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]

Monday, October 20, 1997

• 1539

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des- Prairies, Lib.)): We are ready to begin. Good afternoon, colleagues.

Four members will be presenting their motion or bill today. First up is Svend Robinson who will have five minutes to present his motion, number 123. We will then have five minutes as well to ask him questions, if we have any. Welcome, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the committee as well for this opportunity to outline the reasons why I hope you will select my motion as a votable item.

• 1540

[English]

I'm asking the committee to declare my motion 123, which is on the subject of euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, a votable item.

In the five minutes I have to make my pitch, I'll basically give some background as to why I believe it's appropriate that this be a votable item and measure it against the benchmark of negative criteria the committee looks at in deciding what shouldn't be votable.

The criteria indicate that in order to be selected as votable items, motions or bills must not be trivial or insignificant. This particular item deals with one of the most fundamental questions we have to face as a country, the issue of dying and how we deal with the issue of terminally or incurably ill persons who wish to seek assistance in dying.

On a number of occasions I have submitted private member's bills on this subject, in previous sessions of the last Parliament and indeed in the previous Parliament. On this occasion, rather than drafting a bill that includes a number of specific criteria, I am proposing a motion that is very general and that calls for the establishment of a committee that would be able to hold hearings on the issue. Then, following those hearings, that committee would be able to make recommendations as to what would be appropriate for a bill.

Rather than getting into a debate as to whether or not a particular element of the bill is appropriate, this uses a procedure in Standing Order 68 to allow a special committee to look at all aspects of this question.

In fact there would effectively be two free votes in the House of Commons. One would be on the motion itself to establish the committee. If the House felt in its wisdom that there should not be a special committee established, then the vote would be negative and that would be the end of the matter. But assuming the House agreed to establish this special committee, then the committee would report back to the House. Then under Standing Order 68, the adoption of a motion to concur in that report would be an order to bring in a bill based on the report. So there would be two opportunities for the House, in a free vote, to vote on the substance of this issue.

As I say, it's clearly an issue of national concern. It's one as well that the House has not yet had an opportunity to vote on, despite obvious interest. There have been a number of private member's bills from different parties. A Conservative member in the past, Bob Wenman, submitted a bill. A number of different members have submitted bills, but never has there been an opportunity for the House to vote.

The other compelling factor that would argue for a vote is the fact that despite indications—promises in fact—by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice that the House would have an opportunity to vote on this issue, that has not happened. That promise was made shortly after the death of Sue Rodriguez. It was very clear. The commitment was that in the House, whatever people's views were on the issue, at least there could be a vote. But that has not taken place.

This motion could give that opportunity to members of the House to have a free vote on this issue. You might ask whether the Minister of Justice is planning any action on this. The short answer is no.

[Translation]

The Minister has stated that she does not intend to introduce a bill or a motion relating to this matter. Therefore, this is the only opportunity for members to hold a free vote.

[English]

This is not on the government's agenda. In fact the Minister of Justice has specifically said she doesn't intend to proceed on it. So unless a motion of this nature comes to a vote, there will be no free vote on the question.

Very quickly, in terms of the other criteria, it's clearly not an issue of just regional concern. It doesn't deal with constituency names. In terms of the drafting or the requirement for amendment, it has been drafted very carefully to allow a committee to bring forward a bill.

As I said under number five, it has not been declared by the government to be on its legislative agenda; quite the opposite. It has appeared before the House on a number of occasions. There is no other means for the House effectively to deal with this procedure under your criterion number seven. It's certainly not couched in any kind of partisan terms. The criteria in 9, 10, and 11 are clearly met as well, the criteria with respect to a previous vote and so on.

• 1545

So I would appeal to members of this committee to recognize the importance of giving elected members of the House a chance to vote, whatever their views on the issue. If there has been one common theme of the courts that have considered this issue—and a number of courts have considered it: the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada—all of them have said that ultimately the House of Commons must deal with this issue.

For almost five years since the Supreme Court of Canada decision, the House has had no opportunity to vote on this issue. So I'm appealing to members of this committee to accept this vehicle, which has been carefully chosen to allow for the broadest possible input, not to tie the hands in terms of any specific bill or specific content, but merely to ask a special committee to give Canadians an opportunity to look at all aspects of this issue and then to allow it to come to a vote.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any questions?

