SMEM Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, April 17, 2002

1540

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

Mr. Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

1545

Mr. Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Bélanger

1550

The Chair

1555

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. John Herron (Fundy--Royal, PC)

1600

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords--Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. John Herron

1605

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon--Souris, PC)

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Herron

1610

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance)

1615

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Yvon Godin

1620

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Vic Toews

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Lalonde

1625

The Chair

1630

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

1635

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)

1640

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

1645

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. John Williams

1650

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

1655

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

1700

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ)

1705

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1710

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

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

1715

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

1720

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Ms. Libby Davies

1725

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey, Lib.)

The Chair

1730

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Murray Calder

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Murray Calder

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Murray Calder

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Murray Calder

1735

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Murray Calder

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Murray Calder

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Murray Calder

The Chair

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean--Carleton, Lib.)

1740

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. David Pratt

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. David Pratt

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. David Pratt

1745

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. David Pratt

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. David Pratt

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. David Pratt

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. David Pratt

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. David Pratt

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. David Pratt

1750

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Paul Crête

Mr. David Pratt

The Chair

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon--Humboldt, Ind.)

1755

The Chair

Mr. Jim Pankiw

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jim Pankiw

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

CANADA

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

NUMBER 013

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 17, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1540)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull--Aylmer, Lib.)): Who is missing? Avons-nous le quorum?

[English]

To begin with, let me explain the situation. Mauril Bélanger was in front of this committee at the last meeting. He made his pitch. The committee did not make his proposed bill votable. However, Mr. Bélanger has asked for interpretations. Unfortunately, his letter is in French only, so I don't feel particularly comfortable in distributing it because we don't have the English version.

But this is the story. Until a bill or a motion has either been made votable or been disposed of in the House, the legal interpretations are that the committee can still make an item votable.

Mr. Bélanger has requested to come back in front of the subcommittee to pitch his idea again. We're in a bit of a grey zone, although there are legal interpretations. So I would submit to you that we listen to Mr. Bélanger, then when we come to our in camera discussions, we can further discuss this amongst ourselves and decide what we're going to do. Okay?

Is everyone in agreement with that?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Chairman, that is alright, but do we have the quorum? If we invite him in and listen to what he has to say without having the quorum, we risk sinking even deeper intro procedural issues.

The Chair: Yes, the procedure is not that he come before us to make his representations once he has his interpretations, but rather that the committee decide on whether on not his bill should be votable.

As to the quorum, the problem is the following. Mr. Borotsik was a member of the coalition. Since the coalition is no more, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs must, further to the recommendation of the Conservative Party, designate the representative of the Conservative Party on our sub-committee. That has not been done yet. The intent is for that person to be Mr. Borotsik, but officially or procedurally, if you will, that has not yet been done.

Therefore, what we had thought of doing today was to allow Mr. Borotsik to participate in the hearings because we will most certainly have the quorum when Mr. Tirabassi gets here. At the present time, we are still missing the Alliance representative who was supposed to be here. We should have the official quorum at that time. If you prefer to not take into account Mr. Borotsik's presence for purposes of the quorum, because he has not yet been designated, then we will not sit right now but rather wait until we have the quorum.

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, given that we are faced with a rather odd situation, if we listen to him, it seems to me that this will create a precedent as to our practice. Depending upon the decision we make, this precedent could at some point in the future be referred to as jurisprudence. If we make this decision without having the quorum, we risk in the end finding ourselves in a rather complicated situation, and this has nothing to do with issues of content.

We must ensure that this time the decision we come to is effective, because if ever the Liberals or the Alliance were to say that they have no reason to trust in this decision because it was reached without there being quorum, then we will have as many problems as we now have.

¹ (1545)

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP): It is not just a matter of making decisions, because the decision could very well be arrived at in camera and we could even hear the witness' presentation.

I believe that covers the whole problem. I simply would like to remind you that if we look...

The Chair: I would like to say that we now know that Mr. Ritz is on his way. He will be here in a few minutes. Let me also tell you that I have information from my office according to which we have a 99% chance of having a vote at 4:30 p.m.

I do not have all of the information, but I believe it is perhaps the 5:30 p.m. vote that was moved up. We will wait for the arrival of either Mr. Ritz or Mr. Tirabassi so that we have the legal quorum, if you are in agreement, and we will be able to proceed at that time. If there is a vote, we will adjourn and come back afterwards.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the matter of whether or not we can legally change a decision already made by the other committee, I would simply like to remind the committee that when there was the whole affair about the Canadian horse with the Senate, we had no qualms about it then. We even brought the matter up with the House leader and before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. If I remember correctly, it all boiled down to the committee having the authority to change it. I do not wish to start the debate right away, but I do want to say that there was a precedent and that the horses are prancing about outside as we speak.

The Chair: It has been confirmed to me that there will be a vote between 4:15 and 4:30 p.m. We will therefore adjourn and come back afterwards.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am coming back before the committee after having appeared on March 13, I believe, with regard to Bill C-407, an Act to amend the Canada Health Act by adding to it a sixth principle, that of the respect of linguistic duality.

Further to a decision made by the committee on March 13 and to the report tabled in the House, I raised a question of privilege. The Speaker responded referring to a specific prior decision, a decision of Speaker Parent dated December 1997 and which I mention in the letter I sent you, Mr. Chairman. I will quote an excerpt of this decision of the Speaker:

The Speaker would also like to draw the attention of members to the fact that the sub-committee is allowed to select an item to make it votable at any point in time up until the item is dealt with in the House. Thus, if an item is not chosen by the sub-committee, the following week, in order for it to be votable, this same item can nevertheless be chosen in February.

That was in December 1997. The issue here, naturally, is whether or not there is enough room for this item to be retained as a votable item.

Mr. Chairman, the last time I appeared I tabled a document that I took back and that I gave to Ms. Ouellette. This document reviews the five criteria the committee is supposed to apply in determining if a private member's business item should be votable or not.

In my opinion, my bill meets these five criteria. I am presenting myself before the committee with the same advice I had earlier and I would like, Mr. Chairman, in the five minutes granted me, because people can easily read what I have tabled and you are more familiar than I am with the five criteria... My bill, without a shadow of a doubt, meets the five criteria, but the one and only question put to me last time did not relate to the criteria but rather to the heart of the issue, and I would really resent it if decisions here were made on the basis of the substance. In my opinion, it is up to the House to discuss the substance and the committee' role is to respect or to apply the five criteria. If you will allow me, I will use the rest of the time to ask committee members if in their view there are among the five criteria some that the bill I am putting forward does not meet.

I understand that I may perhaps be reversing the procedure, but I find myself in a rather disconcerting situation. As I stated in the House, when an MP sees his bill or his motion considered for selection as a votable item without there being any explanation nor right to appeal, this places the member in a truly difficult situation. This is why I attempted, when preparing my bill, to respect the five criteria, namely that the bill was not drafted ahead of time, that it is a national issue, it is not an issue that will be dealt with by the government, etc. My bill fits all five criteria.

I know that you will perhaps find me impertinent, but I do hope that in your deliberations, in which I will not be able to participate because they will be held in camera, you will ask yourselves if this bill meets the criteria and not whether it might be controversial or not. It will most certainly be so; there is no doubt whatsoever in that regard. But in my opinion, the nation's way of dealing with health issues for the linguistic minorities of this country is a fundamental issue, and I would hope that we might have this debate and that there be a vote on the floor of the House once this bill has been selected by the committee as a votable item.

We are all caught up in the same procedural system. It is far from being perfect. I am aware that attempts are being made to correct the situation but, in the meantime, I am, like you, caught up in the system and my hope is that we will stick to simply applying the criteria.

¹ (1550)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

Remember that the last time I made a comment congratulating you for having made your presentation based on the five conditions rather than on the content of your bill. This sub-committee's process is such that you are granted five minutes, as an MP, to convince us under the five conditions. Then, if need be, committee members have five minutes to ask you questions.

I do not believe that we are allowed to reverse the roles and to say that you will take five minutes to ask questions and that committee members will... That is not at all the way things are done here. That is not at all the point of our in camera deliberations, much the contrary. I will therefore ask if there are any committee members who have questions to put to you. They have five minutes and they are welcome to use this time. We will then discuss the matter once again in camera.

¹ (1555)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would like some assurances that the document be distributed to all the committee members.

The Chair: This is the document that you had distributed...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It describes the five stages and the way in which the bill fits each of the criteria. The document is in both languages.

The Chair: There is no problem. We have it here and the members have access to it for study and consultation. Do you want to distribute it? Do they already have it?

Are there any members who have questions for Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would not want Mr. Bélanger to leave thinking that we do no have a single question for him and that we are not taking into account what he has told us. Mr. Bélanger has already made a presentation to the House of Commons on the way in which the system works, and I am satisfied with this presentation he has made. I have no further questions for him today because I am already aware of the problem.

The Chair: Mr. Herron.

[English]

Mr. John Herron (Fundy--Royal, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: You know how the system works. You have five minutes to pitch.

Mr. John Herron: Unfortunately, I do understand a little bit about how the system works. I would like to talk about the process itself at some point.

I suspect that all members in this committee, members of Parliament, have students that come into their offices talking about the enormous debt levels they have upon graduation. This is a national crisis. I do have a reputation as a member of Parliament for using a lot of superlatives. This is actually one, that student debt loads have quadrupled. They're four times what they were over a decade ago. Tuition rates have gone up 126% over the same period of time. And the national government has not been engaged in the issue to any significant degree in the last decade plus, as a point of fact.

The truth is, too many of our best and our brightest are now choosing not to even seek higher learning.

As members of Parliament, I think you probably go into high school classes to do current affairs on occasion. Am I right with that? I do it in my riding. Can you look every one of those students square in the eye--if they have the intellectual capacity to seek higher learning--and say that in this country they have access to post-secondary education regardless of their means? You guys can't, because I know I can't.

So why is education even that important? Well, if knowledge is really the capital that drives the economy into the next decades and the next century, and if we have a baby boomer generation that's retiring en masse within the next five to 10 years, we just won't have the intellectual capital in our country. We won't have the skill sets, because too many of our best and our brightest have chosen not to go to school. And those individuals who did go to school and sought higher learning--they may even be professionals--will, because they have such a horrendous debt level, actually run stateside, because they're seeking higher salaries, lower taxes, and perhaps more opportunity. We invest in their education to some degree, and we don't actually get to keep them.

