SMEM Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, October 30, 2002

1545

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

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Art Hanger

1555

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Mr. Art Hanger

1600

The Chair

Mr. Art Hanger

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Rick Borotsik

1605

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Art Hanger

The Chair

Mr. Art Hanger

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ)

The Chair

1610

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

Mr. Ghislain Fournier

The Chair

1615

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Ghislain Fournier

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Ghislain Fournier

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

Mr. Ghislain Fournier

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Ghislain Fournier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

1620

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Michel Guimond

1625

The Chair

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance)

1630

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Gary Lunn

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Gary Lunn

1635

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ)

The Chair

Ms. Monique Guay

1640

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Monique Guay

Mr. Claude Duplain

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

1645

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Claude Duplain

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Ms. Monique Guay

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

1650

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Michel Guimond

1655

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)

The Chair

Mr. John Herron

1700

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Yvon Godin

1705

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Herron

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

1710

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ)

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Ms. Pauline Picard

1715

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Ms. Pauline Picard

1720

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Ms. Pauline Picard

Mr. Claude Duplain

Ms. Pauline Picard

The Chair

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance)

1725

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1730

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

Mr. Gurmant Grewal

The Chair

1745

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.)

1750

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

1755

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ)

1800

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

1805

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

1810

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

L'hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Charles Caccia

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Charles Caccia

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1815

Mr. Charles Caccia

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Mr. Charles Caccia

The Chair

Mr. Charles Caccia

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

1820

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

1825

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

1830

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

1835

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

M. Richard Marceau

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. John Williams

1840

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

1845

1850

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP)

1855

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

M. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

1900

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC)

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Joe Clark

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Joe Clark

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Joe Clark

1905

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Joe Clark

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Joe Clark

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

1910

Mr. Joe Clark

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Joe Clark

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

1915

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

1920

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

1925

1930

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

1935

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

1940

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance)

1945

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Keith Martin

1950

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Keith Martin

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Keith Martin

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

1955

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

2000

2005

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Roy Cullen

2010

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

CANADA

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

NUMBER 001

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1545)

[English]

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

You know the rules, and you know how this works. You've been before this subcommittee before. You have five minutes to pitch, and we have five minutes if there are questions.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I have two bills going before this committee, C-214 and C-215. Do you want me to proceed with both at the same time, or do you want to split them off?

An hon. member: Were both of them drawn?

Mr. Art Hanger: One was on the order of precedence, and the other one was drawn.

The Chair: Bill C-214 was known as Bill C-396 in the June draw, but it was never looked at by this subcommittee. It's been brought back and is again on the order of precedence.

Perhaps we should deal with Bill C-214, see if there are questions, and then come back and do Bill C-215. Is that okay? Then let's proceed.

Mr. Hanger, you're on for five minutes.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you.

The purpose of Bill C-214, Carrie's Guardian Angel Law, is to amend the Criminal Code to establish the offence of child sexual predation, carrying a minimum sentence of life imprisonment, with no parole earlier than 20 years. But first let me tell you about Carrie Cohen, after whom this bill is named.

In British Columbia, Carrie and her two-year-old child were relentlessly pursued by a three-time convicted pedophile who, despite his convictions, was out on the street attempting again to prey on children. She reported him to police, who were powerless, because that predator had served his full sentence. Carrie moved on and started a movement to end the insanity surrounding pedophilia in Canada.

And I don't use the word “insanity” lightly; I'll prove it.

First, pedophilia itself is a form of insanity. It is classified as a psychological disorder. All the evidence we have, including evidence that has been presented by Corrections Canada experts to House committees, bears out the fact that there is simply no cure, no rehabilitation, for pedophiles. Once someone has become touched by this terrible appetite, they are a danger forever.

Second, pedophilia laws, when viewed through the eyes of Canadian families, and especially victims, are insanity. Currently there is a maximum 10-year sentence for child rape--10 years--but the average sentence imposed on pedophiles is a mere 18 months. Further, the average time actually served is about 6 to 10 months.

This means, according to the government's own numbers, that people convicted of robbery serve on average more time than people convicted of child rape.

That, colleagues, defies explanation. That deserves debate. And that must change.

Our justice system and police services are kept busy cleaning up the messes created by inadequate laws. Almost daily, Canadians from coast to coast are shocked by news that a pedophile who the correctional system and police consider a clear and present threat has been released a few streets down. Police scramble to issue public alerts that a dangerous child predator has just moved in.

The message they send is as ridiculous as the current law. Police say, “You are now living next to a dangerous pedophile likely to reoffend, but don't do anything, don't try to defend yourselves, and don't try to defend your children.” In other words, Ottawa's weak laws don't defend our children, police can't defend our children, and parents are somehow prohibited, in a way, from protecting their children through seeking a tougher law. Pity the children.

My bill proposes something very simple: Life in jail for convicted pedophiles under prescribed circumstances where it is clear that we are dealing with a true pedophile; life with no parole earlier than 20 years; and a new category of dangerous offender that would allow corrections officials to deny parole if the offender is considered likely to reoffend.

It goes without saying that police support this bill. It goes without saying that Canadians support this bill. I have over 20,000 signatures on a petition thus far, and that's not counting the numerous petitions that have already been entered into the House. Polls show that over 80% of Canadians support life sentences. Day after day I get calls and letters from families and victims who support this bill and who ask why on earth it isn't being fast-tracked in Ottawa.

Whether we get to stand and vote on this bill is up to this committee, so I ask for your support. I ask that you support Canadian families, police, and victims. Let's make Canada a safer place for children and a terrible place for those who prey on children.

Thank you.

¹ (1555)

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Hanger, you suggested there is police support for this. Do you have letters or other official indication, or is this anecdotal?

Mr. Art Hanger: I don't specifically have the letters, but the police associations have endorsed similar stronger measures against pedophiles.

As a police officer myself for a number of years, I have investigated offences, and I know how much time they take up now with the police departments that have struck special units across this country. They have reached a point where they've actually saturated their manpower requirements. There is still a need to hire more manpower to deal with this issue, and they still cannot afford to do it.

Not only have the police departments recognized the need for stronger measures, but social services are now receiving much of the download from police departments and are into the act. They too have become swamped with the same problem.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I do not think our committee's role is to argue with members of Parliament as to whether or not their bill or motion should be votable. Our role is rather to determine whether or not the proposal meets the criteria.

However, out of curiosity, I would like to ask you a question. You say that police officers have a problem. I think the only difference here, is that someone could be eligible for parole, not after 18 months, for example, but only after 18 years. The problem is not really to try to catch these people, because I think the police do their job. If they had more resources, they could perhaps do it better. The only issue here is the penalty.

I would like clarification on that.

[English]

Mr. Art Hanger: I think the main concern here is with those offences that are most egregious; that have the greatest impact and the worst offenders. That is what this bill particularly targets. I don't have to go into too much detail when it comes to the release of many of these offenders back into the system, because in every community across this country, probably your own included, individuals have been released into those jurisdictions by Corrections after they have served their time.

Generally--and sometimes you may not even know it--the police then have to set up on that person the minute he sets foot outside the jail. Their resources go in to wait for that individual to reoffend so they can take him out, because they know he is a serious offender.

Therein lies the problem with police resources again. They are consumed more and more frequently with situations like that. Of course, then the decision has to be made whether to notify the public or not. As a result, it is left up to the police to notify the public that there's a dangerous offender in their midst, if they deem it necessary.

Again, the jurisdictions are caught up trying to work things through when the community ends up driving that person out of their community into another one. Sometimes the offender ends up being lost in the shuffle, if he isn't on parole or he's served his full warrant, and then there's a real problem out there in our society again, in the different communities, unbeknownst to the police officers because they no longer have any control. So I think there's a need for a longer period of incarceration so that offenders like this are not placed back out into the community, time and time again. It will free up police resources as well.

º (1600)

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Hanger. So that takes care of Bill C-214. You're now back on for five minutes, maximum, on Bill C-215.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

It is my privilege again to address you on my private member's bill, Bill C-215, and why it should be deemed votable. In brief, Bill C-215 seeks to raise the age of sexual consent from age 14 to age 16.

Currently the Criminal Code does not criminalize sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or authority over the young person. It is shocking that in Canada we do not vote, consume alcohol, or fight in the military until age 18, yet it is legal for a child at age 14 to engage in sexual activity.

Recent events regarding the sexual exploitation of children in Canada have been as numerous as they are shocking. Virtually every day, news reports of pedophiles, child pornography, and child prostitution shock average Canadian families, for whom there is no higher priority than the protection of their children.

Of all crimes that can be committed against children, sexual exploitation is perhaps the most damaging, the most permanent, and the most terrifying. There are several causes of sexual exploitation. One is psychological. There are simply some people who are predisposed to prey on children. Another cause is the legal availability of minors for sexual use. I know these are strong words, but that is the reality that has been created by a law that permits adults to have sex with children--yes, children as young as 14 years of age.

Internationally, this ties us with the lowest age of consent almost anywhere in the industrialized world. Websites that promote prostitution with children actually advertise Canada as a safe haven. Vancouver and other cities have attracted international attention for the young age at which prostitutes are available for tourists.

If there is a growing problem of sexual predation--and I believe all experts will agree that there is--then the age of consent of 14 years is certainly one of those causes. Is there a justification for having an age of consent as low as 14 years? Perhaps, but there is no question that a debate on raising the age of consent to international average is worthy of a note and a vote.

It is time for the House to deal with this issue, to go beyond rhetoric about protecting children to a debate on how we actually do protect children. Recognizing them as children and setting a higher legal limit is a good start. This debate isn't about putting limits on children, it's about putting limits on adults who prey on children. It's about taking a stand against pedophiles by lowering the legal bar at which sex with a young person becomes pedophilia, becomes an offence. It's about sending a message to would-be predators that Ottawa is taking a stand. It's about taking a stand for our children.

In the last few years there have been several challenges to the safety of our children. Those have come in the form of very high profile cases of sexual use of minors. With respect, those challenges have not been met by a vigorous response by this government. These cases beg the question: What is the government going to do to ensure the basic safety and protection of our children?

Colleagues, a very simple, very straightforward, very common sense start would be raising the age of consent to 16. Again, it is simple. It is common sense. It is certainly worth debate and a vote.

I ask you to allow this bill to become votable, so that every MP in the House of Commons can stand and tell parents and children across Canada that they--we--care enough about our children to take action on that belief. Let's do this now.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Borotsik.

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

Those are both extremely good bills, Mr. Hanger, and I believe certainly fall within the criteria and guidelines. I won't debate the bill, but I will ask you a very serious question, and take it so.

You have two good bills here. If there were a priority for these two bills, which one would you place the priority on?

Mr. Art Hanger: The first one.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

º (1605)

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just to be clear, in Bill C-215, section 1, some people will say, what about 16-year-old kids going to the drive-in, are they going to get thrown in jail? Just so I'm clear, that section says that as long as it's not a position of trust, then if two kids are involved in a sexual activity that's not a criminal offence.

Mr. Art Hanger: That's right. That's as it is in the code right now. If the participants are of about the same age--I think there's a two-year differential--then this would not be considered an offence. There's some flexibility there.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Okay, is there anything else?

How does this affect consent for marriage laws? Under some provincial laws, marriage is allowed at 14 or 15.

Mr. Art Hanger: That's true.

The Chair: How does this affect that?

Mr. Art Hanger: Again you're looking at within the bonds of marriage. Basically this bill involves criminal intent, and marriage is certainly not a criminal intent, I would venture to say. I don't know.

The Chair: I bow to your superior knowledge. When I think about it, I guess you're right.

Mr. Art Hanger: One's spouse might look at it differently. I don't know.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you.

[Translation]

Good afternoon, Mr. Fournier. Are you familiar with the way in which the subcommittee works and the five criteria? You have five minutes to convince us and we have five minutes to ask you questions, if necessary. You have the floor.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I am pleased to be here to defend my anti-scab bill.

This bill, C-230, would prohibit the hiring of persons to replace employees of an employer under the Canada Labour Code who are on strike or locked out or employees of the public service who are on strike. Another purpose of this enactment is to ensure that essential services are maintained in the event of a strike in the public service.

I hope this bill will finally be debated and I also hope to convince you that it should be made votable, of course, because I am convinced that it is essential in order to defend workers' rights.

This bill is not only complete, but is also drafted very clearly and precisely. The bill complies with the Constitution, naturally, and has to do with areas that come under federal jurisdiction. Quebec has a similar enactment.

In addition, this bill deals with issues that are clearly of public interest. I think my colleague will agree with that. It also covers issues which, during my six years as a member of Parliament, have never been debated. And there is no question of their being debated at the moment except in the context of this bill.

This bill is essential, because it deals with issues that are not only of national interest, but also of local interest. Moreover, the bill is not partisan in nature, but rather seeks to defend the interests and dignity of workers.

As you know, this has been my whole life. I saw my father, a forestry worker, raise 12 children. In spite of everything, he respected the institutions in place. I saw that his employer showed no respect. There was no such thing as workmen's compensation. It was possible to give these workers some dignity and respect as a result of the laws that were passed and the unions that were established. Thus it is clear that a public society... At the moment, only the federal government does not have anti-scab legislation. We are unable to respect workers and provide them with tools, Mr. Chairman. This bill must be debated and voted upon, and I sincerely hope—and I believe—that I will be able to get the bill passed by the House of Commons of Canada.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions?

Mr. Guimond.

º (1610)

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

Mr. Fournier, we know that for workers under provincial jurisdiction there are many pieces of provincial legislation that include anti-scab provisions for people who are covered by a provincial labour code. I know that is the case in British Columbia, Manitoba, and, of course, Quebec. I do not know if other provinces have provisions like that, but we know that the objective, when those provisions were introduced into provincial legislation, was to reduce violence, vandalism, and sabotage on the picket lines or on sites where strikes were underway. We can put ourselves in the workers' shoes when they see buses full of scabs crossing the picket line in the morning and when the employer tries to continue operations.

Do you believe that a bill like this one could make labour conflicts more civilized?

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: You are right, colleague, because this bill would prevent strife and lead to social peace. We are currently seeing that at Videotron, where management is replacing workers. Of course we have been very careful in this bill to ensure that essential services are maintained. Going on strike is a tool, but if we give workers tools and they want to use them, we cannot take these tools away. It is tantamount to wanting to get your car engine repaired and taking the tools away from the mechanic: he won't fix your car. The main purpose of this bill is to bring about social peace and to put an end to all this strife.

We have worked very hard. We have looked at all of the pieces of legislation that exist in all Canadian provinces and we were very surprised to find that at the federal level, there is no such piece of legislation. We did extensive research. I have been introducing this bill for six years, since I became an MP. But unfortunately, it has never been drawn. Now that it has been drawn, for the reasons that have just been outlined, I hope that it will be chosen for debate and that we will be able to adopt it in the House of Commons.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Borotsik.

º (1615)

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You mentioned that only the federal government does not have anti-scab legislation. Michel touched on the fact that certain provinces do have that. I know Manitoba does. Do all other provinces have anti-scab legislation? Would that not be, in effect, to take care of a lot of what you have just referred to?

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: My assistants researched it, and they found pieces of legislation similar to what Quebec has in six provinces. Since this is not a popularity contest, I will not tell you which legislation is the best, but I can tell you, having worked with Quebec's legislation, that I know everything about it and that it is perfect, that it is fair. It respects both employers and employees. It is good legislation.

This is bill is modelled on the Quebec legislation, but we also obtained information elsewhere, from House of Commons lawyers, unions, employers, etc. We consulted everyone and did a huge amount of work. I am convinced that the House of Commons will adopt this bill and that we will be able to say that we have a good bill, if not the best.

The Chair: Thank you.

Yvon.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I think that the bill we are looking at is under federal jurisdiction. We must be careful, because two levels of government are involved. We have the provincial government, with its legislation, but people who are under federal jurisdiction are not covered, even in Quebec. I just wanted to clarify what my colleague just said.

Regarding the problems on the picket line that my colleague mentioned, in my union experience I saw 43-month lock-outs where scabs were crossing the picket line and where there were battles on the picket line. Based on your experience in Quebec, does the anti-scab legislation mean that strikes or lock-outs don't last as long? Is the problem resolved much more quickly than when the employer has recourse to scabs in order to continue his operations as if nothing were happening?

I would like someone to quickly tell me if the length of time a strike or a lock-out goes on has decreased and if it is better for everyone, since it forces people to negotiate.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: You are right. I saw that in Sept-Îles with the Quebec Cartier Mining railroad and especially with the Quebec North Shore & Labrador railroad that goes to Schefferville, Labrador City and Wabush. It was an incredible dispute. Tensions mounted and friendships were destroyed. Management employees were asked to work and they could not refuse. No one was blaming them, but there were some employees who inevitably did blame them. They told management that they should have refused. It went on and on, and the social climate was unbearable. If we want to show our good faith and negotiate in an honest and civilized way, I think it is in our best interest to go to the bargaining tables with the appropriate tools that enable us to talk and stop destroying ourselves, in order to come up with a humane approach.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Duplain.

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): It is not that I disagree, but I would like a more compelling argument. I can believe it when you talk about violence on the picket lines. When there are strikes in Quebec, at home, in my riding, I see union members breaking windows, putting signs up everywhere, and destroying buildings because they are really angry. So for me, violence is not enough. Is there another argument apart from violence to justify anti-scab measures? I would like to hear that from you.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Of course. The other weighty argument is that in Quebec, like elsewhere, we must avoid having two categories of workers. There are some workers who are protected by legislation, and there are others who work side-by-side, like people working for the QNS&L and those working for the IOC mining company. Some work in the workshops where they repair the trains for the people who are operating them on the tracks, and when you cross the tracks, it becomes federal jurisdiction. They are not protected by that legislation. They are vulnerable when they strike. They do not have the same tools. So they become another class of workers.

