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, February 23, 1998

• 1537

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): Order, please. I am substituting for our illustrious chairman today. Because we're in transition I will again be assuming the chair of this committee. Yvon was kind enough to chair it during the fall when I was getting used to be the Ontario caucus chair and was very busy. He agreed to chair it for a couple of months and reminded me last week that he hadn't agreed to do so for life, so I'm back.

We have a little problem before us in that there are no spaces for votable items on the agenda in the House right now.

Just a minute before you panic, Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): I wouldn't panic, Madam Chair.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): We do need some non-votable bills because they'll be coming up in the general order of things in the House. We have a couple of bills that are pretty close to being dealt with, so what we will do today is listen to the five that are being presented and select one that we consider to be votable if a votable space becomes available. And then we'll just do some careful jockeying to switch people's timetables around.

So don't feel as though you're wasting your time here, but it is a stretch, and you must understand going into it that the chances are about 50-50 that there will be no votable bills selected from this batch. Is that clear? And we will, as I say, stretch the rules a bit and pick one, hopefully, that we would like to put in.

Mr. John Finlay: Madam Chair, should the number that are votable be gone through eventually, in a month or two? Let us say four are not votable and one may be; would those be considered again as votable or are they lost?

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): No, they're lost. You see, John, technically, for all five today there are no spaces for votable bills. So technically we could say to all five presenters that we're sorry, they get an hour in the House and that's it, but that would make this whole exercise a waste of time.

We're hoping that at least one space will open up. So here's what we will ask you to do: if you're not chosen as votable, we'll jockey the trade positions so that the one or two we consider to be votable go to the bottom of the list so there's more time when they come up and they may be made votable.

Mr. John Finlay: Understood.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): It's as clear as mud, isn't it?

Who's going first? Art or John?

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): I'm going first.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): All right, Eric. Go for it.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you. I've never done this before. I appreciate the opportunity, and if I'm stepping outside of the norms just wave the flag and I'll get back inside them.

It's a privilege to appear before this subcommittee to brief you on my bill, C-284. The bill proposes to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to sexual offences against children.

Many in society are concerned about the safety of our children and many are concerned about ensuring that those who are responsible for children will not abuse their positions of trust. Many are concerned about how difficult it is for children's organizations to know who it is they're hiring and thus be sure they're not putting children at risk. These are the concerns that Bill C-248 intends to address.

• 1540

I should mention, Madam Chair, and to the committee, that this particular bill was a direct result of a large petition that was put forward by over 26,000 Canadians who wanted this particular issue addressed. That's why it finds itself before this committee today.

This bill would enable those responsible for children to make fully informed decisions about who they hire. Bill C-248 is specific in its intent in order to better protect our children from those who have been abusive toward them in the past. Bill C-248 proposes to allow limited—and I emphasize limited—disclosure of an individual's criminal record for a previous sexual offence against a child or children. This disclosure will only take effect when an individual applies for a position of trust with respect to a child or children.

Bill C-248 does not propose that sex offences against children can ever be pardoned. This bill does not propose that if one makes a mistake such as this, it should be forever on your record. Rather, Bill C-248 proposes that if one does sexually abuse children, that person could effectively be prevented from holding a position of authority with children again, as those responsible for children will be able to see that a job applicant has abused such a person in the past—I hope that's clear—and thus will be more judicious in their hiring practices.

Just to give a little clarity here, pardons for summary offences are issued three years after completion of a sentence. One can apply to receive a pardon for an indictable or serious offence five years after completing one's sentence and have the record effectively wiped clean. Once a pardon has been granted, official policy is “Don't ask, don't tell”. Employers are not allowed to ask someone to disclose a conviction for which a pardon has been granted or issued.

Only about 1% of all those who apply for pardons are refused, so almost everybody is granted a pardon once they've applied for it. Unfortunately, Correctional Services of Canada studies have shown that about one-third of all sex offenders are convicted of new criminal offences after release, about one in ten being convicted of a new sex offence.

