SPRI Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 31, 1998

• 0938

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): We'll begin.

You have five minutes to explain to us.... Remember, the purpose of this is to tell us why you think your bill should be votable. Some people make the mistake of explaining why we should vote for their bill when it goes into the House. What you really are here to tell us is why is this an interesting enough bill to qualify for three hours of discussion in the House. Okay?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Okay.

The Court Challenges Program, I'll just explain to you, is an independent corporation based in Winnipeg. It receives $2.75 million of public money every year, which it distributes to special interest groups so they can pursue various policy agendas in the courts. My motion, in effect, would end funding for this program, so it's fairly straightforward.

I believe this motion is worthy of consideration by the House. Previous governments have consistently given direct attention to the Court Challenges Program, and to fund or not to fund has been the question.

In 1992 the prior administration did exactly what my motion proposes to do, and it pulled back funding of the Court Challenges Program. Two years later, a financial contribution agreement was signed with the government and was to be in effect until the spring of 1998. So it's timely that the motion will be before the House this very month, the month of April.

The motion meets the 11 criteria set out in Beauchesne's for private members' business, but there are at least three additional reasons why the motion is an important one.

• 0940

First of all, the Court Challenges Program has failed to honour its commitment to the government and has become unaccountable to the government. To begin with, the program has not lived up to its overall objective. The 1994 funding agreement states that “The objective of the program is the clarification of constitutional rights and freedoms”, but in fact the program has shown little interest in funding litigation so that judges can clarify the meaning of the charter.

In fact they have very actively pursued certain policy ideas by awarding grants only to groups sharing those particular policy views, instead of on balance both sides getting some equal, fair treatment. The funding agreement says, “the program shall fund a broad range of individuals and groups”.

The lack of impartiality is also seen when a judge or panel of judges doesn't give the desired ruling. In such cases, the program's literature then goes on to portray the decision as a grave travesty of justice.

So it should be about clarifying some balance and giving both sides a fair shot at it.

Second, the Court Challenges Program has had a direct hand in the rise of judicial activism or imperialism, as some have called it, which has really done an end run around the elected representatives—yourself, myself included—and undermined the proper role of elected representatives in Parliament.

We're probably all aware of the growing influence of the courts since 1982, where groups have specifically ignored parliamentarians and provincial legislature members and pitched their policy ideas directly to the court, to the judges. That has caused a growing concern in the country, including among members of the judiciary, and as they step away, resigning from the Supreme Court, they will often make a statement to that effect.

My present point is that the Court Challenges Program has played a big role in the politicization of the judiciary. The program's own literature gives the unmistakable impression that the courts are simply the means by which this organization's agenda is to be advanced in various policy areas. In fact, part of the budget is advertising the availability of funding, in the hope that such advertising will encourage predetermined types of applicants to request funding. In this way the Court Challenges Program, rather than just clarifying things constitutional in respect to the charter, has often set the agenda and decided what social policy issues will be pressed in our Canadian court system.

Third, many Canadians feel that the Court Challenges Program uses their tax dollars against them, with the result that the program has caused anger against the government of the day.

Back in the beginning of this year, when a Saskatoon woman received a grant from the Court Challenges Program to bring the spanking issue before the courts, challenging section 43 of the Criminal Code, it was the lead story in Saskatoon's largest daily newspaper. It was the subject of debate in letters to the editor, on radio, and in various other publications.

The public is very interested in how public funds are spent, and many of the people of Saskatoon and area were upset that they were being forced to pay for a legal challenge that would in effect undermine their role as parents. Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children.

In light of that particular case and other ones we could cite as well, it's legitimate to ask whether that is what the Court Challenges Program is meant to be about, as in its original mandate.

It started out as a program designed to protect minority language rights, but it has evolved in something that would perhaps surprise even its originators in the government.

I believe that debate in the House, followed by a vote, would not only serve the taxpayers but all members of Parliament and provide us some better understanding of what the intent of this program was meant to be. It would provide that service to us and to the Canadian public.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the members of the committee?

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): I wanted to ask you whether you had any direct letters, faxes—I mean aside from the fact that you were out there in the media. Have you had any people phoning you and telling you that this is an issue very important to them?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, we did. We had a fair bit of angst and consternation, I guess, at the time when this particular case in point of the Court Challenges funding was made known in the media, I guess back in December and January of this year. We had a lot of inquiries, saying, “Why are our dollars being used in effect against us?”

This case in point of removing section 43 of the Criminal Code is the only defence that parents have in terms of a judicious or appropriate use of corporal correction, or spanking little Pooky on the bottom. If that was removed, then in effect you could criminalize all parents. I guess that would be the upshot of it. So a lot of people feel the dollars were being used against them as parents in respect to family.

• 0945

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. That's all I have.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec City, BQ): I would like to know how this Act undermines the role of members of Parliament. You talked about the imperialism of the judiciary. I would like you to tell me more about the link between that and the limits put on the role of elected officials.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Basically, under the British or modified parliamentary system that we work in, social policy would be set by your legislators, your parliamentarians. So in effect it's not just a matter of clarifying some issue of a legal thing, it's a matter of social policy through the courts. So when those things should be up for a discussion in the House of Commons and before committee, it's a matter of doing an end run around the parliamentarian, the elected representative, and going directly to the courts for a verdict on this, which usurps or undermines our role as elected representatives and public officials. Does that answer the question?

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Do you realize that daily there are judgments made in court that affect our social way of life and how we act and interact with each other? Almost every decision made in the courts has that kind of quasi-parliamentarian power, and they set precedent. They stay in that position until otherwise challenged and appealed and taken off. When you get into any quasi-judicial organizations, that's the responsibility that a democratic society takes. If they make bad decisions, they're appealable. The only way you can get them off the books is to appeal the courts and have it rescinded.

