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]

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

• 1538

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.)): I thank you for joining us. Welcome to our Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business.

I see the agenda today is a selection of votable items. Today is Wednesday, October 27, 1999, it's 3:30, and we're in the West Block.

Your chair is very new to this committee. I want to make just a very short comment. I think the committee has the wrong name. We won't set out today to change the name of the committee, but I believe the name should be the consensus committee, or perhaps we should consider that.

I've heard a lot of good things about the work of the committee, believe it or not, and about what happened with the members who were here before me. I look forward to learning from members who have sat here before and to working with them on this. Certainly I will refer many times to our very knowledgeable staff: our clerk, Bibiane, and also James here.

I wonder if you can just give us an overview of where we're at today and what we need to achieve today as we move on, please, for my sake.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As members will know, last Tuesday, October 19, there was a draw for the first 30 items on the order of precedence; 15 bills and 15 motions were selected, and these have been placed on the order of precedence. Each of these items will receive an hour of debate in the House during private members' hour.

• 1540

The decision before the subcommittee today is which of those should become votable, which means they would be getting up to three hours of debate and there would be a vote at the end of the three hours. The committee has the power to recommend that up to 10 of the 30 items be made votable, in any combination of bills and motions. That was a change recommended and adopted in the last session.

So the purpose of our meetings today and tomorrow morning is to ask each of the sponsors of bills and motions on the order of precedence to make a brief presentation to this committee, followed by a short period of time for questions and answers. At the end of that, after tomorrow's meeting presumably, there will be an in camera discussion by the members of the committee to decide which ones should be recommended to be made votable.

That report goes from this subcommittee to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which generally ratifies and concurs with the reports of this committee. That is then tabled in the House, where it is deemed adopted.

Because this is the first decision of this session, private members' business has been suspended pending the receipt of a report from this committee and the procedure and House affairs committee. So as soon as this committee reports, private members' business will start for this session of Parliament.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I have a comment to make before we start. We'll go in camera tomorrow. Quite often we end up picking five and five, I believe, but that doesn't necessarily have to happen. I just thought I would put that out for consideration.

As we kick this off, I'll share what I said to one person who met me today in the hall, probably to lobby me—not that anyone ever would. I said “Just remember one thing. I don't necessarily have to hear just how great your bill is for all the right reasons. It's back to focusing on why it should become votable and take up the three hours versus the one hour.”

Our first member is Mr. Pat Martin. Would you like to proceed with your bill, please?

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I do get your point. I will try not to argue the merits of the bill. I'll try to convince you that it should be deemed votable.

It's a very straightforward and short piece of private members' business. It's actually only one sentence:

Subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act is repealed.

We're seeking to remove the clause in the Canada Post Corporation Act that specifically bars rural route mail couriers from the right to bargain collectively. As you know, rural route mail couriers are the people who deliver your mail in the country. They're deemed by the act to be independent contractors.

This group of people went to the Labour Relations Board and asked for a ruling on that, and the Labour Relations Board said no, the relationship is really that of an employer and an employee. But seeing as there is this one clause in the Canada Post Corporation Act, they couldn't be allowed to bargain collectively. So it's a catch-22.

The reason I would argue this should be a votable item is that I seek to extend the rights other workers enjoy to the right to free collective bargaining. They may never choose to join a union or form a union, but they do have the right to make that choice, and they're being denied that right now. They may seek to form an informal association and not deal with the Labour Relations Board, other than bargaining collectively, but as a group, I believe they have the right to go to their employer, the corporation, and say, “These are the terms and conditions we would like to work under.” That way they'd be given all the benefits employees enjoy by legislation.

Currently they don't even get paid holidays, health and welfare plans, Canada Pension Plan, or UIC. None of those things are allowed to them.

I won't take up any more of your time. If there are questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Pat, what's the history of this? Were they in the union and excluded, or was the decision to go with rural contractors?

• 1545

Mr. Pat Martin: No, they've never been part of any of the postal unions. Right from day one, when Canada Post Corporation was set up, the rural route mail couriers were seen to be under contract. You would sign a contract with them to deliver the mail.

The Chair: Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Can you tell us how many workers would be affected by this bill, and what percentage of them would be women?

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: The group consists of about 7,500 contractors. I couldn't tell you accurately what the division is male to female, but an awful lot of rural women take this as a second job—the spouse of a farmer, for instance, for an off-farm income. So women do make up a very high percentage.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, Grant.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Martin, thank you for your presentation.

We have a set of criteria against which we look at all presentations. I'm just looking at the third criterion, which states that bills and motions should concern matters of significant public interest.

I wonder if you could give us an idea of the significance of this particular item and what kind of response you're getting from the mail carriers as well as the general public on this issue.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you for the question.

I believe there is a great deal of public interest. In fact, the fifth estate had an hour-long special on this very issue last year.

As a group, rural route carriers are very active lobbyists and have garnered a great deal of interest and support from groups around the country.

Finally, as to why it's a public interest issue, this clause is an anomaly that's just waiting to be cleaned up. There's no justification as to why this group of employees should be denied the right to bargain collectively. It's not a national security issue. They're not dealing with privileged, sensitive information in the way that Hill employees are, for instance, who are not allowed to unionize. It's not like the RCMP, although even the RCMP are allowed to bargain collectively. They just don't have the right to strike.

This group of workers may even be satisfied with that compromise, frankly. They want to bargain collectively but they're not too concerned about the other labour relations issues associated with it.

The Chair: If there are no other questions, I'll thank you very much, Pat, for your presentation.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you for your time.

The Chair: Just before Mr. Szabo comes along, I want to say hello to my colleague Bill Blaikie.

You have a very new chair with less than limited experience here. I've heard a lot of good things about this group—besides many people telling me it's the most unpopular job, and one I should not consider taking. I was glad to hear that there are experienced people here. I talked to some of the previous chairs, and I heard, I will repeat, good things. I'm here to learn and to work with you people.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Great.

The Chair: Just before you came in, I said that I thought we should change the name of the committee to “Consensus”, because that seems to be what we're working towards.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: We're a fun group.

The Chair: Terrific.

Paul Szabo, please.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bill C-235 concerns the issue of divorce and, maybe more importantly, the consequences of divorce. I can give you a few facts.

The divorce rate in Canada now is just a little over 40%. It was at 50%, but it's tapered down a little bit primarily because of the growth of common law relationships, which now number one million families in Canada. Their breakdown rate is about 50% higher than that of married couples.

It also has to do with children from the standpoint that lone parents represent 15% of all families in Canada, but they account for 52% of all children living in poverty. As well, 70% of young offenders in Canada come from broken families. I believe this gives you some idea of the public interest in the issue of divorce and its consequences.

• 1550

As you know, the Commons and Senate had a joint committee on custody and access. They conducted consultations for two years and wrote a report.

I would like to read recommendation 10:

that all parents seeking parenting orders, unless there is agreement between them on the terms of such an order, be required to participate in an education program to help them become aware of the post-separation reaction of parents....

Bill C-235 proposes mandatory counselling for parents prior to the granting of their divorce. I want to reiterate that this is not so much about parents as it is about children. The counselling would be required in all cases unless there are grounds for physical or mental cruelty, where the court agrees that the counselling would be inappropriate, where it would serve no purpose, or where the parties cannot be brought to counselling.

Its purpose is not to reconcile marriages but rather to prepare parents to deal with the inevitable circumstances they will encounter.

It has two principal objectives. The first is to deal with establishing an appropriate parenting plan, to make sure it's in place, child-centred, and in fact in the best interests of the child. The second is to address the tragic prevalence of post-breakup acrimony. As members probably will know, the chance of domestic violence occurring increases dramatically after the breakdown compared with prior to the breakdown.

To give you an indication, the Province of Alberta court-ordered counselling in pilot programs over two years in Edmonton, with a 95% satisfaction rate from those ordered by the courts to participate. It is now Alberta-wide. As well, it is on a pilot basis in two major centres in B.C. and is also in place in 18 states of the United States.

To give you an indication of my commitment and my background, I started this back in 1996. I have written some monographs on it. The first is Divorce: the Bold Facts, which deals with some of the consequences of divorce and basically concludes that the real victims of divorce are children.

The second monograph is Strong Families—make A Strong Country. Again, this has to do with the incidence of child poverty and some of the other important issues related to children's issues.

I then wrote The Tragic Tolerance—of Domestic Violence. I don't think I have to explain to you how big a problem that is in our country. Understanding that problem and dealing with constructive solutions is something we should be seized with.

Finally, there's this one from March 1999, The Child Poverty Solution. It addresses the linkages between family breakdown and poverty in our country and what we can do to address it.

I'm here today to tell you that I think this is a significant issue that all members could embrace and that all members could find a pocket in which to participate. I think it would be a good reflection of the type of issue private members' business should be dealing with.

I think this can be linked to the important work the joint committee did on custody and access, and I'm here to ask you, colleagues, for your support to make this a votable item.

Thank you.

The Chair: Do we have any questions?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Paul, quickly, I don't know how many divorces there are a year, but I suspect that if this were actually implemented, it would cause a great demand for counselling. Do we have enough counsellors?

As well, what are the economics of this? Do people pay for this counselling? Is it provided free?

Mr. Paul Szabo: The court-ordered counselling is actually covered. I can get you the statistics—I don't have them here—but Health Canada actually commissioned a census or inventory of existing institutions right now that provide community counselling. In Ontario alone there are 135 agencies. So they well exist. In fact, many of these are going out because they are not being utilized.

The Chair: Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I don't think a federal bill is necessary. All aspects of the separation process are under provincial jurisdiction. Does Canada now have procedures to encourage spouses to attempt the conciliation process, as Quebec does, though we of course know that we cannot force people into it. I would like to hear your views on this.

• 1555

Mr. Paul Szabo: You are quite right, Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Unfortunately!

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: First of all, the reason it's being addressed from a federal perspective is that the Divorce Act itself is a federal statute.

With regard to your observation about conciliation, mediation, etc., in fact that was one of the strongest recommendations made by the joint Commons and Senate committee. They found, as you may recall, that many families were becoming bankrupt from going through the court system and that during all that time the children were the ones who were the victims of this process. In their recommendation, and I agree that it's mine as well, they said that if parents had intervention before they got to the lawyers and the courts, many problems could be resolved, because the wisdom of those who had dealt with these matters over all these years would be involved. We don't want to put parents through any more pain than they're obviously going to suffer when a family does break down.

This is not a bill about trying to reconcile marriages. It's a bill about how to protect the children. The responsibilities of parents are lifelong. They don't end with separation or divorce. Both parents have an important role to play in the lives of their children, and they have to have the opportunity to continue to love their children, even if the parents hate each other.

So you are absolutely right, madame, and I think one of the things this bill will help to reinforce is that we do need this kind of support, this kind of constructive intervention, in order to make sure that the consequences are mitigated when there are pressures for bad things to happen.

The Chair: Paul, we appreciate your submission very much.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

The Chair: Our next presenter is Lou Sekora. Lou.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Mr. Chair and members, Bill C-227 seeks to create an act to establish a national organ donor registry and to promote organ donations throughout Canada. The object is to provide the means to increase the amount of available organs in Canada for the purpose of transplantation.

A national organ donor registry would allow people to register legal consent for organ donations and would subsequently lead to an increase in the rate of donation, which presently is low. We must establish a system to support a high level of organ donations in Canada. The establishment of a national organ donor registry would provide an opportunity to store or provide a link to information on organ donors from the participating provinces. Information would be maintained in an efficient form for the purpose of identifying potential organ donors.

According to the report of the Standing Committee on Health entitled Organ and tissue donation and transplantation: A Canadian Approach, which was released in April 1999, Canada is currently facing a serious situation with regard to organ and tissue donations and transplantation. The most significant effect to be had on the level of organ donations is by increasing the level of donors and the management of procurement. This can be accomplished through the establishment of a national organ donor registry.

We need to promote a response to our present critical shortage of organs. The present organ donor rate is unacceptable. Organ donation must be made an issue of national importance. A national registry will provide an efficient means to allow available organs to be matched to the awaiting recipients. This coordination effort will ultimately reduce the current waiting time for a match-up.

As it now stands, one-third of individuals who are waiting for organ transplants die as they wait for a matching donor. In the end lives will be saved, because there will be an organization and an efficient national organ donor registry to coordinate the supply and demand of available organs. The widening gap between the number of organs available and the number of Canadians in need of them highlights the void we'll continue to have without a national organ donor registry.

• 1600

The annual number of patients presently awaiting organ replacements grows faster than the number of transplants being performed each year. Potential organ donors are lost because we lack a clear organization and a simple system. Canadians need to lead rather than follow. The issue requires a legislative response. It is possible to be proactive in the current organ transplant crisis by establishing a national organ coordinating system.

