[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 3, 1995
.1841 
[English]
The Chairman: Order. This is the subcommittee on private members' business. We're considering the votability of five members' items tonight. I see a quorum.
Mr. Peric, you are here on Bill C-316. We would be pleased to hear your submission on how the committee should make your bill a votable bill.
Mr. Janko Peric, MP (Cambridge): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Colleagues, I'm appearing before you today to seek support for Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Immigration Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act.
Let me start by saying that Canada has a proud tradition of welcoming immigrants. I have personally benefited from that tradition. However, some have come to this great country, taken advantage of its generosity, and disobeyed its laws. I firmly believe those immigrants who show disrespect for the laws of this country and the people of this country do not deserve to be here. That is why I have decided to introduce this bill.
Our laws have always recognized that serious criminality should have consequences of removal from Canada. Bill C-316, also known as the Immigration Enforcement Improvement Act, simply aims to improve the way in which removals of violent offenders are carried out. However, its overriding purpose is somehow to help prevent tragedies such as the murder of Toronto police constables Todd Baylis and Georgina Leimonis, both of whom were gunned down in Toronto by non-citizens over one year ago.
Under Bill C-44, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has made great strides in limiting access by serious criminals to immigration procedures that delay their removal from Canada. However, Bill C-44 still leaves room for serious offenders to fall through the cracks. My bill aims to fill those cracks.
Clinton Gayle, who murdered Constable Baylis, would likely have been deported before the murder had the measures contained in Bill C-316 been in place. Mr. Gayle came to Canada in his early teens, had a lengthy criminal record, and had been awaiting deportation for a two-year period. At the time of Constable Baylis's murder, Gayle was out on bail of $2,000 and nowhere close to being deported.
Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I have provided members with a list given to me by the Canadian Police Association of almost 100 individuals who are either awaiting deportation because of their criminality or have been deported. They are only a few of the approximately 2,000 serious offenders awaiting deportation in Canada today, costing Canadian taxpayers in the vicinity of $200 million per year.
Bill C-316 would permit a court, in addition to any other sentence, to order the removal of non-citizens convicted of an offence punishable by ten years or more. These serious criminals would have access to appeals under the criminal process, but not to appeals currently available under the Immigration Act. The measures being proposed would not only accelerate the deportation process for violent offenders but also save Canadian taxpayers money.
.1845
The saving would primarily come from not having duplication in our court system, especially in the hearing process. By that I mean that offenders' immigration status would be determined by a sentencing court as opposed to having one court determine criminality and the other court determine immigration status.
We have the courtroom, the lawyers and the judge familiar with an individual's past and present records. Does it not make sense to deal with both issues at once? I submit to you that it does, and that the Canadian taxpayers would prefer to see it done this way.
There are two additional measures of significance in this bill of which members should be aware. The first relates to how we treat offenders who came to Canada at an early age. Immigration advocates have argued that deporting someone who came to Canada as a child is unjust. To address those concerns, I have included a provision in Bill C-316 that would protect anyone who arrived in Canada before reaching 16 years of age from deportation, as long as that individual had been free of criminal convictions for a period of five years. This measure was included in recognition of the fact that we, as Canadians, must take some responsibility for those individuals who grew up in a Canadian environment.
The second measure provides for removal by court order of a foreign offender to his or her country of origin if a reciprocal conditional release provision exists in that country.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has, on several occasions, stated that consideration should be given to authorize judges to issue deportation orders at the time of sentencing rather than requiring a separate step, especially under the present system. He included this suggestion in his document, ``Into the 21st Century: A Strategy for Immigration and Citizenship'', and I know he is giving Bill C-316 very serious consideration.
His comments on this matter echo the findings of the safety net conference held in Hamilton last fall where immigration officials, lawyers, enforcement authorities and victims groups specifically recommended two key elements contained in Bill C-316.
Mr. Chairman, I think you were there as well, and you are aware of the safety net recommendation.
Before I conclude, I would like to remind and alert members that this bill has the full support of the Canadian Police Association, the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association, CAVEAT and Victims of Violence.
At the memorial services for Georgina Leimonis last month, the Leimonis family also asked me to do everything in my power to see those amendments enacted. However, I cannot do this without the assistance of this committee.
In closing, I would like to encourage members to review the material I have provided and I would like to strongly urge you to make this Bill C-316 a votable item.
To my colleagues from the Bloc, I have to apologize; I didn't have time to have everything translated into French.
Thank you. Merci
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Peric.
.1850
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Thank you for you presentation, Mr. Peric.
Two clarifications on Bill C-316. You suggest using a removal order which, to all practical intents and purposes is the same as a deportation order. Would the effect be that the guilty party does not serve the sentence and is deported immediately?
[English]
Mr. Peric: No, they wouldn't be deported immediately. The court would have the power to send them to prison and they would have to serve whatever time the court decided. I believe the minimum would be one-third of the sentence, which is one-third of 10 years and more.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: For example, if you're dealing with murder in the first, your bill wouldn't apply simply because the offender is sentenced to life with a minimum 25 years to serve. You'd have to wait 25 years for your bill to kick in and get a deportation order.
