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 8, 1997

• 1542

[Translation]

The Chairman ( Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des- Prairies, Lib.)): Good afternoon, honourable members. As there are four of us here, we have a quorum. We are going to continue hearing our colleagues who drafted bills or motions.

Ms. Picard, Bill C-247. Like our colleagues, you have five minutes for the presentation; then, we will have a five minute exchange, if needed.

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to defend my Bill C- 247, to amend the Criminal Code in order to prohibit the cloning of human embryos.

As you know, since 1995 there has been a voluntary moratorium on nine genetic and reproductive practices and technologies, one being the cloning of human embryos. This voluntary moratorium was brought forward and announced by the former Minister of Health, Ms. Marleau.

This is not enough, when you think that we are already at a point where they are cloning adult cells. The example which comes up in our minds is the one of the ewe Dolly. Now science progresses quicker than the law.

This amendment to the Criminal Code relating to the cloning of human embryos is an ethical and social issue which affects the Canadian people as a whole. There is a big legal vacuum which has been denounced by many stakeholders. I am thinking namely of the Baird Report. This was one of the main recommendations of the Royal Commission which reviewed the new reproductive technologies. It was stressed in the Baird Report that we should prohibit that practice. This was in 1993.

Furthermore, last year, in the Standing Committee on Health, we reviewed the new reproductive and genetic manipulation technologies. Among the stakeholders who came to meet us were some representatives of the scientific community. When we take a look at their testimonies in general, we see that there was a consensus on the prohibition of human cloning. Even the Scottish scientists who performed the cloning on the ewe Dolly stated that human cloning was possible but unacceptable from an ethical standpoint.

• 1545

The fact that the first successes in cloning are only a few months old explains why there is little legislation prohibiting that practice in the world, but the recent discoveries precipitated the process. The United Kingdom has already legislated in this direction. European researchers are calling for an international ban. The U.S. President has initiated a few months ago a thinking process on cloning, and asked for a report on the ethical and legal consequences of that technology.

I also think that all the hon. members, whether from the Reform Party, the NDP or the Progressive Conservative Party, are in favour of such a bill.

In the course of our review of the new reproductive and genetic manipulation technologies in the Standing Committee on Health in the previous Legislature, the government itself tabled a bill to prohibit human cloning.

While allowing to pursue the debates on other technologies, Bill C-247 illustrates the Canadian and Quebec consensus on human cloning. It also translates into facts and into law what scientists all over the world call the global disapproval.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Picard. Are there any questions?

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Madame Picard and I were both on the health committee last year that studied this proposed legislation. We prorogued or ended the House—called the election—before it went through.

Is the wording of the clauses in here, Madame, similar to what we had in the proposed bill that didn't make it to the floor?

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Yes.

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Exactly the same?

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: Yes, it is the same thing as far as the cloning of human embryos is concerned. Even at the penalty level, it is the same.

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: So it's exactly the same.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: I took up almost all that what was proposed in the bill which died on the Order Paper before the election.

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: You're still on the Standing Committee on Health. As to its relevance to being votable now, have you heard whether they're going to reintroduce any of that material we worked so hard on?

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard: I would like to put the question to the Minister this afternoon, in the Health Committee. It is not a priority at the present time. We are making a review of alternative medicine, of natural healing. For the time being, the voluntary moratorium is always there and I understand this is not part of the priorities of the Health Committee.

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you very much. I have more comments to make, but they're more on the merits of making it votable. Thank you very much for bringing it forward.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Parrish. Are there any other questions?

We thank you very much.

Ms. Pauline Picard: Thank you very much for your attention.

The Chairman: Now Mr. Dale Johnston, Bill C-233. Welcome, Mr. Johnston. It is a bill to provide for the settlement of disputes affecting west coast ports by final offer arbitration.

[English]

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Good afternoon.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Good afternoon, Mr. Johnston. You have the floor.

[English]

Mr. Dale Johnston: You have introduced my private member's bill regarding final offer selection settlement mechanisms for west coast ports. I feel this bill won't affect the right to strike, but it will affect the number of work stoppages that have taken place at the west coast ports.

• 1550

It's interesting to note that over the last 20 years Parliament has been called on 19 times to put an end to some sort of work stoppage at the west coast ports. Needless to say, that kind of disruption has a very negative effect on Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of goods. It may be costing us, in the long run, as far as repeat customers for such products as grain are concerned. It seems that oftentimes it is in the grain-shipping season that we have these kinds of disruptions.

I'm not trying to single out either labour or management. I think they're equally at fault. The cause of disruption is just as often a lockout as it is a strike. Therefore, I think we need a mechanism that is going to be usable by both parties and is going to ensure that we have an uninterrupted flow of goods through our west coast ports.

The question of transportation in a country as huge as this and the competitive nature of the things we export I think make it imperative that we put in place some sort of mechanism that will continue these services.

While it's impossible to put dollar figures on these work stoppages, it's estimated that in 1994 the west coast dispute direct costs were in the neighbourhood of $125 million. Anybody can speculate as to what the indirect costs or future costs, in terms of threatened sales or future sales, could have been. It very likely would have run into the billions of dollars.

While it may sound as though all I'm interested in is the dollar aspect of it, those dollars also translate into jobs in transportation and in all areas of shipping and processing, and it has a very direct impact on the farm community.

I think this is a mechanism that could be used equally by labour and management. I think it's past due. I believe there has been a precedent set in that Mr. Speaker's private member's bill, which was Bill-262 in the last Parliament, was basically the same bill, except his was limited only to the shipment of grain through the west coast ports and mine expands on that a little bit.

So I think there is a real need for this bill to be votable. I know we certainly have many members in my caucus who would be anxious to speak to this issue.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Johnston. Are there any questions? Yes, Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): In the purpose section of your bill, there is a specific mention of west coast ports. Assuming that such a legislation is votable and that it is passed, how do you think other port workers would react? There are of course several oceans in this beautiful and large country. We would have somehow a rule on the left and a rule on the right. I have a little difficulty with this, unless you give me some good reasons.

