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]

Thursday, May 7, 1998

• 0912

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): I'd like to begin, please. Sorry to keep you waiting.

Mr. Greg Thompson, M.P. (Charlotte, PC): That's not a problem. Are all the members present who can vote?

The Chair: Who can vote, yes. We had two members missing last week, Tuesday. If they're not here for both sessions, then we go ahead without them.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm here to argue my case in terms of the bill I have submitted. It's the fishermen's bill of rights, is the long and short of it.

I believe that it does meet all the criteria as listed and I think it is a new and refreshing bill. It's one that has never been, to the best of my knowledge and to the best of my research, introduced in the House of Commons before. It has been introduced, and there are fishermen's bills of rights in other jurisdictions, in some of the Scandinavian countries. I think it shows some leadership in terms of what we'd like to see.

Really what the bill is saying is that the fishermen should be involved in such things as conservation, quotas and fishing licences, and obviously they should be involved in negotiations for compensation when those rights to fish are abrogated unfairly or if for some reason there is a collapse in the fishery.

What is significant about this bill is that it applies to every region, every part of Canada. So it's not narrow in its scope. What we're looking at here would apply equally on the west coast and on the east coast.

Some of the difficulties we're experiencing in the fishing industry today are a direct result of not having these fishermen involved in the process. This raging debate presently is being carried out in the fisheries committee. We know for a fact that some of the scientific data they were using in the fisheries was flawed, was skewed. And there are even suggestions now and recommendations by the committee that some of the scientists with DFO should be, for the lack of a better word, sacked. So we can point our finger right back at DFO to the mismanagement side. Again, I believe a lot of this could have been avoided if the fishermen had been involved in the negotiations from the very start.

• 0915

Witness what is happening on the west coast of Canada presently, as an example, where your right to fish as a Canadian fisherman can be taken away by the federal government in negotiations with other jurisdictions; that is, the United States of America. So our fishermen are sitting back helpless as some of these rights are simply shipped off to another jurisdiction. So the historical right to fish is almost denied by either Foreign Affairs or the Department of Fisheries.

Again, I really want to make the point that to the best of my knowledge this type of bill has never been introduced. I spent a lot of work on it. I started work on this in my first parliamentary career, between 1988 and 1993. I was defeated in 1993 and never had a chance to bring this before the committee or introduce it into the House, so I think this is a good opportunity to do that.

In this almost ten-year period I think we found that the fisheries haven't improved. There's been a great deal of stress on all sectors of the fishery on both coasts, and I think it's time we brought something in that's a little refreshing, a little different, and had a chance to debate the bill publicly.

I'll leave it at that, Madam Chair, and if the committee members have any questions, or yourself, feel free to put them to me.

The Chair: Any questions from the committee?

[Translation]

Madam.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Okay.

[English]

Mr. Greg Thompson: You speak in this exotic language that we don't know about these things.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you for coming here this morning. I have a question you might be able to answer. Should Canadian legislation on the rights of fishers necessarily comply with international agreements to which Canada is signatory, such as NAFTA and other such agreements?

[English]

Mr. Greg Thompson: The international agreements are entered into on the best advice by the Department of Fisheries. In other words, the government presents their proposal and it's taken to the international court, if you wish. For example, under NAFTA there's a position that was put forward by the Government of Canada that was carried forward in negotiation with these other jurisdictions.

What I see as a problem is that the fishing community itself is very seldom consulted in terms of what our position would be when we go outside this jurisdiction we call Canada. So I think that would be refreshing.

It would be very difficult, obviously, to turn back the clock on these international agreements, but it would be a heads up for the Department of Fisheries and Foreign Affairs and the government when future agreements are signed, when we're looking as to what might be in Canada's best interest. Because our best interests today are defined by government bureaucrats and to a degree by politicians, but the fishing community is very seldom consulted, and if they are consulted they are ignored when we enter into these agreements.

So I think it would certainly be new, and it would be different. This is not to say that it's going to change the world or turn things upside down, but at least there would be a need to consult and it would be a formal process that we would have to use before we entered into these international agreements. There would have to be consultation with the fishermen, in other words.

The Chair: Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Thank you.

I have a couple of questions for you. One I'm very interested in is how would these fisher...? You call them fishers. I find that—

Mr. Greg Thompson: Excuse me, Ken, but I always use the fishermen myself, and fishers is not a word I'm used to, but to be politically correct these days, the word is fisher.

Mr. Ken Epp: These fishers, how would they actually be represented on the different boards and the different committees? You talked about having them heard if there's an Order in Council. You have thousands of fishermen out there. How are they actually going to be heard? Via an association? Do they have to form a formal group? What's the mechanism you're proposing?