I can answer some questions you may have.

The Chair: Okay. Are there any questions?

Mr. Joe Jordan: I notice that Ontario is also moving on this, and I suspect other provinces are doing so as well. Would all these things be linked together? Would the national one be linking the provincial ones?

Mr. Lou Sekora: Yes. In British Columbia they have a system that I hear is quite well run, but it has some glitches in it. The fact is that every province could join the national registry, and we would very readily be able to match up the waiting lists. If you were waiting for a kidney, a liver, part of a tissue, a valve, or whatever it may be, you could be matched up more readily and a lot faster.

I think what's happening here in Canada now is that many lives are being lost because we don't have a registry. We as a government should be leading instead of following. I think we should have a registry, if we do nothing else but save one life a year of a small child who can grow up to be an adult like you and me and lead a normal life. Many people across Canada are on machines in hospitals, and it costs us millions of dollars to keep them there. Families see their loved ones deteriorate and receive no help, and I think that with a national registry we can provide some help.

The Chair: Thanks.

Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Do you believe that, if we decided to make this bill votable and passed it, we would succeed in improving Canada's organ donation performance? Canada is not doing very well at the moment. Do you believe that the measures in your bill would raise awareness among a larger number of people, and encourage them to donate enough organs to bring us closer to the donation rates we see in Spain?

[English]

Mr. Lou Sekora: I believe that if we had a national registry, we would be able to make the public more aware that they could register to donate their organs. What we have now is, I believe, four donations per one million people, and I think that can grow. Even if we grew by 7% or 10%, we would be ahead of what we are today.

As I say, B.C. has a program that's working very well, I understand. I hear that there are some glitches in it, but it's working very well. I know that before they had it, it was not even known to a lot of people that they could donate their organs.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank my colleague for his initiative. We often hear that technology moves forward more quickly than governments in power. Do you believe that the provisions in your bill would contribute to improving provincial registry networks and thereby boost their efficiency?

I believe that we already have a world organ donor registry, and I would like to know how your proposal could improve its efficiency. We all know someone waiting for a transplant. They're not waiting because the contacts are not there, but because the organs are not there. As far as I know, we already have a registry, albeit not an official one. There are already direct contacts among all hospitals in Canada, and even among many hospitals in the world.

[English]

Mr. Lou Sekora: We do have some registration in different provinces, but in many provinces we don't have anything. This would be a central registry that the Canadian government would make available for all the provincial governments to join. Whether it be on your driver's licence or on your medical card, whatever it may be, I'll tell you what—this is a great beginning to something that we don't have anything of in a lot of provinces.

• 1605

Again, I'll mention B.C. A few years ago, it didn't have anything, and now they have one that's moving ahead and working well. I think all of Canada should join. I don't think we should be waiting for more lives to be lost. We can save a few more lives.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm looking for a little direction from the chair as well. Going back to these criteria, item 4, when we're looking at these items in terms of whether they've been addressed by the House of Commons in the current session, are we looking at the second session that has just started?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: Fine. I just wanted to check that, because I know there were some other issues brought forward by other members and, I think, by the Minister of Health as well. It seems that we're starting a second session right off the bat here.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

I thank you, Lou, for your submission.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Our next person is Mr. Vellacott.

Maurice, when you wish. It's your choice of chairs. As one of my worn-out sayings goes, it's where I happen to work part-time but there's not a bad seat in the House.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to speak today to you concerning Bill C-207. It was formerly a bill of Liberal Senator Stan Haidasz, before he retired from the Senate. Prior to prorogation, a Conservative MP was the seconder. Now there is a Liberal seconder.

The summary of Bill C-207 reads:

This enactment protects the rights of health care practitioners and other persons to refuse, without fear of reprisal or other discriminatory coercion, to participate in medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is inviolable.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that health care providers, particularly nurses—men and women—will not be forced to participate against their will in abortion procedures or acts of euthanasia.

This bill does not prohibit abortion itself, and there's an importance to making that distinction here. Rather, the bill makes it illegal to force another person to participate in an abortion procedure against their will. It's a protection for workers, say, and is a kind of labour piece as well.

Similar legislation exists in 48 out of 50 U.S. states. In Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of religion and conscience, but we don't have specific legislation needed to bring about compliance in this area.

As a result, there have been clear violations of the basic human rights and labour rights of nurses working in Canada. Many have been denied employment or promotion or have been dismissed for refusing to participate in abortion procedures, for example. Other nurses, fearing the loss of a job and a career, have violated their consciences in order to keep their jobs. That has created a great deal of psychological pain, since they entered their profession out of a desire to heal but now find themselves forced to inflict what their hearts tell them is the ultimate form of harm.

It's clear that nurses have up to this point not enjoyed the same human rights protections as doctors have. There's a bit of a bias, you might say, when doctors already do have protection with respect to this. This situation is clearly unacceptable.

Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of conscience and religion, and these freedoms are supposedly also protected in the Canadian Human Rights Act and in provincial human rights legislation.

What is more, there are medical facilities that have themselves acknowledged these conscience rights of nurses. It happened rather recently in the Markham Stouffville Hospital in the Toronto, Ontario, area. A number of nurses were dismissed from the hospital five years ago because they would not assist in abortions. They took their complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The case was to be heard by the tribunal in this past year, but at the last moment the hospital agreed to settle with the employees. In addition to providing financial compensation, the hospital agreed to the nurses' demands to draft and implement a strong policy statement protecting the conscience and labour rights of the nurses still at that particular hospital.

Yet even with this kind of clarity from the charter, from human rights acts, and from hospital policy statements, abuses are still widespread. Why is this so? Because the charter and the various human rights acts are insufficient by themselves. Explicit conscience and labour legislation related to the health care field is needed, like there is in 48 of 50 states in the U.S., where they have realized that and put it in place.

• 1610

Clearly the charter, by itself, is insufficient. The charter can be used only to attack laws that violate human rights. Since at present there are no specific laws that lie behind this violation of these rights of nurses, the charter provides no relief to nurses being treated unfairly in this manner in the workplace.

Secondly, human rights acts and commissions are also insufficient by themselves. These human rights commissions attempt to remedy injustices after the fact. They are ineffective at preventing people from losing their jobs and only address abuses that are brought forward by people with above average initiative who are aggressive and assertive enough and who know the law. Many injustices go unnoticed by the commission, whose proper role is to be more reactive as opposed to proactive.

Clearly, explicit legislation is needed to protect the conscience, religious, and labour rights of nurses. Bill C-207 would fill that gap. I ask you to make this bill votable so members of Parliament can decide whether such explicit legislation is needed.

I'd like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that 100 members of Parliament signed a petition in support of this bill. Their signatures are on record at the journals branch of the House of Commons. Members from all parties were very supportive with respect to the conscience and labour bill. In addition, nurses and concerned Canadians have written to me in support of the bill and many more have signed a petition. About an hour ago in the House, I tabled a petition containing over 1,680 names of individuals concerned with respect to this.

I believe the labour and human rights concerns this bill addresses are precisely the kinds of concerns that we as members should be dealing with. We have an obligation to consider it carefully and to act with resolve upon it. It's no exaggeration to say that many nurses in Canada are facing the crisis of their careers. They do deserve justice and I would ask your support for them.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll start with Mr. Jordan for questions.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I have just a quick one. Was the bill drawn, or is it here because of the 100 signatures?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The bill was drawn and it was also resubmitted under the 100-signature rule as well; it was at the journals branch after the prorogation in that respect as well. It was in line, so it would have gone either way, I guess.

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I understand what you are trying to achieve with your bill. But medical acts do not involve the act alone, but also its consequences.

Take a nurse required to provide care for a woman who has voluntarily terminated her pregnancy. The patient was to have been sent to a different ward, which was already full, and so she was sent to this nurse's ward instead. Will the nurse be allowed to refuse the patient care because she's violently opposed to voluntary termination of pregnancy?

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: What has happened across our country where nurses have either been downsized or where obstetrics has been moved over to where they give postnatal care is that then some of these people are drawn in and required to work and do duty in those different areas. Never having moved into that area, and not wanting to be involved in that, they are quite content and quite pleased to be involved in the postnatal care and so on. They love little ones; they love babies.

But because of a lot of situations where these departments have been brought together, they've gotten into situations where either you lose your job or, if you have qualms about that, sorry, but you're gone. Or you don't get a promotion; I guess that would be the other possibility. We get numbers of cases reported to our office. I assume that maybe other members of Parliament would as well.

There's also the recent issue of an aboriginal gal who came into our office. There's a great deal of respect for life within the aboriginal culture. She was in a nursing program and had to do certain types of things—I guess it was optional—in terms of meeting certain requirements. One of them was involvement in an abortion procedure. In her case, she wasn't making a judgment about others. She just had qualms about it and did not want to be involved. She came in, concerned that she would be turned away and would not able to complete the program because of declining to be involved in that particular procedure.

Does that make it plain?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: The bill is called “An Act to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit coercion in medical procedures that offend a person's religion or belief that human life is inviolable”.

• 1615

Just out of curiosity, I suppose, why did you add “that human life is inviolable”? Why not just have a bill that says “that offend a person's religion or belief”? In other words, why protect religious freedom or religious conscience only when it comes to abortion? What if there are people who don't believe in blood transfusions or don't believe in some other medical procedure? They wouldn't be protected by this bill because it's not a question of the inviolability of life.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: As it stands, that would be correct, Bill. If people would want to, in the course of debate and discussion on the floor of the House and they felt there were other appropriate ways to extend this and broaden it to protect workers, then I would say that would be fair and appropriate enough to do. But as it stands, it tries to be a little more narrow, a little more specific—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Focused.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes. So we don't have all kinds of problems and enter into all kinds of other discussions as well.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: That's fine.

The Chair: Okay. I see no further questions at this time. Thank you very much for your information.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Can we give you copies later, if that's permissible, for the members who are in attendance today? Is that how it would work? Can the clerks advise me on that? French and English. It would have to be within a day or two, no less? Okay.

The Chair: We are proceeding in an order here where people have been invited, but we're quite flexible.

Mr. Assadourian has just entered the room. When he feels comfortable about just running in the door we could.... Sarkis is here on his Bill C-224.

Take your time, but when you're ready you could proceed to tell us.... Perhaps you could focus on why your bill or your motion should be given three hours in the House versus one hour and why it should be votable. Please proceed when you wish.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank you for inviting me to make the presentation.

Just briefly, in May 1998 a Senate committee had a hearing on the subject of the War Museum. Through that discussion came up the idea of having a Holocaust museum within the War Museum. The veterans rejected the idea of having it because they felt it's not appropriate to have a museum within the museum.

Based on that, the Senate came up with recommendation 12:

That the Government undertake a meaningful and thorough study as to the feasibility of a national holocaust and/or other acts of genocide gallery.

Based on this, I felt that it is not appropriate to have one museum for one particular group—be it Armenians, Greeks, be it Polish, be it Ukrainian, be it Jewish, it doesn't matter, basically, as far as I'm concerned—but to have a museum that includes all crimes against humanity, not only one that occurred in the 20th century. I was told there are up to 90 million people who died in the war—crimes against humanity—and Chinese by the Japanese.

I approached many communities, a list of which you received from organizations supporting my proposal. I have to make it perfectly clear that this is not a museum or should not be an exhibit where people go to point out to each other, “You did this against me”, or “I did this against you”. It should be a bridge to build reconciliation. It should be a bridge to have an understanding of an historical event that took place and brought us to this end. It is very appropriate that we do this at the end of this century, so that at the beginning of the century, when we have tourists coming in from all over the country, they could see the museum and learn from the past.

I'm happy to say that I received the support of many, many Canadian groups, as I said. I think most of you received postcards from Canadians of Chinese origin. I think they sent out 65,000 or 70,000 postcards. And the Ukrainian community sent similar postcards saying support Bill C-479. And some people sent postcards saying that some museum on reconciliation based on the same idea....

I first presented the bill on February 15, 1999. At that time it was Bill C-479. When the House prorogued I presented it again and it was numbered Bill C-224. It is the same bill, basically—the same principles, the same idea.

• 1620

I was happy to also express my thanks to the 106 members of Parliament who supported the bill to come to the House for discussion within two hours. I was really proud to have such support by the members. I was able to have petitions from over 2,200 Canadians in Canada from various provinces supporting the idea of having one inclusive exhibit museum in the Museum of Civilization that depicted the century as we see it.

Mr. Chairman, to address a point you made earlier on why this should be votable, you have five criteria here for why it should be votable. I think this bill meets all five of them. So I would really appreciate your best consideration of this subject, because it is a very important subject for me and for millions of Canadians. We see this as bridge-building between communities, not antagonizing one against the other.

If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

I'm sorry I'm rushing. I ran from the other meeting to this meeting.