[English]

Mr. Dale Johnston: I think history answers your question to a certain extent, and it is that the work stoppages I've mentioned have all taken place on the west coast. In 19 of the last 20 years we've been asked to legislate them back to work—not along the St. Lawrence Seaway, but on the west coast.

• 1555

I'm attempting to address a recurring problem here. If we were to develop these kinds of problems at other ports, I think it would be reasonable to consider similar legislation for those ports.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Do you have any good reasons to believe that the workers who are directly affected by such a legislation would rather be favourable to it or is there a risk that it increases the tensions and the difficulties in labour relations?

[English]

Mr. Dale Johnston: I know that in other instances, even when the workers have been legislated back to work, a very similar sort of method has been used after the legislation to put them back to work.

What I'm saying is that we should not be going through that work stoppage process. When you get to the point where they can no longer make headway in the bargaining process, this method should be implemented to bring about a conclusion without having a work stoppage. And I stress “work stoppage” as opposed to strike. It can just as easily be a lockout situation.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Johnston.

Mr.Epp.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Dale, you're in the competition here. We have a whole bunch of items. We're here to basically decide whether or not we're going to vote on them as opposed to just talking about them. Why should we vote on yours and put all the others aside?

Mr. Dale Johnston: As you know, Ken, I think we should vote on them all, but I believe this is an urgent matter. This is a matter that is going to recur. We just saw it in the postal dispute. That too had to be settled with back to work legislation, and really, nothing is settled. All that's happened is the postal workers are back at work. They still have not resolved the contract situation.

I believe this has application in other areas where we have work stoppages that would adversely affect innocent third parties and in cases where the third party has no alternative to the services that are offered.

The Chairman: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): I was interested in the claim that there have been 19 different occasions in the last 20 years, if I remember what you said correctly, in which there has been back to work legislation. I've been here for 18.5 years out of those last 20. Are you sure about that figure, that there were 19?

Mr. Dale Johnston: That's according to our research, Bill. I wouldn't want to—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Because I certainly don't remember 19 different occasions on which we had back to work legislation for west coast ports, or back to work legislation, period. Even so, that would seem like a lot to me. I was just wondering about that.

That doesn't detract from the issue or from the importance of not having or trying to avoid the work stoppages that did occur. The number just seemed a bit high to me. It's neither here nor there as far as the votability of your motion.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I can certainly check that out further.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any more questions?

Thank you, Mr. Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: I would like now to invite Mr. Rick Borotsik to present his motion.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do apologize for my colleague Mr. Doyle, who cannot be here. He is in the House. As we recognize, everybody has their issues, and Mr. Doyle feels very strongly about this.

First of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to appear before you and your very important committee as you are identifying motions that should be taken forward.

Like the previous speaker, I believe this motion I'm prepared to put forward is one of immense importance, not only to western Canadian farmers but to Canadians in general with respect to our reputation on international trade fronts. As well, we all recognize the fact that global trade is very important, and transportation is a very major part of that with respect to just-in-time delivery.

• 1600

On July 25, 1997, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board convened a grain summit in Winnipeg. A key objective was to gauge the interest among those who handle and transport grain in the value of embarking on a comprehensive review of the system. It was a productive exercise, but it did not answer the problems that thousands of farmers have out west with our current system. However, there was a consensus that a review should be conducted by 1999.

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I have to say that Canadian farmers cannot wait for two years. Also, I believe that we as parliamentarians have a role and a duty in committee to begin immediately listening to the concerns of all stakeholders so that we may be able to have a better understanding of how we might tackle this very serious problem.

I also believe the most appropriate way of conducting an immediate comprehensive review is to form a standing joint committee of Agriculture and Agri-food and Transport pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), which allows us to do such a thing. The committee would hear witnesses from the farming community across western Canada, from railways, from the Canadian Grain Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board, and from those who operate and regulate the industry.

I would also like to dispel any thoughts that this is an issue that only affects western Canadians. It is an issue that has widespread ramifications across Canada, even though it has directly affected those west of the Ontario border. It is Canada's international reputation that is at stake as a supplier of the world's best grain.

The review is necessary because of the new market realities for Canadian grain. With the end of the Crow rate two years ago, farmers have to be more competitive. Also, it should be noted that the federal government's 13,000 hopper fleet has yet to be sold, leaving farmers wondering about the government's reasoning for not doing anything with them. This is not helping the situation.

The review should assess the effectiveness of the process and the adequacy of shipper protection, the lack of railway competition and alternatives, and the potential improvements in efficiencies, bearing in mind the cost to all stakeholders.

Canada exports around $20 billion worth of food products every year and about one-half of these exports are grains, oilseeds, and related products. Inefficiencies in the management of the Canadian grain transportation system have caused serious damage to the Canadian grain export industry and the prairie economy.

The late 1997 shipments, primarily in wheat, to contracted international customers have resulted in the demurrage costs or penalty costs of $65 million, paid for primarily by the producers, the farmers who grow the product. It has been estimated that an additional $35 million was lost in potential sales because of Canada's inability to deliver. These are conservative estimates, as some of the industry suggest that this should well be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

This does not only reflect poorly on westerners but also on Canada as a whole in the international market. Instead of dealing with the situation rationally, the Canadian Wheat Board's knee-jerk reaction to the problem was to file a complaint against CN Rail before the CTA. By the way, it is only costing taxpayers more money in a battle of egos, instead of sitting down rationally and solving this problem.

I have asked the minister responsible for the CWB to drop this complaint so we can get on with the constructive review. He has declined to do so. Unlike what the CWB and the CN have done, the committee review will not be an exercise in finger pointing.

The CTA hearing has literally handcuffed the government's ability to conduct the review on grain transportation. Legislation governing the Canada Transportation Act allows 120 days to elapse between the time a complaint is filed and when the public hearing must take place.

Unfortunately, the CTA has delayed public hearings three times and now the hearing will be held in March 1998, and I suggest it will be delayed again. Once again, I would like to inform this committee that this motion does not put forward any partisan interests. I am not suggesting any changes in policy. I am only suggesting that we as parliamentarians listen to the stakeholders involved, draft the report and table it in the House for consideration.