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Robinson, do you intend to make this a joint committee between the House of Commons and the Senate, or was your intention to have it as a committee of the House of Commons only?

Mr. Svend J. Robinson: No, it would be a House of Commons committee. Under Standing Order 68, it is in fact a motion to have a committee of the House established to consider the motion.

The Senate actually looked at this issue earlier. There was a special Senate committee. I don't think it would be necessary for the House of Commons committee to go through everything they went through. That would facilitate the work of the House of Commons committee, and indeed, some members of the Senate committee might want to have input to the House of Commons committee.

If it were decided, in the wisdom of the people who put this thing together, that maybe they wanted to have some sort of joint committee, I personally wouldn't have any objection to that, but the intent is that a committee of elected representatives would look at it.

The Chairman: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): It seemed to me, from what you said, that the promise after Sue Rodriguez' death was made by the current Prime Minister.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson: It was made by Prime Minister Chrétien and also by the then Minister of Justice, Allan Rock.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Okay, that would determine how far back it went.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Yes. That was in February 1994.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I now call upon Mr. Benoit to introduce his bill, C-203.

[English]

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

My presentation today is on Bill C-203, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act. The problem that Bill C-203 addresses is that the Agreement on Internal Trade was signed by all provinces and territories in 1994, it came into effect in July 1995, but important areas were left open for subsequent negotiations. These negotiations have stalled. Deadlines have been missed. The negotiating committee has been interpreting “agreement by consensus” to mean unanimous consent, and it's just too difficult, as you would know, for provinces and territories to agree unanimously on issues such as those that would complete this agreement.

A leaked federal study, of which I have circulated a copy, has found that the Agreement on Internal Trade only addresses 13% of the thousands of interprovincial trade barriers faced by 50 Canadian companies that were included in this study. The study further found that 56% of those trade barriers could be addressed if the agreement were completed, and only 31% of the barriers would fall outside the mandate of the agreement.

The lack of progress on completing the agreement is holding back economic growth and job creation across Canada. I'll demonstrate this.

For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has stated that a 10% increase in internal trade would result in 200,000 jobs. The Fraser Institute has said that by removing interprovincial trade barriers, family income, on average, would increase by $3,500 a year. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association said that removing interprovincial trade barriers would put $6 billion to $10 billion into the Canadian economy. These are pretty dramatic claims by very credible groups.

• 1550

Ottawa has the legislative authority over commerce and trade and an obligation under the Constitution to ensure the free internal movement of goods, services, capital, and people. That is quite clear.

Bill C-203 will assist in solving the difficulties of completing the Agreement on Internal Trade itself by giving the federal government the power to bring a proposal into force under the agreement if at least two-thirds of the provinces and territories, which have at least 50% of the population, sign on or agree to the proposal. This would apply in cases where unanimous provincial consent has been sought but has not been achieved. This private member's bill would apply only in cases where proposals fall within federal legislative powers established by the Constitution Act of 1867 and relate to free interprovincial trade.

Several groups have made statements on this particular proposal or proposals like it. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said the need for such action is recognized by business persons across Canada. Last spring the Canadian Federation of Independent Business asked their members whether the federal government should take steps to ensure that the provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade are enforced without further delay, and 58% answered yes. I have here a copy of the results of that questionnaire by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

In August, Tim Reid, the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said:

“The unanimity rule is absolutely ridiculous,”.... “We need to be showing that Canada can work—this is a serious flaw in the decision-making process.”

He's calling for something less than unanimous agreement.

Federal cabinet ministers have also said something has to be done. The need for the government to take a role in completing the agreement was also recognized by, for example, the industry minister himself, the minister in charge of this issue of interprovincial trade barriers. Last February in Edmonton at a small business conference the federal minister said:

“From my point of view it will soon be time for the federal government to consider alternative strategies,”....

He went on to say:

“To say I'm disappointed, angry and frustrated is not only how I feel but an understatement,”.... “This long into the agreement, with so little progress to show, I think indicates it's certainly time to re-examine the strategy.”

This from the industry minister.

