SPRI Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 7, 1997

• 1102

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des- Prairies, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. Continuing with the business at hand, Mr. Hoeppner will be the first up to talk to us about his private member's bill, Bill C-223.

You have five minutes to state your case, following which there will be a five-minute discussion period. We will continue in this manner until 1 p.m. Please proceed, Mr. Hoeppner.

[English]

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here this morning to lobby in support of my bill, C-223. I've had a handout passed around that gives you a kind of outline of the private member's bill.

The reason I introduced this bill or drew up this bill is that I felt that it would be a very important bill to Canadian homeowners, because of not just the social or economic benefits but also the political benefits.

As you know, as a Reformer I always maintain that the closer the government is to where it is delivered, the more efficient and effective it is. When you look at strong nations, strong countries, strong communities, it's usually the strength of the family that is the main building block in that area. I just want to give you a very prime example of where this was not followed. I think you've heard me speak on this issue in the House before.

In the Soviet Union, when the communists took over, they felt that the state could provide better leadership and it could probably rear children better than the family itself, so they targeted their efforts toward dissolving the family unit and probably having the state more or less raise the families. We know what happened. It fell apart; it didn't work, and by 1937 Stalin passed some of the toughest divorce laws we've ever seen.

I maintain that the tax breaks should be targeted to the lower-income families, when there are tax breaks. I feel this bill will do that, that it will give first-time homeowners, who are on the lower income scale, a tax break, with them being allowed to deduct the interest on the first $100,000 of mortgage money.

• 1105

I know this bill was introduced once before, in 1979, by the then-Conservative government. It never came into legislation. It was designed a little differently. It would have worked more on tax credits. My research showed that was probably not the best way to go with this type of tax break; it would be better to do it as an income tax deduction rather than as a credit or property tax rebate.

Also from the U.S. experience, if we look at the bill that has been in force there for approximately 40 years, they had it open-ended. Every homeowner had this tax break of deducting mortgage interest. This seemed to give higher-income families bigger tax breaks, which I don't think this government can afford, or probably the necessity of giving tax relief.

Also, we've seen an experience in the late 1970s and early 1980s when interest rates went through the roof. They forced a lot of small business and homeowners into bankruptcy. This type of bill would give you an insurance policy. If interest rates ever went to that level, the lower-income families who owned homes or had mortgaged their homes would get a bigger tax break. It would level the impact on the high cost of borrowing and it would be very beneficial for these families in maintaining their homes instead of declaring bankruptcy.

I know from experience in the late 1970s and early 1980s this also happened in a lot of small businesses, especially in the farming community, where they do not owe mortgages on their homes but they owe mortgages on their farms, which encompass their homes. This is something government will have to look at sooner or later, again to make sure there is some protection for this type of investment.

I would like to see this bill votable because I'm very sure the majority of members, if they go back to their constituencies and talk about this private member's bill, will get a lot of pressure to support it. I have had phone calls from all across Manitoba. I've had some other people interested in this legislation, wondering what some of the bylaws were. If this House feels an amendment could be made to improve the bill, I would not object to that. I appreciate your time and hope I can have this bill designated votable in the House of Commons.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Obviously the government's first reaction to it would be lost revenue. Do you have any estimates of how many billions of dollars in lost revenue you would have as a result of that bill?

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: I cannot tell you exactly what it would do to the Canadian government's loss of revenue, because I don't know what homeowners would be in the passage of this bill. In the States it's humongous, I would say. It's something like $30 billion a year they use in tax deductions from interest. But then, there it is all homeowners and higher-income families, who have bigger mortgages and use it especially as a tax break; and that's what I was trying to avoid.

I think you will know that if any young couple or first-time homeowner has $4,000 or $5,000 of a tax break, that money will not be totally lost revenue to the government, because these people usually need to spend it on something else, such as furniture or vehicles. A lot of that tax will be recouped, plus it will increase the building trades. More homes will be built, which will have a certain amount of taxes. I think it actually could be revenue-neutral. It probably could be an increase in revenue, rather than a decrease, for government as far as taxation is concerned. But I'm very convinced the social fabric of the family would benefit tremendously by their owning their own home and being able to raise their children in that type of atmosphere.

• 1110

Mr. Norman Doyle: That will put more disposable income in the pockets of—

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Of the consumers, yes.

Not having the numbers that would be eligible for this, I haven't been able to double-check that, but in the U.S. it is quite a bit, because everybody qualifies.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): I need some advice not from Mr. Hoeppner but maybe from our researcher here.

If there is a relatively major tax expenditure involved in this, is this legitimate as private members' business? Can we approve it on that ground?

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): That is a question I was actually making a note to myself to check on. My understanding is that it used to be that you needed a royal recommendation if you were imposing a tax or if you were proposing an expenditure from the public treasury. That was recently changed. Instead of having to have that royal recommendation at the time of introduction, it is now required before third reading.

There have been various Speaker's rulings in the House and the Senate regarding bills that proposed to change the deductibility or increase the opportunity for deductions. My recollection is that these are permitted as private members' bills. I will have to check on that, and I will get back to the committee on that.

Mr. Ken Epp: Because actually Mr. Hoeppner's bill isn't the only one we've seen so far—

Mr. James Robertson: No.

Mr. Ken Epp:—that has some of those implications.

Mr. James Robertson: The bill does not propose an increase in taxes, which definitely would require a royal recommendation. It is changing the tax break so it is the other way. So I will check on that and get back to the committee.

Mr. Ken Epp: But a tax break does constitute what we call a government tax expenditure.

I would like to ask you a question, Mr. Hoeppner. In terms of interest across the country, have you had any number of people, either in your riding or in other parts of the country, propose to you that you should do this? Are they demanding it? Are they asking for it, or is this just a whim of your own?

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: I have had feedback on a tax break not just for low-income homeowners but also on farm financing. What I have been asked to look into are a few other ways of introducing tax breaks if possible. I thought I would tackle this one first because this type of tax break or law has been effective in the United States, I think, for 40 years, and they say, since we are already being highly taxed, why should we not at least get that break in our family units? This is not only because of the tax break, but also housing is becoming very short and when this happens rentals increase, so there is no competition for that. So this is another way of stimulating the building trade probably, plus giving some benefits to the lower-income families.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hoeppner, for your presentation.

[Translation]

That concludes the first ten-minute session.

[English]

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Welcome, Mr. Patry. You have five minutes to introduce your bill. This will be followed by a five-minute question period.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollar, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, let me first of all congratulate you on your appointment to the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business.

Having been a member of this subcommittee for over a year, I understand the task ahead of you and I wish you all good luck.

[English]

Bill C-202, which is before you, is very simple but also very important. It is a bill to amend the Canadian Health Act in order to insert into it the words “and nutrition services”. I point out that the Canadian Health Act lists insured health services but that nutrition services are not included in that list.

[Translation]

Dietetic programs were first offered by the University of Toronto in 1902. The Toronto Hospital for Sick Children was the first to hire a professional dietician in 1908.

[English]

In Canada there are two professional orders of dietitians, one in Ontario and one in Quebec. The other provinces and territories all have associations recognized by their respective provinces and territories. We must therefore conclude that these persons' profession is recognized by their provinces and territories but not by their country.

• 1115

My purpose today is not to convince you of the very great value of the services provided by this group of professionals. We are all convinced of that value, as we are familiar with nutrition services for expectant mothers, pre-schoolers, young people who are becoming increasingly obese, or adults with diabetes or heart disease, for example.

