SMEM Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 13, 2001

• 1535

[English]

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

You will get a sheet that has the motions printed in numerical order. I'm going to ask the clerk if she would print one per page and put them in your package in the order in which the appointments have been scheduled. So when you get your package, the motions will sit where they're supposed to and the bills will sit where they're supposed to. The tally sheets, which Jamie and I will work on, will also be in chronological order as to how they're presented. So when you walk in here, you can snap the elastic off and work your way through it.

It took me 20 minutes to get mine organized, and I'm a slow worker.

That's what will be done in the future. It's a total waste of time to tell the two of you who aren't staying, but you can pass it on. The tally sheets will be in there, and the motions will be printed one per page and will be in the order of appearance. Also, every time we have a meeting the criteria we use for selecting votable motions will be on the top of the package. So that's how you'll get your package, and it will be just like a paint-by-number.

I would ask the first presenter, Mr. Lincoln, to give his presentation. You have five minutes. You're not going to tell us why the bill is great. You're going to tell us why it should be votable. You're not going to tell us why we should vote for it. You're going to tell us why you think it's urgent enough to be votable in the House at this time.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Madam Chair, first of all, I think the bill meets the five criteria imposed by the committee in every facet. It is clearly enunciated. It concerns a matter of public record and issue. It is not otherwise before the Commons today. It is a matter, I think, of national importance. So in every case it meets the five criteria imposed by the committee.

With regard to why the bill is important enough to become votable, the whole idea is to reduce the particulate or the toxic matter of fuels in Canada, which cause the greatest amount of pollution. About 25% of all pollution caused in Canada is by cars and trucks. It is an immense problem for the environment and human health.

What the bill is trying to do is to oxygenate our fuels to the point of 2.7% by weight, which in volume terms means an ethanol content in fuels of 7.7%.

Now, this follows the trend happening in the United States in a large way. We followed the Minnesota model. Twenty-eight other states are now moving toward the oxygenation of fuels, and the United States Congress is also looking at it. To give you some examples, most of the fuel sold today in Chicago is oxygenated fuel, in other words, ethanol additives up to at least 10%. This has provoked a huge boom in the ethanol market there. Over two billion litres of ethanol are being sold, and five thousand new jobs have been created. In Minnesota they moved in with oxygenation four years ago. Something like ten ethanol plants have been created in the last four years. It has provoked a tremendous boost in ethanol production.

We also say that by 2005 we should phase out MMT, which is a chemical additive in fuel, and replace it by oxygenating fuel, which is really ethanol. Why we do that is because by removing MMT, we lose one octane point in the gasoline. At the same time, by putting ethanol up to 7.7%, we gain two octanes of additives, and we reduce carbon monoxide, which is a huge killer by any standards, by 25%.

• 1540

I should point out that today 16 NRCan vehicles, Chrysler minivans and Ford Tauruses, are fuelled not only by 7.7% ethanol, but by E85, which is 85% ethanol. In the United States the comparative number using E85 today is 1.2 million vehicles. There's a huge boom in ethanol in the United States.

In Quebec there's an investment of $150 million in Varennes. Mr. Landry, their premier soon, has endorsed it very strongly. In Alberta there's a huge movement for ethanol. In British Columbia and right across Canada it's a very solid trend. Quebec has now joined the ethanol coalition of 24 governors wanting to oxygenate gasoline as far as possible.

In every possible sense this is a public issue. This bill will provoke a tremendous boost in ethanol production and will result in cleaner gasoline and better health for Canadians. With regard to all the facets and criteria imposed by the committee, I believe this is a very important public issue. It relates to human health and the environment. I think making it votable will certainly provoke a much needed debate in our Parliament. Many MPs have brought in issues relating to human health and the environment. This is at the peak of it. Transportation is the biggest single source of air pollution in our cities and towns everywhere in Canada. I think this deserves a hearing and to be votable.

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

I'll take questions. Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): I'm very impressed.

I wanted to ask you one question. Has this issue been voted on before in Parliament, Mr. Lincoln? Has anybody ever done this before?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No. A few years ago there was a very restricted bill on the banning of MMT for interprovincial trade, which is a very different issue. We're not using interprovincial trade at all. What we are saying is that because of the precautionary principle that Canada, among other nations, endorsed at Rio, we should phase out MMT, not overnight, but by July, 2005, and replace it as an additive with ethanol, which is the case very strongly in the United States. Europe is looking at it now, and there is no reason why we can't. So we have never approached it in the same way we are now, in a far more positive and proactive way.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: So this would be the first vote if it's votable, then.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It'll be the first type of issue regarding the oxygenation of gasoline.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

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

Has this issue been debated at all on the floor of the House other than with regard to interprovincial trade?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: The issue was debated several years ago strictly as part of banning MMT for provincial trade.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Did you take that forward as a bill at that time with regard to interprovincial trade?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No. It was a government bill, and it was thrown out because of NAFTA reasons.

This is a completely different type of bill. The approach is very different. The approach is to have a phase-out that is replaced by the ethanol oxygenation of gasoline. This approach has never been debated before.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is ethanol oxygenation of gasoline the only process, or are there other processes that can oxygenate gasoline?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: There are other processes that can oxygenate gasoline. For example, the Americans are using a chemical process called MTBE in California, but they've found that the impacts of it are very toxic. They are now phasing it out and have decided that ethanol is the best possible additive because ethanol can be produced out of biomass and is a completely natural product.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have one more question, if I can, Madam Chairman.

There is currently ethanol gasoline. There are now ethanol mixes out there in the marketplace. Did those ethanol mixes have MMT as well, or are they just simply oxygenated—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, they have MMT as well. What we want is to move toward a higher oxygenation of gasoline. In other words, if we move to 2.7% in weight, which is 7.7%.... We were going to use the established criteria in Minnesota and other parts of the United States. It's going to become the common criteria. The United States government, including the Congress, is trying to push this as the norm, so eventually we are going to reap the benefits of that: we'll have much cleaner gasoline and it will push the ethanol industry to great lengths. Already Petro-Canada is starting to make an agreement now with Iogen to push ethanol. We want to sanction it with a bill, so that by 2003 oxygenated gasoline will have to be produced, but by 2005 there will only be oxygenated gasoline.

• 1545

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Lincoln, a few years ago Health Canada did a risk assessment on MMT and found that there was no significant danger, if I can put it that way. To your knowledge, has this been contradicted, or is it still the same?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, it has been contradicted. This was in 1994. Since then there have been very many studies. In fact Health Canada is conducting a study right now because this wasn't conclusive.

The U.S. EPA gave a contract to a leading researcher at the University of Quebec in Montreal, Dr. Donna Mergler, who has a worldwide reputation in the study of manganese. MMT is manganese based. Manganese is a very potent toxin. She studied 306 workers in an area of Quebec where manganese is used. After consistent research done for the U.S. EPA, she found that the workers there and the people in the neighbouring areas were suffering from effects such as motor slowdown and memory loss.

Further research is now being carried out by Dr. Zayed at the University of Montreal. This research is strictly related to automobile emissions of MMT, manganese. Again, it's proven that manganese, when used, does affect the motor system of human beings, and memory, especially with regard to kids.

I should point out that MMT as an additive is only used in Canada. It's not used in Sweden; it's not used in Germany; it's not used in Finland; it's not used in England; it's not used in the United States. In the United States the only use of MMT, where it's produced, is .002%.

So there is every case for using ethanol, which we can produce in great quantity in Canada, through biomass, through corn, through all kinds of things, to foster our industry and replace it with a Canadian-made industry, a continental industry, which is worthwhile, which is much better from the point of view of pollution than MMT, and phase it out by 2005. I think this is well worth debate.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Back to my question. Does Health Canada accept these new studies?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It is a reason why Health Canada has started to look at it again, because after a while they were saying they had come to a conclusion in 1994. But there are so many authorities now, including a very extensive study by the U.S. Congress, and I could quote if I had time—I would certainly be glad to send it to you. Leading researchers on manganese have said this is a health hazard. Health Canada is now looking at it again because of this, because they realize their findings were not conclusive.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: But they haven't concluded yet.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Oh no, they have not concluded yet.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

I have one, if I might, since all others have been exhausted.

You refer to the NAFTA decision and to the fact that Minister Copps, when she was Minister of the Environment, tried to ban the transport of MMT from province to province. That ended up costing Canada a whole pile of money.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It was $13 million U.S.

The Chair: Do you have any reason to believe we are not going to get nailed again because we're importing some of the—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No. It's a completely different issue. NAFTA doesn't allow a country to ban interprovincial trade unless you have very strong reasons. We didn't debate the thing in NAFTA. We could have won, but we chose not to debate it and settled out of court for $13 million U.S.

This approach is very different. We have really tested it with researchers and so forth. NAFTA does not include environmental impacts and issues. This is based on the real principle that Canada and the U.S. and all countries have signed, which is known as a precautionary principle. If you feel you have strong reasons and strong evidence to show that there could be a harm, a potential harm, to the environment, then you are allowed to move, and NAFTA wouldn't be involved at all.

• 1550

What is done in this thing that wasn't done then...we worked it strictly on a trade basis. We never invoked the environment and human health. We never invoked the precautionary principle. This is why this bill was framed that way. Secondly, we are offering an alternative, which wasn't the case then.

The Chair: Mr. Lincoln, with absolute respect, because you have a rather horrendous reputation as an environmentalist, do you not have some faith that if the studies that are underway in the universities right now prove your point, someone like Sheila Copps, or someone in our government, will come back and take another shot at this without fear of getting into difficulty with various trade partners, or are you just in a hurry?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, no, I'm not in a hurry at all, but I feel it's a very important issue. We are lagging way behind. In the United States there are 1.2 million vehicles using 85% ethanol; in Canada there are 16. In Minnesota alone there are more ethanol plants than in the whole of Canada. In Chicago now the whole market is oxygenating fuels. And we are almost standing still.

So I feel my job as a parliamentarian is to try to be proactive and put these issues on the table. I would love for the government to adopt it along the way. I'll fade away in the background and give all the credit to whoever it is.

The Chair: We would never want you to fade away—never. This is not what I'm advocating. The fading of Clifford Lincoln is not one of our projects here.

Are there any other questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Thank you.

The Chair: We have Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much to the members of the committee.

This is M-75. This motion is seeking a decree that there be a moratorium on the live capture and trade of marine mammals in Canada.