The Chair: That sounds like the story of our lives, the rushing part.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Let's not bring the Russians into this. Sarkis, what I'm wondering about is the definition of what is a crime against humanity. Is that a United Nations definition?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes, there is such a definition by the UN. They have many crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity, economic crimes, whatever. In making it universal, nobody can argue against it.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: One hundred and sixty-five countries in the world signed the UN declaration of crimes against humanity.

The Chair: That's what I mean. Is deciding on what would be in it apt to become a very political debate, or is it very clear that the criteria for whether or not it's covered are there?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: That's one point people discussed. My answer to that, to be frank, is I will not decide who's going to get in and who's not going to get in. I don't think we have to decide. I think the museum itself should bring in experts. Listen to the communities and let them all make presentations. Based on that, we have to make a museum that's reflective of the history and not passing judgment on the history, as to who did what.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mostly the support for your bill that has come in various cards, letters, and from organizations and from individuals has come in the form of asking members of Parliament to support the idea of a genocide museum—not an exhibit in the Canadian Museum of Civilization to recognize crimes against humanity, but a genocide museum. So it seems to me that there's a kind of a disconnect here between the bill itself and either how it's been received or how it's been promoted. Certainly people feel when they're supporting your bill that they're supporting the idea of a genocide museum. Perhaps you might want to comment on that.

Secondly, the point you make that you don't want to direct the museum as to what will be in the exhibit I think raises a point some people have as a concern. That is, that you may not want to direct what's in the exhibit, but this would be the first time the sort of arm's-length relationship between Parliament and the museum, or any museum for that matter, would be violated by Parliament saying you have an exhibit of the following kind—at some other level you can pick what you put in it, but you need to have this kind of exhibit. Some people have registered concerns on that scale, on the level that it would violate the freedom or arm's-length relationship that exists between museums and the government.

It seems to me that you invite concerns about that when you say don't just bring in the experts, but consult the communities. Then it really does get politicized. All the different communities who either did have or think they had a genocide or a crime against humanity in their history will be lined up at the door, saying the exhibit had better include what happened to their people back in such and such a country in such and such a time. It just seems to me not a recipe for reconciliation, but a recipe for more ethnic politics. If there's a way out of that, I sure want to hear about it.

• 1625

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: On the first question, genocide, crimes against humanity, as you know, 90 million people died in this century. Only six million-plus are Rwandan genocide victims. The Cambodian people debate if it's a genocide or not because it occurred within their own nation. If you define it on the basis of crimes against humanity, then you bring it to 90 million to 95 million people. This organization you're talking about, on genocide, their ultimate goal is to have.... At the same time they support the standard value of this exhibit because they see this as a step towards that goal, in their mind. I should not be speaking on their behalf, but this is what I would think their approach would be.

On the other one, it's not a secret that I'm very active with the Armenian community on the genocide issue, and I don't see that as being anti this or anti that. Take the Ukrainians. Twelve million Ukrainians died. By whom? By the Soviet Union. There's no Soviet Union now. Take the Japanese and Chinese situation. They agree such a thing took place, but they don't agree on the number of people who died or the circumstances. The bottom line is people died. That's why I say if you make it in a way that builds bridges and doesn't antagonize people, put one against the other....

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I understand the ideal. I'm just not sure whether it can be achieved. I'm not trying to debate the substance of the bill with you.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I know, but we are discussing it.

I have to tell you, even in the Turkish community there is a conflict about this bill. I have a letter from them saying the only thing they ask, what I ask you to give them, is the equal opportunity to be heard, which I'm all for. I'm sure you agree we can't shut up any group, any organization, any Canadian from the process of getting involved.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: What would you be getting them involved in? That's what I mean. You have the Armenians going down to the museum saying “You'd better have this”, and then you have the Turks going down to the museum saying “You'd better have this”.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I know, but somewhere along the line it should not be based on “You did this to me” or “I did that to you”.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I would hope so.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: It should be “This thing happened in history and let's learn from it and go forward”. We're not trying to put the blame on anybody. I don't want to do that. I would not put forward such a bill that puts the blame on somebody.

The Chair: If there are no further questions, we thank you very much, Sarkis, for your presentation. It gave us a lot of food for thought.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I hope you really consider it, because I think this unites the group. I understand the concern my colleague has, but at the end of the day, if we take a positive approach, a good approach, it will unite everybody together.

The Chair: Thank you. Just before you came into the room, in our discussion we mentioned that we meet tomorrow, following presentations, and we will look at each and every presentation. Thank you very much.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I would really appreciate that. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Just a question of clarification for my sake and perhaps for any other new member here. A previous member was not able to be here today. I'm sure the bill still stands for our perusal, but I just thought I would ask and share that information. It makes no difference.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Sometimes it works in their favour.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. James Robertson: On occasion members have asked that their items not be considered for votability. To my knowledge, none of the members who were selected at this time have indicated that. So all of them wish to be considered.

The Chair: We have caught up. We're on schedule, and the next member—where does that word “witness” come from?—appearing in front of us is Mr. Breitkreuz, with Bill C-237. It says “witness” beneath your name, Garry.

We've mentioned to people that besides commenting on your bill, perhaps you might like to focus on why it would get three hours in the House as a votable item, rather than none. The floor is yours when you wish to proceed.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Thank you very much.

Just to answer your question before I go into my little presentation, I think the importance of the bill underscores the fact that it should be properly debated. It's an issue that's been put off by Parliament for quite some time now, since the charter was repatriated and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was brought in. That was not included. During that debate, many of the people said it should be included. Most notable of all is Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who emphasized that property rights should be put into our Constitution. But rather than delay it, they thought they would put it in at a later time. That's one of the reasons it really needs to be thoroughly aired at this point. So that's the answer to your question.

• 1630

Now I'll go ahead and describe my bill and some of the reasons I feel it's important.

Article 17 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

That underscores the reason we should bring this into our Canadian law. Despite the fact that Canada ratified the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights more than 50 years ago, Canadians are still being arbitrarily deprived of their property by the federal government.

Professor Peter Hogg is a well-known authority on this. In his book, Constitutional Law of Canada, third edition, he writes:

The omission of property rights from s. 7 [of the charter] greatly reduces its scope.

—that's a key statement—

It means that s. 7 affords no guarantee of compensation or even of a fair procedure for the taking of property by government. It means that s. 7 affords no guarantee of fair treatment by courts, tribunals or officials with power over purely economic interests of individuals or corporations.

That's taken from citation 44.9 on page 1030.

Professor Hogg also wrote:

The product is a s. 7 in which liberty must be interpreted as not including property, as not including freedom of contract, and, in short, as not including economic liberty.

If you think through the implications of that, you'll realize how important my bill is.

On February 4, 1999, the Manitoba Court of Appeal concurred with Professor Hogg when they ruled against David Bryan's right to sell his own grain that he grows on his own land. On page 14 of the ruling, the Manitoba Court of Appeal stated:

Section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which protects property rights through a due process clause, was not replicated in the charter, and the right to enjoyment of property is not a constitutionally protected, fundamental part of Canadian society.

Unfortunately Canadians don't find out about this lack of protection of property rights until the federal government takes their property, sometimes arbitrarily, and most often without compensation of any kind, as is happening today with legally purchased satellite dishes. You know I've been working on the firearms issue; that's another area. It's soon to be in farmland forced out of production under the government's new endangered species bill. All of these are factors.

Canadians really need to be reassured that the federal government has enough respect for this fundamental right to enjoy property to provide a minimum of protection for that right in federal statutes. My bill would provide Canadian citizens with the level of protection they need without interfering with the government's ability to do its job, and that's a key point as well.

I will skip over the next part of it, because I've already mentioned that Prime Minister Trudeau argued long and hard for greater protection of property rights. He did this in 1968 in his paper, “A Canadian Charter of Human Rights”; then he did it again in 1969; then again in 1978, when he introduced Bill C-60, constitutional amendment; then again in 1980 and 1981; and finally in 1983 he said to the House of Commons:

I would say that if we can have the agreement of the Conservative Party to introduce an amendment on property rights and to pass it in 24 hours....

Mr. Bill Blaikie: But he didn't get it.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: He never got it, no. In a little aside here, it was the Conservative Party that blocked him.

Rather than try to amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as Mr. Trudeau proposed, my private member's bill proposes to provide a minimum of protection of property in federal law by strengthening property rights in the Canadian Bill of Rights. I'm not looking for a constitutional amendment, but just to send a signal in the Canadian Bill of Rights.

• 1635

I'll mention three things, because they're the essence of the bill. My bill would guarantee every person the right to enjoyment of their property; the right not to be deprived of their property unless they are given a fair hearing and paid fair, timely, and impartially fixed compensation; and thirdly, the right to appeal to the courts if their property rights have been infringed upon.

I have received, by the way, impressive public support: 578 petitions with almost 14,000 names. In fact I think it went over that today, because I noticed other MPs had submitted petitions as well on this topic. And I've received support from the Canadian Real Estate Association, which represents more than 200 real estate boards.

It's a really important issue, and that's why I'm looking for three hours of debate.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Garry.

Are there any questions or comments? William.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I remember that. I was there when that exchange happened in the House.

A voice: That's interesting.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: This is relevant to your own political orientation. The reason the Conservatives gave at the time was that it was an infringement on provincial jurisdiction. Since you come from a party that has itself been very protective of provincial jurisdiction, I'm just wondering how you reconcile that orientation with this particular bill.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: We're getting into debate, but that is a very important question.

My bill only protects the people of Canada from actions of the federal government. It does nothing to infringe on provincial jurisdiction. It only affects federal legislation and things the federal government will do. It does not affect what the provinces will do. It's very narrow in its scope.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Whereas an amendment to the charter would have.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, it would. This is not an amendment to the charter.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That's an important distinction.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, it's a very key point.

The Chair: Monsieur Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I don't need to go over the entire background for this. I would just like to know how protecting our property rights in this fashion would affect our day-to-day lives.

[English]

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That's a very good question as well.

All Canadians would be protected against actions of the federal government that would be arbitrary in nature, such as confiscating all satellite dishes or passing legislation that would suddenly devalue all your RRSPs that you have collected all of your life—simply in some manner confiscating them.

I'm very familiar with the firearms issue. They could pass legislation that would take someone's property—firearms and so on—without compensating them. We're not arguing that the federal government doesn't have the right to do this, but there would be no compensation.

If you were a farmer, they could pass legislation that could confiscate your land through the endangered species act, or dictate to you how that land will be used and completely deprive you of your livelihood, your means of making a living, through that legislation.

It's a way of protecting people from arbitrary actions of the federal government. It forces the federal government to consider what effect their legislation will have on the people of Canada. It just affords them some measure of protection.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

You've certainly raised a lot of interesting points. Thank you very much, Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I hope you'll seriously consider this. I've had a lot of support from across the country, and it's a big issue. I thank you very much for allowing me to make my presentation.

The Chair: Thank you.

In just a moment we'll come along to our next witness, Mr. Hill. Jay is bringing along information to share on Bill C-223.

You have up to 10 minutes to make your presentation, including questions. You may want to focus on why your bill should be made votable and given three hours in the House. When you wish to proceed, go ahead.

• 1640

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, good afternoon.

I'd like to start my remarks today by addressing the criteria required for a bill to be deemed votable. It is my opinion, and that of the hundreds of women who have responded to this issue, that domestic violence is indeed a national problem and that it is more than deserving of the attention of Parliament. It is my opinion that we as parliamentarians have not done enough—not nearly enough—to address the violence that most often takes place behind closed doors.

This is an issue that requires us to put aside our partisan ways and address the true needs of those in danger. The process of eradicating violence is not easy, and I'm fully aware that this process will take a long time. In the meantime, there are women and children in our country who live in fear for their lives. It is important to do our best to help these people escape danger, and I feel that my private member's bill, C-223, can help.

Unfortunately, the subject matter of this bill is not covered in any way by the business before the House of Commons or by its committees. The New Identities program exists in an ad hoc form within the departments of national revenue and human resources development. This program does not have a mandate or a formalized budget. However, my bill does not create new spending, so the issue of it being a money bill is not pertinent.

Without getting into a debate over the merits of the issue, I would like to tell a brief story of a woman I met this summer. She came into my office, in disguise, to tell me firsthand the story of her abuse. She has been on the run from her former husband for over ten years. She and her son live in a state of readiness to move at a moment's notice. Just this fall, her husband, through a private investigator, found them. The threat of violence is so severe that her son's school was put on lock-down until his safety could be assured. She has been severely beaten, disfigured, harassed, stalked, and threatened with death. It's hard to believe that these are Canadian citizens living in fear in their own country, the so-called best country in the world in which to live.