In this situation this organization, with which I'm not familiar, takes cases to court in the hope that what they see—and I don't know their background—is a wrong righted through a court challenge. I think that has always been a way of life in Canada. The thing you're after here is that it's publicly funded. That's what I see here.

I don't think you'll ever stop people from going to court to challenge decisions.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's absolutely right, John. I think we both agree that when Supreme Court judgments come down and so on, there is the kind of proper judicial restraint—that if legislators have not spoken often, they just put it back and say you rule on it, you make a determination in terms of policy. But legal aid as it stands presently, quite aside from the Court Challenges Program, funds about 75% of charter challenges.

That's a fairer way because it's based on means—whether you have the financial resources or not. Sometimes Court Challenges people have incomes of $100,000 plus. So it's often more on an ideological basis than on a strict financial need basis.

In the case of this plaintiff with a corporal correction challenge right now—you're supposed to name a plaintiff under the Court Challenges Program. There is no child or plaintiff named, yet that was to be the case.

Mr. John Richardson: That's taking the generic approach to it—without identifying somebody. It's just the action.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's right, whereas under legal aid, 75% of court challenges presently.... There is still access for downtrodden, oppressed people who don't have financial resources to go by way of that, and there are other methods as well.

Mr. John Richardson: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews, do you have a question?

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): I don't, thanks.

The Chair: Okay.

Thank you very much. That was a very clear presentation. The committee will be deliberating tomorrow. You'll know after it goes to Procedure and House Affairs on Thursday.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. Thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you.

• 0950

Mr. Bernier, welcome.

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Thank you for offering me the opportunity to appear before your committee today to discuss my private member's motion on co-operative housing.

The purpose of M-193 is to initiate a national discussion on the nature of co-operative housing and to examine ways in which the Government of Canada can contribute to the ongoing success of this very important housing vehicle.

The federal government has supported co-operative housing in Canada for the last 25 years, most recently through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Co-ops are a uniquely Canadian housing solution that benefit 250,000 residents in over 60,000 homes and apartments.

In March 1996 CMHC announced it would make an effort to turn over the management of existing federal social housing resources to the provinces and territories. In the two years since, agreements have been signed with Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the Northwest Territories that would see these governments assume responsibility for public housing, private non-profit housing, as well as co-ops.

In general I support the devolution of social housing administration to the provinces. I have always believed that the level of government that can best serve the needs of its clients should be the one to manage that same program. But the inclusion of co-op housing in this devolution creates some serious problems for those who have benefited from co-operatives.

There are two main issues for co-op members: loss of control and loss of financial security. Co-ops are radically different from other forms of social housing. First of all, members of any particular co-op come from varying income levels, from modest to middle class. This mix of resident incomes means co-ops are able to avoid many of the problems that are often seen when low-income residents are lumped together in large public housing projects.

Secondly, residents manage their own affairs, which bolsters community pride and a sense of ownership.

Finally, co-ops are the least expensive of all federal social housing programs, because of their members' commitment and involvement.

Many provinces are currently undergoing a process of program harmonization. As these provinces assert their control over the housing portfolio and co-ops are treated as just another form of social housing, their unique self-management approach is eroded. As a result, the benefits that have been seen in housing co-operatives also erode.

In Saskatchewan, for example, the government is proposing changes to co-ops that would diminish members' accountability and authority for setting housing charges, budgets, and the number of households they subsidize.

Federal housing co-operatives currently have agreements with CMHC that give them a secured source of funding and allow them to make long-term plans. Under the agreements signed to date, the provincial and territorial governments must honour these funding agreements. Unfortunately, as the agreements expire, so does the guaranteed funding. If CMHC were to proceed as planned, then federal dollars involved in supporting housing co-ops would dwindle to zero over the next few years.

There is, however, another solution. In early April, the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, CHFC, will meet with the minister responsible for CMHC and propose that a non-governmental organization be set up to administer co-op housing agreements. If implemented, this new agency would save governments a minimum of $2 million per year, plus $50 million over the next 20 years. It would also meet the federal government's goal of devolution of administration while preserving the keys to the co-op housing success story: member control and decentralized management.

In closing, let me say that even though M-193 would re-examine current government policy, it is not meant—and I repeat, it is not meant—to be a partisan debate. As I already stated, I agree with most of what the government has done in the area of social housing. This debate is about optimizing the structure of government so it can best serve the needs of Canadians.

Some problems have been identified in the approach to co-op housing, and it would seem some solutions are available. In light of this, added to the fact that the minister responsible may be looking for a different direction to take, it is entirely appropriate that members of Parliament have the benefit of a full debate on this matter and that they be allowed to vote to express their support for co-operative housing as the CHFC seeks to work with the government to find a solution that will work for everyone.

• 0955

Thank you again for your time. I will be happy to answer any of your questions, if there are any.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there any questions?

Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Bernier, one thing comes to mind when I read your motion. You talk about ensuring the continued viability of housing co-operatives, which can be a very lengthy process. We all know that the idea behind co-operatives is to encourage people to take charge of their own affairs. By ensuring the viability of co-operatives, in the long term I presume, aren't we just taking over some of the responsibilities of those who are part of a housing co-operative?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Absolutely not. However, if the federal government hands over responsibility for housing co-operatives to the provinces, as it has already started to do, that could happen. The agreements between the federal government and the provinces cover the next eight to ten years. After that, the provinces will be entirely responsible for running social housing, which includes housing co-operatives.

