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, June 11, 1998

• 0942

[Translation]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.)): Good morning, dear colleagues. In the absence of our Chair, I will now call the meeting to order. We are going to hear, pursuant to our usual rules, our colleagues who have prepared motions or bills. As you know, we'll invite them to take about five minutes each to make their presentation, after which there will be questions.

The first member we are going to hear this morning is Mr. St-Julien, who will present us his motion M-223. Welcome dear colleague, and blossom out.

An hon. member: Not too much!

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen members of the House of Commons, in October 1997, after several small debates with my constituents and some discussions with Canadians, particularly with Ms. Barbara Smith from Calgary, I tabled that motion M-223 which proposes to grant a salary to mothers and fathers who stay home to raise children. The reason I tabled it was to have members of the House of Commons know what salary should be paid to those people and which benefits they would be entitled to receive at the age of retirement.

I also wanted to hear the views of my colleagues from the House of Commons and particularly have an idea of the opinions of Canadians from every provinces about that issue. We know that in 1991, when the McDonald Commission made its inquiry, they were talking of poverty, work incentives and social experiences. In New Jersey, a guaranteed income system is already in place.

If I was brought to engage myself into that debate and take an interest in the Royal Commission works, it is mostly because a guaranteed annual income system is much better than our current system, since it provides an income supplement not only to low-income workers, but to anyone who needs it. Our findings substantiate the idea that the introduction of a guaranteed annual income system could contribute to eliminate poverty.

I do not intend to read you the whole bible of that commission, but I think it would be useful to hold a three-hour debate on that issue in the House of Commons to give every members an opportunity to ask themselves what salary should be paid to women and men who stay home to raise children. I got phone calls from the Atlantic provinces, from Ontario and particularly from Calgary. Some people have been working for the last 18 or 20 years on that guaranteed income issue. I also remember when a former Quebec minister recommended the implementation of a guaranteed family income system in Quebec.

• 0945

We are talking about issues like dropping out, child care and social welfare. Families are often led to depend on social welfare for several years, sometimes for as long as 15 or 20 years, from generation to generation, and some people even get to a point where they stop seeking for a job. Their welfare benefits then become for them a real guaranteed income.

What is really important in that essential element of my motion is the interest expressed by several colleagues since I tabled it, and especially the attention that issue has raised throughout Canada. I didn't bring all my files, because I already have accumulated several boxes of them. Although I am aware that all members of Parliament will not have the chance to speak on that issue during that three-hour debate, it is vital and essential that we hear the views of each party.

It is that family policy which is important. We are talking of poverty. I noticed that in United States, where the unemployment rate stands at 4.2%, workers often hold two or three jobs at $6 or $7 per hour. How can a mother or a father who must care for six, seven or eight children cope with that? Last week, a mother from my area, Ms. Clémence Côté, told me on the phone that her husband, a miner, earned $61,000 per year. They have eight children at home. Her husband is not even entitled to the GST credit. He hardly can make ends meet and support his children and wife. Only small cheques are getting into that home. That mother is seeking ways to allow her 13 or 14-year-old children to bloom in having them do some sports, but she cannot afford it. She has to go to service clubs to get some help.

I want that a three-hour debate be held on that motion in the House of Commons, and particularly that the views of people who know from experience what poverty is all about can be heard. I wish that we can take stock of the issue in the House of Commons for the benefit of the whole Canadian and Quebec population.

Thank you very much. I am now prepared to answer your questions.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Yvon Charbonneau): Thank you, Guy. Would some colleagues wish to ask questions? Yes, Mr. Epp.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): This is one of the occasions where I regret profoundly that I don't speak your language. So we'll have to make the use of our wonderful interpreters.

I would like to ask you this. You're proposing that parents who stay home with their children be paid a salary. Who pays? Is it the Government of Canada? Is it the provincial government? Is this an encroachment on provincial authority? Generally, social welfare and so on is provincial. I'd like your response to this.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Of course, we know that it would be governments who would pay the bill if we were to provide an income to fathers or mothers who stay home to raise children.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Which government?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: As a matter of fact, it would be a federal initiative, at the national level. The federal government could enter into agreement with each province. I want to remind you that the former Quebec minister Yvon Picotte was always saying that social welfare benefits should be abolished in the province of Quebec and replaced with the payment of a guaranteed income to parents who stay home to raise children. It's an ongoing debate that could still carry on for several months.

We could take advantage of that debate to make a full assessment of our system and of our social measures. Social welfare benefits cost us between 8 and 9 billion dollars a year in Canada. If we were to provide a guaranteed income to Canadian families, it would cost us around 11 billion dollars. Studies which have been conducted in that regard by Ms. Barbara Smith from Calgary and by a number of groups in Canada are proposing to provide those parents with a $7.50 per hour income on a basis of 35 to 40 hours a week.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. That's really my only question. Thank you.

The Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): Are there any other questions? Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): This is not so much a question as a comment. I was saying to Mr. St-Julien that whatever the merits of his motion or whatever the committee ultimately decides, I think his motion hits on an area of concern to a lot of members and also a lot of Canadians. This means that the way in which the work that is done in the home by caregivers, particularly by parents, is so systematically undervalued by society, by the tax system, and in every other way. So I think any opportunity that we have to further debate this is welcome.

• 0950

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you. I appreciate your comments. It is very important, madam Chair, that all members of the House of Commons from all political parties can get aware of the extent of poverty and have an opportunity to contemplate social measures which could alleviate it. If a new federal and provincial program is ever put in place, it will be thanks to your participation in that three-hour debate, which will allow us to know the views of each and every member of the House of Commons.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I have one other question.

I wonder whether it was deliberate that while often motions will say “the government should consider”, this doesn't say “should consider”; it just says “the government should”. That makes it of course harder for the motion to pass or for it to be chosen votable, because it's less— Let's be frank, in terms of a lot of these motions, when they say “the government should consider”, the government can always say they did consider it and they decided not to do it.