I wanted to share a story like this because I'm sure all of you know that, sadly, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, like her. The statistics alone never tell the human side of the story, and yet the statistics themselves are quite astonishing. In 1996, 21,901 cases of spousal assault were recorded in a sample of 154 police departments across this country. In 1996, approximately 80% of victims of criminal harassment or stalking were women. Over half of all female victims of criminal harassment were harassed by ex-spouses or other intimate partners.

Between 1977 and 1996 there were 2,048 spousal killings in Canada. In over 56% of spousal homicides—in other words, in over half of them—investigating police officers had knowledge of previous domestic violence between the victims and the suspects.

These statistics are included in the information package my assistant has just distributed, in both languages. Much of the information pertains to Bill C-494, and I apologize for that. That was the number this bill was given prior to prorogation.

I've sent out over 500 similar packages to women's shelters and transition houses across our country. The response has been both encouraging, in its support, and saddening, in reading the tales of tragedy experienced by these people. Although these packages were only distributed this summer, I've already received over 450 signatures in support of this initiative from those it aims to help.

I believe Bill C-223 meets the criteria required to qualify as a votable bill. It is in the public interest and has public support. I hope the members of this committee will deem this bill votable because I believe very strongly that one hour of debate will not do justice to this very serious issue.

If any of you have questions, I'd be pleased to try to respond. Please feel free at any time in the future to contact me if you require additional information.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Our colleague is dealing with a problem that concerns us all. I would like him to specify which police force or group administers the current program.

• 1645

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill: Currently?

Mr. André Harvey: Yes, at this time.

Mr. Jay Hill: As I said in my presentation, there's no funding at this time. It's an ad hoc program that was put together by a couple of very well-intentioned bureaucrats. I don't even have the luxury of knowing their identity, for some obvious reasons. I mean, the people they are trying to help are abused and stalked.

It's an ad hoc program that merely helps women adopt a new identity. It coordinates between HRDC and Revenue Canada in order to provide them with a new social insurance number and identity and to allow a transition to that new identity so that they can actually go into hiding.

There's no money for relocation. It's simply those departments working on their own within existing budgets. What my bill intends to do is formalize this program under the Witness Protection Program Act under the RCMP, and therefore give it a mandate and a formalized structure.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Joe.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I've been on the committee a long time, and when I looked at these lists, this one jumped out at me.

An hon. member: I'll say.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Jay, who makes the decision that they're eligible for it? Is it a judicial referral? How would it work?

Mr. Jay Hill: Right now they just apply to the department and the department makes that decision. As you can imagine, Joe, very few women are willing to take this severe a step. There's not a great chance that all of a sudden there's going to be great demand, with thousands of people wanting to be in this program, because obviously they have to sever all ties with their family, with their friends, and leave their present employment. It's a severe undertaking they're looking at doing.

My intention is to put it under the Witness Protection Program Act. I did a lot of research and looked at this, and that would be the easiest thing. The Witness Protection Program Act under the RCMP has no cap, if you will. It's there as needed. The RCMP would make that distinction.

Obviously, I feel the RCMP would be in the best position to judge. As I said in my brief, they have the information. They know which women are truly in danger, because they've been called to those homes, sadly enough, time and time again until, finally, something tragic happens.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So this just gives one more option when you get to a severe case.

Mr. Jay Hill: Exactly. It would formalize it under the Witness Protection Program Act under the RCMP, but obviously the RCMP would continue the present program where it would coordinate with Revenue Canada with regard to the tax and legal aspects of having a new identity so that it would follow the individual but also make sure those records were closed so that someone hiring a private investigator, for example, couldn't actually trace that individual and find out their new identity.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Do you foresee any problems, or are there any at the moment? As you say, this program already exists. It exists under the witness protection program.

Technically speaking, the women who now take advantage of this, or who would take advantage of it in the future, aren't actually witnesses. They're more like victims. You're saying this would be better than actually trying to create a separate thing that might be called, for example, the abused spouse protection program, correct?

Mr. Jay Hill: That's right. I thought this could quite easily operate under the umbrella of the Witness Protection Program Act, but you are quite right, they wouldn't be—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: The practical effect is the same. People lose one identity and gain a new one.

Mr. Jay Hill: Exactly. I felt this would be the quickest way to give this program a mandate. Through my research and communication with women who would use this program if it were available, I have heard that right now it is too hard to access the existing program because it has no formalized mandate, and they simply don't know exactly where to go. It's very hard for them to get that information.

If we had a formal program, they would know, as an avenue of last resort, where they could go in an emergency and get the access to a new identity. There would be a program to help them do that.

The Chair: Monsieur Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Breitkreuz, could you explain what sort of co-operation, among the RCMP and other police forces, including the Sûreté du Québec, your bill provides for? I don't know what provisions Quebec currently has to protect spouses and witnesses.

• 1650

Unfortunately, I did not read your bill in depth. However, I did note the following provisions in subparagraphs 3(a)(i) and 3(a)(ii):

(i) activities conducted by the Force, other than activities arising pursuant to an arrangement entered into under section 20 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, or

(ii) activities conducted by any law enforcement agency in respect of which an agreement or arrangement has been entered into under section 14;

I feel that you would like such co-operation in order to implement this spousal protection program.

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill: I'm not quite sure if I understand the question, but the RCMP has this program already in place, the witness protection program. They are the national police force. It would be my intention, certainly, that once the program was set up and running, they would have liaison with provincial police and municipal police, who would be in a better position, in many cases, having responded to incidences of home violence and spousal abuse, to refer individuals to the RCMP.

So that would be my hope, that once the program was up and running there would be a referral system between police departments.

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

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

The Chair: Members, it's up to you whether we take a five-minute stretch break or take breaks individually as we proceed. It's at your direction.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Take it individually.

The Chair: Okay, then, we'll ask the next person.

Rick, please come forward and have a seat. You are presenting motion 237. Proceed in your own time.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): I want to pass out a map for each one of you. Beware of MPs bearing gifts.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: My budget is stretched to the limit now.

For the record, my name is Rick Laliberte. I'm from the riding of Churchill River in northern Saskatchewan. I'm here to plead, present, beg, borrow, steal, advise—anything that's possible here—to make my motion a votable motion in the House of Commons.

The motion reads:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the 55th parallel as the identified Canadian boundary for participation in the international circumpolar community.

Since being in the House of Commons, and being involved in the circumpolar conferences that have been held, Arctic Council conferences, I have realized that Canada, I guess by convenience or definition, has been comfortable sending delegates to the circumpolar conferences, and also Arctic Council representation, from north of 60—the Yukon, Northwest Territories. As well, because of Quebec's geographical location, there is a portion of Quebec that touches north of 60. So they've had presentations from members from Quebec attending these conferences. As a result, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario aren't involved. We're not invited.

I believe we should be, because the northern halves of these provinces have the same geopolitical effects—for instance, international transboundary pollution, as we mentioned, with the persistent organic pollutants being discussed internationally. We have a region, sometimes called the mid-north, that is nowhere, really. It's not recognized by....

Answering the question “What is the north?”, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, on their website, quite bluntly defines the north this way: “The Canadian north consists of all the land above the 60th parallel”. You know from that policy statement, from that definition, that there's a major mistake. This motion is trying to create a dialogue within the House of Commons, with our members, to force the government to say, hey, there are huge tracts of land, there are huge tracts of resources, and there are peoples who have called the north their home and are now called southerners in the 60th parallel definition.

• 1655

We've had a number of research abilities within our office to look at specific recommendations. There was one that came to mind that I wanted to highlight. In April 1997 a report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, recommendation 13, called for the government to review existing resources for federal circumpolar initiatives at the national, bilateral, and multilateral levels in order to identify any that might be more effectively consolidated under the aegis of the circumpolar ambassador. Our ambassador now has a dual role. She is the ambassador to Denmark and also the ambassador to the circumpolar conference as well, or the Arctic Council. It's Mary Simon.

Before we got this motion together, I met with the ambassador last year. She was having problems identifying the north as well. She was calling for her staff and for other departments that have a vested interest in this, and also contacting the provinces, to find a truer definition of the north. But in the immediate, since we have a circumpolar region and we have a circumpolar conference that brings all the international communities together, if you applied north of 60 to the circumpolar circle, you wouldn't have Denmark here, you wouldn't have Edinburgh, Scotland.

So I think Canada should respect the 55 line, at least for now, and start the dialogue and start incorporating these regions and their peoples as part of this ongoing discussion that they have at the circumpolar level. It's for the benefit of Canada and I think for the benefit of the northern half of the provinces that we be included.

That's my call. The maps are very educational. The first map I picked up was at the sustainable development conference in Whitehorse last year. The Canadian natural resources department handed out these maps. I've held onto this one, but these are a little harder to come by. They're a little glossier and a little more expensive. I'll leave them with you. I humbly ask for your support in making this a votable item, and I also wish to take any questions.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan, any questions?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, I have a question.

This is our call domestically? We can make this change? We don't have to go through the circumpolar administration at all?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No. The circumpolar is this line. That's what's recognized for membership in the circumpolar conference. For Canada, for convenience, we've eliminated these people down here and have just been comfortable sending delegates from north of 60. The issues are housing, health, regional development, mining, timber development, and the boreal forest, which I guess is the terminology we use on this continent; taiga, I think, is the word they use in Russia, but it's the same forest belt. They're even discussing an arctic university, a virtual university connecting the higher academic colleges they have, but only the north of 60 colleges would qualify for federal recognition. Prince George could be a possibility in that area if it was argued in that way. We'll have some campuses in the north, either at the community college level or first nations institutions, that may want to look at being a part of that and having a research base to work with.

The Chair: This is a very interesting, very educational map. I thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Thank you.

• 1700

The Chair: Our next member is Mr. Turp. We have ten, perhaps five, minutes for your presentation and then time for some questions. We're looking for you to focus on why we should consider this to be a votable item and to give it three hours versus one hour. The bill is C-214, I believe.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me this opportunity to tell you why I feel this bill should be voted on by our colleagues in the House of Commons. I believe that it meets all criteria on the list established in April 1999, as I will now attempt to demonstrate.

First, I would like to tell you why this bill should be made votable, and should be passed by the House of Commons. The purpose of the bill is to make the House of Commons a partner in the process of formulating international treaties, which are increasingly numerous. Like many other countries, Canada negotiates many different issues, including international trade, human rights, and culture.

Yesterday, you may have read that the World Health Organization has just concluded a treaty on tobacco. Such treaties are therefore becoming increasingly important in the daily lives of the public and of Parliaments, which are often required to pass legislation implementing the treaties, and whose legislation is often subject to the treaties themselves.

For several years now, since I have been sitting as a member of the House of Commons, I have been seeking to confer an additional role on Parliament, because we need to inform the public—through their representatives in Parliament—of what treaties contain. Lack of information can cause problems. It was the underlying reason why so many people objected strongly to the Multilateral Accord on Investment, which was negotiated secretly by the OECD. Negotiators worked in Geneva and Paris, and the Accord was not presented or explained to the public at large. That is very unfortunate, because the countries involved would have benefitted a great deal from its ratification.

This bill is intended to ensure that the House of Commons is first informed of treaties. It provides for a process whereby the House of Commons consults on and eventually approves treaties before the government ratifies them. If this bill were passed, the government would have to table treaties as it did in the past. It ceased to table treaties, restoring the practice recently because of my requests, objections and statements in the House. I would like to see that practice confirmed by legislation so that it can become permanent and systematic.

I would also like to see treaties published properly. Today, you can not find a treaty on the Government of Canada's website. You will not find the text in the Canada Gazette either, except in the case of some extradition treaties. And in the Treaty Series (Canada, 1928-), published by the Government of Canada, you will note that treaty publication is often delayed so much that it may take several years before Canadians can consult treaties which have been negotiated, signed and ratified.

• 1705

Thus, parliamentarians—and through them, the public—must be properly informed so that we can do our work and so that our Parliament can—as do many others—debate and approve important treaties. This would in no way prevent the government from ratifying treaties, since this bill in no way affects the government's prerogative to ratify treaties even in the event that Parliament fails to approve them.

As you know, in a system like ours, it would be very rare for Parliament to defeat a treaty if it were given the power to do so. That is because the majority party can always have a treaty adopted and approved by resolution because it has a majority in Parliament.

There's a second reason why these provisions are important. Above and beyond the issues of transparency and the information that would be disseminated differently if these provisions were passed by the Chamber, the process itself would enrich democratic debate. It is very important for a democratic institution like Parliament to debate treaties. At present, they have almost no say in the matter, something that constitutes a significant democratic deficit.

The third and last reason that prompted me to put forward this bill is that we must also provide for co-operation with the provinces in dealing with treaties that affect areas partly under their jurisdiction. Some negotiations require federal-provincial co-operation, and the bill would require consultation with the provinces, while the federal government would be invited to conclude an inter-governmental agreement to ensure such consultation did in fact take place.