Finally, last October Anne McLellan was quoted in the Financial Post as saying that while she hopes for an agreement on internal free trade in electricity, she also raised the possibility that Ottawa would use constitutional powers to manage the country's economic union and to remove these barriers. That was Anne McLellan.

I'll close with this. A concern that might have arisen in your minds is that it might appear the federal government would be imposing something on the provinces that they don't call for. Being a member of the Reform Party, I think you should know that we absolutely don't want the federal government imposing on the provinces things it shouldn't impose. That's a stand we take very strongly. But if you go through and look at a few things....

For example, by signing the Agreement on Internal Trade, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments have shown a unanimous commitment to break down and remove these barriers. They have committed to that. They have all recognized there will be a net benefit to each and every province. The federal government has an obligation under the Constitution to ensure that free internal movement of goods, services, capital, and people takes place. This unanimity rule means any one premier, trying to protect one sector of his or her province, can stymie the agreement in that area. So clearly the unanimity process won't work.

In conclusion, I would like to say someone has to show some leadership in this area, and all provinces agree the internal trade barriers should be removed. They all say that and they agree to that. All provinces acknowledge there will be a net benefit to each and every province by removing these barriers. This bill provides the leadership that's necessary. I ask you to make it a votable bill.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Benoit. Mr. Epp has a question.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Benoit, have you enquired whether or not your bill has any problems with respect to our Constitution?

• 1555

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Oh yes, I have done a considerable amount of research on that and I have talked to constitutional experts about that. Their feeling is very strong that in fact it was the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that first of all these barriers were never put in place. So they ignored the responsibility in allowing these barriers to build in the first place. That is unanimous, I think, amongst constitutional experts. In fact some have recommended this approach to solving the problem of completing the Agreement on Internal Trade.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I have read through your bill quickly. Am I to understand that, for example, a province that is totally opposed to one kind of free trade involving a particular area would be forced to go along with the agreement?

[English]

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: In fact all provinces signed on to this agreement, including Quebec and Alberta. All provinces of course are concerned; they do not want the federal government forcing something on them that they do not want.

Every province will have a certain particular area that they would like to protect, and yet each province has recognized and said clearly that removing these barriers, as outlined in the internal trade agreement, would benefit all provinces.

In one particular area, yes, this agreement with this formula would allow seven provinces, which have at least 50% of the population, to complete the agreement even though some provinces may not support it.

Again, clearly there is a net benefit to each and every province by having this process in place.

Because we do not have it in place, $6 billion to $10 billion is taken out of our economy. On average $3,500 is denied each Canadian family. Up to 200,000 jobs would be put in place just by increasing interprovincial trade by 10%. So the benefits are dramatic.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Are there any other questions?

[English]

Mr. Benoit, thank you very much.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Thank you.

The Chairman: Now I would like to invite Michelle Dockrill to introduce her motion, 136.

Welcome, Mrs. Dockrill.

Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): Thank you, members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you today to present my motion. This is my first time presenting myself and my motion, so I appreciate your help in this as well.

My motion requests that the Government of Canada take action to see the Donkin Mine in Cape Breton developed under a crown corporation—specifically, under the already existing Cape Breton Development Corporation, DEVCO.

I hope to prove to you that indeed it should be considered a votable motion.

I would like to give you a bit of background.

As you may be aware, the real unemployment rate in Cape Breton is in the order of 35% to 40%. Our population has been steadily decreasing. The numbers of young people leaving our island have reached critical proportions. The most recent census figures reveal that in the five-year period ending in 1991, 2,700 persons aged 18 to 24 left and have not come back.

There is no doubt in my mind that safe job opportunities are crucial to the island's future if we are to reverse these trends. Let there be no doubt that despite the high unemployment rate and migration of our younger workforce, many Cape Bretoners do understand the directions of the new economy, and ventures are being undertaken by local entrepreneurs. But these new-age industries cannot survive in our communities without basic industries such as coal mining.

DEVCO history has proven itself. It took many years and expensive mistakes, but today there is no doubt that the future of Cape Breton Island is critically linked to solid, long-term economic relationships that are based on a local, experienced workforce.

