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, December 1, 1997

• 1535

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des- Prairies, Lib.)): Colleagues, we have a quorum; there are four of us here. It is 3:37 p.m. and we are ready to begin.

Our job is to chose the motions and bills that will be placed on the order paper as of February 4, 1998. So we are preparing work for February.

As you know, there was a draw last week. Today, we will hear from seven of our House colleagues and next Monday at the same time, at 3:30, we will hear from seven others.

So take note that there will be a meeting similar to this one next Monday at 3:30 to hear from seven other colleagues as to why their draft motion or bill should be made votable items.

We will now hear from Ms. Suzanne Tremblay who will speak to motion 108.

Ms. Tremblay, you have five minutes to present your motion, and committee members will have the same amount of time to question you.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I tabled motion M- 108 on Louis Riel Day. Prior to the 35th Parliament, three bills and one motion were presented by the NDP on Louis Riel and two bills and one motion were presented by the Conservatives.

The motion presented by the Conservatives, by Mr. Joe Clark, was adopted unanimously in the House on March 9, 1992. The purpose of this motion was to recognize Louis Riel as the founder of the province of Manitoba, among other things.

Ms. McLellan, the member for Edmonton West, subsequently took a stand on February 22, 1996. In response to a letter from Ron Swain, the president of the Metis Nation of Ontario, she said:

I would however like to assure you that the federal government will continue to be attentive to Metis requests in the future.

Mr. Lloyd Axworthy, the Liberal Member for Winnipeg Centre South, said:

As long as I am in power, I will try to ensure that the Metis have a full-fledged right to participation in this country.

And he said earlier:

For all Canadians, Riel is a Father of Confederation.

On several occasions, I personally presented bills that were not deemed votable. One died on the Order Paper. One was voted on in the House of Commons. It was tabled on June 4, 1996, and on December 10, 1996, 112 members voted for it and 103 voted against it. So we were close to having agreement from the majority of the House. I think that this motion should be votable because 90 new members of Parliament could vote on this issue.

• 1540

If members voted in favour of this motion, I think it would enable the government to settle the Louis Riel situation once and for all. I must point out that the Metis community is beginning to get quite impatient with seeing the government make promises and never act on them.

So I think it would be in the interest of all Canadians, and Quebeckers as well, for this motion to be votable so that the verdict of guilty of high treason can be revoked, so that Louis Riel is no longer a victim, and above all, so that we can commemorate him by declaring November 16 of each year to be Louis Riel Day throughout Canada.

The Chairman: Are there any questions?

Mr. Epp.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): I would like to know how large the support is for this among the people of Canada, as well as in the different provinces, including the province of Quebec within Canada.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I think that the last time the House of Commons voted on this issue, there were members of all the parties from everywhere in Canada, from sea to sea, among the 103 members who supported the motion.

Since that vote was held, some of them who were re-elected have told me that they do not understand why the Bloc really wanted this legislation to be adopted.

I think that Louis Riel is a Canadian hero. It serves the Canadian unity cause above all. We are not being partisan or anything like that. We think that an injustice has been committed with respect to Louis Riel and that Parliament could remedy it. That is really our only intention. Last time, we had the support of the Métis community, and at the last minute, things changed. Mr. Duhamel, who didn't support us, supported us. So during the 24 hours that preceded the vote, allegiances changed.

I think that this time, people have understood that our only intention is to defend Louis Riel and remedy the injustice that was committed. We cannot redo the trial and change history, but this remains a historic fact. If we were able to change the statue, we can go a step further. I think we can move ahead and settle this matter once and for all, because as long as it has not been settled, someone will always rise in the House to try and resolve it.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any other questions? You mentioned Mr. Clark.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Joe Clark.

The Chairman: I did not really understand what happened. Did he have it adopted or not?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: On March 9, 1992, the House of Commons unanimously adopted his motion recognizing the unique and historic role of Louis David Riel as founder of the province of Manitoba, which subsequently entered Confederation. It was a 10-point motion. It was adopted unanimously.

The Chairman: When?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: March 9, 1992.

The Chairman: Which Mr. Clark?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Joe Clark, the former prime minister and Member for Yellowhead. He was Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, I believe. I can table the text, if you want.

The Chairman: You also quoted Mr. Axworthy.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I can table that document if you want. I have it here.

The Chairman: Fine.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Ms. McLellan and Mr. Axworthy have already spoken in favour of it. Ms. Copps introduced what was referred to at the time as section 32, which has now become the section 31 that we are also familiar with.

The Chairman: Fine. We will distribute those documents to committee members.

Are there any other questions?

Ms. Tremblay, thank you very much for your presentation which lasted seven minutes, including three minutes for the presentation and four minutes for questions.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): I can take up a couple of minutes in support of her position, if you like. I must mention that the member of Parliament for Regina—Lumsden for 25 years introduced a bill to pardon Riel.

• 1545

[Translation]

The Chairman: I understand you are Mr. John Solomon.

[English]

Mr. Solomon, you are invited to present your bill.

[Translation]

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Briefly, the bill would reintroduce compulsory licensing for patent drugs after four years of market exclusivity, allowing a generic firm to manufacture equivalent versions of a patent drug on payment of a royalty to the inventor or the patent-holding firm. The bill also reduces the patent life of prescription medicine from 20 years to 17 years. In this sense, it brings the regulatory regime for prescription medicines in Canada back to 1987, before the passage of Bill C-22.

However, instead of reintroducing a flat royalty rate, my bill would allow the development of a sliding royalty scheme that rewards those drugs actually developed in Canada. Notwithstanding the claims made during debate on Bill C-22 and Bill C-91, only one new drug has been developed in Canada since 1987, and it's currently manufactured not in Canada but in Ireland.

Canada still ranks dead last among OECD countries for research and development spending in spite of a 20-year market exclusivity and the most generous R and D tax credits in the world. Meanwhile, over 2,000 jobs have been lost among the multinational drug companies in Canada and drug prices are forcing even the Quebec drug plan to scale back its coverage.

I'm asking the subcommittee to deem this item votable for two very major reasons.

Number one, it's of national importance to Canadians. For example, drug prices affect every Canadian. Drug plans affect every provincial government, and of course the price of drugs affects our medicare scheme in this country. As a matter of fact, 67% of Canada's drug bill is paid for by insurance companies and/or hospital plans, 20% by provincial drug plans, and about 13% by direct cash purchases.