Other studies indicate that sex offenders who have committed sexual offences in the past had a subsequent sexual recidivism rate of about 30%. I should also point out that children under 12 account for 16% of the population, yet 28% of all sexual assaults. Those aged 12 to 19 represent 11% of the population, yet 36% of all sexual assaults.

British studies indicate— I'll carry on in the interests of time here. I could give more statistics but maybe we'll cover that in some of the questions, Madam Chair.

There may be a question here about the right to privacy. I would bring to the committee's attention at this point that the privacy commissioner explains that the Privacy Act does not prevent the release of personal information if it is in the public interest to release such information. I would argue, Madam Chair, it is definitely in the public interest in this case.

The disclosure provisions of Bill C-248 fall well within the accepted protocol for the release of personal information of which one's criminal record is a part. It's in the public interest, which is one of the tests that I've spoken to, and Bill C-248 is specific in that disclosure only takes place when those responsible for children request the information upon reviewing one's job application for a position of trust with respect to children. It's not available to everybody; it's only available to those who make a specific request and have the responsibility to care for children.

It is also current and probable, and I can go into that further in the question period, if need be, Madam Chair.

Finally, I'd like to say that this bill is important for the protection of our children. Those who have suffered from sexual abuse characterize it as a lifetime sentence, Madam Chair, and that's part of the reason, I think, that we need to have this bill debated on the floor and, hopefully, made votable.

Thank you.

• 1545

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you very much, Mr. Lowther.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair. I two questions for Mr. Lowther.

First, you mentioned earlier in your dissertation that this bill was precipitated by a petition.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Would you repeat how many names were on the petition, who precipitated the petition and how you came by that particular petition?

Mr. Eric Lowther: There were 26,000 names on the petition.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's what I thought you said.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes, and it came from the Fraser Valley area. That's where the riding of one of my colleagues is. A number of people there put this petition together. It was actually presented in the last Parliament but died on the Order Paper prior to having a chance to be debated or voted on.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Did a specific organization start the petition or was it started by individuals who got together at that time, Mr. Lowther?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I am not aware of it being started by a specific organization.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You say the petition was filed. Was it certified by the House and presented to the House?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes, it was.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have one more question, Madam Chairman, if I may, please.

In the legislation, you say a request must be made by the particular corporation or individual organization looking after the care and control of children. That request will be made to whom to get the information with respect to the individual who is applying?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I believe it's to the Office of Solicitor General.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So anybody who is having people apply for certain positions in which they would take care of children would then have the option to apply to the Solicitor General to see if in fact these individuals did or did not have a record that included child offences. Is that correct?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes, and they would be informed if that individual had received a pardon for committing a sexual offence. A pardon doesn't mean they didn't commit it. Let's be clear about that. Sometimes people get confused by the word “pardon” and think an individual got a pardon because he or she never actually did it. In this case, after a period of five years, you can apply for a pardon. Let's say that you were convicted and found guilty. During a period of time—five years in an indictable case—you can receive a pardon. And if you are the person doing the hiring, you won't get access to that record.

This would allow the people who are hiring, in those specific cases, to make an application to the Solicitor General, and they would actually find that such an individual had been convicted of a sexual offence against children and has received a pardon.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Would it be your opinion, Mr. Lowther, that should this process take place and the information is given to the corporation or organization, the individual applying would be denied that particular employment?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I'm not sure I follow the question.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The idea is that obviously the organization has a right to find out whether that person applying for any position has been convicted or pardoned of a child molestation offence. Is it your opinion that the organization would then deny that individual any employment?

