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]

Wednesday, April 1, 1998

• 1540

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): Order.

Would everyone take Joe Fontana off the list? He doesn't want to be votable.

Werner.

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

The motion before you that I would like to propose be made votable is that in the opinion of this House:

The government should dissolve the regional development agencies, including ACOA, FORD-Q, WED, and FedNor, and redirect funds targeted for the agencies toward tax relief, debt retirement, and the reduction of the size of the federal government.

The Chair: That's not going to be particularly popular with the people.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I think it should be. There are a couple of reasons why I think it should be votable.

First, it commands substantial public funds. Well over half a billion dollars are involved as of the current budget. I think that because of that, it deserves public scrutiny. I think the debate would provide some of that scrutiny. This is certainly what the Auditor General indicated in his report in 1995 and in his subsequent report in 1997.

Also, I think we should note that the Senate's banking, trade and commerce committee indicated very clearly that the regional development agencies should be phased out. They gave some very good reasons as to why that should be the case. They felt that the Business Development Bank of Canada and the Farm Credit Corporation essentially operate in exactly the same areas as these regional districts operate. It's their opinion, and mine as well, that these corporations, which are crown corporations of the government, as are these regional development agencies, can leverage their capital. The advantage of the crown corporations is that they can leverage their capital. So for every dollar the corporation has, they can lend out many more dollars. So that the actual effect of moving to help small business to develop is far greater than if it goes through the regional development agency.

So there are two very good reasons. There are these two other agencies that do in fact cover the same area, and they can make more money available to the public.

I think the other reasons are those of actual operation. A non-votable motion has only one hour of debate; a votable motion has three hours of debate. There are a couple of reasons why we should have three hours of debate on this particular motion. First of all, I believe it's a very significant motion in the sense that much public money is involved. Second, the government should be able to show very clearly that it has done very well in this issue if it's opposed to this particular motion. If it wants to keep that, then it should be able to show that it has done so well, and here are the reasons why. And the opposition will show—the government may also show it—that there are some things the Auditor General has said that they want to make public that have been made better. They would allow the government to come forward with all of those proposals.

Of course we would like to present alternative positions. I think in order to do that adequately and successfully we need more time rather than less time.

Therefore, Madam Chair, I would respectfully suggest that this motion be made votable, because it's in the public interest to do so.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there any questions from the committee?

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Werner, how widespread is your support for this? I know you're on the committee, and you have pretty close fingers on this issue, but when we look at things that are votable in private members' business, one of the things we look at is the degree to which there's support not only from fellow parliamentarians—that's one question—but also, the other one is how great is the support from the public. In this case, it's from businesses.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I have talked to a number of businesses. Their feeling is that we should do away with this, because there is a duplication.

• 1545

In fact, we have now got to the point where we have the Business Development Bank of Canada, Farm Credit Corporation, and others like the Community Futures program. All of these areas that are dealing with small businesses and trying to help by getting them off the ground are really doing the same thing. The regional development agencies now are just another part of that. So their feeling is why don't we coordinate this so that there's one group to help them, rather than a number of groups?

The other advantage is also that the Business Development Bank, for example, operates on a refund or a repayment basis, not a grant basis. Business likes that, and so do I.

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

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): No, it's fine.

The Chair: Do you have any questions, Madame Gagnon? Mr. Blaikie? No? Okay, thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I only have one short question.

I had the opportunity to work for several years with the persons in charge of the regional economic development offices. Much thought is given to the presence of the federal government in all regions of the country. It seems to me that the federal government should show its presence not through symbols which don't bring us any closer, but through its involvement in the economy, through some support measures, through the presence of federal civil servants who make a fairly remarkable contribution in helping our businesses in many different ways, both at the regional development level and at the international level. It is a great way for the federal government to be present in the various regions of the country.

I'd like to ask the member how it is that he doesn't think it is important for the federal government to have an economic presence in the various regions of the country.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[English]

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Madam Chair, I think the question is very appropriate. We'd respond in this way: that the federal government's presence exists in all of these regions with the business development corporations and does so in virtually every community and is probably more pervasive—in fact is more pervasive—than are the regional districts themselves. So that's the first point.

As to the second point, with regard to the Farm Credit Corporation, admittedly it's in the rural areas, but there too.... So there's actually duplication with the Farm Credit Corporation in those areas and the Business Development Bank.

So if the question is whether the federal government is present, the answer is yes, it's present already in two instances. This is just a third area, and really, I think the government would be far more efficient if it did it this way.