So I've tabled a motion, and it meets all five criteria as laid out. I'm not going to go through the process itself.

Who supports the motion? The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations does. They had a press conference here in the House supporting it. They represent 310,000 post-secondary students. This week, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives supported this particular motion .

The language in the motion is intended not to be provocative. But we haven't had a debate in the House over accessibility of post-secondary education in the five years that I've been here, to speak of.

The motion simply says: That in the opinion of the House, the government should consider--this isn't to have a debate--introducing a tax credit based on repayment of Canada Student Loan principal, to a maximum of 10% of the principal, per year, for the first ten years after graduation provided the individual remains in Canada.

The jewel of this is that if we merrily send money to the provinces, and the provinces to the universities, what happens is that universities have pressures on augmenting their university infrastructure. So there's no guarantee that money actually ends up in the pockets of students. What this does is it enables a student to write off an immense amount of the cost of their student debt from their income tax, but they get to take advantage of that program only if they pay taxes in Canada. So it has an immense positive influence on brain drain, which is particularly what the Canadian Council of Chief Executives argues.

So they have been writing members of Parliament. Both CASA and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives are en route to doing that as well. They'd like to have this vote done.

To tell you how it works, we all remember the debate around mortgage deductibility. The sad thing is that the student debt levels right now are getting close to what a mortgage actually is. If you're a professional, if you graduate as an engineer or an occupational therapist, you could owe $70,000. In some rural parts of Canada you can actually buy a house for that. So it gives you the capacity to deduct the principal and interest of the debt you've accumulated in your student debt from your income taxes.

º (1600)

We've costed the program, which was lifted from our platform during the election of 2000, and it would cost about $1.2 billion over five years. So we could actually say, here's a legislative tool the House could actually use to help address post-secondary education in Canada.

I'm tired of talking to so many of our best and our brightest in my riding who say, “Mr. Herron, do you know how much I owe?” If you had gone out and bought a BMW the day after graduating, people would have called that completely irresponsible, but they have the same debt level and don't have the benefit of actually having cars.

Why would you not want to have a debate on this in the House? Why wouldn't you want to just have a vote on it, so the government could consider the option of actually using a tool--using a tax code?

From a jurisdictional perspective--my final point--I know this plays differently in a lot of provinces, and particularly in the province of Quebec. This uses the tax code on writing off, so it's a strategic strike for writing down student debt levels. It does not interfere with the millennium scholarship fund and those other issues, in terms of how post-secondary educational spending is done. It addresses the issue of student debt directly. The Quebec organizations are starting to rally around this very motion, as well.

By not making it votable, I almost say it's really in our hands; let's not mitigate our capacity as MPs. Let's do something on this motion and take it to a vote.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Ritz.

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords--Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): John, do you see this as being retroactive? You talk about the huge debt load out there now. Is this something that will start next year? How do you address the people who are carrying that huge debt load? Do you say, “You should have waited three years and gone to school”? How do you get over that fine point?

Mr. John Herron: You can't. The short answer is there are a lot of individuals who have somehow been able to pay off their student debts over the last five or six years. We can't fix the wrongs forever and ever.

But the issue is that this problem is getting worse, not better. Tuition rates have gone up 126% over that ten-year period. It at least puts something in your tool kit. With any tax deductions we've done in our tax code, we've never gone back retroactively.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Just to be a devil's advocate on this, what's to stop tuition from going up 10% a year to offset this?

Mr. John Herron: CASA doesn't have a clear position on it, but a lot of student organizations are saying they don't support tuition freezes sometimes, because if they start freezing tuition across the board, the product you acquire and pay for gets mitigated as well.

If tuition rates are going to stay where they are, or if they are going to continue to escalate anyway, we have to give them something that puts money directly back into their pockets.

The federal government cut money to the province and the province cut money to McGill. McGill kept building new buildings left, right, and centre over the last five, six, seven years, despite having less revenue from the levels of government. So even if the provinces gave more money to the universities, there's no indication that money would go directly back into the pockets of students. This is a strategic strike at actually doing that.

I just think it would be a disservice to the 310,000 students represented by CASA, who categorically support this initiative, not to have an intelligent debate on it. Even if it passes, the word there is “consider”. We're saying to use the tax code to pay down debt.

º (1605)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I was looking at the way your motion is drafted. It makes me think of that of the Bloc dealing with mechanics' tools.

Do you consider that this motion has the same value in a sense? At the time, we were talking about apprentice-mechanics who had very expensive tools to purchase. To start out in life, young people need help. A tax credit would be helpful. This is why we thought the motion could be votable.

In the same way, students who attend university are indebted and we would give them a tax credit to encourage them. The government could at least give them a chance with this motion.

M. John Herron: Thank you for your question, Yvon.

[English]

Essentially, we have an issue around helping an individual pay for their tool kit versus intellectual tool kit. I think it's the same type of issue. But the fact right now is that the real driver in the economy, we know, is going to be more and more knowledge-based as well, and the intellectual tool kits of our best and our brightest aren't being purchased right now. A lot of them are choosing not to go to school because it's not worth the investment. It's a similar issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: The reason I say that is that we are going to decide whether or not this should be a votable item. We could perhaps consider this motion in the same way as that of the Bloc, which was put to a vote in the House. Our task is to decide whether or not it should be votable. If your motion is comparable to that of the Bloc... That is what we are going to have to decide.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: There's clearly a strong parallel to what the Bloc had done in that particular instance. Yes, I would agree with that.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

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

I have a couple of questions. You mentioned in your dissertation...I believe it was principal and interest and the motion speaks to principal. Is it simply a matter of the 10% of the principal?

Mr. John Herron: Yes. And the issue is that if you look at the motion itself, I've intended not to put this in a tight box. It gives them flexibility, the word “consider”. So if the Government of Canada really takes this up and engages in principal and interest, fine. We costed it in our platform as principal and interest.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. The question by Mr. Ritz is a valid one with respect to the increase in the tuition fees. However, in your opinion is there more than just simply tuition fees that go into the student debt? There are other costs, obviously, to incorporate $70,000 in debt as opposed to simply tuition fees. There are more--

Mr. John Herron: Oh, yes. I think it speaks to the whole issue, that tuition fees are going up and the cost of living isn't going down for a student. Every single aspect of acquiring an education has upward pressure on cost, not downward pressure. That's why it's targeted on debt as opposed to trying to tweak some jurisdictional issues on tuition. I really want to focus on the student debt issue itself.

You know, a lot of folks, and baby boomers in particular, don't even know that we tax university scholarships.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have one other quick question and this has to do with the millennium scholarship fund. One of the criteria is whether the government of the day is dealing with similar issues. Do you see the millennium scholarship fund as being a similar way of dealing with the issue you're proposing now in your motion?

Mr. John Herron: No, CASA actually looked at the millennium scholarship fund and they're trying to be constructive with it. If the rest of the tool kit on funding post-secondary education was really good, this would be a nice complementary tool, the scholarship fund, but it really only helps such a small wedge of individuals.

Everybody would benefit from this particular aspect and it would be the first time the Government of Canada actually has done anything to speak of on post-secondary education accessibility.

On student debt...this is why I don't think it has the attention it should have had in the mainstream, because obviously there are priorities in Canada, our health care and education. Well, as a national government we've done very little except on the research side of it. But on mainstream accessibility, we've actually gone the other way.

º (1610)

The Chair: Mr. Herron, I'm going to have to cut you off here; we're over time, and I have to say as well that you're not covering points in regard to the conditions. You're going into content, so I'm comfortable cutting you off.

I'll let Mr. Crête ask you a short question as long as it's in regard to conditions.

Mr. John Herron: I'll whip through the criteria very quickly. Bills and motions must be drafted in clear, complete terms--

The Chair: No, no, let Mr. Crête ask you a question, because we're out of time. You've had your five minutes to pitch and you've had seven minutes of questions and I want to give him a chance to ask you a question.

Mr. John Herron: Very good.

[Translation]

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Paul Crête: There are criteria relating to clarity, effectiveness, etc. I would like you to tell me if, in your view, Canada Student Loans encompass federal loans, provincial loans, Québec loans and also, possibly, private loans. A student could take out a loan from a bank and therefore have a completety private loan. Would he or she be covered by this?

[English]

Mr. John Herron: The issue I've addressed is to have clear language. I've focused on Canada Student Loans itself. The language is intended to have flexibility on the word “consider”.

This could be revisited to apply to provincial loan programs or private loans, if they were able to be deemed as being utilized for the purpose of post-secondary education. It would be something that could be considered. This is to spur debate. It's a motion, as opposed to a comprehensive bill.

The thing is it's pan-Canadian, not a localized issue. It's an issue that the Government of Canada is not taking up on its own. It's a bill that has a significant amount of public interest and meets all five criteria, sir.

The Chair: Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Thank you. This motion deals with the appearance of elected provincial officials before committees, and also with briefings and negotiations, where provincial civil servants are present with federal representatives.

In February of 2001, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights barred the appearance of provincial attorneys general during the hearings on the Youth Criminal Justice Act. We were told, as newer members, there was a rule or convention that committees do not hear elected provincial officials. Government members voted down a motion to waive this rule in the case of the act. As a result, the committee was able to only hear from non-elected provincial officials.

In my experience as a provincial attorney general, in fact, I was refused attendance or any knowledge of briefings provided to my officials, provincial officials, by federal officials in respect to the Young Offenders Act and the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

At the same time, the committee heard from the federal attorney general, and regularly hears from the federal attorney general. Committee members were prevented from hearing from the provincial officials, provincial attorneys general, who are responsible for implementing the legislation, administering the legislation, paying the lion's share of the legislation, and indeed making it work.

Despite the numerous concerns expressed about the lack of consultation with provincial authorities in the development of this bill, I think it was astonishing that it wasn't deemed appropriate to invite elected representatives from provincial governments to make representations in Ottawa.

As I've indicated, the provinces are often shouldered with the burden of the cost for implementing the laws. I think it's tremendously important to hear from provincial attorneys general, who have to justify the expenses to taxpayers on where the money is going. Certainly, as a courtesy alone, we should be hearing from these individuals.