Mr. Eric Lowther: That's my opinion. They should have the right to know that history and to make that decision themselves.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But they should have the right to have all of that information.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Right on.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Are there any other questions around the table? Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): No, I have no questions.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Lib.): No, that's fine.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Madame, no questions?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): No.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): I have one question. Your stats indicate that almost 60% don't reoffend. The way you were presenting your statistics, my understanding is that 60% don't reoffend. You said about 30% do. I just want to double-check those stats.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Yes, those stats are from Correctional Services Canada, and 30% do reoffend.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): I'm going to ask Jamie if he would give us an opinion on whether this is going to be a challenge under the Constitution or if this is going to be a problem.

Mr. James R. Robertson (Committee Researcher): One of the current criteria for the subcommittee is whether a bill is clearly unconstitutional in that it infringes upon provincial legislative authority, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other entrenched constitutional rules.

I reviewed this bill and the other two bills, and there does not appear to be a clear question of unconstitutionality. That's not to say that any bill passed by Parliament may not be challenged in the courts, either as being contrary to the charter or other constitutional principles or being a law that should be struck down on other grounds. There is no clear indication that this bill would be unconstitutional.

• 1550

Mr. Eric Lowther: In response to your previous question, Madam Chair, I quoted the 30% statistic because it is from Correctional Services Canada and I felt that might bear more weight with the committee. But I'd also like to add that there is a Dr. Marnie Rice of the sexual disorder unit in the Oak Ridge Mental Health Centre, who estimates that over a 10-year period more than 50% of convicted pedophiles will reoffend. This was reported in the Toronto Sun of May 11, 1996. So there are some experts who suggest that as many as 50% will reoffend.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): In a previous incarnation I was chairman of a school board. We would have liked to have that information when we were hiring teachers. It's like putting someone in a candy shop.

I can understand that. I guess the only reservation I might have, and I haven't read the bill thoroughly, is that if you as a school board chairman have access to that information and you then share it with someone else who is unrelated to the school board— how far can this percolate so that this person is marked for life?

The other problem I might have—and this is more with the essence of the bill rather than whether it should be votable or not—is that even if 50% don't reoffend, if the offence took place when you were 17 years old and you're applying for a position with kids when you're 40, how long does it stay with you? Do you have a limitation on how far back this can go?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I don't have a limitation on it. My point is that for the kids who have been abused it's kind of a lifetime sentence—

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): I understand.

Mr. Eric Lowther: —as far as they're concerned, and secondly, yes, this person carries it for life, but we feel that the protection of the kids outweighs that constraint.

In regard to your earlier point, within the bill there is a provision for anybody who gets access to this information and who inappropriately shares it outside of the use that it's intended for, that is, the hiring decision. There are penalties included in the bill, fines and possible sentences and those kinds of things.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Caroline Parrish): Thank you very much. If there are no further questions from the members, let me say that I appreciated your presentation today.

Mr. Eric Lowther: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Finlay.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Caroline Parrish): Who's next? Mr. Finlay? You want us to vote for his bill so you don't want to present yours, right?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Finlay: Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss Bill C-245 for a few minutes. This bill appeared in the 35th Parliament as Bill C-91, but as the chair said previously, it died on the Order Paper.

As members of Parliament, I think we're in a unique position in that we do have the opportunity to introduce new legislation when we see that a problem in Canadian society has been insufficiently addressed within the current legislation. I dare say it is our duty to do so.

Bill C-245 addresses such a problem. It raises the maximum penalty for sexual assault on a child under 8 years of age or a child under 14 years of age who is under the offender's trust or authority. It raises the maximum penalty to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for 25 years from the current maximum penalty of 10 years for sexual assault.

One of the reasons for this is that the average sentence meted out now for sexual touching of a child under the age of 14 is 288 days. The average sentence meted out for a level one sexual assault, which means sexual assault without a weapon, is 377 days.

This bill also raises the maximum sentence for forcible confinement from 10 years to 14 years in the case of a parent who confines a child or ward and harms its physical or mental health. The average sentence for forcible confinement now is 562 days.