[Translation]

In passing, as a doctor, I would like to remind you that dietary habits and lack of physical activity are second only to smoking among those non-genetic factors which affect mortality rates.

[English]

In 1992, at the international conference on nutrition held in Rome, the participating countries, including Canada, endorsed the world declaration on nutrition and committed themselves to develop national nutrition plans. Health Canada then set up a joint standing committee in order to develop a national nutrition plan. For your information I have included a document entitled “Nutrition for Heath: an Agenda for Action”, which is the result of this committee's work.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, Canada has recognized the highly important role of dietitians by asking them to participate in international meetings on Canada's behalf and to sit on national committees. Implicitly, Canada recognizes dietitians in its responsibility toward first nations. In practice, however, the dietitians, whose national association has over 5,000 members, over 90% of whom are women, is not recognized by the Canada Health Act. This bill is before you in order to remedy that shortcoming.

I have one last comment. I have included for you a copy of the criteria to guide your selection. I know that Bill C-202 meets all the requirements for being a votable item.

Thank you. Merci.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry. Are they any questions? Mr. Epp.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Have you any idea of the costs this would bring to our health care system?

Mr. Bernard Patry: There are no costs at all. It's mainly symbolic, in that most of the time these dietitians are covered under provincial plans. There are associations across the country, and most of them are insured with the provincial government. It's a question of symbolism.

The only costs that could incur... It's not a cost for the government; it's a cost for insurance companies. Some insurance companies, any private insurance company, could tell a member insured federally that it's not included in the Canada Health Act and it will not provide that service, but there's no cost for the government itself.

Mr. Ken Epp: I question that. Your bill says that the definition of insured health services in section 2 is replaced by...and you're adding “and nutrition services”. Therefore, if it's going to be included in the Health Act it seems to me that it would become an obligation to all provinces to provide it via health care. As you know, the Liberals are trying to increase the funding for health care, and this would eat into the amount required there.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Epp, it's already with all provincial governments. They are services that are insured through the provinces. They're all through the provinces. I have letters from each association in the country, who support the bill. There is no increase of money for the federal government.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. I'll drop that. From the wording of the bill, I'm not convinced of that.

The Chairman: Mrs. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I would like to make a comment on it, if I might, and maybe Dr. Patry could assist me. In my own riding I had a hospital declare that they would no longer cover diabetic counselling. They were charging fees to people coming in. For people who couldn't afford it, they would book the children into the hospital at $1,000 a day and do it that way. It is covered if they're admitted to the hospital. It's not covered as an out-patient service, except by private insurance.

The long-term saving to the health system is amazing. Instead of booking kids in at $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 for a three-day stay, the parents bring them for three sessions, their insulin is monitored, their diets are monitored, and the whole thing costs about $250. So instead of $3,000 under health care, it's about $250 under what Dr. Patry is recommending.

Is this how it works in Quebec? This is how it worked in my area, and I rode roughshod over the hospital and had it changed.

• 1120

Mr. Bernard Patry: It works quite similarly in Quebec. In Quebec, for sure, there is the hospital, but there is also the CLSC. That's the way it's included. If you as a doctor have a diabetic or a young child with some special problem, or a cardiac patient, you could send them to the CLSC and there is a dietitian who is hired through the CLSC. The CLSC is funded through the provincial government. The provincial government provides the services; the federal government, through the transfer payments, gives the money to the provinces. But there will be no increase for the federal government itself. It's just going to be up to the provincial governments to act.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): I was just thinking, trying to clear up this thing Ken mentioned. Maybe it's the case that it's covered by provincial governments now, but they're not required to cover it by the Canada Health Act. If this amendment were made, then they would not be able to withdraw the insurability of those services without violating the Canada Health Act. But if they're already covering it anyway, without being specifically instructed to do so by the Canada Health Act, then that's the sense in which there wouldn't be an additional cost. This would simply enshrine what the provinces are doing on their own as part of the Canada Health Act.

Mr. Ken Epp: I like Carolyn's explanation, that if it's put in it might even result in savings.

Mr. Norman Doyle: I just wanted one point clarified here. You say “nutritional services” means the preparation and supervision of food and diets in accordance with nutritional principles. Does it also cover the provision of the food itself? People who have cancer operations sometimes have to have special foods. Would it also mean provision of the food?

Mr. Bernard Patry: The provision of the food by a consultant, a dietitian, yes, because it doesn't mean for a special disease, it means nutrition overall. It's not just for one specific area. It's mainly for prevention, but it could also be curative. Certain persons with cancer cannot eat such-and-such a food. You need to go to see a dietitian. People who have a gastrectomy cannot have the same types of food because they no longer have a stomach, or they no longer have their intestines as a result of operations for cancer. Services could be rendered to these people.

Mr. Norman Doyle: So under this amendment they would be provided with the food as well?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Not the food itself. We're not supplying the food, just the consultation with a dietitian.

The Chairman: Mr. Patry, have a nice day.

Mr. Myron Thompson, please, on Bill C-215. We welcome you, Mr. Thompson. You have five minutes for your presentation.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for this opportunity.

I am pleased to make this presentation to the committee today on private member's bill C-215 in order to make it a votable item in the House of Commons. I would first like to explain why my bill warrants being put to a vote. Then I will prove this by answering all the following 11 criteria in the selection of votable items.

Bill C-215 calls for the elimination of section 227 of the Criminal Code. Section 227 now states—and it's a very short section—that no person can be convicted of a homicide if the death occurs more than a year and a day from the time of the offence. My private member's bill would change this in order to allow murder charges to be laid if the assault resulted in death, no matter how long it took for the victim to die or how long he was able to hang on to life.

The reason for this bill stems from the death of Marvin Ward in Manitoba. This gentleman never regained consciousness following a savage baseball bat attack in May 1995. It took Mr. Ward 14 months to pass away and the suspects could not be charged with homicide. It's apparent from cases such as this that section 227 of the Criminal Code doesn't recognize modern medicine's ability to keep people alive for extended periods of time. This private member's bill would allow for those to face murder charges if the assault results in death, no matter how long the victim is alive. There would be no more time limits.

• 1125

If my bill is passed, it will ultimately mean that Mr. Ward's death will not have been in vain and it will prove that we, as legislators, can effectively change a badly flawed section of the Criminal Code.

In terms of the criteria to make this bill votable in the House of Commons, this bill would be considered to have national significance since it affects the Criminal Code of Canada.

In no way is this bill contentious, controversial, trivial or insignificant. It will essentially change the section of the Criminal Code that is allowing murderers to go free.

In no way does this bill discriminate in favour of a certain region or area of the country, nor is it redundant with the laws that already exist or ineffective in its intent or defective in its drafting.

This bill doesn't affect the government's legislative agenda, nor is it a partisan issue. This topic has never appeared in the House of Commons before.

All in all, this bill would receive high priority since this cannot be dealt with through another procedure.

In my opinion, it is essential that this bill be dealt with now. Potentially, another murderer could go free because of this section of the Criminal Code.

Finally, in no way does this bill infringe upon the provincial legislation or the Canadian charter or federal-provincial relations.

I hope that all of you can see the importance of this bill in restoring the word “justice” to our system. We, as legislators, have the ability to change this flawed piece of legislation, and it must be done as soon as possible. Mr. Ward deserves to rest in peace knowing that his murderers are paying their dues and not walking free due to legislative loopholes.

