EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 7, 1995

.1531

[English]

The Chair: Order.

I'd like to ask the clerk to explain to the members of the committee what we're up against here.

The Clerk of the Committee: Madam Chair, at this stage might I draw the attention of the members of the subcommittee to the last two paragraphs on the second page of their agenda. I'll read it; otherwise I'll get the figures confused.

It indicates that there are currently four votable bills on the Order Paper and three votable motions. So that means we would be able to choose only one new bill and two new motions, but in the coming days we expect a couple of bills and a couple of motions to be disposed of.

The procedure and House affairs committee would have until Tuesday, November 21 to report. On Wednesday, November 22 the first member of the present draw that we're working on, Mr. Solomon, would have his motion debated on Wednesday afternoon. So Wednesday, November 22, at 3 p.m., would be the last day on which we could report, and by Thursday of this week, or so, we would have to know what our situation is.

So my recommendation to the subcommittee would be to see how things look tomorrow if we have to get together to make decisions on votable items. But for the moment, if you had to report today, you would be able to choose only one bill and two motions.

The Chair: Reading between the lines, what you're suggesting is that we should delay reporting until the end of tomorrow, but perhaps have a really good solid look and keep in mind that we might be picking a few more.

The Clerk: Yes, or you could do a priority listing perhaps, depending on what's available at the last minute, and the subcommittee could perhaps authorize you to report whatever is possible according to that list of priorities. There are a number of strategies. You might want to discuss it in camera.

The Chair: Yes, and since the House won't be sitting in the following week, we've -

The Clerk: Yes, but you will probably want to know what the situation is by the end of this week.

The Chair: Are there any questions of the clerk? No?

Mr. Proud, you know the routine: five minutes, then we make a little button go and your seat shoots you right up through the ceiling vent.

Mr. George Proud, MP (Hillsborough): I hear what you're talking about before I start. It probably is redundant for me to start, is it?

The Chair: No. We have to pick one today, but we're talking about possibly picking two.

The Clerk: Don't be discouraged, Madam Chair. There will be some holes by the time the committee reports. It's not as bad as it looks.

Mr. Proud: This bill of mine, Bill C-292, is a proposed act to commemorate the birthplace of Confederation. This bill has been a project of mine. It actually started in 1988, shortly after I came here.

Since I have only a few minutes, I will not go into any great detail in my endeavour in this matter. I've twice had a private member's bill die in the process, one in 1991 and the other in 1993.

In 1990, however, I had a private member's motion passed. It stated that in the opinion of this House, the city of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island should be designated as the birthplace of Confederation to mark at that time the 125th anniversary of the 1864 conference of the Fathers of Confederation.

.1535

The Charlottetown conference is a great historical event, and as host of such an event, Charlottetown, I believe, should be commemorated. That is the purpose of Bill C-292: to commemorate Charlottetown as the birthplace of Confederation.

Under the authority of this bill, if enacted, the Minister of Canadian Heritage would be able to, in many ways, commemorate the sites and buildings where the Charlottetown conference was held prior to 1867. At the conference in 1864, delegates from Canada and the Maritimes agreed in principle to form one union, the Dominion of Canada. At this time in Charlottetown a feeling of excitement and endless possibility was born. Delegates representing several provinces decided to form one nation. They realized, of course, that in unity there is strength.

It is possible to recapture the atmosphere of the 1864 conference if you walk around Charlottetown. You can begin this by walking up Great George Street from the harbour, the route followed by the fathers after they disembarked from the steamer the Queen Victoria. Trees shade the area, and as you walk through the trees Province House comes into view. Province House is where the conference took place and is where the legislative proceedings in the province take place today.

While any islander knows the story of the Dominion's birth and is happy to tell its visitors, we would appreciate the support and resources of the Government of Canada in letting all Canadians know about and experience it. The people of Charlottetown are conscious of their historic surroundings and they've worked very hard to maintain the physical aspects and, as a result, the spirit of the Charlottetown conference. Many homes and buildings that date from that era still exist and have been fully restored; Government House, the home of P.E.I.'s lieutenant governor, and Province House are but two.

