SMEM Committee Meeting

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

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

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 30, 2000

• 1532

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We call to order the subcommittee on private members business. This is Tuesday, May 30, 2000. It's 3:30 p.m., and we're in Room 306, West Block.

It's our eighth meeting, and I believe we have seven witnesses. You may have seen eight on your previous list, but one person, number eight, Mr. Schmidt, does not want his item votable, so we won't be hearing from him or from anyone else.

As you know, each member has five minutes to explain why his or her item should be selected. Our first member is Paul Crête.

Paul, proceed when you wish.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête, M.P. (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): The objective of the bill I wish to make votable is to ensure that forresters who have to travel long distances to work can have a tax deduction for the use of their vehicle.

Let me give you the example of a worker who lives in my riding, the Lower St.Lawrence, and who has to go to the Abitibi region to earn a living. This is a real life situation. Such a forrester will have to travel 500 or 600 kilometers to reach a place where he can work, and I'd like him to get a tax deduction to cover his costs.

Right now, the Income Tax Act allows him to deduct a percentage of these costs, but it's not enough. And it comes to the point that some people who want to work, who want to go there to work, don't, because it's not worth it for them without such a deduction. So they sell the trucks that they had specially outfitted for that kind of work. The objective is to offer them an incentive rather than to discourage them from working, to make it attractive enough for them to want to work and to give them the capacity to do so.

I decided to put this bill forward following a request by the forresters themselves. I wrote the Minister of Finance in September 1999, and he replied saying that, in general, the Act doesn't provide such a deduction.

• 1535

I quote:

Even if transportation costs from the place of residence to the place of work are generally not deductible, I have drawn my staff's attention to your concerns.

I'm still waiting for an answer, but I believe it's important for you to realize that this is a special case. Generally speaking, these costs are not deductible, but in the situation I just described, I think it would be fair, tax-wise, to allow such a deduction. Also, rather than staying home, these people could work and make a reasonable profit.

Such is my bill's objective. The underlying principle is that our tax laws should encourage people to work, not the opposite.

I wish this bill to be voted on in the House because, according to the Minister of Finance, the relevance of such an initiative is worth looking at. He didn't close the door completely. He even asked his staff to look a bit more closely into the issue.

Such is the general principle of the bill I am asking you to make votable.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Have we any questions on this?

Suzanne.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Crête, I have a question. Is your bill along the same lines as the one which has already been tabled, concerning mechanics? I don't know if you are aware of it, but it was to allow a deduction for the... Is the deduction you are asking for in your bill comparable to that kind of thing?

Mr. Paul Crête: It is, in terms of the principle involved. You can say that mechanics need to have their own tools to work and that right now, they buy them themselves without being able to claim these costs. It's in those terms that it's comparable. In the case of forresters, they have to buy a truck to be able to get to their place of work. What's important is that they'd be allowed to deduct these costs. The difference is that they have to go somewhere to be able to work and that, if they can't claim their tranportation costs, they might be prevented to do so.

The other difference is that in some cases, mechanics can have the cost of their tools covered by their collective agreement, which doesn't apply to forresters.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): I wondered why you singled out forestry workers. The same conditions, the same thing, also would apply to oil field workers, to construction workers, or to any number of workers. Why did you go with just forestry workers?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: My bill is intended for forresters because they are the ones who contacted my office. They came to see me and talk about their particular situation. For them, the choice is clear. If they don't get this tax deduction, they'll have to sell their trucks, because they won't be able to make a profit on their work.

Are other workers in Canada in the same situation? It's possible. I think that if my bill could be openly debated, it could be improved, amended if necessary, so that other categories of workers can benefit from this initiative. I certainly wouldn't be against that. However, unfortunately, there are no such workers in my riding and I am not aware of the needs such a group may have.

[English]

The Chair: We have your bill here. Seeing no further questions, I'll say thank you. Merci.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Bernard, if you wish, we'll wait for a moment.

For our next member, we have more witnesses appearing on Thursday morning, so it will be following the Thursday morning meeting at 8:30, which I know is other business than this, but there's a reason I'm mentioning this. Following that time, we would be able to decide what would be votable or not.

Bernard Bigras, you have five minutes to explain. Perhaps you'd like to focus your comments on why your item should be selected as a votable item. Proceed when you wish.

• 1540

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras, M.P. (Rosemont, BQ): I am going to give you three reasons to explain why I am putting this bill forward, in the hope that violence on television can be reduced. First, I have to tell you that what happened in Littleton, in the United States, a little more than a year ago, an event which we commemorated a few days ago, was an important factor. I would even say that it was what led me to present this bill, because, clearly, violence on television has an impact on violence in our society.

Second, there was the recent study by two researchers at Laval University, Jacques de Guise et Guy Paquette, who came to the conclusion that between 1993 and 1998, violence on television grew by 50 % and that 92 % of these violent programs were broadcast before 9 p.m.

My third reason for putting this bill forward is that I have a grand-daughter who is two and three months—the chairman knows her very well—and who, like all children, is becoming aware of this medium and of the values it conveys.

[English]

The Chair: Her name is Nicole, I believe.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: That's it.