Nevertheless, there is the political momentum that is created by the passing of a motion that uses the word “consider”. But this doesn't say “consider”; it says “should”. If it were to be passed, of course, it would be that much stronger. But it does make it less likely that it would be passed. I wonder whether that's deliberate or just the way you happened to word the motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I wanted to make a strong motion in order to press the government to fully commit itself on that kind of social measures. If I'm not mistaken, experiences have already been undertaken in New Jersey and Manitoba, where they have started to provide a guaranteed income to certain families.

We must find new ways of helping families and parents who raise children today. We are putting in place all kinds of programs to counter dropping out and we are investing funds into the child care system. I have nothing against that, but we must wonder why all those programs have been put in place and if it wouldn't be better to have a guaranteed income system instead.

Yes, I recognize that I have drafted my motion in a way to make it stronger and to increase awareness of members of every political affiliation on that issue.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I must apologize to everybody for my lateness. You wouldn't believe the reason; I won't even share it with you.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: While you were away, we passed a motion that you can't vote on anything.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I've heard of that.

I thank you very much for coming in.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be before the committee this morning on the wheat board issue.

If you watched the debate last night, it got interesting at times. This is a very real issue in western Canada, that we have accountability installed in the wheat board.

I'm not going to read from my submission here. I'll leave it with you for your information.

The thing I want to point out is when you look at the bottom of the first page, the board assets at $8.2 billion—and I will give you an updated one later on. It is becoming a real concern in western Canada that farmers are getting themselves into financial problems. This bill wouldn't solve all of them, but it would give us a handle on things in Parliament so that we had an idea of how the year progressed, how the sales were going, and how the advance payments farmers were taking out would result in the statement at the end of the year.

If you look at the bill itself—and I think it's enclosed at the back—it's a very simple bill. It has four different issues relating to the accounts of the Auditor General. It says that the minister shall cause the report made under subsection 8.1(1) to be laid before the House at the end of each crop year and within a certain amount of time. It says the wheat board shall report to the minister as soon as possible after the end of each month.

That is a very important fixture in this bill, because it would allow the wheat board, and also the House of Commons, to realize whether the sales were going through, what kinds of sales had to be made, how the transportation system would be able to cope with these sales, and maybe make adjustments as we saw the need arise.

• 0955

This has never been done before. As you know, the Estey commission is now looking into transportation. We find now because of the research being done on the transportation issue that in 1995-96, when we had record grain prices and record demands for grain, the wheat board only exported half the amount the United States would allow to be imported. This built up into the next year when we had a huge crop and prices started dropping.

It's of importance that farmers have the sales made when prices are high and that they have the best return possible. That is why the clause was instilled, because today with the computer technology a monthly printout is very simple. It can be looked at very quickly to see what the end results are, and it would give us a real handle on how the sales are going and what the prices are probably doing, whether they're dropping or going up.

The other thing is in the last paragraph it maintains that there should be a time limit on when this is reported to the House at the end of each crop year. It's a little bit of a housekeeping clause that would make the operation run smoother.

If you take your clip off, you'll see at the end I've put in some articles on where we go from here, which is about how the Auditor General should have access to books and the wheat board should open books. There's also the Auditor General in a news article and what Mr. Goodale, the wheat board minister, says in that article.

Looking at the updated financial statement, you will see if you look at accounts receivable—it's right at the back—they have gone down somewhat, so they have not paid for the grain. Then you look further down at the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and you see that farmers owed $100 million more to the wheat board at the end of the crop year because either they weren't able to make the sales of the grain they took the advance on or they just didn't have the money to have it refunded.

When you look at $100 million, that's quite a few dollars. I know in the middle 1980s there was as much as $700 million owing at the end of the crop year that farmers couldn't have sold. This is why it is very important that somebody on Parliament Hill monitor the sales and what is happening so we have a handle on what is happening on the farm scene.

I think it's also important if you look further down at the liabilities. They have increased somewhat—it's right at the bottom line. They've gone from $8.281 billion to $8.424 billion, so there's about $150 million more liability. So we see that the wheat board is becoming more indebted, and with the way the grain prices are going, we should take some action to prevent that from continuing.

In western Canada the farming economy is, I would say, the most important industry as far as economic wealth and jobs are concerned. That is why I am bringing this bill forward, to supplement the amendments we're going to pass today, I hope, because I feel the amendments that the Senate recommended will be passed according to the feedback I get.

I'm open for questions if there are some.

Mr. Ken Epp: Jake, one of our criteria here is whether or not this deals with something that has already been dealt with in the House. How is this different from Bill C-4?

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Bill C-4 will only allow the Auditor General to do a one-time audit, and he will be asked to do certain years. This is an annual audit. It will continue as the wheat board operates. So instead of having a private firm—Deloitte & Touche—doing it, it would be the Auditor General himself. I know, in talking to his staff, that they would be quite interested in doing it, because it is a big issue in government spending and guarantees.

• 1000

Mr. Ken Epp: The only dilemma I face is the government having brought forward Bill C-4, which I guess we'll vote on later today.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: Really, they have dealt with the matter, and they've said they don't want the Auditor General— It's already decided. I'm thinking strictly about whether or not this becomes votable. I'm going to have to ask for some clarification on that, as well.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Well, why I thought it would be very proper to bring it in even after Bill C-4 was passed was that this will guarantee that the Auditor General does it on an annual basis.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. But my question, Jake, is did you or did someone put in an amendment to Bill C-4 that would have done the same thing as you're asking for here?

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: I think the amendment reads that we should have a voluntary wheat board. If that is passed—and I don't think it will be—if you had a voluntary wheat board, then farmers, if they were skeptical of the accountability of the wheat board, would be forced to become accountable, because they would take their business to private grain companies.

