SMEM Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 1, 2000

• 0837

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.)): Good morning. Our subcommittee on private members' business is called to order.

Today is Thursday, June 1, 2000—the great month of June has started. We're here in Room 306 West Block, our ninth meeting. We have quorum, and we're going to invite our members to tell us why their motion or bill should be considered votable.

Our first witness is Mr. Peter Goldring. When you wish, Peter, you have five minutes, and then we might have some questions for you. You may have the answers.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to be here today.

I wish to encourage that my motion be made votable. My motion concerns depleted uranium.

Depleted uranium has been used by the militaries of the world for approximately 30 years now. It was used quite extensively in the Gulf War, and therein started some suggestions of problems.

Depleted uranium, for your information, is used primarily in tank shells. It's used for that purpose because it's 1.6 times the density of lead and because it is a great tank-killer.

Now, depleted uranium is a slug. It is not active. It's not explosive. It's a slug that is fired at the tank, and when it hits its signature is an explosion of sparks and fire and a cloud of residue. Approximately 10% to 20% of it is aerosoled, and that's where I believe the problem is.

Our soldiers have been coming back from the Gulf War with what they call Gulf War syndrome. They've been coming from other theatres of war too, with unexplained ailments. Matt Stopford insists that his medical problems and difficulties are related to environmental concerns from battlefield conditions that include the strong suggestion that depleted uranium is the cause.

I believe this material must be recognized and discussed. Our Canadian military have taken it out of their armaments now. I believe Canada should be a world leader in it, the way they were with the land mines. We should ask the world to take it out of their armaments.

• 0840

It's a nuclear weapon. It is radioactive material. It is no different from the fallout contamination from other nuclear weapons. It is a terrible weapon to be using. Unfortunately, it leaves a residue in the battlefield for the citizens to cope with long after the soldiers have left.

Now, the material they use is the residue from nuclear power plants. It is specially controlled, and they say they have a disposal problem with it. So if there's a disposal problem with this nuclear material from nuclear power plants, why is it safe to use in a theatre of war? Because of that, I believe we should question it and call for a ban on it, and this is what this motion is for—to raise awareness of it, to tell people, have a discussion on it, get people involved on it, study it, and have our Parliament vote on it so that we can send a message to the world that we consider this material to be harmful. Nobody can tell us that it's safe, and until somebody can do so, let's get it out of conventional warfare. Let's put it in with the category of other nuclear weapons to be used only if somebody were to consider all-out nuclear warfare, but not for conventional warfare. That's the purpose of this motion.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

We have a couple of moments for questions. Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Yes, since there's nobody else lined up.

Peter, what do they do with it? How do they dispose of it, if they don't put it into these types of shells? I guess what I'm asking you is whether there's a motivation to use it in military terms because it's an easier way to dispose of it than if they had to dispose of it through conventional methods.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I hate to believe that, but there is the suggestion that this is too convenient a method of disposal. There were some one million pounds of it pounded into the Gulf War. It's been used in other theatres of war. Conventionally, in North America it's particularly controlled. They cannot put it in landfills. They cannot use regular methods of disposal. In other words, it's treated as a hazardous material in North America, but they find it safe to pound into foreign countries.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Does the Canadian military use it?

Mr. Peter Goldring: We were using it. We were using it on our Phalanx on the ships that went to the Gulf War. They used it as the outer coating on the Phalanx bullets. They also use it on Apache attack helicopters.

It's used there as a penetrator, but it still has the same signature. This is a slug. It's inert. But once it hits—and this is the insidious part of it—it explodes.

What is in this material? There is something that is diabolical about this material, and nobody has done a contained study on the impact results of it and the fallout from it. There's strong suggestion that they haven't, or if they have, they're certainly not releasing the information.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But the military's attraction to it is the fact that it's a dense metal that serves the ballistic requirements.

Mr. Peter Goldring: No, it's much more than dense metal. When it hits it is in a molten state. It also explodes, and it melts right through. So it has the mass. It's kinetic energy, but it's also a melting. It goes to a different state, an altered state on impact. That's why it's such a good weapon. It kills tanks, but it also has a fallout effect.

The Chair: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): My concern, Peter, is how you're going to have a meaningful debate on this thing when I would almost guarantee that everyone sitting in the House of Commons agrees with you, and the Canadian military have already banned it. I think everyone agrees this is nasty stuff and it shouldn't be used. It seems to me it's something we should just ask for unanimous consent on in the House. Everybody would agree, and Canada's parliamentary voice would be heard.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Unfortunately, we don't all agree.

In my discussions with the Royal Military College, their nuclear people, I was cut off halfway through a conversation on it and referred to ordinary media people.