In 1992 when the Mulroney government pushed Bill C-91 through Parliament—using closure at every stage, I might add—provincial heath ministers warned of the potential damage to the prescription drug programs under their jurisdictions. When the industry committee reviewed the bill earlier this year, we heard that the health ministers' worst fears had come true and that the 1992 federal claims of $129 million in annual extra costs were grossly underestimated.

In my own province of Saskatchewan we used to have the most comprehensive prescription drug plan in the continent. It is now a shadow of its former self, in most part due to the skyrocketing costs of brand-name drugs. You'll find many people in Saskatchewan are very concerned about this alarming trend. As a matter of fact, the Government of Saskatchewan supports my bill wholeheartedly.

The National Forum on Health's recommendation for a national pharmacare program, as well as the Liberal Party's election promise to introduce such a program, may not be affordable because of the high cost of prescription drugs, and it will not be fair program unless the generic companies are allowed to compete in our economy and in our system. The health care system in Canada is moving away from long-term institutional care towards more home-based community care and prevention in which prescription drugs feature more prominently and, of course, will come out of the direct bank accounts of individuals concerned.

The other reason I think we should consider this is that it's an important business to private members. It's also an issue on which, in the best sense of private members' business, individual members of some caucuses may have different views from their party leadership.

The industry minister asserts that Canada's international trade obligations under the World Trade Organization and NAFTA prevent a reconsideration of the topic. However, at least three legal opinions exist that public interest exemptions are allowed under the legal text and that compulsory licensing of patent drugs is not explicitly prohibited. These were three prominent law firms in North America that made these representations to the industry committee last spring.

This means that parliamentarians have not only an obligation to revisit whether Canada has received the employment and R and D benefits we were promised as a trade-off for granting a manufacturing and distribution monopoly to the brand-name drug companies, but we apparently also have the choice to reverse this bad decision, made in haste during the dying days of the Mulroney government.

• 1550

Finally, I'd like to point out that although the jury is still out, there is mounting evidence of the industry department's efforts to interfere with the writing of the industry committee's report this last spring. If this allegation were true, it would provide an even stronger rationale for private members being able to take a position, free from political pressure, on the best way to ensure the health of Canadians rather than simply the health of members of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada.

Thank you for listening.

[Translation]

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

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: I have a question.

You're here because you want to make this thing votable. The question is, does the government have another way of dealing with this? It does, doesn't it? When it's bringing in a bill, doesn't it do that? Wasn't that dealt with?

Mr. John Solomon: No, not adequately or comprehensively, and certainly not in the light of day. The industry committee was commissioned to have public hearings, in which 85% of the submissions were in support of making changes to Bill C-91 and 15% were opposed to it. Then there were allegations—these are now being investigated—that the Minister of Industry changed the preliminary report or at least had a view of it before members of the committee did.

When the final recommendations came out, they didn't seem to coincide with the draft report, which called for some changes to Bill C-91. Of course, as members will recall, industry committee minutes, by a resolution of the committee, are destroyed at the end of a parliament. So as for the minutes of any decision that was taken in camera, when the election was called, the minutes were destroyed. Who knows what happened?

The bottom line is that the government received a large number of submissions that were contrary to what was decided, and we feel this has to be aired one more time.

Mr. Ken Epp: You'll thank me for giving you the opportunity to say that.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you very much for asking that good question.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr. Solomon, you read a text that seems to be very well documented. Could we have a copy?

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: Yes, of course I'll provide a copy.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Good. Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: I can give you more information, if you like. I have filing cabinets full of it. This is more concise, but I'll provide this to you. When do you need it? I'll get a copy to you tomorrow. Is tomorrow satisfactory?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, thank you.

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I don't want to get into a debate with Mr. Solomon. I was on that committee. I was there for the preliminary deliberations. I don't believe anything inappropriate was done. I was in possession of all the minutes, I know exactly what went on, and I have no problem with that.

The real issue here is the function of private members' bills, which is to give air to something that is not currently under consideration by the government. There were recommendations that came out of that report that are in fact being considered by the new Minister of Health and that will be implemented to a greater or lesser degree.

Do you not find that the legislation is at this time in fact running parallel to what the government is doing?

Mr. John Solomon: I wish that were the case, but that's not the case. For example, Ms. Parrish, the criteria I've had outlined to me are as follows.

The bill is not to be trivial or insignificant. This bill is not trivial.

Second, it should not discriminate in favour of or against a certain area or region. It does not do that.

It should not pertain to electoral boundaries or constituency names. It doesn't do that.

It should not be defective in drafting. To our knowledge, it's not defective.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: John, if I might interrupt you, you're not answering my question.

Mr. John Solomon: I said no, the government is not dealing with it. It's not dealing with what my bill deals with.

It's dealing with peripheral matters that have no impact with respect to what this bill will impact on, which is the cost of drugs. It received your report, which it apparently has read, but the government refuses to take any action on the substantive nature of the individuals and organizations that made representations to the industry committee.

• 1555

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Solomon, are you not then being borderline partisan? You don't like the results of the investigation, therefore you are going to ask us to take a second look at what the government and the committee have already looked at.

Mr. John Solomon: No, I'm not partisan, unless you call partisan being concerned about medicare in this country and whether it can be affordable. I guess I'd be partisan if you consider partisan to be somebody who stands up for individuals who can't afford prescription drugs. I guess you'd call me partisan if provincial drug plans have been butchered to the point where they don't cover their citizens any more. That's not being partisan; that's being supportive of individuals and consumers who require prescription drugs for their health at a reasonable cost and who can no longer obtain them.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: But do you not admit, John, that this was all thoroughly looked at just before the last election? There were recommendations that came out of that report that are now being addressed.

Mr. John Solomon: No, I don't agree with that.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: What you're saying is you don't like the results and you want us to look at it again.

Mr. John Solomon: I would say that if you did a poll, 95% of the Canadian population wouldn't like the results, because there was a cover-up, there was a whitewash.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'm asking you what you think. You don't like the results and you want us to look at it again. Is that accurate?

Mr. John Solomon: That's not totally accurate, no.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: All right. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Solomon, in the summary of your bill, you propose that this enactment will limit the life of patents for medicines to 17 years and allow for compulsory licences to be granted for the manufacture and sales of medicines after the original patentee has had the medicine approved for marketing for four years.

If I understand correctly, a company obtains authorization to market first, and then has up to four years to obtain permission to manufacture. What is the logic behind obtaining approval for manufacturing first, and then marketing?

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: What the bill does is introduce compulsory licensing after four years of market exclusivity.