There is no guarantee that the provinces will continue to support housing co-operatives and that they will not just have a social housing program. In New Brunswick, where I come from, the Nova Scotia Housing Corporation runs low-cost housing for very poor people. I am a contractor and I worked a lot on those houses. The provincial government pays for the maintenance, whereas housing co-operatives pay for those costs themselves.

If I rented from a co-operative, I would pay just like any other renter, but it would be virtually my own home. I would pay for any repairs and I would mow the lawn. That is why it is best for those housing co-operatives to be run by the federal government. A number of members of Parliament have said that this would remain an area of federal jurisdiction, whereas others seem to think it will be of provincial jurisdiction. Four or five provinces have already signed an agreement with the federal government to take over responsibility for those co-operatives, which concerns us a great deal. We want the co-operatives to keep control.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You want voters and citizens to be protected from provincial management. Don't voters already put enough pressure on their provinces?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Not necessarily. Co-operatives just want to keep their renters and their authority. I do not think it is a political issue. Co-operatives have always run their own housing. They represent members who want it to remain so. They have nice accommodation. They have both single family homes and apartments.

You do not find just low-income families living there. There are also middle-class people, people who are managing quite well. They have nice homes. They would like the co-operatives to be maintained and for them to keep their authority over the renters. I support their view.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: How much interest do you have from people in your constituency and also from people outside your constituency?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: We received a lot of representation from my constituency, a lot from Nova Scotia, and a lot from British Columbia on this. They all agree that the funding that comes from the federal government and everything that is administered to the co-op from the federal government should stay at the federal level.

Mr. Ken Epp: Are you getting those representations because you are the critic for your party in Public Works and Government Services, where this falls under, or is this because of an interest that comes right from the grassroots in your riding?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: No, I expect it's because I'm the critic for that portfolio.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you. That's all.

The Chair: Did you find it was an issue during the election?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Not in my riding, no.

The Chair: Okay. I did.

• 1000

Are there any questions from this side?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: I know that it is a big issue, but in my own personal riding there is hardly any co-op housing. It's mostly N.B. Housing, which is administered by the provincial government and which is a branch of Canada Mortgage and Housing here at the federal level. That's what we see in my riding in particular, but I know it is a hot issue.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Do I understand your concern is that the agreements that have been entered into with four or five provincial governments—that at any time the provinces may end the agreement, and that therefore there's no protection for those who are now currently availing of the co-op?

Mr. Gilles Bernier: No. The point is that when the federal government signs an agreement with the province, the province will maintain that agreement until it expires, which is eight to ten years. After that ten years, anything can happen. That's where we're scared.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Okay. So that's what your fear is—that there will be no protection after that eight- or ten-year agreement expires.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: That's right.

Mr. Bill Matthews: There may not be another agreement, and the province may not continue to support co-op housing.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: That's right, and there won't be any more federal funding after that agreement expires.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Breitkreuz. Am I pronouncing your name correctly?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Yes, that's the Anglicized version. It's Breitkreuz.

The Chair: Sorry about that.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: No, that's fine.

The Chair: I'll probably persist in doing it incorrectly anyway.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I've been called worse, however.

The Chair: How about I just call you Garry?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That's just fine.

Mr. Ken Epp: Actually he's German, and this is Easter time. It means “bright cross”.

The Chair: Thank you for sharing that. What would we do without Mr. Epp?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Anyway, thank you very much for listening to my appeal to have this votable. I appreciate the work you're doing.

The motion M-33 that I'm bringing forth calls on Parliament to amend section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to (a) recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state; and (b) recognize the fundamental right, responsibility, and liberty of parents to direct the upbringing of their children and urge the legislative assemblies of the provinces to do likewise.

Now, I've checked, and it follows all the guidelines of the committee. I won't go into that, but if you look at the guidelines it doesn't interfere in the jurisdiction of the provinces or anything like that. In fact, it will be approved by the provinces.

Before I get into why this should be votable, I just want to say that if this parental rights and responsibility motion is approved by Parliament, the resolution would then as it reads be sent to the legislatures of the ten provinces for debate and a vote by those legislatures. If seven of the provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of the population approve the resolution, the charter would be amended. That's all according to the amending formula. A maximum of three provinces could opt out of the amendment, and if there were more than three dissenting provinces the amendment would not have the two-thirds support and would be defeated. That's the procedure.

Why should this motion be made votable? Many parents feel that their rights and responsibilities are being threatened by the government's attempt to fully implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. That's a UN charter that's never been approved by this Parliament, and it would be a really good opportunity to begin to debate this issue, I feel.

Parents are afraid that their right and responsibility to use reasonable disciplinary measures to correct their children's behaviour is threatened by the initiatives the government is undertaking. These government initiatives include funding for research and court challenges by special interest groups—as one of the previous presenters has brought up—that wish to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. We will be faced with this issue, and I think we might as well be prepared and start debating it now.

Concerned parents say that if the convention is fully implemented, government and the courts will have the absolute power to determine what is in the best interests of the child, and parents will be powerless. Parents need safeguards to protect them from unnecessary interference by government bureaucrats, and children need the protection that this resolution would bring by strengthening the concept of parental responsibilities in law.

• 1005

Just to show you how important this issue is, I recently received a pile of petitions, 122 petitions, signed by more than 2,872 concerned citizens specifically supporting my parental rights and responsibilities motion. Additionally, in this session alone I have already received 31 petitions with the signatures of 2,529 people to be precise—introduced in the House—specifically opposing the changes to section 43 of the Criminal Code, often called the “spanking law”. That is a specific problem related to parental rights.

Just to give you a comparison to that, there were only two petitions in the 35th Parliament supporting the repeal of section 43. So you can see that parents want Parliament to get on side on this issue.