• 0920

Mr. Greg Thompson: Most of these fishermen and these various fishing sectors.... On the east coast of Canada, for example, with which I'm most acquainted, the lobster fishermen have a group that represents them so they can consult with each other in terms of licences and where they should be fishing, etc. But these are broken down into very small groups, and the department.... For example, I had a meeting on Campobello Island with regard to lobster fishing. The department ignores information that they're providing to them, because they're out on the water every day. They know where the lobster are and they know where the stocks are in trouble.

This was the Department of Fisheries. I don't want to say they're understaffed because I don't think that is the case, but if you're thinking of the ocean as a resource, you have to ask whether they really know what is happening to the stocks, because they're not on the water every day. I'm saying that there has to be a process set up where the input of fishermen is valuable, is listened to, and it's just not a casual conversation between the Department of Fisheries and some of those groups.

The Chair: I'm going to interrupt for a minute. I'm going to ask questioners to keep their questions brief, and respondents to keep their answers short. We have a lot to get through.

Mr. Bailey seems to be having a heart attack over there, so maybe he can negotiate with the other two gentlemen to go ahead of them. I think you're anxious to go somewhere.

Could you speed it up a little, please?

Mr. Ken Epp: I have one more question. Do you propose that under this bill fishers of the native persuasion would be treated exactly the same as any other commercial fishers?

Mr. Greg Thompson: Again, going back to my own riding, we have a difficulty there. The stocks in most jurisdictions, whether you're talking scallops, lobsters or something else, which are all fished under different licences—I think it is patently unfair when one group of Canadians can be given licences over another group of Canadians when they're all fishing the same resource. I think it basically abrogates the rights of fishermen who have been there for generations.

The Chair: Mr. Thompson, is your answer no?

Mr. Greg Thompson: Okay.

The Chair: Next question? Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): A short question, Madam Chair, as well as congratulations to my friend for this very democratic initiative. Are you already getting grassroots support for your bill? You have certainly taken some steps to promote awareness of it. Are fishers themselves very positive about this initiative?

[English]

Mr. Greg Thompson: Yes, when this was announced in December 1997, the newspapers and the media carried the story in terms of what I want to do, this fishermen's bill of rights.... Every fishing group in Atlantic Canada supports it. They talked about it on radio and television, etc., so there's wide support within the industry for this debate to happen.

Is that short enough, Madam Chair?

The Chair: That's good. You're getting better. Stay here another 20 minutes and you'll be perfect. Thank you very much.

Do the other two gentlemen agree to let Mr. Bailey go ahead?

Your answer has to be really short. I've been watching you squirm over there. You're like a little kid who has to go to the bathroom.

Mr. Roy Bailey, M.P. (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have to read a petition in the House at 10 a.m., so I thank my honourable colleagues for allowing me to do this.

Madam Chairman and members of the committee, it's a privilege to appear before this subcommittee to present Bill C-310 to you. I've reviewed the October 1987 list of criteria that would prevent private members' bills motions from being selected as votable, but I believe this bill meets all the conditions of being selected as a votable bill.

Bill C-310, the Special Interest Groups Funding Accountability Act, would require special interest groups that received grants or loans from public funds to submit for tabling in Parliament, a report on the purposes to which the funds were put. There is no malicious intent with this bill. It merely requires accountability for funds received from the public purse.

Groups that have a charitable number are already accountable to the public for money they spend. This is also true for organizations that combine private funding with government funding, such as research for cancer and so on.

• 0925

Billions of dollars are given in grants and contributions each year, and many of these dollars are given to special interest groups. These groups, by their nature, are limited in scope and may not represent the broader spectrum of Canadian opinion. If they are receiving public funds, the public has a right to know what the money is being spent on. Unaccountability raises suspicion and doubts.

This bill would put more respect back into government and its operations. It would also give more credibility to worthy funding operations. Accountability raises public opinion of government and government spending. Local government grants are very visible. They become less visible at the provincial level, and still less at the federal level. But this bill restores public confidence because of the transparency that would be restored.

If special interest groups who receive money from the government are also lobbying the government, it appears that they have an unfair advantage in influencing government policy. Therefore, it becomes necessary for the public to be aware of how they spend the money given to them by the government.

There is a perception, Madam Chair, that grants are given lopsidedly to groups that are outside the norm of Canadian thinking. Groups that represent a widespread viewpoint complain that they are receiving disproportionately less funding than groups with agendas widely divergent from Canadian values. An accounting of money received and spent would ensure more equitable funding under public scrutiny. Above all, Canadians would see the transparency of grants.

Finally, departmental transfers, grants and contributions are indeed enormous, and detailed accounting of all expenditures is necessary to maintain public confidence. Confidence needs to be restored, and I believe Bill C-310 would be a giant step in restoring a higher level of public confidence in government spending.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey. That was three minutes and twenty-six seconds. You did not abuse your opportunity to come to the head of the line. Do you have a lower limit on this—$500 grants, $700 grants?