The effects and the nastiness of this are being buried. And I think this is being buried because it's too good a weapon for some major powers. So we have to discuss it. We have to bring it out and have some dialogue on it.

• 0845

Also, this impacts on our soldiers returning from theatres of war. Riordon has this radioactive material in his skeletal system. We also had Matt Stopford. He has unexplainable illnesses that we think are attributable to it.

We have to have dialogue on this, and we have to send a message to the world, too. We have an international responsibility.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your information. I should mention now—or perhaps I shouldn't—that I believe we're going to decide later today on how these items go. But I thank you, Mr. Goldring, for your presentation.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Our next member, Mr. Eric Lowther, will have five minutes to explain why his item should be selected as votable. I believe it's Bill C-289.

Eric, when you wish, you may proceed.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Well, five minutes is less than I thought I'd have, so I'm going to have to move quickly. I did hear once that people can listen three times faster than someone can talk, so I can talk fast and you'll be able to keep up with me.

It's an honour to be here before this committee. My understanding is that for a bill or motion to be deemed votable by this subcommittee it should fit a number of criteria, which were initially listed in October 1987 in the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business. I won't go through all the criteria. I assume you are all very familiar with them.

Mr. Joe Jordan: What is that date again?

Mr. Eric Lowther: October 1987.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Have you got that one? There's an updated one.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you for that.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Have you got the 12-criteria one?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Joe Jordan: How many criteria are on your list?

Mr. Eric Lowther: They're not numbered, so I'm just looking at them. I'd say there are about eight or nine.

Mr. Joe Jordan: We're down to five now.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Anyway, we've examined Bill C-289 to make sure it meets those criteria.

What does Bill C-289 propose? Well, as required by the subcommittee guidelines, the summary of the bill states:

The purpose of this enactment is to allow a taxpayer a deduction of expenses related to the adoption of a child that do not exceed $7,000 when computing his or her income for a taxation year. The expenses must have been incurred in that taxation year or in the previous two years.

Essentially, the bill would recognize that adoptive parents make a significant social contribution to our society in adopting children in need of parents, and this activity would be encouraged and supported for the good of the children and for the good of society as a whole. I would submit that it's a very important bill and worthy of being deemed votable.

For just a little more clarification, adoptive parents face significant upfront costs when they embark on adoption, and out-of-pocket adoption expenses are not tax-deductible. This would be a first step in addressing this. Unique challenges and expenses are faced by adoptive parents when adopting a child. Even in public adoptions, where provinces have traditionally covered the expenses related to adoption, we are now seeing adoptive parents facing a new suite of fees and increased costs.

In the case of private or international adoptions, couples may face costs in the thousands of dollars for legal fees, home studies, assessments, etc. Some of these upfront costs sometimes have been a discouragement to couples. I've had couples come into my office who have gone through considerable expense to adopt children, are happy to do that, but have subsequently lost employment or whatever and found themselves really in tough straits. There's absolutely no recognition of the social contribution they're making in caring for children who need both mother and father.

There's more information there, but because we're time-constrained and we may want to go to questions, I want to respect the committee's time constraints.

It looks as if I can go a little longer here, based on that finger signal from the chair.

The Chair: You can go a little longer, or we can take a little more time for questions. Whatever you wish, Eric.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Okay.

Well, the number of adoptions is a little hard to obtain, but the Library of Parliament indicates that the total number of domestic adoptions in Canada in 1990 was about 2,800—that's per year. The most recent figures available indicate there are some 1,800 international adoptions.

• 0850

The Province of Quebec estimates that the average cost of international adoption to adopting parents is about $20,000. So you can see even this $7,000 tax deduction doesn't go all the way, but it at least sends a signal to adoptive parents that there is a message of appreciation for the social contribution these couples are prepared to make.

When you consider the alternative for children who would be cared for outside a mother-and-father arrangement—it might be state care or foster care—and when you compare that to a child being placed in the care of a loving mother and father, I think it's incumbent on and prudent for us to show some leadership and send a signal to these adoptive parents that what they're doing is in fact very important.

Let me also say I've had a surprising amount of public support on this bill. I submitted this bill some time ago, posted it on my personal website, and did absolutely no more promotion than that. Somehow people got wind of this. I didn't really send it out or promote it in any way, and yet the petitions have been coming in steadily to my office in support of the bill. I've had over 4,000 signatures tabled already. I just tabled another 1,000 in the House last week. I've had support from across the country, and that's without any real promotion of it.

I also have letters of support from a number of members of the House, such as MP Dan McTeague—I have a very strong letter from him—and John Bryden as well. I have strong support for the bill. Also some members of the Bloc have kindly given strong letters of endorsement, and a number of other members as well. I'd be glad to give those to the committee if anyone is interested.