Also, I think the other point is that the regional development districts don't have the same requirements in terms of the granting of credit to the individual who is applying for it. I think it has the means of becoming almost a patronage type of thing that intervenes, and on a political basis or on a patronage basis prefers one group to another and actually causes a shift in the way in which the marketplace operates. It actually chooses winners and losers, because by granting.... And that's what the regional districts do: they grant money to one business, which then comes into conflict or into opposition or competition with the other business that doesn't get the grant. They may be in exactly the same business, but this one gets the grant and this one doesn't, so this one clearly has the advantage in putting a product on the table for a lower price than this one over here.

I think it's unfair that the government should intervene or intrude into the operation of the marketplace in that way, and that's exactly what the regional districts do, whereas the Business Development Bank operates on a different basis. It's a credit-worthiness business, rather than having a political consideration or some other preferential basis.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: You know, sir, that there are no longer any grants. You are saying that when the government makes some grants... they no longer make any grants.

[English]

Mr. Werner Schmidt: That may in fact be so, but I would challenge the statement. I believe that's the statement that has been made, that all of the moneys going through the regional district are now repayable. But the repayment conditions are such as to be virtually very, very impractical.

I looked at a couple of these that came under the—

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): On a point of order, we're really pressed for time. These guys are having a nice chat about the substance of the bill, which has nothing to do with whether it's votable or not.

• 1550

An hon. member: That's true.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm not trying to be rude, but we're really pressed for time and this is completely irrelevant. So can we get on to the next person?

Mr. Werner Schmidt: I agree with you.

The Chair: Okay. Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. Werner Schmidt: Thank you.

The Chair: The vote has been cancelled, by the way, until 5:30. We're just going to sit here and do our work. They all came up with some deal to vote at 5:30. That's why I was being a little more relaxed. Now that you've brought us all up to task, we'll be more vigilant.

An hon. member: They want the chair to be sharp.

The Chair: I'll sharpen up.

Okay, Paul. As you can see, Mr. Blaikie is accepting no nonsense today. State your point.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): As usual.

[English]

Colleagues, I'm appearing before you to ask for your consideration on Bill C-244, which is a proposed act to permit income splitting between spouses in order to facilitate one parent in being able to stay home and care for pre-school children.

I've circulated a package to you. It contains a couple of pieces of information that I think might be useful to you. The first page has an extract from the report of the National Forum on Health where they identified and made the claim that the Income Tax Act discriminates against parents who provide direct parental care at home. Their recommendation is that we seek to have more horizontal equity between those who choose to care for children and those who choose to have others care for them.

I think it was quite significant that they raised this as an issue and linked it to the health outcomes of children in terms of dealing with the realities of today's families: that they are very diverse, that their needs are quite different, that there isn't a simple model that can be applied to families, and that we have to provide more flexibility, options and choices so that parents can have the tools they need to make the best choices possible for their children.

Page 2 includes some other points for consideration. This bill is actually the very first bill I ever had as a member of Parliament, in 1994. It was not votable, but there was certainly some very interesting discussion. Decima did a poll that found that 70% of parents with pre-school children, where both were working, said that if they could find the means or could work out their circumstances they would choose to have one of them stay at home and provide direct parental care.

There are other issues that are very interesting in terms of the domino effect. We know that in our work changes do have impacts on other areas, such as the availability of day care spaces for those who need quality day care or the availability of jobs for those who are on EI or welfare. To the extent that some parents would choose to withdraw on a temporary basis from the workforce, there would be this revolving pool of people who were in fact working in the home and would re-enter the workforce when they felt their situation was stabilized.

In the 35th Parliament, motion M-30, which was a votable motion calling for a caregiver tax credit for those who provided direct parental care in the home, appeared before the House. It was votable and it passed 129 to 63. As an indication of all-party support, I thought it was very interesting that there was a knowledge of the issue and of the implications and that there was support—conceptually—for the issue of looking at providing greater flexibility, options and choices.

The issue of unpaid work, work in the home, whether it be caring for an elderly member of the family or for another dependent family member, certainly is an emerging issue. It was on our past census form. And I think the report on that census indicates that families do make a a significant contribution in terms of what they provide in the home.

The bill actually would allow some income-splitting. Effectively, the formula in there is mirrored against other income-contingent benefits. It has a clawback and it's on the basis of means or income.

Another consequential amendment, though, that I think is very important—and I was careful to ensure that it was in there—is that if there were income splitting whereby, for instance, someone who made $50,000 could pay half of that to their spouse caring in the home, that spouse doing the caring in the home would actually qualify for Canada Pension Plan benefits. So should they withdraw from the workforce and work at home for say two years, their CPP continuity would stay. I thought that was extremely important, because we know how important it is to provide for retirement income in the future. People shouldn't be penalized for doing something as honourable and important as raising our future, as it were.