I would refer you to the documentation I brought along. Here, you have a press release from this summer's First Ministers' Conference, at which all provinces unanimously asked the federal government to conclude an agreement to ensure that provinces were consulted on treaties affecting areas under their jurisdiction. In her answer to the written question I put last spring, even Ms. Bradshaw, the Minister of Labour, acknowledged that consultations between the federal government and the provinces were important.

For all the reasons I have given, I would like an opportunity for the House of Commons to debate the issue of expanding Parliament's role in the treaty process, as in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, three Commonwealth countries that recently included Parliament in their treaty process. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

We have only a couple of minutes for questions.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I would like to thank our colleague for his excellent presentation. Your bill requiring consultation seems fairly harmless to me. I did not sit in Parliament for a number of years, as Mr. Turp of course knows. If I remember correctly, at the time there was ongoing and close consultation between the federal government and the provinces on the Free Trade Agreement, the acid rain agreement, and other agreements. As far as I know, consensus was reached in a fairly harmonious fashion. It may be difficult to provide a legislative framework for such consultation and subject it to stringent requirements. But as I was saying, your intent is not problematic, and in my view would not limit the central government.

• 1710

Mr. Daniel Turp: The consultation provisions would require the federal government to conclude an agreement with the provinces. There are already federal-provincial agreements in some areas, for example human rights. There are also less formal agreements in the area of international trade. In addition, the federal government and provinces consulted very closely before implementing the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, and implementing free trade with the United States and Mexico. Consultations are also taking place as the WTO and FTAA agreements are being negotiated.

This bill would require the government to conclude an agreement ensuring that such consultations take place, as the first ministers of all provinces wish.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

We are just about out of time. William.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I just want to say that regardless of what we eventually decide with respect to votability, I think it's a good idea for this to be considered because I don't think all Canadians, or for that matter all members of Parliament, realize just how backward we are as a parliament. For instance, when the NATO treaty was expanded to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, every other country in NATO had to have its parliament involved, including the United Kingdom, where they have power to make treaties without Parliament, but they had a parliamentary debate. Canada was the only country in the entire collection of NATO countries that didn't have recourse to its parliament in order to change that treaty.

It didn't have recourse to its parliament with respect to the comprehensive test ban. We were castigating the United States Senate for not passing it. In Canada it never even comes before the House of Commons or the Senate. It just gets signed off by the minister. The list of things goes on.

We really are a kind of pathetic institution when it comes to this treaty-making power compared to a great many other democratic bodies.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Can I just make a short comment on that? In the past there has been a practice of approving treaties in the House of Commons. That practice was abandoned in 1966 with the Auto Pact. This practice is based on the will of the government to allow the House of Commons to participate in the process of approval. Under that practice we should have looked into NATO enlargement, but the government did not want that practice to continue. This bill would oblige the government to present treaties like NATO for prior approval by the House of Commons. There's no change in constitutional law. It would not compel the government, like it does in the United States, to necessarily accept the decision of the House of Commons. It could ratify it if it thought it was in the best interests of Canada.

The Chair: Merci. Thank you very much, Mr. Turp.

Mr. Scott, you can come on up. We have ten minutes maximum, perhaps five minutes for telling us why we should consider giving this more time by being a votable item and then some questions.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): I assume, Mr. Chairman, that everybody has a copy of the motion in front of them.

The Chair: Motion M-19.

Mr. Mike Scott: M-19. The reason I've submitted this and feel it's important business for Parliament to consider is that over the last three years I've had several instances where violations of the Privacy Act have been brought to my attention. I've had occasion to talk with people who work for the privacy commissioner and with the privacy commissioner himself. They express a great deal of frustration over the fact that they do investigations of complaints under the Privacy Act in cases where they find there are violations of the act, but the act has absolutely no teeth in it at all. It's an act that basically has a set of parameters that must be followed in terms of disclosure of information and considering the privacy of Canadians, individuals and otherwise.

• 1715

If the privacy of anybody is violated, there are absolutely no provisions at the present time for any kind of penalty, censure, reprisal or recrimination whatsoever, according to the guidelines of the act. The people who work within the privacy commissioner's office are very frustrated over that. They feel, as do I as I've become more aware of this, that the act needs to be amended or revised to include penalties for those who, as you can see, wilfully violate the provisions of the act.

I think Parliament ought to consider this as a votable motion and send this to the standing committee, so the standing committee can consider what kind of penalties and censure may be provided under the act, for people who wilfully violate the Privacy Act.

This is very important because the Privacy Act also works in conjunction with access to information. There is concern right across the country about privacy, and it's becoming greater as time goes on.

I can't really add any more to it than that. I hope the committee will agree with me that this should be a votable motion.

The Chair: Do we have any questions on Mr. Scott's motion? I think it's quite clear.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I have just a quick one. We're dealing with two motions. I guess John Bryden has one as well. Are you familiar with John's motion?

Mr. Mike Scott: No, I'm not.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That's something I guess the committee will have to sort out, then, when we go through.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Scott, for your presentation.

Mr. Mike Scott: Thank you.

The Chair: Now we will go to Mr. Forseth, who's speaking on Bill C-209 on behalf of Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Thank you very much. I'm speaking on behalf of Mr. Hanger, but I certainly wish I'd brought forward such a bill as well.

In brief, it's very simple. It seeks to raise the age of consent for sexual relations from age 14 to age 16. It would amend sections of the Criminal Code dealing with prohibited sexual acts committed with children who are under the age of 14, or in the presence of children under the age of 14. In effect, the bill would allow criminal charges to be brought against any adult who engaged in sexual relations with a person younger than 16 years of age.

The bill was first introduced in the House in 1996, in response to an issue Mr. Hanger was dealing with in his riding of a 14-year-old Edmonton girl, who was on the streets, having sex with her father's AIDS-infected lover. As horrible as that act was, the police in that circumstance were powerless to do anything. They had no legal means to deal with the situation because the law determines the age of consent to be 14 years old. The Criminal Code does not criminalize sexual activity with or between persons 14 years or age or older, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or authority over the young person.

We know that the voting age is 18; in B.C. the legal drinking age is 19; and you can get a driver's licence when you're 16 years old. But I think there's a growing concern over child prostitution and child pornography, especially on the Internet. Children in our society are much more at risk than ever before. There is certainly predation on children, and we are aware of it.

As a society, we have a moral obligation to provide some tools to be used with discretion to protect children. As parliamentarians, we can certainly make it more difficult for sexual predators to prey upon children's innocence, by raising the age of consent. Children are our most precious resource; they are also one of the most vulnerable groups in society, and they are likely to be easily manipulated and coerced into sexual relationships with adults for any number of reasons. Sometimes a child might perceive this to be an act of loving care, when in fact it's nothing more than exploitation.

Some may argue that 14-year-old children are not ignorant about sex. It might be true, but we must ask ourselves if at that age children have the experience and maturity to make decisions about their own sexuality, regardless of whether or not they have consented.

This is certainly an issue that should have broad support from all parliamentarians. It should not really be a partisan issue. We should have broad support from all parties.

• 1720

In a way it supports the family, but it also supports social service agencies who are giving services to children at risk and children on the streets. In my years as a probation officer dealing with kids, both in and coming off the street, and looking at the menu of legal tools available in support of a lot of the money and effort that's going to help children, this would certainly fit in the overall context of being a help to kids at risk. Often it's the legal sanction that brings social services to bear on children, with the helping agency. You need the legal context in order to make the soft side happen.

So I recommend that this bill be considered and made votable. It should receive a non-partisan perspective.

The Chair: Thank you. Do we have any questions on this bill?

Grant.

Mr. Grant McNally: One of our criteria is that bills and motions should concern matters of significant public interest. Obviously this is one that's getting a fair bit of attention lately. Do you have any indication from Mr. Hangar as to the number of people who may have contacted his office, whether there are any petitions, or whether other people have made those kinds of presentations here to date?

Mr. Paul Forseth: No, I don't. I know that this whole topic area has been the subject of discussion, even in debate and questions in Parliament. I have an article here from the national media, so you might say this is on the public agenda. It's not a minor item by one member. I have heard comments from all parties at various times, when cases have been brought forward. My message to this committee is that I think this is something that would very obviously easily receive all-party support.

The Chair: Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I need your opinion here. When a 17-year-old youth has sexual relations with a 15-year-old girl and the girl becomes pregnant, it's usually not through Immaculate Conception. If this amendment to the Criminal Code were passed, could the 17-year-old youth be charged with an offence as a result of his actions?

[English]

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's a technical part. There's an age spread. I think it's a limit of two years. In that situation I would say no, according to the way the bill is constructed. It's the same as two 14-year-olds. It doesn't apply to that situation.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Where's that in the bill?

Mr. James Robertson: It's at the top of page 2, proposed subsection 150.1(2). It creates an exception to the general prohibition. As Mr. Forseth says, proposed paragraph 150.1(2)(b) refers to the difference in age being two years or less.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: But if the young man were 18 years old, that could be the case.

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: I think the structure of the bill is similar to the existing provisions of the criminal code in terms of the age difference. The only difference with this bill would be raising the ages, not changing the interaction of ages and the structure of the code.

Mr. Paul Forseth: It is anticipated that there will not likely be very many charges, but the fact that it's there is in support of all the expenditure of effort in social services. When a counsellor, a policeman or anyone in a position of authority can say this is there, then the soft side, the cooperative approach, is offered and usually taken up.

It's seen as a very helpful part of the overall mix, in dealing with kids at risk.

• 1725

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation and the information, Paul.

Our next member is Stéphan Tremblay. You have 10 minutes total, possibly five minutes to make your presentation and leave a little time, if you wish. It's your time. I believe M-41 is the motion number.

Take your time.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Colleagues, I am pleased to be here today given the importance of what I have to say to you, and even more so because I firmly believe that the motion I am presenting meets the requirements to become votable and, without being votable, this motion means absolutely nothing.

The motion reads as follows:

That the House strike a special parliamentary committee with the specific objective of considering the repercussions of the globalization of economies on governments' autonomy in preserving social cohesiveness.

I am sure that you are all fully aware that we are currently living in a time of change. It is often said that these changes are due to a phenomenon called globalization. Although it is not new, it seems to have picked up speed over the past few years; we are moving from an industrial to a financial era. That involves changes and upheavals.

The globalization of economies is often taken into account and discussed in many areas, even in several committees and on the floor of the House, and rightly so, because it seems to affect all sectors of society. The objective of creating a forum for reflection is to deal with the topic globally, instead of on a sector-by-sector basis as is currently the case, but above all to adopt a specific approach with respect to the social repercussions of the globalization of economies on governments' autonomy, on our economy in comparison with the world economy, and on social cohesiveness, in other words the sense of solidarity that brings citizens from different social and economic backgrounds together.

In fact, I wonder about the type of society I will live in 20 years from now. The changes that we are currently experiencing are significant and warrant our understanding, as elected representatives.

Moreover, 50,000 Canadian citizens throughout the country have taken the time to sign a petition asking their representatives to undertake such a reflection. In addition, 100 MPs from all parties have supported this issue so that it can be placed on the order of precedence.

All kinds of experts are already claiming that globalization is creating wealth. That is the case, but there seem to be some problems with respect to distribution. That explains the urgency of a societal debate so that we can truly understand the long-term effects of globalization on people and governments.

I would also like to point out that when I talk about government's autonomy, I am not referring solely to Canada but to governments in general, as I feel that this debate should take place in other Parliaments throughout the world that are facing the same problems as we are. In this Parliament, we have the opportunity to be responsible to humanity, especially since this reflection could benefit from the ideological diversity resulting from the fact that we have five political parties with relatively different ideologies in the House.

I remind you that this approach is non-partisan and that it is not an issue of speaking out in favour or against globalization, but to gain a better understanding in order to be able to better respond. That is why I must insist that this motion be deemed votable.

I also remind you of my flexibility with respect to the agenda of such a committee for reflection.

I have here the list of the 100 MPs who have supported me and I also have a letter that I will distribute to you, which I sent to each one of you, my parliamentary colleagues. It is a brief summary of what such a reflection could include, in a committee of this nature, but also other topics that could be addressed. Some of the topics in the letter that I had sent to you last February are perhaps less important, but I believe that they are nevertheless of considerable importance.

I have also brought you the summary of the support I have received. Petitions are often signed with passion. In this case, 50,000 citizens signed a petition to ask us as parliamentarians to do our homework, in other words, to understand the trends that are changing our society.

That concludes my remarks.

• 1730

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Are there questions? Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Stéphan, thank you for your presentation. I would like to ask you a question.

Generally speaking, in the parliamentary process committees come under a department. Would a super-department have to be created for that? What department would you see your committee coming under?