That is the thrust and intent of the bill. The number one consideration is the children themselves. This is the alternative to state care, foster care, moving from home to home, as opposed to adoptive parents. There are in fact more adoptive parents wanting to adopt than children available. This would be a good step to encourage child care within a mother-and-father home arrangement, and it would be good for us to support it.

Thank you so much your attentiveness in listening to that. I'm open for questions.

The Chair: Thank you.

Have we any questions on this?

I have a question or a comment, if I'm allowed that as the chair. On Sunday I was walking to my home from where I was Sunday morning, and this person said, “Good morning. I have a political question for you.” I didn't call it a political question. She said, “I want to tell you, just because I haven't met Mr. Right doesn't mean I don't want a family. I'm adopting a child, and perhaps if things come through slowly as I travel, you could put my name on the list.” I said, “Well, that's not political. We'd be glad. Just let us know.” She said she was going to China to adopt a little girl, and I found it exciting, as she did.

So my question is, would this apply whether my neighbour or I adopted a child from Canada or from wherever in the world?

Mr. Eric Lowther: That's an excellent question. It's a $7,000 tax deduction for receipted expenses regardless of where the child is adopted from, but it's up to a $7,000 maximum. So in answer to your question, yes, it would apply, but only to the $7,000 point, and international adoptions are often much more expensive than that.

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I have just a quick question.

[English]

Mr. Eric Lowther: If I keep working at my French lessons, I won't have to do this for much longer.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You won't have to plug up in the morning.

Mr. Eric Lowther: That's right. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have a question on a matter which I am interested in concerning tax deductions. Do you know how much can cost the adoption of a child in Canada and how much can cost an international adoption?

• 0855

[English]

Mr. Eric Lowther: For clarification, is the question about the costs to the government if they were to enact this piece of legislation?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, to the individual.

[English]

Mr. Eric Lowther: For you personally? For a person? Okay. So we're answering the question of personal costs that could be incurred by a person to adopt.

Well, they really vary. In various provinces sometimes there can be no costs, in the sense that there's no fee assessed by the province to go through the adoption process. But often there are other expenses beyond just applying for the adoption. For example, there can be expenses for home assessment—to have a third party come in and do assessments that may be required. There may be medical expenses and assessments. There may be psychological assessments. So at the provincial level the costs sometimes aren't too high—several thousand dollars.

But there are also private adoption organizations that have additional costs, and they can be up to $10,000. It really varies, depending on how many assessments are required of the home environment, some legalese that may be involved in registering names and lawyer fees, and these kinds of things. But if someone were to have receipted expenses for up to $7000, remember, this is just a tax deduction—it's not $7,000 given to someone—so the deduction in most cases would not cover all the costs.

I'd say, just from talking to the Adoption Council of Canada, this would probably be, for Canadian adoptions within the country, about half to maybe a little over half of the costs incurred by adoptive parents.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll have our last question from Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Lowther. I have just a couple of points.

There's a two-year retroactive portion of this.

Mr. Eric Lowther: That's right.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That unfortunately puts me in a conflict, because I've adopted in the last two years, but I adopted before I was married.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Joe Jordan: That's Dan McTeague, and you mentioned him as well.

I adopted a child before I was married. I would still qualify?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I believe that's right. This doesn't go into qualification—who qualifies and who doesn't qualify. That's really provincial jurisdiction. They decide who can adopt and who can't. This is just to say the adoptive costs would be covered.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

I have just one more question. Did your website give out the names of this committee? Because I've got more e-mails on this bill than I've ever had on any one in history.

Mr. Eric Lowther: No, my website did not, but I will tell you that just prior to coming before this committee, we did advise a group of people who had written to us that we were coming before the committee and members on it to express.... I'm actually quite surprised that you got a number of letters, but—

Mr. Joe Jordan: I got 54 of them.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Well, I'll tell you, that was not a big organized effort on our part. That was just a general e-mail send-out saying, “We're going before the committee. If you're interested in expressing your support, go for it.” The fact that you got 54 underlines the public support of this kind of initiative, even from people who are not adoptive parents, even from people who just look at it and say, “Gee, this thing makes sense.”

The Chair: I thank you very much for being here, Mr. Lowther.

Mr. Eric Lowther: My pleasure. Thank you.

The Chair: We'll go on to our next member.

I see we have traded positions on our list, and our next member has five minutes to explain why his M-418 should—

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I should be the next one to take the floor but considering that Mr. Szabo is sitting in committee today, I'll let him speak first.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, I appreciate that.

Mr. Szabo, with M-418 you have five minutes. Please proceed.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. I want to thank Mr. Sauvageau for his courtesy. I am in front of the health committee right now, and I'd like to get back, so I thank him for that.