Every provincial government in western Canada wants the review conducted as early as possible. Even the Saskatchewan transport minister, referring to Ottawa's response to the issue, has said that the process is taking too long and that there is not a stakeholder involved who does not want an immediate inquiry.

The committee process is vital in our role as parliamentarians. Since the time of Confederation the House of Commons has created committees to study matters of national importance. This is just one of many issues that are important to western Canadians and to Canada's reputation as a whole.

I hope this committee will carefully consider this motion. I hope it will see the immediacy of the issue and deem the item votable.

• 1605

I'd like to touch on two other points. One of them is a speech that was given by the president of CN, Mr. Paul Tellier. He himself, as one of the stakeholders, would love to see a comprehensive review done, as opposed to the CTA review, where all the stakeholders can sit around a table and obviously can put forward positions and solutions that will fix the problem, not simply finger-point. He says:

But we must seize the opportunity of the comprehensive review. One that will include all components of the grain handling system. One that will analyze the entire commercial and regulatory structure of the industry.

One that is industry led, with strong government participation.

This is not the time for piecemeal solutions. This is not simply a transportation problem or a handling problem. It's a systemic problem with deep roots. This is not a time for simplistic tinkering. It's a time for bold action.

I think it's necessary that a joint committee have an opportunity to hear from Mr. Tellier and others.

I should also say that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has put forward a resolution. The resolution was passed at the chamber meeting, and it says:

That the federal government immediately conduct a federal review to develop a solution to grain transportation inefficiencies.

It goes on. But I can suggest, Mr. Chairman, that all stakeholders and all shareholders in this would like to have the same review.

It should well be a votable motion, Mr. Chairman, because in fact it is one of the most serious situations grain farmers in western Canada face right now. In fact, the whole system must be looked at in order to come up with solutions, not simply excuses.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. Are there any questions?

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: You put up a very good, strong case.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I wanted you to ask me the same question.

Mr. Ken Epp: You have basically already answered it, but I'll ask it again, sure. Why should we vote on yours and not on anybody else's? There are two of your colleagues back there, waiting. They want to be voted on.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Sure.

Mr. Ken Epp: Why can we say you and not them?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Again, their issues are probably as important to them as this one is to me.

Mr. Ken Epp: So they should all be votable.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, no. You have a very difficult task ahead of you, there's no question about it. Obviously you have to make some decisions on the presentations and the substance of the motion itself.

I can tell you this issue is costing western Canadian farmers hundreds of millions of dollars, and that's not an exaggeration. I can also tell you that without this intervention this issue will go on and on and on with no solutions in the near future. There has to be somebody who is actually going to bring this to a head. I believe very strongly that this joint committee would have an opportunity to do just that. At least it would get people talking, it would get people to the table.

Remember what it said in Mr. Tellier's report. This is not for simplistic tinkering; this is a systemic problem we have within transportation and we have to deal with it. Transportation is not simply transportation, it's our lifeblood. It's going to be what is required for our global economy and our global trade in Canada to survive. We're losing our reputation as just-in-time deliverers. We have to make sure we get it to the table. There's a very serious urgency about this issue.

Mr. Ken Epp: Your motion proposed the establishment of a committee.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, a joint committee between Agriculture and Agri-food and Transportation.

Mr. Ken Epp: Does your bill state specifically where the members for that committee will be drawn from?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: It does not at this time, no.

The Chairman: It's in the motion.

[Translation]

Mrs. Parrish, please.

[English]

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I want a clarification on that, because it looks to me as if what you're doing is actually trying to set the agenda for two standing committees to work together.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Under the standing orders we do have the ability to do just that. But it would be a joint committee of Agriculture and Transport. I assure you I can get the support of the transportation committee, because this is obviously an issue of transportation, but it's equally important as an issue to Agriculture, because they dovetail. So a joint committee of members of both committees would be struck to sit and listen to the witnesses, to listen to the Mr. Telliers of the world, to listen to the chambers of commerce, to listen to the operators of the industry, the Cargills, the ADMs, and the pools. This is a very serious issue. If somebody doesn't take the time and the energy to bring them together, they won't get together.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm on the transportation committee and we spent a couple of hours last week priorizing issues for the next 12 months, and I can assure you it was the second-highest issue. So Transport is already seized with it.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: As is Agriculture. I sit on the agricultural standing committee and it is definitely one of the burning issues.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: And you have Mr. Casey on Transport?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: He didn't say a lot about it, so maybe you should really push him.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: He understands transportation, but not necessarily grain rail transportation.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It has already been decided by the chairman of Transport. It's the next big priority. That's easy.

• 1610

The Chairman: Any further questions?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I would just suggest to Mr. Borotsik that if the committee ever gets formed, he should add the rail unions to his list of people who might be able to tell him something about how the railway works.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I apologize, Mr. Blaikie. That should have been a part of the presentation. You're absolutely correct. The employees themselves have an awful lot to offer, with the inefficiencies of the system we have right now. Certainly some of them are management in style. So I agree that the rail unions should in fact be a part of the stakeholders that would deal with this.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: We'd like now to invite Mr. Greg Thompson for presentation of motion 282.

Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to be with you and I appreciate the opportunity. I guess I'll proceed into my motion immediately. Is that okay?

The Chairman: You have five minutes to present your motion, and then there's a five-minute discussion with you.

Mr. Greg Thompson: The members have the motion before them, so I will not repeat it.

The issue we're looking at is a quarrying project in Bayside, New Brunswick. The project in question is going to take place on an international body of water. It's an international body of water that separates, obviously, the province of New Brunswick from the state of Maine, Canada from the United States.

This body of water was dedicated as a historic river, a heritage river, back in 1991 by the Government of Canada in co-operation with the Government of the United States, the State of Maine, and the Province of New Brunswick.

The quarry in question would violate a multitude of provincial, state, and federal laws regarding the sanctity of that river.

To this point the Province of New Brunswick and the federal government have refused really to talk about it.

I want to point out that, aside from the environmental questions on this particular project, a number of other questions have to be answered as well and debated in the House of Commons to allow the public to know what's really happening on this international body of water.

