the House saying, change a Standing Order, all agree, and it's done. But this one got shuffled off to the government, which came back with a negative response, and parliamentarians said well, I guess that's the way it is. I think we should be more forthright in standing up for our rights as parliamentarians and say we write the rules of our House.

The Chair: Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: As I am a substitute for this meeting, I do not know the way the Committee operates. What is the majority required to change a provision of the Rules of the House? What is the process? I suppose it is not done through a simple vote in the House?

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: A simple majority vote can change the Standing Orders. This, however, is just a motion that would call on the government to implement the report. So the adoption of this motion does not in itself change the Standing Orders.

The Chair: It forces the government to look at the report and then begin the process of implementing it—or it doesn't force it to do anything, it can ignore the motion as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: In other words, it does not change much of anything.

[English]

The Chair: Well, it sure would draw a lot of attention to it and the Catterall-Williams report.

Mr. John Williams: It has been around for a few years, it has been tabled in the House. It has been called a great report. A lot of work went into this. It's not something that's superficial. It has in-depth research behind it. It's not calling for us to turn the institution on its head, but it does bring back some authority to the House to supervise the spending of money by the government.

Some $172 billion a year goes through in ten seconds flat. If you blink, you missed it. People spend more time every week on their own household budget than we do once a year spending $172 billion. I think it deserves some serious analytical thought and a serious response by the government in implementing it or telling us why they wouldn't want to do so.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any further questions? Bill.

Mr. Bill Casey: Did he say it had all-party support in committee?

Mr. John Williams: In committee and in subcommittee and in the procedure and house affairs committee, because this was a subcommittee of the procedure and House affairs committee. So when it was presented to the procedure and House affairs committee, they unanimously adopted it and tabled it in the House.

Mr. Bill Casey: And the government so far has just disregarded it?

Mr. John Williams: Unfortunately, the answer has been negative. But, as I said, with the new spirit, we're now into reforming the House, and it's a major commitment by this government. The throne speech said, yes, we're into it, we have committees working, and so on. So I would just like to make my—

The Chair: Mr. Williams, it's still on the record. So if the government wanted to go back and drag it out of the dust, it could.

Mr. John Williams: And this motion's being votable would cause them to drag it back out and take a fresh look at it.

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

Thank you very much; that was most entertaining.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit, M.P. (Lakeland, CA): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd just left committee when I got a phone call. You'd asked me to come early. Is that enough to make this motion votable?

The Chair: Did you get an advance warning?

Mr. Leon Benoit: No guarantee with that?

The Chair: No guarantee.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Motion M-13 reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should compensate farmers for damage done to livestock and crops by gophers and ground squirrels resulting from the banning of effective concentration of strychnine, thereby removing the ability of farmers to control gophers on their lands.

Going through the five criteria you use to judge bills and motions, it is drafted in clear, complete, effective terms.

Second, bills and motions must be constitutional and concern areas of federal jurisdiction—this clearly does. It was a federal regulatory change that took this product, which was extremely useful and needed by farmers, away from them. So it is clearly an area of federal jurisdiction. There is a provincial component in administration, as usual.

Third, the bills and motions should concern matters of significant public interest. If you know where western Canada is, it certainly does. There are the four western provinces, and to grain farmers in particular, this is extremely important. There are losses of tens of millions of dollars a year. The amount hasn't been documented exactly, but it's huge, and there is some work being done on that. There's been a significant movement of grain farmers to try to have this product returned to them, so that they can use it to control this pest, which does considerable damage damage to crops and livestock. It affects livestock through harm to pastures and causes physical damage, such as broken legs because of gopher holes in pastures. It's a very common and serious problem.

• 1630

The fourth point relates to bills and motions that concern issues that are not part of the government's current legislative agenda. Absolutely. The fact is that this has never been dealt with by Parliament; it was just dealt with through a regulatory change. I'll have some added information on that in a minute.