• 1555

The issue of investing in the healthy outcomes of children certainly is a very big issue in this regard. I won't talk about that.

You know that in the last budget there was a provision whereby the child care expense deduction was increased by $2,000 with regard to pre-school children. It is now $7,000 a year. This basically means that all Canadians are subsidizing the child care costs of others by about $2,000 in real cash benefit. The maximum benefit under income splitting would be in about the same range so that there would be this so-called horizontal equity.

I think the last point I raised there was that the most important thing is that we do need to recognize diversity in families, and that flexibility, options, and choices are desirable when they involve the healthy outcomes of our children.

Finally, I've included a newspaper article I read in The Ottawa Citizen. It says basically that the foundations in our neural brain development that affect our lifelong ability to learn are all established by age one. This is emerging research, and I think we're going to find more and more that what happens in the early years of life, particularly the first three, have a significant effect on the physical, mental, and social health of our children.

Thank you.

The Chair: Questions. Mr. Blaikie?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes, Madam Chair.

I would like a little bit more detail about how it would actually work. Are you saying people would actually transfer the income, or would they be able to pay into say a CPP, or make a CPP contribution on behalf of their spouse? Or would they have to pay the income to them and then the spouse would make the contribution on the basis of that income?

Mr. Paul Szabo: According to finance department officials, no actual transfer of moneys has to take place. Basically, it allows someone to declare income and someone else to declare a deduction. So there is no income change.

But the fact is, it constitutes—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: A deduction?

Mr. Paul Szabo: It's like self-employed income. Effectively, it would be as though they were self-employed. But there doesn't need to be....

You see, our income tax system is based on the honour system. We don't have to prove...by filing papers or anything. We can e-file right now, over the telephone, etc. All we have to do is be able to demonstrate that the situation existed for tax purposes.

In this regard, what we're talking about is that the income of one spouse can be deemed to have been paid. Therefore, a portion of it can be claimed as income by one and the balance by the other. The effect of this is that it actually reduces the marginal tax rate of the upper limit of the paying spouse. Any income paid to a self-employed person is actually pensionable earnings, and therefore would qualify, but as you know, there is an exemption on income. Premiums, in fact, in most cases would not even have to be paid, but there would be basic CPP entitlement based on pensionable earnings. It's paperwork.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: So the horizontal equity would come from both the reduced taxable income on the part of the one spouse and the ability to have a CPP benefit while you were at home caring for children.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Correct.

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): I'd like to ask you one question. Don't you think that there would be a loss of income to the government if such a bill was passed? Part of the woman's or the man's income would not be taxable.

Your objectives are very laudable. It is impossible to oppose the principle you stated, giving more security to a woman or a man who stays at home. Today, in this new world, some men choose to stay at home. However, since it is difficult to lower the tax burden on individuals, I wonder how the government could afford all the expenses that would flow from the measure you advocate.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: This bill could quite easily have been a bill to create a caregiver tax credit that would have generated $2,500 of reduction of taxes of a couple. I put it in this form because of the issue of unpaid work, trying to recognize the value of work in the home. The net effect is no different. We're talking about a reduction in government revenues—you're quite right—of a maximum of $2,500, but that benefit would be reduced by any other income you had. This is the highest maximum case; you could get this if you had no investment income and no income from any other sources. That would be offset, just like EI benefits or other things would be reduced.

• 1600

The question is, if you take this revenue away, is it all of sudden going to cost money and impair other things? Most often, we do not implement policy just for the sake of doing it. We must try to do it so that it has some benefits. The benefits here are more the quality of the outcomes of our children in terms of reduced health care costs, reduced social program costs, reduced criminal justice costs, in terms of young people who have poor starts. That is reflected through the rest of their lives. We are reaching a point where we don't have to worry so much about spending to deal with problems. We can now consider doing what I think this is: investing a little bit for future savings. So it reduces costs in the future.