Great George Street, the street itself in its entirety, is now considered to be a national historic site, and the site of the home of William Pope, one of the province's Fathers of Confederation, has been designated as a national park.

I believe Canadians need unifying symbols. We need to be reminded of our great past so that we can think of the future with hope. I am afraid that if we do not make an active effort to affirm our identity as Canadians, to affirm the reasons why this country was created in the first place, we could lose it by default. That, I believe, would be a tragedy, with such greatness behind us and so much to look forward to.

The federal government could play an important role in helping to develop historical sites in and around the city related to the events of 1864. Much can be done to help preserve, restore, and revive many of the places associated with the conference. Islanders have worked for the official designation of their capital city not only out of a desire to preserve and enhance its unique historic role, but also, Madam Chairman, to strengthen the local and provincial economy, of which tourism is a vital sector.

There are two objectives to this bill, the first being to promote national pride in a theme when it is needed most; the second, to assist a seasonal economy to realize its potential. That is why I feel that Bill C-292 should be a votable item. If enacted into law, it will give the government the authority to highlight national unity by commemorating the birthplace of Confederation, and the economic benefits of the increased tourist activity are a welcome effect of its involvement.

I would like to conclude with a quote from one of P.E.I.'s delegates to that convention and Father of Confederation, Thomas Heath Haviland. He said,

Never was there such an important meeting as this held before in the history of British America; and it may yet be said that there, in little Prince Edward Island, was that union formed which produced one of the greatest nations on the face of God's earth.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, George. Questions from the committee? Mr. Caron.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron (Jonquière): Has the government of Prince Edward Island taken any steps already to underscore in some way the fact that Charlottetown was the birthplace of Confederation? Has the P.E.I. government installed plaques or done something else?

[English]

Mr. Proud: The P.E.I. government certainly has had involvement. The P.E.I. legislative assembly, for instance, still meets in the original colonial house. The P.E.I. government, the federal government, and the City of Charlottetown this year opened a park commemorating the landing of the fathers at the wharf area, where the ship docked and they came ashore. There's a commemorative park there. A lot of money has gone into, for instance, the houses of the era, and the old hotels have been refurbished to the way they were back in 1864. They have been taken over by the private sector and brought up. The provincial government has contributed in different ways to that.

.1540

This would give the Government of Canada the authority to install plaques, monuments and whatever they felt was necessary. There are monuments there now. As we've said, the street itself is a monument and the building is a monument. But we feel this would officially designate that.

Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier): You say a motion to this very effect has been carried by the House. When was that again?

Mr. Proud: It was November 6, 1990.

Mr. Bélanger: So it would be fair to say the government has some leeway as it is, having received the opinion of the House.

Mr. Proud: Yes, the government would have it, but you see it's not a bill and therefore it couldn't be enacted into law. At the time we put through a motion and it was carried unanimously by all parties in the House. There was no problem with it.

That is why I brought this forward; it would then give the authority to the minister responsible to do these other things we'd like to see done.

Mr. Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chair: There are no further questions.

Thank you, George.

Mr. Proud: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Hanger, you have five minutes and then we disappear.

Mr. Art Hanger, MP (Calgary Northeast): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I believe motion 389 is a very important piece of legislation and one that all Canadians would want debated in the House of Commons. The motion is far-reaching, provocative and fundamental to the immigration system of Canada.

The Immigration and Refugee Board was created in response to the Supreme Court of Canada's 1985 ruling in the case of Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration. This board is responsible for determining refugee status for those asylum-seekers who make it to Canada on their own. The IRB also acts as an appeals board for those who have been ordered removed from Canada.

The IRB is enormously expensive, costing taxpayers over $80 million a year to operate. Its membership, which consists of approximately 235 amply remunerated appointees, is both larger and better paid than is appropriate.

Furthermore, the IRB has been unresponsive to the interests of Canadians and has become representative of special interests from the immigration industry, with a self-imposed mandate to broaden the definition of ``refugee'' beyond what either the people of Canada or the United Nations, for that matter, have ever proposed.