All other things being equal, high priority will be given to items which transcend purely local interest. The four western provinces are extremely important.

It's not couched in partisan terms. There's nothing partisan about this motion, and it cannot be addressed by the House in other ways. I certainly haven't found another way, other than by private member's bills and motions, to address this except to put the question on the Order Paper, which I have in fact done.

My question on the Order Paper was for the government to produce any studies that had been done before this product was removed from the market. The answer came back that in fact no studies had been done, and that this product had been removed on no scientific basis and without any study being done. There was no measurement of the potential harm to farmers, and that was quite shocking to me. I was very disappointed with that answer, but that's the reality of what happened.

Now I'll just address a couple of other issues I think are very important. I did an access to information request on this about four years ago to get background information before I put my private member's bill on this issue forward. The resulting information showed very clearly that there was no scientific reason for this product being removed from the market, none whatsoever.

As I said, the question on the Order Paper showed there had been no study whatsoever done before the removal of this product to determine the potential impact on farmers and so on. Yet this product was removed, one which had been used safely by farmers for decades and decades, probably on the whim of one bureaucrat—or so it looked from the correspondence back and forth—who put that on his agenda and pushed it through. To me that's shocking, and that's why my motion calls for compensation to farmers, because of the way this product was removed from the market.

I'm hoping it will lead to the restoration of this product to the market, which would be the ideal solution. For now, let's get compensation. Money talks, and I think that could well lead to a solution to the problem.

It hits grain farmers, who are truly a downtrodden group in our society right now. They're in extreme difficulty and are by far the hardest hit group of farmers. They can't afford this added burden of tens of millions of dollars a year. This has had an extremely serious impact.

The Chair: Okay. Are there any questions?

Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I may be out of order, but I'm very curious, Madame Chair. Are there not other ways of controlling these gophers?

Mr. Leon Benoit: In fact there are. In theory you can shoot them, but there are so many that it isn't effective. I've had lots of people phone me saying they can't buy ammunition because they haven't got their personal licence back yet from the bureaucracy, which is working all too slowly. They don't even have access to the bullets they need to shoot them. But it's not an effective solution. It takes too much time and just doesn't do the job, quite frankly. Farmers have been trying that. They've even gotten kids from neighbouring farms and towns to come out and shoot them, and it just doesn't do the job.

This poison is the only thing that works. Some farmers have tried other things, like anhydrous ammonia and antifreeze. In fact, some have been charged for doing that. Desperate to control these pests, they've tried other things, and they have been charged. Some are before the courts right now for trying products that aren't licensed for this use.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: If you're saying that the product was removed for no valid reason, would it not be easier to bring back the product?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would love that. I would guess that after this motion is passed and goes to committee and after someone puts some legislation together, if the government's faced with paying out tens of millions of dollars a year in compensation, they'll take a really good look at why this was removed in the first place.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Gary Breitkreuz: I should—

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We were out of order, but it's interesting.

Mr. Gary Breitkreuz: Yes. We're going to get into a discussion here, but I should point out to you that we have been circulating petitions and submitting thousands of names in petitions almost daily in the House to try to get the government to review this, and allow strychnine to be used.

• 1635

Mr. Marcel Proulx: You want the government to bring it back.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Well, there must be a valid reason for that—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That was my question. Surely there must... What is the reason?

The Chair: I'm in charge here.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We're still out of order, are we?

The Chair: You're both getting really out of order.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Can I answer these great questions, even if they were out of order?

The Chair: Do it briefly, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In terms of the evidence, I received access to information. I asked for any correspondence dealing with this issue, and I received it. There wasn't much whited out, hardly any. The correspondence really showed that it was the action of one bureaucrat, and then one more kind of got into it, yet there was no scientific study done, and there was no scientific basis for this action. It was quite shocking. I think it may help with other products to say, let's make sure we base decisions like this on science before we remove a product that has been used safely for decades.

The Chair: Just a minute. Let me ask a question.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I have a question, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I have to ask it.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I did have a question.