My feeling is that Bill C-245 also sends a strong message to the courts that child pornography exchanged over the Internet or by electronic mail is covered by the Criminal Code because there is such a clause in this bill. We need to ensure that our laws are keeping up with new technological advances.

My hope is that this bill would allow Parliament, through votes in the House of Commons and the Senate, to say to the people of Canada and to our judicial system that we, the lawmakers of the land, do not think that current sentencing in terms of sexual assault and the forcible confinement of children is adequate. We would be telling the courts that in the very worst cases of sexual abuse of a child the sentence should be equal to that of first-degree murder. Our voice is strong and powerful, and we would be telling our children that we will protect them from those who would prey upon them.

I would ask that each of you look over the package I have sent you. In it there is a letter from a woman in my riding whose son was the victim of sexual assault. It is for this woman and her son, and others like them, many others, Madam Chair—I have received other letters—that I introduce this bill.

• 1555

I quote from this woman's letter:

In requesting higher sentences for these sex offenders, I ask how can this be considered out of line while in fact the children are sentenced to life without parole in trying to live with what was inflicted upon them?

I need only refer you to the case of Maple Leaf Gardens and the young man who found it so serious and so much of a problem that he jumped off the viaduct.

I'm happy to say Bill C-245 has been given the support of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association.

I look forward to your questions.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Are there any questions?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes. My question is perhaps simple.

In the bill, you talk about children under the age of eight. Why did you choose the age of eight rather than six or ten?

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: I believe the present definition of the law covers children under 8, any sexual assault from anyone, and the part from 8 to 14 is for older children. What I'm mostly concerned about is the people who serve in a position of trust or in loco parentis with children up to 14, people who should be expected to care for them. Under 8 it's regardless of whether they are in a position of trust or not in a position of trust— Between 8 and 14 a position of trust makes it even more serious, in my eyes, and in the eyes of the present bill.

At present the maximum is only 10 years. As I indicated from the statistics, the same statistics my colleague Mr. Lowther mentioned, there seems to be a disproportionate leniency to the sentences.

I had another case I followed up in my riding years ago, on the Attorney General of Ontario. I think the person did get six or eight years. He had abused his children and his stepchildren, both male and female, for over twenty years—a number of children. My letter to the Attorney General may be helping in educating people to this sort of thing. The reason I wrote him was to see if I could find out how this man had been able to do this over a matter of twenty years in four different jurisdictions when the children were going to school.

In my experience as superintendent of schools in Oxford County, pedophilia and crime against children are more widespread than many of us realize. I personally think the recidivism rate, if the records were accurate, would be a good deal more than 30%, Madam Chair. I had personal acquaintance with superintendents and vice-principals and teachers who had to be removed from their positions, and I never knew of one you were able to put back into that position again.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Finlay, your proposed bill is very laudable, and I appreciate it.

As I understand it, your presentation is to increase the maximum penalties for certain offences. In your explanation, however, you have already indicated that the penalties now imposed by the courts are very low; in some cases 288 days, in some cases 562 days, maximum. Certain maximums are now in place in law—10 years maximum.

Mr. John Finlay: Right.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Those maximums now are not being given as penalties. Why do you think this legislation would suggest the court system would give a maximum of 25 years without parole if they aren't doing it currently with a 10-year maximum penalty? Is it not perhaps the system that you're questioning, as opposed to the maximums that are already there?

• 1600

Mr. John Finlay: I wouldn't want to make the sentences minimum sentences. We considered that—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, that was my next question.

Mr. John Finlay: —when we looked at this. I still feel that the judiciary must have the sort of discretion that it has. However, I do question whether they are significantly apprised of the attitude of most Canadians. I think—and certainly most parents do—that two years' probation is simply not adequate (a) as a deterrent or (b) to protect future generations.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That was my next question. Had you considered a minimum? That obviously would have put a stronger position forward to the courts, I think. Again, in your opinion, if you take this to a 25-year maximum penalty, do you think the courts would ever use that maximum penalty? Do you think they would go beyond their present averages of 288 days and 562 days?