The IRB is out of touch with Canadians and is virtually untouchable. The only means the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has to influence the direction of the board is to refuse to reappoint individual members after their term of service has been completed. In fact, in a CBC radio interview on August 3, 1994, Immigration Minister Sergio Marchi admitted there is a lack of review power over IRB members. Even those members who render patently absurd decisions cannot be censured or corrected by the minister.

Colleagues, to eliminate the IRB does not mean the elimination of refugee acceptance; not at all. In fact the mechanism my motion calls for would improve refugee processing and would make the system more fair and more efficient for genuine refugees.

Let me put this into perspective for you. Among those countries that accept refugees, the acceptance rate of those who seek asylum is only 14%. In the U.S. it is 22%. In the United Kingdom it is 5%. In Canada it is a staggering 90% in some regions.

No one who is even remotely familiar with the stream of refugee-seekers that comes to Canada could possibly imagine that 90% of those people fit the strict UN definition of ``refugee''. Still the IRB accepts them because there is no accountability and no mechanism through which the people of Canada can have a say in the process.

Further, by accepting almost all refugees who come to Canada, we fill our refugee quota and leave no room for Canada to proactively reach out to the suffering millions of refugees who are in no position to come to Canada.

.1545

If we had an accountable system that actually weeded out the real, genuine refugees from the bogus queue jumpers, then we would free up the resources needed to reach out to refugees overseas. My motion, if enacted, would make the system better for Canadians, who would have an accountable system, and for genuine refugees, who would not be bumped to the back of the queue by people who know how to exploit the current system.

Madam Chairman, the IRB has lost credibility and become a bloated bureaucracy that needs to be abolished. Controls must fall back into the hands of the elected, not be entrenched by those appointed. I ask that your committee give serious consideration to this motion to be debated in the House. It is one that greatly affects the lives of Canadians and an idea whose time has come. This government will attempt to shy away, but it is time that a matter such as this be addressed immediately.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Stinson.

Mr. Stinson (Okanagan - Shuswap): If I heard this right, you said that the IRB is only accountable to the minister, and then the minister's only reaction can be to not appoint again.

Mr. Hanger: No. The Immigration and Refugee Board was established as the result of a court decision. It is a quasi-judicial body. Those members who are appointed through the government are not accountable to the minister but rather independent of any political influence, as the minister has pointed out.

That is the problem that exists. Because of the decisions that have been made, accountability is placed back onto the shoulders of the minister and certainly to those who are elected by the people. I have to suggest that the people are very concerned overall about decisions they have no influence over.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: Through your research, you found that the board was established in 1985.

[English]

Mr. Hanger: That's right.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: What was in place prior to the board? Was it the department that ruled on refugee claims or was it some other body? In your opinion, what prompted the government to set up this board in 1985?

[English]

Mr. Hanger: I will answer the last question first. The Supreme Court made a decision in 1985 that basically stated that every claimant would be entitled to an oral hearing. The premise of my argument here is that they in no way advised the government to set up a quasi-judicial body. The Supreme Court ruling was quite clear in their statement that an oral hearing be granted. That oral hearing could be granted in front of the bureaucracy and well-trained officers there, in fact more so than it would be with a quasi-judicial body where there is no control over the decision-making.

Mr. Bélanger: You'll have to excuse my ignorance on this, but are the appointments to the IRB at pleasure or are they term appointments?

Mr. Hanger: They're basically five-year appointments made through Orders in Council.

Mr. Bélanger: But are they at pleasure?

Mr. Hanger: Of whom? The minister?

Mr. Bélanger: Of the Governor in Council.

Mr. Hanger: That's right.

Mr. Bélanger: So in effect the Governor in Council has a greater input than just not reappointing. It could terminate an appointment, could it not?

Mr. Hanger: Well, if there's cause, but it is questionable as to how many times it's been utilized. What I am saying is that with this system as it sits, the accountability and the responsibility of the minister is quite removed from the decision-making process.