They become another class of workers who belong to a different category. We should have the same tools and the same legislation in this country. That is one of the reasons why it is so important for us to adopt this bill as quickly as possible so that we can tell these workers, especially the ones working for the same company... I am talking about [Editor's note: inaudible]. It is the same employer and these people talk to each other every day, but they are not classified in the same way as the other workers at the IOC mining company, for example. That makes a huge difference among the workers.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Is there an example of a situation in which federal public servants would need the protection offered by this bill?

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Yes. For example, my office is located directly opposite a federal building. I deal with public servants. Some are unionized and others are not. I have many dealings with unionized public servants who often ask me whether the federal government will be passing a bill of this type at some point. So I think they care about this bill a great deal. They have had some bad experiences. They remember the postal strike, for example. It was rough: there was trouble even within my riding. So federal public servants called for this, at least in my riding.

I was a union president for 10 years. I negotiated three collective agreements, and, of course, they know that I have a relationship... I think our work is in the interest of workers and employers. This would lead to social peace for both workers and employers.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin, good afternoon. I understand you're pinch-hitting for Mr. Blaikie for motion M-232.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Yes, I am.

º (1620)

The Chair: Okay, you have five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of Mr. Blaikie, I would like to advocate that the motion be put forward, that motion M-232 be deemed votable.

Not to argue the merits of the motion but to give a bit of background, I'd like to explain that what he seeks to do is have the House of Commons condemn the extradition of Leonard Peltier and call for Mr. Peltier's return to this country.

If anyone remembers, in 1973 Mr. Peltier and members of the American Indian Movement occupied a piece of property. It became known as the Battle of Wounded Knee. The FBI broke into the compound--it was a privately owned ranch--and a fight ensued, shots were fired, and two FBI agents were in fact killed.

Three people were charged with the offence. Mr. Peltier, thinking he couldn't get a fair trial, ran across the border to Canada. The two others who were charged were ultimately cleared because, as it turned out, the witnesses in the case did admit that they were coerced by the FBI to give false information, so the court case was thrown out.

Mr. Peltier was extradited--I hope that's the right terminology--from Canada on the basis of the testimony of one witness, Myrtle Poor Bear, who was known to be mentally ill and claimed to have been Mr. Peltier's girlfriend and to have witnessed the shooting. As it turned out, she has never met Mr. Peltier and she wasn't there at Wounded Knee, but on the basis of her testimony, the Canadian government extradited Mr. Peltier to the United States, where he was put on trial, convicted, has served 25 years in prison, and is still in prison to this day. So the federal government did play an active role, through misinformation, in this social injustice that took place.

To indicate the level of broad national support, organizations from all across Canada have been calling for Mr. Peltier's release. The Assembly of First Nations, Amnesty International, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church, virtually every social justice organization in the country has been calling for the release of Mr. Peltier.

We're calling for recognition of the fact that the Canadian government erred when it acted quickly on the testimony of this one witness who has since been proven to be not trustworthy, and they extradited Mr. Peltier.

So that's the background. I believe the motion meets the tests of what should be deemed votable, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Translation]

The Chair: Are there any questions?

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Martin, have all the legal remedies available to Mr. Peltier, including the Supreme Court of Canada, if appropriate, been exhausted?

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm not sure I can answer that question fairly. I would assume that Mr. Peltier has had full access to the American legal system. It seems to us and to the international community and other critics of this that Mr. Peltier was in fact framed based on the fact that the witnesses were found to be unreliable. In the case of his two co-conspirators, they were let go on the grounds that the witnesses had lied and were coerced by the FBI. The United States Attorney General now says they don't know who shot the two FBI agents. Mr. Peltier languishes in prison even though the Attorney General admits they can't prove who shot those two FBI agents. Gunfire was coming from all directions during this incident.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I was not really trying to stump you with that question. I am looking at the wording of the motion we have here. I am well aware of the fact that Mr. Peltier was extradited to the United States, but has this extradition been challenged using every possible remedy? I may be sympathetic to Mr. Peltier's case, but, in my view, it is not up to the House of Commons to act for the courts. Who am I to intervene? If we decide that the motion of your colleague, Mr. Blaikie, should be made votable, as a parliamentarian, will I have the proper jurisdiction to vote and decide whether this extradition was carried out incorrectly? If the Prime Minister wants to appoint me to the Supreme Court of Canada, that would be a different matter. However, I do not think that is going to happen. I fail to see how the House can act for the courts. And I think that is what your motion is calling for to some extent.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: Actually, the motion is really quite narrow. The Government of Canada took action to extradite Mr. Peltier. It's not within our jurisdiction to comment on the fairness of the trial, but the act of extraditing him on flawed and false information is something we can take some action on. By this motion we're asking that the Government of Canada recognize it made a mistake when it extradited Mr. Peltier and then on that basis call upon the Government of the United States to recognize that. Ultimately, we would advocate that Mr. Peltier be freed. But that's not a matter for the House of Commons or members of Parliament. All we can comment on is the act of extradition that the Government of Canada undertook.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you.

º (1625)

[English]

The Chair: Are there any other questions? No, that's it.

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Next is Mr. Lunn.

Good afternoon. You've heard the rules and regulations. You have five minutes to pitch. We have five minutes to ask you questions. You are here for Bill C-204. It's all yours.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm here today to ask for your support to make my bill votable. It's a bill that would amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

It will do two things, primarily. Number one, it will impose mandatory curfews on young offenders found guilty of a home invasion offence. Secondly, it will also require parents or guardians to report curfew violations, and there are penalties attached to them for failure to do so.

The motivation for my bringing this bill before Parliament goes back before being elected, when I practised in the youth courts, both defence and some ad hoc work as crown. Over and over again I saw these young offenders needing help.

I think this bill strikes a balance, mostly in trying to help these people. So often the young offenders would say they'll do anything but a curfew, and the judge would even call us into chambers and suggest that if we get these people on some type of probation order, we can get them the help they need.

That happened quite often. They came from troubled backgrounds. The probation orders would be breached regularly. They came through the young offenders courts like a revolving door, and these breaches were not being reported.

So what I'm advocating is that when the parent or guardian is aware of a breach, their duty is only to report it. Obviously if they don't know of the breach, they can't report it and there would be no offence.

I think that would be a step in the right direction. It would help these young offenders, and it would give the parents and guardians an additional tool. With mandatory curfews for home invasions, the seriousness of that offence, I think we would be helping these young people by giving these curfews.

One other aspect I want to touch on is that this bill also retains the authority of the judge to set probation conditions, and if they feel that there are extenuating circumstances and that the parent or guardian should not be held responsible for failing in the breach, in very special cases they have that flexibility. So we leave that discretion with the judge.

I think it's a balanced bill. It's designed to get all-party support. I feel very strongly about this. I've gone through your criteria. It's not trivial. Our youth is ultimately a reflection of our success in society. Bill C-204 will obviously benefit all parts of Canada equally, and I think it's a very important one.

The intent is very clear, and obviously property crime and home invasion, property crime as it relates to youth, has not received significant interest in the government's legislative agenda at this point in time, and when it did come before, this is one area that was not addressed specifically. So I'm addressing a specific concern that I witnessed firsthand, day after day, in the youth courts.

It's constitutionally sound and being respectful of the jurisdiction of the provincial courts.

I think it meets in spades all the criteria as set out by the committee.

In conclusion, I think it's a very fair balance. There's a punishment aspect to it, but more important is how can we help these young offenders so that they don't come through our youth courts like a revolving door? How can we get them the help they need? I think that would help significantly.

So again I would ask that you make this votable, and I would be pleased to answer any questions.

º (1630)

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like you to clarify something for me.

[English]

Am I getting it right that the parent will be responsible for reporting their child if they leave home, and if they are responsible for that, they are the ones who will have to tell the authorities? If they don't do it, what will the penalty be for the parent? Are they the ones who will end up in jail?

Mr. Gary Lunn: Yes, that's correct. If the young offender has breached their conditions of probation, the parent or guardian, if they know of that breach, would have to report it.

What happens is, these young offenders come before the courts, and if there is a breach, they're not often enforced, because there aren't the tools there to do it. The parents would just be frustrated, saying they can't make them enforce it.

By having this condition there, if that young offender is going to breach the probation, the parents are going to look them straight in the eye and say “I have no other option but to call the police”, or “I'm now in a position where I'm breaking the law; I have to report your breach.”

So what would happen is, if they are not following the conditions, whether it's anger management conditions or a curfew violation, then they would report it to the authorities. Obviously the police would pick them up and bring them back before the courts to deal with this. I think you would be helping the young offenders, as opposed to not enforcing these probation conditions.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl, and then Monsieur Guimond.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just so I'm clear on this, it says that they place the young person on probation with the condition that the young person comply with a curfew. But a curfew isn't defined. It's up to the judge and the court to define what a curfew is. It could be a time, such as midnight, or when darkness sets in.

Mr. Gary Lunn: It gives the judge flexibility. When the judge imposes a curfew, a whole host of things are taken into consideration, including the seriousness of the case, how often these people are coming back, and what kind of help is needed. There are exceptions to go to school, or if you're outside of your home, you can be with your parent or guardian or another person approved by the courts. So it's really how the judge determines that in the probation order.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the outset, Mr. Lunn, I must tell you that it is not our committee's job to deal with the validity of the objective being sought in this bill. Of course, we have our personal views on that, and for my part, I would question the usefulness of your bill. How does the Criminal Code prevent a judge from ordering curfews of this type at the moment? In other words, this Bill C-204 to amend the Criminal Code is not necessary. I think judges have discretion to impose this type of curfew. Consequently, I question the usefulness of your bill.

[English]

Mr. Gary Lunn: Let me try to make it a little bit clearer. There is no specific provision on the enforcement of the guardian who signs off on that order. If a young offender is in violation of that court order and the authorities are aware of it, they can pick them up and bring them back before the courts and try to deal with that.

What this does is put some responsibility on the parents. I think it actually helps the parents, gives them a tool, because the young offender knows that if they breach this order, if they're not home on time or whatever, then their parent or their legal guardian has to report it to the authorities. So it probably is helping the parents. In turn I think you're helping the young offender, because you see the same ones coming through the youth courts like a revolving door.

The ultimate goal here is that these people not become career criminals and not end up going through our courts like a revolving door and that they be able to get back on their feet and get the help they need. So often, especially in the youth courts, that is done only through probation orders. So the usefulness of it is that there would be a much greater compliance with these probation orders because the policing of them would be done basically by the parents. They would have no option but to report a breach, and then it could be turned back over to the probation officer. The judge may not do anything. He might turn it over to the probation officer and ask, what is your reason, what is your excuse? But it will be dealt with. They will not go unattended to.

There are many examples. One involves the son of one of the members in our House, Chuck Cadman. His son was murdered by a person who numerous times had been in violation of a probation order. He was a young offender who had simply disregarded it. He was out past his curfew when he murdered Chuck Cadman's son. Had there been more accountability....

If the child is not going to follow it, you can't throw the parents in jail. The only thing we're suggesting is that they have to report it if they know there has been a breach. I think that's a very reasonable balance.

º (1635)

The Chair: I apologize, we've run out of time.

Thank you very much. Have a good afternoon.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Good afternoon.

The Chair: You are here to speak about Bill C-224, Ms. Guay. You have up to five minutes to make your presentation. You have our attention.

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I introduced this bill as my party's critic on labour, including the Canada Labour Code. I introduced this bill during the last session, but unfortunately it was not drawn. We brought it back because of the Speech from the Throne.

Let me explain why we and the legal counsel drafted this bill. The fact is that there have been some fairly significant labour disputes in Quebec, and this could happen anywhere else in Canada as well. I will mention only the Cargill case, which has gone on for 31 months already and has still not been settled. People who work for Cargill came to meet with us and told us that the company was making excessive use of strikebreakers. Employees no longer even have the right to demonstrate in the street. There is no more street. They erected a fence to prevent them from doing anything at all.

That is why I tabled an anti-strikebreaking bill. I even had the support of Mr. Martin, who is here at the moment, when this bill was tabled. There is a fairly broad consensus among unions, the general public, and employees about anti-strikebreaking legislation.

My bill meets all the criteria you have set out and would cost the government nothing.

The purpose of this enactment is to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.

At the moment, two provinces have anti-strikebreaking legislation: Quebec and British Columbia. I'm going to tell you about some of the results of this legislation, and then you will understand why I have tabled this bill.

Quebec has had anti-strikebreaking legislation since 1977. On average, strikes lasted 39.4 working days in 1976. That figure went down to a 32.8 days, and in 2001, to 27.4 days. So strikes are becoming shorter and shorter, because it has become possible for the two sides to have equal bargaining power.

The figures on the situation in British Columbia, which I do not have here, also prove that over the years, the number of strike days has dropped. Thus, employees are going back to work more quickly, disputes are much shorter and are causing families less financial hardship. The two sides finally reach an agreement, and employees go back to work more efficiently and harmoniously.

As I said, this bill meets all the criteria and will cost the government nothing. It has already been voted on in part. As you know, anti-strikebreaking legislation was passed at the time, and the Liberals voted for it. I think my bill will get fairly significant support in the House of Commons. That is why I would like you to decide that it can be votable.

º (1640)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier, one of our colleagues was saying that some people in his riding were breaking windows and turning everything upside down. In your experience, when such things happen, is it not only because scabs are walking in front of the strikers to go in and do their work? The trouble is between these two groups. Whether employees are on strike or locked out, when another party gets involved, people feel frustrated. In your experience in Quebec, when such situations occur, is it because of provocation?

The public sector is not the only area that comes under federal jurisdiction. Some areas of the private sector are as well. For example all the mines in the Northwest Territories come under federal jurisdiction.

I would appreciate a brief comment on that.

Ms. Monique Guay: Take the case of the strike at Vidéotron, which has been dragging on for six months now. Yes, there has been violence and we certainly don't agree with that, but when you have a situation where the employees... I have met with Vidéotron employees and they say that their rights have been breached because they do not have the power to negotiate. Management told them that they would ultimately starve and that they would have to accept its offer. This situation was not satisfactory to either side. It's not true that Vidéotron, simply because it hired strikebreakers, will make just as much money as previously. The company is also facing problems. It is in the interest of both management and labour to settle this conflict as soon as possible.

Each party has to have the right to negotiate. The employer already has this right and my bill does not undermine it. In section 1, I say "... unless the employer has good and sufficient cause, the proof of which lies on the employer, not to reinstate those employees." An employer may wish not to re-hire an employee because this person caused major problems in the course of negotiations. The employer retains this choice.

We want the issue to be solved as quickly as possible by both parties and I feel that there is a certain amount of openness today. But let's not delude ourselves. Increasingly, there will be more negotiations with the unions, more contracts will be reopened and there will be more labour unrest. If each party is not given the tools to negotiate on an even playing field, there will be serious consequences.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Strahl.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just for clarification, I'm trying to think of whether it's in the public interest or not. The idea, the concept, is of interest, but you hear conflicting testimony. On the one hand, your statistics say the number of hours lost to strikes and lockouts continues to drop. Yet that's under the current laws. Do we need this bill or not? Can you explain the difference, then?

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: There is perhaps a distinction to be made. The figures I have provided to you, sir, concern companies under Quebec's jurisdiction, that is, under provincial jurisdiction. Since we passed an anti-strike-breaker law in Quebec, the length of strikes has decreased as a direct consequence. The parties involved can negotiate on more equal terms.

So, I'm strictly referring to businesses which fall under provincial jurisdiction where anti-strikebreaking legislation is already in place, and not to businesses which fall under federal jurisdiction. In the latter case, the length of strikes has actually increased significantly.

I fell it is high time that we consider the possibility of passing legislation in this area and that the subject be debated in the House of Commons. The matter must be discussed and we should try to find the most efficient solution for both parties.

The Chair: Mr. Duplain.

Mr. Claude Duplain: I have no questions, but I simply wanted to say that we have already heard a presentation on a similar bill.

Ms. Monique Guay: We are dealing with two different bills.

The Chair: You are referring to C-230.

º (1645)

Mr. Claude Duplain: That's correct. As members of the subcommittee, we will have to decide which item will be votable. That's the reason why I'm asking you this question.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I would like to make a clarification.

I asked the same question of our clerk, who looked into the matter. It was decided that the bills were not identical and that they did not deal with the same subject matter. In any case, if they had both been identical, the second bill—Ms. Guay tabled hers first—would have been deemed non-votable by the clerk and his legislative assistants. But in this case, they are not identical.

Mr. Claude Duplain: It is on that basis that I will make my choice as to which bill should be votable. If I have to choose between both of them I will opt for the one I prefer.

Ms. Monique Guay: I cannot give you an answer; that's up to you. You can examine both bills. I feel I have given you a good description of mine. The decision will be yours to make. I hope it's the right one.

The Chair: We are running out of time. I am sorry.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to ask a brief question.

The Chair: Please be very brief. We've done five and it took us one hour. We still have 26 to look at. I personally prefer to go to bed before sunrise.

Please be brief, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Someone brought up the subject of violence. I am curious to know whether the member is aware of the fact that, with regard to the case of a mine--which falls under federal jurisdiction-- in the Yukon, dynamite was used, and criminal charges were brought against certain individuals. That's how far it went. If there had been an anti-strikebreaking law similar to yours at the time, those people would have been protected.

Ms. Monique Guay: I have been fighting for a long time for the rights of workers and I hope that you will rule in favour of this bill. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Hello, Mr. Bellemare. You have five minutes to make your case and then we will have five minutes for questions, if there are any. You are here to defend Bill C-219.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My bill meets the five criteria. The object of my bill is basically to require elected members to swear allegiance to the Queen, as is already the case, but also to something else: they would be required to swear allegiance to their country. There is no contradiction between these two ideas.

As it now stands, under the Constitution, one must swear allegiance to the Queen. We cannot amend the Constitution without unanimous approval from all the provinces, but the Parliament of Canada Act can be amended. I would like to amend that particular piece of legislation so as to require a member to swear allegiance to Canada after having sworn allegiance to the Queen.