[English]
Mr. Peric: No. This bill wouldn't interfere with criminal acts. This is the Immigration Act and the immigration court and judges would have to deal with this separately.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I don't understand. Let's take the case of someone sentenced to a minimum 25 years for first degree murder. What will happen with the jail time? How can the Immigration Court Judge give an order concerning a person sentenced to at least 25 years behind bars by an ordinary court?
[English]
Mr. Peric: If the judge decided he had to serve a full term, then he would have to serve a full term. Then, after his service, he would be deported.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I've read this in your summary and it's easier to understand, but also find it in the wording of the bill. You say that removal can be ordered not only for the delinquent, which is understandable, but also for dependents.
So this is guilt by association for these dependents who presumably have transgressed no Canadian law and are still subject to deportation. I can understand the case of people who are dependent on the delinquent, but the delinquent, being deported under your bill, would be dependent upon another person here, in Canada, who might be a member of the family.
[English]
Mr. Peric: The Immigration Act currently makes provision for the removal of family members. I'm told the reason for that is if the individual being deported is the head of the family and the rest of the members of the family depend on that individual for his support, the minister may include the dependants of that person in the deportation order. My bill simply amends that section to state that the judge may do likewise.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Silye (Calgary Centre): Could you tell me what weakness you are trying to improve in the current system?
Mr. Peric: In the current system we have a process where, as you can see from the list and the statement I received from the immigration people, we have exactly 1,888 serious criminals in Canada. We have a system of different tiers and they could be stuck here for years and years. They have the right to appeal from one level to another.
The minister has the final say whether or not they will be deported. I'm suggesting that in the Canadian court system the judges would have that power and would deal with that immediately and would speed up the process and save Canadian taxpayers a lot of money.
.1855
Mr. Silye: I have another question, which may be a bit weird. If somebody commits a crime punishable by ten years -
Mr. Peric: Or more.
Mr. Silye: - or more, then that's a pretty serious crime.
Mr. Peric: Yes, it's serious.
Mr. Silye: That is the way I read your summary. Perhaps it's more clear in the specific clause-by-clause version, but does this say that this person and their dependants could be deported right away? Is this a way for the prosecution to get the individual out of serving a sentence of up to ten years? And if they do serve a sentence of ten years in Canada, who looks after the dependants while that person is in prison?
Mr. Peric: Unfortunately, the system would have to look after the dependants. After the court order, it's going to depend on the court decision if that criminal is going to serve a full sentence or one-quarter. The dependants could not be removed before the criminal is removed.
Mr. Silye: Do you not see that as a weakness in your solution?
Mr. Peric: It might be, but I'm still willing to accept suggestions.
Mr. Silye: Which debate would bring out?
Mr. Peric: Yes.
The Chairman: Just for clarification of the record, a conviction for an offence punishable by a sentence of ten years or more is what you have in mind, not that the actual sentence be one of ten years or more.
Mr. Peric: No.
The Chairman: Many offences in the Criminal Code carry potential sentences in excess of ten years.
Mr. Silye: Certain right-wing, conservative judges would reduce it to a minimum.
The Chairman: Sometimes these things happen.
Are there any further questions for Mr. Peric? No?
Thank you very much, Mr. Peric.
Mr. Peric: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: We will revert to Mr. McClelland, who was good enough to assist us at the beginning of the meeting by being here with us.
You wish to address us on the subject of Bill C-319. We would be pleased to hear your submission as to why that bill should be made votable.
Mr. Ian McClelland, MP (Edmonton Southwest): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.
This bill is fairly simple. As the Elections Act stands today, registered political parties are eligible for a refund of the money that the national party spends if they spend over 10% of their eligible expenses. The refund of the money spent is around 22%. This bill would change this by putting one more qualification, which is that the national party would have had to achieve a threshold of 2% of the total votes cast.
You might ask yourself why the threshold is so low. It's because the intent is not to make it impossible for new parties or regional parties to get started. But it is high enough to ensure that the taxpayers of Canada are not subsidizing just any group that happens to get together and decides that it is going to run a party. It's just a check and a balance. It's in keeping with the fact that members who run individually are not able to get compensation on their election expenses if they don't make a threshold of 15% of the votes cast.
I'll be happy to accept questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: When drafting your bill, did you have one party in mind more than another? Which party would it have applied to in the last election?
.1900
[English]
Mr. McClelland: In the last election it would apply to two parties, the Natural Law Party and the National Party. The Natural Law Party had 0.6% of the vote, and the National Party 1.4%. The total reimbursement by the Government of Canada for both parties was $1,183,000. While the actual dollar amount is not great, it's the principle that's involved.
Mr. Langlois: Merci.
The Chairman: I'd have thought those were fairly significant dollars. Before Mr. Silye asks a question, could you break that $1.1 million down between the two parties?