• 0900

Very briefly, the motion before you, M-418, simply asks the government to consider the advisability of making an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan that would change the rate of annual accrual on Canada Pension Plan entitlements from the current 2% to 2.33% for public safety officers, which includes police officers and firefighters.

I think we're all quite aware that the condition of firefighters is quite unique among professions. More than 40% of all firefighters suffered job-related injuries in 1997. They're nearly six times more likely to suffer injuries on the job, and their life expectancy is much lower than the national average. In fact, it ranges from five to ten years lower than the national average. It's very significant.

Mr. Joe Jordan: What was that again?

Mr. Paul Szabo: Their life expectancy is five to ten years lower than the national average.

In recognition of the dangerous nature of this profession and the fact that the firefighters do not enjoy, on average, a life expectancy as long as the national average, the Income Tax Act was changed some years ago to allow them to retire five years earlier than the act presently provides for ordinary Canadians. Today ordinary Canadians can retire at age 65, or at age 60, if they take a reduction of 0.5% a month right through for the five years. That has been brought down for firefighters.

Unfortunately, that has some negative consequences, because it gives them less working career time in which to earn pension entitlements. When you couple that with the fact that they actually live for a shorter time during their retirement years, the benefit they derive from the Canada Pension Plan is much lower than for other Canadians. That was not the intent.

I believe that when the change was made to the Income Tax Act, they really should have concurrently also made a change to the annual accrual rate, or the rate at which they earn benefits, to be commensurate with—or map it to—the full working career of ordinary Canadians, so that during their full working careers as firefighters they would be able to ultimately earn full pensions under the Canada Pension Plan.

This particular recommendation to move that accrual rate from 2% to 2.33% has been brought before members of Parliament for a number of years. Indeed, in the last report of the Standing Committee on Finance, in the pre-budget consultation, the finance committee embraced the recommendation and recommended it to the Minister of Finance.

I'm here today to bring it to your attention. I believe it's something that's well worth doing. It provides for the equity that surely was intended, and I believe it will be an important recognition of the important contribution these public safety officers make to all Canadians.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

Suzanne Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I would like to have a better understanding of the figures you mentioned. What is the present rate for firefighters' pension? Is it 2%?

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes, 2%.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Would you like this rate to be increased to 2.5%?

Mr. Paul Szabo: To 2.33%.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: To 2.33%. Where did you take the statistics showing that firefighters have a shorter life expectancy than other people?

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: That is published data from the International Association of Fire Fighters and from the public safety officers' report that was done. Public safety officers is a defined term under federal legislation and includes police officers, firefighters, prison guards, customs broker sites, etc.

This information initially came out when the change to the Income Tax Act was made, to permit early retirement at age 55 for firefighters, in recognition of the fact that their life expectancy was much lower than the national average.

The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments?

It was very clear and good information. Thank you very much, Mr. Szabo.

• 0905

Our next member before us, on Bill C-443, has five minutes. Monsieur Benoît Sauvageau, you may proceed when you wish, to tell us and convince us why your bill should be votable.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman and colleagues, it is a pleasure for me to be here. I want to tell you that this is the first time in my career as a member of Parliament that I have had the privilege and the opportunity to make a presentation on one of my bills which was drawn.

I am going to tell you where I got the idea of this bill. I was not trained as a lawyer and, at the beginning, it was a little complicated for me to prepare such a bill. I am going to give you some concrete examples and to tell you how there can be weaknesses in our judicial system. They can appear small to most people but when you are caught in one of them, it can become a bottomless pit.

If you have been wrongly accused of a crime, if you went in prison and you fight to prove your innocence, you have to find a good lawyer to defend you without having to pay. Generally, when you are in prison, you have no money and the lawyer will defend you based on the conviction that you are going to receive compensation because he is sure to win his case. He will then take a percentage of the compensation you receive if you get a pardon. It is not enough to be declared innocent or not guilty; you must have a pardon.

I have two cases in mind, those of Réjean Hinse and David Milgaard. Those people were compensated because they were granted a pardon for a crime they did not commit. The proof was made thanks to DNA tests and through other means. Let us say that those people were attributed a compensation of, say one million and that their lawyers had told them that they accepted to defend them without being paid in return for between 40% and 50% of the amount of the compensation which they would receive after they had got a pardon. Those people who were in prison for a certain time got a compensation of one million but they cashed only a percentage of this amount because their lawyers took a percentage of it to cover defence costs.

Why does the victim of a judicial error have to pay legal costs? In my opinion, and this what this bill proposes, those costs should be paid by the people who are responsible for this error, namely the Crown, in those cases.