Now, if you have to do a budget and you're going to give this benefit, it comes off, but many of our programs are going to have to be of an investing nature if we're going to be able to achieve our social and health objectives for Canadians as well.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I'd just like to make a remark. Your goal is very laudable. As a woman, I cannot help but endorse it. However, some people do have a large income. They are often men. Don't you think that, in their case, your goal couldn't be reached? There may be other ways to do it. Wouldn't it just decrease their tax obligations? Personally, I'd be concerned that, in such cases, they might want to transfer a portion of their income to their wives for entirely different reasons. I have some difficulty with that.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: Under the bill that has been drafted, if one spouse was making $80,000 a year, they wouldn't qualify for this at all. It would be totally clawed back in terms of the ability to have benefit. It's on a scale. As your income leaves $29,000, it moves up. It peaks at $50,000, and then it starts coming down again.

Again, we're talking about a nominal amount. I would say the average benefit for anybody would be about $2,000. It's not a lot. I don't think it's enough to change your value system. I don't think you would do it for the money. But you do raise an issue, and I think it's important that legislation not be an instrument of social engineering. Rather, it should provide the flexibility or options that people need so that they can make the choices they feel are in the best interests of their children.

The Chair: Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Paul, I almost always ask questions pertaining to the degree of interest in this as part of my decision-making on whether or not to make it votable and have it debated for three hours.

I'm setting you up here, but could you please tell me about how many petitions you've had on this thing that you have presented in the House.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Well, in the last Parliament it was 142.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: In Parliament? Among MPs?

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes. Those were petitions presented in the House on the issue, and I believe I've given about 30 so far in this Parliament. It was my very first bill. It's something I have been committed to. I've had a lot of time to think about the mechanics. I've had a lot of time to consult with people on it. What I like conceptually about this thing is that it touches a lot of areas that I think are emerging as important to people.

The Chair: Paul, I'm going to cut you off. The question was on how many petitions you have presented. I think we got the answer, and I don't want Bill to yell at me.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay.

Mr. Ken Epp: And you obviously have some interest among other parliamentarians as well, do you?

Mr. Paul Szabo: I thought of getting the signature thing, but as a result of what happened on M-30 in the last Parliament, where even the parliamentary secretary had spoken clearly against it and had circulated all kinds of reasons for not accepting it, the House still clearly supported it.

There is no question in my mind that the principle is sound. The important thing is that we know the system is there if we're going to carry it forward. The legislative system is—

The Chair: Paul, the question was do you have the support from other members of Parliament?

Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: And he answered it.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I'm sorry, that's just my enthusiasm.

The Chair: I know, you get excited.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, I think that's pretty well all that I have.

The Chair: That's it?

Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: I'm okay.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Paul.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

• 1605

The Chair: Libby. Welcome. Is this is your first appearance?

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): No, I did it once before.

The Chair: Oh, that's right; yes, you did, sorry.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to appear as to why motion M-132 should be a votable motion. You have the motion before you. First of all, I would like to tell you a little bit about the motion.

The impetus for this motion came about as a result of a number of cases I dealt with in my riding around the Canada student loans program and increasing concern about the privatization and administration by private financial institutions. I'm sure other members of the committee, as MPs, have had to deal with all kinds of cases and casework around Canada student loans and the whole issue of accessibility and post-secondary education.

It was really because there were cases that came forward that I began to learn that the whole system of administration—and what I think people see increasingly is the privatization of the system—has made it very difficult for individual students to understand how the system works to get information to know what their rights are. This is also an issue that has been taken up by the human resources development committee. We issued a report, and there were also minority reports. I guess there's no question that the general issue of post-secondary education in the House of Commons has been a major issue this legislative session.

This particular motion really deals with some aspects that I think have not been covered in the current legislative program. For that reason, I think it's a good item to have as a votable item. There's a high degree of interest from all political parties around this issue. We all hold a common goal. We believe post-secondary education is very important, and that there's a federal role but also a provincial role. I think we have different perspectives on how that would work.

Part of this motion really deals with an issue of establishing accessibility as a new national standard and also the implementation of a grant program. I think that would allow the members of the House to get into a very meaningful debate about what are the responsibilities of federal and provincial roles in terms of post-secondary education. That's certainly something we've already seen in debate around the Millennium Fund, for example. But I think it goes much beyond that. It's also involving the administration of a grant program, what do we mean by accessibility, and how is it that the federal government should be working with the provincial government. I think there are a number of issues here that warrant further debate.

There's a high degree of involvement by political parties already. There are different perspectives that could be brought forward, and we have a common goal among all of us of making post-secondary education something that is accessible for Canadians.

The Chair: I'd like to lead off with a question.

I've read it carefully, and it says “grant.” Do you mean there will be no such thing as repayable loans any more, that it will all be grants?

Ms. Libby Davies: I think a grant program is part of a larger package where there can be a component for Canada student loans, but we believe there should also be a grant program. Canada is really one of the very few countries that doesn't have some form of a national grant program.