In support of this bill, I have letters. I might add that it was very short notice. We were notified on Friday, but I did get hold of the people.

The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime have indicated to me that they are strongly in support of this bill. They have mentioned some cases. In one case they had met a woman during the 1991 CAVEAT safety net conference whose brother was beaten so badly that he ended up in a coma and two years later died. Rick Gall's family made the heart-breaking decision to remove his life support. The perpetrators of that crime served 18 months for assault.

Also, I have a letter from Victims of Violence in full support of this bill. It's time, they felt, for this section to be modernized.

I have a strong support document from the Canadian Police Association and chiefs of police. They indicate that this bill simply makes sense and it fits with the times because of modern medicine. They encourage approval and support for this bill.

That's my presentation. Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Are there any questions?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Just from the perspective of connecting legislation to cover important and broad issues, you've given us a couple of cases. Do you happen to know historically how many cases can be directly attributable to death from a beating or whatever?

Mr. Myron Thompson: I'm immediately aware of three. I've been told that there are more cases, but we've not had adequate time to do the research.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Let us say that someone was in hospital as the victim of a crime and they subsequently developed pancreatic cancer or something. The investigation required to connect the two would be fairly onerous and very expensive. Has that entered your deliberations at all?

Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes, it has. In fact, in the case of Mr. Ward I tried to ascertain as closely as possible if the death was attributable to the assault. The answer I was given was affirmative. It would take time to research that fully in other cases.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Just out of my own curiosity—it has nothing to do with the deliberation—what happened to the man who beat Mr. Ward with the baseball bat? He didn't just walk away?

Mr. Myron Thompson: No, they were charged with assault.

A voice: They got 18 months?

Mr. Myron Thompson: No, that was the first case I mentioned. That was the sentence for that particular group.

Once again, I was notified at noon on Friday that this was coming up. I was trying to get that information together. I had to be away yesterday, and suddenly I'm here this morning. That will all be put together. I appreciate having a quick opportunity to present this. I just didn't expect it to be this quick.

• 1130

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I just want to say I'm very pleased Mr. Thompson actually tried to make a case for why this should be votable, instead of why we should vote for it if it is votable, which is what most the members have done so far. I think this is a kind of example of what we should have more of for people who come and try to explain to us why it meets the criteria, why it would be a good idea to have it votable, rather than pretending that we're going to have a vote at the end of this meeting on the merits of what is being put forward.

The Chairman: Mr. Thompson, thank you very much.

Mr. Jim Abbott, on Bill C-204.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): I thank you for providing me with the opportunity to convince the panel of the importance of this private member's bill and the reasons why I believe it must be considered votable.

The legislation is significant in that it deals with the very emotional issue of spending public money in the area of arts and culture. This legislation is by no means focused on one region of the country. It's clearly a national concern, because these funds are provided across Canada for all kinds of events, monuments, films, festivals.

Statistics Canada recently released the amount of dollars spent on culture over the last three years. It's in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm confident few Canadians are aware of the sponsorship provided via their federal tax dollars for events even within their own communities.

Clearly this bill would not discriminate in any way against any particular area of the country. As we all know, these dollars are spent on grants for events from coast to coast to coast. Again, this is reinforced by the statistics mentioned previously.

This is a well-drafted piece of legislation. It would require little amendment to the present legislation. It simply calls for the acknowledgement at the opening of an event and in the literature associated with the event of the contribution by the federal government.

We're not talking about direct parliamentary appropriations like those for the CBC. However, it would apply to grants provided through agencies such as Telefilm, the National Film Board, the Canada Council, the Canada Information Office. It's intended that specific dollar amounts be advertised; for example, $11 million from Telefilm for The Sweet Hereafter, a current film that's coming to the screens, or $60,000 for a small francophone film in Quebec.

There is currently no government legislative agenda that would meet the requirements of my private member's bill. This legislation could not be addressed by simple House procedure. There's no partisanship involved in this legislation, because it comes under the realm of all political parties concerned about the spending of taxpayers' dollars. It certainly is not unconstitutional.

This legislation should generate lively, meaningful, non-partisan debate, because it covers a number of points. The first is acknowledgement that the contribution Canadians are making through their tax dollars is the same as acknowledging a commercial sponsor.

Second, many individuals and groups have complained about the amount of dollars spent on culture. Some say it's too little, others say it's too much. Perhaps some of these complaints are attributable to the fact that it is not clearly indicated when the federal government has, or for that matter has not, funded an event.

Third, to this end, I believe what is important is the potential for this to assist in the unity issue by raising the level of awareness of residents in the province of Quebec of the contribution the federal government is making to their culture. For example, the Just for Laughs festival is a highly successful annual event in Montreal, funded in part by the Canadian taxpayer. Why not advertise that fact? As mentioned, many short and feature films are funded by Telefilm, and they would not have been made without taxpayers' dollars. Why not advertise that fact? Give credit where credit is due, to the taxpayer. Raise the level of awareness in Quebec of the dollar contribution by all Canadians to their language and culture.

Fourth, because of the extended visibility of the grant as a result of this advertising, it will make the adjudicators, whether the Canada Council or Telefilm, more conscious of the reaction of Canadians to the choices they are making. If the choices are good and carry public opinion, they will receive positive applause. If not, Canadians will come down on them. From Canadians' perspective, they will be getting more value for their taxpayer dollars for what they deem to be reasonable and responsible in terms of grants.

I'm open to questions.

• 1135

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

Are there any questions?

Mr. Ken Epp: There is absolutely no government funding involved in this. It's simply a requirement that when anybody gets money from the government they put it up front, including it in their advertising. Is that what you mean?

Mr. Jim Abbott: That's fundamentally the purpose.

As I mentioned, people have applauded. I was at the Ottawa premiere of The Sweet Hereafter, and when “Telefilm” came up on the screen, everybody applauded. I think that's fine, but the figure of $11 million was unknown at that particular time. Would they have applauded more or less if it had been $11 million for the film?

In the case I suggest, and particularly with the unity issue, I think there is a public ignorance—and I don't use that word in the pejorative sense, I'm using it in its purest form—of the amount of contribution that is made by Canadian taxpayers to Quebec, particularly to the French-language culture on the part of Canadians to assist them. Telefilm is putting up in the neighbourhood of $30 million to $35 million this year, spread over approximately 50 different films. That is probably unknown to most Quebec residents. I think it would be a plus if they were aware of the contributions that Canadians are making.

The Chairman: On the votability,

[Translation]

are there any further questions?

Fine then. Thank you, Mr. Abbott, for your presentation.

Our next speaker is Ms Colleen Beaumier who will introduce her private member's bill, Bill C-208.

[English]

Welcome, Ms Beaumier. You have five minutes.

Ms Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): Thank you. I'm pleased to be here today to argue for the votability of my bill.

Bill C-208 is an act to amend the Access to Information Act. This bill would make it an indictable offence for anyone who destroys, mutilates, falsifies, alters or fails to keep required records. The offence would be punishable by up to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000.

First things first. You're all aware of your criteria. I have examined them and I believe it meets them all. It's non-partisan. It doesn't contravene provincial and territorial authority. It's not presently on the government agenda, and all parties in the last two sessions, as well as in this session, have discussed this situation numerous times. It is of national significance.

The media has called the destruction of public documents a public scandal. Most notably, these have come up in the Krever inquiry, the tainted blood scandal, and Somalia.