The motion, I think, is comprehensive and would give parliamentarians the opportunity to confer on a number of fronts with both elected and non-elected provincial officials. I think it's significant to the public interest, in the context of how public money is being spent, and allows provincial elected officials, in the context of the justice system or otherwise, to hear how the money is being spent.

The motion must be brought before the House. It cannot be effectively addressed in any other way. It has been the consistent practice of this committee to do so. At present, the problem can only be remedied by the committee, where opposition members are at a clear disadvantage and government members have indicated the existence of this rule or convention.

In respect to the list of criteria, I think it's clear, complete, and effective. It's certainly within the jurisdiction of Parliament and concerns areas not only of federal jurisdiction; it's a significant matter of public interest in terms of the development of criminal law and also the relationship of governments, one to another. Certainly, this is not part of the government's current agenda. It's not being addressed in any other way.

I think this transcends a purely local interest. This isn't simply the Government of Manitoba or the Government of Quebec not being represented. This is all governments working together, in terms of cooperative federalism, being denied a voice in the expenditure of their monies. Remember, under criminal law, in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the power to prosecute and administer is delegated to the provinces. This is a true federal spirit of cooperation...that these provinces are doing this.

Those are my comments, Mr. Chair.

º (1615)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, dear colleague.

I would like one clarification. You talk of the exclusion of elected provincial government representatives from briefings and negotiations with the provinces. I thought they were excluded from parliamentary committees. Are they excluded from parliamentary committees or from negotiations the government itself is carrying out with the provinces? This is not clear to me.

[English]

Mr. Vic Toews: Both. They're excluded from the committee and they're excluded in negotiations, in terms of the development of that bill.

When I was the provincial attorney general in Manitoba, my staff were invited to attend briefing sessions in respect of the expectations of the Province of Manitoba, in respect of that legislation. The only basis upon which my provincial staff could attend was that they not disclose what was disclosed to them at those meetings. It was astounding that they were being briefed but under a cone of silence; they could not tell me what was going on at those meetings. Those were meetings with federal officials, outside the context of the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: That is where I am looking for information. If we are talking parliamentary committees, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I have never seen people excluded from committees, unless the meetings were being held in camera. Committee meetings are public. People come to them and take a seat. To my knowledge, we have never excluded anyone from a parliamentary committee meeting. This is why I am asking the question. Are we talking about parliamentary committees or about negotiations that take place elsewhere? I have sat on several committees. For example, during a finance committee meeting, all of the provincial ministers from the Atlantic region were there and they made presentations to the committee. I fail to see why they would be excluded and I would like your request to be very clear. It is not clear in my mind.

[English]

Mr. Vic Toews: In February 2001, when we asked the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the attendance of provincial attorneys general, the provincial attorneys general were barred. They said we were not allowed to call them as witnesses, stating that there was a rule or convention of the committee not to hear elected provincial officials. I don't know if it's on the record or if it was done in camera, but that's what we were told.

So it was voted down. The minority opposition members voted in favour of allowing those elected representatives. The Liberal majority voted against it.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Parliamentary committees are masters of their own destiny. They are the ones who make the decisions. My impression, therefore, is that the committee in question perhaps decided to not accept to see the group. Normally it is the committee that decides and not Parliament. Here, we are establishing a kind of precedent. It would be Parliament that would decide how a committee carries out its own business.

º (1620)

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Just for clarification, Mr. Toews, do you have the rule or convention you speak of that stopped the attorneys general from appearing before that committee?

Mr. Vic Toews: No, I've never seen it.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Nor have I.

Mr. Vic Toews: That was basically my concern. Every time this issue is raised at that committee, they say it's a convention and they do not do that in this committee.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: There are other committees, Mr. Toews, which I know we're all familiar with, that do have ministers appear before them. In fact, we just had that recently on the agriculture committee. I'm not disputing what you're saying. I'm just wondering if you have the rule or convention from the justice committee.

The second thing, very briefly, is that in your motion, Mr. Toews--and I know it meets the criteria--you simply say that it should never exclude elected provincial government officials. “Never” is a very strong word, Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes, and I'm open to suggestion on changes to that. But it should never exclude them when there are briefings with other provincial civil servants. I know you can exclude the elected provincial officials, but to say “We're going to allow your subordinates to come, but not you” seems to me very perverse.

The Chair: Tony.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): I don't know if this is just an omission. You mentioned “provincial” government. I would take it that territorial would be part of that.

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Would it be important to include that as well?

Mr. Vic Toews: That is a good point. I'm just wondering whether.... They don't necessarily have the same relationship because they don't prosecute under the Criminal Code. It's the federal prosecutor that does that in the territories, as I recall.

Because I can't anticipate every instance, I would not hesitate in putting territorial there, either. I think that's a very sound suggestion.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: My second point you somewhat satisfied. I was going to ask the same question or had the same concern as Rick with regard to “never”. I have a similar type of concern with “agreements of any kind”. Maybe I haven't been around here long enough, but are there not instances where, remote as they may be, there are certain agreements that are strictly federal?

Mr. Vic Toews: Absolutely, but what I'm saying is where you invite provincial civil servants to a meeting, you should not exclude the provincial ministers. If a provincial minister says, “I think it's important enough for me to be at that meeting”, you can't say, “No, we're not going to hear from the provincial minister, only his or her staff.”

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: So you're always tying the two ends.

Mr. Vic Toews: Leave it open. The provincial minister doesn't have to attend, but to extend an invitation to the province to participate in cooperative federalism and say, “We'll hear from your staff, but not only can't you attend, your staff also can't tell you what went on”....

The Chair: A quick one? No? That's fine.

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Welcome, Madam Lalonde. Dear Madam, you have the floor.

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is full of confidence that I appear before you to present to you Bill C-313, an Act respecting the negotiation, approval, tabling and publication of treaties.

I wish to say at the outset that to the best of my knowledge, it meets the criteria on your list. It certainly satisfies the first and second criteria. The third criteria states that the bills and motions should deal with matters of obvious public interest. It is my belief that this bill rates very highly as far as obvious public interest is concerned.

Our era is one of the acceleration of history and of international treaties playing a more and more important role in the life of citizens. However, for parliamentarism, democracy and transparency, there is a serious problem due to the fact that these international treaties are negotiated and ratified in Canada by the executive, without Parliament being consulted. Although parliamentarians are elected to represent the people and to develop the laws that will regulate their lives, we have no voice at all as to these international treaties that are today shaping our lives and exerting more and more influence on us. I am thinking here of trade agreements, of the WTO and of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. NAFTA presents problems. The World Trade Organization has begun a new round. There is the Kyoto Accord and the list goes on and on. In all of this, public interest is obvious. One need only look at civil society's movement in favour of transparency and democracy to say that the bill meets this third criterion.

The fourth point is more technical. This bill is not on the present government's legislative agenda and Parliament has not dealt with this issue during this parliamentary session.

Allow me to remind you that the government maintains that in Canada it is the executive power that negotiates and ratifies treaties. With all due respect, I nevertheless say that in British parliamentary tradition one can consider Great Britain as a model of sorts. In Great Britain, the House of Commons gives its views on treaties. In Australia, the House of Commons also gives it verdict. This means that British parliamentary government has evolved in these parliaments. I am taking for granted that it can also evolve here in various ways. While I await the accomplishment of other political objectives I espouse, it is extremely important that the people be able to count on parliamentarians making themselves heard when treaties are being ratified.

The final condition, all other things being equal, is that those items that transcend a purely local interest, that are not expressed in partisan terms or that the House could not otherwise study, be considered a priority.

I humbly hope, Mr. Chairman, that I have shown you that this bill must be considered a priority.

º (1625)

Might I add that one of the provisions of the bill states the following:

5. Not later than six months after the coming into force of this Act, the Government of Canada shall enter into an agreement with each provincial government on the matter in which the Government of Canada shall consult the provincial government under section 4.

I believe this is an important provision because at the present time provincial governments are not consulted formally, although they have an obligation to apply the treaties that are negotiated and ratified by the federal government. This is one of the important provisions of the bill. Provincial governments, however, negotiate in their own jurisdiction.

I would also underscore the fact that the federal government can negotiate and sign first off. What we are asking is the power to ratify without being able to change the text. You might ask me what interest there is in that. The answer is that the government will have to seek approval from the House and one might think that it will consequently be more careful in its negotiations.

In clause 7, the bill provides that before ratification the Foreign affairs Committee hold public hearings. This is in response to a desire expressed in various ways to the Foreign affairs Committee in the course of numerous negotiations.

I will stop there. I hope I have convinced you.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Godin.

º (1630)

Mr. Yvon Godin: You talk of treaties. Are you asking that after the negotiation of a treaty this treaty be submitted to Parliament, who would examine it as if it were a bill? Are you asking that treaties be examined in committee and then be discussed in the House, where members of Parliament will be able to move amendments and vote?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: No. In this bill, I do not go that far. I believe that this is a bill that is far from excessive but that nevertheless affirms the power of parliamentarians before ratification. This is important, because a treaty that is negotiated and that cannot be ratified does not exist. Treaties, once they are signed, must be ratified.

I am asking that after the Foreign affairs Committee is consulted, the House come down on one side or the other of the treaty. This would grant parliamentarians, for the duration of negotiations with the government, influence that would not be negligeable, because the government will have to seek consent for ratification.

The Chair: Is that all, Mr. Godin?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Madam.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You will have to welcome me once again, because I am replacing Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral.

º (1635)

The Chair: Absolutely, Madam. Welcome, Madam Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral's motion reads as follows: “That this House recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemn this act as a crime against humanity”. This motion, Mr. Chairman, in these terms or in others, might I underline, continues to make friends in various parliaments throughout the world. It is important to note that not only is this bill before the House of representatives but that France has passed it in law, with both the National Assembly and the Senate agreeing. The European parliament has passed it as well as the Human Rights Commission of the UN and numerous national parliaments, namely those of Russia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lebanon, Belgium, Argentina, Uruguay and Australia.

The aim of this motion is to have Canada recognize the genocidal character of the tragic events that took place in Turkey in 1915.