• 1600

In 1966 the Donald inquiry was struck after DOSCO decided to quit mining in Cape Breton. The government of the day agreed that the mines at that time were not economically viable, but recognized that the social disruption of a proposed closure of this magnitude was unacceptable. Donald produced a plan that called for phasing down the mine over 15 years, with a separate development corporation operating simultaneously, dedicated to promoting alternative local employment. DEVCO was struck in March 1968 to meet both these mandates. This proved to be unmanageable.

Within three years a different approach was adopted, with a new plan, one that did not focus on future alternatives of the local workforce, but rather on promotion of the coal industry to outside investors and industries. Again, this quickly proved to be expensive and unproductive, and dangerous. The danger of a private venture attempting to make money by high-grading a mine for a few years and then walking away was illustrated many years later in the May 1992 explosion at the Westray mine in Plymouth, which killed 26 men.

It was not until 1972 that DEVCO management recognized that the phasing out of the industry was not the answer and that a viable coal operation was indeed possible. It was then that the government of the day endorsed the call for a 20- to 25-year plan that would see a stable coal industry established on the island. Today, in 1997, two mines are operating under DEVCO: the Phalen and Prince collieries. They are managed in cooperation with the United Mine Workers of America, with a skilled and competent workforce. A viable coal operation now exists, and today we must take steps to ensure it prospers.

Now, here are the reasons for my motion.

Mr. Chair, it is estimated that the Donkin mine in Cape Breton, using 1997 mining technology, our trained labour force, and our corporate assets, would easily produce 350 million to 400 million tonnes of coal. There is no doubt the Donkin mine must be part of DEVCO's contingency. Donkin mine has a transition period of approximately 3 to 3.5 years to phase it into a million-tonne-per-year operation.

If we continue to ignore the present and future problems of the existing two mine operations at DEVCO, then coal mining in Cape Breton as we know it today could cease to exist, and the social disaster we attempted to avoid through the creation of DEVCO may be realized. Donkin is the future of DEVCO and DEVCO is critical to Cape Breton.

It is true that the Government of Canada has made substantial investments in the coal industry in Cape Breton. Today, with Donkin a part of DEVCO, we have a process in which we can make returns on that investment. In Cape Breton we now appear to be on the brink of giving back to Canada some of its 30-year investment made to our island and of also being able to contribute to the economy of Canada.

How can I be so sure? The export potential for coal is evident in western Canada and in the global marketplace. And eastern Canada should be included in this global market through its crown-owned three-mine operation, which includes the Donkin mine.

The employees, the community, the province, and yes, even the Senate, feel the Donkin mine should be developed under DEVCO. This is good for Cape Breton. This is good for Canada. This is good for the Canadian taxpayers who made the investment. And I believe an open debate on this motion will find a Parliament that would also endorse this motion.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam.

[Translation]

Are there any questions?

[English]

Mr. William Blaikie: Has the current government given any indication of what its intentions are?

Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: We know there has been a commitment of $300,000 to a private company in terms of a feasibility study. As I said, this coal mine is critical to DEVCO, because the two mines presently being operated have been described by the management of DEVCO itself as not being very viable in the long term.

• 1605

It's now DEVCO's time to return on the investment. We suffer from one of the highest rates of unemployment, and we see this as critical to assisting our island.

The Chairman: Did you have another question?

Mr. Ken Epp: It's just a quick one. I'm not sure this is relevant to the committee in deciding whether or not to make your motion votable, but there was a change from what you first submitted. Can you tell us the rationale for that?

Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: A change from what I...?

Mr. Ken Epp: Our original list had a different motion. Was it a clerical error?

Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, fine.

Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: That's why you threw me. I apologize.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We now have a motion that will be presented by Mr. Gary Lunn on behalf of his colleague, Reed Elley.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the motion I'm asking this committee to consider making votable is fairly straightforward: that, in the opinion of this House, the government should support equality among the provinces and Canadians in general by ensuring that no province be recognized as a distinct society within the Constitution of Canada.

The motion very much speaks for itself, and we've all heard a great deal, so I'm going to take it from a different approach and address the criteria we use to decide when motions are votable. There are about 11 points that were decided on in October 1987, and which gave a list of the negative criteria for which kinds of motions would not be selected. I've picked out the most important points from this list. I'll start addressing those, and then I'll go back into the importance of this motion.