The reason I think this should be a votable motion is that there is actually a history to some of the policies from government on this issue. I think it's an area where initially Canada took some good positions, but they have really not been followed up.

As it stands now, Canada does not regulate the import, export, or interprovincial trade of marine mammals. However, my understanding, in doing research and in talking to various groups, is that since 1992, in fact when Mr. Crosbie was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, there is no longer a consideration for the live capture of belugas, at least in Canadian waters. However, there's nothing to prevent various aquariums or marine facilities within Canada from importing marine mammals from other countries or from engaging in breeding activities. Probably of more concern is something that's now called whale laundering, which means in effect that Canada is somewhat complicit in getting around U.S. regulations that are actually a lot more stringent than what we have here. So we actually now see a situation where U.S. facilities may use Canada as a sort of holding place for various imports from a country that does permit capture. They're held in Canada for a year or so and then taken to a U.S. facility.

There was a report commissioned by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in 1998. It was done by Dr. John Lien. In that report to the department and the minister, Dr. Lien did recommend that there be a moratorium on new live captures and on imports and exports. Unfortunately that report has sat in the department and there has been no action taken. So we're not clear on the response of the government.

• 1555

I believe there's very widespread concern across the country about the capture of marine mammals and their trade, and I think a vote on this debate.... First of all, I think the debate itself would be interesting, because it would allow an expression of the history of what's happened here and what we need to do. But a vote on this matter I think would give some indication to the government of what members of Parliament feel about this issue.

The contact I've had across the country is that there's a tremendous amount of work that's being done by non-profit organizations who actually monitor very carefully what has taken place within Canada. So it was surprising to me to learn, for example, that since May of 1999 there have been something like 18 whales that have been brought into Canada that have actually been imported. We all see the stories, unfortunately increasingly, of whales and marine mammals that have died in captivity.

It's somewhat of a controversial subject, but I think it's a subject where we actually do need to see development of government policy. There's at least a basis of what's happened in the past, but it's not being continued. So I think for that reason a vote on the question would be sort of a bellwether and some indication to the government about whether we need to take further action and actually look at a moratorium on the live capture and the trade of marine mammals. So I hope the committee will consider this as a votable motion.

Thank you.

The Chair: I'm going to usurp the committee for a second. In your motion the exact wording is “decree an immediate moratorium”. We all know a motion is a little softer than a bill, obviously. What you've said just now is you would like the minister to look at a moratorium; you haven't said “decree it instantly”.

Ms. Libby Davies: I think if the minister would take heed of the report that was done in 1999, which does call for a moratorium, a body of research was done by a very credible person.

The Chair: The point I'm making is your motion is not quite as gentle as your presentation.

Ms. Libby Davies: It says “immediate”.

For me, the issue would be to at least have a moratorium. We've seen this on other issues where there's a moratorium to prevent further harm being done to the welfare of various species that are at risk, for example, while there is an ongoing policy review, debate and discussion. It may well be that there's a whole number of policies that need to flow from this, but unless there is some sort of immediate moratorium that puts a hold on—I mean, that's what a moratorium is—then I think we're at risk of seeing further captivity and further loss of these mammals that are at risk.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Being a prairie boy, and there are not many whales in Wascana Lake, I just wanted to ask you whether this issue has been debated in Parliament before in terms of a private member's motion or bill. I assume there's not been a vote before. And I guess the other thing would be whether this has even been discussed in Parliament before. It's an area I don't know much about. Could you try to elaborate on that a bit? One of the reasons for declaring something votable is if it's a new emerging issue that's never really been discussed or debated or talked about or studied, that makes it much more urgent.

Ms. Libby Davies: I had actually heard that former MP Jim Fulton had a private member's bill on this matter. We contacted him and in fact the Library of Parliament did some research, and he actually did not introduce it but he had thought about doing so. So according to the Library of Parliament, there's been no debate or vote on this issue for at least.... They went back 10 or 15 years—that's what they say in the letter. So clearly there was the original decision in 1992 by the then minister in terms of Canadian waters, but my understanding is that it's not come before Parliament in any other way in terms of legislation or private members' business.

From that point of view, I think it would be good to have some sort of indication about how the members across the parties feel about this issue. The sense I have is that there is a concern right across the country. People are very concerned about our role in captivity and trading, particularly vis-à-vis the United States.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Just before you go, I'm sorry, I want to ask the library researcher about private members' bills. To your knowledge...?

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): No, nothing. My recollection is that in the last ten years it has not come up, certainly in private members' business.

Ms. Libby Davies: No, that's what the letter from the Library of Parliament confirmed.

The Chair: If anybody could, Mr. Robertson could. Maybe he wrote the letter.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): He's a know-it-all, is he?

• 1600

We need to look at the list of criteria when we're evaluating all the good ideas that are coming before us. Item 3 on our list of criteria is that items should concern matters of significant public interest. Could you give us some indication of whether you have received letters or petitions on this topic and what the volume was so that we will be able to weigh that in our decision in terms of what the amount of interest is not only in your riding or area but across the country?

Ms. Libby Davies: I think there is significant interest. There are a number of organizations in Canada whose sole job is actually monitoring and paying attention to what takes place in various marine facilities. There's one organization in Toronto, Zoocheck. There are a number of organizations certainly on the west coast and then other groups across the country. So it actually has been quite a campaign.

One of the concerns I had is that some of the groups that have really put a lot of effort into this have been trying to establish a better rapport and contact with the department to find out why Dr. Lien's report has never been acted on. Unfortunately, they've made very little headway.

So again, I think to have a debate—and more than that, to have a vote on the motion as an expression of how we feel about this and whether we think it does need to go farther—would really affirm the interest that's out there. There is a lot of concern. I don't know if it's number one on everybody's list, but there are significant groups dedicated to researching and monitoring this issue and trying to change government policy on it.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Have you made approaches to the department in the sense that—

Ms. Libby Davies: Myself personally?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes. Are you confident that they would not bring this on by themselves?

Ms. Libby Davies: Unfortunately, that has not happened.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: It hasn't happened—

Ms. Libby Davies: No.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: —but have you discussed with them the possibility that they would?

Ms. Libby Davies: No, I have not, but I've stayed in constant contact with the organizations that have done that, particularly over the past year, because this is actually a fairly recent report. In fact, there's some sense of frustration that they have not been able to get a rationale as to why they're not getting a response.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

The Chair: I want to ask a question. You talk about capturing and the sale or transporting of.... What happens to the mammals that are caught in the huge fishing nets? Is this going to put the fishermen at risk in any way?

Ms. Libby Davies: This motion deals with the capture and trade as it's related to marine facilities. For sure there is a much bigger issue of what happens to these mammals in the wild in terms of fishing practices. This motion doesn't really get into that. It really limits it and relates it to the captivity and the trading for basically entertainment purposes. Some people may say it's also educational, but I think there's a very huge debate about whether or not it is very educational when you show little kids these huge marine mammals that are basically kept in a very restrained environment in captivity. So it doesn't go beyond that.

The Chair: And it's not the first baby step to the giant step.

Ms. Libby Davies: No, it's a very specific issue. I know there's other stuff out there. But the groups I've had contact with are very concerned about our role as Canadians in terms of how these marine facilities operate with regard to, as they call it, whale laundering and getting around other more stringent regulations. There's also the fact that Canada itself should be taking a stronger policy stance in making sure we're not allowing imports and captivity. It also doesn't deal with mammals that are already in captivity. That's a separate issue where there is a lot of debate.

The Chair: You've answered my question. Thank you very much.

Are there any other questions?

Thank you very much for coming today.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you.

The Chair: I wish you were banning them and nailing those fishermen.

Now we have Mr. St-Julien. Welcome.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you very much. I'd like to welcome the new members of this committee. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about this private member's bill concerning the posting of pre-tax fuel prices by retailers. Canadian consumers want to be kept informed, but Canadian oil companies never reveal to consumers the exact price of a litre of fuel in Canada. The only way for them to get this information is to check FuelFacts or InfoPrix and then to do the calculations themselves. They have to pay first to find this out. Yet, we expect the gross price to be posted at the pumps, on the sign and especially on our receipt. The same should hold for all products to guide consumers' choices.

• 1605

The funny thing about it is that each year, oil companies disclose their net profits to consumers. We know exactly how much they have earned. We also know what kind of dividends the companies pay their shareholders, but never are we privy to the gross, pre- tax price of a litre of fuel.

The issue is a complex one and I will tell you why. Consider, for example, the province of Quebec. If people knew the pre-tax price of a litre of gas, that would be a pleasant surprise. Signs are posted in 50 kph or 90 kph zones to remind drivers of the speed limit. If a driver exceeds the posted speed limit, he knows that he could be fined. However, at the gas pumps, the posted price is 73.9 cents a litre.

Consider this example. I conducted a test at a Petro Canada station the evening of February 11. I filled my car's gas tank with 40 litres of fuel at the posted price of 73.9 cents a litre. I paid for the gas at the booth and immediately after that, paid for a separate litre of gasoline. The Petro Canada station was unable to calculate the price at 73.9 cents a litre. The attendant requested 74 cents for the one litre. You can see for yourself on the receipt. The purchases were made at 3:16 p.m. and 3:18 p.m. respectively. The station wasn't able to charge me 73.9 cents a litre, only 74 cents a litre. Fine.

As you can see by reading this carefully, in 1999, taxes accounted for 51 per cent of the price of fuel. Taxes are a complex matter. Why not list the gross price of a litre of gasoline on the customer's receipt? How much do consumers actually pay for a litre of gasoline, excluding taxes? That information is available in InfoPrix, but not everyone can access it. Consumers are not about to pay $253 a year just to access this information through their computer. We receive this serve free of charge at the House of Commons via the Internet. We know that the price in question is 28.7 cents a litre.

Let me review as an example the twelve months of the year 2000 in Quebec. The price of a litre of fuel was 37.6 cents, while taxes accounted for a further 34.6 cents per litre. This concerns all Canadian consumers. What's important here for them is to know the actual pre-tax price of a litre of fuel.

Strangely, regardless of the province, oil companies do not disclose this pre-tax price. In Quebec, we have the GST and the PST, but all of the other fuel-related taxes are included in the price of 73.9 cents a litre. That's the example I gave you earlier. When a consumer requests this particular bit of information, the service station cannot provide it. I've come to the conclusion that it's time for consumers to demand some action.