France, in its approach, insisted on telling Turkey, in a re-reading of its history movement that all countries are called upon to do, including France, with regard to the Second World War, that it should understand that it is in its own interest to recognize the situation. What I am trying to convince you of here is that the Canadian government should have the same courage other parliaments have shown.

As a matter of fact, the way the motion is drafted... I should correct what I said. I believe I said “the government”, but the motion reads “the House”. There is an important difference there. The idea is that the House, Parliament, state that it believes that it should be recognized that these tragic events were a genocide. We must not forget that the word “genocide”, even though it is a strong word, has been given definitions that fit perfectly with the events that took place, and I would add that with the creation of the International Criminal Court, we will have to get used to recognizing that tragic events aimed at eliminating part or all of an ethnic or national group are genocides.

I can give you the 1948 definition:

... The intentional imposition upon a group (national, ethnic, racial or religious) of conditions of existence such that they will bring about its total or partial physical destruction...

That is what happened in Turkey in 1915.

This bill, if I look at each of the criteria, in my view meets all of the conditions that are set out.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions? Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Is this the first time this would be brought to the House?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: No. This has already been brought forward, but it has not yet been recognized as being votable.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It was during the previous legislature, was it not?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I believe so. I am replacing Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral. I could check.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No. That is alright.

[English]

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): It has come up on at least two other occasions, once in the previous Parliament and once, I believe, in this session, but it has not been made votable previously.

[Translation]

The Chair: Is that alright? Thank you, Madam.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

The Chair:Monsieur Williams, bonjour.

[English]

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you to ask that my motion be made votable.

I think it's quite appropriate that I be here today, the twentieth anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms being signed, as we heard in the House this afternoon in Question Period. The Supreme Court, as you know, has had a major impact on Canadian society. They have a great deal of authority and responsibility in deciding cases that have significant impact on Canadian society by virtue of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I am here today to ask for a votable motion that will allow Parliament some say in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. At the moment, as you all know, the process of osmosis is that the Prime Minister makes an announcement that so-and-so is going to be on the Supreme Court, with no process that is defined. We don't know exactly what he has done or what the Minister of Justice, who has made recommendations, has done. There is no formal public process. It's totally within the domain of the Prime Minister to make an appointment and Canadians are stuck with that appointment, good, bad, or indifferent.

I think Parliament should have a role to play in that particular appointment, Mr. Chairman. We are concerned about potential political involvement in the process, but again, we don't know how the process actually works. As I mentioned, the charter has an impact on Canadians in their everyday lives through these decisions, which a majority of Canadians sometimes don't feel represent what they would like their Supreme Court to do. Again, these are the valid reasons why Parliament should have a role.

A poll recently conducted by Environics last January indicated two-thirds of Canadians wanted to elect judges to the Supreme Court. I'm certainly not advocating something that dramatic, Mr. Chair, but only that Parliament has a role to play and that openness and transparency in a democratic society be part of the process. I certainly wouldn't suggest that we go with the American style of elections, however, motion M-461 would allow the House to examine the credentials of potential appointees to the Supreme Court before that decision would be ratified.

I've looked at the criteria for votable, Mr. Chairman. The first one is that it be clear and complete, which of course it is; second, that it's within the constitutional areas of concern of federal jurisdiction, which of course it is, because right now the appointment is made by the Prime Minister; third, that it should be of significant public concern and interest, which most definitely it is; four, that it should be not part of the government's current legislative agenda, and there's no indication that this current government would even contemplate this, which is why the motion is being put forward; and finally, that other things being equal, higher priority be given to items that transcend purely local interests, and this of course most definitely has national interest, Mr. Chairman.

There have been quite a few articles and editorials in the papers over the past few months on this issue. I think it's timely, I think it's topical, and as I say, it's quite fortuitous that I'm here on the twentieth anniversary of the signing of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

º (1640)

The Chair: Any questions? Mr. Ritz.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: One short point, John. Do you see this as a stand-alone committee that would do this? Or would you use an existing one like justice or something like that?

Mr. John Williams: I think the justice committee would be perfectly able to do it. As I say, the key is openness, transparency, and Canadians being able to feel they are part of the process. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect people against the government. I think those were the Prime Minister's words this afternoon.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: So this is not an in camera committee.

Mr. John Williams: No, this is not an in camera. This is an open, transparent, public process where Canadians can feel their elected representatives can participate in the process of selecting Supreme Court justices, who have the final word on so much that affects our lives today.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I believe you said, Mr. Williams, this is not about elections of justices.

Mr. John Williams: Absolutely not.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: This motion, as I read it, has nothing to do with elections, at all, period. This has simply to do with the American style, where in fact there is a committee struck of some sort that would then simply question the appointments and the appointees of that particular justice. Is that correct?

Mr. John Williams: That's correct, Mr. Borotsik. Let me emphasize, this is not about elections--absolutely and completely not about elections. It is about an open and transparent and public process to look at the credentials of the people who are being recommended by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to hold one of the highest offices in the land, which has no real accountability and affords no way to keep them in check once they are there.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have the same question. This is on a new issue, and certainly it's one that's very prevalent; I agree with that. Has a similar suggestion been debated and discussed in the House of Commons, to your knowledge?

Mr. John Williams: Not that I'm aware of, Mr. Chair and Mr. Borotsik. I defer to the clerk, if he has any recollection.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Yes. Mr. Williams went through each one of the criteria--one, two, three, four. Maybe you realized, or maybe not, that when you got to number five, you stopped. When you got to, “transcend purely local interest,” you didn't go on.

Mr. John Williams: Well, as I said, this is not couched in partisan terms, and neither can it be addressed by the House in other ways.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: I just wondered if that was an omission or....

Mr. John Williams: No. This is not partisan; this is an open and transparent process in a democracy. We are a democracy, and the Supreme Court of Canada has been given tremendous responsibilities under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They are the last word on that issue; therefore, it's only appropriate that Canadians feel they know these appointments, the same way they know us during election times, and can make a choice. There is no other way we can change the process, because right now it's totally within the purview of the Prime Minister to make the appointment. The announcement is made. How did he arrive at that decision? No one knows, and I do not think that is appropriate in a democracy.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: At the beginning of the motion, you talk of “appointees and potential appointees“. Therefore, there are people who will be met beforehand and others who will be met afterwards.

In the case of those who would be met before the fact, that would mean that all of the people who might be interested in being appointed to the Supreme Court would have to identify themselves beforehand and the committee would have to meet them. In other words, if there are in Canada 3, 4, 5 or 25 judges interested in sitting on the Supreme Court, the committee would have to meet all of them before their appointment, or else would there simply be a meeting...?

As the motion is now drafted, it seems to me there would be a meeting beforehand and a meeting afterwards, if ever someone the committee had not met beforehand were appointed.

º (1645)

[English]

Mr. John Williams: We're giving the government the choice, Mr. Crête, to decide either to make an appointment and refer it to the justice committee for ratification and for investigation, or to put forward a name as a recommendation assuming, if the committee agrees, this will be the appointment. I do not want to dictate to the government that it has to be after the fact or before the fact, but I would not anticipate that it's a process of application and that the justice committee would then filter through the applications to find out which one they would like to recommend to the Prime Minister. Do not envisage that at all. I would suggest the government--the Prime Minister, the cabinet--would refer their appointment, either before or after it's ratified, to the justice committee.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I simply want this to be clear. Does this mean that the committee would have the power to make recommendations to the House or to the Prime Minister in order to assist in the decision, or is this simply a symbolic gesture? It is the Prime Minister who will make the decision in any event. I do not want to start a debate on this, but I believe it is a question one must ask oneself. If we found that there was something unsuitable about one of these people, in your view, what would the process be to report this to the Prime Minister or to Cabinet? What would the value of a meeting with the committee be if it is the Prime Minister who makes the decision, apart from a little bit of public squabbling?

[English]

Mr. John Williams: The motion does not take away the right of the Prime Minister and the Governor in Council to make the appointment, but it does allow openness and transparency, and I would expect this would be more than a token process. So the Prime Minister, I would hope, or the Governor in Council, would seek the advice of the committee on the appointment before it's ratified.

The motion does allow the Prime Minister to make the appointment and then refer it to the committee, but if something untoward came to light, and it was public knowledge, then the Prime Minister would make that appointment at his discretion, depending on whether he felt he could override the problem that was identified and continue on, or whether it would be sufficient knowledge to stop the process and seek someone else.

That's what openness, transparency, and accountability are all about in the final analysis--so we can have the information on the table, see that the person who has been appointed has the credentials, has the competence necessary to fulfil the onerous responsibility that has been given to him as an arbiter of legislation, an arbiter between provinces and government and between government and first nations--as we have seen over the last 20 years to the day--and to rule on social issues that are quite divisive within our society. They are the last word, and have been the last word; therefore it's incumbent upon Parliament that it be involved in the process.

But it wouldn't be tokenism. We're not taking away from the Prime Minister or the Governor in Council the right to make that appointment, only asking that it be an open and transparent process, and that Parliament be involved. But it's not a process that would engage the entire House, so the justice committee would be obviously the most appropriate way to do it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I understand that I have to welcome you again, because you're going to be pitching for Mr. Toews, who was pitching for Mr. White.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

Earlier, we were wondering if there was going to be a vote. I have just received the following information: the bell will start ringing at 5:55 p.m. and the vote will take place at 6:10 p.m.

[English]

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you've said, I'm here for Mr. Toews, who was here for Randy White, to ask for the committee's concurrence to make votable Bill C-333, which is an act to establish and maintain a national registry of sex offenders to protect the children and communities of Canada .

Going through the list of criteria again, I can say the bill is clear in the way it's written. It's certainly within federal jurisdiction. It is most definitely a matter of huge, significant public interest. It has been debated in Parliament a number of times and is not part of the government's current legislative agenda. While the minister or the Solicitor General has indicated $2 million will be spent on CPIC to allow for offenders' addresses and some physical characteristics to be added to the database along with their names and offences, this is not an identifiable sex registry, Mr. Chairman. Finally, it's certainly not a local interest or partisan issue, because it affects so many families and it addresses so many tragedies right across this country, ones that will hopefully become preventable by virtue of this bill.