Mr. Roy Bailey: I suspect this bill, like most bills, would require some in-committee adjustments, and we may even have to fine-tune the term “special interest”.

My intent of this bill is to remove the national skepticism that is out there and to make it transparent. That would elevate the nature. Parliament and parliamentarians don't score too high in this right now, but I believe this bill would do that. I think it would restore credibility to whoever is the government, and that's the purpose of the bill.

Madam Chairman, I want to assure this group that I have no personal vendetta or malice here. As a member of Parliament, more than anything else I want to put parliamentarians on a higher step than they are currently seen at on the national level, and I believe funding of this nature helps to reduce that elevation.

Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. Questions?

Mr. Ken Epp: Roy, have you had any petitions? Are you aware of other members presenting petitions on this topic?

Mr. Roy Bailey: No, I'm not aware of any. I am aware that this topic is widely discussed from time to time all over Canada, but I don't know of any in this House.

The Chair: Perhaps I can assist you in your answer. John Bryden of the Liberal Party has done an entire book on it. I chaired a caucus subcommittee with the Senate that looked into this and made the same recommendations. So in answer to your question, Mr. Epp, I think there's a lot of interest.

Mr. Ken Epp: I was hoping he would say that.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I thought you meant at the present time. I'm well aware of this, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I'm helping you.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Yes, thank you.

Mr. Ken Epp: Have you talked about this with other parliamentarians? What is your degree of support from them?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Once my bill is read in, I think I have about 30 people who wish to speak to it. I think that's indicative of the interest there is.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

Finally, how much money is currently given to special interest groups by the federal government?

Mr. Roy Bailey: Until we have a definition of what is a special interest group, you could be out 100%. We know that it's a lot. So after we define it in committee, which will be necessary, then we will have a more accurate account.

• 0930

The Chair: Madam, do you have any questions?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No.

The Chair: Thank you very much. You're out of here. That wasn't too bad, was it?

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth, M.P. (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): I put before you today Bill C-258, and certainly there is not a parliamentarian who's not familiar with this subject. This particular subject has been part and parcel of two federal election campaigns, and is the continuation of the debate in Parliament related to Mr. Nunziata's bill. This bill seeks to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code and all those provisions attached to it.

What happened in the last Parliament was that I had a bill ready and Mr. Nunziata beat me by a day, but that's fine. Once his bill was in I could not put in the same bill. His bill was votable and the view of the Department of Justice and the government at the time was that it probably would have been acceptable, but the retroactivity provisions were a major source of contention. The essential hang-up was the possibility of retroactivity undermining the constitutionality of the bill. So I responded to the government's concerns and said if that's what your hang-up is, then we will give you a bill that accommodates those arguments.

As you know, the government did respond to public pressure and tinker with section 745. So now we have the situation that could be put in the vernacular that you get your first murder kind of on the cheap, but it's only when you murder for the second time that the traditional provisions of the Criminal Code come into full force.

You will recall the background that when capital punishment was eliminated, the fair exchange was the life imprisonment term with no application for parole until the 25-year period. But then section 745 was introduced, which allowed those heinous murderers to go through a jury system and have that parole eligibility date lowered from 25 to 15 years.

There was such a political outcry about that issue that the government responded and eliminated the multiple murder section from it, but there are still the provisions for the first time around.

Of course it is a fundamental platform plank of the Reform Party, so I can assure you that I have the complete united support of our caucus on this particular issue. There appeared to be scattered support on the government side the last time this general topic was discussed, and it is certainly a subject of various groups across the country that address themselves to crime issues and victim issues.

So it's an opportunity for Parliament to have a say on this national issue and respond to the objections brought forward by the Department of Justice and the government of the day. It's a limited provision. It repeals section 745 and goes around the issue of retroactivity for another day. It says we ought to do what we can at this point and deal with retroactivity at another time, and at least set the criminal standard appropriately from here on in. And that's what this bill does.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any questions? None?

You obviously did a thorough job.

Mr. Paul Forseth: We all know what the issue is. It's been so much a part of the parliamentary record and election campaigns. There cannot be a member who is not aware of this fundamental issue.

The Chair: Thank you very much. And thank you for letting your colleague get in ahead of you.

Mr. Mark.

• 0935

Mr. Inky Mark, M.P. (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee.

I'm pleased to be here to lobby for my motion that would call on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to prepare and report a bill to the House to create a fitting memorial to Canada's most decorated solider, Lieutenant-Colonel William George Barker, V.C., pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(b).

As a country, we have neglected both our heritage and our heroes of the past.