Mr. McClelland: Yes. Natural Law had a reimbursement of $712,722, based on garnering 84,000 votes across the country. The National Party of Canada had a refund of $470,855, and they garnered 187,251 votes across the country. So as a point of reference, the Natural Law Party received 0.6% - they didn't receive 1% of the total votes cast - and they received a refund of $712,000.
Mr. Silye: Mr. McClelland, do you realize that all candidates receive a reimbursement of 50% of their amount spent if they receive 15% of the vote?
Mr. McClelland: That's correct.
Mr. Silye: Where does that differ with this formula you have? I'm familiar with the 50% refund of campaign expenses. Are you talking at the national party level?
Mr. McClelland: Yes, the national party level.
Mr. Silye: Okay. I'd like to check with you on this one principle. I want to check how consistent you are.
If we have deductibility for donations to political parties as we do deductibility for charities, do you feel that the taxpayers are being hit twice in the face when a national party gets a refund like this and individual candidates who get who get 15% more of the vote get 50% of their money back? It sometimes puts them into debt in that they spend money anticipating they're going to get the vote.
Why would you not support taking it a little further? Why wouldn't you support something in your bill that says the government shouldn't be reimbursing national parties or candidates at all?
Mr. McClelland: I'd be happy to accept an amendment to that effect.
The Chairman: If I could intervene, you're not obliged to answer the question. It is slightly out of order in the sense that we're dealing with the bill only as it is. We're not in a position to counsel amendment. The bill has to be viewed the way it is.
Mr. Silye: I thank you for that clarification, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClelland: If I might respond, I had anticipated that question, and I had considered that as the motion. But I thought politics was the art of the possible. I felt this would have a much better chance of passing than to say that none would be available at all.
I had also thought, in the original bill, that I would present, at another time, another bill that would have the effect of suggesting that donations to political parties be treated the same as any other charitable donation.
Mr. Silye: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. McClelland, let's take the example of Newfoundland. At the present time, Newfoundland has a right to be represented in the House of Commons by six or seven members of Parliament. There could well be a regional party in Newfoundland, for example the Newfoundland Freedom Party. Newfoundland's population represents 2 % of the Canadian population. Supposing the seven members of Parliament got 40% of the vote. They would represent the whole Newfoundland population in the House of Commons, but if your bill was passed, they wouldn't have a right to any reimbursement. Do I understand your bill correctly?
.1905
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Yes, that's very accurate, which then speaks to the previous question: perhaps no one should have it. If that were a problem in debate on the bill and people looked at it from that perspective, then I would be quite happy to amend the bill such that no political party should get a refund at all.
The Chairman: Thank you for your very succinct presentation on a short bill.
Our next presenter will be Jane Stewart, who will be sitting with Senator Colin Kenny in connection with Bill S-7.
Mrs. Jane Stewart, MP (Brant): Colleagues, I just want to start by saying what an honour it is for me to be the member of the House of Commons who would guide S-7 through our House, a bill to accelerate the use of alternative fuels, if you deem it to be a votable item.
I would now turn the discussion over to Senator Kenny, who has so effectively developed the bill and managed it through the Senate at all levels and now brings it to us for our consideration in the House of Commons.
Senator Colin Kenny (Rideau): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The purpose of the bill is to resolve a long-standing dilemma that has existed, where vehicle manufacturers have said they would be pleased to manufacture alternative-fuelled vehicles if only there were enough fuelling stations, and fuel suppliers have said they'd be pleased to build more stations if only there were more vehicles. The bill proposes the federal government fleet of 39,000 vehicles as the solution. The federal government and the crown corporations that make up the 39,000 federal vehicles keep them for roughly five years, five and a half years, and purchase roughly 20% of new vehicles each year.
When we were working on the bill in the first instance we concluded that nothing would proceed very far unless it was cost-effective. Unless we could demonstrate we could save money, it didn't matter how good it was for the environment, it was unlikely to proceed in the current climate.
We concluded after a fairly extensive study that the federal government, if it did convert 75% of its fleet, could save approximately $7 million a year and could reduce the emissions of CO2 by 20,000 tonnes a year.
The bill is in fact fuel neutral. It includes natural gas, propane, ethanol, methanol, and electricity. The assumption is that the fuel selected would be the fuel that was most economic in the region and most available in the region. There's a very attractive American model where the federal government in the United States in fact goes to the local region or the local municipality or the state and says, ``Why don't you folks choose the fuel and we'll match it in the federal government; we will conform to what you choose in the local area.''
There has been a significant response from the private sector. Documents are available. I didn't pass them out, but they're available, with letters from a variety of fuel suppliers who have undertaken to spend between $40 million and $50 million on increased infrastructure in the event the bill goes forward.
It breaks out very well across the country. In Quebec, for example, Gaz Métropolitain has committed to spending in excess of $5 million. In Alberta, CU utilities has committed to spending between $11 million and $20 million. In Ontario, Consumers Gas and Union Gas have committed to spending approximately $8 million. There's a very significant private-sector commitment to move ahead if the bill is successful.