The passage of my motion would go a long way to assuring Canadian families that the government will only intervene in the private affairs of parents when they have failed to discharge their fundamental responsibilities to their children—for example, failing to provide their children with the necessities of life. Government has that ability, but it would not affect that ability.

Having parental rights and responsibilities and liberty in the charter would ensure an appropriate balance between the fundamental freedom of parents to raise their kids and Parliament's role to protect children when parents fail to properly discharge their responsibilities. I emphasize that this will give balance to it, and we need to maintain that balance in our society.

In conclusion, parents must have the freedom to do what they think is in the best interests of their children. If governments think they are wrong, section 1 of the charter guarantees that the government can only do it within “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

So my motion proposes to institute a proper balance, and I would ask the members of this subcommittee to see the wisdom in making M-33 votable. Petitioners have shown how important this issue is to them. This is a big issue in Canada today and I think it needs to be properly debated in this Parliament. All political parties see it as important. It's not an issue that a certain political party has taken hold of.

I am sure that all MPs are getting feedback. It crosses party lines. It's not a left-right issue or anything like that. We've not been able to debate it so far in Parliament, and I would appeal to you to make this votable.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Matthews, do you have any questions?

Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson: Each of the provinces has its children's aid society and they look at cases of child abuse that have been reported to them. I have no....

The Chair: Okay.

Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In Quebec, the Youth Protection Act has been in force for nearly 20 years now. It was recognized as being very good legislation. One of its premises is that violence against children and women is unacceptable.

When I read "the fundamental right to lead their family life as they choose", I find that very broad. Is it possible that an amendment such as the one you suggest might mean the Quebec Youth Protection Act could be challenged in the Supreme Court?

[English]

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you. That's an excellent question.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you. I'm very happy.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'm glad you bring that up. You're actually getting into the debate already, so we're jumping ahead a little bit.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Ahead of you.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I appreciate that.

I think we should continue the debate and the debate should continue in Parliament. In my judgment it would not infringe on the protection the state has to give children.

Remember that I have the balance in here, that parents need to assume some more responsibility. We've tipped the balance all the way to one side. We have to bring back the balance here so that parents need to assume more responsibility in this area. The justice issue is affected by this. Social Services, the welfare in the provinces, is getting much more of a load. It's putting a burden on the provinces because we have lost that balance. I could go into education and other areas where it will have an effect.

• 1010

It actually will help the provinces enforce the laws that are in place. I wish I could address this more—I think that will happen in debate—but it will actually give the provinces some support in maintaining this balance. The provinces are running into trouble because it's not in the charter. So it's a very good question.

The Chair: Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

Garry, I'm really interested in the broader support you have. I would have asked how much interest there is around the country and so on, but you've answered that by talking about your petitions.

How great is the interest amongst parliamentarians? I would also ask you to comment on whether or not you have had any interest expressed by parliamentarians outside of the party to which you belong.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, and I tried to make that my last point here. This is not an issue that is just germane to our party, the Reform Party. This is being raised by MPs across the board. I've had contact with them informally, and they are getting some of the same feedback I am.

In answer to the first part of your question on how broad this is, these petitions are coming from Ontario, eastern Canada, Mississauga, Ontario, western Canada. They're coming from the whole country, so there is broad support for this. The concern is there, and I think it would be good for this Parliament to take a look at it.

The Chair: I might just ask a question. Did you say you got one from Mississauga?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'm just looking at one of the names on there.

The Chair: I'm just curious. If it crosses party lines, if it doesn't stick with one party, I wonder why I've never received any. There are two Mississauga MPs in the room.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay, but that's only the one line. There are other towns mentioned on this, but I just happened to look at that one. Maybe I picked the wrong one.

The Chair: Yes, you did.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Let me go to the next line. Here's Creston, which is in B.C. I just happen to pick that one. I'm sorry.

The Chair: Okay, cool.

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews: I would just like to ask a question. You say “pursue family life free from undue interference by the state”. What would you consider to be undue interference by the state?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code. That's the concern that a lot of parents have: that the government is going to tell them what tools they can and cannot use. I'm not talking about child abuse. That's what Madame over here was talking about. The government still needs to protect children, but there is a concern there that the government is going to limit and/or repeal certain sections that would.... Do you know what section 43 is? That's called the spanking law, and it allows parents to use that.

Mr. Bill Matthews: So that's going to be removed.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Our indications are that this is being studied by the justice department at the present time. Some people have gotten wind of that and they have concerns about it, yes.

The Chair: Seeing no more questions, thank you very much.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you.

The Chair: I'll get that name from you later.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay.

The Chair: I'm just joking.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It'll be on the public record.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik, welcome.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's nice to be here.

The Chair: Since you've sat on this side of the table before, your presentation should be excellent.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I appreciate the difficulty in making those decisions, having had the opportunity to sit in the place of my colleague Mr. Matthews. I have to admit that I enjoyed every minute of it, and I certainly appreciate the effort that goes into making that decision.

In mentioning that, I'll start by saying that I am very pleased to appear before this committee to put forward private member's motion M-323. The motion that I have before you is perhaps not as romantic or as sexy as some of the motions that you've heard previously, but I learned a long time ago that in order to be able to speak effectively about a motion, one must have a passion about that particular motion. I can assure you that I do have a passion about this particular motion. Having been an elected official at the municipal level previously, this is without question one of the most vital issues that we have dealt with in respect to infrastructure.

• 1015

The motion itself is very simple. It reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should apply a portion of tax dollars raised on fuel sales to the maintenance of rural road system in Canada.

I can tell you that at this point in time the federal government has advocated this responsibility with respect to the infrastructure program not only with respect to rural road systems but obviously with respect to road systems throughout all of the provinces within Canada and its jurisdiction.