In my constituency, there is a guy who spent five years in prison. He got out of prison and could find a lawyer to defend him. The lawyer defends him at no cost for now. I remind you that those two cases I mentioned earlier went up to the Supreme Court. I do not know if you have ever done business with lawyers but legal costs are relatively high, aren't they? The guy from my constituency, for his part, spent five years in prison. Right after he was imprisoned, the victim recognized her identification mistake. The Minister of Justice has had the case in her hands for three years to obtain a pardon. Those proceedings are extremely long and costly, without mentioning the personal constraints this individual must have. Then, if this guy is a victim of the system— there are not tens or hundreds of them per year in Canada—and he gets a pardon under clause 748(2), he will receive a compensation a percentage of which will have to be paid to his lawyer. I believe that legal costs should be paid by the people who made the mistake and not by the victim of the judicial error.

This is why I introduced this bill with the legislators of the House. I think the Department of Justice should be open to a bill like this. As I mentioned, if we consider the judicial annals... Maybe I should have provided you with statistics. I did not and I apologize for this but I can tell you out of memory that there was the case of Réjean Hinse and the case of the “Hurricane”, in the U.S., we have all heard about because there was a film based on this story. The are not tens or hundreds of cases every year. However, even if there is only one case every five years or every ten years, it is one too many where an individual has to pay his legal costs from his compensation, one too many where the victim of an error has to pay. The victim has already paid by being in prison.

You can ask whatever questions you may want to ask, but I would ask you to make sure that this bill is a votable item.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

The first questioner is Mr. Jordan, followed by Mr. Godin.

• 0910

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you.

I have just a quick question. Are there different kinds of pardons?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, there are.

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan: In my riding we had a trucking company that all of a sudden was hiring truck drivers. They had to go into the States, and anyone who had ever had an impaired charge, or whatever, had to get a pardon.

So does a free pardon mean the crown admits they were wrongfully convicted—they didn't do it?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No. If you have a criminal record, you certainly have to ask for a pardon. There is a form to that effect in about every honourable member's office, but this is not a pardon under clause 748(2). There are several types of pardons, namely the pardon under clause 690. This is why the category of pardon has been specified. We are talking here about people who went in prison, like Réjean Hinse and some others.

In the case you mentioned, we are dealing with someone who got a pardon five years after having committed a minor crime. This is different. Otherwise, costs would be much higher.

The Chair: Mr. Godin, please.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I can use another example to see if that falls into the same category. I am thinking about the Marshall case. He spent 11 years in prison and he was found not guilty after those 11 years.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Exactly.

Mr. Yvon Godin: This means that all the money which was used...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Exactly. Let us take the Marshall case. That guy was the victim of an error and the proof of it has been made. For the error he was a victim of he receives a certain amount of money. In principle, the full amount should go to Marshall but he must give a certain percentage to his lawyer because there is no single person in prison who can afford to pay his or her lawyer. Then, the lawyer accepts to defend the person for a certain percentage of the compensation. The lawyer is free to determine the percentage he wants. I am told that it is between 40% and 50%.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: [Editor's Note: Inaudible].

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan: We're in the wrong business.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The objection which might come to your mind is that legal costs could increase, but I am not certain that the Crown or the Department of Justice would have fee schedules to stick to.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If I understand, this could mean that my bill will be votable.

The Chair: Not yet.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you. Have a good day.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will proceed to Mr. Benoit, who has five minutes to tell us why his motion M-39 should be considered to be a votable item. Leon, you may start when you're ready.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for having me here today.

This motion simply states that in the opinion of this House, Elections Canada should oversee all elections on Indian reserves. This deals with what I believe is one of the saddest situations we face in our country today.

Shortly after I became member of Parliament for Lakeland constituency, which is an expanded constituency that takes in eight Indian reserves and four Métis settlements, I started getting calls from people on the reserve who were having serious problems. The problems tended to focus around problems in fiscal responsibility. When I visited the reserves, the conditions I saw people living in were unacceptable in a country like ours.

For example, one gentleman phoned and I went to visit him. He lived in a house that was suitable for four people, but 27 people were living with him. There were wall-to-wall people, to the point that the walls were being broken out around him. He had extended family; it was a sad situation. He was one of the unfortunate people who found that the money that was intended to go to him and his family just wasn't getting there.

Clearly, there are problems with fiscal accountability. From each of the eight reserves, over the past three years, people have come to me expressing problems with fiscal accountability. That's where the focus has been. A lot of the problems we see arise from money not being properly allocated on reserves, but I would argue that until you have electoral accountability, you're very unlikely to have fiscal accountability.

Once people see that elections are fair on reserves, and when they believe elections are fair on reserves, then I believe they will have more faith in their leadership. If they find they can't trust the leadership, they will do something about it and elect people they believe are more trustworthy.