Now, Mr. Chairman, Bill C-333 creates enabling legislation that forces offenders to register with the police on an annual basis in order to provide updated information for the registry. It uses the framework of Ontario's Bill 31, “Christopher's Law”, as a guide to establishing a national registry. Now, last month Solicitor General Lawrence MacAulay indicated that we spent $2 million on it but only to upgrade the CPIC that currently exists.

In addition, following pressure from provincial attorneys general and justice officials, the Solicitor General promised to introduce legislation that would force sex offenders to register with the police where they live and when they move. The legislation will also provide for criminal penalties for those offenders who don't sign up. The Solicitor General indicated that he would be making those changes as soon as possible; however, to date no legislation has been introduced.

As a result, Mr. White has offered Bill C-333 as a template to be used to fulfil this need. He would like to see the legislative changes made on the same timetable as the one being used for the technological changes in order to have both up and running by November of this year. He feels that's quite an appropriate timeframe. A number of provincial officials are concerned that if legislation is not put in place at the same time, it may never be done.

The main issue in regard to having an accurate--and I emphasize accurate--quick, complete, searchable database to be used for a national sex offender registry is one of time. Data indicates that a rapid response during an investigation of a child abduction for a sexual purpose is critical. Mr. Chairman, of those victims who were murdered, 44% were dead within one hour of the abduction, 74% were dead within three hours, and 91% within 24 hours. A sex offender registry would assist police by identifying all registered sex offenders living within a particular geographic area. However, in order to be effective, the information contained on the registry must be accurate. In excess of 75% of the time an offender lives within a two-kilometre radius of where the incident occurs.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bill to avoid tragedies within families. Children are vulnerable to sexual predators. We must as parliamentarians do everything within our power to ensure that we protect the most vulnerable in our society.

º (1650)

The Chair: Thank you.

Any questions? Des questions?

Mr. Gerry Ritz: I have one small point. As I understand it with the supply dates and so on we've had, it takes two pillars to make this thing work: legislation to establish it, which this bill seeks to fill in, and also funding to maintain it. You're not missing the funding at all in this?

Mr. John Williams: No, because Mr. MacAulay has put up $2 million, and we feel that's likely appropriate to get the issue going. Therefore, funding is not part of the bill.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: Earlier, you mentioned the Charter of Rights to defend your other bill. In this case, have verifications been made to ensure that this bill would indeed be in compliance with the Charter?

[English]

Mr. John Williams: As far as I understand it--and remember I'm speaking for Mr. White--he has checked it out, and he feels it is in compliance with the charter.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I know that you are not the one sponsoring the bill, but would it be possible for Mr. White to table a legal opinion or something else to confirm this?

[English]

Mr. John Williams: I'm not sure whether Mr. White has a legal opinion, but I could see whether it's possible if he could get a legal opinion to see whether it does conform to the charter.

[Translation]

The Chair: Are there any other questions? Avez-vous d'autres questions?

[English]

Mr. Gerry Ritz: To that end, a lot of provinces are doing this now. This strictly coordinates it nationally. Even the provinces would have had to do that charter challenge or charter check.

º (1655)

Mr. John Williams: The thing we have to recognize is that CPIC right now keeps tabs of everybody's criminal records, including their criminal records as far as sexual offences are concerned. This is not for the public domain, by the way, Mr. Chairman. This is for the police and within the confidentiality of the police. The police are privy to a tremendous amount of information, and rightly so, in order for them to protect our society. But we're saying, and Mr. White is saying, that the sex offender registry will contain more information than what CPIC would have. Plus it will require that these sex offenders register annually to ensure that information is up-to-date, so that if they move from one community to another, then if an abduction happens.... As I pointed out, and Mr. White says, 44% were murdered within one hour, 74% within three hours, and 91% within 24 hours, and 75% of the time the offender lives within a two-kilometre radius of where the incident occurs.

To me, it's absolutely mandatory that the police have the powers where a child is abducted and sexual offences are presumed or anticipated. If we know that 75% of the time we can pick somebody up within two kilometres of where it happened, we would want to have that information, if the person has a history of this type of activity. We would do our society a great disservice if we did not pass this bill and make it votable in order for the House to debate it.

The Chair: Thank you again.

Mr. Mills, welcome, sir. You know our way of operating. You have five minutes.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): I believe I do. Thank you very much.

This is one issue where I couldn't feel more emotionally involved or more genuine in my presentation to you. Whether you're a mother, father, grandfather, or grandmother, this is something that touches everyone.

Let me give you a brief history. I'm calling this Lisa's Law for a reason. Last year, John Schneeberger, someone you may have heard about in Bowden Institution, drugged several patients and drugged and raped his 11-year-old stepdaughter for five years. Last year, through a loophole in the law, a judge ruled his 5-year-old and 6-year-old daughters must visit him in prison.

I was with Lisa Dillman, a psychologist, a 5-year-old, and a 6-year-old little girl. We walked into the prison. We walked within ten feet of Mr. Schneeberger. I saw the reactions of the two young girls. I saw the tears and the sheer fear of a man, who hadn't seen since for years, who had raped their sister.

I said this can never happen. How is it possible this can happen?

The reason it can happen is because there is a loophole. Remember, this bill is not to stop people visiting prisoners in jail. It's to stop children being forced to visit pedophile parents in prison.

We're talking about sex offences. All of them are listed there. It's what this is about. I was very hopeful the government, the justice minister, would simply take this, fix the loophole, and we would never have to go through the process. This has not happened.

As a result, I really believe I've never felt more strongly that something needed to be votable. As those of you who have been around here for a while know, I don't come here a lot. This is one case where I feel we must change this piece of legislation. It's very simple to fix.

Looking at your criteria, of course, I have taken this to the lawyers in Justice. I've taken it to lawyers of the House. I've taken it to my own private lawyers. All of them say this is constitutional, would fit, and is certainly under federal jurisdiction.

As far as significant public interest, within one day of Mr. Schneeberger demanding the children come to the prison, there were a couple of hundred people collected outside the jail.

Subsequently, in the next two days, I did 40 talk shows across this country in many of your constituencies. For every call, the lines were clogged. People are saying this can't be. It can't be possible that this can happen.

This bill, of course, is not being dealt with in the House. There is no legislation on the table to fix the problem that I can see.

As far as being of national interest, I don't think there's any question. Forcing children to visit a pedophile father or mother, no one can believe is possible.

It's not partisan. I had more members from the opposition parties and the Liberal Party come across to me, when I asked the minister questions in the House, than my own colleagues.

It is not partisan. I can't imagine a member in the House not voting for this piece of legislation. Then it can go to the justice committee and can happen. I believe it will raise the profile of the House. It will raise the profile of every member of Parliament.

We'll have dealt with the issue of an obviously small flaw so no little child will ever have to go through what the two young girls went through. They are now undergoing psychological counselling because of the trauma from what the judge ordered. He said there was a loophole.

Subsequently, Ms. Dillman has tried to appeal through the Saskatchewan court system. When she ran out of the $25,000 raised for her by the public, she decided to drop it.

At any minute, he could again order the visits. The two little girls would have to go back to the prison. We can't let it happen.

As I say, it has to touch all of us emotionally. It will be good news for the House to pass the legislation. I know the government will be more than happy to implement it. Hopefully, all of us can take credit for it.

» (1700)

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lebel, you have five minutes.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): I have tabled Bill C-404, an Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (mail contractors).

As you will recall, the Canada Post Corporation Act was passed in 1982. It is now 20 years old. The minister at the time, Mr. André Ouellet, who is today, through a strange twist of fate the CEO of Canada Post, sat in Trudeau's government. He is the one who tabled the bill establishing the Canada Post Corporation.

Section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act refers to the Canada Labour Code. It sets out that Part I of the Canada Labour Act applies to the Canada Post Corporation as well as to its officers and employees. Mail contractors are not allowed to group together for the purpose of negotiations.

It is true that mail contractors are not unionized and are not dependent upon a boss somewhere within the Corporation. They are truly independent contractors, with the exception of rural route contractors and suburban service contractors.

Allow me to explain. In 1982, the Canada Post Corporation, had year after year registered substantial losses in mail operations in Canada. This was before major investments were made to modernize operations. Mail was sorted by hand and at that time Canada Post was running at a deficit.

Of course subsection 13(5) provided some relief stating that at least for a group of its employees or workers it would not have to respect the Canada Labour Code, which allowed it to pay people on the basis of an agreement, and the minimum salary was not even a minimum in those cases. Unfortunately, since then, Canada Post, that has one shareholder only, namely the Canadian government, pays out, in good times and bad, dividends to the Canadian government in the order of $100 to $125 million per year drawn from its net income.

I believe that the people who work for Canada Post, especially those who deliver mail in rural areas, should no longer have to bear the brunt, all alone, of the profits generated by the Corporation. They should, after 20 years, be getting their share of the cake, which subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act prevents them from doing.

A debate was held in the House about a year and a half ago. It was a debate dealing with more or less the same issue that was brought to the floor by the NDP. There was a vote and the idea was defeated by 114 votes to 110. Several of the members who voted against are today telling us that they have changed their minds, because after much research, they have discovered that rural mail deliverers, even if it is not in their contract, if they want to do their work properly and quickly, are indeed forced to do work for which they are not paid.

Allow me to explain. Take for example a unionized employee in the Sainte Eulalie post office. The person does not come in to sort the mail and the rural route contractor shows up in the morning to pick up his mail in order to distribute it, but is told that the mail is not yet ready because the mail sorter is off sick. The contractor must therefore put the mail in the slots even though he is not paid to do that. He is told that the post box snow remover has not done his rounds, that he has a sore back, and the contractor must take out his shovel and go and remove the snow. All of this when we were told two years ago that there was no line of authority between the boss or the post master and the rural route contractor. This is not true.

I believe that in a corporation that today is celebrating--and everyone has talked about it--the 20th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and where there are still people who are paid less than minimum wage to do what they do...

If I had the time, I would also show you that the tactics used by the Canada Post Corporation with its employees are not always proper. At the end of his contract, the rural route contractor is called in and is told that there are a lot of people who want his contract and that if he does not drop his price it will not be renewed. He therefore drops his price. People have a knife at their throat and in the end, after having worked honestly, when they divide their salary by the number of hours worked minus their gas, car insurance and amortization costs, they wind up with a salary that is below minimum wage, and this is the case in all of the provinces.