That is the reason, because it is a monopoly, and the private auditing firm only matches the figures they're given. So they may be a very reputable firm—

But the issue I addressed last night is that we now find out from the Senate hearings that the wheat board has been one of the largest players on the commodity exchanges in the United States. This has never shown up in any of their annual statements. I've asked the chief commissioner of the wheat board to give me an annual statement on that and so far he has refused. I don't know whether the minister can obtain it or not. I haven't received that from the minister either.

I know farmers were very upset when they found out they were not allowed to have their own grain and deliver it on a hedge on the commodity exchange, but here the wheat board has been doing it for years with their grain, giving price protection to millers and other buyers. Farmers have no price protection, however. They can't do that themselves.

This is becoming a very divisive issue in western Canada, because as you know, in the special crops program, the special crops industry, we can do that. We can hedge under the American markets on the commodity exchanges.

The Chair: You're getting a little off the question that Ken asked you.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Well, that's why I think it's imperative that there be a good auditing system and that the government, because of the guarantees on $8 billion of debt or liabilities, keep very close track of it.

The Chair: Okay. I'm going to go onto Bill.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, just on that, I think Mr. Hoeppner's made an informed and eloquent defence of his position on the wheat board. I probably don't agree with him, because we tend not to agree on these kinds of matters, but that's all beside the point.

I think the point Ken was trying to make was whether or not the House has already dealt with this in some way or another. Even in the package that Mr. Hoeppner provided us with is an article saying amendments to make the Canadian Wheat Board accountable to the government's chief auditor were defeated by the Liberals in votes Monday evening. This is in an article of February 19, 1998.

Now, I presume this was probably in committee. So this matter has been dealt with by the House, not to the satisfaction of Mr. Hoeppner, but that's certainly something we have to take into consideration. That's all I'm saying.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: I think it was done at the report stage in the House—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes, that's what I mean.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: —and it wasn't passed the way our amendments were or the way farmers wanted, because—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: The way some farmers wanted.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: No, I think it was the majority, Bill. We want an accountable wheat board, whether we support it or not.

The Chair: Okay, I think the point's been made. Thank you very much.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Thank you.

The Chair: Anybody have any further questions? Madame, non? Bryon?

Thank you, Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: I hope you can look at it. It will be an ongoing debate, whether we present this bill as votable or not.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Thank you.

Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Chair, if I can just interject while Jake is still here, I think at the time he submitted this bill in the House, he had no way of anticipating what was going to happen.

The Chair: That's right.

Okay, Bryon.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

The Chair: You've been here before on this subject.

Mr. Ken Epp: He's a lucky man. He gets drawn all the time.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Yes. Well, this is a different one, but obviously I should go out and buy a lottery ticket for tomorrow night.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, I thank you for inviting me today. I'm here to talk about a bill to recognize January 11 as a day of recognition for Sir John A. Macdonald, not a statutory holiday—underline not a statutory holiday—but a day of recognition similar to National Flag Day of February 15 or June 21 as National Aboriginal Day.

• 1005

We live in a curious country where we don't seem to want to or don't seem to do enough to celebrate our past. I would commend to you J.L. Granatstein's work, Who killed Canadian history?, indicating that we're losing our sense of history in this country and lack understanding of it. Only 54% of recent Canadian high school and university graduates could name Sir John A. Macdonald as our first Canadian Prime Minister, and I might mention as an adjunct that only 36% knew the year of Confederation.

The purpose of recognition of January 11 is simply that, unlike many other countries, we have not been ones to have celebrated or to have identified the fact that Sir John A. Macdonald was, more than any other, one of the major architects of the founding of this country. Macdonald's statesmanship, of course, was very important in the development of the initial four provinces coming together in 1867, the opening of the Canadian west, the vision of building the national railway, and eventually British Columbia was induced to come in, in 1871, and of course, Prince Edward Island.

Organizations such as the Ontario History and Social Sciences Teachers' Association have been very supportive, and members of other political parties have sent me letters of support, again arguing for a day of recognition.

Macdonald once said about Quebec that Quebec, in fact, I would suggest, is a distinct society. He said “Treat them as a nation and they will act as a free people generally do—generously”.

So I know there have been those who would talk about other aspects. The fact is that Macdonald and the creation of this day is to leave to future generations a keen sense of our history, to promote it. It won't cost the federal government a nickel in order to recognize the day. We may, over time, try to develop, as we've done with Flag Day and Aboriginal Day, educational programs to do that, and I certainly would support that.

This bill obviously doesn't discriminate in favour of any area or region of the country, and it was drawn up by the committees and legislative services directorate of the House.

Madam Chair, I believe through knowledge of our history we would promote unity in this country. I think it's a national tragedy that we haven't done more to do that, and again, if you read Granatstein's book, it certainly bears that out.

I'm obviously open to any questions.

The Chair: Are there any questions on this side of the table?

Mr. Charbonneau? Mr. Harvey?

Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): When I was at school, we were talking of Macdonald and Cartier. So, I can understand your wish to institute a holiday to celebrate Mr. Macdonald. I remember very well that at the outset of the Confederation, there was a will to recognize what was then called the two founding nations. That being said, I would invite you to note that with the increasing number of holidays, we are going nowhere. I would just like to hear you on that.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Again, first of all, it is not a holiday; it is a day of recognition.

Secondly, George-Étienne Cartier would certainly be an example of a true partnership between Macdonald and Cartier, those two more than any other. The reason, of course, for Sir John A. Macdonald is simply that as the first Prime Minister of the country, he deserves this special recognition. But clearly Macdonald's work with Cartier and others—George Brown, who was his political nemesis—indicates the values of what this country is all about, the values of tolerance, the values of working together.

The fact that we are a diverse society is based very much on the work Macdonald and others did, and I guess you can't get any more non-partisan than that. I'm a member of the Liberal Party and I'm promoting a Conservative as prime minister.

• 1010

The Chair: Well, you don't have any choice, Bryon.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Oh, I always have choices in life, but if we're really serious about telling young people in this country who we are and give a sense of who we are, a day of recognition is not only appropriate but necessary.