Most importantly, the information commissioner, John Grace, has repeatedly called for sanctions. He did this in his last two annual reports. One was released just two weeks ago.

Canadians believe that we operate up here on the Hill in a cloud of secrecy and that we cover up our mistakes, and it makes them very uncomfortable. When Canadians go to the ballot, although there may be a bit of cynicism, part of them trusts. They trust us. They trust us to be accountable and they trust us to have more transparency.

When there's a public inquiry and documents have been destroyed, this is a violation of public trust.

I would like to quote John Grace, the commissioner. He said:

When the government first enacted the Access to Information Act in 1983, it most likely didn't foresee public servants intentionally flouting the law. That omission, which seems naive in hindsight, makes vigilance against the exposure of improper record destruction the only existing deterrent.

This act will stop, or at least minimize, the power that government staff believe they have over our public records. Why shouldn't they believe that? There are presently no sanctions.

This act will strengthen democracy in Canada. It's about public trust, it's about accountability, and it's about credibility—your credibility and my credibility and that of all parliamentarians. I urge you to support this bill to help ensure that the public trust will not be violated again.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Beaumier. Mr. Epp.

• 1140

Mr. Ken Epp: Are you suggesting this would make shredding illegal?

Ms Colleen Beaumier: Public documents.

Mr. Ken Epp: Like the things that happened in the Somalia inquiry?

Ms Colleen Beaumier: Yes. Well, they are illegal currently. The only difference is that it wouldn't amend the act itself but it would make sanctions available. It would make it an indictable offence under the Criminal Code.

Mr. Ken Epp: How much public interest have you already experienced with this, with the little you've talked about it?

Ms Colleen Beaumier: A tremendous amount of public interest. Take the Krever inquiry. We have all sorts of infected Canadians out there who would like answers and I can't give them to them because the documents have been destroyed. Then we have the Somalia inquiry and the indication that there were destroyed documents in DND. I have had a lot personally, but probably everyone here has had calls from constituents who don't like feeling they have been snookered.

The Chairman: Do you propose any limit on the time for keeping the documents?

Ms Colleen Beaumier: This has nothing to do with changing... This is only to add to, to provide sanctions. It's not to alter what is already there. It's just to provide sanctions. Right now there's nothing, maybe just a slap on the wrist.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Beaumier.

Ms Colleen Beaumier: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I would now ask Mr. Paul Crête to speak to us about motion 69. Welcome, Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Good day.

The Chairman: In accordance with the rules, you have five minutes to state your case, following which there will be a five- minute period for questions and discussions.

Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you very much for having me.

The purpose of my motion is to initiate debate on the changes that are needed to reform the employment insurance system. Various questions raised during the election campaign are mentioned, namely should the Government of Canada lower employment insurance contributions and should it improve the benefit system for seasonal workers and workers who have only recently joined the labour market? These are issues of interest to all parties. This would be a good opportunity for them to explain their position, based on the election results.

These issues are the subject of an ongoing debate in Quebec and in Canada, particularly in the Atlantic provinces. It would be interesting if the House could state its position on this matter.

It also bears mentioning that in St. Andrews, the provincial premiers issued a unanimous statement which more or less echoes the position taken in this motion. I would hope that the House could debate this issue and that the motion could be designated a votable item, so that we can get a clear idea of where this Parliament stands on this matter.

I hope that my arguments can convince you to select this motion as a votable item.

The debate could help parties separate issues which are important from those which are less so. We need such a debate, all the more so given that the reform process has been under way for a year and half now. It could also help the government make some of the technical adjustments that need to be made. Some changes may require legislative amendments, whereas others could be more easily implemented, like we are already seeing with short work weeks. Legislation may need to be enacted to account for these adjustments in a year or a year and half's time. This preliminary debate could prove to be quite interesting.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête. You kept your presentation brief, that is only two minutes and 15 seconds long. Congratulations.

Are there any questions for Mr. Crête? Mr. Epp.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Is this not the subject of debate under other bills and motions that are or will be before the House?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: If I understood the question correctly, in the absence of any interpretation, no, this is not currently the subject of debate before the House. Lowering contributions and improving EI benefits actually became an issue during the election campaign.

• 1145

For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce called for a reduction in contributions. There were also calls for improving the benefits of seasonal workers was also raised. The previous Parliament did not debate this issue because it was busy with the larger issue of employment insurance reform. Presenting a specific motion was not, therefore, perhaps as relevant at the time. Here the emphasis is more on adjustments. Everyone acknowledges the need for reform, although some components of the process are questionable, in my opinion and in the opinion of others. Therefore, it would be interesting to have an informed debate on this subject.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Are there any questions? No?

[English]

We are ahead of time.

• 1146

• 1151

The Chairman: Welcome, Mr. Johnston. You have five minutes for the presentation of your motion. Then we will have questions for maybe five more minutes. We are ahead of time in the schedule.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): That's a good way to be. It's a good thing I came early.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, committee.

My motion is that, in the opinion of this House, the government should not reinstate the wage schedules under the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, but allow the provincial wages and hours of work to prevail in the provinces.

This legislation was first passed in 1935, at the height of the Great Depression, and it has really never been enforced since 1983. Of course it was reinstated very recently by the Minister of Labour.

We don't think it's fair or reasonable, particularly in seasonal work, to restrict hours of work to eight hours a day, five days a week, because there are, particularly in construction and seasonal work, lots of areas where—on camp jobs, for instance—they would like to work ten-hour days for four days, or whatever would bring them to their 40 hours, and then have a few days off.

Without taking up a whole lot of the committee's time, I think we would be well advised not to reinstitute this practice, and that is what my motion speaks to. It has been estimated that this is going to add another 5% onto construction costs, this at a time when the federal government is looking at all of its costs. I think we should be dealing with the lowest tender, and this would have a tendency to increase the costs of all tenders.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any questions? Yes, Mr. Epp.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: I need further explanation here, Mr. Johnston. You are bringing out a motion that says a wage schedule should not be enacted, it should be ignored, it should be repealed. I'm just questioning whether your bill lacks clarity in what its actual intent is.

• 1155

Mr. Dale Johnston: Possibly.

In explanation, the Minister of Labour has reinstated the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which is a very old bill. He's reintroduced it. We just don't think that's necessary. We think that, rather than trying to dictate this by the federal government right across Canada, in the provinces this pertains to it should be a provincial matter. The hours of work and the rates of pay in those provinces should prevail.

Mr. Ken Epp: But you're not answering my question. My question is, is there an act? You said something about there being an act that was first instituted away back in—

Mr. Dale Johnston: In 1935.

Mr. Ken Epp:—in 1935, before I was born, and it stopped being enforced in 1983 but it's still on the books.

Mr. Dale Johnston: It is, and now the Minister of Labour would like to reinstate this.

Mr. Ken Epp: Wouldn't you have been better off to have a motion that simply says to repeal it?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Perhaps.

Mr. Ken Epp: You can't change it here now, but just simply to say that there's an act in place and the minister should not reinstate it is vague to me.

I think I agree with the intent of your bill. Now you want us not just to talk about it but actually to stand up and vote on it?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes, I do.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any further questions?

[English]

Monsieur Johnston, thank you very much for your presentation.

Monsieur Godin.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you—and you're still ahead of schedule.

The Chairman: Ahead of schedule, yes. You have contributed to our—

Mr. Dale Johnston: Problem?