I've written to Petro Canada and the company has informed me that this information is confidential. In the United States, companies are required to disclose their profits. How can they say this information is confidential when in fact it is posted in InfoPrix on the Internet?

My purpose in introducing this bill is to require companies to post the pre-tax price of a litre of fuel on their signs and at the pump, a move which would surely benefit Canadian consumers. It's important to have that information, given that taxes differ from province to province. It would be nice if the oil companies shared the price of a litre of fuel with consumers, be it the price in Toronto, Sudbury or Quebec. If the posted price was 30 cents a litre, then consumers would see that there is a two-cent difference in Quebec and would start asking the oil companies some questions. The companies maintain that price differences are due to taxes.

In the Montreal area, consumers pay the GST, the PST and a road tax of 15.55 cents, not to mention a special 1.5 cent levy for the metro and infrastructures. Elsewhere in Quebec - here in Hull, for instance - the tax is 10.55 cents. Taxes are not the same across the board. Why then not post the pre-tax price of a litre of fuel in Canada, much like retailers do for other products sold in store?

We know that the price of a television is $252. However, no one can tell us the pre-tax price of a litre of fuel. No one. I can find out, but I have to dig around quite a bit. That's why I've tabled this bill which affects all Canadian consumers and all MPs and that's why it deserves to be deemed a votable item, for the sake of all Canadian consumers.

• 1610

The public is always critical of taxes, governments and oil companies. Why is that? Because no one can provide a breakdown of the posted price , for example 73.9 cents a litre. As far as the GST and PST are concerned, we know that per litre, they account for 5 cents and 5 cents respectively.

[English]

The Chair: Unfortunately your time is up.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you very much, Madam.

[English]

The Chair: Do you have one poignant sentence to give us right at the end? No?

Does anybody have any questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: No, that's all.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik and then Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I understand it, you would like to have the gas companies themselves identify the gross cost of a litre of gasoline. Those costs could fluctuate on a fairly regular basis—the cost of transportation, the cost of labour, the cost of raw material. How often would the companies have to identify what their cost of that pure litre of gasoline is?

There could be different costs from week to week, from month to month, on a litre of gasoline, depending on the costs that go into it. The cost of oil is a prime example. Oil fluctuates in the world market. As that oil fluctuates, the cost of that litre of gasoline changes as well. So how would you identify that on either your receipt or the publishing of the gas price at the gas station itself? I guess I'm asking if it would be very onerous for the gas companies.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I would have to say no. In some cities, we've seen the price change four or five times along one stretch of road over the course of a single afternoon. Eight different retailers were constantly changing their prices. With today's technology, all they have to do is push a button to effect a price change. It's sort of like a sawmill that produces two-by-fours and charges x amount for them on a given day. If the price changes in the afternoon, adjustments are made. With today's computers, it's a simple matter of...

Oil companies that earned billions in profits should be able to adjust. Here in this region, we've seen prices change in a matter of minutes. Consumers fill the tank at the gas station, and later that evening, they see that prices have dropped by 4 cents or 5 cents a litre. Oil companies need to adapt to the market.

In the morning, the posted price may be 73.9 cents a litre. All of sudden, all stations that were posting prices of 82 cents or 83 cents a litre have dropped their price to 73.9 cents. Prices are adjusted immediately. That's competition.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. St-Julien, what difference will it make to consumers if they in fact know what the pre-tax price is? There's still going to have to pay the full amount anyway. The pre- tax price has nothing to do with it. It's the overall price that counts where consumers are concerned.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: The final price is no mystery. However, consumers don't know how that price breaks down.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Therefore, you're recommending that retailers post the various taxes charged along with the gross price. Taxes vary, depending on whether you buy your gas on chemin de la Montagne, or on Saint-Laurent in Montreal. You're saying that taxes are different in Montreal and in Hull.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I'm saying that retailers should post the pre-tax price of a litre of fuel. I haven't talked about the receipts: that's where taxes are listed. With today's computers, everything appears on the receipt, including the different taxes and more specifically, the excise tax.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. St-Julien, why is it important for consumers to know that the gross price of a litre of fuel is 32 cents, when they have to pay the total price anyway, namely 73.9 cents a litre? What difference does it make?

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Different companies may charge different prices. One may charge 30 cents or 31 cents, while the other may charge 32 cents. Prices may be lower on Thursdays. Ultramar drops its price by three cents on Thursdays. Consumers would be able to see if the company is actually lowering its prices, not taxes. You're familiar with how taxes work. In addition, oil companies pay a bonus of 1.2 cents a litre to retailers who sell a million or more litres annually. However, getting back to your...

• 1615

Mr. Marcel Proulx: That has nothing to do with the gross price.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: True, but it's merely another example. We have no control over the gross price. However, consumers want to know that the gross price is, as you stated, 30 cents a litre. If the posted price is 32 cents at one station, and 30 cents at another, the customer will opt for the cheaper price. Furthermore, taxes will be lower if the gross price is 30 cents, rather than 32 cents. The higher the gross price...

Mr. Marcel Proulx: The price charged to consumers will be higher.

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, but we're entering into a bit of a debate here.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I believe I explained it to you. The total price appears on the receipt.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I understand that.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: That's the final price paid by the consumer. I would like the pre-tax price to be posted as well. That's the aim of my bill.

[English]

The Chair: You've made your point, Mr. St-Julien, thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I'm not talking about the receipt.

[English]

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

I just want to express a concern that I think pricing is a provincial jurisdiction and I'm a little concerned about that. I know when we wanted to roll the GST into the final price of a product...it's up to the provinces to say whether we can or we can't. I'm going to have this checked out before we enter our debate tomorrow and just find out if in fact we're tiptoeing into provincial jurisdiction.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Who sets the gross price of a litre of fuel? Not the province, but the oil companies which...

[English]

The Chair: Yes, but the marketing and the way the prices are posted could be provincial. I'm just telling you that I'll check it out and whatever I find out I'll share with you tomorrow.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Is that okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

We're going to try to stop the backlog here. Mr. Godin, it's nice to see you.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you. First off, I hope the debate will be confined to supporting this laudable motion which would have positive repercussions for consumers, namely lower taxes.

I want to thank the committee for agreeing to hear me today. My motion, motion M-248, is a very interesting one. Of course, that's what every member says. I will try, nevertheless, to explain why my motion is special.

It reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Goods and Services Tax and the Harmonized Sales Tax...

This is a tax levied in certain provinces, particularly in Atlantic Canada.

should be eliminated for employees in the trades who are required as a condition of their employment to provide the tools they need to do their job.

Each members has a number of trades people living in their riding. While I'm not saying that these people are in some way better than other workers, they do get up every morning and work at trades that contribute to the growth and development of our country. Often, they work for large companies.

Let me give you an example. I checked into the status of a carpenter working for Noranda's Brunswick mine in New Brunswick. In 2000 alone, that worker spent $1,200 on tools, which means he paid nearly $85 in GST. An electrician spent $2,118 on equipment, or the equivalent of approximately $148 in GST. These are average figures. We focused on one workplace only. A heavy equipment mechanic, for example, spent $4,900, specifically $347 on the harmonized tax. An industrial mechanic spent $3,300. I could give you many other similar examples.

These workers realize that companies are entitled to all kinds of deductions and do not pay tax. A lumberman, on the other hand, can claim a tax deduction for the chain saw he purchased. Fishers can deduct the full cost of their gear from their taxes.

Mechanics and trades persons, whether electricians or other types of workers - and there are many such workers across Canada in our respective ridings - get up every day and head off to work with their lunch pail. They require the tools of their trade. Companies don't cover the cost of these tools. Workers incur trade-related expenses every week.

Consider the example of mine workers. They are the ones who have asked me to introduce this motion in the House of Commons. They work underground in darkness, with only the light of their headlamps to guide them. They use pieces of equipment such as a pay loader and a scooptram. From time to time, they lose their tools in the darkness and are forced to buy new ones. They don't do it on purpose. They need anywhere from 10 to 15 different tools to do their job.

• 1620

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Godin, if I can interrupt you, you are doing a very good job of explaining your bill. You have about a minute left. Could you tell us specifically why you think it should be votable?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Well, if it's not votable, I don't think it's going to go anywhere. We'll debate it for an hour and then it will be over.

The reason I think it should be votable is to have a good debate in the House of Commons, a very interesting debate. I think all those people who work in those trades will appreciate that once and for all we have discussed and debated something for them. They are the heart of the industry when we look at the industrial industry. They will feel that their Parliament has done something in the House of Commons.

The end result, if they vote for it or against it, is that they will feel they were part of a good debate and their trade will be mentioned in the House. Then all of us will have an opportunity to make a decision, whether we want to give them a break or not.

I think it's very important that this be votable, to give this opportunity to the members of Parliament to express themselves. That's what private members' bills or motions are. I think this one is very important, and I hope I have the support of this committee. My motion is in your hands.

Do you have any questions?

[Translation]

Are there any questions?

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Nystrom.

[Translation]

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Thank you, Madam Chair. How many people would be affected by your motion? Approximately how many workers would be entitled to get a break on the GST? Do you have some idea?

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't know how many people work in these trades. However, the Brunswick mine has approximately 800 employees, and about 350 of them practise some kind of trade. If we take Bombardier as an example, almost all of this company's employees practise a trade of some kind and need to purchase tools. Therefore, this motion would affect many industrial sector workers.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Thousands upon thousand, I would imagine.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Of industrial sector workers, yes.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: We can't forget that these workers pay taxes as well. It's a matter of giving them a little breathing room.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Godin, this is meant specifically for—or not specifically but mostly for mechanics who aren't allowed to write off their tools and therefore the GST would be one way of allowing them to get some sort of a tax break on it.

You mentioned the miners. Is it not—

Mr. Yvon Godin: No. I didn't say the miners; I said in the mine. I mean the trades in the mine, people working in the trades: electricians, mechanics, pipefitters.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Are those tools not provided by the employer in most cases?

Mr. Yvon Godin: No.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So electricians and pipefitters as well as mechanics would—

Mr. Yvon Godin: Exactly. Carpenters....

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Those trades are allowed to write off their tools, though—electricians.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, they're not allowed to write off their tools.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I know mechanics cannot, but you're saying electricians and pipefitters—

Mr. Yvon Godin: All of those I mentioned here. Welders are not allowed to write off their tools. Stationary engineers, pipefitters, mechanics, instrumentation...industrial mechanics, electricians, carpenters—they're not allowed to write off their tools.