[Translation]

So, of course, I thought it would be important for her to be able to enjoy the kind of television which informs and entertains, but also which offers quality programming.

Let me go back a little. In 1992, Virginie Larivière, who was 13 at the time, brought forward a petition signed by 1,3 million Canadians asking for legislation against violence on television.

In 1993, the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture reviewed the issue and concluded that the industry should be given a chance to self-regulate. However, the committee, you may recall, also said in 1993 that if the self-regulation approach didn't work, we should seriously consider legislating.

In 1993, the industry introduced a voluntary code whereby broadcasters committed themselves to significantly reduce violence on television and not broadcast violent, adult programming before 9 p.m.

However, seven years later, violence on television has not been reduced, quite the opposite, it has spread significantly, by 50 %, as I mentioned. I believe it's time we do something about it.

Three initiatives are proposed in this bill. First, the Broadcasting Act would be amended to take into account, in the objectives of Canada's broadcasting policy, our society's concern for violence, particularly, violence on television.

Second, regulations on violence on television would be added to the Broadcasting Act, and I am suggesting we use the industry's voluntary code as a start to discuss the development of those regulations.

Third, the CRTC would monitor the application of the regulations on violence on television; every five years, it would check whether broadcasters do respect these regulations and therefore follow their own voluntary code of conduct. There would be hearings every five years to review the results. The public would be able to participate in these hearings and ensure that the regulations do reflect our society's objectives as a whole, according to the legislation.

I believe such a bill would be supported by a large percentage of the population. According to a survey done last November, 85 % of Quebeckers—and I am sure it also reflects the public's opinion in the rest of Canada—agree that violent movies should not be programmed before 10 p.m. Also, 82 % of the people surveyed were in favour of legislation banning violent programs for children. So there is a consensus.

The bill I put forward is balanced in the sense that it reflects the public's wish to have legislation aimed at reducing violence on television, and also in the sense that it takes into account the industry's good will, as shown by its 1993 voluntary code of conduct.

I'd be happy to answer questions.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Are there questions for our member?

Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): You spoke a bit about the voluntary code, and I guess your opinion would be that it's simply not working. I applaud your efforts to take some of the violence off the media, off TV specifically, but have you thought about or addressed in your bill the difference between outright violence, which sometimes is part of the genre of the film or the theatre, and gratuitous violence? That seems to be the issue.

• 1545

I'm not recommending or trying to state here that somehow violence is acceptable, but we've become almost immune to violence; it doesn't have any effect. It's strictly gratuitous violence—violence, violence, and more violence—because there's lots of action in short scenes and it catches the attention of people for that period of time.

Does it address that?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: There are no details in the bill about the level of violence. Ten years ago, violence on television was only in movies. Now, there are cartoons, especially from Asia, which are more and more violent. I believe we should take that kind of violence into consideration. Also, we see more and more psychological rather than physical violence, as in the past, and we'll have to take that into account.

I say we need to have regulations on violence added to our Broadcasting Act. The committee looking after communications and culture should hear stakeholders and discuss the matter with them and there should be a real public debate. This is the real challenge; this bill is intended to put the issue of violence on television back on the agenda and make it one of our society's concerns.

Eight years have gone by since Virginie Larivière's petition, and I believe it's more than time to act. It's time we have a legislation which draws as large a consensus as possible, and it's time we table a bill which represents as much as possible a balance between the will of the public and the will of the industry.

But you are right when you say that there are new sources and various new forms of violence which should be taken into consideration, including, as I hope, by the Communications and Culture Committee.

[English]

The Chair: Have we any other questions or comments, colleagues?

We do have your bill here. I think it's very clear, and I appreciate your presentation.

[Translation]

Thank you.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Jim, you can take a seat here when you wish. We're not rushing you. We're probably ahead of schedule by a couple of moments. But after you get situated there in a moment or so, we can...

Mr. Jim Pankiw, M.P. (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance): I'm ready any time.

The Chair: Okay, our next member here is Mr. Jim Pankiw. Mr. Pankiw, you have five minutes to explain—and perhaps you'd like to focus your comments on this—why your item should be selected as being votable.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Okay.

The Chair: After that we may have questions from our members. You may proceed when you wish.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Okay, thank you.

Well, I have a list of criteria that your committee uses—five points—so I'll just go through them quickly.

The first point is that the bills and motions must be drafted in clear, complete, and effective terms. I probably don't need to comment much more on that, because this is simply a doubling of the personal deduction after age 69.

Second is that the bills and motions must be constitutional and concern areas of federal jurisdiction. I would point out that tax laws do fall into federal jurisdiction, and the motion is therefore appropriate.

The third point is that the bills and motions should concern matters of significant public interest. There are just over three million Canadian taxpayers over the age of 65. Of those, two million are over the age of 69 and filed a tax return this past year. Many of those seniors fall into the category that my motion is attempting to address, that of the low-income senior who is attempting to supplement their CPP and OAS with either a superannuation pension, or a RRIF, which is the rolling over of your RRSP into retirement income. Doubling the personal deduction at over age 69—that's also the same age at which a senior must roll it into the RRIF—would benefit all seniors in that position, but especially the lower-income ones.