We have also had presentations before the Senate committee from both propane suppliers and natural gas suppliers who have undertaken to convert the federal fleet at no cost wherever it proves to be economic. That is to say, they'd come in, examine the gasoline usage of the existing vehicles, and in the case of propane, for example, where a vehicle was using more than 3,200 litres of fuel a year, they would take it and convert it.
.1910
The payback would come to the converting company within a couple of years. Then the subsequent savings would accrue to the federal government. It's a very attractive proposal that they do with the private sector and they're prepared to continue it with the federal government.
One of the things we discovered in examining the proposal was the Auditor General's Report of 1991, which was very critical of the way in which the federal government purchases vehicles. The Auditor General determined that the federal government has 106 different makes and models of vehicles in its fleet. Our committee, when we examined it in the Senate, concluded that we could probably reduce that to about a dozen.
The Auditor General's Report also concluded that the federal government doesn't buy vehicles very well. It has too many of them. There is insufficient justification for the purchase of most of them.
When it does buy them, only the RCMP actually seem to purchase them well. They have a single type of vehicle from coast to coast and they take advantage of very significant bulk buys.
On the other hand, all the other departments in the federal government seem to confuse bulk buys with quantity purchases. They don't buy the same type of vehicle. They have perhaps a dozen different types of vehicles that they buy all at once. They refer to that as a bulk buy.
We examined a variety of issues in terms of the workability of alternative fuels. Several police forces appeared before us indicating that they found that the vehicles performed well and saved them money. That's important because there are so many police vehicles in the federal fleet.
We determined that there were no outstanding problems in terms of existing refuelling infrastructure. The federal government has just completed a study that is available to the committee, should it wish to see it, called the Bronson report, which indicates that 96% of the fleet has access to one alternative fuel right now and 33% has access to three or more alternative fuels right now.
We have correspondence available from the assistant secretary of the United States Department of Energy. We actually visited Washington and reviewed the bill with the Department of Energy there, and the assistant secretary wrote back indicating that this year the United States is converting 10,000 vehicles in its fleet to alternative fuel. Next year it'll be 12,000 vehicles, and by 1999 their law will require that 75% of all of their fleet be converted to alternative-fuel vehicles.
We have correspondence available from Ford Motor Company that is critical of the bill only inasmuch as the president of the company feels it is going too slowly. He suggests that we should remove the two-year study period from the bill and just get on with it. Basically, his letter says - and it's available to you - that we've studied this issue for 20 years and it's time to start moving on it.
We have a commitment as a nation to the agreement that we signed at Rio, where we've undertaken to keep our CO2 emissions at 1990 levels in the year 2000. This is a positive step in that direction.
There is significant parliamentary support for the bill. It went through the Senate unanimously at all three readings. It went through committee unanimously. I currently have letters available from 108 members of the Senate and the House of Commons that I'd be pleased to make available to you.
One of the most attractive features of the bill is that the government is leading by example. Most of the time government legislation tends to tell people what to do. In this case, it's legislation directed at itself, saying that the government should clean up its own act, and the population will benefit from the government's own activities.
Finally, I feel I should discuss very briefly with this committee that some debate is going on as to whether this could be accomplished by guidelines rather than legislation. I'd like to draw to the committee's attention that there have been guidelines in place that the Treasury Board has had since 1976 requiring fleet managers to consider the environmental aspects of vehicles they purchase. The Auditor General looked at those guidelines in 1991 and found that they were ineffective and had resulted in only 200 vehicles being converted to alternative fuel, so Treasury Board tightened up its guidelines in 1991.
.1915
When we had officials come before us from the Department of Supply and Services, we asked them how many alternative-fuel vehicles they had purchased in the past year. The official started counting on his hand, and said one for the minister's, one for the deputy minister's, maybe another for another department - there were less than ten vehicles purchased last year, and in the coming year there are none currently planned.
I think in addition to that, the private sector is very unlikely to make the investment of $40 million to $50 million on the basis of Treasury Board guidelines. It is far more likely to make the investment on the basis of a law passed by the Government of Canada.
The bill, if you have a chance to read it, is flexible and is responsive to change inasmuch as paragraph 6(a) allows for the Treasury Board to define fuels. As fuels change or as we find out new information about different fuels over time, there is provision there for the government of the day to adjust the definition of fuels, while paragraph 6(b) provides for the government to adjust the definition of vehicles. The government is therefore provided with a fair amount of flexibility in terms of how it would operate this bill.
I think that summarizes the outline of the bill, Mr. Chairman. I'd be pleased to deal with questions.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Thank you, Senator Kenny, for your presentation and the documentation that you were kind enough to send us in support of your bill which goes to show that you're a real expert.
I will ask you a question on an issue on which you did not elaborate. As for the others, I think I did understand them. Are you in a position to tell us whether such alternative fuels would have a direct impact on the Canadian petroleum industry? If that is so, what will it be? If not, just tell me no and why.
[English]
Senator Kenny: Yes, sir, I can. The only group of witnesses who appeared and opposed the bill were the refiners, the downstream end of the industry. They came forward and suggested it would be preferable for the government to proceed with reformulated gasoline and with the purchase of new vehicles, to get the older ones off the road.