Before I begin, I want to say this is an initiative I began back in 1996, previous to becoming a member of Parliament. I tried to have Lieutenant-Colonel William Barker designated as a significant Canadian. This was done through the proper procedure, such as writing to my former member of Parliament to ask for her assistance. I also wrote to the National Monuments and Historic Sites Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

I received very few results from the whole process. In fact, the secretary from the national board wrote back and stated that this man wasn't very significant because he didn't have much of a post-war record. He didn't realize that Lieutenant-Colonel Barker was the first president of the Toronto Maple Leafs organization and also the first acting director of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

This man, literally, Madam Chair, is the most decorated hero in the First World War in the Commonwealth, not just Canada. You will find in the notes that I've attached in the package that during his funeral—this has not been repeated since—50,000 people lined the streets of Toronto at his funeral. There was a mile-long cortège of 2,000 uniformed soldiers. This was larger than the funeral of the President of the United States who died at the same time.

I'm saying it's time we put this individual in his proper place in history. This man is recognized in other parts of the world, certainly in Great Britain more than in any other place, as well as in Europe, where he made a huge contribution so that we could be free today.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any questions? Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: What specifically does your bill want to do—create a national holiday, put up a monument?

Mr. Inky Mark: Just a national monument.

Mr. Ken Epp: Where will it be?

Mr. Inky Mark: Well, that can be determined later on. Whether it's at the national capital or his place of birth, Dauphin, Manitoba, it doesn't really matter.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

Mr. Inky Mark: What's important is that the country recognize this man for his contributions.

Mr. Ken Epp: Is his name Barker or Barkerfield?

Mr. Inky Mark: It's Barker. Because the national government is dragging in terms of what it's going to do, the local municipal governments have decided to rename the local airport after him. This will be next week.

Mr. Ken Epp: Oh, okay, I just scanned it. I didn't read it carefully.

Mr. Inky Mark: There will be foreign dignitaries attending the ceremony representing air commands, as well as Great Britain.

Mr. Ken Epp: Are you the only one in Canada who knows about this man?

Mr. Inky Mark: Actually, very few people know about him, even though CBC has done some work on him. The aviation series will be doing a one-hour documentary this coming summer on him. As well, Wayne Ralph wrote a book about him, which is fairly widely distributed.

Mr. Ken Epp: You really think we should vote on this instead of anything else?

Mr. Inky Mark: I think, at the beginning, it may set a precedent for the recognition of other important Canadians in this country. We're not the type of people who want to tell the world all the great things we've done, but maybe it's time we started doing that.

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

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Mark.

• 0940

Mr. Hill. Try to smile, Mr. Hill. You always look so solemn.

Mr. Jay Hill, M.P. (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Is that a prerequisite?

The Chair: Yes, it is. We only allow pleasant people to present here.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, committee members and staff.

I'm here before you this morning to have my particular motion on conditional sentencing made votable. The motion reads that in opinion of this House,

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be instructed, in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(b), to prepare and bring in a bill to prevent the use of conditional sentencing in cases where someone is convicted of any sexual offence, drug trafficking, or any other violent crime.

Madam Chair, as those of us who were involved in the 35th Parliament well know, conditional sentencing was established under legislation called Bill C-41 in the last Parliament, and section 742 of the Criminal Code went into effect September 3, 1996. So it will be for two years, as of this September, that this legislation has been in effect.

I asked the clerk to distribute my speaking notes, because I don't intend to follow all the way through on them. I apologize to the committee members for not having it in both official languages. I wrote it on the plane on Tuesday night and didn't have time to get it translated since I got it typed up.

Obviously, we understand what conditional sentencing is. It allows criminals to serve their sentences at home in the community rather than be incarcerated in prison or jail.

It's a belief of mine, many members of Parliament, including the justice minister, and certainly a large segment of the public that it was not Parliament's intent for conditional sentencing to be used in the case of violent or sexual offences. I remember the debate on Bill C-41 when the justice minister at that time, the current health minister, stated exactly that, despite the pleas from a number of opposition MPs, including some backbench Liberals who had some concerns about how this legislation would be used once it was implemented to allow violent offenders to escape incarceration.

As you can see from the notes, if you want to take the time to look through them, this meets all the minimum requirements, the 11 criteria. I'm not going to go through that so as to save you and me some time.

I'll just refer to page 3, then skip ahead. Since its implementation, conditional sentencing has been used in cases of rape, assault, drug trafficking, and other violent offences. Certainly as legislators, I'm sure we're all well aware of that. There have been some horrendous cases highlighted across the nation, in particular, violent sexual assault against women.

Canadians are alarmed at this application of the Criminal Code, and communities feel threatened when these people are released into their communities without serving one day in jail.

In January of this year, the justice minister publicly stated:

There have been some circumstances in which I believe conditional sentences were used when it was not the intention of Parliament to have them used, and those should be appealed.

The minister added that conditional sentencing was never intended to apply to violent or sexual offenders. That's the same type of statement that was made by her predecessor in the last Parliament.

While the justice minister prefers to allow the appeal courts to address the inappropriate use of conditional sentencing, the courts have indicated the opposite. The issue of conditional sentencing continues to become more and more of an ambiguous matter within the court.