The Chair: Bill.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I just want to agree that I think there is a need for a greater understanding, appreciation, and knowledge of Canadian history. I want to agree with Mr. Wilfert on that. I often think that some of the problems we've had in getting certain kinds of constitutional understandings accepted in this country might have been easier if people did have an appreciation of the Macdonald-Cartier partnership and a sense of what happened at the founding of Canada. I just want to agree with the witness on that score.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: So January 11 was Sir John's birthday?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: That's correct.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

Actually, this bill is parallel totally to what you brought forward with respect to Cartier, isn't it? No, what was it?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Laurier.

Mr. Ken Epp: Laurier. Isn't it identical? Isn't it just a different name and date?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: They're two different bills. I would suggest to you that the other one was a non-votable item under the rules of the committee. You're looking at whether or not it was a votable item before, and since it wasn't votable before, obviously—

Mr. Ken Epp: But at the point at which you were submitting it, it's pretty well identical.

I asked the same question. I know you have a great personal interest in history. Frankly, I did too at one time, and then I got distracted totally by math and physics, which took my interest.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'm sorry to hear that.

Mr. Ken Epp: Well, it's one of my regrets. I always enjoyed history. I had excellent history instructors in both high school and at university.

What I'd like to ask is this: isn't there some other way you can promote this other than having a national holiday, which means nobody works?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: He said three times that it's not going to be a holiday.

Mr. Ken Epp: It says in the bill it is going to be one.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: No, it's not a holiday; it's a day of recognition.

For example, in France, the French set one day aside a year called National History Day. On that day, they open every museum and historic site in the country for free. The fact is that other countries do that kind of promotion.

A day of recognition, as I said, won't cost a nickel. In fact, with some of the current deliberations in this country— Look at people like Macdonald, Cartier, Brown, and others. They were able to transcend their own particular political concerns or narrow views in order to have a broader vision of this country. In the end, a broader vision is what people want. I think it's what we need.

I certainly agree with my colleague here that one of the problems, quite frankly, is that we have no sense of where we've been because we haven't really focused on that in terms of history. As we approach the millennium, what better opportunity is there than to recognize the date?

I said that 54% of young people who have graduated in this country don't know Sir John A. Macdonald. If you asked the same question in the United States about George Washington, you would not get that kind of figure.

Mr. Ken Epp: Madam Speaker, that's really not the issue as far as we're concerned. What we're concerned about is whether this bill is to be made votable. One of our criteria is whether it's clear in what it says.

Very frankly, when I read your bill, it says that it would make an amendment so that:

3.1 January 11 is a national holiday and shall be kept and observed as such throughout

Then in the Interpretation Act, it lists all the days that are statutory holidays: New Year's Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Christmas Day, and so on. I'm looking for the definition of clarity in your bill. That's what I'm looking at. I'm not looking at the substance of it, because I agree with the substance.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Again, I couldn't be any clearer about a day of recognition. Of course I wasn't the legal mastermind behind drafting the bill, but I made it very clear that it was a day of recognition. My understanding is that the same drafting and the same wording were used for Aboriginal Day on June 21 and Flag Day on February 15. The intent is very clear. I don't intend to cost anyone a quarter by having a day off. It's not a day off.

• 1015

The Chair: That's too bad.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I realize that, but for the very reasons, and quite justly, that Mr. Epp articulates, that's why it's not a national holiday.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Ken Epp: We'll get that straightened out. To me that's a question we're going to have to have answered.

The Chair: Thank you. Are there any more questions?

Thank you very much, Bryon.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

The Chair: Mr. Nystrom, have you had your press conference today yet?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Not yet.

The Chair: I'm anticipating it with great excitement.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: It's a different issue.

The Chair: I know. Shh. Nobody knows. It's our little secret.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

The motion I want to suggest be made votable today is one that reads as follows:

That in the opinion of the House, the government should show leadership and enact a tax on financial transactions in concert with all other OECD countries.

In other words, this is the so-called Tobin tax on international financial transactions. The idea was first suggested by James Tobin, not Brian Tobin. James Tobin was an economist who won the Nobel Prize many years ago, and he suggested a very small tax on all financial transactions around the world.

Financial transactions around the world now total about $1.3 trillion a day. That's $1.3 trillion a day, which is an awful lot. The idea here is to put a very small tax on it. The idea now is 0.1%, which is very tiny. That would reap, I think, $176 billion per year.

I've circulated a little sheet with some of the arguments. There are a couple of reasons for it. One is that it would curtail short-term speculation. That is not helpful to anyone in terms of currency speculation around the world.

Secondly, it would raise an awful lot of money for a lot of worthwhile global projects, such as environmental cleanup of Chernobyl and environmental problems around the world, working towards full employment globally, and having all the money we need under Lloyd Axworthy's idea of cleaning up the landmines. That money has to come from somewhere. This is a way of raising money to look after global concerns.

The other thing I wanted to say is it wouldn't cost the ordinary citizens very much. I'll give you a couple of examples of what I mean. As Mr. Tobin's tax, people are now talking about a tax of 0.1%. If you spent, for example, a week in Cape Cod with your family and spent $1,000, the 0.1% would be a $1 tax on that particular transaction. If you bought a condo in Florida for $100,000, the tax, at 0.1%, would be $100. Again, it's an insignificant amount for ordinary people, but it would raise a couple of hundred billion dollars a year globally on transactions of $1.3 trillion a day.

The other point I wanted to make is that the Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, is in favour of the Tobin tax. I've included a copy of a press release from him a while back where he says it won't fly, and he says it won't fly because of opposition that occurred in Britain and Germany. In Britain there's been a change of government since Mr. Martin played with the idea. There may be a change in government in Germany this fall as well.