Having said that, the oil and gas industry is made up of a relatively small number of refiners but an awful lot of producers of natural gas, and propane is a byproduct of natural gas. So it would be fair to say that a company such as Shell Canada Limited, which supports the refiners' position in its downstream arm, would not support the refiners' position in their upstream arm, because Shell is the second-largest producer of natural gas in Canada and the third- or fourth-largest producer of propane.
A company like Amoco, for example, does not do any refining here in Canada but is the largest producer of natural gas and the largest producer of propane, so it would support this.
In a general sense, gas producers find that the bill is very attractive, because it increases the market for natural gas, it increases the market for propane, and it diversifies that market. From the perspective of the large, integrated companies, their question is: Which of our products are you going to buy? Whichever one you choose to buy, we're going to benefit from it.
So I think the net effect, in terms of the oil and gas sector, is positive, because it diversifies markets. I think you could say that perhaps ethanol as a fuel might tend to be seen as a small threat, but when you look at propane's penetration into the market, with 96% coverage, ethanol has a long way to go before it threatens propane or natural gas.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Will the conversion to alternative fuels have an impact on Canada's energy self-sufficiency?
.1920
[English]
Senator Kenny: Yes, sir, it is. It's particularly true, for example, for the province of Quebec and for the Atlantic region, which is totally dependent on imported oil. The line that western oil comes east is progressively moving further west as we speak. But in your province or in the Maritimes or in Newfoundland, it's extremely important that they diversify their fuels for transportation purposes.
It's particularly attractive in the province of Quebec inasmuch as one of the alternative fuels is electricity. As we know, electricity for transportation is going to be dependent on improved batteries, but there's probably another decade of research required before we get there.
The key to whether electricity is a good fuel really depends on where the electricity is produced in the first place. If it's produced by burning coal, then it's not a very attractive fuel from the perspective of transportation, because you've just moved the pollution from the tailpipe to the smokestack.
But in the case of Quebec, your electricity is almost entirely hydro. Therefore, you have a clean production of electricity and it's a logical fuel to use for transportation.
So yes, I think it is important to eastern Canada to encourage this diversification.
Mr. Langlois: Merci.
The Chairman: For our listening pleasure, from the capital of the Canadian oil and gas industry, Mr. Silye.
Mrs. Stewart: He's from the upstream country, with the upstream men.
Mr. Silye: Should I withdraw myself from questioning, since I came from the oil and gas business? I'll be very careful.
I like your presentation. It's very good. You're very knowledgeable about your subject. You hit the number one problem right off the bat, the chicken or the egg cycle.
I find it interesting that you would argue that 39,000 federal vehicles out of 15 million to 20 million - I don't know how many 30 million people would use in Canada - would have the sufficient critical mass to break the cycle of providing the proper number of outlets for the federal government to fill up, if you will. That's my biggest concern in this. Everything else you say is good.
Senator Kenny: It's a valid concern, sir. The federal fleet is 1% of the total market, so you're dead on in terms of your figures.
The issue is really this. The chicken and egg problem I described at the beginning really is the old problem. That was the issue that existed perhaps ten years ago, before propane got going. We now have over 5,000 propane stations in Canada, which is more than diesel has. So that aspect of the problem is really being resolved.
The real problem is getting a sufficient volume of alternative-fuelled vehicles on the road so it makes sense for the car manufacturers to do originally manufactured cars. Nobody particularly likes the idea of up-fitting or conversions after the fact. They're seen generally as a bridge to get to originally manufactured cars.
Now, the volumes required by Ford, GM and Chrysler to get there.... If you take what we're doing in the federal government, the numbers aren't terrific. But if you think of it in a more inclusive way, if you think of us as setting this example, then that gives GM, for example, an opportunity to aggregate it. They can ask, what's the province doing? What's the municipality doing? What are the Americans doing?
Basically, we have free trade in autos. The Auto Pact has worked really well for a long time. If you take what this bill proposes for the federal government, it ultimately gives the auto companies a base load that they can aggregate with other elements of the market, and when you combine it with what the Americans are doing, we may get there faster than we think.
Mr. Silye: Do you think that switching to alternative fuels will be more expensive than just keeping the current method of vehicles?
Senator Kenny: No, sir, absolutely the opposite. I wouldn't have brought this proposal forward if I didn't think the federal government was going to save significant amounts of money with the conversion. Our estimate is that it's going to save $7 million a year.
Mr. Silye: Where are the savings?
Senator Kenny: Well, the savings are in cheaper fuel.
Mr. Silye: What about the extra costs of the vehicles, because there are fewer manufactured? Have you...[Technical Difficulty]...a vehicle that runs on gas versus a vehicle that runs on propane or electricity or ethanol?
Senator Kenny: That's quite right, but if you take, for example -
Mr. Silye: The actual costs are a factor, right?
Senator Kenny: Yes.