Mr. John Finlay: Gosh, that's a hypothetical question.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Sure it is.

Mr. John Finlay: I don't know. I would assume that if judges read the law and saw that this was possible, they would—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So the intent of this legislation is simply to show that there is a desire out there in society to increase the penalties for these types of offences.

Mr. John Finlay: Absolutely.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Are there any other questions?

I'll answer your question for you. When I see 25 years, I think it puts it on the same level as murder, and I think you're probably sending a clear message that somebody who has murdered a child, whose mental health—

Mr. John Finlay: If Paul Bernardo had been convicted of what he did with anyone and didn't end up killing them, I think that the crime is of equal—

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): I think that's the 25-year mark.

Mr. John Finlay: That's my point, yes.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Okay. Thank you, John.

Are there any other questions?

Okay, Art, take it away.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Committee members, I'm speaking today on behalf of my colleague Jim Hart on Bill C-232, the citizen soldier act. This act will facilitate participation in the reserve force by entitling employees of the reserves to a period of two months' leave for the purposes of training or serving in the reserve force. This act will apply to civilian employers and to the public service and crown corporations that have been particularly reluctant to give reservists time off for training and participation.

Throughout Canada's history reserves have played an important role in our armed forces in response to critical situations. Reserves formed the nucleus of our army's mobilization in two world wars, and today reservists continue to serve with distinction.

Many Canadians in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick who were affected by this year's ice storm had to do little more than look out their windows to see reservists in action. At its peak, Operation Recuperation mobilized 16,000 men and women of Canadian Forces. Over 3,700 were reservists.

I quote defence minister Art Eggleton:

This country is grateful for the selfless assistance given by our reservists. I know their employers will be understanding and supportive of the significant contribution they are making to relieve the hardships faced by so many Canadians.

Recent domestic contributions made by reservists in eastern Canada, Manitoba and the Saguenay have been well documented, yet the reservists have also played a critical role in the international arena. In Bosnia reservists made up over 20% of the Canadian Forces committed to that region.

In their role of augmentation to the regular forces, many reservists face significant combat during their deployment, highlighting the need for reservists to have adequate training before being sent to potentially dangerous situations.

The task of the military is to prepare for any contingency, whether it is a domestic crisis or an international commitment to peace and security. Training is crucial to the success of any effective operation, be it domestic or international. We owe it to the men and women of our regular and reserve forces to prepare them as best we can for any situations they may face. Anything less than the best training and equipment this country can provide would be irresponsible, and I do not believe Canada is an irresponsible nation.

• 1605

The 1996 commission on the restructuring of the reserves reported that reservists had a serious training deficit when compared with trades and ranks in the regular force. Part of the problem is that reservists are unavailable for training, often because of the demands of their jobs or difficulty in scheduling time off to coincide with training exercises and courses offered. Many reservists use their annual vacation to attend exercises essential to developing their military skills. This is a great price for them and their families to pay, to have to forfeit a well-deserved vacation to serve their country.

If we are to have an effective volunteer reserve force and if Canada is to meet its international commitments, we must take steps to ensure reservists are available to get the training they need and the time required for that training. This bill will ensure that the employees of the federal government are given the time they need for training in Canada's reserves. The federal government must show leadership to employers in the private sector and must clearly demonstrate this country's commitment to those men and women who have made the choice to serve their country.

Canada is relying more on reservists to meet its military commitments. With the recent downsizing of the regular force, the demands on reservists will undoubtedly increase. Bill C-232 will go a long way towards addressing the obligation Canada has to facilitate the development and the professionalism of our citizen soldiers. If Canada is going to have an effective volunteer reserve force, we must take steps to ensure reservists get the training they need and the time required to get that training. The federal government must take a leadership role and show private sector employers the value this country places on individuals who serve in the reserves.