A senator who was recently appointed swore allegiance to the Queen and then said he would also like to swear allegiance to the country. This triggered a debate within the Senate and senators concluded that the matter should be further examined by the Senate, which may amend the oath of allegiance. It would be unfortunate if such an initiative came from the Senate. They are appointed by Order in Council whereas we are elected by the people and are accountable to them.

The time may have come to have a public debate on the issue of swearing allegiance to Canada at election time. The timing may be right to ask Canadians what they think about this issue. In 1994, when I presented my bill for the first time, people from everywhere, including the media and academics, supported me, but at that time, I also needed unanimous support from the committee. At the time, I thought that we should swear allegiance to the country and to the Constitution. But one party in particular did not like the idea of swearing allegiance to the Constitution and that's why I removed the word "Constitution". As it now stands, I am simply referring to our country, Canada. I know that the rules have changed and that all we need now is a consensus.

º (1650)

[English]

The country has changed quite a bit even in the last few years. As an example, in the last census, Canadian citizens were asked about their ethnic origins. Every time we have these questions from Census Canada, they usually answer, “Je suis un Canadien français”, “I'm from Ireland”, “I'm Scottish”, “Je suis allemand”, “I'm Japanese”. You may be surprised to learn—like I was—that for ethnicity, number one on the list was “I am Canadian”. Over eight million people answered that as their ethnicity. The next ethnicity was English, with six million, and then French, with five million, and it goes down the list like this. So, in Canada there's this phenomenon whereby people are getting attached to the country.

We have communities of communities in Canada. Because of our multiculturalism, we have black communities, white communities, oriental communities, Indian communities, and Pakistani communities. They are not divided, but what unites Canada is the country itself, and people like to say they're Canadian. When they go to the polls, they know we have an accountability or a responsibility to be accountable to them, and the responsibilities that we have make us accountable to our citizens and not to some head of state. Therefore, when we get elected, we should add to our swearing of allegiance to the Queen a swearing of allegiance to the country.

[Translation]

I will conclude by saying that yes, there are some people who will tell you that, in the Commonwealth, we swear an oath to the Queen, but I must tell you that in India, in Nigeria, in Jamaica and in several other Commonwealth countries, a second phase has already been added, enabling members of Parliament to swear an oath to the community or to their country, and in Australia, this subject is currently being debated.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellemare.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Borotsik.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Monsieur Bellemare, you said you had put this bill forward in 1994. Has it ever been voted on in the House of Commons?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: It was not votable. In those days in this committee, if there was one single person against a bill being made votable, it was done.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And that was the last time it was on the list?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: That was the last time it was picked. I've been praying ever since that it would be picked again. It finally has been picked, and I know I'm now facing a group that is very good.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's your opinion, Mr. Bellemare. It may not be shared by others, but thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I will resist the temptation of questioning the merit and the democratic nature of the bill which, by the way, is highly debatable. What I do understand, Mr. Bellemare, is that a democratically elected member of Parliament or a political party whose members have been democratically elected by the people who would refuse to swear an oath of allegiance, as you are suggesting, would not be able to sit in the House of Commons. Have I understood you correctly?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes, that's right. You understood correctly.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You still consider yourself to be a great democrat?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes?

º (1655)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Imagine the situation of somebody who wants to become a member of the Richelieu Club or become a Catholic, but who is anti-Catholic, if he were to become a Catholic, there would be a contradiction. If he wants to become a member of the Richelieu Club, he would have to abide by the regulations of the Richelieu Club. If he doesn't like all of the regulations of the Richelieu Club, he can do what he can to try and change them, but as for becoming a member of an organization that he is against...

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Bellemare, are you aware of the five criteria?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I'm looking at the criterion that states that the bill must pertain to issues that are of clear public interest. Today, October 30, 2002, do you still feel that the members' oath is of clear interest to Canadians from all provinces, coast to coast? Are you telling us that this issue is truly of clear public interest?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes, I am telling you that and I would even add that in 1994, in 1997 and in 2000, 35% of the MPs, no less, voluntarily added this aspect to their oath when they came here. One of the most noticeable groups to do this was the Canadian Alliance. Many of their representatives included this addition when they were sworn in.

Mr. Michel Guimond: So we don't need your bill if they can do this without one.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: We always go from the voluntary to the compulsory. As far as I'm concerned, I feel that if somebody wants to become a federal member of Parliament, it is because he wants to modify and enhance our laws or even change them. If there are representatives from a certain party or certain parties who want to change the laws, change the Constitution or change a whole range of things, they should take an oath to the organization to which they belong, namely, to the country and to the federal Parliament and, within this organization, they can change the regulations and the laws.

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

[English]

Good afternoon, Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Good afternoon. Thank you very much.

The Chair: I'm sure you know the rules and regulations. You have five minutes to pitch and five minutes for questions. You're here in regard to motion M-205.

Mr. John Herron: Yes, I am, sir.

It's my pleasure to be here today. I'm addressing a specific issue. I believe every single member of Parliament has constituents who walk through their office, once a month at a minimum, to complain about this one particular issue itself. It's an issue that is indeed national in scope with respect to the Canada student loans program itself.

I'd like to read the motion just from one context. It's says “That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider...”. I've intentionally chosen very measured language by utilizing the word “consider”. It's not “must”. What we're using here is a motion of the House of Commons. It's a parliamentary tool or instrument to be able to spur public debate on an issue that needs to be addressed.

To continue, “the government should consider eliminating the parental contribution standard for the Canada Student Loan program”. What's the problem with the Canada student loans program itself? In fact, it's not too much to expect parents to contribute to their children's education. That has been a mantra of our society for quite some time. The problem is that the Canada student loans program is inaccessible to a vast majority of individuals who need access to the loan program and who it's supposed to help.

A recent research study performed by the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation has found that “an inability to have access to necessary funds may be a bigger barrier to accessing post-secondary education than student debt itself”. We all know tuition rates have climbed in excess of 130% over the last decade. Student debt levels have quadrupled over that same time period. The fact is that we need a student loan program as an instrument that actually works, to ensure that we can compete in a knowledge-based economy, although there are other instruments and other ways to go about this issue.

On December 11, 2001, I wrote the Minister of Human Resources Development on this particular issue. The response received back from the minister at that time highlighted, from the minister's perspective, that “there is no need to make an adjustment with respect to the parental contributions standard”.

I subsequently wrote the minister again, and more recently received a response back in January 2002 that said:

“As part of the government's commitment to undertake a program review, however, the Canada Student Loans Program will be re-examining these limits to determine an appropriate level of federal loan assistance that will help students meet the rising costs of education without assuming unmanageable debt loads.”

The question should be whether or not this issue is already on the government's agenda. Is it on their radar screen? Three years have passed since I first raised this issue and student groups raised this issue. Every year that we miss means that in a generation of students, in a class, some individuals will make a decision not to seek higher learning itself.

The motion itself has pan-Canadian support already in the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, which represents 310,000 post-secondary educational students in Canada. CASA has wholeheartedly endorsed this particular motion, and they're calling on this committee to have a full-scale debate in which we can consider the elimination or even the adjustment of the parental contribution standard itself.

Just to show you how out of whack it is, a family of four in Ontario with an annual income of $55,000 is expected to contribute up to $8,680 toward their children's studies. That's an immense amount of money, and that money was deducted from what they would be applying for under the Canada student loans system itself. What if that family happens to have more than one student attending university? It becomes extremely problematic.

» (1700)

I'm asking this committee to provide the opportunity for a vote on this motion. I know every single one of your ridings has constituents who come in and say they can't access Canada student loans because the system is inadequate to their needs. We have an opportunity to stir debate on this issue and have the government consider making the adjustments that need to be done.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Does this motion... [Editor's note: technical difficulties] At the same time, if this were to be accepted, when one examine the Canadian Student Loan Program... [Editor's note: technical difficulties] In actual fact, people have to pay the money back. This is not about the government giving money. It's about giving an opportunity to these students which, in reality, are part of the middle class, because those who are quite poor don't have this problem. As for those who are fairly wealthy, I do not think that they have this problem either. Generally speaking, the people who are caught in this are people from the middle class.

Are we really thinking about giving an opportunity to these students in case the parents were to have twins or triplets or even children one after the other? Would that help them obtain a loan? In reality, this doesn't cost the government anything; the government merely authorizes the loan.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: I agree with where you're coming from, Yvon, but the truth is that it's not only the so-called middle-class Canadians. That $55,000 as a family income is not an immense amount of money. What I'm saying is that it's now causing individuals at the lower end of the income scale to not even have access as well to student loans. If you're starting to mow the grass of lower-income Canadians, you know middle-income Canada is being essentially shut out of a loan program that was established to help that swath of the population.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Well, I kind of made a statement there, but that's not what I want an answer on. It's not the one I'm most interested in. It's more that these loans are, in reality, from a bank now, and not the government. This is well targeted. People will be able to go to a bank and get a loan.

» (1705)

Mr. John Herron: They have to pay it back, so it's not a matter that the Government of Canada is writing a cheque to do this. Technically, though, Treasury Board does have to commit to allocate funds, because it is a partnership with private-sector institutions, so it's wrong to say that there isn't a financial component to it. That's why I went down the “consider” route: in order to make sure the clerk was confident I was not making a motion that would be inappropriate from a spending perspective.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I just have one quick question.

The motion calls for the government to “consider eliminating the parental contribution standard”. Are no limits anticipated on that? Are all parental contribution standards included, no matter what kinds of income levels the parents have? Is there no means test?

Mr. John Herron: The Canadian Alliance of Student Associations recommends that levels of expected contribution be reconsidered. The approach is that “reconsider” can go from eliminating to adjusting the threshold.

This is a motion, remember. It's to actually stimulate debate on that track. If Parliament passes this motion, the Government of Canada takes an initiative that, even re-adjusted, actually sees us doing a service to the student community within the country.

I've been able to make some conclusions from some research that I've done with student groups. On the parental contribution issue, on the means test, if the parents have the money—higher end—then, reasonably, from a means test perspective, they write the cheque to the student already. The elimination, then, is probably not an extreme position whatsoever. But, again, using the measured language that this motion actually has, it addresses that issue.

I'll tell you one thing. This committee chose to actually support a motion that I had on post-secondary issues less than a calendar year ago. It was the first time that I can remember that we had a comprehensive debate and a vote on accessibility to post-secondary education in five years. I think we actually stirred the pot a little bit to be able to say the tax code is a component to mitigating the impact of student debt. This committee actually made—obviously, I'm biased here—a wise decision, but it also united students from two organizations, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations and the Canadian Federation of Students. They never do anything together, but they teamed up behind that last motion that we had. If this committee could do the same thing now, we could at least get this on the radar screen in the Parliament of Canada. And we know every one of your ridings has constituents who have this problem.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Desjarlais, in regard to motion 197.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): I actually presented this motion previously and had it made votable. When the House was prorogued, of course, motions weren't reinstated, so I was quite pleased to be drawn again on the first draw back and have the opportunity to re-present. Hopefully, we'll have the same result, having it made votable.

The motion itself is quite basic. It calls for the Canada Pension Plan Act to be amended to consider worker's compensation payments pensionable employment. What I have found in the last two and a half years is that I have a couple of individuals in my riding who have been on worker's compensation and, as a result of receiving worker's compensation payments, will not have the full benefit of the Canada Pension Plan. They cannot make payments to Canada Pension based on their worker's compensation payments. The provinces align their legislation based on the Canada Pension Plan Act, which specifies employment income and does not consider worker's compensation payments employment income. It's quite unjust to suggest that when you're injured at work and receive worker's compensation payments, those payments should not be considered employment income.

That's the crux of it. No other CPP legislation has come before the House that could be amended to put this motion in. I have watched every piece that comes and checked it out, and none fits the criteria of the legislation before the House, because I would have done that at the first opportunity. I would encourage having this brought before the House, to give members an opportunity to vote on it, so workers have the opportunity to pay in and receive a full pension.

» (1710)

The Chair: Any questions?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is there anything else, Bev, other than contributions to CPP? If this were allowed, would those on worker's compensation benefits be allowed to contribute to other things?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Because it's amending the Canada Pension Plan Act, it strictly applies to CPP payments.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's all I wanted to know. Thank you. And this has been deemed votable before?

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Any other questions?

Thank you very much.

Madame Picard.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We have received your notes, which were prepared in both official languages. Thank you. You know how we work here: five minutes for your presentation and five minutes for questions, should there be any. You are here to introduce Bill C-226. The floor is yours.

Ms. Pauline Picard: This bill, Bill C-226, is a statutory amendment to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 (investment criteria) that will not affect government administration. The amendment it introduces would require the administrators of pension plans to prepare annual reports of the social, ethical and environmental factors that have been considered before making investments on the financial markets. The ultimate goal is to make their choices more transparent so that workers who have entrusted their savings to them know where their money has been invested.

The statutory amendment does not go so far as to require pension committees to make socially responsible investments, although it is very desirable that they do so, but would go so far as to require them to have a policy on that and to disclose that policy to plan members.

In concrete terms, half of the money changing hands on global financial markets belongs to small investors, and this money is pooled in pension funds. In Canada, this represents almost $600 billion, 90 billion of which comes from businesses under federal jurisdiction. This money belongs to workers, who have become one of the main engines of globalization. These investors wield significant influence, capable of making sustainable development a reality all around the world.

The statutory amendment would require businesses to produce broader statements than mere financial statements because it introduces the idea of a three-pronged approach to reporting, namely a financial statement complete with social and environmental statements. This new approach fits quite nicely into general business strategy. In fact, over 85% of large Canadian and American corporations have some kind of voluntary code of conduct governing social responsibility. However, only a small percentage of those corporations evaluate their performance methodically and regularly.

Institutional investors, including pension funds, wield significant financial clout. Half of the shares in large Canadian companies are held by pension funds and mutual funds. In Quebec, the assets of private pension funds are estimated at over $100 billion, 30 billion of which is held by the government and public employees' retirement plan alone.

In Canada, we see that in the absence of a precise definition of their fiduciary obligations, many pension fund administrators do not feel they have the discretion to take social responsibility into account in making their decisions. Some governments have already amended legislation to facilitate the introduction of non-financial criteria into investment policies and particularly to improve reporting in this regard. This has been done in the United Kingdom, Belgium and France. In Canada, socially responsible investment—investments to which at least one of the three ethical investment approaches applies—would currently represent total assets of $50 billion, of which almost 5 billion would be held in ethical funds and 5 more would be held in employee funds like those of the CSN or the FTQ, to name but two.

As for the role of the federal government in promoting corporate social responsibility, it can set an example. When purchasing goods and services, the government supports economic development or manages the capital entrusted to it. Would it not be appropriate for the government to require the businesses with which it deals to apply the principles of social responsibility? As you can see, the subject gives rise to some very interesting discussions. Although I agree that it should be left up to pension committees and administrators to decide the extent to which investment decisions for pension funds should be based on social responsibility criteria, I feel that the government can take action to ensure that those choices are more transparent.

In the United Kingdom, Germany and France, pension plan administrators or trustees are already required to disclose their responsible investment policy as part of their overall investment policy. Observers consider this to be a step in the right direction. Will we have the courage to follow suit?

I would like to remind you that the Canadian Democracy and Corporate Accountability Commission tabled a report in January 2002 in which it made 24 recommendations on corporate social responsibility.

» (1715)

The report states and I quote: "We consider this a matter of some urgency. On issues of corporate social responsibility, other democracies are moving forward."

The Quebec National Assembly has also published a study entitled "Responsabilité sociale des entreprises et investissement responsable", which is available at the committee secretariat. The study was begun in May 2002.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Picard.

Are there any questions? Yes, Michel.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Picard, on page 2 of the French version of the notes you gave us, you state that the legislative amendment does not go so far as to force committees to make socially responsible investments, even though that would be very desirable, but it might go as far as forcing them to establish a policy. Does your bill go far enough?

We could prohibit the federal public employees' pension fund from investing in such companies as Ikea and Nike, about whom there have been television reports, or in manufacturing facilities in Asia, the Philippines or elsewhere that use children as slave labour. We could prohibit the fund from buying shares in those companies.

We remember young Craig Kielburger, who denounced child labour in India's carpet manufacturing plants, and I believe accompanied Prime Minister Chrétien on a Team Canada mission to India.

This would be an effort to provide guidelines for investment.

Ms. Pauline Picard: In answer to the first question, I agree with you completely. Of course it would be wonderful to have a statute like the one you described. The amendment we are putting forward now is only a small step in the right direction, but it could be a start. We could debate the issue and consult the people, then come up with a new bill or amend the current legislation to strengthen these efforts. We would also have the means to strongly recommend that companies make socially responsible investments, particularly when using their pension funds. For example, no money would be invested in companies that use child labour, that pollute, or that make no efforts to reduce pollution.

I agree with all these objectives, and the purpose of my amendment is to achieve them. However, as I was saying earlier, it is only a small step. But we can begin with this small step, and then see what we can do later.

I know that it seems somewhat contradictory to say that the amendment which my bill introduces would oblige pension fund administrators to prepare reports. We want them to table reports and tell us which factors they have taken into account when making specific investments.

This amendment does not force corporations to invest responsibly, but it does suggest that responsible investment is a desirable course.

» (1720)

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Ms. Picard.

Yes, Mr. Duplain.

Mr. Claude Duplain: So if directors invest in a given company, they would be forced to tell us where they invest. However, if that company invests in another company, that other company would also be obliged to report. The reporting requirement would apply at all stages.

Ms. Pauline Picard: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that corporations are open, and produce reports in which they tell their members and tell us where they have invested, and what factors they have taken into account when investing in a given corporation.

Mr. Claude Duplain: And to prepare their final reports, they would need a report from the companies involved. The reporting requirement would apply at all levels.

Ms. Pauline Picard: That is absolutely correct.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Picard.

[English]

Mr. Grewal, good afternoon.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members.