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: That is a good question. Initially, I would be inclined to say that it could come under the Department of Foreign Affairs, but on the other hand, I could also see it coming under the Department of Finance, since several departments are affected by these changes. So I won't answer your question, since this reflection encompasses a host of activities. I would be very flexible with respect to what department this committee could come under.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Would it be a special joint committee or a special committee, Stéphan?

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: I took the definition of a special committee from Beauchesne, but I admit that my ultimate wish is to see parliamentarians or serious people sit down with representatives of the civil society, experts or others who are interested in the issue to debate the topic in a very firm non- partisan way so that we can gain a more in-depth understanding of these issues. If the importance of the issue led you to feel it should be a joint committee, I would not be opposed to that, provided that we can undertake this reflection.

Mr. André Harvey: Has the United Nations conducted a study on the decrease in governments' political accountability in light of globalization? Has this reflection already begun?

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Some experts clearly claim that the globalization of economies reduces governments' autonomy, but that seems to be a rather vague statement.

I will admit that in the general public—and I think you are aware of this—citizens often wonder if governments still have any power in light of the economic influence of multinational corporations or the financial markets. For the time being, I cannot say to what extent that is true. That is precisely what I want to know. I want to know what the current state of political power is. I do not have an answer to that question. I am looking to answer it through this type of reflection.

Mr. André Harvey: The conclusion could also be positive.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. André Harvey: National sovereignty is increasingly submerged by globalization. The hope is to some day globalize everything, even at the military level. The intent is to be in a position to step in when human rights are violated. So the conclusion would not necessarily be negative...

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Absolutely not.

Mr. André Harvey: ... as long as it is accepted that political accountability is going to decrease.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Absolutely not.

As I said, I am 25 and I want to know in what direction the world, States, and governments are going. Such a committee will perhaps reach the conclusion that we have to continue in the same direction and not change anything. That might be the case.

However, I know that many people are concerned and that few parliamentarians have a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon, whether they be right-wing or left-wing. History will undoubtedly describe the period that we are living in as a time of great change. Trying to understand these issues and come up with responses and solutions is simply part of our responsibility as parliamentarians, hopefully.

The Chair: Excuse me.

[English]

Perhaps we'll give you a few seconds, but then we should go to Mr. Jordan very soon.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: With pleasure, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: This is more of a comment really, but I don't see our next presenter, so....

We should not align it with any ministry. That would be a big mistake. This issue transcends all the silos, and by not assigning it to any ministry, the mandate is broad enough to look at the potential impacts, regardless of where they might be felt. That's just food for thought, seeing as we have some time to discuss it.

• 1735

The Chair: We do have a bit of time, because the next member is not here. Are there are any more questions or comments on this? I know I cut my colleague off.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I am happy to hear this coming from Stéphan, and he knows that I agree with this kind of reflection.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: You all signed on in September, I think.

Mr. André Harvey: It would be a special committee mandated to study the repercussions of globalization on governments' autonomy, but the fact that reduced government autonomy has not led you to panic is nevertheless...

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Well, some people say that governments are currently too involved and that the invisible hand of the market will make sure that society is organized fairly. That is something we are currently hearing, and I think it would be interesting to debate the idea. If that is the case, so much the better. If we reach other conclusions, well, we can call this into question. Perhaps we won't reach any conclusion. Perhaps it will enable all of our parties to update their positions in light of this new reality.

I think this represents an interesting opportunity for Parliament. I think that a committee with a highly global perspective would only be the first step. Will the Parliament in Ottawa have to take on some leadership to encourage other parliaments to examine these issues? I think so.

Today, you have to decide whether or not this motion can be made votable. If it cannot be votable, everything goes by the wayside. Of course, we will continue to do sector-based studies, studies that do not take into account the global reality, studies that, sometimes, only consider economic imperatives.

Of course, the committee that studied the issue of the World Trade Organization has spent a lot of time discussing the repercussions of globalization, but from the perspective of making Canada more competitive. If I were a parliamentarian in Australia, it would not make any difference, since the Australian parliament is facing the same situation, the same trends as we are here.

[English]

The Chair: We only have about two minutes more, if anyone wants it. We need to be fair to all others.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Seeing as everybody else is jumping in—

The Chair: Jump in.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm not against the idea. In fact I think I signed your....

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: So obviously I'm not against it. But I wonder whether there isn't some duplication.

Would this be a committee that went on forever, like a standing committee? You say a special committee. Is a special committee something that has a beginning and an end, as opposed to a standing committee? Because in many respects, the process the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has just gone through—a whole raft of hearings on the WTO—is similar. What is the WTO except the structure for globalization? So in a way, we've just gone through an exercise not unlike—not identical to, but not unlike—what you're recommending.

That's my only point, besides being glad that somebody from the Bloc is finally catching on to globalization.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: I remind you that the specific objective is to study the social impacts of globalization and that globalization is something we are currently experiencing and that we will probably always experience. It did not exist when the Constitution was adopted. Existing committees were set up under the Constitution, at a time when we weren't facing globalization.

For my part, I think that such a committee will eventually become a standing committee, or that each committee will have to take this type of approach into consideration. Every step that we take in this Parliament should be examined in light of its social impacts. But I am not going any farther. The first step is on the table.

[English]

The Chair: And always with passion, and I thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Thank you.

• 1740

[English]

The Chair: Our next member is the Honourable Charles Caccia, and the bill is Bill C-236, I believe.

We have about 10 minutes for you to make your presentation and perhaps allow for some questions. Of course, why would I mention that except for myself? The honourable member has so much more experience. I'm here to learn from you people.

Proceed when you wish, Charles.

Mr. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Colleagues, thank you for having invited me to discuss Bill C-236.

[English]

You have a package, a folder, and a poster. I don't need to elaborate too much on that.

The purpose of this bill is to designate 500,000 hectares of land in the Elaho valley as Stoltmann National Park. It would be named after a conservationist named Randy Stoltmann, who in April 1994, just before his death, first proposed that this area be preserved.

The area as shown on the map—you have a map on the inside cover there—is located roughly three hours by car from Vancouver. It is next door, so to speak, to Whistler. This is an important detail: it is on the British Columbia mainland.

I've visited this area twice, and I've learned that the proposed Stoltmann Wilderness Area covers the largest valley-bottom ancient rain forest in the southern region of the coastal mountains. So remember it is in the coastal mountains.

There are stands of Douglas firs that include trees that are 1,300 years old. They look like cathedrals. One is shown on the poster. The habitat is of course quite diverse. It includes black bears and some grizzly bears, I'm told, as well as moose and other species. So the question arises, why not protect this valuable piece of heritage?

An article has been distributed to you. If you take the trouble to look at it, you will see that the current national parks system—and some of you are very familiar with this fact—consists of 39 natural regions. The Stoltmann wilderness is located in the Pacific coastal mountain region, which is called Natural Region 1.

At the present time, the established national parks in British Columbia are not on the mainland; they are on islands. So something is missing in the jigsaw puzzle, if you like. An ecosystem that is very precious and is becoming rare is needed in order to complete this picture. The mainland is the item that is still missing in British Columbia.

• 1745

Last week, on the part of Jacques Gérin and his committee, you heard a critique of our national parks system. The fact is that to date only four out of the 15 promised parks have been created. Two years ago, Parks Canada reported that only one park is not threatened by human activity and that some 38 parks are threatened by logging, mining, and other human activities, etc.

Bill C-236 was advanced because it adequately represents a missing piece in that particular part of Canada. The pictures that are attached here in my little kit—I don't know whether you have them as well—speak for themselves. I don't think words can be more eloquent than this. You can see the proportion of the tree in relation to a young person. It is something that one has to experience personally to believe; there's not much more that one can say. The exploitation is going on right now. Evidently there are some 30 or more logging jobs being created, perhaps even 50 or more.

But it's important to make a comparison, because this item is very controversial in western Canada, particularly in B.C. Apparently Banff National Park generates some $614 million per year for the local economy with ecotourism. Whistler, next door to the Stoltmann, recognizes the potential of the long-term benefits that would accrue from a park of this nature. It has hired a private consultant to evaluate the economic benefits of the proposed Stoltmann National Park, which has been the object of intensive work and activities by the West Coast Wilderness Committee. In recent weeks, it has also been covered by the English press, at least, because of demonstrations there.

To conclude, I would say that hundreds of letters have gone to the Prime Minister, to the Honourable Sheila Copps, and even to the B.C. Premier and to some of us in support of having a national park there. The letters usually describe the beauty of this area and also some outrage about the fate of this region if it is not to be protected by a national park.

As a result of this and the activities of young people, mostly, the young ecologists, there is a lot of frustration and tension in that area. This is also intensified by the fact that native groups, concerned citizens, and some NGOs have complained that the consultative period, the planning process that was held in 1996 throughout the lower mainland, did not include the public at large. Only a few organizations, apparently, were hand-picked by the provincial government to participate in the process.

So for all of these reasons and perhaps many more—but I don't want to overstep the time that you have allocated to me, Mr. Chairman—I would urge you to give serious and possibly positive consideration to making Bill C-236 a votable item and to ensure the protection of this last old-growth rain forest in Canada for the benefit of generations to come. This is not an unusual theme around here, but we are very good at making speeches and not very good in implementing what we say.

I thank you for your attention and am ready to answer some questions.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Harvey.

• 1750

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I have a short question, Mr. Chairman. Budgetary constraints facing existing parks have led them to the brink of disaster. There is not enough money for national parks. Wouldn't we be mortgaging our resources by creating other parks?

Mr. Charles Caccia: Yes, you're right. The current situation is due to the fact that to reduce the deficit, spending had to be cut, even for national parks. But we have done our homework and can hope that in the years to come budgets will be a bit more generous and make it possible to improve the administration of existing parks, and that we will have the money we need to purchase properties like Stoltmann. It takes several years to arrive at decisions regarding national parks, and I think that in the future the financial state of the government of Canada will be much better than it has been up until now.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I have just one short question. I think you said there were supposed to be 12 or 15 parks and only four of them have been created. Is Stoltmann one of those that were supposed to be created and haven't been? Or has it—

Mr. Charles Caccia: No, it hasn't been created yet.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I understand that, but is it on the list?

Mr. Charles Caccia: It isn't even on the list.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: So it's being added to the list.

Mr. Charles Caccia: It would be added. The figure I gave you earlier is that there are a certain number of parks, with very few parks that are not threatened by human activities, and only four out of the 15 promised parks have been created.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Is this one of the promised parks?

Mr. Charles Caccia: No, it isn't even that yet.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: So it's in addition to—

Mr. Charles Caccia: It's in addition to that, I must admit.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Okay.

The Chair: Just before I pass this over to Grant, can I ask a question for clarification? It's not one of the promised parks, but are some of those promised parks designated for the mainland?

Mr. Charles Caccia: No, not to my knowledge. To my knowledge—

The Chair: Thank you. I thought not, but I just wanted—

Mr. Charles Caccia: This is the missing jewel in the crown, because the mainland is not represented.

The Chair: Thanks, Charles.

Mr. McNally, very quickly, both you and Joe.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. As a member from British Columbia, let me say that you're right, it is a fairly large issue percolating out there within B.C. and it is certainly one that has debate on both sides.

We're not here to get into the debate side of the bill, but looking at these five criteria that we're charged with measuring all presentations against, I was wondering if you could comment briefly on the third criterion we have, that is, that “Bills and motions should concern matters of significant public interest”, not just small pockets of interest; and the fifth one, that all other things being equal, we're to give higher priority to “items which transcend purely local interest, are not couched in partisan terms, or cannot be addressed by the House in other ways”.

How would you say this bill measures up against those two? I see that there are possibly some problems with those two particular criteria.

The Chair: We have very limited time for the answer.

Mr. Charles Caccia: It would be a bit presumptuous of me to give you a comment or an opinion on that. I would only be able to say, on item three, that it is in the public interest if you consider a park to be a national heritage that would fulfil the aspirations and the expectations of Canadians, no matter where they live. So even if it is located at one end of the country, people move, and therefore it has a national significance.

• 1755

What was the key word on item five?

Mr. Grant McNally: It's an item that transcends purely local interests.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Heavens, that's what makes it so interesting. It doesn't happen every day that a member of Parliament from Toronto would take an interest in a park there, and I would welcome any British Columbian taking an interest in the creation of a park in Ontario, if you like.

The Chair: As we wrap this up, I want to say that it certainly could happen every day with a great member from the city of Toronto who takes such a great interest.

Thank you, Charles. We have to move on.

Mr. Charles Caccia: Thank you.

The Chair: Our next member is Madame Guay, who will present Bill C-212. Monique, you have 10 minutes. You may want to leave a little time for questions on why we should allot three hours for your bill rather than one.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Chairman, committee members, I would like to start by thanking you for the opportunity to discuss this bill.