• 1550

The fourth point reads:

Bills and motions should concern issues that are not part of the government's current legislative agenda and which have not been voted on or otherwise addressed by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament.

There have been some tax breaks provided for in this budget but nothing specifically to address the problem of seniors who find themselves in a low-income position—nothing to address this particular fact that low-income seniors find themselves in, having to face the requirement of rolling their RRSPs into a RRIF.

Finally, it reads:

All things being equal, higher priority will be given to items which transcend purely local interest not in partisan terms...

I believe nothing in the wording of my motion is partisan, and neither could it be construed to be so. The issue of poverty among Canada's low-income seniors is a concern for MPs of all parties, I believe. Therefore, there should be common ground to at least address the issue.

The Chair: Very good and clear.

Forthwith, Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Were you able to estimate how much this is going to cost the Canadian government?

[English]

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No, the tax table didn't indicate those figures. They're broken down by income bracket for all Canadians, so extrapolation by age was not possible.

The Chair: Have we any other questions or comments, colleagues?

Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Just quickly, have you considered the fact that there's obviously a trap for anyone investing in RRSPs—it's always been there—but you get your tax break when you take out your RRSP? It's not a tax break, it's a tax deferral.

I recognize what you're trying to do here, but if we change that as parliamentarians, then all of a sudden this tax deferral that's been put off becomes a greater tax break, which I don't think was the intent of the RRSP.

But I'm not saying the RRSP works correctly.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: That's a good point, and I have considered that. However, the benefit would be to people who have been able to defer taxes on their income, but not to a large amount—in other words, people with RRSPs in the amounts of $20,000 to $40,000. People with large sums of money would benefit very little proportionately.

So that's a legitimate point. Nonetheless, it doesn't derogate from what I'm attempting to do with the motion.

I might also add that this would be a point of debate, but I don't think it relates to any of the particular criteria to make a bill votable. That's why I didn't mention it, but I have considered that, yes.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): You went through that very well, and I think you meet the criteria. I'm just curious, though, whether this has had support from seniors' organizations. Have you approached the Canadian Association of Retired Persons on this?

Mr. Jim Pankiw: No, I haven't.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Not that this factors into the decision; I'm just curious.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Yes. That's a good idea.

The Chair: Well, I think it's very clear at this moment, Jim, so I appreciate your being here and informing us. Merci.

Mr. Jim Pankiw: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Rick, if you could move sideways there, do a parallel shift and a lateral pass, you'll be moving from on-deck to the batter's circle.

• 1555

Members, Mr. Rick Casson is next with Bill C-321.

As you probably realize, Rick, you have up to five minutes to explain why your item should be selected to be votable. You might want to focus on that.

You may proceed when you're ready.

Mr. Rick Casson, M.P. (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure to be here. This is the only private member's bill I've put forward and it's been drawn. I'm sure I can convince you to make it votable, so I feel like a winner already.

It is a great privilege for me to come before the committee and discuss with you the merits of Bill C-321. This bill would allow a court that convicts a person of an offence under the child pornography provisions of the Criminal Code to order the forfeiture of anything by means of which or in relation to which the offence was committed.

Before I share with you why I believe my bill should be made votable, I want to give you a brief legislative history of the child pornography provisions of the Criminal Code.

Prior to 1993, the Criminal Code did not contain specific provisions dealing with child pornography, and the obscenity provisions, which criminalized the possession of obscene material for the purpose of distribution and sale, did not differentiate between obscene material depicting adults and obscene material depicting children.

In mid-1993, following a Supreme Court ruling that stated the prohibitions against child pornography were reasonable limits of personal freedom, Parliament passed Bill C-128 in mid-1993, which criminalized all aspects of child pornography, including the creation, distribution, importation, and possession of such material. The constitutionality of the prohibition on simple possession of child pornography is currently being considered by the Supreme Court, as you know.

I believe Bill C-321 is a continuation of the process that began in 1993, and it honours the responsibility parliamentarians have to protect those who are least able to protect themselves.

In the context of the five criteria this committee uses as a guideline, I will now share with you why I believe my bill should be votable.

The bill is a straightforward amendment to section 163.1. It is plainly written, drafted in clear, complete, and effective terms, and is similar to the many examples of forfeiture orders that are currently contained in 55 different federal statutes as well as in the Criminal Code.

Because this bill would be an amendment to the federally administered Criminal Code, it is within the jurisdiction of the federal government. We're all aware of the current constitutional challenge to the provisions prohibiting simple possession being considered by the Supreme Court. However, members can be assured that even if subsection 163.1(4) were ultimately to be found unconstitutional, Bill C-321 would still authorize the forfeiture of offence-related property used in creating or distributing child pornography.

My colleagues, I wholeheartedly believe that reinforcing the Criminal Code provisions that protect our children is firmly within the public interest. Child pornography has unfortunately become a very topical issue. In the aftermath of the Sharpe case in B.C., 300,000 Canadians have signed petitions that call upon Parliament to take any and all action necessary to protection children from child pornographers. It is incumbent upon all of us to act.