Fisherman, for example, are allowed to write off their tools—even the power saw.

[Translation]

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Dentists as well.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes. Anyone who practised a trade or profession.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik, do you have your answer?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: More than enough, yes, thank you.

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

Mr. Yvon Godin: We will not call this one double-dipping.

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Wasn't this question of exempting tools discussed when the GST legislation was first introduced? You're talking about tools used by trades people, but this covers a fairly broad area. We could be talking about the accountant's pen, the school teacher's clothing...

Mr. Yvon Godin: That's not really...

Mr. Marcel Proulx: In any event, wasn't this discussed when the GST legislation was considered?

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't know if it was, but the aim of my motion is not to make pens or other similar items tax deductible. For example, it would make it possible for a worker to deduct the cost of a 3/4 inch crescent wrench, or for electricians to deduct the cost of the testers they use. The motion is not that wide- ranging. We know who these trades people are. They attend community college to learn their trade. I'm not talking here about dentists and lawyers. I'm talking about the blue collar industry worker who brown-bags it every day.

• 1625

Mr. Marcel Proulx: And you say that this issue was never reviewed when the GST legislation was examined?

Mr. Yvon Godin: I can't answer that question.

[English]

The Chair: Well, we have a good old Tory here; he could maybe tell us.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do we still have the GST? I thought it was being scrapped. I didn't know. Is it still there?

The Chair: No smartness here, young man.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I didn't understand; I thought it was.

The Chair: Do you want to be recognized for the rest of the afternoon?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have a very quick question.

The province obviously is involved in this, with the harmonization of the sales tax. Have you talked with the provinces at all? Are they in agreement?

Mr. Yvon Godin: They never talked to us when they put the harmonized tax on the GST and they got us to pay on the electricity and now on the fuel. That is something to propose and do negotiations. That's what it's all about.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do you agree that the provinces would have to be a partner in this, because they do have the HST?

Mr. Yvon Godin: That's right. Let's negotiate with it. I have no problem.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz, are you “Breitcruise” or “Breitchrites”?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): “Breitchrites”, and if you can't remember, it rhymes with “bright lights”.

The Chair: Okay, we're ready.

An hon. member: They're brothers.

An hon. member: The same hairdresser.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Ready to go?

The Chair: Five minutes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you.

The motion I'm asking to be votable here is M-228. It says that in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation defining a human being as being a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and making any and all consequential amendments.

We signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and that convention states:

...the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth....

The reason this is so important and should be brought to Parliament for debate is that there is absolutely no protection for a child before birth in Canadian law. The Government of Canada really cannot discharge its legal obligations under this international agreement—and it's an agreement, by the way, that the federal government and all ten provinces ratified—unless and until it changes the definition of a human being. The Criminal Code of Canada says that you are not a human being unless you have completely proceeded in a living state from the body of your mother.

I want to give you a little history as to where we have been on this and why Parliament should now deal with it. It will help you understand why this should be votable at this time.

Prior to 1969, all abortions were illegal. And I'm not proposing a return to this situation, although some people will try to twist it that way. From 1969 to 1988, Canada had no law—had a law in our Criminal Code providing for an abortion only when a therapeutic abortion committee of three doctors agreed that the continuation of the pregnancy would cause harm to the life of the mother.

The word “health” was not defined or limited. In 1988 the Supreme Court struck down the 1969 abortion law. This Supreme Court ruling, commonly referred to as the Morgantaler decision, provided constitutional parameters for a new abortion law. And based on the instructions from the Supreme Court justices, in 1990 the government introduced, debated, and passed Bill C-43 in this House of Commons. But Bill C-43 was defeated in the Senate by one vote. That's why we must revisit this again. The Supreme Court has instructed Parliament to bring in a law filling in this gap. Canada has been without an abortion law or any kind of a law since then.

The reason I'm approaching it from this way is because it is foundational to any law we're going to bring in. I won't have time to go into all of the other concerns people have raised, but because of scientific advances and so on, we have problems with reproductive technologies, the rights of the unborn, a mother's duty of care for her unborn, and all hinge on when a child becomes a human being.

• 1630

In 1988 the Supreme Court said that this is an issue that is best left to Parliament, and many politicians were hoping this issue would go away. It hasn't, and it will be with us forevermore.

I have been hearing talk about making Parliament more meaningful. We talk about free votes, improving procedures. If the public could see us engaged in a meaningful debate on this, I think it would really help that problem.

I want to deal quickly with the five criteria you use in judging whether a bill or motion is votable.

The motion is clear and it is complete. We've checked with the Library of Parliament. If this is passed, it would then go to the Standing Committee on Justice, and they would be given the task of holding public hearings and drafting the amendments to the Criminal Code and so on and dealing with all the consequential amendments. That's their task.

Secondly, the motion is constitutional. If the standing committee follows the advice of the Supreme Court justices provided in the Morgentaler decision, it will continue to be constitutional. So it had best be handled in that way.

Probably there's no other issue that has more significant public interest than the protecting of the rights of more than 100,000 human beings every year.

The fourth criterion you have, the definition of a human being, is one the government has no plans to make part of its current legislative agenda. As I pointed out earlier, the matter has not been dealt with in Parliament since 1990, and yet should be.

The Chair: Can you wind up please, Mr. Breitkreuz? You're about half a minute over already.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay. This is my last point.

This motion is of immense national interest, so support from this debate crosses party lines. It is not partisan and it is not being proposed for any partisan reasons. I know of no way to get this matter addressed in the House of Commons other than to go through this way.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Any questions?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Breitkreuz, I know that the government has not had a bill since 1987, I think it was, or 1990—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: 1990, and it was passed.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes, then defeated in the Senate. Have there been any other private members' bills since then that have been debated in the House or debated and voted in the House, in terms of your research? That's one of the criteria we have too: how often this has been debated or whatever subject might have been debated.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, and there has been no motion that deals with the definition of a human being.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: At all?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Not that I'm aware of.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Robertson.

Mr. James Robertson: I haven't looked into it myself as to whether there was anything on this definition. I agree with Mr. Breitkreuz. I think there have been some private members' bills and motions dealing with related subjects. To my knowledge, none of them have ever been made votable.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes. We've been researching this. I appreciate those comments. We've been researching this for quite some time, and there have been motions on related topics but not getting down to the foundational issue, which now covers quite a number of areas. This is often construed as just an abortion issue. It's not. It's reproductive technologies, rights of the unborn, all of that.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Are there any constitutional issues here, Garry? Health is a shared jurisdiction with the provinces, and the federal government of course determines what criminal law is administered by the provinces, but is there a complication constitutionally here in terms of shared jurisdiction? I don't know; I'm just asking that.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: No, because it's part of the Criminal Code of Canada and that overrides all the jurisdiction of the provinces. This is in the Criminal Code of Canada.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Yes, okay.

[Translation]

The Chair: Go ahead, Madam.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you. I have a comment. Your motion is certainly an important one and it's clear in my mind that three hours of debate will not be enough time, particularly when I see how it is worded. As I understand it, it would cover cloning as well. Maybe it's time for Canada's Parliament to hold a genuine debate on the issue of new reproductive technologies and their implications. That's all I wanted to say.

• 1635

[English]

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I appreciate those comments and I thank you for them.

This would begin the discussion. It would then have to go to the justice committee. You would have all the witnesses coming forward. After that you would begin to draft the legislation and all the consequential amendments. This is not a small topic. By making this votable, it would begin the wheels turning. It would not bind the government in any way to any particular thing, but it would indicate that this is something this Parliament wants the government to deal with. Then it would go to the justice committee from there.

I appreciate what you've raised.

The Chair: You realize, of course, Mr. Breitkreuz, that it could or could not go to the justice committee. Motions don't go to committees. Motions inspire the government to write legislation, which then may or may not go to a committee. Just as long as everybody is clear on that...this doesn't automatically end up anywhere.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: No, but it would start the ball rolling.

The Chair: Are there any other questions from this side of the room? No?

Thank you very much.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you very much, and I appreciate the attention you've given this.

I look forward to working on this committee. I don't know if you're aware, but I removed myself just so I could make this presentation.

The Chair: And we appreciate that. I don't know what has happened since I've been gone as chairman, but in the past you didn't necessarily have to remove yourself; you just removed yourself from the debate on your bill.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I didn't want any perceived conflict because I'd be making a decision on my own motion.

The Chair: Thank you. Well done.

Next we have Mr. Guimond. Welcome.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Madam Chair, honourable colleagues, I am asking you once again to select as a votable item Bill C-222 which provides for the deduction of expenses incurred by automobile mechanics for tools required in their employment.

I say once again, because I wish to remind members of this committee that this bill is identical - a clone if you will - to the old Bill C-205 which this committee had deemed to be a votable item. This would be logical progression for this committee and since some of my colleagues who were members of the committee at the time felt that it had sufficient merit, I'm confident that you too will select it as a votable item.

May I remind you for your information that Bill C-205 introduced by yours truly passed second reading during the 36th Parliament. It received the support of 180 members from all parties, with only 11 members voting against it. Among the 180 supporters of the bill were all Cabinet members in the House at the time, including the Minister of Finance. Obviously, the 37th Parliament is under no obligation to uphold the decisions made by its predecessor, but since people tend to be consistent in their way of thinking, I would hope this bill were selected once again as a votable item.

[English]

The Chair: Can I interrupt you for a second? What a fascinating tale. It never made it to final reading?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: No. This motion for second reading was passed 180 to 11 and was referred to the Finance Committee.

[English]

The Chair: No, no, I know that, but what happened to it?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: It died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

[English]

The Chair: The election. Got it.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Since we don't anticipate any elections for the next four years, I hope that this bill can make its way successfully through all stages.

[English]

The Chair: He's going to take another run at it.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: That being said, may I remind you that you were chairing the committee at the time. However, for the benefit of my colleagues, I will go over some of the arguments I put forward at the time and that I have expanded on somewhat.

This whole question has already been discussed by the Finance Committee and the Minister of Finance responded thusly to a letter sent to him by one of our colleagues, Mr. Perron:

Admittedly, some workers must incur special expenses in connection with their employment, but a solution to this problem is not easy to find.

I respectfully submit to you that Bill C-222 is the solution to this problem.