» (1705)

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Lebel, thank you for your presentation. I would remind you that it is our colleague, Pat Martin, who brought this to the House of Commons.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems to me this bill is similar to that of Mr. Martin and that it is also based on the same arguments. That bill was put to a vote at the time. I remember that the very next day everyone was scratching his or her head wondering what they had done the previous day. I remember the arguments people made. Even the government, at the time, had voted on our side. That is why it was so tight. I believe that afterwards there was an incident in the House such that people voted a certain way, but right after the vote, the very same evening I believe, they regretted the vote's outcome. Do you recall the incident I am thinking of?

» (1710)

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I remember that the vote came out 114 against and 110 in favour, with a difference of only four votes. I do not know what the motives of those four members were. Even when you are in the House, it is such a large room that you are not necessarily aware of everything that is going on. I do however know that there are people here on the Hill who have been working here for years, who do a decent and honest job for a salary that in the end seems ridiculous, whereas Canada Post is rolling around in profits that appear to be exorbitant.

I believe that it is simply setting our values straight to grant those people at least the right to organize and to put an end to despicable pressures exerted upon them by some little service manager who wants to move ahead in the Corporation and is ready to do anything to succeed. That is no way to treat employees in the year 2002.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ritz.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Canada Post does work within a collective agreement with its unionized workers now. Is there anything stopping the subcontractors, if you will, the rural carriers and the subcontractors inside, from forming or joining a union of their own?

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: It is up to them to choose the means they wish to use. Perhaps they will choose to remain independent, but grouped together for the purpose of collective bargaining. I believe that Canada Post would wind up benefiting from that in the end. I presume that it is not easy for it to negotiate contracts individually with 7,000 mail contractors spread throughout the country.

That is perhaps one advantage the Canada Post Corporation has. I believe the people do not purport to want to lose their status as independent contractors. They simply want to have the right to associate or to enjoy some union right, in order to stop being strangled by unscrupulous--at least that is my opinion--managers who force them to reduce their price instead of granting them increases that would reflect the cost of living in Canada. From one renewal to the next, their contracts drop so much that it has become indecent.

This is why I am speaking out on behalf of these people, who cannot come here themselves to table a motion. I am doing it for them willingly, even though I do not have the reputation in my party of being pro-union. I simply believe that decency forces one to react at some point in time.

The Chair: Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: I am fine.

The Chair: Are there any other questions? All right? Thank you, Mr. Lebel.

[English]

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

The Chair: Good afternoon.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you very much for allowing me to present this motion, and the case for making it votable, on behalf of Alexa McDonough, my leader, who's extremely tied up at the moment and found it impossible to be here.

The Chair: In this committee, we give you five minutes to speak.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. Hopefully I'll do it in less than five minutes, which may surprise you.

Let me start by saying I will try to present the case for making this motion votable with the same passion and vigour that Alexa McDonough would do if she were here. I have no hesitation in giving it all the support I can.

It is a motion that deals with an issue of concern to Canadians right across this country. It's a matter of significant public interest. It's about calling on the government to put in place a national bill of rights for people suffering from arthritis.

I say it's of significant public interest because all of us know individuals who are suffering terribly from arthritis. We know there are some 300,000 Canadians suffering from rheumatoid arthritis. Many of them live in constant pain and in search of adequate medications, and are waiting to see a specialist. So this addresses a broad range of Canadians.

It is, in my estimation, clearly within federal jurisdiction in the sense that there is nothing constitutional that prevents the Government of Canada from actually working on the development of national standards in various areas of the health care system.

I don't think this approach is out of line with a number of other developments that we have seen through the federal government in terms of national standards. This is one way to actually have the federal government play a role that is meaningful, that would help ensure work with the provinces carries on to help access specialists, and ensure that geography and income won't be a barrier to accessing medications.

This issue is also not currently on the government's agenda, unless, of course, one would suggest that the fact that the Romanow commission is under way is an indication of that. However, as you would know, that would mean virtually no issue in the health care field could be addressed by Parliament. So I think it's important to reference the very specific nature of this motion, the fact that it is targeted to people suffering from arthritis, that's it's an idea proposed by the Arthritis Society of Canada, and that I think it would be an important issue for Parliament to discuss.

C'est tout.

» (1715)

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

Thank you for the very brief and articulate presentation that was presented on behalf of your leader. Perhaps you should do that on behalf of your leader more often.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Oh, give me a break.

The Chair: Questions? Next.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, this is a serious question, I can assure you.

Point (c) in the motion identifies an increase in federal funding to 25% of health care spending, moving towards 50%. Is that part of the bill of rights that the Arthritis Society is proposing?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The Arthritis Society of Canada presented a draft proposal for a bill of rights that includes such things as timely and accurate diagnosis, access to specialty care, information, medications, research, representation, and so on. They didn't specifically address the question of direct contribution from the federal government. This is more in line with general recommendations made by a number of groups, pertaining to finding a way to help facilitate for this purpose.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Fair ball, but that doesn't come directly from the Arthritis Society.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No, it doesn't.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's an add-on by Alexa, or by the party.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all I need.

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

Thank you very much. We didn't even use the stopwatch.

An hon. member: She should get extra points for that.

The Chair: Yes, absolutely.

Okay. Ms. Davies.

Good afternoon, and welcome. You have five minutes.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much. Great. I know the procedure.

The Chair: You've been before the committee before.

Ms. Libby Davies: I have, quite a few times, actually.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear today. I'm here to put in a picture of my Bill C-416 to be made votable.

The first thing I'd like to say is that I don't have any doubt that every member of the House understands and recognizes the importance of the need to have affordable and appropriate housing for all Canadians. I think we all understand the basic issue that's involved here.

What this bill is seeking to do is to spell out and define housing rights. It seeks to develop a national housing strategy in cooperation with the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, as well as the aboriginal community and the community at large. It seeks to do that by convening a conference, from which a national strategy would be discussed and hopefully would emerge.

My interest in this bill has not so much to do with the funds that might be involved. It has to do with allowing a debate in the House and hopefully a vote on what I think is a very important principle, and that is the issue of social and economic rights as they pertain to housing.

In anticipation of some of your questions, some of you may say, “Didn't we just have a housing agreement?” There was a housing agreement just last November between the feds, the provinces, and the territories. However, it's a very short-term agreement of five years with a very modest amount of money and it really doesn't spell out the kinds of parameters or rights that need to be involved in terms of establishing a longer-term strategy. What's very important, though, is that this of course did not come through any sort of debate or forum amongst members of Parliament.

I think this is a very important public social policy. We've actually not had a full debate in the House about this question. It comes up from time to time, certainly, around issues to do with homelessness or maybe CMHC, but in terms of the idea of an overall strategy and the idea of laying out certain rights and needs, we've really not had that debate. I think that's very important. It is a good forum for the debate of an important public policy.

I've had very strong support from the community. It is clearly of interest right across the country, not just in urban centres but in smaller communities. I had a lot of help in putting the bill together. It's actually a very beautifully written bill. Many people have said that to me, that it covers and captures a very important notion that needs to be put forward.

I've also had very good support from other members on all sides. They don't necessarily agree with every single thing, but the principle that's contained in here.... What I've found is that people really seem to like the idea that we should have something like this happen and that it's very important in terms of establishing housing needs and housing rights in Canada.

I would hope very much that it could become votable because it would be a very important debate for us to have and it would actually move along the policy development, which I think has already begun to happen. A bill like this could help signify the interest of the House from all sides in developing something like this. It would be very helpful to do it through a three-hour debate and a vote.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

» (1720)

[Translation]

The Chair: Merci. Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You would like this bill to be made votable. People in some parties have reservations about parts of this bill. Therefore, maybe it could be referred to a committee where it could be amended and improved before returning to the House for a final vote.

[English]

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, certainly. I think it would be important to have an initial debate about the principles of what's contained in the bill, but there are specifics in the bill on which I'm sure there will be very interesting discussion. I think it could be worthy of sending it to a committee so that there could be a further debate to see what kind of consensus could actually be developed. My own feeling is that if we actually sat down and talked about a bill like this and we had the vehicle to do it, such as a three-hour debate and then a committee, we actually could emerge with something where there was some sort of consensus.

I've had enough discussions with individual members to know there's a very strong interest in it, but there's been no way to sort that out. I think it would be very helpful if it went to a committee and there could be much more detailed discussion.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Ritz.

[English]

Mr. Gerry Ritz: At the start of Bill C-416, you talk about an act to provide for adequate, accessible, and affordable housing for Canadians. That's simple and straightforward. Then in the bill itself there are a lot of clauses that actually get into the Criminal Code. I'm wondering whether, on Mr. Godin's point, that gives people an excuse then to argue against it, as opposed to.... Does it have to be part and parcel of the same thing? I'm looking at one point here where it says, under paragraph 4(d):

a right to a home free from violence, threat of violence or other form of harassment, both domestic and from outside the home;

Then there are fines that can be levied and that type of thing. I'm just wondering if it muddies it. Or does it have to be there?

Ms. Libby Davies: I hope it doesn't muddy it, because that clause 4 that you're referring to on page 5 really tries to seek out what the kinds of rights are that we should be able to enjoy in our housing and our shelter--the right to privacy, the right to be free from harassment or violence. As you can see, that immediately gets you into a discussion about other jurisdictions involved. This is one of the things that I find really fascinating about the housing issue. Some provinces have very strong provincial laws that protect tenants, for example, and some don't. Some municipalities have bylaws.

What I feel is lacking, though, at all levels is any sort of direction to develop a sense of continuity and to spell out what some of these rights are. There may well be some folks who disagree with that and say no, we shouldn't include that. But the principles contained here are in terms of the idea that we all have very basic human rights around housing, as spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as spelled out in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that Canada is a signatory to. But we haven't come much further than that. So this to me is an opportunity to work that out and ask how it would work amongst the various jurisdictions involved. Today this is what we talk about in politics--how all these jurisdictions work together.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: We are not discussing taking the hodgepodge of rules and regulations that are out there coast to coast and region to region and so on and trying to put some sort of standardization to them.