• 0915

The purpose of this bill is to have Elections Canada oversee elections on reserves. It makes sense. Reserves are federal responsibility under our Constitution, and I believe that a close monitoring of these elections, right from the start, to ensure that people on the voters lists are people who are supposed to be on the voters lists, right through to making sure there aren't problems with vote buying, which I've had accusations of on more than one of my reserves, right through to people who seem to be eligible to vote not being allowed to vote.... These things are happening. They're pointed out to me. They're serious problems. Having Elections Canada monitor and oversee elections will help deal with the problem.

There's a second and related area, though, and this came up from a task force I set up shortly after the last election. The task force went to people on reserves, aboriginal people near reserves, and we heard from several hundred people over the process through one-on-one meetings, public meetings and questionnaires. The fifth recommendation did call for this kind of overseeing of elections, but a second related issue was the issue of people covered under Bill C-31, which was passed under the Mulroney government.

A lot of women who approached the task force during this hearing were complaining that they were not being allowed on band lists. They were not being treated as part of the band because of Bill C-31, and in fact they were losing their status even though Bill C-31 in some cases didn't indicate that this should happen. There's an inconsistency in the way that people covered under Bill C-31 are handled on reserves, and this affects Indian women more than anyone else. Several people referred to this and said that having Elections Canada oversee the elections would help. One person said:

The system has failed us. We phone for anything...the band just discriminates against us. They use money that has been allocated for us for buildings on the reserve and we don't benefit from it.

Another person, Liz Poitras, said:

I have Indian status through the federal government but don't belong anywhere. That's where it hurts—there's no belonging. If I belonged, I wouldn't be so stressed out.

She was one of the many who said that because of Bill C-31, and because of the discretion given and the way different bands treat the issue, she is not treated as though she's part of the band.

Clearly, from that task force report there was a cry for monitoring of elections to ensure that people who are eligible to vote are allowed to vote, to ensure that the voting is fair, to ensure there isn't vote buying and that type of thing. And I would argue that if we have Elections Canada monitor elections it will help deal with, down the road, the problem of a lack of fiscal responsibility and will help clean up what are indeed I believe some of the saddest situations that we're going to see in this country, truly third world conditions.

I ask for your approval to make this motion votable so we can at least have a good look at this in committee.

The Chair: Yes.

We'll have Madame Tremblay, followed by Mr. Bernier and Mr. Jordan, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Benoit, have you met people from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to talk about everything you told us and about your project?

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. First of all, it is hard to find the person. You tend to be passed from one person to another. They threw up their hands. They say it's really up to the bands to determine who's on the list. I'm sorry, but it is the responsibility of the federal government to determine that the laws of Canada are being respected and that the laws under the Indian Act in particular are being respected, and it just isn't happening and no one will take responsibility.

I think the Department of Indian Affairs is given a direction to not interfere, even though certainly it is their jurisdiction.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I am a little uncomfortable with such a proposal. You mentioned yourself, at the end of your presentation, that the reserves were almost in third world conditions.

• 0920

Moreover, what kind of image a democratic country like Canada would send to the whole world if we were saying that on our Indian reserves, people are not able to hold their election and that we have to send monitoring missions? I have to admit quite frankly that personally, it makes me very, very uncomfortable.

I wonder if there is another way to send people to oversee the election. There must be. Otherwise, later on, Canada is going to say that it is not pleased with the way the provinces make their election lists and is going to oversee them too. We are going to send people to oversee the election in a province. Quite frankly, it seems dangerous to me. It makes me uncomfortable.

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's very interesting, Madame Tremblay, because Canada sends observers to oversee elections around the world, and I've heard very few people complain about that. When they see a situation where elections aren't necessarily fair and where the country has asked for fairness to be ensured, Elections Canada has sent people around the world. Yet in a situation where Indian women, in particular, are crying out for someone to ensure fair elections, Canada shouldn't step in? I can't understand that kind of thinking. Something as important as the basic democratic right to a fair election deserves whatever measure the country can provide to allow that and to ensure that it does happen.

Indian reserves are clearly the responsibility of the federal government under our Constitution. This is their area of jurisdiction.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: In Restigouche, in the Matapedia Valley, it is the band council which told the government that it was going to hold again the election because things happened which were not very democratic. They are smart enough to realize that themselves. I fully agree to missions being sent, but let us send them to third world countries, to places where we know that there is no democracy. It seems to me that by monitoring our own fellow-citizens, we would be treating them like second-class citizens. It is my opinion.

[English]

The Chair: We may ask for a short answer, and we have two other questioners here.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Of course we do that for every federal election we have in the country. We do that at every provincial election we have in the country. We do that at every municipal election we have in the country. So why is what's right at the federal level, at the provincial level, and at the municipal level not right at the reserve level? It's time we stopped treating these people like second-class citizens and give them the same kinds of protection we give to all citizens.