.1550

Mr. Bélanger: Was there any consideration during the establishment of the IRB of an arm's length process, removed from political intervention?

Mr. Hanger: Yes, I think that was an argument that was used. However, with the system as it sits right now, there is influence, but it's certainly not on the part of the minister but rather on the part of industry, which has all the say in the matter, and it cuts out the electorate totally.

The Chair: I'd like you to clarify that, please. What do you mean by the industry?

Mr. Hanger: Well, there's an establishment of immigration lawyers, advocates and consultants who have a vested interest, if you will, in the system as it sits.

When we're talking about refugee determination, we're looking at something in the neighbourhood of 25,000 claimants who come in one form or another to Canada on their own. There's a whole industry, if you will, centred around making sure that those 25,000 applicants go through the system. With the source of appeals, consultations, and the like, this ties up our courts to a substantial degree - all at the expense, I might point out, of the genuine refugees who are still languishing in the camps overseas. Many do not get a place or are placed back into a safe country. Canada, in a way, has neglected many of them as a result of this determination process that we have.

Last year, for instance, 60,000 genuine refugees were declared by the UN, who needed a new place to stay. Only 25,000 were actually placed. Thirty-five thousand had no home, and yet through this other process, for the individual who can find his way into Canada - many of them come through the United States and other safe third countries and make application, and are already in safe countries - through this IRB process, Canada allows them to be established here, and it's wrought with abuse.

The Chair: Are you advocating then that we take all 60,000 and we don't screen them at all?

Mr. Hanger: Not at all. Of the 60,000 that I speak of, of course, some of them are placed in refugee-accepting nations. Those numbers are going down, as far as the numbers being accepted by other nations. The ones that the IRB mainly deal with are those who come to Canada's shores, come here and declare they are a refugee. Tens of thousands come through the United States. They've already had, or sought, or obtained asylum there, and yet they make application here.

The Chair: Okay, and this, as you've said repeatedly, is a quasi-judicial board.

Mr. Hanger: That's right.

The Chair: In other words, it's not subject to political influence at all.

Mr. Hanger: It allegedly is not subject to political influence, but it is subject to influence outside.

The Chair: That's a matter of opinion. But you are advocating here today that we put the decision-making back in the hands of the politicians.

Mr. Hanger: I'm advocating that it go back into the hands of trained officers within the bureaucracy. There it becomes accountable; the minister becomes accountable, and right now, no, I cannot make a decision because that decision has been rendered by a quasi-judicial body.

Mr. Bélanger: To your knowledge, has there been during any of the opposition days in this session a similar motion put forward?

Mr. Hanger: No.

The Chair: Are there any further questions?

Okay, thank you, Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Hanger: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo, MP (Mississauga South): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy to be with you this afternoon to talk about Bill C-337.

.1555

[Translation]

I am very pleased to be here with you this afternoon to talk about Bill C-337.

[English]

This particular issue has been with this Parliament since 1992. I have two reports, although I don't have copies for the committee. One is from the Government of Canada; the other is from the Standing Committee on Health on fetal alcohol syndrome, a preventable tragedy, and awareness and prevention concerning fetal alcohol syndrome.

A couple of other private members' bills have attempted to promote one of the principal recommendations of this bill; however, they have never appeared before the House due to the process we go through.

The bill ostensibly recommends that warning labels be placed on alcoholic beverages stating ``Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs a person's ability to operate machinery or an automobile and may cause health problems or cause birth defects during pregnancy''. This particular label is a recommendation on behalf of Health Canada. It is also the label that appears on all alcoholic beverages in the United States. In fact, every Canadian producer of alcoholic beverages that exports to the United States already puts this warning on its labels for export, so it is already in place.

We all know the problems of alcoholism and the operation of machinery and driving. Fetal alcohol syndrome is sometimes called fetal alcohol effects, depending on whether there is a physical showing of the disease like Down's Syndrome, which has some physical defects that tend to indicate there is a certain condition.