The Clinton administration is in favour of a Tobin tax, particularly the treasurer, Mr. Bentsen. Also, the assistant treasurer, the chief bureaucrat, is in favour of the idea of a Tobin tax. Paul Martin has raised it many times. The Prime Minister himself has had a little study commissioned to look at the idea of a Tobin tax.

My final argument on this is that we are in a global world. A lot of things are happening globally, and we have to have a global vision. That vision shouldn't only include trade deals and so on but should include other things, such as environmental concerns, labour standards, and social programs. A way of funding all these ideas is perhaps an international tax such as the Tobin tax.

It's time we engage in this debate in this country. Making it a votable motion gives us more time in the House and it also forces all of us as members to take a position when this thing comes to a vote in the House. It's something that cuts across party lines and it's something we have to deal with as parliamentarians.

We're going into a new millennium, and we have to have a global vision that is very comprehensive and covers the whole gamut of issues. For that reason I want to suggest to you that we make this tax votable.

The Chair: Are there any questions on this side of the table?

• 1020

That was very interesting. Are there no questions?

Mr. Harvey?

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Who would collect this tax?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Okay. I circulated a little document here, Mr. Epp, and if you look at page 3 about ideas that have been circulated in terms of the implementation of the tax, you see that you can do it through the IMF—the International Monetary Fund—or the Bank for International Settlements or the World Bank, or, indeed, a new financial agency could do it. Again, to make this work, you'd need to have the support of most countries in the OECD. That's also part of my motion, Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: And then where would the money go?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: The money would go to a number of causes—

Mr. Ken Epp: No, I don't mean that. Where would it go? Who would manage it? Who would collect it? The United Nations?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: As I say, it could be done through the IMF, the United Nations, through the Bank for International Settlements or through some new financial agency.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. And who would be accountable for how it was spent?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: That agency would be accountable. Maybe the United Nations would be accountable—

Mr. Ken Epp: And who are they accountable to?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: To their membership. Again, I haven't tried to dot all the i's and cross all the t's here, Mr. Epp. The motion simply says that the government should show leadership and enact a tax on financial institutions, in concert with all OECD countries. If that happened, they'd have to have the proper implementation procedures, collection procedures, and accountability procedures. It's not a private member's bill where you try to dot all the i's and cross all the t's.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. How much interest is there around the world, around Canada and among parliamentarians?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Around the world, the Clinton administration has been in favour of this. Mr. Bentsen, the national treasurer, has supported it, and so has the assistant treasurer of the United States. The Government of France has shown support for it. I suspect the new government in Britain probably would; the previous government didn't. I think there's a gathering interest amongst parliamentarians in thinking globally. And if we're going to think globally and do things globally, we need a financial base from which to act.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Good morning everyone. It's not my first appearance before this committee. I'm going to be brief, since I believe that this bill is already well known. I will try to be clear.

The bill I am presenting to you today is one that, if adopted, would have the effect of fully recognizing the rights of same sex spouses. There are 70 federal statutes where we can find a definition of heterosexual spouses. Each and every one of those statutes should be read and constructed through an homosexist definition. That is true for all federal laws that affect people's life, from the Canada Shipping Act to the Income Tax Act, the Old Age Pensions Act, and so on.

I think it's important that this bill be considered as a votable item because we had a debate on that matter in the House of Commons earlier this week. Some very important cases are presently under litigation, both before administrative courts and common law courts, and I think it would be fairly incredible for the legislator not to catch that opportunity to hold a debate on a matter which is highly topical, since it implies the magistracy.

One can remember the Rosenberg decision, which invalidated part of the Income Tax Act. Subsection 254(3) of the Income Tax Act is now considered unconstitutional because it does not recognize same sex spouses. The government has until June 22 to appeal against that decision. I don't know if it is going to do that, but you must know that at the Supreme Court level, a very important decision will also be taken next year on that issue. The case involves a couple of separated lesbians where one of the spouses is claiming a maintenance allowance. That cause has already been heard by different appeal courts in Ontario and is now being brought before the Supreme Court.

It is important that this bill be considered as votable, because it's a topical issue and a matter of equality as well. Homosexual people are paying taxes to fund the benefits provided in those statutes. It's essential that we hold a debate in Parliament in order to allow every members to express their views on that.

• 1025

I want to remind you that this is above all a topical judicial issue and that we should be given an opportunity to vote democratically on it, in a responsible way, as we are required to do as parliamentarians.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any questions?

Mr. Harvey?

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, CP): Thank you very much, madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Ménard, I ask you questions with respect to what this committee is about, and that is determining whether or not this should be votable. One of our criteria is that Parliament shall not have dealt with it recently, and yet you've just said that we dealt with it earlier this week.

Would you respond to that? How do we as a committee now say, “well, we should do it again”? We have just done it, and not only in this last week. It's come up a number of times in this Parliament.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The issue that was dealt with earlier this week was not about the recognition of homosexual spouses, at least not directly. It was about judicial activism, to use the same terms which the member who introduced the motion used.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Only one area.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: That motion was about the fact that a very important issue will not be referred to the Canadian Parliament and about the role of the Charter in relation to the Canadian Parliament. Frankly, this was not a debate about the recognition of same sex spouses. I must recognize, though, that there are links between that issue and my presentation, but only in general terms. What I am asking for is the full recognition of same sex spouses in every existing federal statutes.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, and we didn't vote on it either. It wasn't votable.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: And you didn't vote on that motion.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: I have a question with respect to your bill, again because of one of our criteria, which is the clarity of the bill, whether the wording is clear. You use the term “similar to a conjugal relationship”. I don't know exactly how that sounds in French, but that's how it's given in the English version. What do you mean by the phrase? We know what a conjugal relationship is and you're using the phrase “similar to a conjugal relationship”. I wonder what you mean by it. To me the meaning is very unclear. I have no clue as to what that means.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Because this bill can be considered as an omnibus bill by nature, since it reads, at section 2— A definition already exists. It says: “Notwithstanding any Act of Parliament, where, in an Act of Parliament, the term “spouse”—”. The term “spouse” cannot be defined expressly because it refers to the definition that can be found in 70 acts. This bill says: “—means or includes a person cohabiting for a specified period of time with a person of the opposite sex in a relationship similar to a conjugal relationship, the term also means or includes, as the case may be, a person who cohabits with a person of the same sex.”