As I mentioned, we have some international agreements. But we also have a process, which has been basically thrown out the window, in terms of who would be invited to bid on a project of this magnitude.

Obviously federal lands and federal jurisdiction are involved here. Obviously the federal government owns lands in this project, and the federal government obviously has control of the waterway and the tidal waters. But in this entire process no Canadian company has been allowed to bid on this project. They're talking in isolation and behind closed doors to only one company, an American conglomerate that is involved in the business up and down the east coast of the United States. They're involved not only in the aggregate business but also in shipping lines in the ports in New York and New Jersey.

We feel that a number of issues have not been addressed. There has been no public debate on the project at all. We feel very much that it deserves a debate.

The company in question has hired the highest paid and strongest lobbyists in the province of New Brunswick, former cabinet ministers, and federally they have done the same. They're using their power and influence to push this project ahead in New Brunswick, and they're using their power and influence to push this project ahead in Ottawa.

So up to this point it's been like a lone voice crying in the wilderness on behalf of the people. They have not had a hearing on this. The provincial government has ignored it. The federal government has ignored it. So my contention is that it has to be brought to the House of Commons. It deserves debate.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd prefer to leave it to questions from the members and responses, if that is possible.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: One of the questions that we ask when we're deciding whether or not an item should be votable is how widespread across the country the influence of this particular question is. It seems to me this is a very regional issue you have picked here. Counter that, if you will.

• 1615

Mr. Greg Thompson: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear the last couple of words.

Mr. Ken Epp: I've forgotten now exactly what I said, but basically it looks to me like you have a very regional issue and it thereby becomes lower on the priority list of becoming votable.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I understand the question. There are a number of heritage rivers in Canada, some of them international heritage rivers. I believe in Canada presently there are only two international rivers, but they are Canadian, and I think there's obviously a national concern. What we're attempting to do here is to avoid this type of thing happening in other parts of Canada.

In Canada, although this river is a heritage river...in terms of international, we have two international heritage rivers in Canada. We have 24 in total, including the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, and Ontario. Every province has heritage rivers, so it does have national repercussions, if you wish, if this type of a development is allowed to take place on a designated heritage river. Those rivers are afforded a degree of protection based on the category of being a heritage river.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any questions? Yes, Mr. Blaikie.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Notwithstanding whatever sympathy I might have for Mr. Thompson's concern about the quarry project—and I'm sure that if I came to know more about it I would have even more sympathy than I initially have—my concern about this is that it does seem to take a matter that has already been the subject of questions in the House, and to the extent that it asks for a review of the Department of Transport's role, it's a motion that is in fact very partisan, regardless of the merits of the issue. You're asking the subcommittee on private members' business to carry something that is essentially a critique of a particular department of the government. To that extent I think there would be some doubt as to whether or not it actually meets the criteria of what should be a votable item. I would expect the committee to have that concern, and because of that, I raise it, so that you have an opportunity at least to address it.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Blaikie. This question actually has never been raised in the House to any of the ministers. It is related in a sense, indirectly or directly, to the privatization act and the marine act, but is obviously an international environmental situation more than anything else. The two U.S. senators in the State of Maine—and there are only two per state, as you know—are both really concerned about this, as are the congressmen and the governor in that state, because this is absolutely an international violation, if you wish, of an agreed-upon practice on that river. This reaches far beyond being just a home-grown issue.

It has never been the subject of debate per se in the House of Commons. There is overlap, because obviously the area where this is going to take place is in the same area in which this American company is attempting to take ownership of the port. In terms of that specific project, neither the Minister of Transport nor the Minister of Environment have ever been questioned in the House of Commons on this. This would be the first time it has actually gone up for debate or question.

The Chairman: Any further questions?

Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.

The Chairman: Now it's Mr. Ted White's turn, for motion number 28. Please go ahead, Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I gather you have copies of the motion.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Ted White: If the motion was to be made votable and subsequently passed in the House, basically it would amend the standing orders to dispense with the present practice of pairing of members and to establish instead properly authorized proxy votes for up to 25% of a party.

• 1620

As a little bit of background, this motion is based upon a change that was made to the standing orders in New Zealand in early 1995. The change was one of a number that were designed to improve family life and the efficiency of the House for individual members. It was adopted on the recommendation of a special standing committee set up to study ways of improving the standing orders and was initially introduced on a one-year trial basis.

It was reviewed in early 1996 and was judged as having been so successful that they actually wrote it into the standing orders, so it now forms a permanent part of the process there. The main advantages that were seen were that ministers could go off to Kyoto and not have to worry that they wouldn't be present for votes, but it also releases individual members to look after their individual riding business.

It's by no means a trivial motion in nature. It could have quite an effect on the operations of the House and on the roles of the whips in organizing anything that was adopted as a result of the motion passing. Making the motion votable wouldn't really discriminate in favour of or against a particular region of the country because if it were adopted it would offer the same benefits to every party and every member to enable them to organize and balance their community and constituency work with their duties here.

As I mentioned, it's based upon a successful change to the standing orders of the New Zealand parliament, a house that operates with substantially similar rules to ours. The motion should not require any obvious amendment or change on that basis. I think it's general enough to allow adoption.

The specific subject dealt with in the motion has not been addressed by the government on its legislative agenda, and I guess it wouldn't be. However, we're always looking at ways of improving the operations of the House; there are always people looking at that. Having M-28 in the House and made votable would certainly contribute to the process of ways to improve House operations and perhaps encourage members to talk about other ways of improving House operations.

There's never been an opportunity in the House to either debate or vote on this type of proposal. In fact, it's very rare to find changes to the standing orders coming before the House. I think there was one that successfully passed in the last Parliament, if I recall.

This is totally non-partisan in nature. I think one proof of this lies in the fact that the New Zealand parliament, with several parties, adopted this and has found it to be extremely successful; it has had no impact of a partisan nature. Nobody has complained about it at all. They've found it to be very beneficial.