I will try to be brief because I am sure there will be questions for me at the end. From the outset, for greater clarity, I would like to define the expression “orphan clause.” You all have the bill in front of you, and later on, I will explain the other document that was distributed to you.

The term “orphan clause” means:

[...] a provision of a collective agreement [...] under which employees hired after a specified date do not receive the same employee benefits, wages or conditions of employment as those received by other employees covered by the collective agreement.

This is a clear example of pure discrimination against certain categories of people. Because we are part of a certain category of people as parliamentarians, I think that we must hold this debate. Discriminatory, or orphan clauses, as they are called, exist in several places or in several corporations. They exist among others at the French network of the CBC, Canada Post, and several other places. These discriminatory clauses are such that a young person who is hired in the public service faces different working conditions from his or her peers. When they enter the labour force, they face a special clause stating that they will not have the same rights as their co-workers who joined the public service before they did.

We're not talking about eliminating seniority. On the contrary, workers are entitled to their seniority, but young people who enter the work force must have the same working conditions. Not having the same working conditions creates discrimination and an intolerable atmosphere in the workplace. It puts our young people who are leaving university indebted, at a disadvantage. A young person who completes university often has $10,000 to $20,000 in student loans to repay, if not more. Moreover, these young people are often much better educated than some people who were put in these jobs several years ago. We are asking more of them, but giving them less.

The debate on this issue is currently underway in Quebec, and it is an important debate. I think that we need to have this debate here in Ottawa. It affects more than 100,000 people, namely more than 50,000 young people who will enter the public service.

We know that at one point, the government decided to downsize and offer early retirement packages. Many people took advantage of that, and positions are now opening up, but these young people are not being offered the same rights as their co-workers. So this must be debated in Ottawa.

• 1800

I distributed a document that covers section 31.1 and 31.2. It is clear with respect to the consequences of the bill. I would like you to familiarize yourselves with it. If you have any questions, I will let you ask them right away, because I know that you are already running behind schedule. Personally, I feel that this bill is very important for the future of our young people and the future of the entire public service.

Since we have a $21 billion surplus in the Employment Insurance Fund, we can afford to offer our young people better opportunities for the future than what they are being offered at present.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Merci. Are there any questions? Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: When drafting the bill, did you discuss this with any of the unions involved?

Ms. Monique Guay: My bill focusses exclusively on the federal public service. It is not very complicated. The bill has a lot of teeth and must be debated. Yes, I discussed it with them, and it is something that they have been calling for a long time. They want to debate it. They want the issue on the table. Making the bill votable would give it the importance it warrants. This is a debate that has been hidden for too long, that has been held back and that no one wants to put forward. We must act now, because the time has come to do so. We can do so.

I sincerely hope that we will give it the importance it deserves. We also have the support of some of the other parties for this debate. It must take place at the government level as well as in the other parties. In each of our regions, we must see what people think about it. Regardless of the party we belong to, the public service exists throughout the country. You all have public servants in your riding. I think that this debate must take place somewhere. Refusing to make this bill a votable item removes some of its importance, whereas we have an opportunity to give it the importance it deserves.

[English]

The Chair: Merci. Thank you very much for your presentation.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Thank you.

It's for future generations like my daughter.

[English]

The Chair: Bravo.

Our next presenter is Mr. Casey on motion 102. William, as you know, we have about 10 minutes maximum for questions and answers. The floor is yours.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): My motion is just to confirm that the Government of Canada and the provincial governments should establish a highway funding program. I put this in about two years ago, and it's still as relevant today as it was then.

I'd like to cover whether it is a national issue and also a partisan issue and then the impact if we don't do it.

From a national perspective, I have a letter here from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and they say that a national highway system is a major concern to municipal leaders because of its importance to trade and tourism. They urge the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments through their associations to implement a long-term federal-provincial-territorial national highway program. That's the municipalities' organization.

Also, I have letters from every single provincial minister of transport. I wrote to all of them when I first became transport critic, from the Northwest Territories to Ontario, Alberta, and Newfoundland, and every one of them has written back and confirmed, including Quebec. In fact, I went to Quebec and met with the Quebec minister on the issue because of a specific concern there.

It is a national issue, and even the minister has said on occasion:

The development of a strategy to renew Canada's national transportation infrastructure in a sustainable fashion has been a top priority since I became Minister of Transport....

He also said:

I have publicly stated, on many occasions, the need for new funding for highways. This position is fully supported by the Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Transportation.

• 1805

So every province across Canada acknowledges that this is a big issue. It's the number one transportation issue for the provinces and their ministers of transport, it's the number one issue for transportation for the municipalities, and I believe it's a priority issue for the federal minister.

I believe it is non-partisan. Again, I've sent in my little package to you.... I didn't send you all these provincial letters, but I sent you letters representing the Northwest Territories—which I don't think is a partisan government—the Parti Québécois, the Liberals from Newfoundland, the PCs from P.E.I., and the NDP from Saskatchewan. So it's a non-partisan issue, an issue that affects everyone.

This was in a newspaper just a couple of days ago, in the National Post, entitled “Canadians want more roads funding”. It says:

The national poll, conducted Oct. 7 to 12 by Compas Inc., found that 81% of Canadians surveyed think the government should spend more money on highways. Almost 90% of those surveyed said the state of Canada's roads is a safety concern for them and 88% said inadequate highways are a drain on the economy.

So I believe it is a national issue, and I believe it is a non-partisan issue.

If you look at the map I've included in the package, I'll show you what will happen if we don't have a national highway funding program. I think the map is on the last page of the package I sent you.

In Atlantic Canada, we have the only two toll highways on the Trans-Canada. I've circled both of the toll highways, and if you look at the map, New Brunswick has identified a bottleneck in the transportation system in Nova Scotia, and they have developed a toll highway on there because there is no federal government program.

This is a recent headline in a New Brunswick paper that says “Government to reap toll profit of $321 million”. If you look at the map, it's clear that they're going to get every single truck to and from P.E.I., the Îles-de-la-Madeleine of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland through that toll. There is a parallel highway, but the Government of New Brunswick passed legislation preventing all trucks from using it. So every truck to those four provinces—Quebec, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., and Newfoundland—is forced through that toll highway.

If you move to Nova Scotia, it's much the same. There is another parallel highway, and it's the former Trans-Canada Highway, perfectly good, but the Government of Nova Scotia passed legislation saying no trucks can use it. So they capture every single truck to and from Newfoundland, and to and from Nova Scotia. If every province did this, it would be a nightmare.

This is what the Minister of Finance in New Brunswick says: “Outsiders should help pay for our roads. Motorists from outside the province should contribute to the cost of our highway. We expect outsiders to pay.” If each province took that attitude, our transportation system would collapse.

Premier Binns from P.E.I. says “New Brunswick gets rich at our expense”. It's crazy. We're paying taxes now in the Maritimes for driving through New Brunswick and for driving through my province of Nova Scotia. It's a highway tax that's passed on to the other provinces. If Manitoba were to do the same thing, or if Saskatchewan or Ontario were to do the same thing, or if they were to charge tolls to drive through Quebec, our transportation system would come to a grinding halt.

Both of the governments that put those programs in have now been defeated, and one replacement government has committed to remove the tolls in New Brunswick. It hasn't happened yet, but it's going to happen, I think.

In any case, if we don't have a highway funding program, the provinces will come up with these screwball deals. I call them screwball deals. If we don't have a funding program through which the province knows they have to pay a share, but they know the feds will pay their share too, if that's not there.... I have written to all the ministers of transport and proposed a program to them. But my motion is just to talk about the principle of it, to establish the principle that the federal government should create it.

The Chair: I'm sure it's not a conflict of interest, but I just want to mention I did pay my toll this summer instead of spending my money.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Bill, it's just a semantic thing, and I certainly won't hold it against you, but I like it better when you frame it in terms of a national transportation program, because I think you have to look at the rail linkages as they pertain to the national highway, and also the marine linkages.

Mr. Bill Casey: They're all tied together.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, and I know you know that. So it's just that when I look at the issue of simply building highways, I think it has to be within the context of the transportation strategy of moving goods east-west and moving goods north-south.

Mr. Bill Casey: I have a comment on that. If you look at the map again, Newfoundland and P.E.I. have always had a rail system, since Confederation. In the last 10 years they've both been torn up. There's no rail system. That has to be replaced by highways. So the two policies...and the devolution of rail lines and abandonment in the west is a huge deal.

• 1810

So the whole policy is tied together. It's a national issue. As a transport critic, I find the biggest issue that comes to my table from the west is railroad abandonment. So these policies tie together. You're absolutely right, you can't separate them.

The Chair: We have another two minutes, if you have any other questions.

I'll just point out that you've given us a lot of food for thought and good material. I thank you very much for your presentation. Have you any closing remarks, Mr. Casey?

Mr. Bill Casey: Just one issue. I met with the Minister of Tourism from Quebec, Maxime Arseneau, about the impact on Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Every truck to and from the Îles-de-la-Madeleine has to go through that New Brunswick toll. It's New Brunswick taking advantage of all of the other provinces because of geographical location.

I hope you will consider giving us the three hours. I think it's a national issue, non-partisan, and it affects everybody.

The Chair: I appreciate your presentation. Thank you very much.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you.

The Chair: Welcome, Scott. I believe you're here to discuss your motion 207. We welcome you. You have up to a maximum of ten minutes. Perhaps you might want to leave some time for any questions and for your answers. I know you just came in the door, but you can start when you wish.

Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's great to have the opportunity to defend my private member's motion.

The regulatory burden in Canada is a very significant and important issue. Our regulatory burden in Canada has grown by 26% in the last 20 years. Regulations cost each Canadian family over $11,000 per year. Those are federal and provincial combined. Total compliance costs to the private sector for regulations now exceed $85 billion in Canada.

Studies indicate that between 12% and 31% of our lagging productivity growth is attributable to the regulatory burden in Canada, particularly relative to our trading partners. Other countries are endeavouring to increase the level of scrutiny over regulation imposed by government, and I believe that's important for Canada, particularly in a global environment.

Increasingly, taxes and spending are under increased scrutiny and are of great interest to Canadians. But regulations really aren't on the radar screen, and in fact they should be. I'll use an analogy to compare taxes with regulations and demonstrate the similarity between the two.

If the government were to, for instance, determine that there was a public good for every Canadian household to have a lawn sprinkler, it could achieve that in one of two ways. It could increase taxes and purchase all the lawn sprinklers and distribute them to each Canadian household to ensure that each Canadian household utilized a lawn sprinkler, or it could create a regulation that would force each Canadian household to purchase a lawn sprinkler. The latter route would involve very little parliamentary scrutiny and in effect would create a tax that would force Canadians to make a decision about where they would invest and what they would spend money on. In many ways, a regulatory budget would force governments to make the same sorts of trade-offs with individual Canadians' money as we are forced to make with public money through a fiscal budget.

• 1815

There are 650 to 1,000 new federal regulations every year. Some of them are very important and very good, and I want to make it clear that I'm not opposed to all these or any of these specifically. I'm just saying that we should be able, within Parliament, to debate and discuss some of these regulations and bring to light some that may not be as sensible as others and in fact, through parliamentary approval, support those that are justified and important.

The regulatory budget effectively would take into account three costs. Whenever a bureaucrat were to propose a new regulation, it would effectively go into the hopper until the tabling of the regulatory budget, but there are three costs to every regulation.

The first two are government borne. One is the cost of implementation, and the second is the cost of enforcement. The third and perhaps the most important cost, and a cost that is never taken into account, is the cost of compliance. That cost would be added to this, and then through the regulatory budget we would be able to debate within Parliament, on an annual basis, the efficacy of any of these particular regulations.

The regulatory budget would serve two functions. One is that it would increase the role of the private member, which I think is in the interest of all of us, because there has been a decline over the past 30 years. Secondly, it would also increase the level of parliamentary scrutiny of regulations. So it would serve a function that would be important to individual Canadians and also to small business people, and I think they are both very much public goods that would be served doubly by a regulatory budget.

With that, I would open up to questions. I appreciate your time today.

The Chair: Thank you for your presentation.

Are there any questions from around the table?

I'm sure that if there are not questions, it reflects the fact that we've sat here for the three hours, and not the interest in your....

Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I fully understand what you are saying, but do you have any idea how much it would cost to implement a motion like yours? It already costs taxpayers a lot of money. That would cost them even more. Could it reduce the number of regulations we are subjected to?

[English]

Mr. Scott Brison: Thank you very much. That's a very good question.

First, democracy is not necessarily designed to be inexpensive, and I would hope every regulation that is currently created within the bureaucracy would already have these costs calculated. If in fact that is not the case, then I believe it should be the case. For every regulation, the government should know quite clearly what it costs. So there's no additional cost from that perspective, because I think any of us should assume that in fact the government is doing that, and if not, it should be doing that.