.1925
Now, if you take into account propane, for example - let's work with it as an example, but I can deal with any one you like - then the federal government would buy a gasoline-powered sedan and convert it. The conversion cost is approximately $2,000. If the vehicle is being run for over 35,000 kilometres a year, then you get a payback in two years.
With the offer the propane companies made, there isn't even an outlay in the first instance, because the propane company has offered to pay that initial outlay. The federal government will continue to pay the price of gasoline until the conversion is paid for, and from that point on all the savings from propane will accrue to the federal government. It's really a no-lose situation.
Mr. Silye: Say you're taking a cabinet minister somewhere. Where is the next propane fill-up station?
Senator Kenny: I'd be pleased to give you a map. There are over 5,000 of them in Canada. You don't hear people complaining about running out of diesel. People get around with diesel cars in a terrific way in Canada. There are only 4,800 diesel refuelling stations in Canada. So propane's terrific.
The Chairman: That was a lengthy, but interesting, presentation.
Senator Kenny: I apologize for going over my time.
The Chairman: You were asked the questions, and you had to give good answers.
I would just note that Mrs. Stewart is sponsoring your bill in the House.
Senator Kenny: That's correct.
The Chairman: As I understand the conventions around here, a Senate bill such as this would receive a fairly wide berth in coming to the House after passage in the Senate. Having said that, I thank you for your remarks.
Mr. Silye: What did you mean by ``wide berth''?
Mrs. Stewart: Good consideration.
The Chairman: Yes. Without getting technical about it, I take the advice of our staff.
Thank you very much.
Senator Kenny: Thank you, sir.
The Chairman: We will go to our next presenter, who is Mr. de Savoye, in connection with Bill C-248.
I suppose I could apologize for running so late, but I'm sure you've enjoyed the presentations as much as I have. In any event, please proceed with your presentation.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Chairman, I have left with the clerk copies of the written remarks I am going to use for my presentation. They could be useful to the members of the committee if they wish to take notes as I proceed.
The purpose of this bill, as you know, is to provide protection against retaliation for those employees who, in good faith and for reasons of public interest, in particular when public health and safety are concerned, disclose serious misconduct by their employer.
This bill covers public sector employees under federal jurisdiction. It is based on two essential principles. First, the bill seeks to encourage federal public servants to disclose institutional or individual conduct or practices that could endanger or harm specifically or substantially public health, security or welfare or a conduct or practices that could lead to considerable or unjustified expenses of public money.
The second principle without which the first one could not be applied properly is to offer protection against retaliatory measures by employers against those employees who make a disclosure pursuant to the provisions of this bill.
Those two principles meet the expectations of individuals and groups. People wish that the federal government would reduce waste and put an end to shameful practices. For the people, it is a question of transparency and ethics on the part of federal institutions.
.1930
Furthermore some 200,000 federal public servants have communicated with my office since this bill was tabled for first reading to tell me what they think. The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada pointed out the urgency in adopting federal legislation of this kind. You'll find an Institute document entitled Breaking the Silence appended here.
As for the Public Service Alliance of Canada representing over 150,000 public servants - you have another document entitled In the Public Interest here - it recommended holding hearings with its members on the delivery of public services and the adoption of a measure like the one set out in this bill.
On the other hand, parliamentarians and political parties, in the past, have also stated their support for legislation implementing the above-mentioned principles. Thus, this bill was introduced during the 34th Parliament by a member of the New Democratic Party and it was debated in second reading. At the time, to Liberal MPs, one being the critic in the area of ethics and the other in the area of human rights, strongly supported the principles of this bill during the debate which occcured in February 1992.
Before that, in 1991, the spokesperson of the official opposition of the day in the area of government administration, in a working document in the month of October, said it was imperative to implement policy to give proper protection to those public servants publically denouncing waste.
Before that, members like past MP and present senator Jean-Robert Gauthier or NDP MP Jim Fulton representing the riding of Skeena, or like ex-Conservative minister Allan Redway, all proposed, in one form or another, legislative measures like the ones found in Bil C-248.
Finally, I would remind you that the members of our own political party, during our first general meeting of June 18, 19 and 20 1993, recommended that our parliamentary wing see to the tabling in the House as soon as possible of legislation including the protection of whistle-blowing public servants.
All that's left for me to do now with you is to discuss the mechanisms provided for us the bill. Since its tabling in May 1994, a year ago, different comments from groups and individuals have shown me that the implementation mechanisms provided for in the bill could be improved.
Amongst other things, those comments concerned the provisions for receiving complaints. Thus, if this is a votable item, then I would have to mention the comments I was sent. They would actually allow these improvements to be added during examination in committee.
So as the public as well as many MPs seem to have come to a consensus over the years on the fundamental principles of this legislation, it is more than desirable that this be a votable item to allow for the improvement of the anticipated mechanisms.
I'm now available to answer your questions.
The Chairman: Mr. Langlois.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. de Savoye, you talk about the employer in clause 2. To whom are you referring there?
Mr. de Savoye: Taking into account the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Public Service Employment Act, we would make it as broad as possible. In our own context, the employer is essentially the Crown.