• 1640

In order to be hired by a garage, a mechanic needs to provide his own tools. Young people are often in debt when they complete their studies. I remind you that a fully stocked tool box can cost a young person a minimum of $4,000. It's not a problem if the young person is from a well-off family where the father, mother or godmother may cover the cost, but the fact is that the majority of young Canadians are usually in debt by the time they get out of school.

In the case of an experienced auto mechanic, a tool box can represent an expense of between $10,000 and $50,000. This is a substantial sum of money.

A mechanic's employment situation can be somewhat tenuous. Lay-offs are a frequent occurrence during the holidays and summer. This is not a case of workers earning $25 or $30 an hour, but rather $29,000 a year on average. The average hourly wage for mechanics is between $10 and $15. The target group in this instance is not high income or high tech workers, although in the automotive industry, technology has made great strides with the advent of computerization. These workers find themselves at somewhat of a disadvantage.

This bill should be deemed a votable item, considering that special tax provisions are already in place for other types of...

[English]

The Chair: Your five minutes are up.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Okay.

[Translation]

The tax treatment sought through Bill C-222 is already a reality for other types of workers. Chain saw operators and forestry workers can deduct the cost of their chain saw, oil and so forth. A musician in a symphony orchestra can deduct the $35,000 cost of his violin. Workers who...

[English]

The Chair: You've already got my vote. If you keep talking you're going to lose it.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Okay.

The Chair: We are now going to ask for questions.

Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It looks like we have another bill almost identical to this, and we heard a similar one on a related topic from three different people from three different parties. I'm wondering if you've talked with the other members who have similar issues. Have you worked together on it? Whose idea came first? It's evidence that there's no monopoly on good ideas.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: You took the words right out of my mouth. Since my bill had been deemed a votable item by the previous Parliament, I was certain that was the reason why two colleagues, including Mr. Nystrom, had decided to oppose it at this time. Unfortunately, chance did not favour Mr. Nystrom and his bill was not selected. However, Mr. Benoit's bill was retained. However, I believe I'm entitled to this consideration, given that when the election was called, my bill, which had already made its way through much of the legislative process, died on the Order Paper. That's why I'm introducing it again at this time. I've asked Mr. Boudria to move a motion calling for my bill to revert to its previous status, as is the case when a Throne Speech occurs in the middle of a Parliament. Unfortunately, parliamentary procedure precludes this from happening when a new Parliament begins. At issue is the principle that a legislature is not bound by the decisions of a previous Parliament.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. McNally, if I might interrupt you, Mr. Godin's bill is actually forgiving tax. This bill is using it as a deduction, as is your colleague's bill.

Perhaps you could prevail upon your colleague to withdraw his and co-sponsor yours? Then we'll just have one to deal with, because you've done a lot of work on this.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Maybe I will try, but....

Mr. Marcel Proulx: They're identical.

Mr. Michel Guimond: No.

Mr. Grant McNally: I guess my question is, although yours was votable last time—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I decided on a figure of $250, whereas he set the deduction at $200.

• 1645

[English]

The Chair: We'll let Mr. McNally finish. I'm sorry, I interrupted you.

Mr. Grant McNally: Although yours was deemed votable the last time, who initiated the idea originally? Perhaps his didn't get drawn or yours got drawn over his or whatever. I'm just wondering whom it started with and when.

Mr. Michel Guimond: At the beginning of the earth.

Mr. Grant McNally: Oh, okay.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I understand what you're saying. It was introduced in 1992 by an NDP member. I was involved in other pursuits at the time.

[English]

The Chair: The difference is that the other one is a bill and this one is a motion, which gives the government a little bit more flexibility. We will ask your colleague when he comes in.

Are you finished, Mr. McNally?

Mr. Grant McNally: Are they not both bills? We have Bill C-222 and Bill C-244. They're both bills.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: There's a difference in the amendment.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay.

The Chair: I'm confused, but it's allowed the first week.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'm done. Thanks.

The Chair: Who else would like to ask questions? Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm going to carry on with the confusion. I asked Mr. Godin when you were here whether it was just mechanics who were unable to deduct their tools, and he said no, there were others. He mentioned carpenters and electricians. Mr. Guimond, is it in fact true that electricians and carpenters cannot deduct their tools? If so, how come that's not included in your bill, just simply mechanics?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I did not come here to defend Mr. Godin's motion. He tried to sell you on its merits. My bill targets automobile mechanics.

In total, 220,000 people are employed in 27,000 related businesses across Canada. A shortage of workers in this field is expected as 18,000 mechanics are slated to retire over the next two years. However, only 13,000 persons are serving their apprenticeship in Canada.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Guimond, I agree with you. I have no difficulty with the deduction of mechanics' tools. I'm just asking if you know if there are other trades that are not allowed to deduct their tools.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, Mr. Borotsik, I'm aware of that, but I decided to focus specifically on this group of workers. An electrician's tools, for example, do not usually cost $50,000.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Merci.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thanks a lot.

The Chair: At least I'll have your name right by the end.

Next is Mr. Bryden, who is the luckiest man alive. For the first time in seven years he was drawn from the lottery.

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): That's right.

The Chair: Welcome.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is this the first time?

Mr. John Bryden: Yes.

The Chair: Yes—“Mr. Private Members”.

Mr. John Bryden: I had one drawn in 1993 and I haven't had one drawn since.

The Chair: Let's get on with the presentation. No chit-chat.

Mr. John Bryden: Madam Chair, I think this bill is of intense interest to all parliamentarians and to the academic community as well, especially to political scientists, because there has been a lot of debate out there. I think it has a lot of public interest as well.

I believe it may be the first time ever that Parliament has considered the way the Supreme Court deliberates and how its decisions are applied. Madam Chair, before I actually go into the details, I should say that from my point of view, and I think from the point of view of all parliamentarians, what's most essential in this bill is that we have a debate, because there hasn't been a debate about how the Supreme Court deliberates or how its decisions are applied, and certainly there needs to be.

The first proposed subsection of the bill would require the Supreme Court, in its deliberations on a constitutional issue, to consider the intentions of Parliament. You will find that of late the Supreme Court has been considering the intentions of Parliament, but previously the Supreme Court has not. The reason for that is there's a very long British tradition to do with parliamentary privilege in which the justices have very deliberately chosen not to consider the intentions of Parliament. Thus, Madam Chair, in something like the Singh decision, the Supreme Court decided on its own to define what was meant by “everyone” in the Charter of Rights. The Singh decision pertains to the fact that anyone who lands on Canadian territory has the full advantage of due process. The intention of Parliament at the time, if you were to read Hansard or talk to the members of Parliament at that time, was not to give that broad a scope to the word “everyone”. So that's the case in point.

• 1650

The other problem with regard to whether we should put in legislation that the Supreme Court is required to consider the intentions of Parliament is that so many of its deliberations are held outside of the view of the public and even of parliamentarians and the press. Madam Speaker, the way the Supreme Court operates is that it has an open court hearing but for the most part its deliberations are done by means of submissions and advice from law clerks in chambers.

The intention of the first proposed subsection is to set some kind of guarantee for parliamentarians that the Supreme Court is at least heeding the debates of Parliament when it comes to consider the impact of the charter on law.

The second proposed subsection is a bit more contentious. It basically says that if the Supreme Court has less than a majority decision, its decision will not be binding across the board. What we're really talking about there is a constraint on government, not a constraint on the courts. Nowhere will you find any law or anything other than a convention that requires Supreme Court decisions, majority or unanimous, to be applied across the board. It's something that has evolved. In fact, it's something that is not even applied consistently. For example, when the Supreme Court hears cases dealing with Quebec civil law, these aren't necessarily interpreted as setting a precedent in Quebec civil law.

A very important distinction here is that common law is judge-made law when precedence is set, but we're talking about constitutional law here, and it's a different kettle of fish entirely. The difficulty with precedent-set common law is that you are indeed having the courts make your law. But when it comes to constitutional law, we want desperately, I believe, to ensure that the ultimate authority is Parliament when it comes to expanding or interpreting the impact of the Constitution and, more particularly, the charter on Canadian society.

Finally, I'll make the point that this legislation sprang directly from the Marshall case. What happened there was that the Supreme Court, as you will recall, gave certain hunting and gathering rights to aboriginals based on the treaty of 1760. Promptly thereafter the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development declared that this must apply to all natural resources and to every aboriginal community in the country. At that time as a member of Parliament I felt in my heart of hearts that this was not anything I would have ever agreed to as a parliamentarian had this ever been put before me.

The Chair: Mr. Bryden, can you give us a summative statement from your heart of hearts? You've gone over your time.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes. Just to finish off, I point out, Madam Chair, that even in this case the Supreme Court backtracked and said in a subsequent statement that its original decision was not meant to be binding. It was a majority decision, not a unanimous decision.

I do believe we should consider majority decisions to be split decisions that need to be resolved by Parliament, and that is the intention of the second proposed subsection.

The Chair: Thank you, and thanks for the promotion, calling me Madam Speaker. I hope I can get some of the money.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm sorry.

The Chair: That's okay.

Mr. John Bryden: Someday, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: I don't think so.

Are there any questions around this table?

Yours must have been a powerful argument, Mr. Bryden. Don't be dismayed by there being no questions. It doesn't mean a thing. They just loved it. Thank you.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, all of you.

The Chair: Next is Mr. Martin. Welcome.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

My issue is a lot less complicated than the one you just heard, but I don't think it'll take me any less time to pitch. It's a very simple motion that calls for government to eliminate the right of a landing fee for all classes of immigrants. I know that some of you around this table have been involved in advocating that for quite some time.

• 1655

I won't spend a lot of time on the merits of the arguments so much as why I think it should be deemed votable, but the logic is that's it a barrier to immigration. It's specifically a barrier to the family class of immigration. We believe that even though it was introduced in 1995 in a time of budgetary cutbacks and high deficits, it's no longer justifiable now.

There's another problem with it. It tends to favour people from certain parts of the world over others, in that $975 might not be a huge barrier if you live in western Europe or Australia or England, but if you live in Ethiopia or Eritrea or the Sudan or the Philippines, it could be two or even three years' wages, where people would make an average of three or four hundred dollars per year. This is why there is a great deal of interest from groups such as the Canadian Council for Refugees and other immigration advocacy groups. The interfaith church councils on immigration have been calling aggressively recently for government to eliminate this right-of-landing fee.