In fact, they are common law spouses. I am talking here of same sex common law spouses, but the reason why we cannot refer to a precise definition is that, in every legislation, the way they were adopted by the legislator, those definitions may vary. You realize that there is an omnibus intent in the bill which is being submitted to you.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm really concerned about this, because it seems to me that we would have to decide whether two people who are cohabiting are engaging in sex in order to qualify for the things that you're proposing, and I really don't know whether the police would need a warrant to enter your house to check that. I don't want to be funny about this, but I think it's an impossible situation. I think the definitions that you've used here and what you're trying to do are almost impossible to implement.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's a comment which I find heartwarming, because it reveals a very liberal mind-set which is much to your credit. However, what is sure, is that the definition of "spouse" in the current legislation is based on three criteria: cohabitation, common perception, which means that they are perceived as spouses in the immediate neighbourhood, and mutual assistance. Are they assisting each other in various circumstances of life? That's generally how we describe spouses in the current state of the law.

You're right in saying that it's not a matter of knowing who goes to bed with whom. From the moment when two people deliberately describe themselves as spouses and claim the exercise of a right, we should conclude that they want to enjoy the same rights to receive or claim benefits as any couple.

• 1030

I remind you that this bill is one of fairness. There are homosexual couples who have been living together for 20, for 30 years or for 6 years, who have been paying taxes, who are consumers and citizens, but who don't have the same rights as ordinary couples. So it's a bill of redress.

You are right to be concerned. Since those who receive benefits will have to claim the exercise of that right, the legislator will not have to check who is going to bed with whom and who is enjoying such right. The applicant will have to go himself through the procedure.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Of course we don't know that with heterosexual couples either. There may be heterosexual couples who have a marriage certificate who don't have sex. We don't know and we don't care. I understand that part of it.

I'm very puzzled, Madam Chairman, but I'm going to drop the questions. I think we have a problem here.

The Chair: Thank you. Next? No?

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you. May I stay here to hear the next witness?

[English]

The Chair: Absolutely.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm not saying that it will be the même speech.

The Chair: I was just thinking to myself that we could not juxtapose two more interesting bills. Was this some devious plan on your part?

Mr. Ken Epp: Maybe we should have them at the table at the same time and let them debate. That would be more fun.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Mr. Epp, that's not our purpose here.

Welcome, Tom.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of the committee, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to explain the reasoning behind my Bill C-225 and to argue for it to be chosen as votable.

The bill deals with the institution we call marriage. It is very short and contains only four very brief sections.

What is its purpose? It is to enshrine in statute that a marriage is valid only when it is a marriage between one unmarried man and one unmarried woman. Put another way, it defines in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female. In other words, neither multiple parties nor parties of the same sex may get married.

Is this subject matter federal in nature? Yes. The Constitution Act of 1867, formerly known as the British North America Act, in sections 91 and 92, sets out the classes of subject under federal and provincial jurisdiction. Section 91.26, which is the federal side, provides that the Parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction over marriage and divorce.

We have enacted a Divorce Act, and yes indeed, we have a Marriage Act, and I've sent around a copy. It has only three sections, as you can see. It does not define marriage because, until recently, everyone understood it to mean exactly what my Bill C-225 says it is.

Both Allan Rock and Anne McLellan, immediate past and current justice ministers, have confirmed in writing, and I quote:

The definition of marriage in federal law is not in a statute passed by Parliament, but found in what is called the federal common law, dating from an 1866 British case, Hyde and Hyde v. Woodmansee. This case has been applied consistently in Canada and states that no marriage can exist between two persons of the same sex, or between multiple wives or husbands. Thus, the definition of marriage is already clear in law in Canada as the union of two persons of the opposite sex.

That's what the justice ministers have said in writing.

What is important to note in this statement is that the definition of marriage is to be found in federal common law. Common law is, plain and simple, judge-made law. Therefore, it can be changed at any time by judges. There is no statute to guide or restrain judges.

Second, it is not true to say that the definition of marriage is clear in law in Canada. Now why do I say that? Because there are numerous continuing challenges in our courts to this definition, both by those who wish same-sex unions to be recognized as marriages and by those whose religious beliefs permit multiple wives or husbands.

One case will illustrate my point. The case is Layland and Beaulne v. the Ontario Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Attorney General of Canada and others. In this case, which was decided by three judges in Ontario in the divisional court, two male homosexuals sued to force the Province of Ontario to issue them a licence to marry.

• 1035

Now, if, as the justice ministers have said, the definition of marriage is already clear in law, you would have expected a unanimous decision against the applicants. In fact, the decision was 2 to 1.

I would like to read you a brief excerpt from the dissenting judgment. I quote:

I am of the view that restricting marriages to heterosexual couples infringes and violates the Applicants' section 15(1) Charter rights and that such violation cannot be justified under section 1 of the Charter. I also agree with the position of the Church [the Metropolitan Community Church of Ottawa] that there is no common law prohibition against same sex marriages in Canada.

Now, if the law is clear, as the justice ministers have contended, then this judge should never have made these findings in the dissenting judgment. The fact is, in the next such application the dissenting judge could find an ally, and the next decision could be 2 to 1 in the opposite direction.

This is entirely possible and predictable, since the current law is judge-made common law. We can see the trend developing clearly in such decisions as Vriend and Rosenberg.

If the law is to be clear, as the justice minister would have us believe it is, it must be confirmed in a statutory form so that a judge cannot draw the conclusions drawn by the dissenting judge in Layland.

I would argue that we must preserve the definition of marriage as we have always known it, which is indeed the definition apparently espoused and affirmed by the Government of Canada. It is vital that Parliament speak on this matter.