Second, in terms of parliamentary resources to debate something like this, there's no incremental cost of debating something that is of importance. The cost of the House of Commons is a fixed cost, and I think to a large extent we know when we get elected here, as private members, that we're put on a treadmill to effectively keep us busy, and to a certain extent we're fed parliamentary Gainsburger to prevent us from pursuing some of these issues that are very important and affect the lives of Canadians.

• 1820

I'm saying that this would be important. I don't see an increase in the cost. I would hope that already the due diligence in terms of attributing cost to regulations is done. If it's not, it should be because somebody has to pay for this.

The Chair: I think we'll go on to Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thanks, Scott. It certainly is an interesting approach. I'm just wondering, in terms of your definition of costs, if we take, for example, regulations that require businesses to record dangerous chemicals, hazardous stuff in the workplace, there's certainly a cost for the businesses doing that. But are you going to factor in the potential benefits of doing that, or are we just purely looking at economics here?

Mr. Scott Brison: You're absolutely right, Joe. In fact insurance companies have the methodology now to provide a benefit to any regulation. That is already there. For instance, I'll give you a regulation where it would be almost impossible to put a cost: bicycle helmets. This is not a federal regulation. How the heck would one ever put a benefit value on that? It's an infinite benefit. It's priceless.

So the fact is we're not looking to say no to a regulation simply because of some cost-benefit analysis that would make something on paper look too expensive. We're simply saying that some regulations—and in fact for all regulations we should be aware of the cost of implementation so that we can make those types of trade-offs.

For instance, on the environmental side, if one were to use legitimate economic analysis, every environmental cost should be internalized at the time of production. We should be internalizing externalities so that in fact it would be impossible to deal with environmental issues in isolation from economics or to deal with economic issues in isolation from the environment, if we're to be fair on that.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Is that Conservative Party policy?

Mr. Scott Brison: Well, we're very environmentally.... Membership has its privileges.

The Chair: A great closing line. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Scott Brison: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Our next presenter is Mr. Earle. Gordon, I realize I seem to be moving you in and out of these seats quickly, but take your time to get seated.

We have Gordon Earle and Bill C-226. You have up to ten minutes to tell us.... Perhaps you'd like to focus on why it should be votable, given the three hours versus one hour, and perhaps leave some time for questions.

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I heard you say earlier to the previous presenter that you've been sitting for three hours, so if you want to stand up and take a stretch before you hear my presentation, feel free.

All kidding aside, I'm quite pleased to be here this evening and to have the opportunity to meet with the committee. I'm actually quite ecstatic, because it's the first time I've been before this committee, which means it's the first time I've had an item drawn that then gets brought forward to the House.

This bill is a very important piece of work as far as I'm concerned, and I think it should be as far as all members of the House and all parliamentarians are concerned. The bill is entitled “Parliamentarians' Code of Conduct”. I'm respectfully meeting with the committee tonight to hopefully convince you that this should be a votable item.

A lot of work has gone into this bill. Over a year's worth of work has gone into this bill on my part and on the part of my staff and people working with me. This bill also represents a lot of effort that has been made in the past as well. It's a culmination of bringing together a review of various systems that have been in place, similar legislation from provincial legislatures, other nations, and so forth. The U.K., Australia, and most if not all the Canadian provincial legislatures have enacted some form of code of conduct legislation.

• 1825

I understand that for a bill to be votable it must be drafted in clear, complete, and effective terms. This 18-page bill has gone through many drafts and redrafts with the assistance of the legislative staff, and I believe you will find that this bill certainly meets the requirements and the scrutiny of being a potentially effective and operable piece of legislation, and that it also clearly outlines its goals and objectives.

This bill establishes an ethics counsellor, sets out a code of conduct for members and senators, clearly puts the public interest before private interest, and clarifies the reconciliation of public and private interests.

As well, I understand that bills and motions should be constitutional and concern areas of federal jurisdiction, and this bill really, pardon the pun, fills the bill in that regard. It meets the constitutionality, and it also deals with federal jurisdiction.

Bills and motions, I understand, should concern matters of significant public interest, and there's no question in my mind that the comportment of parliamentarians is a very public matter and of great concern to a lot of people.

When I was campaigning and really becoming involved in politics for the very first time, one of the things I heard quite often on the doorstep was people saying to me, “You politicians are all the same; you say one thing and you do another. I don't trust politicians.” There's a great cynicism about politicians in terms of trust, integrity, and so forth, and while it's understandable that no bill or piece of paper can instill integrity, honesty, and transparency in politicians—we have to do that ourselves—certainly a bill of this nature can provide a framework and a point of reference that would be a guide to assist us in comporting ourselves with dignity, transparency, and honesty. So I'm firmly convinced that this bill concerns a matter of significant public interest.

Bills and motions, I also understand, should concern issues that are not part of the government's current legislative agenda and that have not been voted on or otherwise dealt with by the House of Commons in the current session. Again, this bill would fit within that category. To my knowledge, this subject matter has not been dealt with by the current House.

High priority, I understand, should be given to items that transcend purely local interest and are not couched in partisan terms, and I can assure you that this particular piece of legislation does transcend local interest. It's something that should be of concern right across this nation, that is, the honesty, integrity, and transparency of politicians.

Certainly it's not a partisan bill, because in my trying to get this matter brought forward, the signatures I received represented all parties in this House. So it's clearly not a partisan issue, but it's an issue that should be of concern to all of us if we want to have some assistance or some further guidelines to help us perform in the way the public expects us to perform as their representatives.

The bill would also apply to all parliamentarians, including me, and I believe very strongly that anything we can do to raise the dignity of Parliament and parliamentarians in the eyes of the public would benefit all of us both collectively and individually.

As I said before, similar legislation does exist in some provincial legislatures and also in various national legislatures.

This work is not something that's fanciful or onerous in its construction and potential application, but it's something that gets to the heart of an issue that I think all of us have expressed some concern about at some time or another, or at least have had people express concern to us about. I think it sets forth a framework that will benefit parliamentarians particularly in situations where perhaps unfounded allegations are made about our conduct. If we have truly complied with a code of parliamentarian conduct, then we will have something as a backdrop against which the public can judge our actions.

Also, I think the centrepiece of this legislation is really the objective and impartial method of investigating and dealing with complaints that may fall under this act. We know that not only must justice be done, but it must also be seen to be done, and if we're going to have someone investigating the conduct or alleged conflict of interest situations of parliamentarians, then nothing goes further to resolve that issue than an impartial investigator who is accountable to Parliament as opposed to being accountable to a minister or to a prime minister or to any one individual. I think it's very important for all of us to maintain that kind of integrity and honesty and transparency within the system.

• 1830

With that, I'll terminate my presentation and await any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Harvey and then to Mr. Jordan.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I have a short question.

[English]

I would like to know why we need it.

[Translation]

I have not been in the House as long as Bill, but I have never had a citizen ask me if I had ethical standards or a code of conduct. It seems to me that an MP receives a code of conduct every four years. If we do not respect the standards our citizens want us to respect, they can be very harsh. I would like to get a better understanding of the reason for that. Never, in several years of politics, has a citizen ever asked me if I had standards or a code of professional conduct.

Mr. Gordon Earle: Thank you for your question. If I may, I will answer it in English because my French is too limited to allow me to express all of the nuances in the question.

[English]

I think you've made a very important point, that ultimately the final judge for the conduct of any parliamentarian is the public at the polls at election time. That's true. This code is not intended to offset or to do away with that final evaluation, but I think this code would assist not just the public but individuals themselves to have a standard by which they themselves can gauge some of the activities in which they may become involved.

For example, if you have a friend who is doing some business in the constituency and there arises a situation where perhaps you're in a position to do a favour for that person, if any question arises around that, whether you've done this properly or whether there's been undue influence or anything of that nature, it's good to have a clear guideline that would delineate whether or not there has been any improper conduct.

Now, the fact that we may not have had it in the past doesn't necessarily mean we don't have to have it now. I know some people use the expression, well, if it isn't broken, then why fix it? But I'm saying the public, at least from the experience I've had in the short period of time I've been involved, is expressing a lot of cynicism, and they're very skeptical about politicians.

If you do a survey, quite often you end up with the lowest ranking in terms of how the public views you, and I certainly think anything we can do to enable the public to have a better view of us and feel that we are in fact trying to live up to some standards that are clearly definable will be helpful.

There are certain guidelines currently in place for cabinet ministers and office-holders, but that then gives them some form of accountability that perhaps the rest of us don't really have. This bill would really set the standards for all parliamentarians, including senators, so that we would all have a common set of guidelines against which to measure our activities and avoid potential conflict of interest situations.

Mr. André Harvey: Merci.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thanks, Gordon. I'm getting depressed here, because I have nothing I would need to disclose.

I have two quick points. One, I notice there's something in here about the percentage of public corporation.... I agree with the rationale, but what do you do if somebody ran and was elected under the current rules and then the rules were changed? Is this retroactive or do you grandfather those people? In fairness, if somebody made a decision to enter public life based on a set of rules—and people get very emotional when you start talking about their finances—all of a sudden does the bar go up and they live with it? Or is there a transition?

Secondly, in terms of disclosure of private interests—and I probably could get this from the bill, but it's been a long day, so I'll just ask you—does that go to the ethics counsellor or is that public?

• 1835

Mr. Gordon Earle: With regard to the transition period, obviously there would have to be some arrangement whereby people could work things into the system, because you can't just change the rules in midstream and expect everybody to be in harmony. But I would think also that if this legislation were passed people would want to move quickly toward being in a situation where they could conform with it.

In terms of the disclosures—and I must confess, I didn't think we were going to get into a lot of the details on the bill per se—certainly there would be disclosure made to the ethics counsellor. The ethics counsellor would then come up with a statement that would be the public part of the disclosure. So everything that's disclosed to the ethics counsellor would not necessarily be made public, but there would be certain things he would make public in accordance with this legislation.

Obviously such things as a personal home, etc., would be excluded. If you go through it, you can see that most things that people are somewhat sensitive about are not the types of things we're concerned about. Really, the concern is with anything that might put you in a conflict of interest situation vis-à-vis public interest and responsibilities and your private life.

So I don't think people need to get as overly concerned about that aspect of it as perhaps they might appear to be on the surface.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

Madame Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You have obviously worked very hard. I imagine that you have done some research. Are there any parliamentary codes of conduct in Canada? Do they exist in parliaments outside Canada?

Mr. Gordon Earle: In Canada, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and British Columbia have codes of conduct. The United Kingdom and Australia also have codes of conduct and there may be others elsewhere. Those are the codes that I have studied.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Is what you are presenting equivalent to what you saw in other legislatures?

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: Yes, I like to think that we've taken the best of the other codes and brought those together.

Incidentally, I should mention that my code is not something that's been invented completely anew. There was a bill in 1991, the proposed Members of the Senate and House of Commons Conflict of Interests Act, which we looked at. Most recently a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons produced the code of official conduct. There was a report submitted by Senator Donald Oliver and MP Peter Milliken on this very topic.

So a lot of that work was incorporated into this bill. We're building upon a base that was looked at and researched quite thoroughly. Those previous studies had heard witnesses and had interviewed many people and done a lot of work that was already there, and we have brought that together in this format.

I think this is a pretty sound piece of legislation, and I certainly hope members will deem it votable, first of all. I then would like to feel that people will vote in favour of it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Earle. We've certainly given you a very fair share of time. We appreciate your excellent work.

I would just comment, colleagues, that I found it a very interesting session, since it's my first time here. I want to thank the staff and all those people involved when we sit here for this length of time, especially our clerk and our lawyer from the Library of Parliament, and each of you, my colleagues.

The next meeting is tomorrow morning, bright and early, in Room 307 of the West Block.

Mr. Jordan.

• 1840

Mr. Joe Jordan: This is just a quick point. We have 31 bills and can make a maximum of only 10 votable, so there is potential for good things not to be votable. By working through consensus—and maybe we can finish the discussion tomorrow—I think it's important that we don't discuss with individual members who voted which way. We got into that a little bit. They tried in some cases. I think that's a road we don't want to go down. In this case, with this quantity, with the types of things we're looking at, I think there's potential for people to try to track, after the fact, what happened.

I don't know. That's my opinion.

The Chair: I want to speak as a member here, if I may, because I heard such good things. That's why I looked to hear you people speak to that today, and will tomorrow also—those who have been here before, long before me.

William.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I wasn't aware that there was any of that going on, but certainly that's the way I consider the committee to operate. We make decisions, and we don't attribute positions to each other after the decisions are taken.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I assume you're finished with me.

The Chair: Yes, sir, thank you.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Otherwise, we would get into real problems.

The Chair: Yes, I think we look forward to working that way.

I believe we are adjourned.