The Chair: You know how the system works: five minutes--

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm aware, and I'm sure members have copies of the bill. If not, I brought extra copies.

The Chair: You're on.

Mr. Grumant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is to protect members of the Public Service of Canada who disclose or blow the whistle in good faith, with well-founded allegations of wrongdoing in the public service, to a supervisor or to a public body. The public interest is served when employees within the public service are free to make known any type of wrongdoing, mismanagement, waste, fraud, abuse, or cover-up without fear of retaliation or discrimination. Currently, public servants often remain silent for fear of retaliation and loss of employment. Seven in ten HRDC employees who appeared before the HRDC committee as witnesses testified that there would be reprisals if they voiced concerns about ethical breaches in their department.

Mr. Chairman, no longer will concerned public servants have to pass brown envelopes that are half-baked, lacking evidence or proper information. We know the Walkerton water problems could have been prevented if the employees were not afraid of blowing the whistle. There are many examples in Health Canada, Transport Canada, Fisheries, and so on. After the September 11 event the need for whistle-blowing becomes more evident and urgent. Intelligent, honest, diligent, trustworthy public servants, committed to making a difference, blow the whistle with the best interests of the public in mind. Bill C-201 will promote the dignity and human rights of public service employees by providing them with protection. The act doesn't violate requirements for secrecy or confidentiality.

Mr. Chairman, Bill C-201 ensures for Canada in law, not just in a weak policy, a framework for a legal grievance procedure and defined recourse for conscientious public servants who report wrongdoing within the system. Currently there is not a legal framework protecting the whistle-blower from retaliatory action. My bill provides such a framework. Bills proposed by senators and other members of Parliament fail to provide the legal framework necessary to protect public servants from reprisal after they have blown the whistle. The Treasury Board policy guidelines do not provide them with legal protection from disciplinary actions. Senator Kinsella agrees that an internal ombudsman doesn't have the legal teeth to enforce a decision. Public servants need a legislated legal framework for the government to take remedial action and law to provide recourse in case of harassment and to ensure a secure working environment. This Bill C-201, a whistle-blower human rights act, achieves all of these.

Mr. Chairman, Canada is falling behind other jurisdictions, like the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the EU, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, even Uganda, even Russia. They have this legislation. The Public Service Commission, the Public Service Staff Relations Board, the Professional Institute of Public Servants, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, all have called for the enactment of this type of legislation. The Auditor General of Canada in 1995 called for whistle-blowing protection for public officials who discharge their obligation to ensure that instances of wrongdoing do not go undetected or uncorrected. Even Canada's federal integrity officer says we need a strong new law.

I have a copy of a newspaper clipping, Mr. Chairman, I can share with you later on.

So in a nutshell, this bill is drafted in clear, complete, and effective terms, with the help of whistle-blowers themselves. This bill has very significant public interest. It's not part of the government agenda yet, and it is absolutely non-partisan. Members from all parties want the government to run efficiently. There can be wrongdoing of any type in any government. It will continue to happen until we, the legislators, put in place a legal framework to protect whistle-blowers. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I'm very sure you and your members will find that the bill meets the criteria of the committee hands down. It's a very important issue, having wide implications in Canada. I'm sure you and your members will make this bill votable.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome any questions.

» (1725)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Grewal.

Any questions?

[Translation]

Are there any questions?

[English]

Yes, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Has this bill been brought up in another format before that you know of, or something similar?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes, this bill has been brought in two forms in the past. I reintroduced this bill in this session. I've had it in the pipeline for a long time, but I never had an opportunity to appear before you to make it votable. There is a similar bill in the Senate, but it lacks a few things. This is the only bill, out of all the bills, that was drafted with the help of various whistle-blowers and various public institutes. I have so many documents to prove that. All of them have been consulted, the Professional Institute of Public Servants of Canada and so on. You'll find this bill very broad, but comprehensive.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You said that this bill provided a better framework for the legislation than others which had been put forward. Do you have a simple example of the difference between this bill and the other bills or motions that were put forward?

As far as I remember, there has already been a discussion on this in the House of Commons. What is the difference between this bill and the others?

» (1730)

[English]

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Definitely. You'll find there are so many clauses there. For example, with the Privacy Act there are some exceptions. If there is some information that is crucial to national security, public interest, or protected under the Privacy Act, there are some exceptions. Similarly, there are some penalties if someone has just come out without any evidence.

But at the same time, I'm quite open and leave it to the wisdom of the members of the House on that issue to have their input. I'm not only concentrating on the ombudsman, and in some bills they say only that someone should be reporting to the House of Commons, so maybe we'll be busy for quite some time dealing with the whistle-blowers. So this bill gives a wider mechanism whereby whistle-blowers can come forward to, for example, their supervisors, and then to any public body, which can be a court, any department, or any body under the law. In fact, it's streamlining a legislative process. It will become a legal framework for the whistle-blowers. For example, Senator Kinsella's bill doesn't have a legal framework. My bill is, in fact, endorsed by various institutions that I referred to in my opening remarks.

[Translation]

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

[English]

Thank you very much, Mr. Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for the opportunity to explain this. I'm sure you will all be very considerate in making it votable.

The Chair: Okay.

We're going to take a two-minute break, so that we can all be sitting around the table at the same time and listening to pitches. For committee members--that excludes you spectators--there are some sandwiches in the next room if you want to take a break, because we're on until about 10 o'clock at the rate we're going. So let's take a two-minute break, and we'll be right back.

» (1745)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you for your patience.

Mr. St-Julien, welcome before the committee. You are here to present motion M-10. You have five minutes to explain your motion to us and five minutes to answer questions.

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): I tabled the documents in both English and French, and you have received them. They provide you with an explanation of what is happening in Quebec. I will also be introducing this brief elsewhere, before the Commission.

The purpose is to establish a federal electoral riding for Nunavik. On the map we are now looking at, Nunavik begins at the 55^th parallel. This shows the entire sector of Nunavik.

[English]

...up to the 55th parallel. Go to the 60th. My district starts at Val-d'Or, just over there, and goes to the north 2,000 kilometres.

[Translation]

So we are talking about establishing a riding. I will not elaborate on all the points set forth in my brief. What counts is that I have complied with the list of criteria. This is in line with the Constitution. I am not asking for a 76^th riding. I am asking for one of the 75 ridings that already exist in Quebec. This is in the public interest.

I have consulted the Inuit. This is the second time I am tabling this motion. It came out of the fish bowl last time, but the House of Commons prorogued and my motion dropped off the Order Paper. I've tabled it again, and it was selected again. After consulting many Nunavik residents, we decided to put the old motion back on the Order Paper. That is motion M-10, which you see before you today.

At present, voters in Nunavik are divided among 14 municipalities, spread over the vast Arctic region. Nunavik has an area of 500,000 square kilometers, beginning at the 55^th parallel, and will be acquiring another 250 square kilometers with the coastal islands. On Friday, Nunavik concluded an agreement in principle with the federal government. When that agreement is signed in six months, it will acquire the surrounding Charles and Ottawa islands.

People of Nunavik know little about issues involved in election campaigns. They do not even know all the political parties we have on the Hill, and candidates never go there. I will be spending three days there during my election campaign. Many voters in the area speak only Inuktitut, and read the syllabic alphabet, the Inuit alphabet. You know that Inuit are Inuit, and not aboriginal people. The Inuit are not part of the First Nations.

People living south of the 55^th parallel are fully integrated into the social, economic and democratic structure of neighbouring ridings. In southern Nunavik, people are very integrated. They have roads, and share little with the people of Nunavik.

The Inuit want a vote on this motion, because it is in the best interest of all Inuit in Nunavik. Their region is remote, they have no roads, they have 2,500 kilometres of shoreline, and the only service they have is air transport. This region is in the Far North, beyond the tree line.

On page 9 of the brief that I tabled, and that I will also present in Quebec, I state:

Absence of services. The Inuit come under Quebec and Canada's legal, administrative and tax systems. And unlike other aboriginal groups in Quebec, the Inuit pay income tax and all consumer taxes, just like other Quebec and Canadian citizens. We therefore have the right to claim the same services that are provided to citizens in other parts of Quebec.

The Inuit have been seeking such services for over 30 years. They even came down to Quebec City by snowmobile to present their claim. They have done a great deal of work on this, and many decisions have been rendered.

There is the issue of the James Bay Treaty. The people of Nunavik want a riding, and want to have a Nunavik representative in the House of Commons to help them with the issues that matter to them. Thank you.

» (1750)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St-Julien.

Are there any questions? Yes, sir.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: For clarification, in the brief you've given us you mentioned that the commission de la représentation électorale has made proposals that are unsatisfactory. Is that the federal commission on boundary distribution or the provincial?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: The Inuit sent me the English version today. This was the presentation they made to Quebec last year, in December 2001. They will be making the same presentation again. They will be changing some terms, but this is the example that will be given to the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission, which will have to make the decision in the months ahead about federal constituency boundaries in Quebec. It will be the same thing, using the same terms.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

What is the approximate population of this region, Mr. St-Julien?

Mr. Guy St-Julien: The population is between 10,000 and 12,000, and there are 5,000 people who can vote.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. St-Julien. Good evening.

Mr. Stoffer.

[English]

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

I am pleased to have this opportunity to meet with my colleagues from the House.

[English]

The particular bill I have before you, Bill C-206, in a nutshell, would fundamentally change the way we provide for people under palliative care in this country. If, for example, my wife and I are both working outside the house and we have a child, she is then entitled to claim maternity leave or I paternity leave for a maximum of a certain period, almost up to a year. With this particular bill--and I don't mean this on a personal level--if my wife's mother's doctor says she has cancer, she has six months to live, and she's going to require extensive care, my wife and I would have a choice: either she could be put in a nursing home under expensive care, depending on the province you live in, or, because it is my mother or my relative, we can decide to keep her in our home and provide the care. If we don't have the resources to hire a VON nurse or use nursing home care, my wife or I would need to take time off work to provide that type of care. Could we afford to lose my wife's income or my income?

Basically, the bill would allow that if a licensed physician says this person needs to be institutionalized, but the individual can be brought to a home and cared for by a relative, this particular individual is able to claim unemployment insurance for up to a maximum of one year. In most cases under a palliative care situation the person lives for six months, on average.

I have worked through over 384 palliative care associations and caregiver associations throughout the country. A part of the direction of this bill is actually in the recent throne speech. Senator Sharon Carstairs, who's the leader in the Senate, is basically now our minister responsible for palliative care in the country. Not only the government, but many parliamentarians from across political parties are now addressing the issue of caregiving very seriously. In many ways this is called a palliative care bill, which would enable people to leave their place of employment to care for a loved one for the remaining time they have on this earth. It not only provides dignity in the face of death, but it also allows an individual to care for someone and prevent the institutionalization of that individual.

We've worked out the dollars saved on this. For every dollar of unemployment insurance that would go to the individual for income you would save approximately $6 to $8 in provincial and federal coffers by not having that person go into an institution.

This bill, Mr. Chairman, in all honesty, crosses all political lines. It is a growing issue. As we speak right now, in the country we have over 100,000 caregivers providing for people in a serious rehabilitative situation, a severe situation like Alzheimer's, or a situation where they're in palliative care. The burden on these people--and 90% of the caregivers are women--is great, with the issues of respite care and everything else, and they're cracking under the weight of this responsibility. A lot of people are making a very serious and tough decision about providing care to their loved ones. This bill will provide financial relief through unemployment insurance, in order to assist them while they provide care for their loved ones.

Mr. Chairman, with the greatest of respect, I know you have many members of Parliament here with very serious issues and very serious concerns in their bills and motions. I certainly don't want to jump the queue in any way, and I will always respect the decision of this committee. But this particular bill I've been working on since I became a member in the House of Commons, and I will continue to do so as long as I'm elected. It is so serious in this country, and this would fundamentally change things and assist those people. We are all considered the sandwich generation. We have children and we have parents. Any one of us in that position knows--and maybe some of us have been through that position--how tough it really is to make those choices. I'm very pleased that the government has addressed it in the throne speech and that many members of Parliament throughout have addressed it as well.

Mr. Chairman, I beg indulgence of the committee. I thank you very much for the opportunity to present what I consider, of all the bills and motions I've presented, the most serious one to date.

Merci beaucoup. Thank you for your time.

» (1755)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you. Is there any questions? Thank you very much

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much. See you later, gentlemen

[English]

The Chair: Have a good evening.

Bonsoir, monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

¼ (1800)

The Chair: This is motion M-238. You have five minutes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's exactly it.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, it's a great pleasure to be here tonight before this subcommittee to defend, if I may express it in that manner, the “votability” of motion M-238 which reads as follows: “That this House officially acknowledge the harm suffered by the Acadian people from 1755 to 1763.”

As you perhaps know, Acadia will be celebrating the 400th anniversary of its founding in 2004. Unfortunately, this first people of European origin to put down roots in America suffered wounds that still hurt today because of the deportation of more than 10,000 Acadian men and women between 1755 and 1763, almost half of whom died during the event: parents separated from their children, husbands from their wives, loaded on to ships like cattle, some of them forced to hide out in the woods and live in constant fear despoiled of all their goods and property. This tragedy dispersed, until this very day, thousands of Acadian families who, for the most part, never managed to return to their fertile farms, the fertile land that they had patiently cultivated, because they were scattered throughout America and Europe. It therefore became very difficult for all those who were separated from their kith and kin to find them again.

The Beaubassin Manifesto, which was published in the Acadie Nouvelle last October 25, confirms the deep consequences of the deportation. I'm quoting:

For us, the undersigned, the consequence is clear: we have lost contact with that part of our history dating from before 1755, in other words we have been forced to deny, as a community, those tragic events that took place from 1755 to 1763. We can affirm that the Acadian people is suffering from a kind of collective amnesia: we do not celebrate our heroes and heroines, we do not emphasize the important things that the Acadian people did as colonizers.

Those sad events have led to a historical cutoff because the deportation of the Acadians is not well known and in most of our history books is only given passing mention. Motion M-238's object is not to rewrite history but to allow us to look with serenity on part of our collective memory so that the deportation of the Acadians will not be perceived any longer as a non-event but rather as a tragedy that must not be repeated.

'Motion M-238's objective is not to reopen old wounds, either, but, on the contrary, to put some soothing balm on this wound which is still fresh and hurtful to the collective memories of Acadians and to throw down the cornerstones of a real reconciliation. The members in this House will have a unique opportunity to look at this part of our history that is too often overlooked, as I was saying, and they should be able to express their views on the matter through a vote. If the House of Commons cannot or will not look serenely at our past, who will be able to do it and who will want to?

It is now up to us, as parliamentarians, to make our position known on this debate that is ongoing in the ranks of the Acadian people and whose complexity cannot be studied in a single hour of debate. Some might say: yes, but haven't we discussed this matter recently? Yes, we did debate it when motion M-241 was brought forward during the preceding Parliament, Mr. Chairman, but I should also point out that the purpose of that motion was for the Crown to apologize or, under the amendment that we introduced, officially recognize the facts surrounding the deportation.

Within the framework of the debate, at that time, I was asked—and I think it's a legitimate argument—if I did not think that we were putting the cart before the horse, in other words asking the Crown to recognize an event that this Parliament never even recognized itself. Fine. Thus I chose to put the question in such a manner that our Parliament might also recognize those events.

I am convinced, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, that those undeniable historical facts, in other words the events surrounding the deportation, will one day be officially recognized by the House of Commons and even by the British Crown and that apologies will then be presented. As for me, Mr. Speaker, this is a historical rendez-vous for all parliamentarians and I believe that we should not miss the appointment. I thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Any questions?

Mr. Strahl.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Not that I want to get you to argue against your own motion, but what's going to be the argument against this? As you mentioned, there was some fuss over whether the Queen should be involved, whether an apology was warranted or not, but this one doesn't include that. Why can't you walk into the House and get consent for that? What's the protest?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's an excellent suggestion. I must say, most sincerely, that I simply wanted to follow the usual procedure and the process provided for by the Standing Orders which is to put the question on the Order Paper and then, if the motion is drawn, to appear before this committee to be able to defend its "votability". But you are right: the best thing that could happen to this motion is for it to be passed unanimously. I think that everyone would come out a winner, the Parliament of Canada, Acadia, and after that, even the British Crown.

The Chair: Any further questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.

The Chair: Good evening, Mr. Lincoln. You know how we work. You have five minutes to convince us. Then we will have five minutes to put the questions to you if there are any. You are here on Bill C-235.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, first of all Bill C-235 meets all of the committee's criteria. It's a very simple bill requiring that oxygen be mixed in with diesel fuel and gasoline for cars with a weight ratio of 2.7%, which is something like 8% per volume for each litre of gasoline.

There is no oxygen mixed in with gasoline in its normal state. The idea is to oxygenate the gasoline which, if it can be done, would give us far purer gasoline. The more oxygen you mix into it, the purer it becomes. There are places in the U.S.A. where they experimented with that. In Brazil, they've added 22% oxygen. In Sweden, it's 100% oxygen in some circumstances for buses and in the U.S.A. it's 85%. But we're not asking for that because we couldn't produce enough.

[English]

We can produce our oxygenated gas by ethanol, corn ethanol, wheat, buffalo grass, biomass. Municipal solid waste can be turned into an additive for gas.

My bill is copied from a bill from the State of Minnesota. Twenty-eight states of the United States have passed similar legislation. In Minnesota alone it caused the creation of 10 ethanol plants over the last four years, producing 900 million litres of ethanol, three times what we produce in Canada. In Chicago, because of a similar bill in Illinois, they have reached a production of 2.25 billion litres of ethanol and created 5,600 jobs.

[Translation]

The Canadian provinces have joined a movement to promote ethanol. For example, Quebec is part of a coalition of 24 U.S. governors promoting ethanol.