We can go back in history a little bit and recognize that transportation links were the vital links that brought this country together a number of years ago into its early Confederation days. Quite frankly, the transportation links are equally as vital, if not more vital today, in order to develop our economies in Canada. Because we do have a global economy, it's necessary that we have rural road systems, or road systems in general, to be able to transport the majority of goods that we produce here in Canada. Obviously, we have them sold in other parts not only of the country but also of the global economy.

Recently, the federal government has said that 50¢ of every dollar that's anticipated surplus should be for new priorities. Those priorities, in my humble opinion, should be to helping rural Canada by endorsing this particular motion. This motion calls on the federal government to make a real commitment to rural Canada. The rural road system is a vital element to Canadians from coast to coast, but western Canada in particular has not been given fair and equitable treatment.

I will speak to western Canada, but I would like the panel to recognize that this is a national perspective. This is a national requirement for having dollars put into our infrastructure program and the road system. I'm more familiar with western Canada, as I said earlier. It's because of my own position, previous to coming to Ottawa, and the fact that I am very, very knowledgeable in this particular area.

Currently, western Canada will receive less than 2% of all federal investment into the highways over the next five years. Cashflow projections from Transport Canada suggest that over the next five years the federal government will contribute about $900 million to eastern Canada to fund construction of highways and western Canada will receive only $13 million. Of this, zero goes to Manitoba, $2 million to Saskatchewan, zero to Alberta, $6 million to B.C., $4 million to the Yukon, and $900,000 to the territories. It is clear that municipal governments cannot continue to carry the financial burden of maintaining our current road network.

I will speak to Manitoba, only because I'm familiar with Manitoba. I am familiar with Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia to a degree, and certainly I'm learning to be more familiar with eastern Canada.

Currently, the federal government collects about $140.7 million in road excise tax in Manitoba for 1996-97. This $140.7 million will be collected from Manitoba in excise tax. The federal government has not committed any funding towards Manitoba's provincial highway system for the 1998-99 fiscal year. So in effect the federal government will be taking out $141 million and will be putting none back into the road system.

In the years between 1992 and 1996 the federal government allocated, on average, $6.4 million per year to Manitoba highways, despite collecting in Manitoba an average of $124 million per year in road fuel excise tax. In reality the federal government has put back into Manitoba roads only 4.8% of the money it has collected from Manitoba road users. I speak to Manitoba specifically, because as I said earlier it's the one I'm familiar with.

I can tell you that this is a very sensitive and major issue for rural Canada.

Mr. Epp, I have dozens of letters on file at this point in time that have come as resolutions of municipal councils, asking not only me but also the federal government to seriously consider a program and funding to go back into the rural road systems.

There is a situation right now in rural Canada where, first, the roads are in fact not being maintained. Secondly, they are having excessive traffic placed on them because of a number of situations, one being rail abandonment.

With the rail systems being abandoned as they are currently, what's happening, particularly in my area and Mr. Epp's area and western Canada—our business is agriculture. When the Crow rate was taken off—and quite frankly it was the best decision that was ever made—industrial agricultural development expanded in rural Canada. Those goods have to be transported, and because of the abandonment of rail lines those goods are transported currently by rubber-tired trucks. Those roads are being deteriorated. They are not being maintained by municipalities because of a horrendous tax situation. Ultimately what's going to happen is that our economy in those areas is going to fail or become less than what it is right now because of the transportation issues.

I can also tell you, Mr. Epp, that I have received letters from all of the western Canadian associations, and I have one with me right now. It comes from an association that I'm just becoming familiar with. It's called PARM, which is the Prairie Association of Rural Municipalities. It involves the UMM, SARM, as well as the Alberta rural municipalities. They have indicated their absolute displeasure at the amount of dollars going back into the rural infrastructure in western Canada and are calling on the federal government to take some of the excise dollars that they're generating right now and put them into a well thought out infrastructure plan.

• 1020

As I said earlier, Madam Chair, this is not sexy and it's not romantic. What it is, quite frankly, is the life blood of small rural Canada. If the federal government is not going to take responsibility for its actions and be a partner in this, then quite frankly we are going to find ourselves in a very desperate situation indeed in the very near future.

I would love to be able to have this identified as a votable motion so that members of all parties, members from all regions of this country, can in fact speak to this motion with some passion, just as I would like to speak to this motion with passion.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. I'd like to ask one question. You said the municipalities are unable to maintain the roads because of, you said, “a tax situation”. Could you explain that?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes. Right now a lot of the maintenance of certain roads within the municipalities is being downloaded from provinces, because the provinces have been putting their dollars.... Let me go back one step. Particularly in Manitoba and Saskatchewan—I can speak to those with some authority—both provinces put more into the highway system than they collect in their own excise taxes. So they are in fact doing the job. They are also looking after what we consider to be national highways, those highways being the major highways such as Highway 1, the Trans-Canada Highway, and other national highways that have been identified in the provinces.

So all of the moneys that are being collected by the provinces are going into the highways program, and more dollars are required. The provinces are downloading some of those rural roads to the municipalities. The cost of maintaining, rebuilding, and replacing those roads is horrendous, and rural municipalities do not have substantial assessment as do urban centres. They do not have assessment from industry nor do they have assessment from commercial or institutional sectors. Basically all of their assessment comes from land assessment, from farm assessment.

They do not have the opportunity of raising the tax level to a degree where they can go and maintain these roads. So what's happening, Madam Chair, is that these roads are deteriorating to the point where they're impassable.

But somebody has to come to the table with funding, and that's why this motion speaks to a percentage of the excise tax now being collected by the federal government going into a program to assist these municipalities in maintaining the roads.