In summary, then, M-28 would present an opportunity for members to debate and vote upon a possible change to the standing orders of the House. It's based upon a measure successfully adopted in a similar parliamentary system, where members had identical problems and concerns with respect to time management. Making the motion votable would encourage wider discussion among members of ways to improve the House operations without threatening the traditional roles of the parties in any way. The debates and results of a vote would be of significant value to any other committee studying ways of improving the House because of the subsequent discussion of other issues.

I've just prepared a three-sheet summary for each member of the committee, including one copy of the page from the standing orders in New Zealand, with a description from the review report in which they agreed that it had been so successful that they would make it part of the standing orders.

I would welcome any questions now from members.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. White. We'll appreciate reading the documents you have attached to your motion.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: The way it's designed, does the standing order enable people who are examining the outcome of a recorded vote to distinguish between proxy votes and votes by members who are present?

Mr. Ted White: I'm not able to answer that question, Mr. Blaikie. I'm not sure. I understand that the vote is recorded in the person's name.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I just wondered whether it's recorded in the person's name but as a proxy vote. It would seem to me that if they were recorded as proxy votes, this would not overcome all the problems that come from members having to be absent for votes because of committee work or constituency work or family commitments or whatever, because people would still be open to politicking with their voting record—this guy is recorded on everything, but such and such a percentage is proxy votes—whereas if the votes are not distinguishable, that problem wouldn't exist. I just wondered if you knew how it works.

• 1625

Mr. Ted White: I presume, because the measure would apply to every party, as it does in New Zealand, that every party is at the same disadvantage and advantage, you could say. Also, it's controlled by the whip; I guess they're running a rotation system in New Zealand, where people take turns utilizing the facility. So it's not a question I can answer off the top of my head, but I would be pleased to get an answer.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: So in the end, the whips are involved?

Mr. Ted White: Oh, yes. The proxy vote must be cast through either the whip or the leader, so that's why it doesn't detract from either the power of the parties or the functions of the whips. The whip still has control over the vote.

The Chairman: Mrs. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I would also be interested in whether the system there is similar to ours in that we're here for so many weeks and then have a week off, here for so many weeks and have a week off. I don't know if they have the same set-up.

We also have days that are pretty well designated no-vote days. We very rarely have a Monday vote and we never have a Friday vote. So I'm just wondering if they're under the same fluid rules as we are. If in fact theirs are more stringent, then this may have better application there.

The other thing I would point out to you is Procedure and House Affairs is going to spend the next six months.... I seem to be on all the committees that are doing all the fun stuff that the Reform Party and the Tories want.

Randy White brought in a series of questions that he gathered from your party members as issues that should be studied under the whole process of the House. We're going to review all of that. I don't recall if that was on the list or not, but obviously it is something we'll be reviewing in perspective with all the other rules in the House.

I'm more concerned about whether you're aware of the rhythm of their House. Is it similar to ours, with weeks off so we can plan to be in the riding, because we know specifically which weeks we're here, and with the fact that you can usually escape on a Monday or a Friday without the House falling on your head?

Mr. Ted White: Yes, their parliamentary calendar is very similar to ours in the way it blocks time. The original change was introduced because there was not a very large difference between the parties in terms of balance of power, and the government was running into some problems where it felt it had to keep ministers at home, because they couldn't go away anywhere in case they lost a vote. It was originally a government initiative, and everybody embraced it because it gave such additional freedom.

We know here in Canada we have most of the votes coming on a Tuesday, and sure, Mondays and Fridays are no-vote days, but for a lot of individual members there are still other functions that occur through the week. For example, the Kiwanis or somebody might be running a committee on taxation and might want a member of Parliament to attend, and they can only do it on a Wednesday, because they always have their meeting that day.

So there are other problems that creep in there, especially in a Parliament like this, which has such close numbers. Really that's the same circumstance that initiated this change in New Zealand.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: And how long ago was this done?

Mr. Ted White: It was studied in 1994, introduced in 1995, and reviewed in 1996 and made permanent. So it's been in operation now for close to three years.

Actually the deputy chair down there is a friend of mine. I'm in constant contact with him, and I did take the liberty of phoning him last week just to make sure this system is still working well, and he said yes.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Okay, thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You have selected the 25% figure to authorize proxy votes. In the arguments you made to support this, you mentioned the individual riding business of the members. You are saying that this makes family life easier, what I can understand.

But you know that proxy votes do not have a very good reputation. At the present time, the role of parliamentarians is subjected to a lot of criticism. Do you think that a motion such as yours would improve public perceptions? If we can vote by proxy, we may think that the preparation for the vote is rather optional. There is a little difficulty in there which makes me wonder.

• 1630

[English]

Mr. Ted White: That's a very good question, and one well worth considering.

I think the reputation of proxy voting is one that is easily overcome. If we were to adopt the same rules as were adopted in New Zealand, a proxy voting form must be signed off to the whip. You can't tell someone, “Cast this vote in my absence”, which means the whip, or the leader, has control of the proxies.

In terms of the people in the riding criticizing the vote, I think where they're likely to be more critical, frankly, is if the person is in the riding, is observed in the riding, and can't vote on something that's important, but has to be in the riding for some important reason. This way you can answer a constituent by saying, yes, we are monitoring the speeches; yes, I had to be here today, but you'll be pleased to know I will be able to vote. Even though I'm not physically there, I will be able to cast my vote on your behalf today.

So I think that is a benefit. That's certainly what was explained to me by the deputy chair in New Zealand. It's been a benefit for him to be able to say to people locally that, yes, I know I'm here, but I'm still going to be able to cast my vote for you today.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Why 25% and not 35%. 50% or 100%?

[English]

Mr. Ted White: It's always difficult to try to decide on a number. I decided I would lift the figure used in New Zealand for no other reason than that they were using it and found it to be satisfactory. It doesn't mean you have to use 25%, obviously. If a party only wanted to use 2% and keep its other members here, that's up to them.

That's the sort of thing where if members in the House felt they wanted to amend it down or up, they would be free to suggest that.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Madam Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: One question. Is this generated out of your own interest or is this something generated out of Canadians calling you from all over the country and asking you to do this?