We don't know yet what the criteria will be for the Millennium Fund. There's a suggestion that it may be partially a grant program, but we don't know whether it's based more on a sort of scholarship approach or whether it would be based on financial need, or both. One doesn't necessarily rule out the other. But I think there is a very critical need to have some form of national grant program the provinces are a party to, in terms of setting up some kind of national standard around accessibility, because that's really what it needs to be tied to: accessibility.

The Chair: The reason I was asking the question is I know there was a lot of study in the last Parliament, which looked into changing the system and privatizing it.

Ms. Libby Davies: Yes.

The Chair: It was because we had an 80% non-repayable rate for student loans. The assumption was when you sit eyeball to eyeball with a banker and you sign on the dotted line, then you're far more concerned about your repayment position. But if you're talking about primarily grants, then that eliminates that concern.

Ms. Libby Davies: I think it's really the two things. I think a grant program is a goal we should be working towards. In the meantime, we have the very immediate situation of a Canada student loans program that is very complex. I do know—and I'm sure others have experienced this as well—that it's so complex, most students who are going in for a loan for the very first time actually feel a tremendous burden about taking on that loan, and may not be aware of what their responsibilities are, as well as their rights.

• 1610

There's actually no local service available, so students are often left to deal with the financial institutions one on one. If they do get into default, sometimes actually through miscommunication or misinformation, there's not an appeals process. There's not a help line. There's not anything.

The Chair: They have the phone number to my office and they use it all the time.

Ms. Libby Davies: Well, other than your MP. I don't know about your office, but I find we get a tremendous of casework around Canada student loans. A lot of it is because the students are overwhelmed by what is facing them, and having to deal with a financial institution or a collection agency, which treats them almost...it's like a commercial loan.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Since there is no universality of access to post-secondary education, what is the percentage of students who are denied an education at that level? Is it 15% of the current student population, or 20 or 25%? Do you know the figure?

[English]

Ms. Libby Davies: There was one study done in Atlantic Canada, a survey of students who wanted to go on to post-secondary education and didn't. If I remember correctly, something like 40% of the students said they didn't go on to post-secondary education basically because of the financial cost.

Now, there may be other studies across the country, but again, I think we all know, from the work we do locally, that the financial barrier is very real. It varies from province to province, depending on tuition fees, which have skyrocketed.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Do you know what it would cost to ensure universal access to post-secondary education?

[English]

Ms. Libby Davies: I don't know what the ballpark figures would be. I think with the millennium fund we now have, of $2.5 billion, there will be growing interest and pressure to ensure that this particular fund is somehow directed to financial needs, which could at least begin the process of some type of grants program. So that would be one indication, the $2.5 billion.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Let's say that your motion will be hotly debated if we deal with it in the House, because it is somewhat similar to the Millennium Fund. It is well-known that this type of structures already exist in Quebec. I know that, elsewhere in Canada, they may not have the same structures. Therefore, it is certain that such a motion will be opposed by some people, given the current situation.

Don't you think that we should start by restoring the Canada Social Transfer to enable institutions to offer quality education and that secondary school drop-outs should be a priority? Indeed, at the first ministers meeting, it was said that the Canada Social Transfer should be restored even before targeting any specific category of students.

[English]

Ms. Libby Davies: I do think the mechanism of transfers to the provinces is a very important part of post-secondary education. In fact, one could argue that one of the problems of increasing tuition fees is because of the declining transfers. So I think that is something that needs to be dealt with. Transfers are part of the federal responsibility.

But we believe as well—and part of this motion is to open up the debate—we need to have some type of national standard around accessibility so that federal funds and provincial funds are tied to a principle such as we've seen with the child tax benefit, for example, where the provinces and the federal government are agreeing to certain basic criteria and goals that need to be met in order to make sure the dollars that are available are being directed to those who need it, in this case to students.

• 1615

I think what's interesting about this motion is that it helps open up the debate about what we mean by accessibility and how we ensure that in terms of a provincial jurisdiction as well as a federal jurisdiction in working together. I think there's a lot of ambiguity around that, and certainly, the millennium fund response, not just in Quebec but across the country as well, has also raised that question.

I think it's a very important debate because, as I say, we would all agree that post-secondary education is something that's very important to all Canadians, but I feel there's a lack of understanding and common purpose.

The Chair: Thank you.

Any more questions? Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: How widespread is the interest in this, not only in your riding but also across the country?