The Chair: Let me ask you a second question and then I'll open it to the floor.

I'm seeking the privilege of being chairman on this one because you get in there right away.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: When we had the infrastructure program back in 1993 and 1994, was it not possible at that time for municipalities to rebuild those roads using the one-third, one-third, one-third system?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Sure. A lot of municipalities, Madam Chairman, took advantage of that program. By the way, I am a firm proponent of any infrastructure program, and if the government wishes to put an additional program forward, I will be the first one to support you in my caucus.

A lot of those municipalities did take advantage of that program, but don't forget, Madam Chairman, with that infrastructure program in all of the municipalities, a lot of those municipalities, because of their size, received minimal amounts of dollars, perhaps to the tune of $50,000 to $100,000. A road rebuild in a lot of these municipalities could well exceed $1 million. There just weren't sufficient funds in the infrastructure program.

But it was an excellent program. If that's the way government would like to go, I would certainly support that.

The Chair: Okay. I'll go around the table.

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: You talked about excise tax. I think you mean specifically the fuel tax, right?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The fuel tax, yes. I'm sorry, Mr. Epp, you're right. It's the fuel tax, which is 8.5¢, I believe, right now.

Mr. Ken Epp: Cents per litre.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: That money goes to Ottawa directly, as we know. But besides that, there are many other levels of taxation that we send to Ottawa, and I guess in a way I'm reflecting what you're saying here. I think one of my criteria for whether or not your motion will become votable has to do with the level of interest and support across the country, and you've certainly hit a chord with me on that, because I hear the same thing.

The infrastructure program, unfortunately, made money available to municipalities only if they could raise the same amount. It forced some of them to actually enter into a debt program in order to participate in this. Yet if they didn't do it, they lost the provincial and the federal shares, the two-thirds of it. So the thing that was wrong with the infrastructure program, which I was told by the municipalities in my riding, was that they lost control of their budgeting. They were suddenly forced into a program that they may not have chosen at the time. What they would have liked to have had was that money given to them to be used as they wished.

• 1025

The Chair: Can you come back to the subject at hand?

Mr. Ken Epp: There is a question.

I wanted to know specifically what portion of this excise tax you think you'd like to have back?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The number that's mentioned most regularly is 2¢. In fact, the CAA has talked about a national highways program with 2¢ of the excise tax. I believe that if 2¢ of that excise tax was put into a funding pool, it would certainly be better than what is there at the present time.

Let me just expand one other point, Mr. Epp. If that 2¢ is available, which is substantially more than the contribution is now from the federal government, it could be identified certainly to each provincial government specifically for rural roads. Right now, provincial governments are putting some of their funding into rural roads, but it's not enough. We recognize that. They may well deflect some of what they're doing right now and put it into other infrastructure programs with the highways program, and more moneys could be flowing not only from the province but also the federal government for the rural road system.

By the way, Mr. Epp, as for support, I sat in a UMM meeting in Brandon recently with quite a substantial number of rural municipal elected officials. The main concern that they put forward at that time was roads. Believe me, rural municipal councillors have a lot of other concerns as well, but without doubt the top priority for every one of those municipal councillors was a road system. It's not only a concern for today, because they're smart enough to know that if something isn't done soon, five years from now is when we're going to come back to this table saying, it's getting to the point where we don't have the necessary infrastructure in place to be able to increase our economies the way we should.

Let's make no mistake about it: western Canada is on the brink of an economic boom, if you will, because of the agricultural sector that we have in all of our areas. I don't want to just simply concentrate on western Canada, though, because the same issues are there in Nova Scotia, in Quebec, and in rural Canada, Ontario. We have to make sure there is equity and fairness and passion in any types of programs put forward.

Thank you.

The Chair: You're the only person I know who can get passionate over tarmac.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You see, that's the problem.

The Chair: I'm going to have to have a chat with your wife.

Madame, did you have any questions? No? Mr. Matthews or Mr. Richardson?

Mr. John Richardson: I'd like to follow up.

That theme is resounding across the country. I don't know how our farmers do it. Certainly there's no subsidy for them as there is in western Canada. In my riding of over 100,000 people, I'd say 60% of the roads are all hard-surfaced, and they complain a lot about them. If you tell them that maybe we should go back to gravel, they raise hell and say they'll pay the extra money to have the surfaced roads.

They also dove into the infrastructure program in rural Canada, at least in the Ontario area. It went into maintenance of the road systems and bridges mainly. In some cases, if they had run-down maintenance operations, they rebuilt them. So those were the three major areas.

I don't know. The money we collect generally is supposed to be directed to the maintenance of the Trans-Canada Highway. Certainly the federal government is a big player in the maintenance of that highway.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: If I could just jump in there, actually the government is very much a bit player in the construction and maintenance of the Trans-Canada Highway, and I can speak with some authority in western Canada. I was a charter member of the Highway Number One West Association, which took in all the municipalities across the Trans-Canada Highway. The federal government contribution to that was negligible, if not nil. The provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba are responsible for the maintenance of those highways.

Mr. John Richardson: Is British Columbia not the same way?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I can't speak for British Columbia. I'm sorry, I just don't know that answer.

Mr. John Richardson: I know there's money that goes into the Trans-Canada Highway in Ontario because of the long loop up through no man's land.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, I believe the northern part is. By the way, there are some serious deficits as well in that northern loop, but in Manitoba the Trans-Canada receives no contribution at all from the federal government. In fact, in the next four years, there is a $13-million total federal contribution to the province of Manitoba, which spends about $120 million a year on its highways program.

Mr. John Richardson: Thank you very much.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Chair: Seeing no other questions, thank you very much.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Passion; don't forget the passion.