The Chair: Thank you.

I think we'll go, if we may, to Mr. Bernier, please.

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Benoit, I come from New Brunswick, and I have two big native reserves in my federal riding. Since 1997, when I became a member of Parliament, we had elections on both of those reserves. It's true that Elections Canada are not overseeing the process of those elections, but I can assure you that there were personnel from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who were on site. So why do you want to change the process?

Mr. Leon Benoit: The problem with the Department of Indian Affairs overlooking—and this was pointed out very clearly to me on several of the reserves, not just one, but five or six out of the eight reserves in my constituency—is that the Indian Affairs people get to know the band council and certain key people in the community, and that same person often is the one who comes into the reserve to monitor the election.

Secondly, they're either instructed—and I believe it is instructed...that they're not to question the band list, and they're not to question a lot of things, quite frankly. They're certainly not capable, as they don't have the personnel, to properly monitor the election. They don't have the expertise that Elections Canada has in monitoring elections. So why not give people on our reserves the best? Elections Canada is trained to do exactly that. Why not let them do the background work, let them monitor the elections? Once we have elections that people consider to be fair, I believe we can make some real progress on reserves.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: This is not a judgment I want to make but I also have some difficulty with that. It is as if we were saying that today it is the aboriginal and tomorrow it will be the Acadians. Whose turn will it be next? Those people are human beings and they must take their own responsibilities. There is a band in my riding I have a great respect for, and I think that this would be a lack of respect towards those people to tell them that they are not able to look after themselves. That is the message. You are talking about the third world. I will tell you that in Montreal, in Vancouver and in other big cities, there are homeless people who are starving. As a people, what are we doing about them?

They may be 26 people living in the same house, but there are thousands of people in the street who are starving. If we want to talk about third world conditions, we have got them directly in our country. It does not change anything. There are groups of people who are poor and we will have to work to help those people.

• 0925

I do not agree with the idea of removing a people or a group the right to hold an election by themselves. We cannot tell those people that they are not able to look after themselves and send them someone from outside. I think about the message we would send to the other countries.

[English]

Mr. David Chatters: It seems to me we're debating the bill—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: No. I am going to propose...

[English]

The Chair: We have a—

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't know. He's saying it seems to be that it's debating the bill, but I'm talking about those statistics because I want to know his reaction before I make my decision.

The Chair: Okay. My comment as the chair will be—I'm just looking at the clock, and we're past our time—that you may continue for a short time.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, I'm not going to get in an argument. But you as a chairman and me as a member of the committee.... I give my comments in order to be able to get from the witness who wants his bill or his motion to be passed.... I'm going to make my personal decision on whether I support it or not. He knows what I feel about it, and I think it gives him an opportunity to argue it. That's what it's all about. He's a big man. He can look after himself.

The Chair: My apologies. As the chair, I should not have heard any other comment.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, but I mean—

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, perhaps you can wrap this—

Mr. Yvon Godin: He's an adult, to use the right word.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In fact I appreciate the opportunity. I can't understand how anyone could see it as intruding into their affairs.

First of all, I don't feel that the Government of Canada is intruding when they monitor elections in Mannville, my hometown. I expect that. They do that every election. I think that's only reasonable.

Indian reserves, under the Constitution of our country, which I'm sure all of you respect, are an area of federal responsibility. Why not have the federal body, Elections Canada, the body that's meant to ensure that elections are fair, monitor? I can't understand how anyone could see it as intruding.

It's respecting the rights of the citizens of reserves to have fair elections, elections that are ensured to be fair. That's what this is all about—not about intruding in anyone's jurisdiction. In fact, it's respecting the responsibility that the federal government has on those reserves. If you asked people on those reserves and if you in fact had a vote on those reserves asking people whether they want Elections Canada to monitor elections, I believe 90% would say they want that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Benoit. You certainly have captured the attention of all of us, I'm sure.

The clock says we're past your time. Thank you very much.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to having a vote on this in the House.

The Chair: Thank you.

Our next member is before us. Ms. Michelle Dockrill is going to have up to five minutes to explain why her motion, M-414, should be considered to be an item selected as a votable item.

You may proceed, Michelle.

Ms. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In light of what I see as an important task that this committee has been commissioned with in terms of making decisions with respect to private members' motions and in light of how passionate I am about this issue, to save the committee some time I've prepared a text. If the committee would indulge me, I will utilize that so as not to waste the committee's time.