Despite the minister's beliefs about the intentions of section 742.1, in August 1997 the B.C. Court of Appeal, my home province and court, ruled that violent offenders are entitled to serve their time in the community under conditional sentences. The B.C. appeal court ruling stated the following:

If Parliament had intended to exclude certain offences from consideration under section 742, it could have done so in very clear language. It is evident that while the government's intention with Bill C-41 may have been to clarify the Criminal Code with regard to sentencing, in this instance the legislation has in fact made sentencing more confusing for judges across the country.

Canadian courts are already bogged down. Certainly we're all aware of that as well. It's not the intention of any legislation to further backlog the courts with appeals over conditional sentencing.

Finally, Madam Chair, since Parliament took the responsibility to initiate this legislation, which has resulted in a certain amount of confusion and concern on part the part of all the citizens, I believe it's up to Parliament to rectify the situation. I don't see a better way than to make a motion like this votable and send this issue to the appropriate standing committee.

• 0945

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions?

We can see if someone else—

Mr. Ken Epp: Has there been any petition—

The Chair: Mr. Epp, I'm going to let Madame speak first.

Mr. Ken Epp: Oh, I'm sorry.

The Chair: You're always the lead questioner. You get all the good questions.

Mr. Ken Epp: No, no, I'm just ready to do the work; that's all.

The Chair: Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The purpose of your motion is quite clear. I would nevertheless like to ask you a question. In your mind, would the bill that would be introduced as a follow-up to this motion apply to everyone, regardless of age?

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill: I would hope so; it would be my intention. I mean, that could be spelled out in the legislation if the government felt there should be exemptions under the Young Offenders Act.

I think all of us are aware that the government is committed to making changes, bringing in what we hope would be serious amendments to the Young Offenders Act. This could be part of that, whether there are exemptions.

My intention would be to see that there be no exemptions for those types of crimes I've outlined in the motion. If people do those types of crimes and are found guilty, they go to jail.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'd like to ask you whether you know of any petitions that have been tabled on this issue.

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes. Quite a number of petitions have been presented in the House of Commons on conditional sentencing and what the public views as the inappropriate use of conditional sentencing.

Mr. Ken Epp: Have you been on any talk shows or anything, and got some direct feedback from people?

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes, in my riding I have. I'm not one of the justice critics for my party, so I haven't been speaking out nationally on the issue, but certainly there's a lot of concern in the riding I represent.

I was one of the first MPs to raise concerns following the implementation of Bill C-41, when it came into effect. I don't remember the exact date. I didn't make a note of it, but I believe it was about October or perhaps early November 1996.

I asked a question to the then justice minister in the House because of an incident that took place in my riding. A young mother was sexually assaulted by a former common-law husband, brutally raped on the kitchen floor after he broke into her home. He was subsequently found guilty, and got off on conditional sentencing. The judge made some reference in the case to the fact that he felt it was more appropriate that the man stay out of jail and continue to pay his child support.

And because of instances like that.... Certainly all of us are aware of Darren Ursel, for example, down in Abbotsford. He was convicted of a horrendous crime. I'm not sure where his appeal is. The crown is appealing that case, but the intent of my motion is to take away the business of the crown being required to appeal those types of decisions.

I think that in the minds of the vast majority of Canadians a young man who brutally rapes a women with a racquetball or a racquet handle has no business being out on conditional sentencing. For the crown to have to undergo the expense of appealing a decision like that is absolutely ludicrous.

That man should have gone to jail. I'm sure every sane Canadian would know that.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, are you done? Thank you.

The Chair: I have a question. Do you have any estimate on how many jails we'd have to build?

Mr. Jay Hill: How many jails we'd have to build?

The Chair: I mean, how many people do you assume right now at any given moment in time are out on conditional sentencing?

Mr. Jay Hill: For violence? I think that since it's come into play, it would be in the hundreds. Perhaps as many as 1,000 people have been—

The Chair: Do you have any statistics on that? Are you guessing, or do you know for sure?

Mr. Jay Hill: Someone has compiled it at one of the justice critics'.... I could get those statistics.

The Chair: I'm just curious.

Mr. Jay Hill: There are hundreds of cases now across the land where individuals convicted of violent crimes or drug trafficking have got off scot-free.

The Chair: Okay, are there no other questions? Thank you.

• 0950

We have two more presenters. First, Dale Johnston does not want his motion made votable, so we can take him off the list of considerations.

Regarding Charles Caccia, you might want to take a minute to look at M-38. He would like to be considered for votability, and can't make it this morning. He is chairing a committee somewhere.

Jason Kenney is supposed to be coming for Leon, and we're still hunting down Dan McTeague.

I might also want you to have a quick look at the confidential draft report from our meeting of the other day. As you can see on the executive summary, this report simplifies the criteria immensely, and turns them into positive criteria.