Bill C-321 does not address any issues that are part of the government's current legislative agenda, nor does it address any issues that have been otherwise dealt with in this current Parliament.

The sexual victimization of children is something that shakes our society to its core. The protection of our kids is not a partisan issue, nor is it a regional or local issue, as was proven by the 300,000 Canadians from across the country who petitioned the government to protect children from child pornography.

My colleagues, child pornography is a despicable offence, and despite our having among the toughest child pornography laws in the world, digital technology has made the problem worse, worse than ever before.

In a report prepared for the RCMP Canadian Police College, University of Winnipeg sociologist Doug Skoog writes that with the advent of the Internet and digital technology, the presence and distribution of child pornography has exceeded all previous levels.

Reports of child pornography offences are found in our national news media almost on a daily basis. A particularly telling article in the March 28, 1999, edition of the Globe and Mail reported that child pornography is flourishing globally, in large part due to the development of technology, particularly digital cameras and videos. But because most child pornographers are not motivated by profit—and this is important—it is difficult for authorities to order the forfeiture of this costly technological equipment. My bill would change that.

• 1600

Colleagues, my bill enjoys the support of the Canadian Police Association and Canada's top child pornography investigator, Detective Inspector Bob Matthews, officer in charge of Project P, the OPP child pornography unit. These high-profile endorsements are in addition to the many Canadians who have written me to pledge their support. I urge you to consider these endorsements as you contemplate this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Very clear.

Mr. Chatters, do you have any questions?

Mr. David Chatters: Yes. Rick, I guess the question is if the Supreme Court ruled that the simple possession of child pornography is not a criminal offence, what does that do to your bill?

Mr. Rick Casson: Actually, Dave, it doesn't really do anything. It's a separate section. What they're dealing with in the Supreme Court is possession, while we're talking about people who have been convicted of creating and distributing child pornography.

Mr. David Chatters: Of trafficking, essentially.

Mr. Rick Casson: Yes, and the creation and distribution of it.

Mr. David Chatters: But not possession.

Mr. Rick Casson: If you've been caught and proven to have been developing this stuff, the equipment that you used to create it or distribute it—particularly on the Internet—can be taken away from you by the courts. Right now, it's allowed in 55 different places in the Criminal Code but doesn't apply to this.

It was pointed out to us, actually by Mr. Matthews from the OPP, that this was one area that needed to be addressed, and he actually gave us the idea to do this. He felt it was an omission in the law and that it would be a very valuable tool to the police to be able to do this. Right now, there are negotiations between the prosecutors and the lawyers to allow the people to keep the equipment. This bill would stop that. The police would be able to take it away from them and put them out of business for good, or for a short time, until they could re-equip.

Mr. David Chatters: Until they can buy some more.

The Chair: For clarification, before we go to Mr. Jordan, you said the creation and distribution of this and not the possession, as Dave said. For my own curiosity, I wonder whether you want to—

Mr. Rick Casson: The issue before the Supreme Court right now is possession.

The Chair: Yes, but in your bill I'm just... the way you...

Mr. Rick Casson: If you have it in your possession... You see, pedophiles don't get into this to create money. It's a whole different mindset. They don't do it to make a dollar. So if you get into the proceeds of crime and all that, it doesn't apply. It has to be specific to this.

The Chair: Thanks, Rick.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Just to wade into that, I don't think the Supreme Court is currently considering whether possession is legal. I think they're specifically looking at the wording of the law and if it is too restrictive or too restraining. But I see your point, and you just answered my question. It's that normally in these situations the law can seize assets that were obtained through the profits of crime. Is that right?

Mr. Rick Casson: Proceeds.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Proceeds of crime. So what you're saying is now, although there's probably profit there somewhere, that's not the primary reason people get into it. So in your own view—you probably heard from the police... I mean, they would take the computer and the the equipment that was used, the digital camera and so on. Is that mainly...

Mr. Rick Casson: Yes. If it is in the digital field, then certainly the digital camera, the computer, and any video equipment, printing machines or whatever as well. It can be for all of it.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Good. Then would they resell that stuff or would they destroy it?

Mr. Rick Casson: That would be up to the courts to decide.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: What do they do with it now?

Mr. Rick Casson: Forfeiture. What would be really good, if it were high-tech computer equipment, would be to clean it all out and then give it to some school to benefit children instead of—

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm getting off topic a bit, but it certainly is interesting to see how the pace of technology is forcing us to have to revisit our laws.

Mr. Rick Casson: Yes.

You know—if I have time, Mr. Chairman—Inspector Matthews came to the House of Commons, he and a couple of his colleagues, and we had a meeting one night. While they were talking to us they set up a computer and put something in there to attract pedophiles. And while they were talking to us it happened. People had logged on. And what it was—and it's disgusting to even think about this, but what they had created was a mother or a father with a young four-year-old or five-year-old child. And people were interested in this. So it's there.

• 1605

The Chair: On account of you and on account of time, I'll ask if there are any other questions from any other member. We're just about out of time. We do have your bill here to review and we have the attachment from the parliamentary research branch, so we appreciate your time.

Mr. Rick Casson: Would you consider this your own bill?