The Chair: Yes, passion.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews, are you going to be a permanent member of the committee or a substitute? Is Mr. Richardson a substitute?

Mr. Bill Matthews: No, I'm just in for Mr. Harvey today.

The Chair: Okay.

• 1030

I must thank the Bloc. The substitute is here today, so she can vote intelligently tomorrow. Very well done. I appreciate that.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's our characteristic, my dear.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: You are wonderful, my dear.

Ms. Guarnieri, you are probably making history today.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): God is with me.

The Chair: Three shamrocks!

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: We'll see if the committee is with me.

The Chair: The same bill has been drawn—I don't think you mind if I share this—three times in the last four years.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: I'm the only one who has consecutive sentencing in this Parliament.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: And consecutive drawing of bills.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: As the chair has commented, this is the third time I have come before this committee to seek votable status for my private member's bill regarding consecutive sentencing.

My bill introduces a concept well established in the United States and recently introduced in both Scotland and Ireland. It involves the recognition that each crime committed requires a response from the justice system, that no victim be told that “since you are the fourteenth victim of Bernardo or the twenty-second victim of Rohipnol, rapist, in Toronto, there is just no point bringing charges against the accused, because any sentence would just be washed away through concurrent sentencing”.

[Translation]

Canadian laws are such nowadays that in cases of multiple crimes and murders, the courts hand down concurrent sentences. That means serial perpetrators can serve their sentences for multiple crimes at the same time and get out after serving just a small part of their total sentence.

Concurrent sentences hold little regard for the life of individual victims. The suffering, the anguish and death of the second, third and eleventh victims are inconsequential for the courts. The minimum sentence always applies, even for the most prolific murderers.

[English]

My bill would require consecutive sentencing and consecutive parole ineligibility for the crimes of murder and sexual assault. It does not seek to increase the penalty for any crime, but simply to require that penalties for each crime have meaning and force.

Shortly after my first visit to this committee, a near tragedy in Mississauga, 10 minutes away from my home, reinforced my view that the current system of concurrent sentencing is not just unjust, but unsafe. In the summer of 1996, not one but two multiple murderers were free on parole in Mississauga. Concurrent sentencing had given these repeat killers volume discounts for their crimes. For John Lyman Kehoe, the second child he murdered did not affect his sentence, so he was free to create yet another victim, a third victim.

On July 2, 1996, Kehoe and another paroled multiple murderer ambushed a real estate agent by the name of Wendy Carrol, slashed her throat and left her for dead. She survived, but no thanks to the justice system or the parole board, which opened the cages of her assailants. Wendy Carrol's life was nearly erased because our sentencing system erases victims. Had John Kehoe served a second consecutive term of parole ineligibility for the second child he murdered—one of the changes I have been seeking—he would not have been free to prey on Wendy Carol or anyone else.

I didn't have to do any research to find a case where a multiple murderer was paroled early and attacked another victim. It happened only five minutes away from my house, just two weeks after I resubmitted this bill.

Shortly thereafter, I was visited by a very well-known Canadian who has decided to move his entire family to the United States because of concurrent sentencing. His name is Don Edwards. You may recall that he played for Team Canada in the 1981 Canada Cup.

Some time after his hockey career, his sister was a victim of a sexual assault. Her attacker threatened to kill her family if she told the police. As is typical, the attacker was arrested but immediately released on bail. He drove straight to Don Edwards' family home and killed both his parents. The crown attorney, of course, did not even bring sexual assault charges against the accused, since it wouldn't have made a difference in his sentencing.

• 1035

Worse yet, that offence of sexual assault can't even be raised at his parole hearing. Don Edwards was not prepared to expose the rest of his family to the threat exposed by the eventual release of his parent's killer. With his section 745 hearing just seven years away, Mr. Edwards told me he would move his entire family away to the United States so that at least the possibility of the U.S. Customs might protect him by stopping this known felon at the border.

Don Edwards lost his parents because the courts did not value his parents' safety and released that killer. The volume discounts offered by deferred sentencing have forced him to leave the country as well.

After my second visit to this committee I had an occasion to witness the obscene spectacle of Clifford Olson's section 745 hearing. His own remarks reinforced my intent to resubmit this bill.

One of the most alarming moments in the Olson hearing occurred when Olson read out the letter from his lawyer advising him to admit to all his murders at once. The lawyer indicated that Olson could in this way take full advantage of concurrent sentencing.

Olson mocked us in the courthouse by saying that they couldn't do anything but give him concurrent sentencing. He mocked us all in that courthouse that day.

Since then, more people have become aware of this insanity of the current system of volume discounts for rapists and murderers.

After the proposals were made last fall to amend the process whereby private members' bills were made votable, I asked my colleagues in Parliament for their support. You will recall that 100 signatures were deemed to be the threshold whereby a bill would be votable.

Well, I have the signatures of more than 166 members. I have filed those signatures with Robert Marleau. This was with the support of all parties. They indicated that it should be brought to the House for a vote.

In addition to these members of Parliament, I have long since left with the committee letters of support from every major victims group in the country, as well as from Debbie Mahaffy, Wendy Carrol, and Sharon and Gary Rosenfeldt, to name a few.

The real question that remains is: how many years will it take to get two hours of debate and a 15-minute vote?

Mr. Ken Epp: I have no questions. She answered every one of my questions.

The Chair: You're excellent.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: The first time I presented, nobody said anything.

Mr. Ken Epp: Why should we cross-examine you? I think your case is very well made. You already answered my usual questions.

Is there interest around the—

The Chair: We're only asking questions now; we're not praising and glorifying the presenter.

Mr. Ken Epp: Is there support among other parliamentarians? You obviously have that, so thank you.