For example, a drug may take six, seven, or eight years to develop. During that period of time there's protection for the drug, but once you're on the market for four years, that could only mean.... Let's say it was invented twelve years ago, or at least it was given a patent for twelve years and it's only being marketed for four of those twelve years. Right now it can go up to twenty years from the time it has been approved until the time there's application to copy the brand-name drug and provide a royalty fee.

We're saying that with four years of market exclusivity...you can recoup your costs in four years. After it's been invented, after it's been proven and tested and approved by the necessary agencies, and after the four years of exclusivity, there's what they call a compulsory licensing component. This means you will pay a royalty to the inventor for being provided a licence to market that drug under a different brand name, manufactured in Canada by a generic drug manufacturer.

This has created a lot of jobs in the country over the years. There are still individuals and companies that will choose the brand name, but there is a competitive brand that is generic in nature, which can in effect provide the same results in most cases—not in all cases but in most cases—at a far reduced cost. So in essence, it's like a royalty.

For example, if you have a Dairy Queen franchise, you pay a royalty on sales and you have a franchise agreement with the head office of Dairy Queen. For every dollar you make, you pay a percentage of that dollar to the holder of the franchise. This would be no different. It's a slightly different product obviously; it's not food, it's a drug. But you'd pay a royalty so that the inventor continues to get a royalty for as long as it's manufactured by a competing Canadian generic firm.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any other questions?

[English]

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I have one more.

I'd like to know what your reading is of interest in this issue among Canadians. How many letters do you get, how many faxes, and so on? Is it a big issue?

Mr. John Solomon: It's very big for a number of organizations I've met with, a number of seniors organizations across this country, representing Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, even Quebec and Atlantic Canada as well. I've had the occasion to meet with about 12 or 15 seniors groups. As you know, our older population tends to rely on prescription drugs a lot more than the younger population, but they're also relying on them for their health and their continued longevity.

• 1600

We've had endorsement and support from the Government of Saskatchewan. I've not finalized my meetings with other provinces, but that's under way right now. Depending on the time of the debate, it takes a little more time to resurrect that support.

Certainly seniors, people who are running drug plans, individuals who use drugs.... For example, in Saskatchewan we've had a recent problem with multiple sclerosis drugs, which have now been included in the drug plan by popular demand. As for whether they help or not, the jury is still out on that, but their cost is outrageous. They're $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 a year for individuals who require them. These are brand-name drugs. The drug plan has decided to do that because the population that uses them is very small in Saskatchewan. There's a lot of support. Everybody I've spoken to seems to support it.

The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada does not support the bill, obviously. They represent the international pharmaceuticals, whose head offices are outside of Canada.

The Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association supports the bill in principle. They're the Canadian-based drug manufacturers. They believe this is an opportunity for Canadians to participate in the manufacturing of drugs, creating jobs here, keeping some of the revenues in Canada, and also, most significantly, reducing the cost of prescription drugs to people who need them.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Time is more or less up, but there are still two members who want to ask questions. Madeleine.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In clause 89(3)(d), you talk about the advantages of encouraging research on drugs in Canada. I admit that I have a little trouble with that. I would like some examples. The legislation currently puts Canada in a position that is hardly competitive in comparison with other important projects in the area of basic research. So I wonder how this bill will improve the advantages with respect to encouraging research.

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: A number of ways...but most of the revenues and profits from brand-name drugs leave the country and go to other parts of the world.

The generic industry would be encouraged because they'd be able to develop similar drugs under licensing fees. So that would provide them with some ability obviously to create jobs here, but some ability to raise more revenue, earn more money, and therefore sink a little more effort into R and D.

The generic manufacturers do undertake an R and D program in Canada, but it's done right here in Canada. I think this is a very important program for many of our Canadians who are in the science and biotech industries. It's very important for them in terms of having job opportunities.

I think when you look at the numbers—I don't have them handy—in some of the representations that were before the industry committee last spring, the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association put forward evidence that showed that during the 1980s when the generic brands were competing with brand names, their expenditures in Canada were extremely high.

I remind you again that the generic firms are for the most part Canadian-based. So as they generate more revenue and more profits, they sink more money into the industry, into the business that they're in.

The Chairman: Keep it very short.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I view a lot of what the generics do as very beneficial. The generic companies have grown; they've tripled their sales since Bill C-91 came in. So I guess they're working hard despite our horrible legislation.

Would you, in part of your review, suggest that their drug prices should also be controlled? Right now they're charging between 68% and 80% of the name-brand. When I asked them at the committee why, they said the market sets their price limits. So if you were going to open Bill C-91 and you were going to go back to compulsory licensing, would you also put some regulation on generic drug prices? There is none right now.

Mr. John Solomon: That's an interesting question. It's not on my bill, it's off the topic, but I'd be happy to answer if it's okay with the chair.

The reason I suspect there has not been a great hue and cry to cover or at least scrutinize generic drug prices is because they are indeed substantially lower than the brand-name drugs on the market. When you're substantially lower, why would you want to study them? It seems to me you want to study at the high-end cost of drugs as opposed to low-end.

• 1605

I would not be opposed to any sort of regulation. As a matter of fact, I have been critical of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board for the fact that the process and the methodology they use are inaccurate, questionable, and faulty because they don't really provide a very clear overview of brand-name drug price increases.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Okay, John, thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Solomon.

I now invite Mr. Gerald Keddy to present motion M-181. Go ahead, Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): First of all, I'd like to inform the committee that this is a completely new process to me, so I'm far from pretending to be an expert in it. As I understand it, the reason those of us who have put a motion forth are asked to come here today is specifically to defend whether or not it is a votable motion.

I'd like to explain a little bit of the history of the bill I've put forth. It deals with a number of issues, most specifically cross-border regulations between governments, particularly the European Common Market and Canada. As a farmer and a forester and someone who has lived with those regulations, I fully understand the impact, both economically and on your own staff and your own expertise in that you have to bring yourself up to speed on all the issues.

The ban in Europe of Canadian forest products is particularly onerous. The reason I worded the motion to deal with forest products coming out of Canada with bark and needles on them obviously specifically relates to the Christmas tree industry, but it also relates to every other product out there.

As a Christmas tree grower, we used to export trees to France, Britain, Germany, and Italy. One by one, as those countries joined the European common market, we lost that marketplace. We lost that market share. In the Christmas tree industry, that market share loss couldn't have come at a worse time. From the mid-1980s on, we had a major overproduction of Christmas trees in the U.S., and that directly impacted on our Canadian product, of which 99% is exported into the U.S. By not having that little niche market in Europe, we were hurt, and it cost a lot of dollars—somewhere around $2 million.