Fetal alcohol syndrome affects 5% of all births; 5% of all birth defects are as a result of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. One in 500 children has fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects compared to one in 700 children who has Down's Syndrome. So it is more prevalent. In addition, the cost of this disease to Canada, based on Health Canada's estimates presented to the health committee just this morning, is $2.7 billion a year. This disease is totally preventable. It simply has to do with the consumption of alcohol.

Health Canada will very shortly issue a joint statement announcing a concurrence with the provincial health ministries that in fact there is no safe level of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. There is no guarantee.

I have circulated to you a copy of a petition package on this bill. It is now being circulated by the Fetal Alcohol Support Network, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and the Addiction Research Foundation. There is tremendous support for this.

I have also provided you with a copy of the agenda from a two-day seminar I attended last weekend on fetal alcohol syndrome and effects. It is absolutely imperative that we look at the impacts of this very serious disease.

The effects on a child are attention deficit disorder, learning disabilities, speech and language delay, reasoning and judgment deficit, not to mention impairment of the central nervous system, brain damage and heart defects. It's a very serious thing, and the tragedy here is not only that it is preventable, but it's probably the least known disease for children.

The Standing Committee on Health has adopted a new area of study on child development and preventable strategies for good child health. Fetal alcohol syndrome will be an important area of study for us.

The last thing I would like to say is that the impact on the distillers and the brewers associations will simply not be material or significant. In fact, there is a program now called ARAI, which refers to alcohol risk assessment and intervention. It is a program jointly developed by the Canadian Medical Association and Health Canada and funded jointly by Health Canada and the Brewers' Association of Canada. Its primary objective is to educate doctors on how to identify patients who have symptoms of excessive alcohol use and counsel specifically those who are pregnant on the problems with regard to alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

.1600

There is no question in my mind that this is an important cost-saving initiative. It will not do anything but good for Canada and for the children of Canada, and I simply ask you, please, to make this a votable bill so we can get on with some important legislation to do with that.

Thank you.

Mr. Stinson: You said during your talk that it was $2.7 billion a year?

Mr. Szabo: Yes. I can elaborate.

That has to do with special education costs, additional health care costs, lost productivity, training and retraining, and the fact that the cognitive delay or the cognitive impairment means that they are very difficult to assimilate into the normal mainstream of Canadian life. So there is actually a lifetime of costs associated with fetal alcohol syndrome.

Mr. Bélanger: I presume that we're talking about the original container, not a glass that a draft beer might be poured into, for instance.

Mr. Szabo: Yes. This would be the products that are from the distributor -

Mr. Bélanger: The original point of sale. Okay.

The Chair: It's an interesting point. So this will in no way address alcoholic drinks that are purchased in bars or restaurants.

Mr. Szabo: In fact, what's happening now is that Health Canada and the provincial ministries of health are already encouraging taverns and bars, etc., to post signs. They're already posted within the establishments, cautioning about the problems of excessive alcohol use.

The Chair: In your research, have you found putting great warning signs on cigarette packages having any detrimental effect on women smoking?

Mr. Szabo: I think I understand your question.

An independent study was commissioned by Health Canada, and there was no question that the impact was not so much on existing abusers as it was on those who were likely to become smokers. The warnings were basically for those who were entering into another stage.

I think the parallel here is that adults do drink, socially acceptable and within moderation. But entering into a period of one's life experience of pregnancy requires a whole new reassessment, and I think the labels and the continued education through these various organizations, the networks and Health Canada and the provincial ministries of health, to continue to bring to the attention of Canadians the potential risks they face by consuming alcohol during pregnancy definitely will help. It can't hurt, and I'm sure it will help.

The Chair: Are you also working through the health committee that you sit on to see if recommendations to this effect could come out of it?

Mr. Szabo: Unfortunately, the scope of the study of the health committee is basically preventative strategies for good health and child development, and it has just commenced that process. We expect this process to go on for approximately four or five months.

This particular matter will undoubtedly be incorporated in an addendum document that we're planning to produce in addition to our ordinary report, this caution to all Canadians - and we want it circulated to all Canadians.