Mr. Langlois: Under the terms of the legislation, and under the terms of that bill, would you be the employer of your employees?
Mr. de Savoye: Sorry?
Mr. Langlois: Are you the employer of your staff on the Hill or in your riding offices according to the terms of the legislation?
Mr. de Savoye: To my knowledge, MPs staff are not employees of the Crown as such and thus would not be affected by this bill.
.1935
Mr. Langlois: Can you think of blatant examples of abuse, and I am not asking for a dozen, just two or three will suffice in order to beef up the argument that public servants have been penalized for disclosing some misconduct on the part of their employer?
Mr. de Savoye: Presently, a public servant who would have something to disclose whould take great care not to be identified as the author of the revelation. At this point, we are experiencing the complete opposite, because the disclosures that should be made are not made.
We are prevented from knowing what is happening because of the risk of retaliation; in the present circumstances no public servant in his or her right mind would want to risk his or her career at the present time.
Mr. Langlois: Thank you, those were my questions.
[English]
Mr. Silye: I would like to ask you about the potential power you're giving to the person who has reasonable grounds for believing the employer is engaging in or is about to engage in conduct that if engaged in would be illegal or contrary to public policy or would endanger public health or safety. What if this person doesn't like the boss?
Your bill doesn't define reasonable grounds. It's like being able to hold your boss at ransom: if you don't treat me right, anything I hear and I feel is reasonable grounds that you're going to be doing something wrong and I'm going to file a complaint with the commission.
I know if the person does it - in a way I'm answering my own question - it'll be the only time they get a chance to do it, so that's one safeguard. But don't you feel this bill is giving too much power to a person who is out to get the boss?
Mr. de Savoye: You do realize the threat is not against the boss but against an event or a way of doing things. So if you divulge something, you're divulging an action. You're not saying this boss is incompetent. You're not saying this boss is harassing you. You're saying this sequence of events is taking place and it affects public health or it is a waste of money. That in itself doesn't mean the boss of this individual will be pinpointed as guilty.
There could be hundreds of reasons why this way of doing things just happens to be there. It could have been the consequence of a lot of other circumstances.
This bill is not pointing the finger at people. It's pinpointing problems. If the individual abuses that, he could be sacked from his job without any recourse. Some public servants have to pledge allegiance to their job. If they make a divulgation out of that faith, there could be dire consequences about that. So I don't share the fear you have.
Mr. Silye: Mr. de Savoye, I have a concern. I'm having trouble linking the reasonable grounds any person may have with the reality that the situation itself will show the employer is behaving in a way affecting public health or safety. With reasonable grounds, the evidence will be there. In other words, both the employer and the employee should see the evidence that there are reasonable grounds for a correction to be made here.
So I question the need. If I'm the employee and you are the employer and you're engaging in something I believe is endangering public health or safety, wouldn't it be just as obvious to you that you're doing it as it is to me?
Mr. de Savoye: Hopefully, yes, and then we don't need that bill, but unfortunately, sometimes it isn't like that. Then my bill is very much in need.
.1940
The Chairman: This is a fairly complex piece of legislation, Mr. de Savoye, in the sense that you just didn't put it together overnight. It seems to be very carefully worded.
I've heard your comments with respect to the possibility of an amendment being proposed to improve it or to modify it in some way, but I want to note that it appeared to me to be in fairly good form. Whistle-blowing - if we want to call it that - may be an issue whose time has come.
There being no further questions, we thank you for your submission.
Mr. de Savoye: Thank you very much, and have a good evening.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Ensuite, M. Ménard for M. Lavigne.
Mr. Silye: This was withdrawn, according to the -
The Chairman: Let me explain to members. At the last meeting of this subcommittee, Mr. Lavigne appeared and indicated to us that one or more parties involved in the labour dispute his bill covers had suggested to him that for reasons existing at that time, it would be appropriate for him not to proceed with his bill.
Subsequent to that, I am informed, and Mr. Ménard may confirm that now, Mr. Lavigne and the parties have had another look at the context in the fresh light of day. Events in Montreal have not evolved as hoped for in that labour dispute. Mr. Lavigne did not, in fact, end up withdrawing his bill from the Order Paper, and since we have not yet completed our decision making, I have indicated that we would be prepared to hear Mr. Ménard, for Mr. Lavigne, in connection with this.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Ménard (parliamentary assistant to Mr. Raymond Lavigne, Verdun - Saint-Paul): Ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure for me to give you a summary of Bill C-313, an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of operations at ADM Agri-Industries Ltd. Unfortunately, Mr. Lavigne cannot be here tonight and he sends his apologies. The fact I will be explaining the purpose of this bill on his behalf will not, I hope, detract from its significance. Thank you for listening to me.
First, some background. The labour dispute between ADM Agri-Industries Ltd and the National Syndicate of Employees of Ogilvie Flour Mills Company Ltd involves approximately 150 employees in the production line. The parties are to renegotiate the collective agreement that ended January 31st 1992. First a conciliator and then a mediator were appointed in order to help the parties come to a settlement. Unfortunately, very little progress has been accomplished.