Ms. Libby Davies: From discussions that I've had with other members, and certainly at the human resources development committee, and certainly from what we can see in the House, education has really dominated a lot of the debate in this last session. I think it's a very topical issue, and there's a lot more sort of below the surface if we care to get into it. I feel that there's a very high degree of interest, not just amongst MPs, but because we're responding to those kinds of concerns in our local ridings.

Mr. Ken Epp: And how widespread is the interest among fellow parliamentarians?

Ms. Libby Davies: In my discussions with other parliamentarians, I think there's a lot of interest in this issue generally. There are different perspectives. There are different opinions about the right course to take. But I think there is an interest in having this issue on the table, in having it debated, and I think it would be very good to have it as a votable item.

The Chair: Mr. Epp, anything else?

Mr. Ken Epp: I think my questions are all answered.

The Chair: I'd like to go back to your first question. Have you received any petitions on this at all?

Ms. Libby Davies: Do you mean petitions from constituents?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Libby Davies: No, I don't think so.

The Chair: Have you had a lot of correspondence?

Ms. Libby Davies: I've had a lot of correspondence, and we've actually forwarded a lot of it to the minister, simply because there hasn't been the local service available. We've had some very complex cases, so I do have a lot of correspondence.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you.

The Chair: No questions on this side?

Thanks for coming in, Ms. Davies.

Bryon Wilfert, welcome. This is your first attempt in the lion's den. Some of us are crankier than others.

Now the object of the game, Bryon, is to convince us that your bill should be votable—not to convince us to vote for it. There's a difference.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Madame la présidente, chers collègues, I'd like to thank you very much for this opportunity to address the committee.

My bill is C-369, an act to proclaim November 20 as a national day of recognition for Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I had tabled two bills in the House, one for Laurier and one for Sir John A. Macdonald. The one that was drawn was the Sir Wilfrid Laurier bill.

As a former educator, I believe there's a need to promote a recognition and an understanding of our history. I think children need to have an awareness of our past and of our roots. I think the recognition of this day, which is not a statutory day, would be similar to aboriginal day, June 21, and flag day, February 15.

It's important to note that Laurier promoted tolerance and compromise, Canadian values. I believe the bill is of national significance. Laurier was our first French-speaking prime minister, serving from 1896 to 1911. He was a pragmatic politician, seeking compromise and promoting national unity.

And I believe that through knowledge and celebration of our past with the proclamation of November 20, we could learn more about Canada as a nation and celebrate our common bonds. I know that groups like OHSTA, the Ontario history teachers' association, the Canadian history teachers' association, commentators, etc., have indicated that this type of recognition will instil more understanding and certainly develop, I would hope, an educational awareness in the schools with regard to Laurier.

And certainly at times when our national unity is called into question, I think that through the dedicated efforts of concerned Canadians we find occasions or situations that celebrate the very fact of being Canadian, whether by disaster, or as demonstrated in the ice storm recently, or by design, such as the declaration of national holidays. I believe we must find ways to develop more “Canadian-ness”, and I think this type of approach would be useful.

My bill, as I say, proclaims November 20 as a national day of recognition, not a statutory day. The bill does not discriminate, in my view, in favour of any certain area or region. The bill does not contain electoral boundaries or constituency names. The bill was drafted by legal counsel Diane McMurray, of the committees and legislative services directorate. It is not redundant with the law, unclear in its meaning or defective in its drafting. It would implement its own intent.

• 1620

The bill is different from the government's legislative agenda and the bill certainly is constitutional because it does not infringe upon provincial legislative authority or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or entrenched constitutional rules. It does not impede nor is it contrary to normal federal-provincial or international relations.

The Chair: Why did you pick November 20? You may have said it and I was busy talking to someone.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: November 20 is the date of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's birth.

The Chair: How would you feel about a long weekend in February, which this country desperately needs? Are you fixed on the date?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, the recognition of Sir John A. Macdonald on January 11 and Laurier on November 20 is to recognize the contributions of two Canadians who were nation-builders in their own way.

The fact is, I would certainly agree with you, Madam Chair, that we do need some day in February, but neither of these Canadians were born at that time. If you want to instil some pride and recognition, I don't know that I could tamper with the dates.

The Chair: Here we go with a sense of history again, Bryon. You're such a stickler.

Are there any questions around the table?

Mr. Ken Epp: How did you choose this? Of all the issues in front of you as a parliamentarian, why would you pick this one? Is it because there was a lot of pressure on you from the people in your riding, from other Canadians?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: As I said, I am a former history teacher, and as such I believe very strongly in a sense of history. Therefore, just as Mr. Mark—and I agreed with him in his approach and he is supporting my bill, among others—the fact is that a lot of times name recognition gets lost if we don't promote it. I think it's important. I had no petitions per se, but I certainly have had support from groups like OHSTA, which indicate clearly that we are doomed to repeat our history, as they say, if we don't learn from it.