That is not a great deal of money in the big scheme of things, but when we transfer that over to lumber products, fully $700 million of Canadian lumber products, especially coming out of Atlantic Canada, used to go to Europe before the EC ban. Another $150 million came out of the eastern United States. Since the ban on the pine borer nematode, the only lumber products going into Europe now are valued at $72 million, and those are heat-treated. They have to go through a kiln-drying process.

To my knowledge—and I've looked fairly extensively and have talked to our lumber producers and Atlantic Canada—there has never been any full impetus from government to look at this ban in a very rational manner. We have completely accepted the European data that the pine borer nematode is a problem in Europe. I'm not trying to get into the life cycle of the pine borer nematode, because I realize I'm supposed to keep this to five minutes, but certainly we know it has a real problem surviving in any country with a mean water temperature—and usually that's considered ocean water temperature—of anything above 21°C.

• 1610

So that southern Mediterranean area may or may not be open, but we're talking about most of our exports in the cold water countries—into Britain, Germany, Norway and Sweden. Obviously Norway and Sweden are the problem here.

Anyway, as for making this a votable motion, I think it satisfies the criteria. What we would like to see and the question I want to leave you with—and I'll try to sum this up; I realize I've been kind of jumping around here a little—is that the science of this has been assessed. Most of it has been assessed by European scientists. Our scientists have gone along with that data, and that is saying that the pine borer nematode survives if you don't heat-treat your product.

I'm just going to sum it up. Any products going into Britain or the European Common Market have to have the bark removed or be heat-treated. The kiln-drying process adds an added burden to our lumber suppliers. Obviously if we have to take the bark and the needles off the Christmas trees, we're not going to be able to ship them. It just kind of defeats the point.

However, I don't believe the politics of this whole thing has been fully assessed. First, we should all understand that when the Vikings first came over here in the 1100s, they took wood products back to Europe. Champlain took wood products back to Europe. We have been trading softwood and hardwood lumber products to Europe for 400 years of recorded history.

All of a sudden in 1983, because we found a parasite in a woodchip in Finland, we have an embargo. That embargo only fully came in in 1993. It took 10 years before they fully implemented it. But they have effectively kept the majority of Canadian wood products out of Europe, unless they've been debarked or heat-treated. That's a very significant market.

Common sense should tell us that it didn't just become a problem all of a sudden. When we were shut out of the Christmas tree market, the green tree market, in Germany, we still shipped into Britain. When we were shut out of Britain, we still shipped into Italy. When we were shut out of Italy, we were out of Europe. We're still putting trees into Iceland, which has now joined the European Common Market.

I don't know any other way to do this but to have a government committee investigate it, study it, come back with some type of recommendation, and really look at it, not just by industry or just politically but by working together.

The Chairman: Monsieur Doyle.

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Gerald, I'm just wondering, have you talked to anyone in government about the best way to proceed? Is that the best way to proceed on it, to initiate a study? Is there any hope of solving that problem? Can it be done?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think there is a possibility of solving the problem, yes. I certainly have approached Natural Resources and talked to their entomologists on the issue of the pine borer nematode. The—

Mr. Norman Doyle: Can I interrupt you. First, what is pine borer nematode? Could you make that clear to me?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Sorry, pine borer nematode is a parasite carried by the sawyer beetle. It infects trees and causes pine wilt. There have been examples of pine wilt in the world, in Japan and other countries.

[Translation]

The Chairman: A nematode. We have learned something today.

Mr. Epp.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you. I would like to know how many businesses, how many enterprises like the one you're obviously involved in, are affected by this. Is it 10, 100, or 2,000? What's the number in Canada?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't have the Canadian numbers. In Nova Scotia alone, 450 sawmills used to export into Europe. There are probably 50 exporters in the Christmas tree business that at one time would have traded with Europe.

Mr. Ken Epp: Really? So they load Christmas trees and haul them to Europe across the ocean.

• 1615

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Put them in containers—

Mr. Ken Epp: By air?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No. Put them in containers, put them on a boat, and put them away.

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, you learn something every day. I had no idea that this was one of the markets.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, we don't have it any more.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, obviously you don't.

So it has a large but local concern. Are there any interests like this in British Columbia or other provinces?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, about 6% of British Columbia's exports are European. A lot of that is because cedar has been left out of the cycle since the pine borer nematode does not infest cedar. So they're mostly putting cedar out there.

There's a little piece here that we shouldn't mix up. The big issue is softwood lumber. I mean, that's the value. The reason we bring the Christmas trees into it is because there's potential there for an excellent and maybe even, I would say, an incredible market in Europe, and they are looking for product.

So it has economic benefits for the entire country; it's not simply provincial. There's a big Christmas tree industry in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec. In Ontario most of it goes to the domestic market.

I don't know how to get around this. The other issue is that they have not found pine borer nematode in every species of Christmas tree. So there may be an opportunity just to open this door a crack. If you can get your foot in it, then there's the opportunity to bring that lumber back into it as well.

Mr. Ken Epp: How large a support group do you have among parliamentarians on this issue?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: To be very honest, I haven't really gone out and lobbied parliamentarians. I would expect most parliamentarians would support it. Given the information on the industry, given the value to the industry and to Canada as a whole, there would be good support for it.

Mr. Ken Epp: That's it for me, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any other questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Keddy.

[English]

There are no further questions.

Welcome, Mr. Gallaway. You have five minutes to present your Bill C-288.

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me here today to explain why this bill, C-288, should be deemed votable.

At the outset I want to underline the fact that this bill is word for word identical to the version of Bill C-216 that died on the Order Paper when the election was called in April of this year. This bill does, in fact, include the amendment passed by the senators when they completed their intense study of Bill C-216.

I should also point out that in its present form this bill has been endorsed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In fact, on April 9, 1997, the minister informed the House that she absolutely supported this bill as amended by the Senate.

In fact, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters also has endorsed this particular version of the bill. It has the support of the Consumers' Association of Canada and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, two national consumer groups each having thousands of members.

Certainly, had the election not been called last April, the House would have had the opportunity to concur in the Senate amendment and pass this bill the following day. Obviously we never had that opportunity. That's why I'm here today, to request your support in allowing the House a second chance to pass this piece of consumer protection legislation.

As most of you here will know, this bill was inspired by the consumer revolt of January 1995. That revolt was about one simple concept: freedom, freedom to choose products and services that consumers want to purchase.