Mr. Ted White: No, this hasn't really been generated by people outside of this place. It has been generated by conversations within the House. I think all of the members here, especially in the new Parliament now, are talking about how difficult it is to arrange sufficient time for riding activities.

Prior to us coming back here I thought, gee, I wonder if there are some other jurisdictions around the world that have found ways to handle business better. I actually have a number of motions in the pot right now drawn from different jurisdictions—the U.K., Australia, New Zealand—that I have felt can perhaps help us here. This was the first one to come up.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I wasn't being facetious. I know people don't phone you and say, “Change the standing orders”, but were you getting a lot of complaints in your riding because you couldn't attend something on a Wednesday night? Are people generally getting complaints?

Mr. Ted White: Personally, I would say I get no more complaints than any other MP would get. It's really just to try to help facilitate things. It's part of my program of drawing experience from other jurisdictions. Why don't we learn from what they've learned and see if we can utilize the same things here?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you.

The Chairman: It could be called “comparative parliamentarism”.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It could be. Say that quickly three times.

The Chairman: Any further questions?

Merci, monsieur White.

Mr. Ted White: I thank you for the questions—and the consideration, too.

The Chairman: Jason Kenney, Bill C-279.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is my first private member's bill and my first appearance before your committee. I hope I get everything right in terms of procedure.

This is a very straightforward bill. It would call on Canadians to observe a moment of silence on Remembrance Day. It suggests ways in which that might be done.

I can anticipate an immediate objection that this is already a tradition and doesn't require legislation to formalize the tradition, but the idea has emerged from growing concern about the lack of observance on Remembrance Day of the sacrifice of our war dead.

In fact, this has grown out of a similar effort in the United Kingdom, where their parliament, I gather, two years ago passed a motion calling on the British people to observe a similar moment of silence. This followed from the a campaign by the Royal Legion of the United Kingdom, as summarized in a news release I have distributed to you.

• 1635

This idea was also recently proposed by a new organization of young Canadians called the Dominion Institute, which recently, this past summer, conducted a poll on the level of knowledge of Canadian history among young Canadians.

In fact, Prime Minister Chrétien referenced this poll at some length in his speech in response to the Speech from the Throne because it had some very worrisome conclusions. One conclusion was that only 11% of Canadians between the ages of 18 and 25 could name two of our combatants in the First World War, only 35% could identify what D-Day was, only 33% knew what November 11 was significant for, only 31% knew what Vimy Ridge was about, and only 14% knew that Lester Pearson was a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Having conducted this study, many people took note of it. Among others, the Dominion Institute recommended that Parliament and the provincial legislatures could proclaim this moment of silence in co-ordination with the Royal Canadian Legion. After receiving official recognition, there's no doubt that Canadians would quickly embrace the simple but powerful idea they submit based on the success of this campaign in the United Kingdom and a similar effort in Israel to commemorate the Holocaust with two minutes of silence on an annual day of remembrance.

Finally, the bill is similar to, in fact modelled on, a private member's bill that recently passed the Ontario legislature. I gather, but I stand to be corrected, that it passed with unanimous support.

I do believe this is a significant bill. It's a matter that in general has been addressed by the government in terms of its general desire to better recognize our history, particularly the contribution of our war dead. It's reflective of an effort by the Royal Canadian Legion on behalf of its 500,000 members to do just this thing. They've written to the government asking for some kind of symbolic recognition of this minute of silence, which they'll be promoting in a campaign.

It's a completely non-partisan issue. I think it's an issue that transcends regional and political differences. It's one that I think would send a very warm signal to the remaining people who are from the generation of the last war. So I would hope that this committee would give consideration to make this a votable bill.

The Chairman: Thank you. Any questions?

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes, two questions. I think, given the concern expressed about the lack of knowledge on the part of young people in particular, I presume, about Canadian history, it seems to me we need a moment of teaching, or many moments of teaching.

Certainly I regret that in some places Canadian history has been not necessarily removed but made an option. I know in my home province they sought to remove it as a compulsory thing. I might just say that I view this as part of an overall trend toward making schools places where we train little entrepreneurs instead of people who know something about their country.

My concern about this, were it to become law—I support the idea—would be its enforceability. I wonder whether there isn't a concern about having such a law, and then, in the absence of being able to enforce it, you really set up a situation where actually more disrespect is shown than if you didn't have it all. Do you know what I mean? Say you have two minutes of silence and everything carries on except in very isolated places where people are specifically gathered to observe the two-minute silence. What have you accomplished? Have you not arguably made things worse? I'm not sure. I'm just musing out loud on that problem.

How has it worked in Britain? Do you know?

Mr. Jason Kenney: In response to your first comment, I agree about the need for education. At the Dominion Institute, they made two policy recommendations from their poll. One was the need for a national framework to teach Canadian history. All provinces should agree on some basic principles of Canadian history that could be taught. Of course, that's not within our jurisdiction.

• 1640

With respect to your second comment, Mr. Blaikie, this bill does not propose any penalties. In fact, legislative counsel was very careful not to use words in drafting this bill like “Canadians shall”, because that would imply a kind of criminal law sanction if it weren't observed. So we don't want to get into that.

For whatever reason, there are many Canadians who, either through ignorance or indifference, or perhaps for political reasons, choose not to observe this, and they're welcome not to. But the bill would simply be a formal, symbolic proclamation and recognition of this as a national symbol that people ought to recognize.

I recall that two years ago at Remembrance Day there was a news story about the fact that auto manufacturers in Canada had made arrangements with their unions to treat November 11 not as a holiday but as a regular work day. This would, I hope, give those people in management, and unions, schools, in shopping malls, and in public sports arenas pause to reflect on how they could incorporate this into their daily practice.

At 11 a.m., radio stations could come across the airwaves and announce that the moment of silence was happening. People in sports arenas could observe it. Something that is done in some institutions, like schools, could be broadened, and I think this kind of bill would give it the formal recognition of the Government of Canada, which would be meaningful.

The Chairman: Madame Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I agree with Mr. Blaikie's approach to history. I think if you don't know your past, then you're not going to learn much before you go into the future.