Mr. Joe Jordan: It takes a lot of people to put a bill together.

The Chair: Oui. Merci.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Colleagues, we now have Ken Epp, who's appearing for Garry Breitkreuz, and Bill C-409.

As you know, you have about five minutes. Perhaps you might focus your remarks on why this item should be selected as a votable item.

Mr. Ken Epp, M.P. (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As a matter of fact, having served on this committee at that end of the table, I think I'm probably quite aware of why I'm here, which is not to argue the merits of the bill but rather to argue why it should be votable as opposed to simply being debated for one hour.

I'd like to do that. I believe you've all had the bill itself distributed and also the talking points. Actually, Garry has put together a very good set of points on why it should be votable. It's a little four-page thing that says, “Making C-409 Votable”, and I'd like to go over a few of those.

I think a very important reason to make a bill votable and to be eligible for the longer debate is if there is a lot of public interest in it. To me, that's a very strong argument. And there is a lot of ongoing public interest in the matter of the firearms laws and the rules that pertain to it.

As a matter of fact, in this Parliament—and I'm going to read a little bit of this to highlight it—there have been 2,646 pages of petitions with the signatures of over 60,000 citizens who have sent in petitions to oppose Bill C-68.

Of course, the bill that Garry is proposing does not ask to repeal Bill C-68, but simply asks that the Auditor General conduct a study to see whether or not it is cost-effective. In other words, is it spending the money correctly and is it being effective in terms of what it's accomplishing? So the bill itself is responding to what these people are asking for.

I'll skip a number of these points, but I also want to point to the urgency of this matter and to get some confidence in the minds of the people. There are only 165,000 firearms licensed as of this day, or as of May 5—only a couple of weeks ago—and that's in the last year and a half of the operation of this. So there is a huge backlog. In fact, as Garry says here:

The government will have to increase production by 30 times to licence at least 2.5 million more gun owners before the government's self-imposed deadline at the end of this year.

What we think would happen as a result of this bill actually being debated and voted on would be that Canadians would see that the bill actually does have a hope of being made efficient and effective, that it will have an effect on reducing the criminal use of firearms.

What Garry is proposing is that the Auditor General actually do an independent study of this and then only those parts of the bill that are proven ineffective would be repealed automatically after a five-year sunset clause. Those that are effective would be retained, which I think is what everybody wants. We want to have a bill, with respect to the use of firearms, that would reduce the illegal use of firearms.

Garry has mentioned a number of other items. One is the huge cost overrun. Originally, the minister said the old scheme was going to cost $85 million and that all but maybe a couple of million would be recovered through fees. That is proving to be false. As you see in item 6, the deficit right now is around $320 million already. So it's not coming anywhere near being funded by the registrations and the people who are registering their guns.

• 1610

There's a real concern in item 10 about an issue that the privacy commissioner has brought forward. That has to do with individuals being linked to the database who are in fact not guilty of any criminal misuse. As a matter of fact, there are some cases where witnesses to a crime—because they get on the file—or in some cases even victims of a crime, are being linked and then subsequently rejected upon application.

As Garry has pointed out also, just being able to quote statistics on how many people have been denied firearms has nothing to do with Bill C-68 itself. At least, that's his suspicion. But again, this particular bill simply says let's have an independent study of it and let's keep the things that are working and let's cut the things that aren't.

That's a sort of executive summary. I think I would probably insult you by reading the whole document.

The Chair: I think that's fine.

Mr. Ken Epp: I've given you an outline of it.

The Chair: We can leave a little bit of time for questions, if you would agree, Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Ken, this is about the fourth private member's bill on this specific issue that Garry has been before us with in my tenure, but in this document... You quote the Auditor General, who raised some concerns in April 2000, and then you also quote the Privacy Commissioner. It seems to me there are checks and balances at work here and they're already looking at this.

Mr. Ken Epp: Perhaps they are. But you must remember that both the Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor General merely report to Parliament. This is a call for action, which is different. This is a private member's bill that if actually brought to a vote, and if it came to a positive vote, would actually result in an improvement for the safety of Canadian citizens, because we would be spending our money on things that work instead of things that don't work. Obviously, Garry is very interested in retaining the things that work. You will know that if you look at the work he's done over the last number of years on this issue.

The Chair: Have you further questions on this? I know Garry's given us a lot of clear information here, as you have, and I thank you very much for your time.

Mr. Ken Epp: Thank you. I urge the committee to consider very seriously this important bill. Let's have it votable, debated for three hours.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Can I ask one question?

The Chair: Sure, go ahead.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: What happened with Mr. Breitkreuz that he didn't come himself? Was he not here today or is he at committee?

Mr. Ken Epp: No, he's not in Ottawa today. He's out of town.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay.

The Chair: Roads are not too good in that part of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Ken Epp: It's not the roads; it's the airlines, actually.

The Chair: Oh, I'm just kidding. Just bear with us here, because one of the most beautiful parts of the country is where Garry's from, near Yorkton, Saskatchewan, a beautiful area. I'm just making a comment about the most miles of road in any province of all of Canada in that small province.