The Chairman: No, not the problem. Our success.

• 1158

• 1201

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will now return to the business at hand.

[English]

Colleagues, we're going to resume our hearing.

[Translation]

We are pleased to welcome Mr. Yvon Godin of New Brunswick who will be talking to us about his draft motion for five minutes. A five-minute question period will follow. Welcome, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): First off, I would like to thank you for having me here today to introduce my motion concerning toy labelling. Before I get into the reasons why this motion complies with the criteria that apply to votable items, allow me to describe it briefly for you.

The purpose of this motion is to protect our children from the chemical agents found in certain toys.

My motion calls upon the government to enact legislation requiring toy manufacturers to label toys containing phthalates in order to allow parents to make an informed decision when buying products for their children. Phthalates are chemical agents added to plastics to make them more supple. These agents are present in plastic cutlery, in cellophane paper and in children's toys.

I am calling on the government to take action particularly where plastic toys are concerned because studies have shown that these chemical agents can cause cancer, damage the liver and result in infertility. These same studies have also shown that children, particularly when they reach the critical development years, are more likely to experience these harmful side effects.

Even more alarming is the fact that ordinary toys such as pacifiers and other soft toys that children put in their mouth give off phthalates which enter children's systems, possibly leading to irreversible damage.

Studies in Europe are a little more advanced than those that have been conducted here in Canada. We do know, however, that new European studies have prompted Denmark and other European countries to pull many toys off store shelves. Denmark has also decided to prohibit the use of phthalates not only in toys, but in all other plastic materials. It should be noted that these studies have been conducted only on rats and that human trials are still in the initial stages.

Considering that these countries, in light of new data, have determined that these toys and plastics should be taken off the market, it is very important that we at least obtain the necessary information so that parents can make informed toy purchasing decisions. It is a matter of protecting our children and a matter of consumer rights. Parents in Canada who are concerned about this issue currently have no way of knowing if the toys they are buying contain these chemical agents.

As lawmakers, we have a duty to address these issues which have yet to be debated in Parliament, all the more so in that they affect the safety, interests and health of our youth. It's also a matter of raising the awareness of our constituents.

Yesterday, I met with a group of parents who were unaware of the potential effects of phthalates. This is a very serious situation, considering that all young children play with plastic toys that they put in their mouth. A public debate in the House will help to raise the awareness of many Canadians.

This motion is all the more important in that it is proactive and designed to prevent long-term health problems. Prevention is important not only because it will spare our young people the suffering associated with cancer and infertility, but also because it will impact on future health care costs. If we can act now to prevent costly illnesses such as cancer, our already overtaxed health care system will surely benefit.

• 1205

This motion should be designated a votable item because it complies with the criteria set out by the committee. It focuses on an interesting subject which has not yet been debated in the House and will not be debated elsewhere and it is non-partisan besides. I would even venture to say that protecting our children is probably one of the least partisan issues around.

Furthermore, this motion does not run counter to the Constitution or to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It concerns a field of federal jurisdiction, namely the administration of toxic substances monitored by Health Canada.

I am not asking us to reinvent the wheel. Many relevant studies have been conducted abroad. I'm merely asking that until Health Canada has had the time to review these new studies and act accordingly, we provide parents with the information they need to make an informed decision when they purchase toys.

I'm asking this committee to designate motion 85 a votable item in the House of Commons. It is important that members be able to voice their opinions on this question which directly affects the lives of our children. I repeat, Canadian parents have the right to make an informed decision when they purchase toys for their children.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Godin. Are there any questions? Mr. Blaikie.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm just curious as to whether this private member's motion arises out of any personal experience or contact with this issue. Is this something that constituents have brought to your attention? I have not been particularly aware of this plastic. I'm always worried about plastics, but is this particular substance something that there's been a lot of concern expressed about in your province or particularly in the Canadian context? I haven't run into it before, but maybe I just wasn't noticing.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There was a program on television and they were talking about it and explaining it. They were trying to make people aware of it. At that time I started to look at it and think about it. I'm a person who likes kids. The kids are the future of our country. To me, its unacceptable that we have a country that has already taken that type of position towards phthalates.

It has not been proven here in Canada. I am not saying we should reinvent the wheel, but other countries, like Denmark and the U.K., have done some studies on it. I say that what little we could do in the meantime is to put a label on it and make people aware of it. At the same time I believe that they should continue their studies. But if a country takes the opportunity to cancel or abandon it, it has to be important enough.

I had a feeling about it. Personally, I am a father of three kids, and I would never want to see my kids getting that kind of cancer.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any other questions?

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: How did you become aware of this?

Mr. Yvon Godin: There was a program on television.

The Chairman: Before you went into politics you had time to watch television.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I didn't have a television set in my office before, but now I have one.

Mr. Ken Epp: In your research in preparing this motion, you have here identified only one chemical compound, the phthalates. Are there not others, or are you aware of any others?

Mr. Yvon Godin: It's possible that there are others. Probably there are others, but this is one where Denmark has made a study on it and they took action on it. In this great world, if we have a country that went that far and made a decision on it, why should we wait to have kids dying of cancer or have kids being infertile from that before taking action?

Mr. Ken Epp: What percentage of Canadian toys are presumed to contain this compound?

Mr. Yvon Godin: All the soft ones. In every house with kids they have those. You just have to look at the milk bottles, all those sucettes, as we call them. All those are on every bottle, so they are in every house where you have kids.

• 1210

Mr. Ken Epp: Really. I didn't know about it.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That's why we should be aware of it.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any further questions for Mr. Godin?

Thank you very much, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you. My motion is in your hands.

The Chairman: I would now call upon Mrs. Diane St-Jacques to introduce motion 198.

Welcome, Mrs. St-Jacques. You have five minutes to present your motion to the committee, following which the members can ask questions. Please proceed.

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to present my motion. I felt compelled to table it because of Canada's pitiful track record in this area.

Our country ranks next to last among industrialized countries when it comes to the number of children living in poverty. Everyone agrees that the problem is very serious and that we must join efforts to combat poverty.

Recently, the Minister of Human Resources Development announced the new child benefit. I congratulate him and the government on this laudable initiative. Unfortunately, simply increasing the amount of the benefit will not be nearly enough to eradicate child poverty.

Even the most generous income support programs would not resolve the problem. Improving the lives of over 1.5 million children is no easy feat. The problem is far too widespread to be resolved as easily as that.

Moreover, simple tools are already available to us. There is one protection mechanism that could benefit low-income families that already receive child benefits. I am talking about the cost of living adjustment. When the 1996 budget was tabled, the government recognized the need to protect seniors' benefits.

To achieve its objective, it used the same principle that we are seeking to apply to the child benefit, namely cost of living indexing. The national child benefit has not been indexed for several years. In fact, inflation must reach 3 per cent before the indexing provision kicks in in the case of the national child benefit.

According to Statistics Canada, inflation has not exceeded 2 per cent in the past several years. The Canadian Council on Social Development estimates that $170 million less per year is being spent on the national child benefit.

This represents over the past four years a decline of 13 per cent in the overall benefits paid to low-income families. This means that these families have 13 per cent less to spend. If their purchasing power cannot keep pace with inflation, these people grow poorer with each passing year.

In 1984, the government spent $4.1 billion on child benefits. In 1994, it spent $5.1 billion. This represents an increase of 25 per cent whereas the cost of living has risen approximately 46 p. 100 over the same period. If the benefit level had been indexed to inflation since 1984, a total of $6 billion would have been invested in 1994.