[English]

So my bill is right now in the stream of all this business about climate change and what we do about renewable energy. This is a very small example of what we can do without too many problems. You might say, well, ethanol is going to happen anyway, but legislation will push it forward and make it happen, as it did in Minnesota and other states of the United States where they have passed similar bills and production has immediately gone up, because it gives a signal to the industry to start producing. It's a tremendous boost to that.

So I recommend this bill as being a forward-looking piece of legislation for clean air, for quality of life, for health, for better fuels, and economically, it's a big advantage for all of us in Canada.

¼ (1805)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Borotsik.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

For clarification, you talk about oxygenation of automotive fuels and you refer to ethanol. So the ethanol as an additive is what you're referring to?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: It could be any form of whatever produces oxygen in gasoline. Right now the most practical means is some form of ethanol. It doesn't have to be corn ethanol; it could be a process derived from municipal waste or it could be a process derived from sugar cane.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: There are some provinces now who have already identified a requirement for an E10 or an E15, sometimes E5. Some provincial governments have already done that. Would that certainly--

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, exactly. That just reinforces the federal level. At the federal level, as you know, we regulate the content of gasoline. We are the people who decided to take lead out of gasoline. So if the federal government were to adopt a bill that said we should oxygenate for at least 2.7% by weight, which is 8% in natural additives, such as ethanol--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Lincoln, is that some provincial governments have already done this.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I know.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Would that be seen as a provincial jurisdiction?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, not at all. There's nothing to stop this. It's completely within the constitutional rights of Canada. There's nothing that clashes with the provincial jurisdictions. In fact, most of the provinces will welcome it with open arms.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Guimond, if you please.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Lincoln, there's a criterion requiring that the bill must be of manifest public interest. Are there ongoing discussions right now within Canadian society? Last night or yesterday morning I saw that you gave out all the e-mail addresses of the members of the subcommittee to get people to send us e-mail so that this bill would become votable. That's not a usual tactic, but if I haven't received any e-mail to that effect, then it's because the public doesn't have any manifest interest in this matter.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I dare hope that we're not going to gauge the public's interest by the number of e-mails that we receive. The fact is that today, when you talk about public interest, you're talking about Kyoto. Now that's really exactly what the matter is all about today. Everyday, in the newspapers, there is a debate on what's going to be done about the Kyoto Protocol and gasoline is at the very root of everything that should be done. If, tomorrow morning, our gasoline can be made purer all across Canada... Quebec is pushing in that direction and a plant is going to be built at Varennes. Quebec has joined 24 American states. The American states are pursuing this energetically and the American Congress is working on an identical piece of legislation. So this certainly is in the public interest. The public interest is all that's being discussed at this point.

¼ (1810)

Mr. Michel Guimond: That is why you sent emails with our addresses.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Of course.

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

[English]

Are there other questions?

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lincoln, and good night.

[English]

Mr. Caccia. Good evening, sir.

[Translation]

L'hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You know how we work and you know that you have five minutes. You are here for Bill C-220.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Colleagues, to begin with, I would like to thank you for welcoming me here and for your patience.

[English]

I will make my points in a telegraphic manner, so as to take up less than five minutes. I can appreciate very much your difficult task when I am competing with 27 very worthwhile proposals.

It seems to me that it would be fairly easy for you to gauge the level of public interest in the proposal for labelling genetically modified food and products.

Almost to the day a year ago, we had a vote in the House, and the private member's bill preceding this was defeated by a vote of 124 to 91. Has there been any progress on this issue? Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, none.

Is this a public interest issue? I would submit that it is very much so. I have just a sample of correspondence received in support of the bill by way of e-mail, and it is not the total picture. Therefore, I would say that Canadians still do wish to know what they eat, and the expression of that desire is best summarized in an e-mail by a gentleman who wrote saying he would like to know what he's eating and he thinks it is his right, as a consumer, to know what he's choosing on the shelves.

Finally, there is also an export dimension to this issue, not just a consumer protection aspect, namely, that we are losing markets, particularly in the European Union, which now consists of 15 nations, soon to be expanded to 25, with a population of almost 400 million consumers. We cannot enter that market unless our products are labelled. We even had the case in Quebec with Unibroue, a brewery that was only able to enter the French market once it was able to demonstrate that its beer was made with malt that was not genetically modified. And in order to do that, it had to import the malt from abroad, because it could not do it with Canadian malt.

That's my submission, and I thank you again for your attention.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions?

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Wasn't this issue also handled by some of the standing committees in the last session? Mind you, it doesn't matter, it's a new session. Didn't agriculture deal with this?

Mr. Charles Caccia: The committee on health was asked, by way of a letter signed by four ministers, to examine this matter and to report by the end of June. That committee, because it received legislation on pesticides, was not able to deal with this matter, and so it is now lost, because of the new session.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I think that there was a Bloc Québécois motion at the same time. I recall that the NDP member also had a motion and it was the Bloc Québécois motion that was chosen as the votable item, and it was voted on. So this is similar.

¼ (1815)

Mr. Charles Caccia: There was a motion by Ms. Alarie, of the Bloc Québécois, which was voted on before this bill, but it is the same thing.

The Chair: Mr. Duplain.

Mr. Claude Duplain: I think that everyone, from the word go, is in favour of mandatory labelling. This issue was in fact discussed at the Agriculture and Agrifood Committee, whose report recommended voluntary labelling, and Canadian consumer groups who appeared before the committee indicated that they supported voluntary and not mandatory labelling. I just wanted to know something, since we are talking about the public interest. When consumer groups tell the committee...

There is also the difficulty involved. You talk about 1%. That is a very small percentage and I wonder how we are going to figure out if there is 1% in a pizza, for example. But that would get us into too long a discussion.

Mr. Charles Caccia: It depends on the group. There are groups that are founded by producers but that look like consumer groups, and they favour a voluntary system, but I can tell you that most consumer groups favour mandatory labelling. There is a lot of evidence to that effect.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Caccia, and good night.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Thank you.

[English]

Now we have Ms. Davies. Good evening.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Good evening.

The Chair: I remember your being here before, so you know very well how it goes. Do you ever buy lotto tickets? Maybe you should.

Ms. Libby Davies: No. I have very good luck, but not with having my things made votable. So I'm going to try again.

The Chair: Okay. So you're here for motion 192.

Ms. Libby Davies: That's right. Thank you for the opportunity to appear.

I think my motion is pretty straightforward. It's calling for a special committee of the House to be appointed to review the solicitation laws, to look at the safety issues, and to recommend changes that will reduce exploitation and violence against prostitutes or sex trade workers and improve safety overall.

You may wonder why this is coming forward. It's actually a huge issue. We currently have provisions under the Criminal Code dealing with solicitation. Those provisions haven't been reviewed since 1985--some of you may remember the Fraser committee. There have been some amendments, but as for an overall review of the Criminal Code, this has never had a full public debate on whether or not these laws are working, particularly with the street-level sex trade. What has caused me to bring this forward, as some of you may be aware, is the situation in the downtown east side, where 63 women are missing and presumed murdered. All of them are sex trade workers. And although there are many factors involved in the tragedy of what's gone on, one of the factors is the Criminal Code itself and the role it plays, particularly with the sex trade on the street.

I met with the Minister of Justice and had a very good discussion with him about a week and a half ago, and I've done a lot of work in my riding in bringing together organizations and service providers to talk about what changes are needed. You'll see in this motion that I'm not saying we need legalization or decriminalization. This is a very big debate, but it does require an examination as to whether or not the current laws are actually improving safety or are contributing to the harm done, not only to these individual women but to the community as a whole. I feel that I've gone as far as I can go as one MP. It's a very big issue for me. Think about what it would mean in your riding if 63 women were missing.

I have talked to other members of the House and found that there's actually a fair amount of interest from members on all sides of the House in discussing this. I've also had a brief discussion with the minister responsible for the status of women, and she expressed interest as well. Theoretically, the justice committee could take this up, but it doesn't really happen. It always seems to be at the bottom of the agenda, although I was encouraged when the justice minister said he wanted to look at an overall review of the Criminal Code and the values that are contained there. So I feel that unless this somehow comes forward on its own, through a debate in the House, with the opportunity to have a committee struck, it may never be dealt with.

I want to give you a concrete example of where this has been, I think, a good process on another issue. I'm on the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. We're actually just now working on our final report. It's a similar kind of thing. There's a status quo, there are a lot of issues about the status quo, and so a committee has actually been able to look at that.

I really feel that there's an opportunity here to have a very honest discussion on this issue. It doesn't just affect my riding. I realize that not everybody's riding is affected by this, but the sex trade and the relationship to the Criminal Code and what's happening on our streets would certainly be an issue in the major centres across Canada. So I think it could be a good debate, and I would really like to see the House come together and say, yes, we want to sit down and talk about this, and we need a mechanism to do that.

¼ (1820)

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is there a public appetite for this, Libby? We talk about public needs, public interest; is there a public appetite? I know in your area there is. It's very important to you. I mean nationally.

Ms. Libby Davies: Not overall. In some areas it's a very serious issue. I've talked with groups who are involved with this issue across the country, and I think there's a feeling that it's been neglected as an area of public policy. Is it the number one issue Canadians think about when they go home at night? No. But to me it's the kind of issue where, as parliamentarians, we have some responsibility to say, we're the ones who create these laws; are they actually doing more harm than good at this point? We need to have a thoughtful debate about that, and I think there is interest in doing that.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Have a good evening.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard, you have two bills. One has come back because it died on the order paper; the old number was C-326 and it is now C-228. Maybe you should buy lottery tickets, since another of your bills was drawn: C-229.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): When you lead a good life, Mr. Chairman, fortune smiles on you.

The Chair: In that case, I am going to buy some tickets. Thank you very much.

We will take them one by one, beginning with C-228, if you don't mind. You can answer any questions on that one and then we will go to your other bill.

You have five minutes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: In any case, if I had to choose, I would want C-228 to be votable.

This bill was introduced first in 1996. It seeks to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act—we are not talking about the Charter here, but the Canadian Human Rights Act—by adding social condition to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

This is a very important issue. For a number of years now, every time the Commission tables its official annual report, there is a call for Parliament to add social condition as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Seven provinces have already added it to their human rights code. Taking this step could make a difference for people having problems with employment insurance or facing discrimination when they deal with banks, apply for housing or use public services. So this is really very important, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission has asked us to move in that direction.

The bill also proposes the creation of a new offence: the refusal by a bank—I talk about banks because they come under federal jurisdiction—to open a bank account for someone just because that person does not have much money. This is a very real problem for people right now, and the latest review of the Bank Act did not really deal with it. I think that this is something very concrete that we can do to reduce poverty.

Third, the bill asks the Canadian Human Rights Commission to carry out a statutory review of all legislation introduced in Parliament. The Canadian Human Rights Commission will have to ensure that there is no anti-poverty bias and table a report in Parliament, which will be discussed in both Chambers, on whether any of the provisions have an impact on poverty. Imagine how helpful a requirement like that on the part of the Human Rights Commission would have been, for example, in the debate on the Employment Insurance Act, which was a bill that all political parties had concerns about.

Finally, the fourth provision in the bill is aimed at ensuring that the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission is the subject of a six-hour debate. Our constituents often tell us that we do not have much scope for discussion and that they have the impression that the poverty issue gets lost in the shuffle. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, it seems to me, is the most appropriate body to deal with this issue, and there will be a mandated six-hour debate on its report. Six hours is certainly not too long. As parliamentarians, we need to be made aware of these issues.

This bill is relevant to the public interest because it focuses on this issue of social condition. It is relevant to the public interest because it deals with banks. Poverty, of course, is a problem in all Canadian cities. This bill has the merit of not having much impact on the public treasury. I think that we can amend the act without involving any additional expenditures.

¼ (1825)

The Chair: Are there any questions?

[English]

Are there any questions on Bill C-228?

[Translation]

Thank you.

You have five minutes for Bill C-229.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I am also very enthusiastic about this bill. You must not think that I do not feel that it is important.

This bill is inspired by what the Kennedys did in the United States in 1977. In the United States, which is so attached to private enterprise, a law was passed called the Community Reinvestment Act. I went to the United States to meet with the senator and I could see that it was possible to do something very concrete with respect to banks: we could ask the Superintendent of Financial Institutions—here we are talking about the banks again—to call on bank branches in ridings with unemployment levels above the national average to take steps to reinvest in the community. As you will see, this bill defines community reinvestment as the balance that should exist between the amount deposited in a branch by designated persons and the loans granted to them. In many cases, there are financial institutions in communities but unfortunately no synergy of cash turnover or income generation that could stem from the presence of these financial institutions, since few loans are granted to individuals or firms in that area.

What is proposed in the bill obviously cannot be coercive in nature. There is no legal provision that would allow us, as legislators, to require the banks to reinvest in their communies reinvestment. Under this bill, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions would evaluate annual reports provided by the designated bank branches to determine what efforts are being made. In the United States, the strong point of the Community Reinvestment Act, which has been amended three times since 1977, is the evaluation by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. Banks get an A, B, C or D rating for their efforts. Naturally, consumer groups are aware of these ratings. I think that one of the ways of ensuring that banks act as good community citizens in the communities that need their help is through public pressure. That public pressure will come as a result of the superintendent's report being made public.

That is an overview of the bill.

The Chair: Are there any questions?

[English]

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The bill says that at the end of each financial year every branch shall pay into a special fund 5% of its income for the financial year and then lend it out in micro-credit. Are you saying that the American banking system has that for every branch?

¼ (1830)

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No. I am sorry. I should have presented that model.

Yes, there are funds available in the United States for micro-credit, but not under the Community Reinvestment Act. This bill is different in that it proposes that micro-credit be dealt with through regulation. That aspect is not defined in the bill. Only the general obligations are defined. The bill indicates that efforts should be made to provide micro-credit.

The basic difficulty is that financial institutions frequently do not grant small loans. In Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, and I am sure that this is true in other communities, if a person needs $300 to replace a broken refrigerator at the end of the month, the financial institution will not even set up a meeting to discuss the loan. Banks need to look at micro-credit. One way to stimulate community reinvestment would be to pass regulations suggesting a percentage that could be earmarked for a fund that would be allocated in accordance with criteria that could be defined through regulation. That is a complimentary measure. It is a concrete example of micro-credit and the nature of community reinvestment on the part of banks.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

[English]

Are there any other questions?

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard. Have a good evening.

Mr. Marceau, good evening.

You know how the committee works. You have five minutes. You are here to talk about motion M-141.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): That is right. Mr. Chairman, I may not need all the time I have been given.

I will start by telling members of the committee that motion M-141 meets the five criteria that we were sent by your committee. You, the members of the jury, all travel on parliamentary business or for personal reasons, and I am sure that you have noticed that when you go abroad, the only two sources of international information available are CNN and the BBC. In some areas of the world, there is also the Al-Jazeera news network, for those who speak Arabic.

In the context of the struggle being led by a number of francophone countries, Jacques Chirac, the President of France, has launched the idea of creating an international francophone news network. This idea, in my opinion, would address one of the objectives that Canada has set for itself in the international arena, that is, to fight for cultural diversity. If this motion is debated and adopted, Canada could join ranks with France and other francophone governments that are working to ensure that cultural diversity is an important element in our world. This motion, if adopted, would also make sure that in specific situations no one or two sources of information will predominate throughout the world.

Let us take the example of the crisis in Iraq. CNN and the BBC, which are the two sources of international information that exist right now, come from the only two countries that are prepared to do without UN Resolutions and attack Iraq. So there is a danger of having only one line of information available in the world. That is why French President Jacques Chirac came up with the idea of creating an international francophone news network, and that is also why I have presented motion M-141, which I would really like to see become a votable item in the House of Commons. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions?

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Marceau, what we are really talking about is the creation of a new network. This could also be done by changing TV5. In a number of non-francophone countries, sometimes to my great surprise, TV5 is available on cable. For example, I travelled on business to Lusaka, Zambia, which is an anglophone African country, and TV5 was available in the hotel.

¼ (1835)

Mr. Richard Marceau: The new network would be modelled somewhat on TV5, except that it would present non-stop news. The problem with TV5 is that if you are abroad and you want to hear the news, you might get Des chiffres et des lettres, Pivot or an entertainment program. What people often want when they are in a foreign country is news. We want to know what has happened. Parliamentarians and business people traveling around the world would really like to know what is happening in their own language. That is the thrust of my motion.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Are there any other questions? Yes, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: We know that CNN is American and the other is British. Would this new one come from Canada or France?

Mr. Richard Marceau: If you read the motion, Mr. Godin, you will see that this is about an international channel for the francophonie, based somewhat on the TV5 model. France, Canada, Quebec, New Brunswick, Belgium, Switzerland and the francophone African countries participate in TV5. We would bring all of these countries together and that would give them an opportunity to express their way of seeing the world, which is important today, in the context of globalization. We must avoid at all costs the situation where there is only one point of view, a point a view which, in addition, is given in only one language.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Duplain.

Mr. Claude Duplain: This is a wonderful initiative. If it were to be made votable, I would like it to be used to promote French and act as a counterbalance to news coming from the United States, for example.

M. Richard Marceau: This would, of course, pertain to the francophonie, and there is also what I would call cultural diversity. The Government of Canada, among others, became a participant in this battle at the last summit which took place in Beirut, Lebanon. Cultural diversity includes promoting the French fact, the French language, and this is one of the objectives of this motion.

Thank you for your attention.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Good evening.

Mr. Williams.

[English]

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

The Chair: You've been here before, Mr. Williams, so you know how it is. You're here for motion 79.

Mr. John Williams: Motion 79, Mr. Chairman, allows that appointees and potential appointees to the position of Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada should receive parliamentary scrutiny.

Let me quote from a National Post editorial dated August 10, 2002:

Court appointments are shrouded in secrecy, and are made entirely at the discretion of Cabinet--or, effectively, at the discretion of the Prime Minister. Until the moment that Justice Deschamps' selection was announced on Thursday, only a select few were even aware that she was under consideration.