Mr. Ken Epp: Oh, it is. And the roads are breaking up these days, too, because of the farm... But that's a whole other issue.

The Chair: We've heard it before. Thanks, Ken.

Scott, you can do it. Fall into place here.

Our next colleague—we'll give him a chance to get settled—is Scott Brison, motion M-210.

Scott, as you know, you have approximately five minutes to explain why your item should be made votable. Proceed when you wish.

Mr. Scott Brison, M.P. (Kings—Hants, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all the members for their time today.

The issue of emergency service volunteers and the tax treatment of emergency service volunteers, in most cases the most prevalent being volunteer firefighters, is one that has significant impact on rural and small town communities across Canada.

Currently, the tax treatment involves a tax-free allowance that benefits those firefighters who belong to departments that pay honoraria to them. Unfortunately, for the majority of volunteer fire departments, paying an honorarium is not an option, because the volunteer fire departments are struggling to make ends meet during a time when equipment costs are increasing dramatically.

• 1615

From a safety perspective and from a liability perspective, the investment that individual members of volunteer fire departments have to make is increasing. One statistic I was provided with was that over 85% of volunteer firefighters in the Maritimes, just to give you one example, do not receive any honoraria at all. So the tax-free allowance does not benefit those individuals, whereas a tax credit would actually provide a fairer treatment of all volunteer fire departments.

In fact, if we were to consider the cost of providing services to rural communities for the emergency service volunteer provision from government, we would quickly realize that effectively we're getting an incredible bargain from our volunteer fire departments. Some provinces have moved in this direction to try to provide a tax credit and other benefits to encourage volunteerism in this perhaps most important area of volunteerism.

This is a national issue. This is something that affects emergency service volunteers across the country, and it is also a way we can help the volunteer fire departments and emergency service organizations, at a time when it is becoming increasingly difficult for individuals to find time to volunteer, and help to incent individuals to provide volunteer time at a time when it's clearly very difficult to find individuals to provide this very important service to their communities.

Lastly, we should recognize that these people are spending a lot of money out of their own pockets for the privilege of being volunteers. The cost of equipment—safety equipment, etc.—has risen significantly.

Effectively, I think this is a very small step in the recognition of what is a very important service, and if we can make it votable, that would be one way that this Parliament could demonstrate its unequivocal support of volunteer firefighters and emergency service volunteers across Canada.

The Chair: No doubt Mr. Jordan has firefighters in his riding, and they all do a great job, these volunteers.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Absolutely.

Scott, I'm just wondering—this is a technical question—is there currently a Revenue Canada definition of what constitutes an emergency service volunteer? Do they already have that?

Mr. Scott Brison: Yes, that already exists. In fact, there's a tax-free allowance provided. So that hurdle has been crossed.

The difficulty is that most volunteer firefighters do not receive any level of honorarium. As a result, it doesn't really benefit them currently. In some towns that may be wealthier, there may be a benefit, but for most volunteer fire departments there's no benefit whatsoever now. This would universalize the treatment.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm just wondering how you would stop... and I would not debate the merits of the bill, because I think it's a very good bill.

Mr. Scott Brison: Sure.

Mr. Joe Jordan: How would you stop the North Augusta fire department all of a sudden swelling to 3,000 members on a volunteer... What's the $500 tax credit worth to them if they're making $50,000 a year?

Mr. Scott Brison: That has to do with a tax—

Mr. Joe Jordan: Not a lot, eh?

Mr. Scott Brison: Individual fire departments... and that has to obviously be monitored, and currently it is. There are ways to determine whether or not one is actually—

Mr. Joe Jordan: So it's the ones that aren't getting honoraria that don't have that way to monitor now—

Mr. Scott Brison: That's correct. Any provision can be subject to abuse. I don't think our friends at Revenue Canada—the new Revenue Canada agency—would be...

Mr. Joe Jordan: They're pretty good.

Mr. Scott Brison: I think they would be quite good at ferreting out 3,000-member fire departments in towns with a population of 300.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That could be a motion, too. We can discuss it.

Mr. Scott Brison: Yes, and that's something that obviously during the course of debate we can discuss further, but it is spelled out currently.

The Chair: We'll move on to Mr. Keddy.

• 1620

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Just briefly, in the 1999 budget, I believe, the government had attempted to address this, and they had put in a tax deduction for volunteer firefighters. But when you read that tax deduction, very clearly it stated that it was for volunteer firefighters who already received an honorarium of, I think, $500, and it left the rest of the volunteer firefighters, or the majority of them, out in the cold, so to speak. So this would be an attempt, I would think, to cover that.

There's an obvious loophole. I'm not sure it was intended by the government, but it is there.

Mr. Scott Brison: It creates a double unfairness in some ways, because clearly, volunteer fire departments in communities that don't have the financial ability to pay an honorarium already are providing a tremendous service. On top of that, it's a real challenge, and equipment costs have risen significantly for individuals and for the collective departments.

The Chair: Have we any further questions? I think it's certainly very clear, and we thank you for your time very much, Scott.

Mr. Scott Brison: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

We have one more witness. Witness number eight, Mr. Schmidt, does not want his item votable, and he's not able to be here today, so Mr. Steve Mahoney will be here on Bill C-318. I expect him to be here any minute. That's why I suggested we might take a moment.