The union went on legal strike on June 6th 1994. That was 11 months ago. The employer, using replacement workers, carried on the operations at the mill putting regular employees of ADM in a very detrimental negotiating position.
Bill C-313 provides for a final offer as a method to end the dispute.
.1945
During the 30 days following his appointment, or within any such period granted by the minister, the adjudicator should determine those issues that are already agreed upon, those which are controversial and to settle whatever contentious issues remain, choose either the employer's offer or the union's or come to a compromise between the two offers and determine the provisions of a back-to-work agreement.
Meanwhile, the employees would go back to work according to the provisions of the agreement and the bill would contain provisions forcing the parties to submit to the back-to-work and resumption of operations memorandum agreement. There would also be provisions for sanctions in the form of fines for any breach of legislation. The act would come into force the day after assent.
[English]
What I have just described is the proposed bill. However, I would like to state that this is not an anti-scab bill. Bill C-313 was drawn to solve a precise situation that currently exists at ADM. Many of our constituents are people who have been working for ADM for more than 20 years, and they are out of work with little or no money to survive on and very little hope of going back to work soon.
[Translation]
Last week, Mr. Lavigne mentioned his intention to withdraw this bill at the request of the union which had actually lobbied to have the bill passed. The union requested the withdrawal of Bill C-313 because of a promise to negotiate which was received either Monday or Tuesday this week. Tuesday morning, the union was told by the company vice-president: ``We have no reason to compromise and we will continue to operate as we know do''.
[English]
They then left the negotiation table. This attitude may have been the result of many thinking that Bill C-313 had been officially withdrawn. It was not.
[Translation]
As you can imagine, the union was crestfallen when they contacted Mr. Lavigne again Tuesday morning to ask him if it was possible to reintroduce Bill C-313 into the legislative process of the House of Commons. I must say they were more than crestfallen. It was rather embarassing for them.
[English]
As this bill had not been officially withdrawn, after consultation with his peers Mr. Raymond Lavigne agreed to present it.
[Translation]
So it's because the situation doesn't seem to be drawing towards a quick resolution that Mr. Raymond Lavigne is asking for your help, your support and your approval to make this a votable item. Thank you. I'm ready to answer any of your questions.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I'd like you to clarify only one point. Did Mr. Lavigne table his bill at the request of the union or did he withdraw at the union's request after he'd tabled it himself?
Mr. Ménard: Both. The employees and the union lobbied the offices of Mr. Lavigne, Mr. Lincoln, Mrs. Robillard and even Mr. Chrétien. A bill to settle the question was prepared by Mr. Lavigne as the Ogilvie mills are in his riding and many of the employees, about 100, live in Mr. Lavigne's riding.
As a consequence of this lobbying, a bill was prepared and when they were told last week that no bill was necessary, that there were going to be negotiations, that the bill should be withdrawn and so forth, the employees' unions said: We'd rather negotiate than have a bill forced on us because they'll negociate with us.
.1950
So Mr. Lavigne appeared before you. He apologized and said that he'd be withdrawing his bill. The people who had lobbied him didn't want it anymore. After negotiating a day and a few hours, the company told them: We have no reason to compromise. They got up and left the bargaining table. They immediately called Mr. Lavigne to ask him is it was too late to reintroduce the bill. They apologized and said they were wrong. Mr. Lavigne asked for his colleagues' opinions since the bill had not been officially withdrawn. He was told: Go to it, introduce it. It was really unfortunate.
As Mr. Lavigne is not here tonight, he asked me - I'm his parliamentary assistant - to stand in for him. I'm quite knowledgeable about the issue and I know it like the back of my hand.
Mr. Langlois: I need some additional clarification. In your presentation, you explained that this was not an antiscab bill. If I understand your reasons for tabling this bill, it's because there are employees that could be called ``scabs'' working at the plant now. If the plant could not hire ``scabs'' this bill would probably not be necessary. Did I get that correctly?
Mr. Ménard: I suppose so. That's probably what the unions were asking for. The Ogilvy Company at Saint Hubert, on the south shore, faced the same situation. On the south shore, they make flour. So they're subject to Quebec's antiscab law. The contract was settled really quickly.
Unfortunately, in Montreal, you're dealing with the grain industry. They're under a federal contract. They hired temporary replacement employees and they're refusing to negotiate. When they learned there were negotiations, they withdrew.
It would be a mandatory contract. The bill says that if one of the parties does not submit a contract, the other contract will be automatically accepted. It's to the advantage of both parties to submit something.
[English]
I'm sorry that the document we received, the fax, was only in French, but I would gladly translate it for you, if you wish. But in there is a sentence in English, by the way: ``We have no reason to negotiate.''
The Chairman: There is never a problem with any document that comes in at least one of the official languages.
Could I ask, colleagues, if we could go in camera right now, with present company? I'd like to make some remarks. Let's do that.
[Proceedings continue in camera]