Recently the Minister of Immigration, to her very great credit, did eliminate it on the refugees. It used to be for all classes of immigrants. It's now just the economic class and the family reunification class.

To argue why I think it should be votable, I believe it meets the five tests that were outlined earlier: it hasn't been up for debate in the House of Commons before; it's a fairly recent regulation; it is jurisdictionally okay and is a matter for the federal government to rule on.... It can be dealt with by Governor in Council or by the minister, because under the Financial Administration Act the minister has the right to set service charges or to raise them or lower them or eliminate them without legislation. In actual fact, if the House of Commons indicated its interest in this happening by a vote, the minister could in fact implement the same without any delay.

We believe there is strong national interest in this as well. I am no longer the immigration critic on the Standing Committee on Immigration, but when I was, I was certainly lobbied hither and yon by every group across the country.

I believe the interest goes to all parties. I think even at the Liberal national convention in 1996 there was a motion that asked the government to do away with this, or a resolution passed. I know members from the Bloc, from the Alliance, virtually all parties have expressed an interest.

If we recognize, as a country, that immigration is an engine for economic growth, we don't want to throw barriers in the way. We should be satisfied with the empirical evidence that a new Canadian starts to make a contribution to the economy the very day they arrive here and start purchasing and consuming goods. The jury is in on that one; we all recognize that's an actual fact.

In the interest of fairness and in the interest of sending a message to the rest of the world that Canada is welcoming new Canadians and is eager to have new Canadians join us here, we think it would be a significant gesture if Canada eliminated the right-of-landing fee on that basis and on the basis that it's no longer really justifiable in an era of budgetary surpluses.

I guess the last thing is that this was never really a service charge that went to the immigration department so that they could pay for settlement services, which it was intended to do. It always went directly to the CRF, so it never really had a direct benefit to the Minister of Immigration to have more money to be able to provide more services. The budget for the Minister of Immigration was cut by almost one third over the years, and this service revenue generator was put in, but it never had the desired effect of helping the immigration department attract and retain and settle immigrants, as it should. So we don't believe it's really even served its purpose that way, and is another reason why it wouldn't be missed.

The Chair: Wow!

Any questions?

Mr. Pat Martin: Is that a good sign?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Wow!

• 1700

Just very quickly, did you say there has not been a vote on this before in terms of private members' motions or bills? Has there been a discussion where it has not been...? Has there been a motion before that has not been votable that has been discussed in the House?

Mr. Pat Martin: Not to my knowledge. I think there was a motion put at the committee stage and put by the member here, I believe. No, I don't think it ever went to the House of Commons. In fact it collapsed at the committee stage too for the summer recess.

The Chair: I seem to remember it was an opposition day motion in the last House.

Mr. Pat Martin: I think I would have noticed.

The Chair: Do you think you would have noticed?

Mr. Pat Martin: As the immigration critic, I hope I would have, unless I blanked out for awhile there.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Martin, you've sat on the immigration committee. Have you approached the minister or her department as to what their feeling is on this particular motion and the withdrawal of the fee? Is there a potential possibility that in fact the department itself is looking at this particular withdrawal?

Mr. Pat Martin: Not at the present time. The closest they came is when we asked for a full report into all fees and service charges associated with getting to be a new Canadian. Then the summer recess occurred in the year 2000, I guess, and that information wasn't forthcoming, and then we went to an election shortly thereafter. So the answer is no.

The government is very sensitive to and aware of the pressure from lots of different advocacy groups, but we have never been able to flush out a willingness to eliminate it for all classes of immigrants. It was under quite a bit of pressure that they did agree to eliminate it for refugees, because we were the only country in the world that charged a fee to refugees.

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

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm sorry, I have to excuse myself.

The Chair: You are going to be here tomorrow.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I am going to be here tomorrow.

The Chair: And you are going to read the material.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have already read the material.

The Chair: We all have the material.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I do apologize to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. I'd love to be here. I know it's going to be riveting, but, Judy, tell me about it tomorrow.

Sorry, Madam Chair.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I just told Judy I have to leave at 5:10 p.m. to tape the Don Newman show.

The Chair: Oh, Don Newman is more important than your colleague?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair. I won't take very long. I don't think I need five minutes to put a case for making this issue on warning labels for alcohol beverage containers votable.

As you all know, this is a matter of significant public interest. It has been raised and pursued over the years as one small solution in terms of dealing with fetal alcohol syndrome. We know that syndrome is serious and growing. It is a preventable tragedy across this country. It's something I certainly experience on a day-to-day basis in terms of representing a very needy community like Winnipeg North Centre, but it is not isolated to that community. It is well documented to be a fairly pervasive problem in many parts of this country.

This idea has certainly been before Parliament before, but to the best of my research abilities it has never been voted on by Parliament as a whole. Paul Szabo has been a strong advocate of dealing with this issue over a long period of time. He in fact had a bill in the 35th Parliament that went to committee, but the recommendation for warning labels on liquor containers was never dealt with.

There were a couple of other motions on the books in the 36th Parliament. Both Paul Szabo and Svend Robinson had motions, but as far as I understand they were never put on the order paper or voted upon.

I'm suggesting that this is a really critical issue. It's part of the whole problem of fetal alcohol syndrome, and we need a reading from Parliament in terms of moving on this issue. I believe it will help. It's important. But I think most of all we need that debate in Parliament and we need a change to test the will of Parliament to be able to give this advice to the government in terms of an overall comprehensive strategy on fetal alcohol syndrome, which is referenced in the Speech from the Throne in terms of prenatal supports and nutritional counselling and so on. But the specific issue is not part of the government's agenda, so I'm suggesting it should be and this is one way to do it.

The Chair: Questions?

• 1705

My recollection of Paul Szabo's proposal is that the difficulty was not so much with the hard liquor aspect or even beer. I think the wineries fussed massively because their labels are very artfully designed. There was a lot of concern there. Have you researched that at all to find out what sort of opposition you're going to get from the wineries?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, I sense that is a possible concern that will arise during the debate.

I actually tried to pursue this matter when I was in the provincial legislature in Manitoba, but I ran up against a double whammy there. One was the jurisdictional issue, and it was suggested to me at the time that this really properly falls within federal jurisdiction. Insofar as we were able to make any progress, notwithstanding the concerns of the wineries, we helped moved the agenda towards at least the packaging, the bag, the liquor is put in. It has a graphic warning for women who are pregnant.

Yes, I think that's a concern, but it will be the same kind of concern we got from the tobacco companies when Allan Rock moved so courageously to deal with changing the graphics on tobacco packages.

The Chair: “Allan Rock moved courageously”—can I quote you, Judy?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You certainly can, and I've said that in the House.

The Chair: Today of all days he needs some support.

I remember at the time the bill was talking very specifically about labels, i.e., everybody was thinking of the paper label that was stuck on. I don't know why they didn't do it as a piece that went across the top of the cork, across the top of that label at the top. Then they can't fuss.

You're open to any kind of suggestion? You're not...?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. The reason the motion is worded this way is to actually test the will of Parliament, and then the government can act on the wishes in the best way possible. It's not an easy issue. I know we will be up against quite a lobby from the wineries and the breweries. So I want to leave it open-ended that way so that we can advance the agenda.

The Chair: Thank you.

Does anybody else have questions? No?

Thank you.

Mr. Forseth, welcome. You're here for Mr. Hill's bill?

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Yes, indeed. It's Bill C-237. It says in the title “An Act to amend the Divorce Act (joint custody)”. This matter is certainly dear to my heart, seeing that in a past life I spent many years as a divorce mediator and child custody investigator and was the eyes and ears of the judge and the community advising superior courts how they should settle very hotly contested custody matters. I was also our lead critic on our joint Senate-Commons committee. We spent a half a million dollars and toured the country. We heard from hundreds and hundreds of witnesses and produced a report called For the Sake of the Children. We came up with some 38 to 40 recommendations, and the fundamental recommendation is indeed represented in this bill.

We've had two throne speeches. This one and the previous one both alluded to the issue, but we still have no action.

The central, fundamental point is one of legal equality, but my concern is on behalf of children and the many nuances of tragedy that are happening out there in the community because of a variety of manipulations and faults and oversights and misworkings of the court at various levels that are done in the name of the best interests of the children but don't turn out to be that way. This bill seeks to amend that.

So clearly the purpose of the bill is to ensure that courts grant custody, at least in a legal sense, of a child to both parents unless there exists evidence that to do so would not be in the best interests of the child.

Automatic joint custody or the presumption of equality in the law.... When parents are together we have a family. The law is equal. But as soon as one parent decides the marriage is over and they walk out the door or push the other one out the door, why then all of a sudden does the law of the land automatically change? This bill would attempt to undergird and respond to that inequity.

Reduce the number of parents forced to go to court to gain access to the children or be involved in the children's lives, increase the likelihood of support payments being made in compliance without coercion, and reduce the likelihood of one parent denying the other's right or involvement to see the children where it's still in the best interests of the children to do so. In fact, statistics from the U.S. indicate that financial compliance increases in direct relation to involvement with children. Also, the recent report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, which I alluded to, recommended that joint parenting and legal equality upon family dissolution or separation be pursued. However, the justice minister has announced that there will be no new legislation for some time.

• 1710

So this is the nub of the issue reduced to the scope of what could be considered in a private member's bill.

Certainly, I have grand plans of amending the whole Divorce Act, and so did the committee. But if we can't do that or we're not going to get on that, at least we could bring Canada kicking and screaming into line with most countries of the western world. Many jurisdictions have gone down this road and are way ahead of us. Being somewhat of a point person in our caucus on this matter, I still get cases referred from across the country involving many tragic situations because of inequities in the law.

This issue may not be on the front burner of many constituency offices, but it's there, and it would be very easy for Parliament to respond.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Has this been discussed with the justice department? How did they respond to this?

Mr. Paul Forseth: I could direct you to the minister's response, which basically did agree with the general philosophical concept but indicated that, typically, they want to go slowly and that there would be a further round of consultation.

Our position is that the national consultations have gone forward and we don't need to reinvent the wheel, that there's a tremendous amount of evidence from how other jurisdictions—whether it's Washington state, England, Australia, or wherever—have gone forward to look at a concept of at least legal equality, which then allows the facilitation of mediation and alternative dispute settlement mechanisms to actually happen. It has been the law in California for quite a number of years. It has been under tremendous assault by various interest groups, but yet it has still stood the test of time. It has been the law in California for 20 years or more.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

I'll be honest with you. A motion would have probably made me a lot more comfortable, because as you read through this, I can see the lawyers having a ball. There are going to be a lot of lawyers involved with a lot of litigation and making a lot of money if this is fully implemented. Do you have any concerns about that?