I thank the members of the committee for an opportunity to speak on behalf of my colleague on Bill C-232, the proposed citizen soldier act.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you, Art. Questions.

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Hanger, do you have any idea whether Jim or any of the other members have received a great deal of input from Canadians across the country on this? In other words, how widespread is the support for it?

Mr. Art Hanger: If you're seeking that kind of support from the average individual, there hasn't been a lot in that regard. From the point of view that the need arises—and this is something I don't believe has been really delivered all that well by government, or anyone—as forces become downsized, the need for an increased reserve is becoming more evident. So to say that it's coming from the grass roots in that aspect— not entirely, but I believe that as the message of downsizing reaches more and more of the ears of the average Canadian person, the need will become more evident.

I might point out too that the numbers of reservists being deployed on the international scene is increasing as the regular forces are being downsized, so I guess it comes to a matter of commitment. If the country is going to commit itself to sending soldiers overseas, then we have an obligation to make sure they are well trained and that gap is filled with reservists as the regulars become smaller in number.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Upon reading clause 2(1), I clearly understand that there is a type of obligation for the employer to grant leave. I would imagine that this is leave without pay. Although I'm not too familiar with the way that this works, I would imagine that the members of the reserve force are paid a salary.

However, your second clause looks like lip service to me because the word "may" is used. The bill does not obligate an employer to grant leave to one of his employees so that he can take two weeks or two months of training, for example. What's the purpose in having a clause that is to some extent lip service? It's pointless.

• 1610

[English]

Mr. Art Hanger: It would be a matter of an agreement with not only the public service but also any employer to grant the time to obtain that training for those who are serving as reservists. It would be a matter of course. It would be required on the part of the employer to grant the time.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: But since this is directly dependent on the employer's good will, is it necessary to include this provision in a piece of legislation? I don't think so. If it's not forbidden, it's authorized. If it's authorized but not mandatory, I don't see the point in specifying this point in the bill. At any rate, I feel that this second paragraph is pointless. The first paragraph posits an obligation for the employer.

[English]

Mr. Art Hanger: There's no obligation right now for an employer—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: But there will be one with this paragraph.

[English]

Mr. Art Hanger: —to relieve the responsibility of the employee to take reservist training, even if the reservist wanted to. We're saying that now this is a requirement on the part of the employer to grant that time so that the country has a sufficiently well-trained reserve force.

That is the problem that exists right now. Many of the reservists do not have adequate training. This would ensure the time away from their jobs, so to speak, to train in a more specific manner as a soldier. So it would be a requirement on the part of the employer to grant the time if the reservist needed the time.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Are there any other questions? Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

I appreciate, Mr. Hanger, that this certainly would help recruit reservists to the armed forces, given the opportunity. As I understand the legislation, you're saying that there be a maximum of two months per year. Is that correct?

Mr. Art Hanger: That's right.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So if there was an employee in your employ for five years, he could in fact take two months per year for every one of those five years. Is that correct?

Mr. Art Hanger: That's right.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You're also suggesting that this is not voluntary on behalf of the employer, but it would be mandatory by legislation. If the reservist approached the employer, the employer would have to, as a mandatory requirement of legislation—

Mr. Art Hanger: It would be an entitlement.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: —grant that two weeks of unpaid leave.

Mr. Art Hanger: That's right.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do you think, Mr. Hanger, this may well put employers in a difficult situation, and may well, as a part of the requirement of employment, make it even more difficult for a reservist, then?

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if I were an employer and there was a reservist applying for that job, would that not put the reservist in a difficult position in gaining that job?

Mr. Art Hanger: I guess that would have to be negotiated in any contract. If a reservist was to be hired by an employer, his employer would have to come to that agreement with him. Yes, this is going to be a requirement. “I serve as a reservist” would be part of their negotiation, I would assume.