The study that I'm asking the government to undertake is clearly of national interest. Poor children live in all regions and in all provinces. Poverty does not discriminate. The problem concerns all political parties and their representatives in the House. As members of Parliament, we have the opportunity and indeed the responsibility to do everything in our power to improve the lives of our children. As was done in the case of the seniors' benefit, I am asking that the government remove any impediment to indexing the national child benefit to the cost of living.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. St-Jacques. Are there any questions? Mr. Epp.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Do you understand English at all?

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: I will try.

Mr. Ken Epp: It will do you good. I wish I understood French.

I would like a little more background on what you're talking about. Are you talking about the child allowances specifically?

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: May I answer in French?

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes.

• 1215

[Translation]

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: The national child benefit must be indexed. It is no longer called the family allowance, but rather the child benefit.

[English]

Mr. Norman Doyle: Child tax credit.

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: No, not a tax credit.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Children's allowance.

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: I don't know the word in English.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Allowances; I guess what we used to refer to as “baby bonuses” or what have you.

[Translation]

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: Low-income families...

[English]

Mr. Norman Doyle: Family allowance.

[Translation]

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: ... receive benefits. These benefits should be indexed.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: But they receive those allowances from provincial governments, I believe, not from the federal government.

Mr. Norman Doyle: No, from the federal government.

Mr. Ken Epp: This is where I'm not really up to speed. I'm just wondering whether this again comes into that category of an expenditure bill, which is not appropriate for private members' business.

[Translation]

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: The national child benefit is a federal responsibility.

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to point out to Mr. Epp that this is a motion, not a bill, and because it's calling upon the government to do something there's no problem with government expenditures.

Mr. Ken Epp: Actually, the government is asked to study this, more or less, isn't it?

Mr. James Robertson: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Epp was concerned about the impact of this proposal on the budget and on expenditures. However, since this is a motion, there is no reason to be concerned.

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: I see.

The Chairman: If we were talking about a bill, then perhaps...

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: That's different. This is a motion to review...

The Chairman: Since it's a motion, there's no problem. Are there any further questions? Yes, Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I wish to talk about the substance of the motion, although I realize this is not the appropriate time for that. On reading your motion, I found it quite benign. You talk about a "review". We can review many things, but that doesn't change anything. If I understand correctly, you would like the child benefit to be increased to counter the problem of child poverty.

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: I would like the government to remove the requirement that inflation be at 3 per cent before the indexation provision kicks in given that in recent years, inflation has not risen above the 3 per cent level. As a result, child benefits have not been indexed. The requirement for indexation should be zero inflation, as was the case in 1996 for the seniors' benefit. That's what this motion calls for.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: However, when one reads the motion...

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: Is it not clear enough?

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: What I mean is...

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: Perhaps I could have been a little clearer, but the motion calls upon the government to do away with the minimum inflation requirement. In my last paragraph, I am asking that the minimum requirement be eliminated so that the benefit can be indexed each year to the cost of living. The purchasing power of low-income individuals is declining each year. That is the situation that we wish to rectify.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I understand.

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: Does that answer your question?

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: As an aside—and I don't want to keep sounding as if I'm lecturing, but this is for the committee—we've been listening to very specific bills. The wording is very precise and it has to be sent to the legislative body. They have to draft it. It has to come back. When members select a motion—and I think this member has done it intentionally—it leaves a lot more flexibility. What it says to the government is this is a subject we would like you to look at, and then you may generate a bill out of it, or we may come back with a very precise bill out of it. Motions are intentionally much vaguer than bills. The reason you appear to be vague is that we've just gone through about ten bills which were very specific.

I like the motion. I think it gives the government more flexibility. It gives the members time to have a really thorough debate in the House and pull the direction out of it.

Just for Madam's benefit, that's the big difference. I think members intentionally do that, and I'm giving you credit for intentionally doing that.

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are they any other questions? Thank you, Mrs. St-Jacques.

Mrs. Diane St-Jacques: I would like to thank everyone and wish them a pleasant day.

The Chairman: Thank you. We will now suspend the sitting pending the arrival of either Mr. Jay Hill, Mr. Grewal or Mr. Riis. We still have three members to hear from.

• 1219

• 1221

[English]

The Chairman: We'll resume our discussion.

Mr. Hill, you have five minutes to present your bill to us.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Did everybody receive the package that I put together? I brought a few extra ones in case it might be helpful in your deliberations afterwards.

The primary purpose of our justice system is to protect Canadian society. I believe this private member's bill will provide a sentencing option that will enhance the public's safety. My purpose here today is not to convince you of the merits of capital punishment. It is an emotional issue and I know that five short minutes is not enough to deal with all the specifics of the capital punishment debate. Rather, I want to focus on the decision you have to make on whether this bill meets the criteria for selection as a votable item.

First, due to the complexity of this issue and the strong feelings many people have toward this topic, I don't believe we can adequately address all of the issues in one hour of debate. In poll after poll the majority of Canadians have supported the reinstatement of capital punishment for particularly brutal first-degree murders. It is time for a full and open public debate where all of the pros and cons of the death penalty will be discussed. Until Parliament addresses this issue, the calls for reform will not go away.

It's been a long time since it was last put to a vote in Parliament, and not all votes to abolish have had significant majorities. For ten years there's not been a vote on the reinstatement of capital punishment. During the last session my private member's bill, Bill C-218, was not votable and it received only one hour of debate. An issue of this importance, with the level of public support this engenders, should be given a chance for a full debate and vote.

It's very clearly of national significance and is neither trivial nor insignificant. It cuts across all regions and all linguistic and cultural boundaries.

In poll after poll more than two-thirds of Canadians have supported the reinstatement of capital punishment. One of the latest polls showed that 69% of Canadians support a return of the death penalty. This was long after the Bernardo trial, and it wasn't even conducted in southern Ontario, but rather in the Atlantic provinces. I can tell you that support for reinstatement of capital punishment runs well over 80% in some of the rural western regions.

I understand that the principal reason for private members' bills is to bring forward significant legislation on behalf of Canadians that the government, for whatever reason, has either failed to do or does not intend to do.

There had been a slim margin of six votes when capital punishment was originally abolished. In the notes for the subcommittee I've provided a short history of capital punishment. You'll note that, while the last execution occurred in 1962, capital punishment wasn't abolished until 1976, and even then by a slim margin of only six votes. It's not on the government's legislative agenda.

This makes Bill C-212 a good candidate for votable status. Canadians are asking for it, and only through a debate and a vote can we address their concerns.

This is not party policy. Reform Party policy is to hold a national referendum. So were this to come to a vote in the House, I can assure all committee members that I do not expect to see uniform support or opposition from any party members, Reform or otherwise.

I believe that this should be a free vote, and I believe it will be, because the moral life and death issues cut across all party boundaries. In particular, I refer you to the Canadian Police Association resolution that supports a discretionary capital penalty.

That's all, Mr. Chairman.

• 1225

[Translation]

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

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: What motivates you to bring this forward now? It seems to me that this is just going to throw the whole country, and Parliament, into turmoil.

Mr. Jay Hill: I've made a commitment to the people of my riding, where polls have shown that support for reinstatement of capital punishment runs as high as 85%. I've made a commitment to them in two elections now, that as long as I'm their member of Parliament I'll continue to bring back this issue time and time again until it's properly dealt with.