• 1620

It certainly isn't a radical idea; in fact, it's the normal rule of the marketplace. We select a product or service, and we decide whether or not to buy it. However, as we know, in the upside-down world of Canada's cable industry these decisions are made first by the CRTC and then by the cable companies themselves.

In January 1995 the cable companies tried to force consumers to pay for a new package of speciality channels unless they managed to opt out. This, as we know, is known as negative-option billing.

To this very day consumers remain vulnerable to this method of peddling new specialty services. As we speak now, in the province of Quebec cable customers who do not want new channels are struggling to beat the clock and register their choice with their greedy company.

I can tell you that some Quebecers are not pleased. In fact, in early September of this year a number of radio stations in that province called my office to arrange interviews on this very subject.

Outside Quebec the negative option has been replaced by confusing pricing schemes and these giant take-one, take-all packages. You may want to choose the new gardening channel, but you have to pay for all 15 new channels. If you want to pay less, then you'll have to take six more channels.

This sounds like a deal until you realize that the CRTC does not regulate the price on these discretionary packages. The price could go up at any time.

The Canadian Cable Television Association testified before the House committee on Canadian heritage that their members would never—and I have to emphasise “never”—again use negative-option billing. Apparently the pledge they made before the committee doesn't apply to 25% of Canadians who happen to live in the province of Quebec.

We must also realize that the cable companies' competitors have not taken the pledge. Bill C-288 would protect consumers from negative-option billing by any distribution undertakings as defined by the Broadcasting Act. So this would apply to the telephone companies, direct-to-home satellite, wireless cable, the Internet, or any other service provider covered by the act. So in a sense, this is forward legislation that will grow with the industry to protect consumers from coast to coast.

Finally, I want to briefly address your committee's criteria for the selection of votable items. I can say that first, consumers want the protection that this bill delivers. This was evident not only during the revolt against the cable companies but also during the debate on Bill C-216. It's still evident from the numerous stories and editorials in major Canadian newspapers. It's not trivial, and it's not insignificant.

Second, this bill doesn't discriminate in favour of or against any area or region of the country.

Third, it has nothing to do with electoral boundaries.

Fourth, this bill as drafted will make the necessary changes to the Broadcasting Act to ban negative-option billing for new speciality services.

Fifth, the subject of this bill is currently not part of the government's agenda. I have to point out that it has been raised numerous times in the House. I would suggest to you that it's been raised on many occasions in various party caucuses.

All other factors being equal, the passage of this bill is the only way for the House to adequately respond to consumers who demand, and have demanded in the past, action on this issue, certainly in the last Parliament.

This bill is non-partisan. It addresses an issue that members would likely find difficult to oppose. We all represent consumers, no matter what party or region of the country we come from.

This bill addresses a subject that is clearly within federal jurisdiction. This was often terribly evident by the testimony of Professor Martha Jackman, who testified before the Senate committee that the federal government clearly has jurisdiction over such matters.

The subject of this bill has not already been voted on in this session of Parliament.

And finally, there are no other votable items on this subject.

In conclusion, I would ask you to support this bill by making it votable. The consumers in this country have demanded that we put an end to negative-option billing for new speciality channels, and certainly by making this bill votable we can accomplish this goal.

Finally, I would say that this bill is important in the sense that we have a number of federally regulated corporations, namely cable companies, telephone companies and banks, for which there is at present absolutely no consumer protection legislation. I think it's time that we here established a beachhead in that regard.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.

Do the members of the committee have any questions for Mr. Gallaway?

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Because of your experience in the last Parliament, of course, you have a pretty high profile for this already. Have a significant number of parliamentarians been pressing you and urging you to do this again?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: No.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, so it's primarily your initiative, but you feel you have the support of many other members, as you mentioned?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Yes, I'm quite certain I do.

• 1625

Mr. Ken Epp: What about Canadians? The issue seems to have died.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: It has died in certain regions of the country and has arisen in other areas. As I pointed out to you, I did a number of interviews a couple of months ago, because at the moment it's an issue in the province of Quebec, with Vidéotron in the Montreal market in particular.

The other thing I point out is that it's quiet at the moment, but do we only legislate when there's a fire or do we have some fire prevention?

Mr. Ken Epp: Fine.

I think that answers my questions, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Doyle.

Mr. Norman Doyle: You mentioned that the Canadian Cable Television Association, in testifying before the House committee on Canadian heritage, said it would never use negative-option billing again. Has it kept that promise, with the exception of Quebec?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: It's a bit ironic. You promise you will never do something and go ahead and do it, and then you say you didn't do it over here so you've kept the promise. The answer is no, it hasn't kept its promise. In fact, it is clearly violating that promise in the province of Quebec. It said saying “I promise not to do this”, but there's a little asterisk up here that says “This offer doesn't apply in certain provinces”.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Okay. So it's not only the province of Quebec where you have that problem.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Obviously it's an industry that is evolving, so quite possibly there could be an outbreak again. There's more and more pressure on the CRTC to license more and more specialty channels. At the moment I believe there's a hundred applications before the CRTC and there'll be another round of licences granted probably in the next six to eight months.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Okay.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any other questions?

[English]

Thank you, Mr. Gallaway. No further questions.

[Translation]

Welcome, Mr. Ménard. You have five minutes to present Bill C-289.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): For starters, I would like to say that I have drawn the inspiration for my bill from the Community Reinvestment Act in the United States. In 1977, the United States enacted legislation to make it possible to assess the performance of a lending institution on the basis of its ability to meet the credit needs of the entire community it is supposed to serve, including the low or medium-income component. To this end, four federal monitoring bodies examine the various lending institutions in the U.S. Each year, these monitoring bodies make public the approaches used by the lending institutions to adequately meet their responsibilities under the Community Reinvestment Act.

I have been told that in the United States, the disclosure of these reports is followed very closely by the media and has enabled various consumer associations to monitor the behaviour of these lending institutions and lobby them appropriately.

Allow me to mention some of the initiatives implemented by American banks, as a result of the CRA: first of all, there is free cashing of government cheques for their clients; secondly, service charges on banking operations are very low; thirdly, it is impossible to freeze clients' funds for more than two working days; and fourthly, they absorb a portion of the costs linked to a mortgage, such as the assessment, title search and credit authorization.

Community reinvestment is a balance between deposits received and the community and business loans granted in a given community. In keeping with what exists in the United States, my bill proposes that banks would be under the obligation to assess this balance for underprivileged communities.

It is not easy to define an underprivileged community. In order to come up with an operational definition with significant scope, we have defined underprivileged communities as those federal electoral ridings where the unemployment rate is equal to or higher than the national average.