Ms. Libby Davies: I don't think it necessarily means enacting something that would supersede everything that's there. It would involve, at least in my mind, as I've thought about it, developing a strategy that lays out some very broad proposals, so that we could ensure that across the country there are basic principles in place for every Canadian regardless of where they live. We certainly have that under the Canada Health Act in terms of accessibility. I know those things are often debated hotly, but the idea here in terms of developing a bill that includes other jurisdictions, and discussion with other jurisdictions, is really what I'm trying to get at, because right now it's a complete hodgepodge. As a result, a lot of Canadians are really left literally in the cold without adequate shelter and housing. I just feel we could be doing a lot more to work that out.

» (1725)

Mr. Gerry Ritz: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I understand that your bill certainly proposes an expansion beyond the current housing initiative that's in place. One of the criteria is unless otherwise addressed by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament. Could you explain to me why you don't feel that it's being addressed with the initiative that's currently in place?

Ms. Libby Davies: The agreement that was approved in November in Quebec City is a landmark agreement as far as it goes, because since 1993 we basically haven't had a clear federal involvement in the provision of affordable housing. That agreement, though, is for five years only. It really lays out more of a fiscal framework in terms of a sharing--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But could you not work within that framework for what it is you're trying to achieve?

Ms. Libby Davies: That would have to be very much a part of it, because that agreement exists. I think this bill seeks a much wider scope in terms of developing roles and responsibilities, for example, with municipalities, with aboriginal communities, with local organizations. We have tremendous expertise in this country around affordable housing, around cooperative housing, that in many ways is going to waste.

The other thing is that this has not ever been debated in Parliament. That agreement was between the ministers. I'm glad it happened, but I don't think it's getting at the important social policy that needs to be developed in terms of developing a much longer-range proposal and strategy to ensure that we don't ever face the situation where people do go without shelter and adequate housing.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Borotsik, for your vote of confidence here.

I'm here for M-326. The motion reads:

That the government consider the advisability of increasing the pension accrual rate for firefighters to allow them to retire with adequate financial provisions for their retirement.

I think after September 11 everybody has watched on television what type of environment firefighters live in and have to work in.

The federal government has already taken steps to recognize that firefighters are in a unique situation. The present Income Tax Act regulations class them as a public safety occupation and allow them to retire at age 55. The problem is there is a lack of clarity in the regulations about how firefighters can make increased pension contributions allowing them to retire with a reasonable income.

The present regulations allow for accrual rates greater than 2% at present, but it's not spelled out how it might be done. As a result, there's a tendency for the pension plans to treat firefighters the same as other employees. The firefighters believe if they could get a 2.33% rate, it would be what is necessary to make up for the shortfall in the contributions.

That means to say right now their accrual rate is at 2%. If they retire at age 55, they're going to retire with 60% of their income. If it were 2.33% and they retired at age 55, it would be 70% of the income, which is the norm.

Changing the regulations under the Income Tax Act to specifically recognize the ability of firefighters to benefit from a 2.33% rate would send a signal to provincial and municipal pension plans that firefighters should be treated as a special case. It doesn't, however, bind them to such a rate. It merely recognizes that firefighters and other public safety occupations are a special case, with special requirements for pension accruals that are already recognized with retirement ages.

Firefighters have actively lobbied on this issue. There is a broad, cross-party support. An identical motion in the last Parliament gained wide support but died before it could be voted on, because of the November 2000 election.

M-326 does not specify a particular accrual rate. It doesn't tie the government's hands. It, however, does allow Parliament to express its support on this issue in general terms, allowing the Department of Finance to determine the most appropriate means of achieving the goal.

There will be no loss in employer tax revenue, because firefighters are employed by municipalities and therefore they don't pay taxes.

The employee income tax aspect of it would basically depend on the contribution split between the employee and the employer. Really, the cost to the federal government, considering there are around 20,000 firefighters, is going to be minimal at best. I've already talked to the department about it.

That is basically where I'm coming from, Mr. Chair.

If there are any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Calder.

Are there any questions?

Questions? Ça va?

A voice: Ça va.

The Chair: Did that mean no or did it mean yes?

» (1730)

Mr. Yvon Godin: [Editor's Note--Inaudible]

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Godin aussi, but we start by the larger.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Then I'll always get the questions. A perfect week: perfect!

Mr. Yvon Godin: If it's the larger, I hope it's the size of the person, not the party.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's right. We respect weight.

Okay, now can we get serious?

You said something about not paying taxes. I didn't understand what you were getting at when you said they're municipal employees and not paying taxes--just in the last part of your presentation.

Mr. Murray Calder: Employee tax revenue.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: “Employee tax revenue”; thank you so very much. I didn't catch that.

You said this has been dealt with before, and I recall it coming forward; this was in the last Parliament. Is this exactly the same motion it was in the last Parliament?

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have just one question, then. In some municipal contracts that have been negotiated there's a thing called a top-up that will in fact top up the pension until they reach the age of 60 or 65. Have you looked at that at all as part of the potential formula for this?

Mr. Murray Calder: Well, as it currently stands right now, their OMERS will not recognize that because it's sort of a trickle-down-type experience. If we recognize it through the regs here, then the province is going to recognize it. Basically, this is going to be a bargaining situation anyway. They just want the recognition right now, and then they can go back to the bargaining....

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What about the police officers?

Mr. Murray Calder: Well, that's something for the police officers. I'm specifically referring to firefighters because firefighters are in a special situation. They can't really refuse going into a dangerous environment. That's where they work. That's a fire.

Take a look at the example of the fire that happened down in Hamilton a few years back at the recycling plant. This sector of employment within the municipalities has the highest level of brain cancer, colon cancer, blood cancer, you name it, and it's a very highly physical occupation too.

» (1735)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe he answered my question. He said that the previous motion that had been introduced in Parliament before 2000 was identical. It did not have any precise amount either, I understand.

[English]

There was no amount put in the previous one?

Mr. Murray Calder: No.

Mr. Yvon Godin: After this motion, if it goes through, the trust is on the government then too, at the request of the firefighters. They come in here every year, and we all enjoy their party and we agree with them, but put it into action.

Mr. Murray Calder: The motion is basically to put it to the finance department right now to be more specific in the regulations with the Income Tax Act to deal with firefighters as a special situation and to recognize a 2.33% accrual rate for their pension.

The Chair: Mr. Ritz, you had a question.

Mr. Gerry Ritz: I think this is a great motion. I just have a question on the motion you had before, the one that was votable. I'm just wondering if you're the guy with the broom and shovel out there today in charge of the fallout around your horse.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Murray Calder: I've been involved in sales for many years, and I'm just out there....

A voice: You're a chicken farmer.

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes, you already know about my being a chicken farmer. Is that not a good sales point?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean--Carleton, Lib.): I'm a very secure member of Parliament, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: With these guys from defence, you never know.

You have five minutes to pitch.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the first time I've had the opportunity to appear before this committee. I must say I'm as nervous as a bride on her wedding night, as a result.

Let me go through the criteria for this particular motion, if I could. I think the motion is pretty simple and clear. If it's passed, the Government of Canada would proclaim the first Sunday in June as Canadian Forces Day.

I think the motion is complete in its wording. It refers to a variety of missions the Canadian Forces undertake, as directed by the 1994 defence policy white paper. It speaks to the tremendous contribution of the Canadian Forces, but beyond that, I think it speaks to the personal sacrifice involved when service personnel spend months at a time away from their family and friends so that we, as a nation, can both be protected and have our foreign policy objectives pursued.

The second criterion is that bills and motions must be constitutional and concern areas of federal jurisdiction. I want to emphasize that a Canadian Forces Day would not be an official holiday and would therefore not fall under the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces. Instead, the day would celebrate the ongoing contributions made to our society by the forces, which under our Constitution are clearly under the control and jurisdiction of the federal government.

Bills and motions should concern matters of significant public interest. Since informing some associates, friends, and people who are interested in the subject of the fact that this motion was drawn, I've received something in the area of 35 letters and e-mails over the past couple of days. As a matter of fact, we had three e-mails come in on this issue just before we left.

I have the support of the Conference of Defence Associations, which represents 31 organizations and over 600,000 Canadians. I've received e-mails and letters from John Fraser, former Speaker of the House of Commons; General Lewis MacKenzie; and Clive Addy, a former head of the Federation of Military Institutes.

Mr. Chair, maybe I can just pass around these letters so that members of the committee can have a look.

I know this will carry great weight with Mr. Borotsik. Elsie Wayne, defence critic for the PC Party, has already given her support to the motion.

I should also say, going back to the last Parliament, that we had the procedure in the House where 100 signatures were required. I got 104 signatures from members of Parliament who signed in support of this particular motion, although the motion was slightly different in its wording. It declared June 15 as Canadian Forces Day. As a result of some feedback I got, I changed that to the first Sunday in June. Actually, there was some feedback from members of the Canadian Forces themselves.

Given the renewed focus on defence and security issues, the public dialogue surrounding the Canadian Forces has increased dramatically. I think it's safe to say as well that not a week goes by where we don't have something in the media about the forces, in terms of where they are, what they're doing, and how they're doing it.

The fourth criterion is that all other things being equal, high priority will be given to items that transcend purely local interests and are not couched in partisan terms or cannot be addressed by the House in other ways. I've always been told that it's important to say thank you. This motion basically says thank you to the members of the Canadian Forces on an annual basis. It does so, I think most appropriately, through their elected representatives, who are saying we appreciate your contributions and sacrifices.

I think some people will say, “Why the Canadian Forces? Why not some other aspect of public service?” I think what's clear here and what's most important is the unlimited liability that members of the Canadian Forces carry with them when they're doing their job. They can lay down their life for their country.

Canadian Forces regular and reserve personnel live, train, and work in every province and territory, serving 27 Canadian Forces bases, stations, and detachments across the country. Canadians often see their reserve members training in their community, whether it's naval reserve, militia, air reserve, communications reserve, etc. It's important to note as well that the combined strength of the Canadian Forces is roughly 60,000 regular forces and 30,000 reservists. So it touches a tremendous number of people right across the country.