This process--or lack thereof--is particularly troubling given the tremendous powers wielded by the Supreme Court. Whereas the high court overturned just one law in the 20 years preceding the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it has since become one of the country's most potent political forces.

Since 1982, it has set policy on capital punishment, abortion, minority rights, labour law, and countless other issues. It is bad enough that Parliament has ceded much of its responsibility to unelected judges; that the majority of the nine people making these decisions might be unilaterally selected by one man is unacceptable.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm not suggesting a radical change to the way in which Supreme Court judges are appointed--and this is only for the Supreme Court, not for the judiciary as a whole--but I am suggesting that Standing Orders 110(1) and (2) be amended. Standing Order 110(1) says:

A Minister of the Crown shall lay upon the Table a certified copy of an Order in Council, stating that a certain individual has been appointed to a certain non-judicial post

As you can see, judicial appointments are excluded from Standing Order 110(1). The same language is used in Standing Order 110(2).

I want to bring the Supreme Court under the review of Parliament, perhaps after an appointment has been made. My motion doesn't say “prior to”, but it can be prior to. A number of editorials across the country have supported this type of thing and would even go further, because some people would like to see these judges elected.

I'm not proposing that they be elected, Mr. Chair, but only that Parliament scrutinize the appointment of these judges, either before they're made or after they're made. As we know, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada have the capacity to interpret the law, not just apply the law. Up until we had the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that was the role, to apply the law. We wrote it, they applied it. That is no longer the case. The Supreme Court now interprets the law and says it either conforms or doesn't conform with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or this law is out the window and away we go; society has changed immeasurably since then.

I'm not asking that we take away their rights. I'm just saying that the people we put on that bench should have to explain to society at large where they're coming from in their perception of society.

I'm not saying that we agree or disagree. I think they have to have an opportunity to put that on the table, because we have given them enormous powers. For them to be appointed in some process of osmosis, where they rise to the top and are anointed before we even know that the name is being considered for this extremely powerful position, means that we have abdicated our responsibility as parliamentarians in ensuring that society is served by people who feel they are there to reflect the norms of society.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

¼ (1840)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: John, I don't have Standing Orders 110 and 111 in front of me, but who determines who a potential appointee is?

Mr. John Williams: I'm not suggesting that we change the process of appointments. Let me read Standing Orders 110 and 111--

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, John, I'm just saying, who determines who's a potential appointee?

Mr. John Williams: At this point in time, we really don't know. As I say, through a kind of osmosis it bubbles up to the top in secrecy. We don't know the process.

We're saying that if a name does bubble up to the top, and the Prime Minister and the cabinet through order in council anoint that person to be a justice of the Supreme Court, or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, then they should appear before the justice committee of Parliament and say, “This is how I perceive Canadian society.” We then can reflect upon their capacity to perform their job effectively on behalf of the nation.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But just so I'm clear, there could be fifty potential appointees, then. I'm just wondering who determines that. Would the Prime Minister submit a list before any appointment?

Mr. John Williams: Yes, if that's what he wanted to do.

My motion reads that appointees and potential appointees should receive parliamentary scrutiny, so the Prime Minister could quite easily say, “I have four candidates, what do you think?” Or he could tell us, “I've appointed this candidate, and you can have a public hearing so that he can explain himself to Canadians.”

I don't want to say one way or the other that I'm going to set out the process. I still think we have to contact the law society, which no doubt they do, and get references, which no doubt they do, and get some opinions. I'm not suggesting a radical change; I'm suggesting openness and transparency. Parliamentary scrutiny is going to become the norm. I'm not advocating that we go over the top and go for elections.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Very quickly, I do believe there is a public appetite for this. I've seen it and I've heard it. So I'm not going to debate the merits of the motion, but I do have a question. You indicated that there could be scrutiny after the appointment, but to what result?

Mr. John Williams: I think it's better to try to move the goalposts forward a little bit at a time, because sometimes the law of unintended consequences can kick in. Let's just move this forward a little bit at a time, and if we find that it's acceptable, then somebody at a later date can move it a bit further forward again.

The Chair: Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Williams. Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Bryden, good evening, sir.

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You've been here before, so you know how it works. You're here for Bill C-203.

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

This bill would propose to change the schedule of the Citizenship Act to change the wording of the oath of citizenship.

If I may, I'd like to read to you the current oath. The current oath reads:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

That oath is about 250 years old in Canada. And you might not realize it, but that oath for most of that time did not exist in England. The British were not required to have, and didn't have, an oath.

The oath I just read to you, if you substitute the words “British” and “Britain”, is an oath of the colonial empire of Great Britain, devised to secure the allegiance of the colonies that Britain had acquired in the 18th century either by force of arms or purchase. Indeed, the oath I just read to you is the very oath that the Acadians refused to swear, which led to the expulsion in the 18th century. And indeed, the oath I just read to you is essentially the same oath that Quebeckers were required to swear after the conquest.

There are two things operating here. I feel very strongly that Canada is now, certainly in the eyes of the world, a nation in its own right in every sense. We are admired not so much for our open spaces, our wealth, and that type of thing as we are for our civil society.

I undertook to redraft the oath I just read to you in order to capture the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which I believe more than anything else expresses who we are as Canadians. You have two versions before you. One version includes God. I did that because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has an indication of God. But in talking to citizens, while I was on the citizenship and immigration committee, I queried witnesses, actually over many years, and there was a very strong feeling that there should be an affirmation.

So there are two sides to this. You will notice, though, in the version I present to you, that the citation does not include the monarch.

If I may, I'd like to just read the oath in English, for the record:

In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by God whose sacred trust is to uphold these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights, and the rule of law.

And if you don't mind, I'd like to read the affirmation in French:

¼ (1845)

[Translation]

In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by their sacred trust and duty bound to these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights, and the rule of law.

[English]

I submit to you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, that in either English or French, the words I have presented you do capture, far more than the existing oath, what it is to be Canadian.

I think it's terribly important now that we consider this change very seriously and that this go to the House for debate and a vote, because, at the very least, since September 11 the whole world is looking to Canada for leadership in terms of the five principles I've just cited. In a world where many of these principles are in jeopardy, I think Canada has an important leadership role. So it's not just about presenting something for Canadians, it's a message to the world that I'm proposing to you.

Finally, I might add that I did consult Camille Montpetit and had him read Bill C-203 in order to get his judgment, as an expert in procedure and House affairs, on whether the bill meets the five principles. His conclusion is that:

It is my opinion that, at this stage of the Second Session of the Thirty-seventh Parliament, Bill C-203...meets the five specific criteria established by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the selection of votable items.

But I don't place a lot of value on that. He is an expert person in this field, and I think his statement is important, but in the end I think it is a judgment that has to be made by members of this committee on whether they feel that this type of initiative, coming, I think importantly, from a backbench private member, is something they can support as a votable item in this session of Parliament.

Thank you.

¼ (1850)

The Chair: Thank you.

Questions? Yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Why did you pick those five principles? Why didn't you say, for example, respect for environmental integrity, or add some other things that Canadians also hold dear?

Mr. John Bryden: If you examine the Charter of Rights very carefully, I think you'll find that these are the five master principles. There are many other values that Canadians hold dear, but when you go abroad, Canadians aren't admired for their respect for the environment; they're admired for their belief in the rights of man and democracy and sticking up for the little guy, if you will.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: As well, is this going to be dealt with in the Citizenship Act when it comes this...?

Mr. John Bryden: I don't know. If you were to deem this a votable item...which it is a votable item, at this time, and the Citizenship Act were to come down in the days to come, then I would probably ask this committee to undertake to negotiate with the government and come up with some solution.

But I think the important thing is that this committee decide that it is votable. We can deal with the other problem when it comes.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I see that you are tabling an opinion from Mr. Montpetit. Perhaps we should think about inviting Mr. Montpetit to chair the committee. Did you pay Mr. Montpetit or did he do this for free?

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: It costs about $600, which comes out of my office allowance. It is an allowable expense, at least as far as I know, anyway. And if it didn't, it would come out of my pocket, I assure you, one way or another.

I would like to stress, though, that--

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: It may have been out of order, Mr. Chairman, but you let me ask all the same. Thank you. You are quite right. I almost stopped myself.

The Chair: You are wondering whether or not Mr. Montpetit could come and chair the committee. He would be quite welcome to do so, but first he has to get himself elected.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the member that I did say that I don't think Mr. Montpetit's opinion should be given too much merit. It's a good opinion, but it is really the decision of this committee. I don't want Mr. Montpetit to take over the decision-making of this committee; that's not my intention.

The Chair: Thank you very much. There are no other questions? Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Robinson, good evening. You know how this works. You have five minutes. You're on for Motion M-137. Welcome.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I will be brief. I should say right off the bat that I have no legal opinion from Mr. Montpetit to back up my argument, and I can't afford to ask for one. But I do thank the committee for hearing me. What I will address is obviously not the merits of my motion, although it's one of the most meritorious motions that I've ever had the privilege of submitting to Parliament. But I'll try to deal with the five criteria that you must apply in deciding what should be votable motions.

I'm not going to read the motion. I assume that you all have it before you.

[Translation]

You can read the motion; it is short. In my opinion, this is an important motion.

[English]

I want to start with the issue that “Bills and motions should concern matters of significant public interest.” In my years in this place, I can't think of many issues in the foreign affairs area that have given rise to greater interest and concern than the question of recognition of the Armenian genocide. I'm sure members on all sides of the table and all sides of the House would recognize that. There has been a great deal of concern around this issue, vigorous debate. Some people say, yes, we should be supporting it. Others, particularly those who support the Turkish government perspective, say no, that's not our version of history. But it clearly is a matter of huge public interest.

Just last night in Ottawa there was the premiere of the film, Ararat, Atom Egoyan's very fine film that deals with this issue, and I think it will be an issue of even greater interest as that film is publicly shown across the country, starting on November 15.

I hope members of the committee would agree that it's drafted in the clearest possible terms. In fact, the motion is drafted in terms that are identical to those of the Senate motion.

There was a motion presented to the Senate on the issue of recognition of the Armenian genocide. It had support on both sides of the Senate, strong support from Senator John Lynch-Staunton, as well as a number of Liberal senators. Senator Shirley Maheu was one of the key people who advanced it.

I'm appealing to this committee to give the House of Commons, the elected members of the House of Commons, the same opportunity that Senators had to vote on this fundamentally important issue. Senators had the opportunity to voice their views in a debate and then to vote. It seems to me that, as elected representatives....

¼ (1855)

[Translation]

It is very important that we too have an opportunity to give our opinion on this fundamental issue, as the Senate has already done.

[English]

The motion is clearly constitutional, and certainly it is squarely within federal jurisdiction in the area of foreign affairs. There's no question about that whatsoever. It is not on the government's current legislative agenda. There was no reference to this issue in the Speech from the Throne. It has not been voted on and it hasn't been addressed by the House of Commons in any other way in the current session of Parliament, so, again, it meets that criterion clearly.

The final criterion refers to items that transcend purely local interest, are not couched in partisan terms, and cannot be addressed by the House in other ways. On each of those three components the motion clearly meets the standard. It is certainly not a matter of merely local interest.

[Translation]

It is in the interest of all Canadians and Quebeckers. The Quebec National Assembly has given its viewpoint on this matter, as has the National Assembly in France and the Senate of Canada.

[English]

I'm just asking that we, as elected representatives in Canada, have the chance to vote. Some people will vote “yes”, and some people will vote “no”, but let's at least give our colleagues the chance to vote on this issue that is of such fundamental significance.

I think I have dealt with the five criteria. Again, I'm not going to go into the merits of the issue. I'd be pleased to answer any questions that members may have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Are there any questions?

Questions? Oui.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: I was told that we had already voted on this issue. The only difference is that the word “genocide” had not been included. Is that true? Are you aware of that?

M. Svend Robinson: Indeed, the word “genocide” is here, because we are dealing with the concept of genocide. Yes or no, do we agree that this was genocide, or do we describe it as a tragedy or a great tragedy?

The former parliamentary secretary, Julian Reed, on behalf of the government, denounced what occurred, but he did not use the concept of genocide, which is the main point of this motion. Yes or no, was this genocide? The Turks say that it was not genocide, but rather a tragedy or conflict between Turks and Armenians. It is this matter specifically that was never debated by the House.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Svend, why April 24? Are there precedents for that?

Mr. Svend Robinson: That is the date that is historically recognized as being the international day of recognition of the Armenian genocide. There were a number of massacres at that time. As you may recall, Chuck, each year there is a rally on the Hill to honour the memory of those who died in the genocide, and that takes place on or about April 24. So that's the purpose for that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Have a good evening.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Merci.

The Chair: Good evening, Mr. Clark. Sorry if we kept you waiting a little bit.

½ (1900)

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): No, not at all.

The Chair: We're very anxious to hear from you.

Mr. Joe Clark: Thank you very much.

The Chair: You know the rules. You probably wrote the rules here.

Mr. Joe Clark: I didn't write the rules.

[Translation]

Indeed, this is the first time that I have come here in this capacity.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I think it's important, Mr. Chair, that the presenter be told that only five minutes are allowed.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a point of order. I think you should have him read his entire motion as part of his five minutes.

The Chair: I was going to suggest that we ask him not to read it so that we could keep him to five minutes.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: The normal rule is five minutes for you and five minutes for us. But we'll be generous. I don't know how generous, but we will be.

Mr. Joe Clark: I'll try not to lean on your generosity.

I won't read the motion, which is straightforward. It calls for the establishment of a special joint committee to hear and assess evidence on the Kyoto Protocol.

I think there's no question that the Kyoto Protocol is a major and urgent Canadian issue. It is a national issue. It lies within federal jurisdiction. It is of direct parliamentary interest. This is a unique action in that without a joint committee of these houses, there will be no single Canadian place to gather and analyze conflicting evidence and interests with regard to the Kyoto Protocol. It appears that first ministers are not going to meet, so the national Parliament has to take the lead to fill that vacuum.

It's urgent. The throne speech promised a debate and a vote, but it did not provide for, and there's no intention to provide for, the gathering of evidence and the presentation of alternative views. The debate, if it comes, will only be about opinions. It will not, as I say, gather evidence, and we need evidence for informed debate.

It's highly relevant. The government claims it has consulted, but certainly Parliament has not consulted on this issue, and provinces are in open disagreement. This could be a basis of consensus on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. It's non-partisan. It's about facts, analysis, and evidence, and there is no other means by which this can be accomplished. Impact statements have not been published. There is no existing forum to consider the positions of provinces, environmentalists, or others.

That's my five minutes.

The Chair: You still have three minutes.

I suppose you would like to ask a question, Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: He spoke for only two minutes. I'm shocked, actually. He speaks much longer in caucus, but equally as eloquently, I might add.

You mentioned in your dissertation the urgency of this particular issue, and I don't disagree with that. There is a timeline here. There's the potential, I'm told, of it being ratified by the end of December as private members' business. This particular motion may not come up before then. How does one deal with that issue?

Mr. Joe Clark: I hope it can come up while it is relevant. I think the gathering of the evidence is going to be valuable, in any event, whether there is a vote in support of ratification or not. We don't know the motion the government intends to introduce to the House of Commons. But there is no mechanism now that provides a place in which the perspectives, the evidence, of different interested parties can be heard and resolved.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Clark, does the agreement which was concluded on Monday between the Ministers of the Environment and Energy from all of the provinces, an agreement in which Minister Anderson appeared to, as well, demonstrate some openness, change anything in the motion as it is drafted? Should you be making some amendments to it, or should it remain the same?

Mr. Joe Clark: No, I do not think that we need to make any changes. What we do need, in my opinion, is evidence, we need a place where individuals, provinces and interest groups with different opinions can be heard and where the evidence can be submitted. It would be valuable, with the committees that exist throughout the world, to be able to ask the government to present the facts that are not currently available to us, as parliamentarians, or to the general Canadian public.

As you know, the Halifax agreement was not a formal agreement; it was more of an understanding between ministers. There is not even an agreement with respect to the meeting of first ministers. The provinces asked for one, but this was not agreed to by the federal government.

½ (1905)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Godin, please.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two questions which I believe are quite straightforward. Has the Senate agreed to a joint committee? We had a Joint Committee on Official Languages and the Senate has just withdrawn from this joint committee which worked really well. With all due respect, I do not think that joint committees are working very well at the current moment. This was a committee that was working well; I was a member of it. I think that this is an important factor;, at any rate, I would like to know the answer.

Secondly, the Prime Minister is talking about voting on the issue before December. As you know, we are very much in favour of the accord. It is time to move ahead. We can no longer allow our planet to deteriorate. In the long term, we must protect the planet for future generations and we have a responsibility to do so. Do you think that there is enough balance in this?

If, for example, parliamentarians were to go across Canada or if we were to invite Canadians to give their opinions here, would both sides carry enough weight? Namely, there would be the big corporations, which would talk about how much money they would be losing, and then there would be those who would paint us the real picture of what would happen should we not take any action under the Kyoto Protocol, global warming, etc. Do you have any information about that? I would really like to hear your opinion.

Mr. Joe Clark: First of all, an identically worded motion has been, or will be, introduced in the Senate. I don't know if the motion has, as yet, been tabled, however, such a motion will be tabled in the Senate. I cannot explain the Senate's reaction regarding the Official Languages Committee, but...

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

Mr. Joe Clark: Yes, It's a fact.

As regards content, I understand that there are policy issues on which individuals and parties have taken a position, however, regarding this question, people are acting without having the necessary detailed information or, in fact, without having adequate general information. We don't know how this will affect the different sectors and provinces.

Personally, I haven't heard anything about Greenpeace appearing before a parliamentary committee. The same goes for Quebec and Alberta, who have put forward alternatives regarding the Kyoto Protocol. I believe that, before making a decision, which is so crucial for the future of our country, we ought to have a means to bring together different perspectives and different evidence and try to reconcile them.

Mr. Yvon Godin: In your opinion, would it be correct to say that this motion does not prevent a vote being held before Christmas?