Now since he was at the first meeting, Randy White said he would like to participate in the final discussion of this.

So...just if you see any flagrant errors or things you'd like to see corrected. We can go through that, and we will call a brief meeting at the end of the procedure and House affairs committee to go over this one. Randy can be there.

I would like to compliment Jamie. I think he caught our discussion very well.

Hi, Mr. McTeague.

Mr. Dan McTeague, M.P. (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Madam Chair, perhaps one could consider putting forward a bill on the busing from Confederation Building to here.

The Chair: Isn't that unbelievable?

Mr. Dan McTeague: It took 15 minutes. I'm sorry; I didn't mean to keep the....

The Chair: That's all right, that's okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Dan McTeague: I would not want to prolong this very important meeting. Obviously, what brings us here this morning is this great bill which I tabled a few months ago. I am pleased that it has been chosen.

[English]

Madam Chair, this bill is the result of several recommendations by various provinces across Canada. For your interest I have provided you with three such provinces that have talked about the need to protect retailers who also happen to be in the unenviable position of competing against their own supplier.

The issue, though, really focuses on the oil industry. The oil industry itself is probably unique in the sense that if you are an independent retailer of gasoline product, you are nevertheless in the unenviable position of having to compete against your own supplier.

[Translation]

In fact, that was my starting point. The bill flows from recommendation number 7 which was submitted to the federal government in 1986, but which, for some reason, was never acted on. However, several provinces have gone ahead with something similar, including New Brunswick and the province of Quebec, which, last year, passed Bill 50. As we speak, British Columbia and other provinces are considering changing their own legislation in the area that comes under their jurisdiction.

[English]

Madam Chair, it is very clear that what the provinces are trying to do is what the federal government ought to be doing. That is trying to use provincial instruments to outlaw or prevent the low-cost selling that further reduces and erodes competition. That is a poor second to the federal right and authority to deal with the Competition Act. So the bill I presented in the previous Parliament, and that is now represented in this Parliament, has gained some momentum. There are provinces that are interested in making sure that this occurs.

I think it's in the interest of every province and region of this country to ensure that we have a blanket law that prevents predatory pricing, that ultimately leaves certain industries in the unenviable position of seeing fewer and fewer competitors.

The evidence is very clear as far as oil and the gas industry are concerned, where there has been a radical eradication of the number of players in the business, and that is certainly not in the public's interest.

So that is a very brief presentation, but I'm certainly hopeful that I may be able to illustrate more about the importance of this bill, in terms of your questions.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. McTeague, I think it's well known that you've chaired a committee that has been working for about six months and travelling pretty well around the country, listening to presentations on this. Has this been a consistent theme, or a consistent solution to the gas environment and many other industries?

Mr. Dan McTeague: Absolutely. It has been a problem more in eastern Canada, but it is a phenomenon that has now spread out to the western part of this country.

• 0955

The committee travelled to some 29 locations across Canada. It was a common theme, and although the question of oil and gas is something we were interested in, at almost every stop we would ask the nagging question, “Can you, as a presenter, show us an example of where competing against your supplier applies to any other industry?” The unanimous thought of the thousands or so people we interviewed was that there is no other example of where that occurs. That is why this bill does not deal strictly with oil. It could deal in other areas. But it is very clear that the government's own wisdom and recommendations of 10 years ago have been ignored.

As a result of that, it has also become very clear that provinces have attempted in their own right to protect their own independent retailers of gasoline products, which could be the case in other industries as well. Most notably, in Quebec last year there was the ValuPlus imbroglio, whereby ValuPlus-Ultramar decided it was going to price anybody below the cost of selling gasoline, no matter who it was. The province felt the current Competition Act could not protect, and therefore decided they would act in their own right to set a margin to ensure, obviously not the short-term interests of consumers, but the long-term interests of consumers, because when there's only one player left in one particular region of the country, it's game over as far as the consumers are concerned.

I also point out to you that in the province of New Brunswick, legislation has been tabled by the Honourable Elizabeth Weir, who is the leader of the New Democratic Party in New Brunswick. Also, after this act was tabled, the New Brunswick government indicated that it too is prepared to enact similar legislation, although again, it's a poor second to what the federal government ought to be doing.

The Chair: Dan, I must compliment you. You don't take a breath. I tried to interrupt you twice. There is no breathing going on.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: My other question is a personal question to you. Are you concerned that if this goes forward as a votable bill and meets calamity in the House, it's going to jeopardize the report coming out of that six months of work?

Mr. Dan McTeague: No. The report we will be putting forward is complementary to this bill; it is one and the same. Others may find they want to make some additions to this. For instance, it's a mystery to me, and I think to many people who know this act very well, why predatory pricing faces a higher sanction, a burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The criminal model is applied; therefore there are fewer prosecutions, and the whole idea of deterrents to prevent this kind of activity doesn't apply. So that's an inclusion that could be made at some point down the road, but it certainly does not conflict with what we hope to report on in the next few weeks.