In summary, the bill that I am proposing contains five main points.

First of all, banks located in underprivileged communities must, to achieve equity in community reinvestment, analyze their operations, systems, rules and practices in order to measure the gap between the total deposits and loans granted to designated people.

• 1630

Secondly, once this analysis has been completed, the banks must forward the contents as well as the steps they plan to take to achieve equity in community reinvestment to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions by March 31 of each year.

Thirdly, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions shall propose evaluation criteria designed to promote the application of the community reinvestment concept, in consultation with the interested community groups.

Based on these criteria, the Superintendent shall analyze the reports submitted by the bank branches and determine whether they are making reasonable efforts to implement equity and community reinvestment.

The Superintendent submits the report to the Minister of Finance each September. The Minister tables the report in each House of Parliament and ensures that it is made public.

As you can see, my bill is based on the principle that consumers, being more aware of bank actions and decisions, will be in a better position to bring the required pressure to bear and, as a result, influence the legislator.

I have drawn the inspiration for my approach from the representations made by the Canadian Coalition for Community Reinvestment. This coalition reminded us that 400,000 Canadians do not have bank accounts because of existing rules. Imagine what that involves, with respect to access to credit. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ménard. Do you have any questions for Mr. Ménard?

Mr. Epp.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: You say 400,000 Canadians do not have the opportunity to have a bank account. Where did you get that statistic?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: From a coalition that is called Canadian Coalition for Community Reinvestment and that claims to represent roughly two million people. It is made up of not only unions, but also consumer associations and other associations concerned with social justice. The Coalition commissioned a study from Environics, which determined that there was an average of 400,000 Canadians who are required to present photo I.D. cards, and who have to make a small deposit, because of existing rules. All of these rules combined, according to the study and the Coalition, result in there being 400,000 Canadians who do not have bank accounts.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: And does your bill propose then to require the banks by law to have branches in these communities and to allow people to have a bank account with zero assets in it? Is this what you're proposing?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Not exactly, but my bill says that in Canada at present there are roughly 4,000 bank branch offices. The existing branch offices report to the six large chartered banks, and my bill covers the six large chartered banks.

The branches that are located in disadvantaged communities are those that are located in electoral ridings where the unemployment rate is higher than the national average.

In these cases, banks must take steps to improve access to credit. In the United States, banks have been asked to make an effort to get involved in their immediate communities. However, the bill does not stipulate what shape that involvement will take.

I have given you a certain number of examples. The State of New York, for example, does not allow a bank to freeze a cheque deposited in a branch for more than two days. This is a way of helping the people who need to use those services.

In Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, one of the ways of dealing with poverty would be for banks to use practices that are much more liberal, in the philosophical sense of the term, with respect to the mortgage market.

The banks could choose to say: In the Hochelaga—Maisonneuve community, we are going to facilitate access to property through mechanisms for allocating mortgages that are different from those used elsewhere.

Essentially my bill seeks to force banks to report to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions once a year. The Superintendent will report to the House on how banks are achieving what is called community reinvestment. The expression comes from the United States. That's the philosophy behind my bill.

• 1635

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: I'd like someone else to ask some questions while I gather my thoughts here.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Epp is suggesting that someone else ask questions. Ms. Parrish.

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I have a question, Mr. Ménard, and I'm not sure your bill addresses it. I apologize for not reading all the fine print.

My daughter has a friend, a young man 24 years old—not a close friend in case anybody's trying to track it—who was refused access to a bank account at the Royal Bank. He'd had some financial difficulties, and he was paying back his credit cards and so forth, but as soon as he applied to get a bank account at the Royal Bank he came up on the computer as a bad risk, and they won't let him open an account. So when he gets his pay cheque, he has to go to a cheque-cashing company and pay them $35 to cash his cheque.

This is a man in financial difficulty straightening himself out, and it costs him $35 to cash a cheque and it costs him another $20 to have them send a cheque to his creditors. So of course Saint Carolyn went in and co-signed for him.

But does this bill in any way force a bank to allow someone to open a bank account? Even if they put very tight restrictions, this guy could not open an account. He had to get me to sign for him.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The bill does not force banks to implement specific measures. My expectation is that they will proceed like they do in the United States. In the United States, each June, the institutions that monitor banks publish their involvement in the community in a report that is tabled in Congress. This obviously receives a lot of media coverage, and the banks must account for the steps they have taken to get involved in the community.

I bet that consumers who learn that the Royal Bank, because you mentioned the Royal Bank, charges higher fees to open an account will obviously mobilize and the banks will have to take steps to remedy that. I do not think that it is acceptable for a financial institution making the profits they make to do so on the backs of consumers by charging $35 to open an account.

However, I do not think that the bill would be credible if it defined how community involvement was to be achieved in communities. That is not done in the United States and I do not think it should be done in Canada. We have to mobilize and focus on information. This bill will help consumers be informed. This is a bill that will make it possible to bring pressure to bear on banks with a view to achieving more social justice.

I pointed out in my presentation that this legislation has existed since 1977. In 1993, President Clinton asked Congress to review it. I would like to mention three statistics to give you some idea of the benefits a bill like this could mean for Canada if it were adopted.

We know that since 1993, in the housing sector at the national level, loans granted to Afro-Americans under the Community Reinvestment Act have increased by 48%, loans to Hispanic families have increased by 36%, and that mortgages to low-income citizens have gone up by 22%.

If the committee feels my analysis is accurate and that there are groups in our society who do not have equitable access to credit and who, as a result, do not have the levers they need to change their living conditions, I think the Community Reinvestment Act, from which I have drawn my inspiration, is an interesting model.

However, it is not a coercive model, or a centralising model. It is up to banks to get involved in their communities. The Superintendent of Financial Institutions is required to consult organized groups, community groups, to set up evaluation criteria for the performance of banks.

The Chairman: Do the four lines summarizing your bill do justice to the idea on which it is based?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Partly, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that my presentation has shed some light on it. But you know to what extent all of these things must comply with legal constraints, Mr. Chairman.

I could perhaps give all members of the committee a copy of my text.

The Chairman: Yes. At any rate, if you find that the summary does not translate the inspiration behind your bill, perhaps you could arrange to have some additional information when you table it in the House.

It says here that banks must lend to people who are in the electoral riding where the banks are located. That doesn't mean anything.

• 1640

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you know what lawyers are like, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: No, but there is a lot of space; the page is empty. There could be another three lines to say that it is for disadvantaged areas, communities, etc.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, of course. With pleasure.