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's precisely the point. This would have a tendency to undercut the whole industry that has been built up around divorce matters.

We have a very sad situation of children suffering because of a lack of access to the courts. Legal aid is not available. The current context sets up a situation of an adversarial approach. The particulars of this private member's bill may not be perfect, but what we're looking at is the basic concept of equality and mutual responsibility.

The joint committee report went on to talk about having a parenting plan. So if you take away the game of contest and primacy of one over the other, where legally in the best interests of the child they have to deal with each other.... Together they bring a child into the world, and they are mutually responsible for the maintenance, upkeep, care, and control of that child into the future, even though the child may live with one parent or another or have an infinite variety of changing parenting plans as per the needs of the child. It's the legal context of the current situation that needs to be fixed before all of the good things we often talk about will come into play. Until we fix that, all of the other is just a piecemeal approach.

The Chair: Do you have any idea—and I'm truly curious because we've been talking about this since I was elected in 1993—why it doesn't seem to be taking off? Is it because it's so complex that it needs a bit more time?

• 1715

Mr. Paul Forseth: It goes to the heart of the idea of family and elements of the gender wars. It goes to the divided jurisdictions between the federal and provincial governments, which is complicated. But I think it comes down to the will of the government to get its fundamental principles straight and then to act in accordance with that. I have talked to the justice minister numerous times about this particular topic, and usually it's “We'll see at the next federal-provincial conference of justice ministers.” Then I go back and say “How was it?” I'm told “It came up a little bit, but then we agreed to defer it again.” So it is not an easy issue to deal with.

But I'll give one example. When the government sought to amend the issue around maintenance payments because of the Supreme Court decision, community consultations started. Where was the public? They would come to the microphone and within five minutes deal with the maintenance payments issue, but they wanted to get on with all the other issues. As soon as the door was opened, all of the stuff came out of the closet. They wanted to deal with custody, access, maintenance, guardianship, and all of the other things that don't work, and to tell their stories of tragedies. So this is the heart of the matter that the bill is trying to address.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We do take cases in our office all the time. It's not as rare as you think.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, indeed.

The Chair: Madame Bujold. Welcome. Bonjour.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): First of all, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to this committee about the merits of my bill, Bill C-209.

As you undoubtedly know, a growing number of Canadians are using public transportation services, whether for economic, social or environmental reasons, and in an effort to preserve our cities and neighbourhoods. These are the reasons that prompted me to introduce this bill and that justify it being deemed a votable item by your committee.

Right away, I should mention that 73 per cent of Canadians and 71 per cent of Quebeckers have expressed support for this initiative. Furthermore, by an overwhelming margin of 240 to 25, the members of the House of Commons adopted motion M-360 on April 13, 1999. This motion calling on the government to examine the exemption question had been introduced by former NDP MP Nelson Riis and garnered the support of all Cabinet members present in the House at the time, including Jean Chrétien.

From an environmental perspective, more widespread use of public transportation is seen as a way of helping Canada meet its objectives, set in Kyoto in 1997, of reducing greenhouse gas emission levels. Moreover, as part of the national climate change strategy, tax exemptions were seen as one way of achieving this goal.

It's worth noting that every year, as many as 16,000 Canadians die from high levels of pollution and poor air quality. The number of cases of children hospitalized for asthma rose by 23 per cent between 1980 and 1990.

Hence, public transportation is perceived as the ideal solution to this problem. One bus can carry as many passengers as 40 or 50 automobiles and emission levels per kilometre/passenger are one fourth those of a standard automobile.

Consider this fact: air pollution readings in a major Canadian city rose by 20 per cent when public transportation services were withheld.

Although it's important, from an environmental standpoint, to get people to abandon their automobiles in favour of public transit, unfortunately, we do not have a national transportation policy to promote this vision. Clearly then, a tax deduction would encourage more people to opt for public transportation and would promote better air quality.

As I just mentioned, one bus takes the equivalent of 40 to 50 automobiles off the road. In major urban centres, over 50 per cent of workers heading downtown opt for public transit. For example, if every STCUM customer were to drive an automobile instead, the line of vehicles would stretch bumper-to-bumper from Montreal to Gaspé.

• 1720

In addition to lowering pollution levels, public transportation is the key to eliminating traffic jams and reducing gridlock in major urban centres. Nevertheless, it is distressing to note that funding of public transportation has been slashed by 18 per cent in this country over the past five years. The end result has been service cuts and higher fares.

At the same time, the number of vehicles on the roads has increased dramatically over the past four decades. Service must be restored and expanded in all Canadian municipalities to woo back former riders and at the same time, attract new ones, and the benefits of using public transportation with greater frequency must be promoted.

Prior to introducing this bill, I met with officials from the Communauté urbaine de l'Outaouais. Today, I received a letter from them expressing their support for this initiative. The Canadian Urban Transit Association has also been very receptive to this tax deduction initiative.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam. Are there any questions? Go ahead, Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: My only concern is the wording of this measure. We are talking about more than just transit fares or the cost of monthly passes.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That's true.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: There's more to it than that. You could even include parking costs.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No. This initiative applies solely to public transportation.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: The provision reads "paid by the individual for the use of a [...] transportation system. However, it is meant to apply to...

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: It targets public transportation.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I realize that.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: The tax exemption would apply to public transportation services.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: This may be beside the point, but do you really think for a second that the STO, for example, would have enough resources to provide transportation to all those wishing to avail themselves of its services if such a proposal were implemented?

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Well, at the present time, the Canadian government doesn't invest a red cent in this area. Did you know that in the United States, the US government subsidizes public transportation services to the tune of $41 billion over six years? This initiative would certainly help the situation.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I agree with you.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Even Mr. Caccia, who chairs of the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, stated the following:

Exempting public transit passes from taxes would bring social as well as environmental benefits and would ensure greater equity. We also know that this initiative has broad public support, as other members have pointed out.

This means the public, as my figures prove, support this initiative by a margin of 73 per cent.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: That's excellent.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: It would also help Canada meet its Kyoto commitments. If this situation continues unchecked, by the year 2012, Canada will have fallen short of its 1990 commitments by 32 per cent. This measure would enable us to meet our Kyoto targets.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: It's an excellent incentive.

[English]

The Chair: Do you anticipate great complaints from the taxi industry?

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: No, I don't believe so. I'm looking at this from the perspective of my region which is part rural and part urban. In terms of public transportation, we are even looking at concluding agreements with transportation companies. Because the population is spread out over such a large area, agreements have been signed with minivan and taxi companies to meet passenger demand.

Moreover, in my region, car pooling is not an option. However, public transportation services could invest in this area. Currently, they lack the financial resources to meet passenger needs. Therefore, there is a real possibility of increasing the number of public transportation users by 20 to 30 per cent in the very first year alone.

[English]

The Chair: The comment you've made heartens me, because then you would have rural areas making an effort to get mini-buses and the desire would be there from the public.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Very good.

Are there any other questions?

Mr. Grant McNally: I'd just like to commend you on your ideas. It's the first time I've heard something like this proposed.

[Translation]

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I don't understand. Could you repeat the question?

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: I'm just throwing you a compliment.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: That's why she wants to hear you.

• 1725

Mr. Grant McNally: I thought it was a very good idea. When we look at taxes...we want to change behaviour in essence by penalizing people. This is the other route, positive reinforcement for doing something that would encourage people to get out of their cars and use public transportation. While you mentioned it applies in your region, this is a very big topic in my region as well, on the west coast, and across the country. I think it's really one of national importance.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Crête, would you like to begin, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak to my bill.

To get a clear understanding of Bill C-253, one must recall that the Canada Shipping Act was passed several years ago with a view to overhauling the administration of Canada's major ports. Specifically, the legislation provided for the establishment of Canadian port authorities to administer major ports in the cities of Montreal, Sept-Îles, Vancouver and Halifax.

Initially, the Shipping Act stipulated that these ports would become the sole property of local authorities. However, after making the rounds of Canadian ports, officials came to the conclusion that this responsibility would be too great for local communities to handle. It was decided that while the ports would be managed by Canadian port authorities, they would remain the property of the federal government and their administration would be turned over to a board of directors comprised of regional officials.

At the same time, the federal government brought in a policy whereby it divested itself of certain ports, some outdated, some not, like the port of Cacouana in my riding which nevertheless continued to be economically viable in the medium term. A local authority was established to take over the port. Negotiations are under way with Transport Canada, but, despite the best of intentions, the realization is dawning that this is too big of a responsibility for a local community to take on. The same thing is happening in the case of several regional ports in Canada, particularly a string of regional ports along the St. Lawrence like the ones in Gaspé, Matane, Baie-Comeau and Cacouana.

When the Canada Shipping Act was passed, nothing specific was stipulated as to the future status of the regional ports. I think the government wanted to start by dealing with the ports that were outdated and it has done this. A certain number of the other ports remain economically viable, but a policy advocating divestiture of ownership will not resolve the problem.

The aim of Bill C-253 is to confer some kind of status on these ports and to create local port councils. Basically, these councils would be structured somewhat like the Canadian port authorities, but would be regional bodies, allowing the government to retain ownership of the port while transferring the administration duties to a local body.

Furthermore, the bill is designed in such a way that should the government wish to divest itself of a port, it could do so during a transition phase. For instance, the provincial government could step in and assume ownership, as we saw in the case of five ferries and ferry wharves where last year, ownership was transferred to Quebec. The same model could be applied to these regional ports.

• 1730

If no change in the situation is forthcoming, the federal government will come to the end of the planned divestiture period and it will have failed to achieve its port divestiture objectives. Officials in Gaspé and Matane have shown considerable good faith and have made some offers, which the federal government has countered, but the two sides remained very far apart indeed.

For instance, communities are willing to pay $1 for the port facilities, with the promise that they will be refurbished. The federal government, on the other hand, maintains that these facilities are worth more. Indeed, these facilities are often worth $50 million, $75 million or even $100 million. My bill calls for a kind of transition period during which the ports, although still federally owned, would be managed by local authorities.