I share his concern about legislating good sense and legislating provinces to make it part of their history curriculum. I believe it goes a little beyond our scope.

For example, my husband gets the day off. He's a municipal employee. My kids go to school on that day. The schools have decided it's not one of those days they want to give everyone off, and good old local government takes every day they can get off.

I wonder if it's one of those things that as the priorities are set, province to province and in the educational systems, the better approach would be to go to the heritage committee and start a real campaign there rather than trying to legislate something that, to me, is tradition and good sense in the educational system.

You're brand new here, but this committee was accused royally last year of only passing into votability the feel-good bills and the ones that are non-controversial and the ones about which everybody will sagely nod their heads and say, ah, that was an easy bill.

How would you counter that, because that's what they're going to say about this one?

Mr. Jason Kenney: I would say that sometimes things do make sense to people from across partisan lines and we ought not to forestall good ideas—this isn't my idea—that have broad support, because they have broad support. That's not a reason not to bring it forward as a votable motion.

Bringing those bills up as votable motions makes a lot of sense, because they won't engender a lot of controversy and prolonged debate. They can be dealt with rather efficiently.

Again, this bill does not address education. I'm simply saying that I personally would support a national framework for Canadian history, but it is a different matter that should go to Canadian Heritage. The Prime Minister made remarks to that effect in his speech at the beginning of Parliament.

The Royal Canadian Legion has launched a project to encourage that kind of history teaching as well. But part of their project and part of the recommendation of the Dominion Institute is that Parliament also pass this kind of bill or resolution recognizing Remembrance Day; that symbols are important. We all know that in politics and in Parliament symbols are important.

It would recognize a symbol that is not being respected. You say that it's recognized in the school system; increasingly it is not. I think we need symbols that unify us, even apart from the Quebec question, and this is one of those.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Blaikie.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: One point, Mr. Chairman. I am reminded, when the member said we need to learn from history or we're doomed to repeat it, or something like that, that I once had an old testament professor who said the only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: That was so philosophical, Bill.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Theological.

The Chairman: Are we not here to make history?

[Translation]

Are there any other questions? No? Thank you very much, then.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you.

The Chairman: We will end with our colleague, Keith Martin, who will speak about motion 261 relating to a national Head Start Program.

• 1645

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Dr. Martin, as a medical doctor, do you ever worry about the germs we're passing on in those earpieces?

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): No. In fact, rumour has it that parliamentarians have no germs.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you.

The Chairman: It's a good start.

Mr. Keith Martin: It's very difficult, monsieur le président, being last on the list. I know you all want to go home.

The Chairman: We were expecting you.

Mr. Keith Martin: Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président et mes collègues. You have in front of you a copy of my motion, motion 261, and also an article that I wrote on the same subject that was in the Vancouver Sun a few days ago.

Essentially what this deals with is crime prevention. We have in our country today a serious problem of crime, particularly youth crime. The facts demonstrate that crime, particularly youth crime, has been increasing over the last ten years and is in fact double what it was in 1996.

Our traditional way of dealing with this through detection, deterrence, and incarceration has not worked, so we're looking for another way of trying to prevent crime.

Recent medical evidence has demonstrated that in the first eight years of life the building blocks of a normal psyche are developing. When circumstances take place that destroy those building blocks, be it abuse, violence, sexual abuse, neglect, inappropriate parenting, poor hygiene, or poor nutrition, a combination of these risk factors destroys the formation of a person's psyche.

When we look at people who are in jail, particularly those in youth detention centres, we see that many of those children have endured years of abuse. If we can prevent that abuse from occurring, then we will go a long way towards trying to prevent these children from developing conduct disorders and then going to jail.

In 1993, the justice committee commissioned the formation of the National Crime Prevention Council. They have done absolutely outstanding work on the subject and have come out very conclusively to show that early intervention works.

In the real world, examples like the Moncton Head Start program, the Perry Preschool program in Ypsilanti, Michigan, which was started in 1962, and the Hawaii Healthy Start program all demonstrate that early childhood intervention, working with the children and their families from the earliest stages possible, and in particular the pre-natal stage, will go a long way to preventing these tragedies from occurring.

They not only work but are very cost effective. The savings are $6 for every $1 invested, according to the Moncton program, $30,000 U.S. per child up to the age of 18. The Perry Preschool program, which is the model all over the world, demonstrated that there was a 50% reduction in crime, a 40% reduction in teen pregnancies, kids stayed in school longer, their employment opportunities were greater and their income was greater in the future. It was just a win-win situation all around.

In the motion that we have today, we're looking at opportunities in which we can try to prevent crime. The evidence is out there that very conclusively supports early childhood intervention, both in the real world and in studies that have been done. This motion essentially addresses that. It is non-partisan, it is of a national nature, and it is sufficiently flexible to provide the government the flexibility to work with their provincial counterparts. It will require both levels of government to address it, to work together to make a paradigm shift in the way we deal with youth crime in this country, to prevent it rather than manage it.

I hope you will take it upon yourselves to make this motion votable.

I've spoken to the Minister of Justice about this issue. She knows this works. Many members from across party lines know that this works and understand that this is a pragmatic way of dealing with the issue.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Martin.

Est-ce qu'il y a des questions?

Madame Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: This is a very laudable motion and no thinking human being wouldn't agree with it. My problem is that if we legislate it at this level what happens is that it affects health, which is administered on a provincial level, and it affects the education system for identification and for early childhood programs. These are all provincial issues. The first thing the provinces will turn around and say to us is (a) mind your own business, just give us the money and don't tell us how to administer it, which is roughly what they do now, and (b) ante up the money. This would be a very expensive bill if it were passed.

• 1650

You have Alberta and Ontario that have cut out junior kindergarten, and I think Alberta even cut out kindergarten or you have to pay for it. How do you propose that we overcome those roadblocks? It would be wonderful if we could. You must have a plan.

Mr. Keith Martin: Those are excellent questions.

All the motion does is ask the feds to work with the provinces. This doesn't require more money. If you look at the Hawaii Healthy Start program, they had trained volunteers who worked with the families at risk to do this. We can work with existing resources. There is $180 million from the feds that is going to be disbursed and given to the provinces. The feds are looking for ways in which this is going to be allotted appropriately. Actually it's $360 million, two $180-million bundles.