The Chair: Just as a matter of correction—this bill is apparently going to the House after the two-week break—100 signatures qualifies you to stay out of the draw; it doesn't necessarily or automatically make the bill votable.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: The report has been tabled, but it hasn't been accepted.

The Chair: No, I understand. I was just clarifying it. It doesn't necessarily make it automatically votable. I wish it did, but it doesn't.

Any questions?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Was the report along with the 100 signatures adopted by the House?

[English]

The Chair: No, not yet. It's supposed to go to the House just after the April break.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Matthews. Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson: You win all round, Albina, fortunately.

The Chair: Madam Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: The committee looked at this issue a number of times, but the matter was never chosen for further debate. Is that correct? Why is it that people do not want to debate this matter in the House?

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: I would like there to be a real debate on this issue. This morning, I was looking at a file on the Internet and found that there were 19,000 articles on people who had killed more than once.

• 1040

Every time a hundred or so sexual predators are released, at least 30 women and children are raped. That doesn't make any sense. We must deal with this matter and take a serious look at the bill.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I wanted to know why the committee never wanted to debate it. Are other subjects more interesting?

[English]

The Chair: I would like to interrupt. Madam Guarnieri doesn't know that answer because the debates are in private. They were in the previous session. Suffice it to say the whole criminal prosecution and sentencing thing was being reviewed at the time. To my knowledge, it's not at this time. Circumstances were different, it was a different Parliament.

Ms. Albina Guarnieri: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Madam Chair, committee members, the motion you have before you and my comments pertain to M-342 for your consideration as a votable item in the House.

As you can see, M-342 states that in the opinion of this House the last Sunday of September should be formally recognized from this year forth as the Police and Peace Officer National Memorial Day to honour the memory of those officers killed in the line of duty.

Madam Chair, since 1978 police officers and other law enforcement officials have gathered here in Ottawa in late September to honour their comrades who have fallen in the line of duty. As the years progressed, the number of participants has increased significantly and the size and scope of this memorial have given this ceremony national and international focus.

There are a number of days designated similarly at this time. We're all certainly aware of a great number of them. They include Veterans' Day, Armistice Day, now known as Remembrance Day, Women's Day, Child's Day, the day for elimination of racial discrimination, which was held in the month of March, and violence against women on December 6.

I don't want to get into the merits of each or into weighing any of these other days in terms of significance, but I would suggest these days certainly have merit, as does this suggestion.

Madam Chair, at the service in 1984 a memorial book of remembrance for police officers and correctional officers killed in the line of duty was unveiled by the Office of the Solicitor General and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

In 1994 the Prime Minister joined with more than 700 police officers and relatives of slain officers at the site behind the Parliament buildings as the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police dedicated the new Canadian Police Memorial Pavilion here on capital hill. The granite stone at the base of the pavilion contains the names of more than 200 officers killed in the line of duty since 1879, and the stone also contains the names of peace officers who met the same tragic fate.

It is most certainly time that we as parliamentarians take a step forward in this evolution and grant formal recognition to the very significant occasion that police officers already celebrate. By designating, by virtue of M-342, a votable item, this committee would send a strong message of respect and gratitude to our law enforcement officials who have made the ultimate sacrifice for public safety. It would also express our collective solidarity with the families and friends who have lost loved ones, along with those men and women in the law enforcement profession who put their lives at risk each and every day.

I have reviewed the 11 criteria that would preclude items from selection as votable items and this list that was prepared in October 1987 by the standing committee then responsible for private members' bills. In my humble opinion, this motion, M-342, passes that litmus test for votable items set forward by those 11 criteria.

This motion is clear, constitutional, and unique to the Order Paper. It's non-partisan and non-discriminatory in nature, and as a votable item it would allow members of this House the opportunity to rise above the usual political fray and pay tribute to one of society's most demanding and important vocations.

With the support of the committee, M-342 would allow the House to accord the appropriate respect that many law enforcement officials feel they do presently receive from their elected officials; that is, it would allow all members of the House to participate and put their comments forward. The selection of this votable item is simple yet powerful, and I would suggest it would send a very significant message and reinforcement to the law enforcement community.

• 1045

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any questions?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would like to know what prompted you to table such a motion. I am not against it, but I would like to know what motivated you to do it. Do you have some special regard for peace officers or did they ask you to suggest this special day?

Mr. Peter MacKay: I apologize, but my knowledge of French is somewhat limited.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Speak English. I have the interpretation earphones.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: I worked as a crown attorney in the province of Nova Scotia, so I worked with police officers. I knew police officers who were killed in the line of duty. I have attended this service on Parliament Hill myself and I've participated in similar ceremonies in Nova Scotia. I'm presently on the justice committee. So it's something I feel personally connected to and feel very strongly about. It's not a recent revelation for me; I just saw this as an opportunity to signify the importance of the contribution police make in this country.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Do you anticipate similar requests for firefighters, or do you think this is really unique? I'm wondering if you can combine it.

Mr. Peter MacKay: That's a very valid question. I don't know if they would fall.... Firemen certainly are not considered peace officers presently.

The Chair: No, but they're putting their lives at risk for the community.

Mr. Peter MacKay: True.

The Chair: I was just curious.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I hadn't turned my mind to that, to be honest with you.

The Chair: Seeing no other questions, I thank you.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you.

The Chair: Sorry we kept you waiting so long.

Mr. Peter MacKay: No problem.

The Chair: We're meeting again tomorrow to hear the rest of the deliberation. Again, thank you very much for coming to both meetings. It's important to hear all the evidence before you can prioritize them, so we appreciate it. Also, the two substitutes for the Liberals and the Conservatives, thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.