The Chair: Bill, do you have any questions? No? Mr. Harvey? No?

Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You said in your presentation that several provinces, three of them to be exact, had passed bills implementing what the federal government had not done. Do you think it is possible your bill might invalidate the legislation passed by those provinces?

Mr. Dan McTeague: No. There are other ways for the provinces to ensure competition. What they have done so far does not take into account the really significant role played by consortiums, which operate outside their jurisdiction. I believe there are shortcomings in the Competition Act which force the provinces to protect independence and retailers operating within their jurisdiction. I think the bill would not interfere with provincial jurisdiction, but rather bring about a change in the legislation in order to protect consumers.

Madam Chair, I would also like to point out that I have the signatures of 100 members. With respect to support from the House of Commons, I think that a vast majority of members are aware of the bill and of the shortcomings in the present legislation.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have no more questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Dan. Now it's going to take you another 15 minutes to go back to the Confed Building.

Mr. Dan McTeague: Thank you, Madam Chair. It was a pleasure to be here.

The Chair: Try to stop for breath, Dan.

• 1000

Mr. Kenney. Sorry to keep you waiting.

Mr. Jason Kenney, M.P. (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): No problem. I thank you, Madam Chairman, and I'm pleased to be here in the place of Mr. Leon Benoit, MP for Lakeland, who unfortunately has to be on the road with the defence committee today but has asked me to represent him here with respect to his private member's bill, Bill C-366, an act to amend the Income Tax Act for the deductibility of mechanics' tool expenses. I think you have the bill before you.

This bill is similar in form and substance to one that has been introduced at least three times in this Parliament. And in the previous Parliament a similar one was introduced by NDP MP Joy Langan; I guess that would have been the 1988 Parliament. It's been introduced by our colleague, Ron Duhamel, and by Pierre de Savoye from the Bloc Québécois. The intent of this bill appears to have broad partisan support, and I hope this committee will give serious consideration to making it a votable bill in this Parliament, as several attempts have been made but so far have been unsuccessful.

I note that there's actually an article in today's business section of The Toronto Star calling on mechanics to pray today that this meeting will decide the fate of the latest bid to treat mechanics like professional musicians. It calls on this committee to make this a votable bill so that the House can decide whether or not to treat mechanics fairly in the tax system.

What this bill seeks to do, Madam Chairman, is to provide the mechanics with the ability to deduct the cost of providing tools for their employment, if they're required to do so by the terms of their employment, for the full costs of tools under $200 and the capital cost allowance of tools under $200. That's what's encompassed by the deduction in this bill.

Since Mr. Benoit introduced this bill in March he has received almost 2,000 letters, which we have here, many of which are personal, hand-written letters from mechanics in all 10 provinces across the country. These are people generally of modest means who are struggling to provide equipment that is absolutely necessary in the conduct of their business. The average mechanic's income is approximately $29,000, but the average mechanic has to spend $15,000 a year on tools. Some invest as much as $40,000 a year and many have to make annual replacements costing up to $1,000. Regular upgrading of the software, for instance, of one particular tool is $300 a year; those are standard diagnostic hand tools that are required by mechanics.

I would point out to the committee that in the 1977 report of the finance committee they recommended: “The finance committee believes that all Canadian employees should be allowed to deduct from their income the cost of large mandatory employment expenses.” Special provisions in the Income Tax Act already apply to artists, chainsaw operators, and musicians. The committee said that:

To deny this tax treatment to apprentices and technicians in the automotive industry is not only unfair, it also imposes an impediment to employment, especially for the young who might choose to work as apprentices. Revising the tax treatment of such expenses would remove the impediment that exists under the present tax rules.

• 1005

Let me also say, very briefly, there is a shortage of skilled mechanics because frankly it's an expensive business to get into. It requires a pretty significant capital expense for people of modest means and they don't have much credit or equity available to them. So at the very least, I think this Parliament ought to give those people a hand up by allowing them the partial deductibility of these necessary tools.

I would conclude by saying that workers employed, again, as artists, musicians, and chainsaw operators can claim their tools as a deductible item, and mechanics who must make a huge investment in tools in order to get and keep a job deserve the same treatment. The frustration felt by mechanics across the country is highlighted by these letters. I hope you'll give consideration to Bill C-366 as a votable bill to provide exactly that kind of fairness.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Are there any questions? Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I haven't read this stuff in detail, as I just got it, but I'd like to know if you are proposing that the amount of the tools a mechanic purchases be used in capital cost deduction or in a one-time reduction of taxable income?

Mr. Jason Kenney: The deduction encompasses maintenance, rental, and insurance costs, the full cost of tools over $200, adjusted to inflation, and the capital cost allowance of tools under $200.