The provinces are looking for ways in which we need to address this issue. All the motion asks, Mrs. Parrish, is for the feds to work with the provinces. You're right, this falls into the jurisdiction of the provinces, but there's no leadership on this issue and there hasn't been for a long time.

The problem of crime affects both the feds and the provinces, and it affects not only health care, as you mentioned, but also human resources, justice, and provincially the attorneys general offices. This issue affects both levels of government and both levels wind up paying for it. So there is an argument to be made for the feds to get involved in a leadership role and in a guidance role to work with the provinces. The motion is only asking for the feds to work with the provinces. If the provinces are not prepared to work with the feds, that's the provinces' fault, but this motion would not obligate this program to be enacted if the provinces were not going to go onside. It's merely asking for the feds to take a leadership role to work with the provinces to try to express to them that these are solutions that do work, these are issues that affect both of us, so let's work together to get it done.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: If I could just interrupt you for a second, Keith, one of the problems is we made a promise in the first red book. I don't want to get partisan, but it was to put a bundle of money into day care. Do you know, we couldn't give it away to the provinces. They wouldn't take it because they had to put in 50% as well. So it was this big national failure for the government because we raised expectations, we said there's this much money there. You couldn't get a province to take it up. We had a heck of a time getting rid of even part of it in the city of Toronto.

I'm really concerned. We've already had one flop on this one. I can feel another one coming.

Mr. Keith Martin: I would submit that the way to go about it is not to offer money and say let's.... I gave the example of the money that is there for the early child benefit. That money is there. I wouldn't approach this by saying we have this money; what do we do with it? I would suggest that we work with them to have a paradigm shift in how we deal with crime prevention. There's a lot of money spent right now, and it's being tossed down a black hole and it's simply not working.

It costs $95,000 a year to keep a youth in a detention centre for one year—one year, $95,000. Existing prevention programs are dealing with the issue too late in the game. We're dealing with it when these kids run afoul of the law, when they've already had trauma to their own psyche, and it's not working.

All the motion really asks is that we take this paradigm shift and look at crime prevention early on, in the first eight years of life, instead of looking at kids when they're at the ages of 13 to 17, when they've already run afoul of the law.

Look in the past. You can use existing resources. It doesn't have to require any more money than what's already out there. In fact, it's going to save us so much more at the end, we will have more money to use for other purposes.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It will be a very interesting debate. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I can't resist commenting on some of the things that have been said. I think one of the reasons why provinces are reluctant to go into any kind of 50:50 relationship with the government on anything is because all the other 50:50 relationships they had with the government collapsed and they ended up.... It was 50:50 for medicare and now it's more like 70:30, or 80:20, depending on whose figures you believe. It's the same with the Canada assistance program; it was capped. If I was a province I'd be very reluctant to enter into a 50:50 relationship with a government that has a history of transforming those 50:50 relationships into a lot less over time, because the provinces could never get out of the program, and shouldn't, but nevertheless they're left holding the bag.

• 1655

Just on Mr. Martin's thing, the hour's late but one is tempted to engage with him in a debate about how this fits into the general philosophy of the political tradition that he comes out of. I find it to be delightful, but nevertheless at odds—

Mr. Ken Epp: With your perception of—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —with my perception of where the Reform Party is at.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It's a non-partisan issue. It doesn't much matter.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Then maybe this is why it's being advanced in the context of private members' business, which makes perfect sense.

Mr. Keith Martin: This is pragmatic and, really, I'm looking at using existing resources, not new resources.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It's not just a question of fiscal resources. It's also a question of the way in which one understands the roots of crime and how one deals with it.

I agree that putting people in jail is very expensive, but hardly a day goes by when somebody's not up saying, “Put more people in the slammer”.

Mr. Keith Martin: I'm not going to deal with the punitive aspects of how we deal with crime.

You and I can have the discussion on where this—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That we should do sometime.

Mr. Keith Martin: —fits into our party later. I would enjoy it.

In the context of us here today, we use existing resources. The essence of the bill is for the government to encourage the provinces to engage in a paradigm shift in how we think of crime and criminal behaviour.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Good.

Mr. Keith Martin: I have a little bit of experience—not much, but I used to work as a guard in a jail when I was putting myself through school. I've worked in jails, both adult and juvenile institutions, as a physician from 1988 until...and I did a stint a year ago.

It's simply not working, and if we continue to do what we are doing now, we'll continue to lose. We lose, and the people out there will lose, big time.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes.

Mr. Keith Martin: We'll have more victims littered across our country. We're not going to prevent all of them, but we can prevent some of them.

Not only that but, on the cold, hard bottom line of fiscal responsibility, we will also be able to demonstrate to the Canadian public a significant saving.

There are very many good ideas on this topic in this vein of prevention using head start programs from all over the world, and it just breaks my heart to see the fact that we, as leaders, for years have simply not used this good information that's just down the street at the National Crime Prevention Council, who work their backsides off in putting this out. It simply has not been included in public policy in this country.

We have to, I hope, get beyond our dealing with the little issues and deal with the big issues and at least use, I hope—speaking in a subjective manner—this motion as a way for us, as federal politicians, to work with our provincial counterparts to engage in this paradigm shift. It's a significant paradigm shift, but it requires just a way of rethinking our view of crime.

It doesn't have to cost more money at all.

The Chairman: Thank you. It was very interesting.

Are there any further questions?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'll resist the temptation to pursue the debate.

The Chairman: Resist. Go on resisting.

Mr. Keith Martin: I make an obligation,

[Translation]

To eat with Mr. Blaikie, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: You will have that opportunity by Christmas.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I thank you, Dr. Martin.

[English]

It was very interesting.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I think this explains my weird children. I stayed at home for their first eight years. Stay-at-home mom—total influence.

Mr. Keith Martin: I'm sure they're very successful, as you are, Carolyn.

The Chairman: Now we will proceed in camera.

[Editor's Note—Proceedings continue in camera]