» (1740)

The final criterion is that bills and motions should concern issues that are not part of the government's current legislative agenda and that have not been voted on or otherwise addressed by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament.

This is a matter that is not on the government's current legislative agenda. I have spoken to the Minister of National Defence on this. This measure has the support of the minister and the department. The minister has told me directly, though, that he feels it would be much better for Parliament to initiate this than for it to come to the government. It has more meaning, and I agree with him completely, if it comes directly from the people's representatives in Parliament assembled.

Now, Mr. Chair, exhibit A will give you an indication of the number of communities across the country that are affected by the Canadian Forces in terms of reserve units. That's what we have across the country. You can see that there's a tremendous presence by the Canadian Forces in various parts of the country. So I think it's pretty safe to say that this has certainly national interest.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pratt.

Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: You may have covered this; I'm not certain. You mentioned that it was moved to the first weekend in June, that first Sunday.

Mr. David Pratt: The first Sunday.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: It was moved to that from the second Sunday for what reason?

Mr. David Pratt: From June 15. The 15th would be a floating date if it had been accepted. The feeling was that it would be better to have it on a weekend so that some events could be planned around it within communities, and I happen to agree with that suggestion. I think it was a good suggestion. I believe it's appropriate to have it then, rather than having it follow on a Friday or a Tuesday when most people are at work.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: It speaks for itself. It's a tremendous recognition, well deserved. However, I'm wondering, I know in my area, and I can't speak for other legions, that's traditionally Decoration Day Sunday.

Mr. David Pratt: I've never heard of that, quite frankly.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Really? In my riding the legions actually march out on that day, the first Sunday.

Mr. David Pratt: Is that right?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: As long as it's just local in my area, that's fine. Then it's obviously not an issue.

An hon. member: On the first Monday of June?

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Yes. They march out to the cenotaph. It's the day they decorate. They take the covering off the winter and it's set to go.

Mr. David Pratt: I think there's some nice synergy here.

An hon. member: There you go.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Absolutely. I was just wondering if that was particular to my riding.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Speaking of that, I didn't go to the decoration days, but do you have the support of the legions?

Mr. David Pratt: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You do. I thought I heard you say that.

My CFB currently has an open house and a Canadian Forces Day. Are other CFBs practising a similar unofficial-type event?

Mr. David Pratt: It's an unofficial policy that the last weekend in June before Canada Day is an open house. Perhaps I can refer very briefly to a memo from the department in terms of a response to the initiative. It says here:

The declaration of a formal CFD would not and should not be confused with the responsibility that all Base/Wing Commanders have to educate the Canadian public, a task that most COs gladly perform throughout the summer period through open houses and various other activities.

» (1745)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do you see if this becomes official, the official Canadian Forces Day, that in fact the open house or that more of a public relations exercise would then fall to the Canadian Forces Day itself?

Mr. David Pratt: It's likely. But it's fully within the base commander's responsibility to open the base whenever they feel it's appropriate to the community around them to educate the community. That I think is an ongoing responsibility of the base commanders. This provides a certain focus for that in terms of providing for a particular weekend where all across the country at bases there would be open houses and perhaps some sort of a ceremony here in Ottawa as well.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You have great, awesome visuals. I really appreciated your visuals.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Just a comment on the subject raised by our colleague. You said you were not aware of this. You were not aware this took place on the first Sunday in June.

[English]

The Chair: It doesn't exist anywhere else.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, it exists.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't know if it's the first Sunday.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Even if it exists, would you...? If we decide this should be votable and if, after checking with veterans, we find out there is a conflict that was not anticipated there could be an amendment to change only the date.

[English]

The Chair: One doesn't keep the other from happening. On the contrary, there might be--

Mr. David Pratt: There is great synergy, but I think it's important to keep in mind that whereas individual legions in particular parts of the country may have this particular practice, the Royal Canadian Legion has supported this initiative. We are actually waiting for a letter to come from Duane Daly.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] they will have their ceremony and if they want their member of Parliament to be at both places at the same time, it will be pretty difficult. That is another thing we need to think about.

The Chair: It is still the same problem with different municipalities.

[English]

Mr. David Pratt: I can say without hesitation that the support from veterans' groups, as well as existing members of the forces and retired members of the forces, has been absolutely overwhelming for this initiative.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: He knew about the date.

[English]

Mr. David Pratt: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I just learned something I did not know, but I want to confirm. You are saying that the Canadian Forces are having an open house on the weekend preceding July 1. This means that it usually will be held the same weekend as Quebec's national holiday, on June 24.

[English]

Mr. David Pratt: It's a practice at some bases, and at other bases they don't have the open houses. It depends on the base commander. There are 27 bases across the country. I couldn't recite for you chapter and verse which ones open their doors on that particular day and which ones don't. If you're concerned about the St. Jean Baptiste holiday, the fact we're moving the date forward to the first Sunday in June is something you might consider supporting.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I am glad to hear this. I understand now why I was not aware. In Quebec, this could have been seen as a provocation. It could easily be seen as a provocation for the Canadian Armed Forces to have an open house on June 24. Do you realize this?

[English]

Mr. David Pratt: It's not specifically June 24. It's a floating day, in terms of the last--

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, but you said it was the preceding weekend and it happens, sometimes, like this year, that it falls on a weekend. But your date is different. I just wanted to check.

I have something else. In your definition of the “tremendous contribution by the Canadian Forces“, do you include their action at the time of the conscription crisis in Chicoutimi during the First World War where they shot three people to death, as well as during the October crisis in 1970?

[English]

Mr. David Pratt: You could go back in our history and find various incidents where Canadian Forces were used to aid the civil power, to suppress riots or other problems that may have occurred.

What's important, with respect to what we're dealing with today, is the fact that we have Canadian troops, Canadian Forces, men and women, right around the world right now serving in places like Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, and Bosnia. They are out there doing the work of our nation, trying to bring peace and security to the world. They do so at great sacrifice to themselves, and with respect to the family and friends they leave behind, as we have seen in the past, sometimes they come home very damaged people because of what they've seen and experienced in these areas of conflict.

I have met service people onboard ships like the HMCS Ville de Québec, which is one of the completely francophone ships in the Canadian navy, who feel very strongly about serving their communities, their provinces, and their country abroad. They're very proud to do so. Canada would join many other countries by having a day set aside to recognize the contribution of the members of its forces.

» (1750)

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I do not have any problem with that. Many voters in my riding are in the Canadian Armed Forces, especially in the reserve, but in your motion you talk about the “...recognition of the tremendous contribution by the Canadian Forces, both at home and abroad...” I just wanted to know if the tremendous contribution, especially at home, included the two events I mentioned, the riot that was repressed in Chicoutimi and the October crisis. All I wanted to know is if in your view these events were part of the tremendous contribution of the Canadian Forces.

The Chair: It does not make any difference to...

Mr. Paul Crête: No, but if knowing if that is part of the definition allows us to understand the motion, because when we vote, we vote on the wording.

The Chair: Yes, but the text says “...in recognition of the tremendous contribution by the Canadian Forces, both at home and abroad, in such areas as...“

No one can say...

Mr. Paul Crête: “...such areas as the defence of Canada...“.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes, but this does not mean that it is not a recognized area and that it cannot be celebrated.

Mr. Paul Crête: That was not my question. I simply wanted to understand the whole meaning of the motion because when we talk about “...the tremendous contribution by the Canadian Forces, both at home and abroad, in such areas as the defence of Canada”, this seems to include events which happened during the two World Wars. This is what I wanted to ascertain. There also was the October crisis.

[English]

Mr. David Pratt: Well, yes. I think what's important to keep in mind--I don't know how the motion is phrased in French; I'm not fluent in French, but in English it is very much a present tense motion, and it refers to what is happening right now in the world and to why we should be appreciating right now the contributions of the Canadian Forces. It is not at all a reflection on the past.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Pankiw will be the last witness in front of the committee, and then we can have our discussions after the vote.

Mr. Pankiw, you have five minutes.

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon--Humboldt, Ind.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I realize you're running behind, and I will therefore try to be very brief.

Obviously, you have this bill in front of you, so you can read it. The short title will be the Child Predator Act, and some provisions of it would require that sexual offences involving children be deemed to be child predator offences and that in the case of a sexual offence involving a child the full sentence be served in custody.

There's a provision in which an application can be made to a court for a sexual offender to be declared a child predator. In the case of a second or subsequent child predator offence, the child predator would be treated similarly to a dangerous offender, that is, they would be held in custody for an indeterminate period of time. In the case of subsequent release, a series of conditions could be applied to them, including avoidance of contact with children, electronic surveillance, a monthly reporting to police of their place of residence and their place of work, and so forth. The last and most substantive provision is that any breaches of such orders would result in the immediate issuance of a warrant for the arrest of that offender.

As I said, you have the bill in front of you and you can read it. The only point I'll make, just to keep this brief, is that it's been my observation that for some reason, when people appear before this committee, the committee tends to get focused in on the bills or the motions before them in quite some detail. But when you look at the guidelines that were provided, this surely shouldn't be the focus of the committee. So I'll just briefly point out...I think if you consider--

» (1755)

The Chair: As long as it's in clear terms.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Right, and if you consider the list of criteria that were provided, I would point out the one about significant public interest. Obviously, sexual offences involving children ought to garner significant public interest. Furthermore, such an approach to sexual offences involving children can be deemed to have special and more serious treatment than has heretofore been done. It is not part of the current legislative agenda, and it has not been voted on or otherwise addressed by the House of Commons in this session of Parliament. I think it clearly does transcend purely local interest, and it's obviously national in scope. Furthermore, with respect to it being a partisan issue, I don't believe it is. Protection of our children from sexual predators is an issue that, I would think, transcends partisan issues.

If you look at the list of criteria, my bill at least warrants serious consideration for meeting those criteria and being deemed votable.

The Chair: Thank you.

If you're more comfortable, Mr. Pankiw can come back after the vote, or if there are questions now, we can....

Yes?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I just have one very quick question. Have you submitted this bill previously, or is this the first time?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No. This is the first time.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: In your recollection, has anything of this nature regarding sexual predators come forward before ?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Jamie?

Mr. James Robertson: No.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chair: Questions?

Members of the committee, immediately after the vote we come back here.

Thank you. We're adjourned.