Mr. Joe Clark: No, it doesn't prevent a vote being held. I do believe, however, that members will be far better informed at the time of a vote if there were a committee which had started a study. Whether there is a need for a vote before Christmas is another question, but the motion doesn't prevent a vote being held before Christmas.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think you've hit the whole thing here, Mr. Clark. Without getting into it too specifically, it's very comprehensive. I can't think of anything you've missed in here that would come to mind. I only say I would be a little concerned about what we can do.

I'd like your comments on one thing. Suppose we make this votable, it goes into the cycle and into the hopper, it gets into the House and there's some debate, and it passes. We're just going to run out of time, aren't we? I'm just concerned that we're going to.

I could say I think you're on the right track, but if it all has to be done by November 30, 2002, this might not even get into the House until....

½ (1910)

Mr. Joe Clark: There is that risk. We don't know when the vote will be. There's no question that it would be better to have the facts before we have the vote, but this committee can only control part of that equation. It is the case that having this motion before the House and having it votable would not stop the government's timetable, whatever precisely it is—and we don't know precisely what it is regarding the vote—but we do control and you do control the House of Commons side of things in terms of whether or not it should be votable. And we then, I agree, have to take our chances as to when it might emerge.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: If it passes, we could always ask for an extension of the report date if necessary.

Mr. Joe Clark: Yes.

The Chair: Thanks, Jim.

Are there any other questions?

Thank you for your understanding, Mr. Clark, and have a good evening.

Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Gentlemen.

The Chair: Good evening, Mr. Casey. You've been here before, so you know the “five minutes and five minutes” drill. You're here for motion M-64.

Mr. Bill Casey: Yes, but I won't take five minutes.

This motion resulted from the census of 2001. When I read the census, in just going through the provinces, I couldn't believe what was happening, that there has been such a decline in so many areas of our country. I believe there's nothing we're dealing with that's going to change the face of our country more than this issue of the concentration of population not only in the four major cities of Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver, but even within the provinces. There is a polarization of people.

Most of the ridings and counties—in fact, every single county in Newfoundland—lost population from 1998 to 2001. Every single one. Most of the counties in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan lost population in that time, and that's a really dangerous trend. If we don't do something to address the issue...first of all, we have to recognize that it is an issue and that it has consequences, and then we need to address it.

My motion is very simple, but I don't believe anything is going to change the face of our country more than this situation. Right now, 80% of the people in Canada live in urban areas. That's up from 78% in 1996. In five years, it has gone up almost 2%, and if they do that every five years, we're going to have 90% of the people in urban areas by 2010 or 2015. What that means is tremendous increases in transfer payments and tremendous strains on education, health care, and infrastructure, because the people aren't there to pay the taxes to support the health care. If you have a declining population, like they do in Newfoundland, Manitoba, New Brunswick, or Nova Scotia, it's going to be extremely hard to maintain the base minimum infrastructure, which means more transfer payments from the provinces that have a positive growth.

As far as I know, there is no recognition of the problem and no plan to address it. Again, though, I don't know of any other issue that's going to affect us more as a country than this concentration of populations.

That's it, and I think it meets the criteria. It's certainly non-partisan, because it affects every single one of us.

Yvon, I was just looking up New Brunswick, and it looks like your area has gone down.

I don't know, Rick, but I think one of your areas was one of the only ones in Manitoba that didn't suffer decline.

An hon. member: The rural areas did.

Mr. Bill Casey: Your rural areas did? But more ridings in Manitoba went down than up. The only ones that have really gone up are Alberta, Ontario, and British Columbia.

The Chair: Okay.

Questions? Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Casey, in your motion, you propose two measures to turn this train around. You speak of: “(a) amending immigration acts.”

What exactly does that mean?

½ (1915)

[English]

Mr. Bill Casey: I have some suggestions. In fact, we hope to do a pilot project in my riding. The problem with immigration laws now is that immigrants are approved one at a time, and an immigrant will not come to a new area where there's not already a community of his ethnic background, language and culture. So in my riding, we hope to bring a group of families together, as a pilot project.

We have virtually no immigration in my riding. I was at a meeting on economic development earlier in the week, and there must have been 60 people there--zero ethnic variety. We won't get any unless we can bring in a group of them together. Our municipal leaders, church groups, social services, economic development people, and even employers are backing this, so we're going to try this.

We have to talk about new approaches to immigration, so you get immigrants in your ridings and I get them in my riding, not just in the major centres, where they go now to be with their cultural groups that are already established.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: For your benefit, Mr. Casey, and also for the benefit of the chair, who seems to think that this is a trick question, the reason that I ask this question is because we have to make sure that these provisions respect the various charters of human rights and freedoms. We've run pilot projects and we realized that, six months later, immigrants had already left the regions to go to the major cities, to Montreal or Toronto. That's why I'm trying to understand how we can amend the immigration legislation to make them stay. At a given point, if they don't want to stay, it's their choice.

[English]

Mr. Bill Casey: It's not that immigrants move once they get here. They never go to areas like my riding, for instance, and the ridings in Saskatchewan. I'm not that familiar with the ridings in Quebec, but I'll bet an awful lot of ridings in Quebec have no immigrants. You have a lot of counties or census divisions in Quebec, and most of them have gone down in population.

I don't have all the answers. I just know the problem is there. I would like to get it recognized that we aren't going to be, we shouldn't want to be, and we don't want to be a country of four cities, effectively, or four cities plus the capitals. My goal here is to get public awareness of it, get the problem acknowledged, and then deal with it, perhaps through these two areas. But I'm sure other ideas will come along if we identify the problem and acknowledge that it is a problem--unless we want our country to be just a few centres.

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Just for clarification for myself, you said that right now, when we accept immigrants into our country, they come in one at a time. This won't force people to come in as groups, but will open it so they could come in as groups.

I don't know if I got Michel turned around, but it's true that the regulations.... Given the opportunity, if they want to bring a group in, it should be possible, compared to doing it one at a time. Then if all their families are in a centre, that's where they'll go. But if they can come as a family and choose to go there as a family...is that what...?

Mr. Bill Casey: I'm not smart enough to think of these things, but in my riding a church group wanted to sponsor five Korean families to come to Truro, Nova Scotia--a wonderful, positive community--but Immigration Canada wouldn't let them. They had to apply one at a time, and they all ended up in Toronto. None of them wanted to be the first to come to Truro, because there were no Korean families, culture, language, or anything in Truro. They all ended up going to Toronto, and that's where they are today.

The minister is coming in November to Truro, and we're going to try to put this pilot project together. It won't force people to come to Truro; it will make it attractive for them to come to Truro so they will stay.

That's just one small idea. Thanks for bringing that up.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you very much.

Mr. Casey, have a good evening.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Desrochers, you've got big shoes to fill, as Mr. Bigras almost cancelled his trip to be able and meet with us. In the end, he decided to get you to replace him rather than cancel his trip. You'd better be good.

½ (1920)

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the strength of the Bloc Québécois lies in the fact that we are a team. We can stand in for our colleagues and do a good job.

A voice: We're a bloc.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: A bloc.

The Chair: You're here regarding motion M-239. You know our rules.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Yes, I have five minutes.

The Chair: There are two five-minute blocs.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: First of all, I'd like to apologize for the absence of my colleague, Mr. Bigras. His absence can be explained by the fact that, at the moment, he is with the Minister of the Environment, Mr. David Anderson, at the 8^th Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention, also known as COP 8.

Mr. Bigras' request is very simple. You know that, recently, there was a meeting in Montreal regarding the Protocol of Carthagena. Based on what took place there, my colleague would like the Protocol of Carthagena to be ratified; when I say the Protocol of Carthagena I am of course referring to the protocol which deals with biosafety. As you are already aware, the European Commission announced that it will be ratifying the biosafety protocol. Twenty-six countries have already ratified it, and it is thought that, by the end of the year, the signatures of the 50 countries required for the protocol to come into force will have been obtained. It would be a good thing for Canada to be in the vanguard and join the ranks of those who have already signed the protocol.

Having already worked on the question of GMOs, I know that both the Health and the Agriculture Committees have discussed the question. There is also a link between GMOs and the environment. This is a very complex question and each department, that is to say Environment, Health and Agriculture, ought to state their views on this question. Statistics tell us that, without consumers knowing anything about it, 16% of the world's cultivated land was already bioengineered in the year 2000, and this includes 30 million hectares in the United States. Currently, there are no regulations. If Canada joins the Protocol of Carthagena, at least a decisive step will have been taken, and on the environmental front, we will be able to ensure safety regarding GMOs.

To conclude, I'd like to share some of my colleague's observations with you. He pointed out that the House of Commons has not yet had the opportunity to debate and vote on the ratification of the protocol. It is extremely important to have a debate on this critical question which affects the health of all Canadians. As I said earlier, the question of GMOs concerns health, environment and agriculture. Furthermore, Canada must make a decision quickly if we want to be a member of the 2003 Conference of the Parties. My colleague's motion will allow all members to debate the advantages and disadvantages of ratifying the Protocol of Carthagena and will allow us to vote.

On behalf of my colleague, I would once again reiterate how important it is to allow a three-hour debate followed by a vote on this motion in the House. It's in the best interests of consumers and their health. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Are there any questions?

A voice: It's very clear.

The Chair: You can let Mr. Bigras know that you represent him well. You're very knowledgeable about this issue. Thank you.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you very much for your cooperation.

[English]

The Chair: How are you, Mr. McKay?

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I am very well indeed, thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: You have five minutes to pitch, and you have five minutes to answer, if we ask anything.

Mr. John McKay: I see. I'll circulate my brief, which is extremely brief, en anglais et en français.

Can you tee up this video, please?

The Chair: Okay. Your video will be within your five minutes?

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

The Chair: Is your video bilingual?

Mr. John McKay: It is not; it's CBC.

The Chair: Okay. Then let's hope the translators can hear your video so they can translate it. Otherwise, we'll have to exclude your video.

Mr. John McKay: This is a bill about setting standards of flammability for cigarettes, because cigarettes cause enormous numbers of fatalities in the country every year. They cause millions of dollars worth of property damage, and many people are either injured or killed, very innocent people, from just careless smoking. So the thrust of this bill will be to demand from the government that it set flammability standards for cigarettes in the country.

[Video Presentation]

Mr. John McKay: You can fast-forward through that, because all it is is a series of pictures of fires and things of that nature.

The Chair: How long is this video, John?

Mr. John McKay: It's actually 20 minutes, but I'm just trying to compress it so that we get to the point. The main point is that you can do something if you want to do something. This committee can do something, the House can do something, the government can do something.

Fast forward to the two couches, if you would.

Here they're describing how a fire occurs from careless smoking. The point he makes is that it suddenly explodes, and that's why so many people die from fires and cigarettes. The gases build up, and then it's like a flash fire throughout the house. That's what creates the serious damage, and a lot of innocent people die by this process. And part of the video talks about the fact that cigarette companies have known for years how to make safe cigarettes. They have known that if they change the density of the tobacco and make slight changes to the paper, the cigarette will burn itself out.

½ (1925)

I'm just waiting till we come up to the point where they have two couches, which is about as graphic a demonstration as I can make.

Mr. Chairman, I see your eyebrows arching. There's the point. Okay, we can kill it there.

I hope the video makes the point that--

The Chair: We shouldn't smoke.

Mr. John McKay: We shouldn't smoke, not consuming 56 billion cigarettes annually, one or two of which are going to create some fires, then there are going to be fires and there is going to be damage.

As I say, the cigarette companies have been able to do this. The New York state legislature passed a form of this bill unanimously, the Massachusetts legislature similarly. The only objection the cigarette companies have in the United States is that they want a federal law. We're uniquely positioned to do that. It's within our jurisdiction, it serves a national purpose, and it has significant public interest. I see ourselves four-square within your criteria.

½ (1930)

The Chair: Okay.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't have this on my list, nor do I have the bill itself.

The Chair: It was reinstated after the list was prepared.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I didn't receive Bill C-260 with my package.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): This is one of the bills that was drawn on June 22, I believe, and it was not considered by the subcommittee prior to the prorogation. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, it could be reinstated on the order of precedence.

The Chair: It was known as Bill C-236, right? We have three of those, from Mr. Hanger, Mr. Ménard, and Mr. McKay.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Instead of Bill C-260, it could have been called Farenheit 454.

Mr. John McKay: Exactly, or Farenheit 600.

The Chair: Are there any questions?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Did you say the minister is doing tests on this?

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Why is he doing tests if he doesn't have a plan of action for this?

Mr. John McKay: She.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: She, pardon me.

Mr. John McKay: I have been poking and prodding at the bureaucracy and both ministers. Formerly it was Minister Rock, and now it is Minister McLellan. I see it as ridiculously simple and such an obvious thing to do. The minister did inform me that over the course of the past summer they have engaged tests; they're actually moving a bit forward on this. I think it would be a useful prod on the part of Parliament to move this bill forward.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

I'm curious. I was a smoker for 30 years. What happens to the taste and the smoking feeling?

Mr. John McKay: I'm not sure it makes any significant difference. I think smokers are conditioned within a very narrow limit of their taste buds. I'm not a smoker, so I'm speculating.

The Chair: But there were other inventions. At one time there were other kinds of cigarettes. You weren't dying of lung cancer, but you'd die of a lung deficiency because you had to draw on it so much. Maybe it's a means of getting people to stop smoking, so I'll be in favour.

Mr. John McKay: It may have that happy side effect, Mr. Chairman, but I wouldn't argue that point too strenuously.

The Chair: We'll try it.

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: As a point of interest, when I was in the logging business back when I had a regular job, many of the loggers would only use roll-your-owns, because roll-your-owns don't start fires.

Mr. John McKay: Oh, really?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, because it's not the same density, right?

Mr. John McKay: That's the point.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: They burn quicker and they don't burn as hot. Especially during fire season, everybody rolled their own. There's a lot to be learned in this place from the loggers.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you.

½ (1935)

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Stoffer, on Bill C-216 for five minutes.

Mr. Stoffer is pitching for Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, it gives me great pleasure to present this on behalf of Mr. Lorne Nystrom, who unfortunately couldn't be here. As you know, he's involved in an NDP leadership campaign, and his responsibilities at this time asked him to be in another place. So he has asked me to present Bill C-216, which would amend the Referendum Act to allow a referendum to be held on any question relating to the reform of the electoral system of Canada.

On a personal note, the reason I asked Lorne if I could present this on his behalf is that I honestly believe we need electoral reform in this country. As you know, close to 61% of the people in Canada voted in the last federal election, and there's a very good chance that, by all indications, this figure will be even lower in the next election.

In terms of electoral reform, we are not talking about boundary shifts or redistribution. We are talking about substantial reforms, reforms that many Canadians already see as being critical to any genuine renewal of democracy in this country.

One popular suggestion is to incorporate some form of proportional representation into our voting system. Support for PR now stands at almost 62%. So when Canadians are asked or polled across the country, over 62% of Canadians--and that's among anglophones, francophones, allophones and whomever--are saying we would like to see some form of proportional representation within our country fairly soon. That's over 20 percentage points more in the five years since the last poll was taken.

The growing electoral interest in PR is reflected in a gradual emergence of a consensus among our parliamentarians. Many members of Parliament, past and present, are saying we need to change the way we are voted into this House of Commons. Whatever the opinion of the House may be, whatever this bill before us says, the decision is for the people of Canada to make on how we're voted in.

We couldn't help but notice, in a question to the House the other day, that the House leader of the government indicated that he would support a free vote on this initiative. He was asked a direct question by Mr. Nystrom on proportional representation, and he indicated in Hansard that he would prefer a free vote on this question. So, basically, the whip would be off the government in this regard in order to allow members of Parliament to vote on this initiative.

Canadians basically want to make their vote count. So, for example, if a member of the Alliance party in St. John's, Newfoundland, decided to vote for the Alliance, or a member of the NDP decided to vote for the NDP in Calgary, their vote would actually mean something at the end of the day. This is why we have to amend the Referendum Act. If the Constitution divides powers and enshrines rights for government and citizens respectively, the electoral system gives practical meaning to those powers and to those rights. Changes to both must require the consent of a majority of citizens.

In conclusion, as the Law Commission of Canada insisted in a paper published last week, “Public engagement on the issue of electoral reform is essential to maintain a healthy democracy”. This bill paves the way for reform, reassuring Canadians that ultimately they are responsible for the health of Canadian democracy.

I personally, and I'm sure many of our colleagues throughout the House, attend high school and university functions and talk about the role of a member of Parliament in their day-to-day lives. Most of them, when asked if they can name their councillor, their MLA, their school board representative, or their MP, fail to do so. It is our job to ensure that democracy is not a spectator sport, that citizens must become engaged and active. We believe this particular bill would assist in that manner.

Thank you very much for your time.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I loved that comment about how it paved the way for reform, but I don't think we meant the same thing.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I agree with most of what you had to say, but I do think you got off on a bit of a tangent when you talked about proportional representation, which may or may not be a good idea.

The point of the bill, which I think is valid, is that regardless of what you believe in, before it's changed, it should go to a referendum of all Canadians. One person likes mixed proportional, and somebody else likes something else. There are a lot of grand schemes out there. The important thing is that whatever it is, it's not foisted on people, but they're given that choice to choose something. We have lots of precedents in New Zealand, Great Britain, Ireland, you name it, where that's done in the British parliamentary system.

I know you didn't draft it, Peter, but it's a good bill.

½ (1940)

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If I may say, Mr. Strahl, one thing that has endeared me to the Alliance Party and Reform Party is that they have always initiated these citizen referendum conditions. This is part of their whole being as a party.

I have been asked many times whether it would be possible for Canadians to elect, for example, a separatist party to the House of Commons. I say very clearly and very openly and honestly that the people of Quebec or anywhere else have the right to vote for whomever they wish as their representative in the House of Commons. I have said that many times. Regardless of what their ultimate goal is or initiatives are, the people of Canada have a right to decide who their representative is. I've always supported that and will continue to do so.