Why Laurier? I believe that he embodies the Canadian values of compromise and understanding. In a time when our nation is crying out for those kinds of values, it would be nice to point to that and to have some promotion for our young people. When I see that 75% of people know who Ronald McDonald is but only 15% know who Sir John A. is, that's pause for real concern.

Mr. Ken Epp: Sir John A. doesn't advertise as much.

The Chair: How many do you know, Bryon?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: But if we had a bill like Laurier, obviously we'd be able to do that.

Mr. Ken Epp: Second, how widespread is support for your bill among fellow parliamentarians?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I have started to receive support and I have started to name a few people, but I have received support from a number of parliamentarians in a number of parties.

Mr. Ken Epp: Is there any other way we could promote the remembering of our historical characters without shutting down the business of the country for a day, which is a very costly thing?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: This bill in fact would not shut the country down because it is not a statutory day.

Mr. Ken Epp: You would not make it a statutory day?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: It is not a statutory day.

Aboriginal Day, for example, in June we recognize and build a recognition campaign around that, or for Flag Day on February 15, but we don't close down. It's not a statutory day, so there's no loss of income. I was certainly very aware of that.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, that wasn't clear.

One of the criteria we have is that your bill must be clearly worded. You have mentioned several times that you'd like to make this November 20, and yet I look in your bill, as we received it, and there's no mention of that date. I would say perhaps it has failed the test of being clearly worded as to your intent.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: In fact, sir, if you look under clause 5 it says November 20 is the national holiday.

Mr. Ken Epp: You mean I missed it?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Yes, sir.

Mr. Ken Epp: My apologies.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: It would have been a good question, I must say, because the essence, as the chair had indicated to me earlier, about a day in February is that I think the date is very important, as I would say for Sir John or anyone else. That would be the first thing I would be looking for.

• 1625

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm still puzzled. You said that it's a national holiday and shall be kept and observed as such throughout Canada. A national holiday to me means that it's a day I don't have to go to work or school.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Not necessarily.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Are there any other questions around the table? No?

Bryon, don't take that as a bad sign. We've had bills made votable when there were no questions.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Madam Chair, as this is my first experience, I want to thank the members of the committee. Merci beaucoup. I wish you well in your deliberations.

The Chair: Thank you, Bryon.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Thank you.

The Chair: All right. Now Mr. Abbott, who is grinning broadly because Mr. Epp actually made a mistake, is going to join us at the table.

Mr. Ken Epp: He won't let me forget it either.

The Chair: No, and I'm not going to help him.

Mr. Ken Epp: But the kind members of this committee will forget it immediately.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): I would like to thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation.

As for Bill C-262, in going through your 11-point criteria, I see this is a significant bill in that the purpose of the bill's enactment—I apologize because I don't know if you have a copy of the summary—is to allow judges to attach a probation order to any sentence of imprisonment. At present, such an order may not be attached to a prison sentence that exceeds two years.

Now, I am at your mercy if any of you are lawyers. I am also at the mercy of the House drafting counsel. When I read Bill C-262, it says:

(b) in addition to fining or sentencing the offender to imprisonment, direct that the offender comply with the conditions prescribed in a probation order.

Now as I say, I will tell you right now that I am totally at the mercy of the drafting counsel. I would also be at your mercy if you know more than I about the legalese contained herein.

Very briefly, the background to this bill is a local background. I have two newspaper clippings with me from our local paper.

Here's what basically happened. There was an exceptionally unfortunate situation where a man in his thirties, married for the second time, beat his 28-day-old son pretty well. We still don't know—this is a year later—what the condition of this poor child will be.

I quote:

In handing down the six-year prison sentence, the judge said the circumstances of the case, which included two prior convictions for assaulting an infant, cried out for changes to legislation that would allow judges to attach a probation period to federal sentences.

What the judge was basically saying was that one of the very important parts of our justice system, particularly the incarceration of people, is to effect change within those people. Indeed, people can change. But on the other side of the coin, the judge's concern was that there is not enough weight, or sometimes virtually no weight, taken at the time of parole relative to the findings of or the awareness of the judge at the time of adjudicating the case and at sentencing.