Let's suppose the Government of Quebec were interested in acquiring one or more ports along the St. Lawrence. It would be able to do that, but similar situations could also arise elsewhere across Canada. I've used Quebec as an example, because I'm more familiar with this province, but there are ports elsewhere in Canada in similar situations.

Therefore, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Shipping Act, much as if the government had analysed the situation and deemed that some minor adjustments to a number of Canadian ports were in order. This initiative would also break the impasse on the divestiture question. Specifically, municipal taxes are the sticking point. If the federal government were to divest itself of a port and transfer ownership to a private body, the latter would be facing a much higher tax bill than what the government provided in the form of grants in lieu of taxes. The possibility of facing a hefty tax bill acts as a disincentive for communities that might wish to acquire these port facilities.

That, in a nutshell, is the aim of this bill. It is the end result of consultations with those involved in this issue and a response to the policy statements made in recent years about divestiture and the positive experiences with ferry wharves.

Are there any questions?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Proulx.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Surely you've discussed this proposed legislative initiative with the Transport department, the minister or Mr. Chartrand. What was their reaction?

Mr. Paul Crête: I began by writing to the minister about a year ago. I outlined the divestiture situation clearly to him because I had been one of the first members to approve of the divestiture scheme to allow local communities to acquire these facilities. Last year, after an attempt at negotiating some arrangements, the realization dawned that there were no actual cases where the federal government had divested itself of certain regional ports that had subsequently been taken over by the community.

I wondered why this was so. I checked with the minister to find out if more funding could be allocated to the divestiture strategy. Obviously, the answer I received was that the policy was set to expire on March 31, 2002 and that hopefully, funding could be increased in the interim. However, I understand that this would have to be negotiated. If the government starts telling an MP that more money is available, everyone will want a piece of the pie. That's not necessarily the solution to the problem.

This bill is the result of a personal analysis of the situation and of consultations done at the regional level. Will the Department of Transport respond positively or negatively to this initiative? I don't really know what the department's reaction will be, but I do think that this bill meets the criteria for consideration as a votable private member's bill, that is to say that it is a parliamentary initiative aimed at improving existing legislation in a very concrete way.

The analogy I would draw is that of a bicycle purchased one or two years ago that has served its user well but, after further consideration, is found to need some minor adjustments or fine tuning and should not be discarded entirely in favour of a new bicycle.

• 1735

Mr. Marcel Proulx: The consultations you conducted showed that this proposal would get a favourable reception in that it would alter the privatization scheme, so to speak.

Mr. Paul Crête: I believe it would help to break the impasse in the negotiations. Instead of having each party stand their ground, a possible compromise could be reached and some time saved. The federal government could agree to retain ownership of these facilities, but turn over their management to a local body for the time it takes to achieve profitability.

Given that negotiations are currently a costly process time- wise, there hasn't been much time left to market the ports. Things pretty much came to a standstill on this front three or four years ago. Since then, Transport Canada has been unable to promote the port of Cacouana at the expense of the ports of Montreal or Baie Comeau. However, if a local body were responsible for marketing, each port would be able to operate to maximum potential.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: A spirit of competition would be forged.

Mr. Paul Crête: Exactly. Ultimately, we could even see an entire network of regional ports established. The bill would allow for this eventually, among other things.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: We have Mr. Stoffer, who is not on our agenda.

Your bill looks easy enough to explain that it doesn't matter if members didn't bring it with them. For you, anything.

This is Bill C-243, hepatitis awareness month.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank my colleagues in the House of Commons from all political parties, and the researcher, the clerk, and of course all the good people behind us. This wouldn't happen without them—

The Chair: That's enough showbiz, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: They told me to thank everyone.

[Translation]

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: In French.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Good afternoon, colleagues.

[English]

First of all, I really appreciate the honour of being able to speak before you today on something that is very near and dear to my heart. Personal friends of mine and my own neighbour have a form of hepatitis.

As you may or may not know, hepatitis affects 710,000 Canadians. There are approximately 30,000 to 50,000 Canadians who do not know they have a form of hepatitis, which is A, B, or C.

I have literature here from the former U.S. Surgeon General. He said in May 1997 that hepatitis is the most significant, preventable, and treatable public health problem facing our nation today. Currently, in the United States, over 11 million Americans have hepatitis in some form. Approximately two million Americans don't even know they have it. Most Canadians find out they have hepatitis when they donate blood at the Canadian Blood Services, formerly the Red Cross, or they have an operation.

It is a disease that can have long-term ramifications for people's health. It can also cause birth defects. Hepatitis C is more dangerous, B is very contagious, and A, of course, is transmitted through sexual and other sorts of activity.

The purpose of this bill is in no way political. It is to encourage all politicians at the federal level to do what Prince Edward Island has done, with Premier Pat Binns, and recognize May as hepatitis awareness month to promote education and awareness of this very serious disease, which affects so many Canadians.

It is a non-monetary bill. It is actually a bill that I submitted in a previous legislature. I had well over a hundred signatures from all political parties. Many more would have signed, but that was all I required. I can leave that documentation with you, if you like, Madam Chair.

I think it's a bill that can be accepted by all political parties. Understand that the month of May is coming up, and if it is possible to move this bill fairly quickly.... I have assurances from my own House leader that because it is a bill that is non-monetary and non-contentious in any way, it is possible to move it fairly quickly through committee, if need be, and then on to third reading so that it is passed before May.

Personally, I would like to see it become votable so that all members of Parliament can stand in this House and vote with their conscience. I'm sure, Madam Chair, that it would have unanimous consent throughout the entire chamber.

At this time I would be more than willing to take any questions or comments the committee has.

The Chair: Do you have a question, Mr. Proulx?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: It has nothing to do with your reason, but why May? I'm curious.

• 1740

Mr. Peter Stoffer: May is springtime. It's also a month of many other activities.

The Chair: Birds and bees?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. It's also a month of many other awarenesses, like cancer month, like breast cancer month. If you're asking what can it really do, if you look at what October does for breast cancer awareness month, anyone who's gone through it or anyone who knows—and we all know a woman who has gone through breast cancer—

The Chair: Or a man.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, you're absolutely correct. I apologize.

The Chair: My cousin.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: It is one of the more devastating diseases to affect us. But what October does is it encourages corporations such as CIBC and Canadian Airlines to get in on not the bandwagon per se, but to get in on the financial part and to say this is breast cancer awareness month and this is what we can do to try to prevent this disease and make people aware. Because of that, I believe that in the long term we'll be able to maybe never eradicate breast cancer but at least have the awareness of it, and the elimination of it hopefully is a dream to come.

Many people with hepatitis have that same type of dream. If they could have a particular month dedicated to their particular concern, I think it would go a long way to assist them in making everybody aware of this terrible disease and also bring educational aspects to it as well within our schools, within our medical facilities, and of course clear across the country.

The Chair: Are there any other diseases recognized in May?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, there are about five or six of them, actually.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Recognized by Parliament?

[English]

I'm not sure.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, it would be. Basically, what Parliament would say is that we would recognize officially that the month of May would be hepatitis awareness month.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: She's asking.... I don't know what the translation was—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Oh, Prince Edward Island did.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: She is asking whether there are any other diseases that are recognized by the Parliament of Canada in a way similar to this.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I believe May is also cancer awareness month. Or is it April?

Madam Chair, I didn't research all the parameters of it. People have asked me why May, because there are so many other awarenesses or activities in that time. Various medical professionals and people affected by hepatitis at the three levels are saying if they had their way, they would like to see May if possible. So I said I would bring a bill forward and see what happens in the House of Commons.

The Chair: And you made it through the luck of the draw.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes. I waited three and a half years. I was one of the first people to have the 100 signatures, and I just missed it because it was prorogued and then Mr. Bryden beat me to the door. Otherwise I may have gotten it in there.

We're hopeful that we could meet your concurrence on this and be able to push it fairly quickly so that this May we can actually, in the new millennium, tell the people who are affected by the disease that the federal Parliament recognizes what you're going through, and with our provincial cousins and medical associations and corporations and businesses we could maybe eventually bring more awareness to the Canadian people on this terrible disease and move it forward.

The Chair: Mr. Robertson, do you know how many diseases are officially recognized by the federal Parliament?

Mr. James Robertson: My understanding is that there are lots of months and weeks and days that are set aside for the recognition or education of an individual disease or condition. There are not that many statutes where this has been done by law. It can be done through a proclamation by the Governor in Council. It can also be done just by the charities and health organizations getting together and deciding to declare a certain month to be the focus of activities for a particular disease, such as breast cancer. For instance, I don't believe there's a specific declaration by Parliament that October is breast cancer awareness month.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: If you had the time, you might be interested in looking into this matter further. I recall that several years ago, Paul Szabo introduced a motion or bill calling for one day in April to be designated as organ donation day. Some pressure was exerted in Quebec where the organ donation association is quite active. I was asked to press for an organ donation month, as this is such an important issue. Ultimately, one week was designated, the reason being that there are many health concerns and that if every month were given a special designation, the focus would be watered down. Foundations such as the Canadian Cancer Society and the Kidney Foundation of Canada are taking on a leading role. However, it would be interesting to give this proposal further consideration.

• 1745

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If I may conclude, Madam Chair, I couldn't help but notice that many other members of Parliament from all parties have various specific days, weeks, or months for their particular medical or humanitarian causes. So while this may not be the first to come through, maybe there will be many more members of Parliament from all parties coming to you asking that a particular day, week, or month be recognized in their particular categories.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Now, if this doesn't work, I have more.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm just kidding. Thank you.

The Chair: You're such a charmer. It's pretty hard to say no.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Tomorrow we're meeting at 3:30 p.m. in the same room, and we'll finish the rest of them.

You'll notice that on the back of the second set I gave you, with the exception of Mr. Stoffer, there is a list of names with an asterisk beside them. It just means they haven't expressed an interest to appear in front of the committee. Unless they withdraw their bills, we still consider them.

Mr. Ménard doesn't want his to be made votable and also Mr. Obhrai. They're the last two we had on that last page. They just want their one hour.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: As I recall, we're no longer dealing with five bills and five motions, but rather with five items.

[English]

The Chair: No, it won't. It'll be any 10.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I see. The indication here is five and five.

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I merely wanted some assurances that...

[English]

The Chair: No, that was a mistake. I vaguely remember seeing it, and I was going to ask you about it. It's any 10.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I see. That's better.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.