Mr. Ken Epp: For tools under $200 it's a capital cost allowance.

Mr. Jason Kenney: That's right.

Mr. Ken Epp: You also indicate that the limit cannot exceed what the mechanic spends in a certain year. Is there a carry-forward provision? Because I know personally of mechanics who, in order to get into the business, have had to buy a bunch of tools and take out a bank loan to do it. And it really makes it a little rough for them if they can't deduct. Of course I guess if it's into capital cost allowance there's a little bit of a mechanical problem with this.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I don't see any provision for a carry-forward. I didn't draft this bill, and I must qualify my remarks, but I don't think there's any provision for a carry-forward. I think it's limited to annual expenditures. But your point's well taken. As I said, some people spend $40,000 to get set up in the business, and obviously in their first year they're not going to have that much income to offset as a deduction.

Mr. Ken Epp: Exactly. Yes, the capital cost allowance could actually exceed their income that year, so there should be a carry-forward. Maybe that would be a good amendment to make.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I understand Mr. Duhamel's bill was broader in its coverage than this, and it may have included that kind of carry-forward provision.

Mr. Ken Epp: I know that I personally have received presentations as well from people in my riding supporting this, and it's right across the country.

Mr. Jason Kenney: As I said, the 2,000 letters, again, are not just from Mr. Benoit's constituency, but from every province and probably every constituency, or most of them.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have no further questions.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: A short question, which will give everyone a breather, which is fine.

Perhaps you won't be able to answer this question. Workers in various trades have to buy their own tools. Are mechanics the only ones who, at the present time, are not allowed to claim a certain amount for their tools, or is this the case in other trades as well? Do you feel that a bill such as that put forward by Mr. Benoit could indeed promote or result in improved tax treatment for expenses related to certain trades?

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: I would point out that a precedent already has been established in the Income Tax Act, again, insofar as artists, musicians, and chainsaw operators are able to employ a similar deduction for the tools necessary in their businesses, so the tax code already contemplates these kinds of industry-specific exemptions.

I am not aware of any other industries beyond the mechanics who are seeking this kind of treatment. I have not received representations from members of any other industry who have asked for the same kind of treatment. Therefore, I'm not too concerned about this becoming a slippery slope where we open up all sorts of loopholes in the tax code. I think this is very limited to a small number of working people, of mechanics.

• 1010

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Harvey, please.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you, Madam Chair. Everything is quite clear. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): It's not so much a question as it is a comment that this is a longstanding complaint about the tax system. Musicians and chainsaw operators get to claim the costs of doing business. Many businesses get to claim the costs of doing business, whether it's in the form of lunches, advertising, or whatever. There is a variety of ways in which the costs of doing certain kinds of business are subsidized by the tax system. A longstanding exception to this rule, which is pointed out as one of the elements of unfairness in the tax system, is the way in which mechanics have not been able to claim the costs of their tools.

I want to agree with the general thrust, even though that's not what we're supposed to do, Madam Chair. Nobody else pays any attention to the rules.

A former colleague of mine had such a bill. I'm sure if we searched the records further back, you would find many other members of Parliament from my own party and perhaps from others who have brought forward similar private members' motions over the last 30 years.

Mr. Jason Kenney: That's right.

Artists have a number of lobby groups, some of them funded through public funds, and large businesses have professional lobbyists to represent them when it comes to special provisions in the tax code, but mechanics are not people who are well empowered in the political system. These are generally independent working people, people of modest means, and I suspect one of the reasons they haven't yet been able to break through the barrier of the Department of Finance to get their case heard is they lack influence, as it were, in the conventional political process.

That's why I think we need to give serious consideration to using the private members' route to get around the Department of Finance, which probably doesn't get too many professional, slick lobbyists from the mechanics industry.

The Chair: Okay, thank you, Mr. Kenney. You can report to Mr. Benoit that you did an exceptionally good job.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you.

The Chair: I'm a former teacher. I can't help myself. I just give marks.

Mr. Ken Epp: Have you ever thought as a teacher—and I was in education, as well—that we are not permitted to use as a deductibility our computers, our typewriters, our filing cabinets, all those things I always had at home?

The Chair: There was a $2,100 allowance for that.

Mr. Ken Epp: You did?

The Chair: Oh, you mean as teachers? No, I thought you meant the mechanics.

Mr. Ken Epp: No, I mean as a teacher.

The Chair: Most of it was provided by the school boards.

Mr. Ken Epp: I had to buy my own computer where I worked. I in fact bought two of them over time, because the first one became obsolete.

The Chair: Teachers are well paid.

Mr. Ken Epp: I made myself a little company so I could—

The Chair: Lots of people get around it that way.

Mr. Ken Epp: —use it as a company expense.

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.

[Proceedings continue in camera]