Indeed, my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, in his debate on Monday, June 8, made the following comments, with which I completely agree. I quote:

It is true that we would like the members of this House to make known their views on recognition of same sex spouses.

To be sure, a debate must take place. Reformers are right when they say it is unacceptable in a democracy to leave it to judges to make the decisions.

My colleague is right in saying that this debate should be held in the House. We must vote on an important matter such as this.

Bill C-225 is the vehicle to have this debate and this vote. The subject matter is federal; the subject matter is timely; the subject matter is important; the subject matter has not been previously dealt with in legislation; and the subject matter confirms millennia-old tenets that are being challenged in the courts, with some judges rejecting what the justice minister believes, erroneously, is clear in law.

Parliamentarians are presenting petitions almost daily, calling upon us to pass this bill. The United States government has come to the defence of marriage, and confirmed in statute what Bill C-225 attempts to codify. There was no fear or hesitancy in the United States.

I am ready to debate this subject matter. I'm sure my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is ready to debate this matter. No one should fear debating it.

Please deem this bill votable so that the representatives of the people can openly debate this matter and provide legislative foundations for the federal common law. Give us the opportunity to ensure, in statute, that the definition of marriage is clear and unequivocal.

Thank you.

The Chair: Tom, I have a question. If you and the member here with you believe it should be debated, what would be your reaction if it failed?

Mr. Tom Wappel: Hey, this is a democracy.

The Chair: But you just said it's in common law, and there's all this risk and all this lack of knowledge on something to base a definition on. If it were debated in the House and it failed, what would you do next?

Mr. Tom Wappel: Well, that's a matter for the elected representatives. If the elected representatives of the people decide that the definition of marriage should be other than what it currently is supposed to be, that's a decision for us. It's not a decision for unelected judges.

The Chair: Okay. I'm just concerned that it would make it even more of a vacuum.

Any questions around the table?

Mr. Ken Epp: Tom, I have a bit of a problem, because in my own office, where I live in Alberta, I have absolutely no demand for doing what Mr. Ménard would like to do and I get a lot of calls asking for what you would want to do, and yet somehow I see these two bills as being similar; it's just that they're on opposite sides of the fence.

• 1040

When I say I want to make one votable and the other not, and if I have to choose between the two, how could I defend the difference?

Mr. Tom Wappel: They're not similar, because one deals with the definition of marriage and the other one talks about treating same-sex relations in the same way as some other relationships—for example, common law relationships. The law, which initially dealt with only married people—let's take the Income Tax Act, for example—eventually expanded itself to include not only people who were married but also people who were living common law.

The argument, of course, can be made—and has been made successfully—that if it has been expanded to people who are living common law, then it should be expanded to people who are living “common law” even if they are of the same sex.

Marriage has never been dealt with because it's never been challenged up until the last few years. We know it's being challenged, and we've seen it being challenged in the courts. Notwithstanding the assurances of the justice minister, these challenges will continue.

If you think you're going to get calls now, wait until a judge of some court decides to change the definition of marriage and be accountable to no one.

Mr. Ken Epp: I don't know how to word this. Let me think a bit.

May I come back a little later?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I would point out as well that Monsieur Ménard had a very similar motion, although not identical, in the last parliament, which was voted on in September of 1996, I believe. The intent was the same, and it was resoundingly defeated. But no one has talked about the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act.

Indeed, there was a time when people were trying to pretend it wasn't federal jurisdiction in order to get off the hook, if I can put it that way. It's only as a result of pushing, if I can put it that way, that I was able to get in writing from the ministers that it's clearly federal.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have one more question right now. As a parliamentarian and as a lawyer, you can answer this question for me, I think, because I'm not a lawyer.

We have this thing called common law, which is basically simply the codification of all of the precedents in court. So really, that does form part of the set of rules that govern us.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Absolutely.

Mr. Ken Epp: And it's something that has happened over the centuries.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Correct.

Mr. Ken Epp: Now, you're proposing in this particular instance that you're going to take something out of the common law and codify it specifically.

Am I correct there?

Mr. Tom Wappel: That's absolutely correct. Every time we pass a statute, that's what we're doing.

Mr. Ken Epp: That's what we're doing, yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Precisely. Every statute codifies something and takes it out of the common law unless it's something completely new that the common law could not have contemplated, such as satellite television or something like that.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes.

I think I'm finished. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: In your opinion, if the House wanted, it could vote for both of your bills.

Mr. Tom Wappel: It would be an interesting intellectual argument, but I think it's at least possible.

The Chair: It's possible.

Bill, did you have a question? Great ponderings? Nothing?

Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Blaikie has married many people.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Ken Epp: Oh-oh; I have another question.

The Chair: “Oh-oh”?

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, oh-oh. I almost forgot.

Again, looking at your bill, it says you're seeking to define marriage as the union of a single man and a single woman. Now, there are two meanings for the word “single”. One is “one”, as opposed to two or three. The other is “single”, as opposed to married. Which one do you mean here?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Both, we hope.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Tom Wappel: Both. There have been challenges in the courts of British Columbia where people were attempting to marry multiple parties. So far that's been fended off, but the argument was that it's an infringement of religious rights, because in their religion they believe in multiple partners. That's contrary to the charter, because you're breaching their fundamental religious rights.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It sounds like “unite the right” stuff.

Mr. Tom Wappel: That's coming too; make no mistake about it.

That also has tax implications, of course, because then you can deduct three or four spouses.

Mr. Ken Epp: Hey, there's an idea!

Tom, which “single” did you have in mind when you were writing this?

Mr. Tom Wappel: It was single in the sense that they were not married and that it was an individual.

Mr. Ken Epp: Oh, so it was both.

The Chair: Yes, of course it's both. Tom is a complex thinker.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

This is fascinating stuff.

• 1045

The Chair: All right. Are there any more questions?