Here's a thought. No doubt the next member will be here any moment, and we'll be in and out in 10 minutes. Now, it's your call—we meet again Thursday morning at 8:30—but should we go in camera to consider the draft report at 4:30 p.m., knowing that we have a few minutes then? We have to do it sometime. I might hear your opinions or thoughts on that.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Regarding the report, before giving you my party's views, I'd like to be able to raise the issue with my colleagues in caucus tomorrow morning, or rather tonight since the caucus meets tonight instead of tomorrow.

I know some were in favour of that option. Now that I know what the subcommittee's recommendation is, it would be difficult for me to take a position here that would be different from the views that will be expressed later on at the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.

I'd be more comfortable if I could raise the issue with my colleagues tonight and give you my views Thursday morning.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Suzanne, on that—and I'm just here as your chair—I don't think we were going to finalize anything today. I think we were just going to enter into discussion. But I think in a moment here we'll move back to our business of the day.

Steve, you can have a seat.

Mr. Steve Mahoney, M.P. (Mississauga West, Lib.): I'm waiting for some material. I'll just be one second.

The Chair: Right. I would like to ask that we take a one-minute break here if we can, however we ask for that. I'd like to suspend for one minute, please.

• 1624

• 1627

The Chair: Our next colleague appearing here is Steve Mahoney, in regard to Bill C-318.

Steve, as you probably know, you have up to five minutes to explain why your item should be selected as a votable item. Following that, we may have questions from members. You may proceed when you're ready, Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

We have supplied you, I believe, with the legislative summary in both official languages, as well as an official copy of the bill.

I would just like to stress a couple of points. The first one is that it's hard to understand how it happened, but apprenticeship rules across the country are tremendously different in all of the various apprenticeship programs that are available.

As some members will know, the red seal program does provide some kind of continuity, but only in 44 of the 164 trades that have been identified in the country does the red seal program apply. There are an awful lot of them where it does not apply.

This book, I think, gives an awful lot of weight—in more ways than one—to the argument that we should be trying to nationalize the standards across the country. This book, called the Ellis Chart, is a comparative chart of apprentice training programs across Canada—and this shows the confusion that is out there.

It's called the Ellis Chart because a committee was struck some years ago to look at this issue, and the head of it was a man by the name of Frank Ellis, who was the director of apprenticeship for the province of Saskatchewan. He undertook to put this table together to show comparisons across the country, province by province and trade by trade. He continued to update the versions, and the result is that when he retired in 1972, the then federal manpower training branch undertook to continue it. They've published this book and named it in his memory, in honour of him, the Ellis Chart. This book alone shows you why there's just tremendous confusion.

On the bill, my argument and the reason I would ask you to consider making it votable is that this is an issue that I think would relate to all Canadians. We need to do whatever we can as parliamentarians to encourage more young people to go into the trades and to take apprenticeship programs. My youngest son, who's 25, is currently apprenticing as an electrician in the province of Ontario, and I really strongly encouraged him to go that route. Whether or not he practises as an electrician, he'll have that training behind him.

• 1630

People are confused. One of the things our country allows for is mobility in terms of education. You should be able to move from province to province under the social charter, which I recognize was not signed by the Province of Quebec, but it was signed by the other provinces. You should be able to transfer from province to province for educational purposes.

In my view, it's time we considered apprenticeship training as part of the educational system in a true sense. It certainly is in various parts of the country. I just think we need to give standards so that everybody understands that a person who is an apprentice in Saskatchewan can indeed work as an apprentice or in that trade in the province of Quebec or in New Brunswick or wherever, and vice versa.

I've heard many people, including me, make speeches over the years about eliminating barriers, provincial barriers. We talk about doing it in terms of trade with the United States and globalized trade. Yet there are barriers within our own country that prohibit the flexibility and the ease of people to move across provincial borders.

In terms of this bill, as far as I am aware, the concept has not been debated in Parliament. I do not believe there is a financial impact on this because we already have sector councils. We have money being spent by HRDC. I have talked to the minister and she is supportive of the concept and the idea behind this. I don't think any new money will be required. We should be able to do it within the government infrastructure that exists. It would require a partnership with the NATOs that I refer to here of the provinces, labour, management, etc., all working together.

Mr. Chair, maybe there are questions, but in closing, I would just add that I have identified a number of people who have sent letters openly supporting this. The National Building and Construction Trades Department has been extremely supportive in working with me to adopt this, led by Joe Maloney. There are a number of other letters and comments in here, including some from members of Parliament. I think it could be a very timely debate in terms of helping our young people and standardizing and clearing up the confusion that's there. I look forward to answering your questions.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thanks.