This is done quite commonly south of the border, of course. There is a requirement there on the part of an employer to grant time off for the training of those who are in the reserves or the militia.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Most employers have policies with respect to leaves of absence. Some of those policies and some of those employers do in fact consider reserve training as being part of that leave of absence.

In your opinion, and in your experience, do most of the employers not allow reservists to go for proper training?

Mr. Art Hanger: Some do and some don't. There are various levels of training in the reserve forces, too, that do pose a bit of a problem and really decrease the numbers of those who would be eligible for active service, should they be called upon. So it is on that basis that the need for more specific training be guaranteed, and it's not going to be met any other way.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): It would be, Mr. Hanger, a more war-like state, with more well-prepared soldiers.

Mr. Art Hanger: I appreciate that, yes.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you very much.

Mr. Hill.

• 1615

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Get out of my chair.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): He's had the training, Art. He knows how to be aggressive and get you out of his chair.

Mr. Jay Hill: Oh, he was moving anyway. I wouldn't have been so aggressive.

I thank you, Madam Chair.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Jump right in.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay. I'm here on behalf of my colleague David Chatters, MP for Athabasca in Alberta. He has provided me with a written statement that he'd like me to read to the committee, so with your indulgence, I'll do that:

Dear colleagues,

As you are probably aware, M-11, relating to the inclusion of Part-time Farmers under Disaster Relief Canada regulations, will be debated on Tuesday, March 10, 1998.

This Motion was developed as a result of the 1996 flood in northern Alberta, which was the same summer as the Saguenay Flood in Quebec. In both cases a natural disaster was declared; however, Emergency Preparedness Canada does not cover part-time farmers. In the case of the Saguenay Flood and the 1997 Red River Flood in Manitoba, Treasury Board agreed to provide extra funding to cover losses not covered under Emergency Preparedness Canada guidelines, including part-time farmers. Unfortunately, Treasury Board denied Alberta's request, stating “unofficially” that the magnitude of the flood was not as significant as the Quebec or Manitoba floods.

The suffering of all part-time farmers is addressed in this Motion. During the debate of this Motion, I will discuss the need to have part-time farmers included under Emergency Preparedness guidelines, so they will receive adequate assistance in the case of another natural disaster.

Tragically, this bill is very timely. As a result of the recent ice storm which swept through Eastern Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, part-time farmers are again facing this problem. In particular, the Maple Sugar Producers are in a desperate situation, with the opening of the season less than a month away. These producers also need long term assistance to restore the maple bushes, but because most are considered part-time farmers, they will not be receiving compensation from Emergency Preparedness Canada. It has been announced that a similar side agreement to the Saguenay and Red River Floods has been reached with Treasury Board; however, we are uncertain what this agreement covers.

—and that may have been changed in the recent days since my colleague drafted this—

Also, this type of side agreement is on a situation by situation basis and does not guarantee compensation for the victims of other natural disasters.

I would like to have this motion made votable because there are many Members of Parliament who would like to address this issue, since their ridings have been affected by natural disasters and their constituents were not covered by Emergency Preparedness guidelines. With five parties and many Members wishing to speak, one hour is simply insufficient. Furthermore, this is a significant issue which affects every part-time farmer across this country. These farmers are not hobby farmers. They are desperately trying to become full-time farmers, but due to economic circumstances have to work off the farm to make ends meet. These part-time farmers should be considered under Emergency Preparedness guidelines, so they will receive suitable compensation in the event of another natural disaster.

This is why my motion asks that the term Hobby Farmer be split into both Hobby Farmer and Part-time Farmer. This way, Emergency Preparedness can determine whether an affected farm is used solely for recreational purposes or whether it is owned by an individual who intends to become a full-time farmer, but who is currently forced to seek off farm income to build an equity in their farming business. Through this inclusion, these part-time farmers will not have to wait for or depend upon Treasury Board side agreements for compensation. They will know that they will receive adequate compensation to keep their farming operations afloat. This inclusion under Emergency Preparedness Canada guidelines will also avoid situations such as the one in my riding in which Emergency Preparedness Canada was involved, but part-time farmers received absolutely no compensation. This topic has never been addressed through a votable motion before; however, I believe it is significant enough of a topic to warrant being votable.