Thank you.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

The Chair: I have a few questions. If the House doesn't sit next week— We have heard half the presentations. Will we hear the second half when we come back in September?

The Clerk of the Committee: Unless you want to come specifically for that—

The Chair: Is anybody volunteering? No.

What we could agree to do in September is, if there's any fogginess in our recollections—and if I might be so bold, these have been fairly clear presentations and I don't think we're going to want to revisit them—we can reserve the right to call someone back and ask them a few questions before we make our decisions.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: No.

The Chair: No?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I don't think we need to do that.

The Chair: I don't think we do, either.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: We're not sort of mentally disabled that we can't remember.

The Chair: The only thing I'm concerned about, Bill, is that we may not be the same group. Parties reconstruct their committee memberships—but not right away, so we should be all right.

Mr. Ken Epp: Incredibly, Madam Chair, whether the House sits or not, I'm going to be here next week.

The Chair: That's incredible.

Mr. Ken Epp: That is incredible. I have my flights booked, my hotel is booked, I have work to do, and I simply regret the lack of ability to plan on anyone else's part. So I'm going to be here.

I don't know if the other members will be here or nearby, or whether we have any hope at all of getting the witnesses in, but I would be one who would be willing to do it next week.

The Chair: Ken, stop before you keep going further.

Mr. Ken Epp: No, just a minute, Carolyn.

The Chair: We're never going to get—

Mr. Ken Epp: Think about this. If we do wait until the fall, it's exactly the issue you've mentioned; it may be different people, and you start all over again. Is that preferable to us completing our work?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: If we were contemplating this, then we should have cancelled this meeting today.

The Chair: They were scheduled. We don't know; there may be a great aberration this afternoon or tomorrow and we may be here next week.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I don't think we had any choice but to proceed with the meeting today, because there's never any guarantee that the House is going to shut down when the rumour—

The Chair: Our procedure or not is dictated by standing orders. We have no choice on these matters.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, let's tentatively plan, then, on finishing this work next week—

The Chair: No.

Mr. Ken Epp: —subject to cancellation if the House isn't sitting.

The Chair: Oh, fine. If the House isn't sitting, we cancel. No problem.

Mr. Ken Epp: She was saying no before I finished my sentence.

The Chair: It's a natural reaction.

Mr. Ken Epp: I know.

The Chair: Yes, Bill.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I think it would be helpful if, when material is being prepared for us prior to consideration of these bills, some research could be done as to whether or not these matters that are being brought before us have been dealt with by the House in some way or another recently.

For instance, we could have before us that Mr. Ménard had a similar motion in the last Parliament and it was votable and it was defeated. We could have before us the fact—Jake provided it to us, not in his best interest, but nevertheless—

Mr. Ken Epp: My own colleague, and I just backed him into a corner, didn't I?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —that there had been amendments. But we won't always know that. People won't always tell us.

Maybe members themselves— we can't stop them from coming and making a pitch, I guess, but it's a waste of our time to have Mr. Hoeppner go on and on when it's as clear as the nose on all our faces that this was dealt with in the House only two months ago. So what's the point?

The Chair: The other thing is, we could exercise a little self-discipline when one has come, out of courtesy, because it was maybe put in six months ago; we listen to the presentations but don't ask questions.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes.

The Chair: Jamie says it's doable, depending on time limits. What he does do is give you a quick evaluation, saying none of them are against the charter.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That could also be something we could be apprised of.

The Chair: Again, Jamie may be in an awkward position, because in his judgment it may be, well, we dealt with something similar to this. I don't want to get into a situation where we're arguing with him.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: He can let us know what has been dealt with and we can judge whether or not it's similar enough to disqualify the matter as a votable item or not.

The Chair: Okay. Is that all right? But that's only under the proviso that we don't get into a debate with Jamie, ever.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Oh, no.

The Chair: He gives his opinion and we all say thank you very much.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I don't want to debate with Jamie at all.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have a very, very small technical point on the sheet from the library. Wilfert is misspelled.

The Chair: Yes, I saw that. Sometimes he's called Byron, which gets very exciting, too.

Mr. Ken Epp: People's names are important to them, I understand.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I want to ask you if you know what happened to the recommendations which were adopted by us in December concerning those amendments to our procedure and which the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs also approved. I don't know where it went. Do you happen to know why those amendments have not yet been implemented?

• 1050

[English]

The Chair: The difficulty is the House leader, Mr. Boudria, agrees with them. They've been through procedures. It's not the changes to the criteria; that's a fairly internal matter and we just do it through notification. The actual changes to the way the system is run have been approved. With the legislative agenda, he just hasn't filed them in the House because obviously they aren't a huge priority.

My job in the fall will be to make sure they're filed in September or October.

He wants to reopen the electronic voting. I think I'll start negotiating.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: We got that same type of answer in February, and we are now in June.

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: What steps have been taken between February and June to make some progress in that respect. What has been done? Nothing?

[English]

The Chair: Maybe someone should stand up and ask him in the House.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Could we give him the mandate to—

[English]

The Chair: Why don't you ask him in the House?

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm just encouraged. I'm going to.

The Chair: That's fine.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Why do we have to go through the question period in the House in order to get an answer to such a simple question? The work has been done. Everyone agreed. Why don't they implement them? What are they waiting for?

[English]

The Chair: I just gave you the answer I got.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Which supreme force prevents them to implement those recommendations?

[English]

The Chair: We both chaired when this report was available. We both received the same answer. We both have to try a little harder.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Which supreme force prevents them to follow up things on which we all agreed?

[English]

The Chair: It's the supreme force of the House leader, the government.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I think it's not a supreme force; it's a supreme something else. If it were force it would be implemented.

The Chair: All right, we will do this.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It has been brought before the other House leaders for a decision, so it's still in the government's court.

The Chair: It's still in Boudria's bailiwick. He wants to reopen electronic voting, so maybe we'll negotiate. Ontario has been very much against it.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.