The Chair: Why didn't you word your motion so as to bring back strychnine on a controlled-use basis by farmers in western Canada to get rid of gophers?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have another one, actually, that does say that, but I think that for now these farmers deserve compensation. This motion would provide them with compensation for the harm—

The Chair: And is it retroactive?

Mr. Leon Benoit: It absolutely should be retroactive, but certainly it doesn't specify that. It would be up to the committee to deal with that aspect when it goes to committee.

The Chair: Just a minute. We're going to let Mr. Dubé speak because he hardly ever asks questions. Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: There are two types of approaches for products. With the first one, a product may be used if it has not been proven scientifically that it is dangerous. Is it the case with this product?

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: I don't know if you can say it was proven scientifically that it was not dangerous, but it was used by farmers for decades, and I have much personal knowledge of its use, as would Mr. Breitkreuz. Any grain farmer would have a lot of personal knowledge. We showed that there was never a problem caused by strychnine other than a very quick death for this pest.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Since I am no expert in this field, could you explain to me what we are really talking about? You're probably not talking about the pure product? There must be other components. Do you know what they are? Are you able to tell us?

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's a simple compound with 2% strychnine. That's what it is, 2% strychnine. Farmers mix it with the grain and then put it down the gopher hole so it's well protected, and it's very effective. It's extremely effective if it's used at the right time of the year, which is early spring. Farmers of course learned that decades ago. It's probably been available since the prairies were settled.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, would this take three hours of debate in the House?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Would it take three hours? I think it would be very beneficial. There's a lot of background evidence from the access to information action and from the surprising answer—or non-answer—to the Order Paper questions. Considering the number of dollars of damage that will be caused, I think three hours of debate on that would be extremely helpful. Absolutely.

The Chair: What is your question, because we've got a holding pattern here?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I thought this was really a good question because one of our criteria is that it can't be addressed in any other way. Why can this not go through the courts? You're looking for compensation. Could this matter not be addressed some way through the courts?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I suppose so, if you can find a group of grain farmers who can come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars or whatever it would take to mount a court battle against the health department.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Chair, I have an answer to my own question. Because we don't have property rights in Canada, it probably wouldn't work.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It probably wouldn't work. No.

The Chair: Thank you for sharing that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thanks. I appreciate my answer.

The Chair: Mr. Goldring, are you in a big hurry?

Mr. Peter Goldring, M.P. (Edmonton Centre-East, CA): No, not really.

The Chair: Can we let Mr. Stoffer go next? He was ahead of you on the list, and he's wiggling—just like my grade nines used to—because he's in a hurry to go somewhere.

Would you like to come up to the table, Mr. Stoffer?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Am I finished?

The Chair: Yes, thank you. Sorry. There were no more—

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're not going to declare it votable at this time?

The Chair: The gopher bill? We'll be considering it with the other bills.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I hope so, for the sake of western Canadian farmers.

The Chair: Would you prefer it be called the gopher bill or the strychnine bill?

Mr. Leon Benoit: The gopher bill.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Oh, the gopher bill's—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like to be known as the gopher guy. It means a lot to me.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Very good.

The Chair: Thank you for having a sense of humour, Mr. Benoit.

All right, Peter, move it.

Mr. Peter Stoffer, M.P. (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen—

The Chair: You were wiggling there, just like my grade nines used to.

• 1640

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I've been accused of being a bad dancer, but never of wiggling.

As you know, my motion is a straightforward one. It is to honour the women of our military, past and present.

What is severely lacking in this country, and no one is to blame for this... I believe it's just a collective oversight by our society. There are a few plaques in various museums across the country dedicated to the WRENs, which was a great women's corps during the wars. Except for Winnipeg and a few establishments where the WRENs are, there are no statues honouring the commitment of women in our armed forces during the two world wars and the Korean effort. Women not only participated in combat but were also the ones who looked after the families and kept the home fires burning during those conflicts. There isn't a man who went overseas who didn't appreciate getting a letter from his daughter, his mother, his wife, or his sister.