Steve, I went through these ahead of time. My concern with this one, which you may have answered, was with the constitutionality of the feds getting into... Every time we get into education, we seem to get ourselves into trouble. If I heard you right, I'm assuming “red seal” doesn't mean an animal. We have already standardized—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You see it right here.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. We've already standardized 43 of how many?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's 44 of 164.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. So the feds have already worked with these partners or whatever and come up with standards for 44 of them. This is just extending it to the others. Were there constitutional problems in those 44 or did it go pretty smoothly?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: To be honest, I'm not that familiar with it because it goes back into the early 1970s when that was done. I'm not that familiar with the constitutional problems. I'm well aware, though, of that issue. I would tell you that when I first floated the idea of C-318, which I think was my very first day in my very first office in Ottawa, I did have some objections to it, until we had an opportunity to meet with staff and go over what the intent is.

The intent is not to interfere in provincial jurisdiction whatsoever. The provinces will continue to deliver the training. In my own son's case, for example, he will attend a community college for six months and then go back into the workforce. That community college is run by the Province of Ontario, or funded by the Province of Ontario.

The people in labour and management have said that providing national standards can be looked at as either a floor or a ceiling, but it will provide some continuity. The benefit is to the apprenticeship trainees and their ability to travel across the country and ply their trade. It should not affect the provincial government. I would see the provinces in every case being totally involved as active participants in the NATO committee.

The Chair: Mr. Godin, followed by Mr. Chatters for questions or comments.

• 1635

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): My question might be a bit confusing. Personally, before coming here as an MP, I was a member of the national miners training committee and the national training committee for fish processing plants' employees. We were doing business with the Pacific and the Atlantic regions. It was as if it had been decided that the regions should look after training themselves.

I don't know if you are aware of that, because you propose just the opposite. It was established then that, apart from mines and fisheries, there were other trades, and regional councils were created because the federal government was saying that the regions should look after that.

So could you tell me, first, if you aware of these regional councils.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, very much so. I see this as a cooperative piece of work between those people. They would have opportunities to sit on the NATO boards as well, because, once again, we're talking about standards, not service delivery. I think that's so important.

The service delivery is done better at the local community level, but the guidelines, the standards, should be set across the country. It seems patently unfair to me that a young person would receive training as an apprentice electrician in Vancouver, then his family moves and he moves with his family to Ontario, and he doesn't get credit for the training or he can't pick up where he left off. He has to start all over again in a brand-new system. I think that's patently unfair to Canadians.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Second, I don't know if you'd be willing to support that as well, but I always thought that an electrician, whether from New Brunswick, from British Columbia, from Ontario, from Quebec or from Prince Edward Island, is still an electrician. So why have duplicate standards if, in one province or the other, an electrician remains an electrician.

Why should Canadians spend more money? Why reinvent the wheel? This is one thing that could be centralized. I think it's also the view of trade unions. They want only one category of standards so that it costs less. We want the provinces to deliver, because it's in their jurisdiction, but there should be national standards.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If I understand your question or your point, we do believe—and I know that labour believes and I also know that the business community believes—that there could be substantial cost savings as an additional benefit of having national standards.

I cannot stress enough that it would be very important for the government, once the standards are adopted as guidelines, as standards across the country, to sit down—which would happen and does happen anyway, as it happens in the red seal program—with all the stakeholders in this issue to make sure they understand the standards and are able to deliver them.

It's not unlike the issue around the social contract in terms of the portability. Skills that are learned in one part of the country should apply to the other part of the country. There may be local issues that are important to deal with in terms of certain demographics or geography or that type of thing; that should all be dealt with locally.

The Chair: Perhaps to be fair to you, Mr. Mahoney, we're going to go to our last question, perhaps, with Mr. Chatters, if we may.

Mr. David Chatters: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm a little confused, Steve. In the 40 trades under the red seal program, I assume they have achieved national standards under the red seal program and have achieved the results you hope to achieve with your bill. So why do we need legislation to force the other trades to meet that same standard?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right. They actually haven't achieved it entirely in all of the trades. If you go through...

There's a check-off list that shows you what is available in each province. Even some of the red seals are not totally standardized across the country. They are the least problematic to correct, however, because the majority of it is done.

Mr. David Chatters: But under the red seal trades, have we achieved labour mobility under those trades in all the provinces?

• 1640

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, not in all the provinces.

Mr. David Chatters: So it's not likely that getting national standards is going to achieve the labour mobility that you want across Canada because there are other issues involved...

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, I think it would, and it would bring the red seal trades into the same program.

If you look, for example, at the red seal, at the very first one, “appliance service technician”, it applies in every province except Quebec, Saskatchewan, and the Yukon. All we need to do is have those three provinces come to the table for that particular trade. These NATOs are critical to and important in administering this kind of thing. All the participants would come in, and hopefully you would bring those provinces onside.

I understand the constitutional problems that we may well wind up with in the province of Quebec, but frankly, a young person in the province of Quebec who is trained as an appliance service technician in the province of Quebec should be able to work in any other province in this country without having to go back to school, since they've received... If you compare this to the number of taxi drivers that we have running around here who are highly trained professionals from other parts of the world, there's a similarity there. The difference is that these are Canadian youth who have been trained in some of our educational facilities and they should be able to work anywhere in this country.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. You've given us a lot to think about.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Good. Thank you.

The Chair: Now I think what we'll do is just move in camera for a couple of moments to discuss our future agenda. We have more witnesses on Thursday morning and then we'll make some decisions.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]