I look forward to your participation in this debate and any comments you may have.

Yours Sincerely,

David Chatters, MP

Athabasca.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you, Mr. Hill.

Are there any questions?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I have a comment, not a question. When you read the definition of "agriculteur" in French, you realize that it is a far cry from the notion of "hobby farmer". Something has to be added. I read the definition in French at the beginning and I said to myself: indeed! and then I read the English version.

• 1620

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): It would be like being a politician, or a hobby politician.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: This is what we all are.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Or an amateur politician, which is what my husband is.

Mr. Jay Hill: I'm not fluent in French, so I obviously haven't read the French translation. It would do me good to read the French translation.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's why we are here. We read that.

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes. But I appreciate that comment and certainly will pass it on to my colleague.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): I guess it's not fair to ask you a question, since you're presenting on his behalf. The idea that concerns me is where it says they intend to become full-time farmers. I'm sure if there were a disaster and you brought it in, everybody would suddenly intend. I'm just wondering if there's a better word.

Mr. Jay Hill: To answer your question, Madam Chairman, I don't know whether my colleague has done any substantive work in trying to develop criteria. I suspect he would probably suggest it would be similar to the way the government operates. They bring forward legislation and then they draft regulations later that lay out the criteria. That would be my response, at least.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Is that a comment on the government or—

Mr. Jay Hill: No, but if this were to be developed into law, picked up by the government and developed into law, the criteria could be handled under regulations.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): What I was thinking of when I read it was, say, percentage of your income on your income tax form, based on it.

Mr. Jay Hill: Obviously you're correct. There would have to be some criteria to ascertain which of the two categories an individual part-time farmer would fall into.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Okay. If there are no other questions—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: In the English text, it reads:

[English]

@ti that the definition of hobby farmer should be split in two: (a) hobby farmers; (b) junior farmers. Do you think it is right? I've read the French and it's not it; it's better.

Mr. Jay Hill: As I'm saying, I think that— It's not my motion, obviously, but I think the intent here is to categorize part-time farmers in two distinct ways and to provide certainty for those farmers who are intending to run a full-fledged farming operation. I think what my colleague is looking at is the certainty. The government has very clearly indicated that they are no longer interested in ad hoc programs, and yet three times in the last two years they've come up with basically a side ad hoc program to address part-time farmers.

By definition, that is excluding some part-time farmers, as my colleague has noted, who have suffered disasters in western Canada and also in the maritimes, but because the scope of their disaster wasn't big enough they fell through the cracks. I think that's what he's driving at here, that there needs to be more certainty in what actually qualifies as a disaster under the DFAA.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): I would suggest that what you could pass on to Mr. Chatters, too, is that when the debate occurs in the House he try to give some direction as to— a part-time farmer is someone who bases some of their income on what they produce.

My dad was a hobby farmer. He grew about an acre of vegetables and just inundated all of us with them. He wouldn't have had to be paid if there had been a disaster. As a matter of fact, we would have looked forward to it.

If your colleague could sort of clarify that in the debate, I think it might be more helpful to his cause.

Anyway, thank you very much.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): We appreciate it. It's always even more difficult to come in when it's not your own motion and you don't have all the answers quickly in the back of your head. But you did a good job. I'll report.

Mr. Jay Hill: I appreciate that. I'll compliment gratefully—

The Acting Chair (Ms. Carolyn Parrish): Despite the slurs on the government.

You have before you a letter from Mr. Blaikie. He was unable to appear today and he had a pinch-hitter who was unable to appear, so he is presenting his case to make his private member's motion 306 votable. I think you can read the crux of it.

I think we'll move in camera now and see if we can have a very brief discussion.

[Proceedings continue in camera]