Every day that goes by we lose another woman veteran in this country.

I took the example of the city of Winnipeg. This is probably a plant, as my colleague from Winnipeg is here. If you go to that monument and see what they have done there, it is absolutely striking. I couldn't help but give credit to the government and Sheila Copps, the heritage minister, for the famous five sculpture and the achievement of women in this country in breaking down those initial barriers many years ago. I honestly believe that if we were to make this bill votable, we could have a monument in every provincial capital across the country honouring women's efforts during the war.

They participated not only in the military effort but also in many of the factories. They produced much of the food that went overseas. Without them, we would not have been successful in our efforts in the two world wars and the Korean conflict.

So, again, I beg your indulgence to make the bill votable so that we can honour our women. It would probably be too late for this Remembrance Day, but for the next Remembrance Day I think it would be quite something.

Also, for your information, it just happens that on this day in 1942 a bill establishing a women's corps in the U.S. Army became law. It's just a coincidence. I know it doesn't affect the argument, but I believe...

I've also spoken to the mayors of a few cities, including Saint John, Halifax, and St. John's, and they agree that a bill like this would be greatly appreciated. If the veterans department or the heritage department decided to make something of this nature, they would greatly appreciate it and would help out in any way they could.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: That's interesting but I would like to know if you or some of your colleagues have made any representations of the Veterans Affairs minister about this? If so, was your request rejected? In other words, are you making this proposal now because it has already been rejected by the department or have you never made the request yet?

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, sir. I introduced this motion in the last Parliament at the request of many women's auxiliaries across the country.

I was raised in Vancouver and the Yukon and live in Nova Scotia, but in my travels across the country I always go to the local legion in the town just to pay my respects and have a cold one. There are usually women there, in the kitchen or in the bar or sitting down having a refreshment. I spoke to them about this motion, and they would be more than honoured to see something of that nature. This is where the initiative came from. It came from most of the women's auxiliaries of the local legions across the country.

Also, there was the Legion Command 38th Convention in Halifax last year, which I attended. I spoke to many women who attended that. I told them about this motion, and they said this is something they could really support. A lot of the men think it's great as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Do you have any inkling of how the Veterans Affairs minister would react to this? He may never have been asked. It might not be necessary to pass a Bill to get this done.

• 1645

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's actually a motion. No, I have not brought it up with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I've brought up many other issues with that minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I am very sympathetic to this but the minister might still say yes.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's completely understandable. But this was already on the Order Paper and it was drawn, so I thought it best to come here and try my luck.

The Chair: Are there any other questions? Bill.

Mr. Bill Casey: Whom do you propose to fund this?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The federal government.

The Chair: That's why he's here, cap in hand, for money.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's a wonderful gesture.

The Chair: How much do you think it will cost?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: What did the statue of the famous five cost?

The Chair: It cost $1 million.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Did it? I don't think it would cost $1 million to build—

The Chair: It did. I know four of the contributors, and they each paid $250,000.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm not sure what a particular statuette would be, but it would be very nice but very simple in its design, similar to those honouring the men. In my own riding there are three commemorative monuments for men. There's a male soldier on top of the monument. How much that would cost, I don't know. Whether or not you would have it as a female would have to be left to the discretion of the veterans affairs department and whoever brings it together. But I think it could be very straightforward. I don't think the cost would be prohibitive at all, and it would be an extremely wonderful gesture for the remaining women who were involved in those efforts.

The Chair: Pat has a question.

Were you finished, Bill?

Mr. Bill Casey: Is there the same thing for men? Is there a guarantee that every provincial capital has a monument for men?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No, but a lot of the monuments are designated for men. Except for the one in Winnipeg, there are none for women. Having spoken to a lot of the women, I just thought it would be a nice gesture to remember their efforts in the war as well.

The Chair: Pat.

Mr. Pat Martin: My questions were answered.