The Chairman: I would recommend that you ask for that, because if it is not included, people miss the point. Someone reading it has no idea what your bill is all about.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions?

[English]

Mr. Norman Doyle: I would like to have a copy of your presentation, if I could.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Very well. I will send it in English and French to the clerk, Ms. Diotte, so that she can forward it to all committee members.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Perfect. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: If you want it to arrive safe and sound, you would be better off going through Ms. Diotte than through the Chairman.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You have my full confidence, but I'm in your hands, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Jim Pankiw, on motion M-269.

[English]

Mr. Pankiw, you are invited to introduce your motion 269. You have five minutes to do so.

Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Thank you very much.

I'd like to start by reading motion 269. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be amended to recognize the right of every person to own, use and enjoy property; and to not be deprived of that right without full, just and timely compensation and the due process of law.

I'd like to start my presentation today by indicating that there's been an ongoing discussion about property rights in this country. Indeed, the issue is of such perceived importance that two former prime ministers have made reference to including property rights in the Constitution.

In 1981, when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being drafted, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau advocated a property rights clause for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, a property rights clause did not make it into the final draft of the charter. In 1991, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney stated in the House that he favoured amending the charter to guarantee property rights. However, no amendment was made.

The position of the former Liberal and Conservative prime ministers demonstrates another aspect of the property rights issue, and that is that it transcends political affiliations. It has been my observation that MPs of every political stripe have valuable perspectives and points of view to contribute to the debate on this motion. That is to say, the subject generates considerable discussion and debate amongst MPs.

Furthermore, the definition of property is not restricted to physical items. In this age of new technologies and the approach of an information superhighway, the whole issue of intellectual property rights is emerging as an important and complex issue in need of discussion and consideration by legislators. In other words, how do we attack the issue of property rights over the Internet? Do those rights even exist or should they exist? That is the emerging issue that is deserving of debate and consideration in the House of Commons. Those are some of the areas that need to be explored, and motion 269 provides members an opportunity to do just that.

In conclusion, I'd like to say that members of Parliament should be given every opportunity to fully address this issue, especially in light of the new technologies that the information superhighway and the whole concept of intellectual property present, notwithstanding the fact that this is something that's been considered by other parties, including at least two prime ministers. In light of all that, I urge the committee to deem motion 269 votable in that it would therefore allow three hours of debate on the issue, followed by a vote at the expiration of that debate.

• 1645

Thank you for your consideration of this.

The Chairman: Thank you, Jim.

Are there any questions? Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Have you done any formal polling—that's not the right word, but I'll use it—of other parliamentarians, not only in your own party but in other parties? In other words, how widespread is interest in this issue among parliamentarians in this Parliament?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: The interest is very widespread. I haven't done a formal poll to say that a certain percentage of members would be in support of your committee deeming this votable, but the issue of property rights repeatedly comes up in each session of Parliament. Bills affecting property rights are often drafted or presented, and that generates the debate about it.

That raises a good point, because another thing this debate would do is help frame the parameters of that kind of discussion. If the industry committee, for example, is working on a bill that affects intellectual property rights with some telecommunications aspect to it, framing the debate on this would assist them in drafting that legislation. Not only has it historically been discussed, extending back many years, and been indicated by prime ministers as well, but it enters into debate in the House of Commons on a regular basis. I'm sure veteran members of Parliament sitting here would concur with that.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

My second question, which I ask just about everybody, is this: how widespread is interest across the country among the people we represent? In your riding, is there a lot of interest in this? Is it marginal? How is it? Have you had any representations from people outside your riding?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I can't say that it's a burning issue. It's not the first thing on the agenda when I consult my constituents through town hall meetings and the like. But as legislators I think we have a responsibility to consider the future. Again, I'm referring to the intellectual property rights aspect of things here. If we can foresee the need to have parameters and a discussion on this, then we are exercising the foresight to do so, and then it really isn't foresight any more. The information highway and the Internet are here and it's important in that respect.

Also, it affects people at different times. For example, in the last Parliament I think there was a bill that didn't pass simply because time ran out, but it was about endangered species legislation. I think the bill ran into some problems because the debate wasn't as extensive as what I'd be proposing with this motion. It would assist the drafters of legislation like that, and it would assist in the debate on those if the issue of property rights was clearly delineated. Debating this motion fully and voting on it would give parliamentarians that tool.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Doyle.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Maybe you can educate me a little bit here. Who are the people most affected by all this? Give me an example of people, or groups of people, who are affected by that right to own property. What are we talking about here? I don't quite understand the nub of what you're trying to get at here.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I can't say there's a specific nub that I'm trying to get at. It's a general thing, I suppose. I don't know what, for example, Prime Minister Trudeau foresaw when he was advocating inclusion of property rights in the charter, or what Prime Minister Mulroney was thinking at the time he commented on it.

Of particular interest to me is this concept of intellectual property rights. It's possible with the technology now. I think we should give consideration to protecting people's intellectual property if they're communicating over things like the information superhighway, the Internet. If the information is not protected, then they would potentially be apprehensive about using that new technology that benefits everybody, because they would be afraid of infringing on rights they may believe they should have.

• 1650

I think that if we debated this for three hours, it would be a great opportunity to flesh out those kinds of things and anything else. Is there something in particular you're thinking of?

Mr. Norman Doyle: No, I'm just wondering. I thought that under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we all had the right at this time to own, use, and enjoy property, which is exactly what you're getting at.

I guess what I'm looking for is somebody to give me examples of people or individuals who do not now have a right to own, use, or enjoy property, other than prisoners or people who give up their rights. I guess I just don't know what it's all about or what you're trying to get at.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: You just indicated that you were under the impression that we did have that right, but in fact we don't. The right to property is not entrenched in the Constitution. I submit that at least a debate on whether it should be so would be an interesting and valuable debate for the House of Commons to entertain.

It's difficult for me to answer. I can't foresee what legislation may be introduced next year, next month, or years down the road that would potentially affect some type of property owner, but—

Mr. Norman Doyle: What you're saying is that in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms now, there is not that right recognized to own, use, and enjoy property.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: That's right, yes.

Mr. Norman Doyle: Well, you learn something new every day. I didn't know that. I thought there was. I thought we all had a right to—

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Despite the fact that it has been advocated by past prime ministers and stuff, it just somehow never got there.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Could we ask what difference this makes? If I have a car with a contract, the car belongs to me. If I have a house, the house is mine. What is gained by saying that this right is protected in the Constitution? What difference does it make?