Secondly, I believe there is a real need for the Canadian people to see that the justice system is responding to what they see as the inadequacies in the present system. One of the ways we can do that is by offering a form of capital punishment for some of the more heinous crimes that are committed. Since the previous government, at least, and I assume this government as well, has shown absolutely no indication of holding a national referendum, where every Canadian citizen would have to grapple with his or her own conscience before they marked their ballot on an issue of this importance, the second best thing, or the fall-back position, would be a true free vote, where members represent their constituents.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any further questions?

[English]

Thank you, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

The Chairman: I invite Mr. Grewal to come forward.

Mr. Grewal, you are invited to introduce your motion. You have five minutes to do so.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for offering me time for my motion 24 presentation.

I'm a proud Canadian, and I'm proud to be part of my chosen country, Canada. I shall be proud to be called Canadian, 100% Canadian, and not a sub-Canadian. That is disrespectful. I'm referred to as Indo-Canadian sometimes. When will I be able to say I'm a Canadian? When will my own sons and grandchildren be able to call themselves Canadians? When will we get rid of the stigma of hyphenated Canadians, Mr. Chairman?

During my election, three candidates for Surrey Central were referred to as Indo-Canadians, and I heard people talking, even Canadians working for Indo-Canadians in this riding. All Canadians must be and are Canadian citizens, but references to Indo-Canadians relegate the candidates to another class of citizen. What does this indicate? Are some Canadians more Canadian than others? It's a practice and policy that unnecessarily fuel division in Canada, creating cultural rifts, inequalities and frictions, and prevent and discourage integration of various communities.

Government policies must work to integrate society. When someone is charged with a crime and a reference to their ethnic origin is used, such as Indo-Canadian, Chinese Canadian or others, it automatically smears the good standing of others belonging to those communities and creates an atmosphere that can unnecessarily fuel riots, racism, and other tensions.

In 1993 a Decima Research survey found that three out of four Canadians think ethnic minorities should try harder to fit into mainstream society, and reject the notion of cultural diversity.

This is the harsh reality, Mr. Chairman. Canada was built by immigrants. Each one of us is aware of that, and in fact proud of our religion, our birthplace, and our cultural heritage. Public policies can be far-reaching and can work to create harmony or divisions by hyphenating Canadians. Divisions of race, colour, origin, and religion are made and highlighted.

• 1230

We cannot afford to continue using policies that segregate us and that are socially divisive, particularly at a time when we are working hard to heal fractious wounds and keep Canada united.

Motion 24 will work to heal divisions, integrate and not segregate Canadian society, and unite us as Canadians first. It will certainly bridge, if not eliminate, racial barriers.

The time is now to define Canadian culture and call a Canadian a Canadian. It's everyone's responsibility to find solutions, but it is important that government lead the way. The essence of the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to uphold every individual as equal before and under the law and free from discrimination. Let's not be partisan on this significant issue; let's recognize the merits of motion 24. I believe, Mr. Chair, committee members will see that motion 24 clearly meets all the criteria as a votable item on the agenda.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Grewal.

Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment regarding the French version. To my mind, it makes no sense. It refers to "un projet de loi visant à éviter que l'on désigne tout Canadien ou groupe de Canadiens ou que l'on en parle".

For the sake of clarity, I would suggest that "ou que l'on en parle" be stricken from the motion which would then read as follows:

... à éviter que l'on désigne tout Canadien ou groupe de Canadiens en faisant allusion à leur race, leur religion, leur couleur ou leur lieu d'origine.

I suspect that this is closer to the member's objective. Perhaps you could look at the motion and enlighten us.

The Chairman: Indeed, there is nothing in the English version which appears to correspond to the expression "ou que l'on en parle".

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I may not talk a great deal, but when I do...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Grewal, have you been in charge of the translation into French?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: No. I didn't do any translation, and I don't know French. It is the translators who will be doing the French.

The Chairman: I'm sorry for your motion, but as a French-speaking person, we consider that five words in the French version should not appear there. They correspond to nothing in your bill. It is the fifth line, the words ou que l'on en parle. These five words mean nothing in reference to your bill.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I don't know. I didn't do the translation and I didn't check it.

The Chairman: It's a technical problem.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: We can have it corrected later.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions? Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: This has very little to do with whether or not we should vote on this bill, but how long have you been a Canadian citizen?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Since 1994.

Mr. Ken Epp: How long have you lived in our country?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: For the last six years.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: I have been living in a constituency where there's a high population of immigrants, particularly so-called Indo-Canadians.

Mr. Ken Epp: What motivated you to bring this bill?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Because I feel ashamed and I feel like a sub-class citizen when I'm not treated as a Canadian in day-to-day conversation and in reference to the issues around the community.

There is a two-tier system. One is a full Canadian. The other one is a partial Canadian. When they refer to me I think sometimes, when I want to be Canadian I should be proud to be Canadian, but when I'm a Canadian citizen not referred to as a Canadian I think and talk to myself, when is the day when I will be called a Canadian? My son, my grandsons, are all referred to as Indo-Canadians, even though they are proud to be full Canadians.

Mr. Ken Epp: Do you envision that this would change things such as our census so that the census people would no longer be entitled to ask your origin and things like that? Is that what you're thinking of?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes, definitely. When we are Canadian...we left a country. All of us came from somewhere to this country. When we are here in this country we should be proud of this country and we should develop a sense of patriotism and a sense of belonging to Canada. Why should we be termed partial Canadians and partially our origin, based on geographic areas or religion and things like that? I think that segregates society into various divisions, and there is a need to integrate rather than segregate Canadians.

• 1235

I'm not talking about tomorrow; I'm talking about years to come. If we develop a culture called Canadian culture, all of us will be proud of Canadian culture. If we don't develop our culture and we don't aim our efforts at that in particular, then we won't ever reach that point.

Mr. Ken Epp: I want to assure the other members of the committee that I don't really know this man. He's new in our party and I've never had a chance to sit down and talk to him. These are not set-up questions. In fact, I did not know how long he had been here, although it is good to get it on the record.

The last thing I want to know is, did you seek and receive the approval of your party to bring this forward, or is it truly a private initiative of your own?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: This is a private motion. I brought it forward according to the way I think Canada is and should be. I don't think I want to give it a partisan shape. It's a private member's bill and I strongly believe in it. I'm a victim of what I'm saying. I think I have conviction and I'm convinced that what I'm saying is good for all Canadians. I have a sense of personal humiliation. I think this division is a precursor to discrimination. If we don't want discrimination, then this precursor to discrimination should be removed.

The Chairman: I have a question for you, Mr. Epp. Do you mean there are genuine private bills and party- approved private bills?

Mr. Ken Epp: I was just wondering whether he had talked to our critics in the area.

The Chairman: Mr. Grewal, we are politicians and sometimes we address our voters in a meeting. There may be 500 there. Sometimes we say a few words in Italian to please and get in touch more intimately with our Italian audience; sometimes a few words in Greek, or Arabic, or Creole for the Haitian people. I'm used to doing that, and they are really pleased; they don't feel discriminated.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, it's okay to use words that belong to different languages for conversational purposes, but when we refer to a group of people and label or brand them, as we see branded products in the market, we are highlighting the division in society. We could reach a point where we have a volatile situation.

With your permission, very briefly, to articulate what I'm saying, I have been living in a country called Liberia in West Africa. I have seen hundreds of people die there because of a civil war. If I wanted to find the origin of that civil war...the origin is that people are divided into various tribes.