One of the reasons I think the Alliance has endeared itself to many Canadians.... For that matter, Mr. Martin, the member for LaSalle--Émard, was talking about democratic change and reforms.

Mr. Chair, we all know that in order to engage Canadians in the political debate, we need them to belly up to the bar, more or less, and to become more active, and this particular bill may assist them in that regard.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Next is Mr. Martin.

Mr. Martin, you've been here before, so you know about the five-five. You have five minutes.

[Translation]

You're here concerning Bill C-232.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, colleagues, thank you very much.

[English]

Bill C-232 basically deals with protecting endangered species.

In our country, of about 573 species that were evaluated in May of this year, 402 are at grave risk. The primary cause of this is human activity. In our country, 80% of the species that are at risk of extinction are running at risk of extinction due to habitat loss. In fact, in our country, about 240 hectares every single day are lost. More than 77% of our 177 terrestrially identified habitats in the country are at risk right now of losing biodiversity, so it's a pretty big problem in our country.

This bill aims to rectify the problem of critical habitat lost as it relates to endangered species, critical habitat loss again being the primary driver of species being driven into extinction. This bill really has four sections. One is the listing of species, the second is compensation, the third is respect for provincial jurisdiction, and the fourth is the creation of voluntary sanctuaries, which I say is innovative—and I'm being subjective.

The listing of species should be done on the basis of scientific terms. We have the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, a respected group that was created in 1977 by virtue of a federal-provincial agreement. This bill obliges the government to deem a species as being at risk of extinction based on purely objective, scientific terms, based on the opinion of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife of Canada, which I will call COSEWIC from now on.

The second issue in this bill ensures that individual private landowners will be compensated at fair market value for the loss of their property or the expropriation of a minimum amount necessary for the establishment of a sanctuary. Currently, the minister is not limited on the size of the land area that is to be expropriated.

This bill also obliges the minister federally to enter into a negotiated settlement with the provinces. When no agreement can be made, then a sanctuary will be established for critical habitat, and compensation again will be paid out at fair market value.

Lastly, on the issue of land sanctuaries, this bill will allow private landowners to claim a charitable tax deduction under the Income Tax Act, based upon the fair market value of their land. This land only applies to critical habitat. If you had a piece of land that was critical for a particular species to survive, you would have the ability to cede that land over to the public for future protection and you would derive a benefit through the Income Tax Act as a gift.

In conclusion, Bill C-232 deals with four of the critical issues that go to the nub of how we manage to protect endangered species in our country: the listing will be scientific and objective; the compensation will be obligatory at fair market value when no negotiated settlement occurs; provincial jurisdictions are respected; and the bill provides for the establishment of the income tax deductions, which will certainly expand the amount of land that is available right now to protect endangered species.

I think we will be able to have a lot more people who have a piece of land that they own that is critical to protect a certain species. For that, they will receive a benefit through the Income Tax Act. So I think it's a win-win situation for all concerned.

Merci beaucoup.

½ (1945)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions?

Mr. Borotsik.

[English]

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, thank you.

I like the bill, but I'm not going to talk about the substance of the bill. I see two substantive changes or additions in this that weren't in previous endangered species legislation. One of them is the compensation package, the other one is the actual sanctuaries. In saying that, do you not feel the government is dealing with this issue with endangered species legislation?

Mr. Keith Martin: No, the problem with the situation right now is that there are a number of massive loopholes that need to be strengthened.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: There's no argument there.

Mr. Keith Martin: That's the problem. If we are able to do the four things that are in here, we will truly have endangered species legislation in our country that will protect the endangered species that we have now, and we will reverse the trend so that we can actually start de-listing species off the—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I just want to interrupt you. Do you not feel you'll have the opportunity to amend current legislation to be able to accommodate your desires in this piece of legislation?

Mr. Keith Martin: No, that was already rejected.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It was.

Mr. Keith Martin: Sadly, that was rejected, although it had been offered before. Not all of the elements in here were, but certainly the obligatory compensation aspect was offered to and rejected by the government.

Again, I would suggest that this is really a cooperative bill that respects provincial jurisdictions, unlike the status quo right now. It also will enable us to strike that balance and enable us to identify the species objectively, and not at the whim of a minister or a government. It will take subjectivity out of it and will actually force all levels of government to work together at a certain point in time, acutely, to address a particular species that's in danger of extinction . As we all know, if we wait too long, then the species can go extinct and that's it.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Is there a jurisdiction, either provincial or under a group of businesses, a group of farmers....is there some group that will become extinct itself over this? Are they going to freak out over this bill?

Mr. Keith Martin: No. In fact, Chuck, this is what user groups have actually been asking for. The private sector, as well as individuals, have been asking to have defined for them how we identify species. They want to have us define for them what their rights are as private landowners.

Private landowners, and even the provinces, want to work cooperatively to ensure that critical habitat is protected—and particularly the landowners. But they do not want to see a situation in which that land is just going to be expropriated. In most cases, you can enter into a negotiation where no compensation is paid, and by working with user groups you'll actually preserve the land. Saskatchewan is a fine example of that. They've done truly extraordinary work in Saskatchewan for the black-footed ferret, for example, and other species by working with private landowners to preserve that land in the public interest.

You can do that most of the time, but this bill actually enables us to say there are individuals who do not want to play ball and that this is a situation in which a species is going to go extinct. We say the species comes first, but we're not going to ignore the interests of private landowners. They will be compensated at fair market value for the minimum amount of habitat that's required. So it really defines that, too, for the public and the provinces.

½ (1950)

Mr. Chuck Strahl: As a last point, I don't think we're going to be dealing with endangered species legislation in this session, are we?

Mr. Keith Martin: No.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I didn't think so, but that's one of the other criteria. It was in the last session, so I think we're technically okay on that.

Mr. Keith Martin: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Did you have a question, Yvon?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Didn't we have one in the House of Commons? Is the one from the government coming back?

Mr. Keith Martin: No, it's done.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Oh, it was done and it's gone? Okay.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin: This is en français et en anglais.

The Chair: Yes, no problem. Merci.

Mr. Reid, you have five minutes and we have five minutes. You have five minutes to explain and we have five minutes to question you.

You're here on motion M-236.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): This motion is almost identical to a motion on the Falun Gong that was passed with unanimous consent in the House last week, unless I'm very much mistaken.

What happened was that this motion was drawn at the same time as there were negotiations with the House leaders. Given the time involved, it obviously would be of no use to debate this in the House. The negotiations involved some changes to the wording. The result was that a very close but not quite identical motion was passed by the House, but this remains on the Order Paper.

Obviously, in its current form, it would make no sense for this to be passed. I consulted with the clerks after I brought forward the motion and the motion had been dealt with, and I asked what happens with this thing on the Order Paper. They said it stays on, thus the reason it's here.

I'm not sure if this is within the purview of this committee, but what would make sense is to replace it with some other motion and deal with it at a future meeting of this committee, I would think, if that's acceptable. I'm not sure what the rules actually say on this, and the clerks themselves said they had not run into a parallel situation.

The Chair: Is this the only motion you have?

½ (1955)

Mr. Scott Reid: No, there's another motion, but it was submitted after the draw was made.

The Chair: So it wouldn't count.

Mr. Reid, we can't make a decision in the sense that we have to deal with what's here. Once it gets to the floor of the House, you can then request unanimous consent or present an amendment to change your wording. We can't decide on a potential amendment on your part. We have to decide on what we have in front of us.

Mr. Scott Reid: I don't think I could amend it per se, because you would have to amend it so dramatically that it would not make any sense since it clearly refers to a past event.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can Mr. Reid withdraw it?

The Chair: Definitely.

Yvon.

Mr. Yvon Godin: If he withdrew it, could he replace it? It's only the House that could accept it. But if he doesn't withdraw it, it could become votable and be given an hour of debate in the House, so that you would have a chance to express yourself and many members could express themselves on what passed last week.

Mr. Scott Reid: I hadn't even thought of that, but that would be a very attractive option.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There was no debate, really. It went through so fast.

The Chair: If you're drawn, you automatically have one hour. If we at this subcommittee decide to make it votable, then you get three hours plus a vote. This is like a lotto. The minimum you get is an hour.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But an hour debate on this motion.

The Chair: Yes, unless he obtains unanimous consent to modify or replace it.

Mr. Scott Reid: I assume that would cause further complications because it would be difficult to decide whether to make something votable when you don't know if the House is going to give consent on it.

The Chair: Let me put it this way. I said to you that we cannot make something votable on the assumption that you will make whatever change.

Mr. Scott Reid: Right.

Actually, you've given me an option I hadn't even thought of, and one I find very attractive, and that is an hour of debate on an issue that I think is very important and a very profitable use of the House's time.

The Chair: May I say that your hour of debate is on what we have, unless you have unanimous consent to modify or change it.

Mr. Scott Reid: Actually, this is great. Whether it's on this or some modified version that I might have sought unanimous consent on, to my way of thinking we simply have an hour of debate on an issue that's of great importance and that clearly the House thinks is important or they would not have voted on it unanimously. So I'm very happy with that.

The Chair: The clerk is making a good suggestion. You know what's going to happen when we debate among ourselves to make this votable or not. Regardless of that, you know that you have one hour. Come and see the clerk later on, not tonight because he's tired also. He's going to give you tips on what you can do and how you can do it, and then you decide what you want to do with it.

Mr. Scott Reid: That would be very helpful. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I've got a question pertaining to the wording that's before us. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference took place during the weekend, didn't it? The way in which the motion is worded...

The Chair: This motion was before us in the House last week, and it was almost identical apart from two words. That's Mr. Reid's problem. He thinks it's outdated, but he doesn't want to lose his chance to discuss it. Obviously, he can't rise in the House to discuss it. Well actually he can, but he won't, because the time to do so has passed. He can, however, move an amendment and there will be an hour of debate.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.

Mr. Cullen.

[English]

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I've been with the finance committee today in Halifax, and it's good to be with a very powerful committee here this evening.

I did circulate my bill and my remarks.

The Chair: We have a bit of a problem with your notes, but we're going to accept them. Your notes are supposed to be bilingual, not a little bit of English and a little bit of French. But we'll assume that your notes are bilingual.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I apologize.

I'm pleased to be here to have this opportunity to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-212, an act respecting user fees. The intent of this legislation is to bring greater transparency, accountability, and parliamentary oversight to federal government departments and agencies when they attempt to recover costs through user fees.

¾ (2000)

[Translation]

I'd like to state from the outset that I support the government's objective to recover costs incurred by imposing fees on those who use private goods and specialized services. The bill that I've tabled deals with the following questions:

[English]

The need for more parliamentary oversight when user fees are introduced or changed; the need for a greater stakeholder participation in the fee-setting process; improved linkages between user fees and federal department and agency performance specifications and standards; the requirement for more comprehensive stakeholder impact and competitiveness analysis when new user fees or fee increases are contemplated; the goal of increased transparency with respect to why fees are applicable, what fees are charged, what costs are identified as recoverable, and whether performance standards are being met;

[Translation]

The need for a dispute settlement process in order to deal with complaints or grievances filed by those paying the user fees; and the need for annual reports outlining all the user fees in force, said reports to be tabled in the House of Commons and referred to the relevant committee of the House which, in my opinion, would be the Finance Committee.

[English]

It's time for parliamentarians to take greater ownership of user fees. What began as a legitimate attempt to more fully recover costs for proprietary services has developed into something that is beyond what was contemplated. Departments and agencies of the federal government have, in many cases, expanded the concept and increased user fees beyond what is reasonable, more often than not without any reference to service or performance. There are some motivations, I think, behind that for departments, but I won't get into that. I know you've had a very long day.

[Translation]

Such a practice serves to encourage departments and agencies to introduce user fees and to increase them to a level higher than was originally planned. There is a systemic encouragement to multiply these fees. It is high time that this practice was made more transparent.

[English]

Companies in my riding of Etobicoke North, like Bayer Canada and BASF Canada, that are exposed to such fees for drug approvals or approval of chemical products or agricultural products do not argue about the appropriateness of user fees for proprietary services, they understand that this is required. What they believe is seriously eroding their competitiveness, however, is increasing fees with no corresponding increase in service or performance. Since fees have been on the rise, in most cases there has been no corresponding improved service or response time. In Canada, for example, it takes, on average, 750 days for a drug to be approved. In the United States the corresponding time is 500 to 550 days, in Europe the time is less, and user fee charges are about the same or less in those jurisdictions. With drugs and chemical and agricultural products, competitive advantage often depends on being the first mover to the marketplace. It is easy to understand why our Canadian companies are seeing their competitive position eroded.

[Translation]

In the United States, in the United Kingdom and in Australia, user fees are, in some way, linked to the service provided and to the quality of the service. The Canadian government hasn't yet introduced such a measure. In Australia, drug tests must be carried out within the timeframe set down by the law, and if not, the relevant authority will lose up to 25% of its user fees.

[English]

Bill C-212 potentially affects Canadians from coast to coast to coast because it applies to federal government departments, agencies, boards, crown corporations, commissions, or any other body that has the power to fix a user fee or a cost-recovery charge under the authority of an act of Parliament. Thus, individuals paying fees to visit federal parks, or provincial or territorial authorities paying fees to the Canadian Coast Guard for ice-breaking services would be affected by this bill. Let's keep in mind that these are monopolies. People who want a drug approved don't have a choice if the costs are too high.

I have introduced this bill because of a certain level of frustration with the lack of constructive response by the Treasury Board and Treasury Board Secretariat. The House of Commons finance committee recommended significant changes a couple of years ago, but there has been very limited or no progress. In fact, there has been some movement the other way.

It's my firm conviction that Bill C-212 meets the criteria for the bill to be declared votable, and I ask for your support to do the same.

Thank you for your time and attention. Merci.

¾ (2005)

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions?

I will be mentioning to members not to consider your document because it is not bilingual, the way we want it in this committee. Everyone has agreed for the past few years that they should be fully bilingual. That was your speech.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I didn't realize there was a requirement to submit my speech. I did that as a courtesy, because I knew when I presented it here it would translated.

The Chair: That's fine. That was your identical presentation, so it was translated.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Cullen, you have submitted a bill that is the mirror image of a motion I submitted previously. The only part of my motion that was not incorporated into your bill was some sort of redress or appeal process for your constituents, which are the pharmaceutical companies. I referred to mine as being agricultural constituents. There is nothing about that, or maybe there is and I haven't seen it. But is there anything in your bill that would deal with that kind of appeal process or redress, with respect to the fee structure that is being foisted upon these industries?

Mr. Roy Cullen: If the appropriate committee of the House felt that the fee was inappropriate, excessive, non-competitive, or not related to any performance, it would report that back to the House. My bill establishes an independent dispute resolution process to address a complaint or grievance submitted by a client regarding the user fee or change. That would be an independent body that would report, and that would come to the committee. I'm not sure a committee would have the authority or power to deliver sanctions, but this would sure get someone's attention.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just for greater clarification, would the fuss over airline security fees be the sort of thing that could be addressed here by the airlines themselves or consumers? Could either one bring forward a complaint, or demand some sort of analysis of it?

Mr. Roy Cullen: My understanding is the airport security fee would be covered by this bill. I think the process would be through members of the committee, who would indicate there were some concerns that it didn't meet the criteria. The committee could then call the relevant minister and go through this process. The bill also calls for an annual reporting of all user fees and a report to the House of Commons when any new fees are being introduced.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: They would have to provide that list of criteria.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes. So those consumers or citizens groups would probably go through members of Parliament to get that on the table of the committee.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Dealing with a question like this--for example, the fee for security now as a whole--you're saying it was the consumer or the people really doing business. An example is that we need better security now at our borders, but now I hear complaints that as they're charging all the security fees, they're laying off people at the borders. We're getting complaints about that. Will those people be able to complain to Parliament that in their view they're paying all these fees but they're getting less security? Will they be able to present their views?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, absolutely. If the government or an authority or an agency is increasing fees, this bill says there has to be some linkage to improved service or performance. So if that's not evident, as I say, I think the mechanism would be for those individuals to raise it with their members of Parliament, and that would then come through the relevant committee, which probably would be the House of Commons finance committee, and the committee would call for that fee to be reviewed.

¾ (2010)

Mr. Yvon Godin: There again I would like to use a real example. Many questions were raised in the House about the fees. Some airports are charging fees where there is no security at all, but the fee is there. Will those people be able to complain? Will the community be able to complain? Will the businesses be able to complain?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, I know that argument and I'm not.... Some airports have more or less security, and part of the government's policy was to spread the cost around based on the real costs. I'm not really going to get into a debate about the substance of the issue, but--

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, I just wanted to know if under that bill they will be able to--

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, absolutely. This bill says that any fee that is being charged to a user has to be tied to performance and service. So if there is no linkage or if there are some concerns, then it would be totally appropriate to bring it forward to that committee.

The Chair: Okay. Did you have a question?

[Translation]

Excuse me. Michel had a question.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cullen, I've been reading the definition of “user fees”, for example:

Fees or dues charged for service delivery, use of facilities or issuance of an authorization, a permit or a licence...

After that it speaks of a mandatory consultation process. If the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency decided to increase the cost of a passport from $65 to $70, would it be correct to say that this mandatory consultation process would have to be followed?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Guimond, I think that, over time, the committee will come up with a process for publishing changes to user fees. If it's not something that's worrying members of the committee, then there's no reason to examine it.

[English]

But I think any time there's an increase in a user fee, yes, even if it's to get a passport--has there been consultation with stakeholders, with the tourism industry; is there any basis in terms of increased costs; is there going to be an increase in service, in the response time?--yes, I think the departments would have to do that. As for whether or not the committee would want to review every single item in detail, they would establish a process for dealing with that, but I think they'd have the option to review anything they wanted.

The Chair: Thank you very much, sir.

Merci et bonne fin de soirée.