The Chair: Mr. Dubé, did you have any questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Dear colleague, you seem quite knowledgeable about veterans' issues. Are the women you talked to, those who worked in our factories and who have been injured at work, entitled to the same compensation as a veteran who fought on the front?

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: No. They were considered industrial workers, just like everyone else. If they were injured on the job, that wasn't a war thing. That would be a provincial or municipal occupational concern back in those days.

I just thought it would be a nice thing to do.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I could have brought another one, but I didn't think you guys would have done that one.

The Chair: That's okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Madam Chair, having had a little experience with the Ortona monument, it's $100,000 for a relatively simple one, and if you can talk Robert Surette into giving his time for free, it might be $50,000.

I appear before you today with my motion M-245. It's in response to a question I posed to the Order Paper for which I received no answer. The answer I did receive was a non-answer.

We are approaching a period where the federal government will be assisting with affordable housing and national homeless shelters and entering an area it left for a number of years. Consequently, there's a great backlog and a need for affordable housing across this country. The Urban Municipalities Association has identified a need for approximately 1.8 million housing units. Using their number of some $100,000 per unit, we're looking at a problem here of $200 billion, which is very significant.

I did a study of homelessness and housing over the past year and a half, and I have written a book on the subject. One of the things I found was great difficulty in trying to discern what the different terms meant. For example, out of eight studies and reports that I looked into, there were 36 different definitions of homeless. We couldn't get a definition of homeless.

• 1650

We have an equally difficult time trying to define what we mean by affordable housing. Everybody has a different idea of what is meant by that term. The same problem exists with the word poverty. The commonly used figure for a single person living in poverty is approximately $2,000 per month, for example, which is not the same at all as a person living in poverty in the city of Edmonton.

So we have difficulty defining what we mean by these terms. Given the size and scope of the difficulty, and the fact that the federal government is looking into it now and will be looking into it with larger sums of money in the future as well, I think it's imperative that we have a definition of these terms, a working definition, in order to proceed. How on earth do we put billions of dollars into an affordable housing industry across this country if we don't know what we mean?

Of course, one of the difficulties with affordable housing is that not one single report or request I have seen, for example, talks about building economically as the first basis of building affordable housing.

Here in Ottawa I was looking for an apartment this session. I went downtown to look at various buildings. I found one building that I thought might be too expensive for me. I've been in construction for 30 years, and I know what architectural accoutrement and the aesthetics that architects put into buildings cost. But I went ahead anyway. I thought, “Well, it's a really nice building, so maybe I can afford it”. I found out it was low-income housing and I couldn't qualify to rent it anyway.

So here we have an example of where the experts are building affordable housing that is not affordable. It's not built affordably, it's simply massively subsidized until they make it affordable. That's not how we should be entering into a national system of building affordable housing at all. Consequently, there's a great need for this.

In shelters, to explain another situation, what do we mean in terms of a basic, bottom line of shelters? It means different things across the country. It can mean, for example, a $3-million 21-room rooming house. And $3 million is not affordable, it's outrageous. As well, it goes to other ones where they are building affordably, at $9,000 a room or unit, which means $200,000 to $300,000 for the same building.

So because of the wide discrepancies in understanding across the country, all by well-meaning people, I think we have to start with the basics and have both a workable definition of housing and the precise meaning of poverty and homeless. What are we talking about when we talk about homeless, and in what context are we using that word?

I think that's it. If patience pays dividends, I would like to have this motion votable.

The Chair: I'm not being critical, but do you really think it would take three hours of debate in the House?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, I do, because of the one example I used—36 different definitions in only eight reports. We have to get to the bottom of this. Somehow we have to feed all of this information in. We have to come up with definable terms in order to move ahead in any of these areas. I believe it might even take a lot more time than that.