What the judge is basically asking for.... I'm not proposing this bill on one case; I'm aware that there are many, many instances where you will have a person who has a penchant to repeat and repeat. In this particular case, this is now this man's third conviction. The person he was married to at this time was unaware of the first two. What the judge is basically saying is that the judge would like to be a part of the probation process. That's the background to this bill. That's the purpose of this bill.

• 1630

I will say, on an honest-to-goodness, non-partisan basis, that I know we sometimes get into the rhetoric—oh, the bleeding hearts, this party and that party, and all this type of thing—but this has nothing to do with it. I feel very strongly that this bill, if it is appropriately worded—and as I say, I'm at the mercy of the drafting counsel—would have broad support throughout the parties and be a welcome initiative to the justice department.

The Chair: What I have before me, Mr. Abbott, is strictly one paragraph.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes. My understanding—

The Chair: Then I don't see how they could get it too complicated with one paragraph. You're going to have to be convinced that it's pretty...it must be all right.

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Abbott, I'm not a lawyer either, and whereas I've sometimes said I wish I could speak French, I've never said I wish I was a lawyer.

I'm amazed at this. Why would you need this? When a judge gives a probation order, is it not required that the offender comply with this? It looks as though all this bill says is that the offender shall comply with the conditions prescribed in a probation order.

Mr. Jim Abbott: My understanding, Mr. Epp, is that the judge may attach such a condition to sentences under two years, and that at time of parole, for somebody who has been sentenced to a term of less than two years, the judge can put that into a probation order.

However, it is not acceptable. It is not part of the legal package that goes to the probation board at this time.

Mr. Ken Epp: Really?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes. That is the reason for this inclusion.

Again—and I'm sorry to be repetitive—this is the inclusion we wanted on the basis of the House legal counsel. I have also taken advice from this judge in this matter.

The Chair: Any other questions?

Mr. Ken Epp: It looks to me as though you have a very important and compelling case, but it's not the type of thing that really.... I mean, the way it's worded and described, you're left wondering why we should be doing this. It should seem obvious.

Is there any other way this could be done? One of our criteria is, could the House deal with this in some other way?

Mr. Jim Abbott: I suppose the House could deal with this in another way if the justice department was to bring this forward, but their plate is very full, as is the justice committee's plate, as we've discovered with a number of the initiatives that have been put forward by our colleagues, one or two of which have actually got through the second reading to committee.

This is one of these small but nonetheless significant things—it's a small dot on an i, or a cross on a t—that is missing from the current Criminal Code.

The Chair: Any questions? Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The summary in this bill says “At present, such an order may not be attached”. Isn't it your real intent here to say “cannot” be attached instead of “may not”?

Mr. Jim Abbott: That's a very good question. My understanding is that it may not and it can not. In other words, it is not anything that can be done, to be precise.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Because if I read the French, it seems to me it would be better if it said in English that it cannot. That's clear. May, may not—it depends on the will of the judge. May, may not—it depends on the possibility of the law. So it's not “may”, it's “can”.

The Chair: Our understanding of the law is that at this time it cannot.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: So write that.

Mr. Jim Abbott: However, in that this is going to the House, of course, while I agree with you that we should make the summary clear, nonetheless, what we're going to be actually debating is the contents of the bill.

The Chair: In actual fact, it's grammatically correct. I am a former English teacher, and it's grammatically correct. If you want to bring in the conditional, you would say “may or may not”. You would have to put the whole phrase in. So “may” is the proper use of the term, in actual fact. “Shall” is the same. They're interchangeable.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Okay.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I want to be crystal clear—

The Chair: I think you've been very clear.

Mr. Jim Abbott: —that I don't consider this to be a partisan issue. I see it as being simply a detail, an important detail in certain cases, that has been overlooked by the justice department. That comment, that statement, has no political barb to it whatsoever.

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

• 1635

Mr. Ken Epp: I need my two little questions answered. Obviously this is of interest in your riding, since it came up there. Have you had any further interest, aside from that?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes, I've discussed it informally. I originally submitted this over a year ago. It died with the election and I resubmitted it. I've discussed it from time to time over pizza or coffee, or whatever. I will not tell you I have done a big campaign on this.

Mr. Ken Epp: So how often do you think this type of thing happens?

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm sorry, I can't quantify that accurately. That would be pure speculation.

The Chair: What he can tell you is every sentence over two years does not have parole attached to it. So you can figure out how many sentences there are in a year. There are quite a lot.

Mr. Ken Epp: Certainly if one child is so abused, one is enough to warrant giving us a small change in the law like this.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay.

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

We are going to take a one-minute coffee break and we'll come back and discuss our selections in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]