The first item in deciding whether or not a motion should be votable is that the item must not be trivial. I think we would probably get unanimous consent that anything dealing with national unity is of great importance and could hardly be regarded as trivial.

It's very important that Parliament show leadership in this issue. We cannot continue to ignore this. It's of national importance to everyone—all 10 provinces, all political parties—and again, it's time for Parliament to take leadership and take the second step from the Calgary accord.

The second thing when deciding whether or not a motion is votable is that the motion cannot discriminate against any specific religion. This motion obviously advocates the opposite—equality for all provinces and people—so we're okay there.

Can the motion be dealt with through another procedure or body? Obviously not. With the seriousness of this issue, the only place this can ever be dealt with is before Parliament. After the Calgary declaration, we have four political parties and nine provinces all recognizing that. So again, it's time for Parliament to show some leadership on this issue.

The next point I would make is that a motion cannot be unconstitutional if it's going to be votable. Again, the opposite is true here. We seek to affirm the government's commitment to the equality provisions of subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Constitution. By refusing to recognize any province or group as distinct, we would be reinforcing the concept of equality among all citizens.

What we're really looking at doing is fundamental. As the Calgary accord stated, it's okay to recognize uniqueness. But what we're saying—and there's a fine line here—is that we don't recognize any province or any special group of Canadians as distinct.

• 1610

I've narrowed this down to five. I'm not not going to go through the whole list of 11, but I could, because it falls within all of them. I'll go on to the last one: the motion cannot be partisan. There's nothing partisan about this motion. It transcends all party politics. It advocates principles of equality as something we all should support and promote.

I see I'm getting a few grins around here.

Hopefully this subcommittee will recognize this as a votable motion. I believe very strongly that we take leadership when we take the second step from the Calgary accord and move forward. I believe in a strong federal country. We have to take leadership. It's of grave importance to this Parliament. So I'd ask you to consider this motion and to make it votable.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Epp, a question?

Mr. Ken Epp: I know you speak for one of your colleagues, but how do you dare to sit here in front of us and say this isn't partisan? I guess I could expect a Bloc member to bring this up, but—

Mr. Gary Lunn: Well, I'm not asking—

Mr. Ken Epp: —this is pretty partisan in my view.

Mr. Gary Lunn: I'm asking to ensure that no province be recognized as a distinct society within the Constitution of Canada. This is not against Quebec. This is not for Quebec. This is not for B.C. It's against provinces in general. So we don't recognize any....

British Columbia is made up of many different cultures, and it's not against that. It's strictly non-partisan: one, that we don't confer any special powers or any recognition of a distinct society within any province; and two, that we support the equality of all provinces and Canadians. I don't know how much more non-partisan you can get than that. It's not specific to any province.

[Translation]

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

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: On a couple of occasions Mr. Lunn said, “what we are saying”. Who's “we”? You and Mr. Elley, or are you speaking for some larger group?

Mr. Gary Lunn: When I say “we”, I'm referring to we as Parliament. I hope this motion can be made votable so we, as Parliament, can take leadership.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: No, you were describing what you meant by not having any province able to be designated a distinct society, and you went on to say “what we mean by this”. It wasn't when you were arguing the votability. When you were arguing the substance, you said “we”.

Mr. Gary Lunn: No, I'm speaking on behalf of myself and, of course, for Mr. Elley. I've discussed this with him as well.

My apologies for that.

The Chairman: He agreed with himself. That's why he said “we”.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: The royal “we”.

Mr. Gary Lunn: The royal “we”. Yes, we all get those once in a while, don't we?

An hon. member: “We, the people”.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Gary Lunn: I think that's how they start out. Is it “We, the people”? Is that in the—?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

An hon. member: That's the American version.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Other questions?

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Mrs. Parrish is uncommonly quiet today.

The Chairman: Thank you very much much.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: So now we will suspend for one minute and we will come back in camera, à huis clos.

Mr. Ken Epp: Has motion 20 been withdrawn?

The Chairman: No, but Mr. Bellehumeur is unable to make it.

Mr. Ken Epp: So we consider him without having had a presentation?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We will resume our work in camera.