[English]

Mr. Jim Pankiw: I'm sorry, I missed that. If you had a what?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Let me give you some examples. If I have a wristwatch like this, it belongs to me. If I have a car, it is mine. If I have a house that is fully paid for, it belongs to me. What is the point in having constitutional protection for this right? If I have a contract and everything belongs to me, it does not belong to anyone else but me. What is the problem?

[English]

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Okay, I'll just enter into a hypothetical example.

One of the issues we've been debating a lot—it comes up in question period every day or almost every day—is the Kyoto conference. Let's suppose that Canada, in an attempt to curb carbon dioxide emissions, agreed that certain types of engines, or engines that fell below a certain degree of efficiency in the burning of the fuel they used, shouldn't be used because they contribute too much carbon dioxide emissions. Say you have an old car you had been saving or collecting. It's part of your family. Maybe it was your father's car or something. When the engine burns, it's very inefficient. It's a high-polluting engine and wouldn't meet those requirements.

First of all, if this were entrenched in the charter, the government couldn't pass a law to basically confiscate or take that car away from you, at least not without the second part of my motion, which is to provide you with just and timely compensation. It could say that it knows the car is yours, but that the law is so intense in this area that it must confiscate it. Probably in that case it would provide some allowance to you to keep that car, restrict it, or what have you.

I'm just saying that right now, if you do own such a type of collector's vehicle that wouldn't meet some requirements, there's no protection for you in the charter for that.

• 1655

However, this isn't just about physical property, as I indicated. It's also about intellectual property, which is becoming a very important issue. I see it a lot, because I sit on the industry committee. In telecommunications, you can see it's is an emerging thing. It would be timely for Parliament to enter into a very full, lengthy debate on this now. Let's debate it now.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your explanation. Are there any other questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Pankiw.

[English]

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Now I would like to invite Mrs. Libby Davies to give a five-minute presentation of motion 133.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present my motion to you. I'd like to do two things: first I'll briefly describe the motion and the goals I have in presenting it, and then I'll speak to why I think it is a votable motion.

First of all, the motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should set targets for the elimination of poverty and unemployment, and should pursue those targets with the same zeal it has demonstrated for targets to reduce the deficit.

The goal of my motion is to really focus our debate and be creative about looking at the linkage between poverty and unemployment, and to understand the need to take very concrete action in establishing targets, real measures, and a timetable for dealing with this issue.

I do believe that all members of the House from all sides of the House are very concerned about this issue of growing unemployment and poverty in our country, and I think we all recognize the seriousness of it. What we really need to do, and what this motion seeks to do, is set out a concrete timetable; establish very clear, measurable targets; and deal with this issue in a holistic way.

As a new member of the House, I really appreciate the opportunity that we can, through private members' business, raise issues such as this and try to broaden the debate and include all members of the House in trying to work towards solutions. I feel very optimistic about that.

I think we all agree that unemployment is very serious. Something like 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed. For example, the Catholic bishops have estimated that if you include Canadians who have given up looking for work or who are underemployed, then the figure is much closer to something over 3 million. So we're looking at something like a quarter of our workforce.

Poverty has also been increasing. I'm sure we all heard last week the Campaign 2000 report, where they showed us their recent information about how child poverty has increased, unfortunately, by 58% since 1989. There's a growing sense that we have a real, systemic problem in Canada with increasing non-standard work, wages not keeping pace, and growing systemic poverty. I believe we need an anti-poverty policy that pays a lot more attention to the number of jobs being created and the wages and conditions attached to them.

We need real, clear, achievable targets for dealing with poverty and for creating jobs. We also need to set targets, just as we've done for the deficit, in things such as housing, child care, and income support. We need to address the links between these issues and set a timetable.

I was very heartened to know that in 1989 the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000. Unfortunately, there was never really a plan for a follow-up. That's what this motions speaks to: the need to be broad, comprehensive, and concrete in setting targets. As parliamentarians, we have a social responsibility to take this up.

As to whether it is a votable issue, I would suggest to the committee that it does meet the criteria of being a votable issue. I'd like to give you five brief points.

One, it's a serious national issue that we're all concerned about, as evidenced by the 1989 motion.

Two, this motion is presented for debate and vote in broad, non-partisan terms, which is the spirit embodied in private members' business.

Three, it upholds the core values, not only of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms but also of international covenants that Canada is a signatory to.

• 1700

Four, poverty has not been addressed in the government's agenda as far as setting clear targets for poverty or unemployment is concerned. This gives us the opportunity to discuss and debate that.

Five, a number of polls have shown that across Canada, people think this is a very serious issue. It's something that affects every community and every sector of the community.

Finally, in 1997 the UN declared a Decade for the Eradication of Poverty: 1997 to the year 2006. So it's a very timely opportunity to show our commitment by being specific and setting targets and a timetable to advance the eradication of poverty.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Davies.

Are there any questions?

Monsieur Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: This is a motion that has great support, I would think, from members of your own party. What is your read on how interested other parliamentarians are in this issue? In other words, how much interest do you think this will generate in our Parliament?

Ms. Libby Davies: There is a huge amount of concern and interest from all parts of the House. I was at the breakfast meeting last week for Campaign 2000, and there were members from all parties.

I think sometimes the issue feels very overwhelming to us: where do we begin to tackle issues around poverty? We've had specific programs in the past, such as the national child benefit and housing programs, but my feeling is if we could have an open debate and really talk about a holistic approach to this issue, we would see very strong support from all parts of the House and a willingness to work together. What's really important about private members' business is it opens up that kind of opportunity.

Mr. Ken Epp: Is this a particular problem in your own riding?

Ms. Libby Davies: Oh, most definitely. My riding is Vancouver East, which has probably the poorest urban community in Canada. Nevertheless, I recognize that right across the country, in rural communities, in urban communities, and in large cities, growing unemployment affects almost every family in one way or another: parents are facing part-time work or low wages, or women are finding it difficult to get work. This is why it's such a broad issue affecting all of us across the country.

Mr. Ken Epp: How widespread do you think this is across the country, as opposed to in your riding?

Ms. Libby Davies: I would suggest this is really a national issue of most serious concern, and that is reflected in a number of national organizations we have that are very active across the country and in every region. There are areas of Canada where poverty and unemployment are worse than in other areas, but the evidence is there to show that every community is touched in some fashion. Even if you have a job, even if you're fairly affluent, poverty in your community, whether it's at school or in terms of food banks, is something we all see, unfortunately.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Are there any further questions?

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

So, colleagues, we will adjourn, and meet again next Monday,

[English]

same time, 3.30 p.m.

Thank you very much. Goodbye.