I want to say thank you to you and to the committee, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to talk on what I think is a really important and timely issue. My motion, M-414, calls on the government to fully index the levels at which the old age security benefit begins to be clawed back.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that my motion will be supported by members here today and by other members of the House as well, but I'd like to take this opportunity to explain why I believe this matter deserves the attention of the House.

Today in Canada, like in many other developed, industrialized countries, we find ourselves with a rapidly aging population. As this portion of the population continues to grow over the next generation, I believe it is our duty as legislators to ensure that the people who have worked hard all their lives and have contributed to the success of Canada—which we all enjoy today—have the ability to live comfortably in their old age.

The use of bracket creep is nothing new to the Government of Canada. Some would say bracket creep has long been used to increase revenues. It has been used in the income tax to collect more taxes by letting inflation do the dirty work. The same notion, Mr. Chair, applies to the OAS benefit. Recently, in the Ottawa Citizen of September 25, 1998, Eric Beauchesne wrote that one-quarter of the increase in personal income tax revenues came from so-called bracket creep. Since this article, Mr. Chair, we've seen that our finance minister has begun to remedy this situation by re-indexing personal income tax brackets. I believe that seniors are entitled to the same benefit.

• 0930

As a direct result of this fixed ceiling on the amounts seniors can earn without losing old age security benefits, I'm seeing seniors in my own riding of Bras d'Or—Cape Breton suffering. Seniors today find themselves under attack from all sides, by all levels of government. Many seniors in my riding have come to me unable to afford the copayments for the drugs that have been prescribed by their doctors and are essential to maintaining their health. Seniors are often unable to find the supports from government at a time in their lives when they need them the most.

The task of balancing a decent quality of life with the costs of bare living are proving more difficult for seniors each year. Now seniors are finding that with each passing year their clawback is rising while their benefits are falling, falling to a level, Mr. Chair, like the following.

Recently I was contacted by a constituent who relayed a story to me. He was in a local rural community in a local community store, where he watched a senior citizen count her money to purchase six cans of cat food. He felt terrible about the situation because he felt that maybe her cats were her only companions, and followed her home to talk to her neighbours to see if there was a way he could assist her, only to find out that the lady did not have any cats, Mr. Chair.

That's the situation we have seniors in this country living in. I think we can all recognize that our seniors have lived through the dirty thirties. A large number of them have given up the lives of their children who fought for this country. I think we, as legislators and parliamentarians, owe them the right to have a quality of life in their last remaining years.

As seniors critic for the NDP, I can tell you that I hear stories similar to what I've just talked to you about, Mr. Chair, stories about seniors that are playing Russian roulette with their medication, stories about seniors that are just not able to survive, stories about seniors that are now going back to live with their children and their grandchildren because of all of the pressures that are being put on them by various levels of government.

In closing, I hope that my motion will receive the support of all parties. I think it's important, Mr. Chair. My intention with this motion is begin a debate on a national level with respect to seniors. That's what I see this motion doing. I don't see this motion as tying the government's hands. Seniors organizations across the country are saying that we, on a national level, have to begin talking about the quality of life that our seniors are living with. I see this motion as just a mechanism to begin that discussion.

I want to thank the committee today.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jordan, followed by Madam Tremblay.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Michelle, what's the current clawback for OAS?

Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: It's $53,000, I think.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It's $53,000...? Okay. Your proposal, then, would be that from this point forward that clawback threshold would be adjusted for inflation.

Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Yes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: With all due respect, this is not talking about restricting or making decisions. I think the reality of it is that we have seniors that are living in some very trying times here, and I think that we parliamentarians have to talk about what we can do to assist them.

The Chair: Suzanne.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have a little difficulty to understand one thing. If the amount is $53,000, how can we associate with it the examples you gave us of people who are unable to pay for their medicines and who buy cat food? Certainly, those people do not earn $53,000. How is the fact of helping the wealthiest going to help the poorest? I have some difficulty to make the equation. Can you clarify this for me?

[English]

Ms. Michelle Dockrill: Thank you, Madam Tremblay.

The point I'm trying to make, notwithstanding that some would say the level is an acceptable level, is that we are seeing seniors' incomes now being affected by a number of levels of government, with respect to their medical benefits, with respect to some now having to pay for long-term care for spouses. What I'm saying is that they just don't have the means right now to ensure that they have a quality of life.

• 0935

I respect your position in terms of how $53,000 seems to be a large amount of money, but I think that when you really take into consideration the issues I'm seeing in my riding from people who are making that, they are having a very difficult time because of the impositions that are being placed on them at the municipal level, the provincial level, and, unfortunately, the federal level.

The Chair: I see no further questions. I thank you for your presentation.

Ms. Michelle Dockrill: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I believe we could take a one-minute recess here.

Thank you, James.

We shall suspend for one minute or two.

[Proceedings continue in camera]