All of you who know history... In the 1970s there was a tribal war in Nigeria. We know what's happening in Rwanda and Brunei. All those things are happening simply because people are divided. If people were united and they were treated as human beings and nationals of the country, those things would probably not have occurred.

I have seen with my own eyes... I could leave that country, and I'm fortunate that I came to Canada. From my personal experience, I think we are experiencing that type of beginning in Canada, if we don't do what I am proposing to do in this motion.

The Chairman: These are your words: “to prevent the reference to and designation of”.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Yes.

The Chairman: Mrs. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you, Mr. Grewal. Your intentions are very clear, and I'm very optimistic that some day these things will happen.

In your motion you've asked for someone to draft a bill. Where would you see this bill fitting? Under Justice? Where would it fit? Would there be criminal penalties for people using hyphenated terms? How far do you want this to go?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam, very honestly and clearly, I don't have that much experience as a member. I don't know the various jurisdictions, how it should fit. I leave it to the committee of experts to decide where it will fit. I don't have any problem with where it fits. I don't want to count the number of trees; I want to look for the fruit of those trees.

• 1240

At the most, if we reach a point...we have the term “politically incorrect” that can be used publicly. It will probably solve many problems.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Grewal, as part of the government for the last three years we have tried to legislate penalties for people who are, for example, abusive of homosexuals or abusive of racial minorities. We've tried to legislate these things. They still happen. We have actually brought in penalties for these things. Many people, in all of our parties, voted for and against these pieces of legislation.

The thing I am concerned about here, and before we would take three hours of the House to debate it, is, is it doable. I'm very reluctant to say that... I have a very multicultural riding. I have 33 languages in my riding. Italian Canadians like to call themselves Italian Canadians. I can't see how we would ever penalize them for doing so. I can see in official government documents this is something that should be removed, as Mr. Epp said, particularly on the census.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I think you have wonderful intentions. I'm concerned that it's not doable. I thank you for bringing it forward. I just consider this to be one of those beautiful dreams that I don't think we're going to see in our lifetimes.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: If we want to make progress in this direction, I think we can do something, if not much at this time. Definitely there is a way to go. We know there are hate laws in many provinces. If we can implement something that is governed under hate laws, I don't see any reason why we could not make this thing happen.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions or comments?

Mr. Grewal, thank you very much.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Thank you very much, sir. Thank you for the opportunity.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Nelson Riis, welcome. You have five minutes to present your motion. Then we will have five minutes of discussion with you, if necessary.

Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The motion I've asked for consideration to be made votable is the issue regarding the Mackenzie-Papineau Brigade, one of 1,500 out of 40,000 volunteers during the Spanish Civil War, fighting for democracy and against fascism. So many other countries now have recognized these volunteers as war veterans. Let's face it. I think we're talking about maybe 30 people left in Canada. It's a handful. They come from all parts of Canada.

Looking at the criteria for the motion...it's not trivial or insignificant. I suppose you could call this a symbolic issue that people hold views on as strongly today as they did many years ago.

It's not in favour of any certain region. The existing veterans, to my knowledge, come from almost every province of the country. We're only talking about 30 or 40 people, maximum. It's not on the government agenda to be dealt with, to my knowledge, for the foreseeable future. It's just not one of these pressing items.

It's not a partisan issue. It's recognizing people who volunteered to fight against fascism in Europe just prior to the Second World War.

To me, it fits all of the criteria. It could be votable. There's nothing prohibiting it from being votable.

• 1245

I've been approached by almost every political party. Once I put the motion on the order paper I was approached by, I think, every political party, people saying that a constituent is involved and they've been interested in this for many years. There seems to be genuine support across all parties for this.

With Remembrance Day, when we remember these kinds of things, coming up, I felt it would be a very positive gesture for Parliament to take to say we're particularly interested in looking into this. Of course this is not committing Parliament or the government to do anything, but simply asking that this be considered, that a committee look into the appropriateness of recognizing these 30 or 40 people who are alive today, in their late 80s and 90s, to be eligible for veterans benefits.

Again, in terms of cost this is something that would be rather minimal.

All I'm asking for is that a committee will have a chance to consider this issue.

That, Mr. Chairman, is about all I've got to say.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Riis.

Any questions?

Mr. Norman Doyle: That's good.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Are any of them relatives?

Mr. Nelson Riis: No, none of them are relatives. I do have one individual in my constituency, which is sort of why I've become quite interested in this.

I might add that two or three years ago the Ontario government erected a major memorial in Toronto. I think people in British Columbia are looking to do the same thing sometime this year, to erect a memorial on the west coast.

There is an organization in Toronto that has sort of taken up this cause.

I might say that last year was the 60th anniversary of the volunteers' going to Spain and the Spanish government honoured the delegates or the veterans, or whatever you might want to call them, and offered them Spanish citizenship as a gesture. I don't think anybody took it up, but they were saying that they appreciate what they did for them at a very difficult time in their history.

I'm not certain of the numbers, but a number of countries have recognized these volunteers as war veterans for benefits for themselves and their families.

This was 60 years ago, so we're talking about a very limited number of people in all the countries.

I appreciate you folks being so patient. I apologize for holding you up.

Mr. Ken Epp: One quick question. Do you anticipate that if this were actually to go through all stages and become accepted by the House, there would then be a call for retroactive payments of veterans benefits and pensions—

Mr. Nelson Riis: That's a good question.

Mr. Ken Epp:—to those who have gone before?

Mr. Nelson Riis: All my motion is asking is for a committee to examine the feasibility and appropriateness of proceeding with this.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm aware of that, but when they proceed would you anticipate that that might be a question that would come up?

Mr. Nelson Riis: Yes, that's probably a question that would come up. I'm thinking about existing war veterans and to what extent their families are in receipt of some kind of compensation over the years.

I don't know the answer to that question, but it certainly would be one of the questions. When I say that to my knowledge there are only 30 people left of the original 1,500 volunteers, I'm not certain of what that would mean in terms of their families.

Mr. Norman Doyle: How can you determine all that?

Mr. Nelson Riis: Presumably it should become a government initiative after that. This is not an initiative. Then the committee would recommend to the government either to take some action or not to take some action.

The Chairman: Any other questions? No?

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Riis.

[English]

Mr. Nelson Riis: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Before suspending, just a reminder that the next meeting will be on Monday, October 20, at 3.30 p.m.

We still have one bill to be introduced—Mr. Benoit's bill, C-203—and four motions: Motion 123, Mr. Robinson; Motion 157, Mrs. Dockrill; Motion 26, Mr. Elley; and Motion 20, Mr. Bellehumeur. Then we will make a decision as to the number of motions and bills that we could recommend to the standing committee.

Thank you very much.

• 1250

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: May I make a request that the clerk prepare a printout that clusters the bills, the motions, and gives us a one-line essence of what it was about so that when we start our deliberations we have a little scorecard in front of us.

Secondly, I would respectfully ask the chair to try to budget enough time on that Monday so that we can actually make some decisions.

The Chairman: In your experience, how much time does it take? One hour, two hours?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It's never taken more than an hour. It's much faster than you think.

The Chairman: So two hours would be convenient.

Mr. Ken Epp: Do we know where the meeting will be held?

The Chairman: No, not yet.

Thank you very much. This is the conclusion of our meeting for today.