The Chair: Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: If I understand correctly, you wrote a book about this and so, you surely have a definition in mind.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: No, it's impossible to have a definition when there are 36 in eight studies. In other words, somebody has to render all of those definitions and come up with a workable one.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I find it fascinating that the government has policy in this area but no definitions. How can you operate a government program without definitions?

Mr. Peter Goldring: That's an excellent question. What happens is that they go ahead with a localized definition, no matter what it is. In other words, this is why we have a difference in terms of what they're supplying in homeless shelters in Edmonton, for instance. It's different across the country.

• 1655

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: In the second part of your motion you talk about “establishing legislative parameters” for related government spending. Would you mind just explaining what you mean by that?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, if we're going to be defining what affordable housing is, then we should be qualifying it so that whoever is bidding or tendering on affordable housing would have some guidelines to follow. For example, it could be insisting that the national building code be followed as a minimum, but, understandably, because we're looking for affordable and economical housing, we want to go to the minimum standards of the code.

Now, if the national building code is not sufficient, then we have to address that as another problem, and legislate and change the code so that it is acceptable. In other words, we have to decide whether our building codes and standards are acceptable now. If they are not, then that's another matter that has to be changed legislatively as well.

The Chair: Pat.

Mr. Pat Martin: Aren't you mixing the term affordable housing with... Affordable housing isn't supposed to be affordable to those who build it, it's supposed to be affordable to those who live in it. So really, the cost of the structure isn't really contemplated when we talk about affordable housing. I think this motion would add an element or additional definitions that could cloud public policy on the subject.

I think the same is true when you talk about affordable housing, poverty, and the homeless. We actually do know what poor is, because the low-income cut-off is the standard that we use in this country. I don't know where you find 38 other definitions of poverty unless you look at 38 different villages and towns and communities, where that low-income cut-off would buy you a different standard of living.

I'm just wondering why you think we need to redefine things that are actually clear in everybody else's mind but maybe not in yours. Most of us actually do know what poverty is, what homeless is, and what affordable housing is.

Mr. Peter Goldring: With the low-income cut-off we have a number established of approximately $2,000 a month for a single person.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's $17,400 for a single person, which is less than $1,500 a month.

Mr. Peter Goldring: It's gone up now, I think. Now, that does not define, for a single person... A single person's basic need is a rooming house room.

Mr. Pat Martin: So you want them to live at a lower standard. You want them to be really poor before we call them poor, starving or something.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Well, I think we all have come through things in life. I certainly lived in a rooming house when I started out. I think what we should be looking at providing across this country is affordable housing for needs, not for wants. If a person wants to move into a one- or two-bedroom apartment, so be it, but a family, obviously, needs an apartment, and a larger family a larger accommodation. We need to decide basic needs for housing.

The biggest single need across this country is for rooming house rooms. In the past 20 years 75% of all rooming house rooms have been closed or shut down. No new rooming houses have been built.

Mr. Pat Martin: We need more slum landlords to fill that need and demand.

Mr. Peter Goldring: It doesn't have to be a slum landlord. Certainly the place I stayed in wasn't run by one. That is the basic, most affordable housing unit. The first step on the housing ladder rung is a rooming house.

The Chair: We're getting a little off topic. I think most of the questions have been answered. Any further questions of a votable nature?

Thank you very much, Mr. Goldring.

I guess a couple of explanations are in order. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has cancelled her appearance. I assume she still wants her bill considered for votability.

A voice: Yes.

• 1700

The Chair: But she's not going to appear.

As well, Mr. Herron can't appear before 5:30, and we're finished, actually; he was our last person. He still wants his bill, removing long guns from registration, considered. Mr. Herron is twelfth on our sheets.

I would also point out an error on your sheets with regard to Libby Davies, Bill C-329. For want of a better name, we can call that the “spanking” bill. It's parents not using force on children.

So we have gopher bills and spanking bills, but they both want to be considered.

Mr. Borotsik was not able to come and didn't take an appointment. His is a discussion of farm subsidies. If you look at it, it's every disaster known to man, including marketing disasters.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]