However, the point is that I don't believe that we have to study this any further or wait any longer. It really is an issue that is self-evident and has the support of all parties on the health committee, and I'm sure also the support of all parties in the House.

The Chair: I find it interesting, too, that, in my readings on fetal alcohol syndrome, the most severe damage is in the first six weeks of pregnancy, when you don't even know you're pregnant. It's obviously something that we have to attack from all sides.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: If I understood correctly, you said that some manufacturers put warning labels on products intended for the export market. Are there countries that require warning labels to be placed on products?

[English]

Mr. Szabo: In addition to the United States?

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: Yes, in addition to the United States.

[English]

Mr. Szabo: I'm not sure of to what extent. All I know is that Canadian producers are currently putting this warning label on products that are destined for the United States.

The Chair: Thank you, Paul.

.1605

Paul Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth, MP (New Westminster - Burnaby): Good afternoon. I am here presenting Bill C-323. Its official title is An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (order of discharge). It's a very simple and short bill, but the ramifications of it could be quite far-reaching.

This bill would add civil damages arising from assault or battery to the list under section 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. It would clearly promote greater personal accountability for wrongful acts.

When a person commits an assault or a battery, a victim can claim for damages through a civil law suit. However, under the current BIA, if the offender claims bankruptcy, the damages owed are cleared, causing the victim to once again suffer hardship.

This bill would, for example, aid those women victimized by abusive relationships and those who have been sexually assaulted. It would allow them to get the treatment and resources needed for recovery from the offender.

We know, of course, the limits of treatment resources under the medical plan, the limits of volunteer agencies, and the difficulty of trying to find financial resources for a psychologist, which does not fall under the medical plan.

By amending the BIA, a person could not use bankruptcy to escape from any owed damages that were awarded as a result of a civil procedure against them.

The idea for this bill stemmed from a lawyer friend of mine in Vancouver. He had written the Minister of Industry on several occasions. He was looking for input on his idea of amending the BIA, because this act apparently falls under the Ministry of Industry's purview.

I want to read a letter of April 6 of this year from the industry minister to my friend. He says:

My colleague, the Honourable Allan Rock, recently sent me a copy of your letter of August 16, 1994, recommending that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) be amended to include awards of damages in serious assault cases among those not released by a discharge in bankruptcy. I regret the delay in replying to you.

Your letter is quite timely, as I am now considering a number of possible BIA amendments to be included in a Bill targeted for introduction later in the spring or in the fall. Among the amendments under consideration is one along the lines that you have proposed. Your letter argues strongly in favour of such an amendment, and it would be given due consideration.

That's from John Manley.

Madam Chair, if this bill is made votable, it will allow all members of the House to debate a bill that will surely make a tremendous impact on the lives of many. This is especially so for the tremendous number of battered women who are left without any support to care for their children and are still needing counselling or recovery services. They are often victims of individuals who have considerable financial resources and who are directly responsible for the situation in the community.

I wish to get this bill to the committee in order for any further technical changes to be done. It's clear from the letter from the industry minister that he had hoped to have some sort of legislation in the works, but it's now November and we've still seen nothing. I think this legislation is important for the safety and well-being of all Canadians. Therefore, I'd ask the committee to be in favour of making it votable.

As you know, victims certainly wear no political label. Children who are victims of incest certainly would be able to obtain services not otherwise available, because the recovery is often protracted. It doesn't always fit under the available medical plan or other provincial services.

As for a woman recovering from an assault and a very controlling situation, the resources available there are often very thin. I have had women's groups in Vancouver contact me. They were interested in the bill. They cited some cases where indeed damages were awarded because the perpetrator had resources and the court assessed ability to pay and made a court judgment that indeed monthly payments should be made to pay for psychological services. But not long after that the perpetrator declared bankruptcy and walked away from the situation.

.1610

What I'm asking here is to simply add to a list that already exists that declaring bankruptcy will not discharge you. In a civil matter, for damages, a number of things are already on the list. I'll list them: a fine of a court; a penalty or restitution order made in a criminal court or other similar in nature of the fine; a penalty or restitution order imposed by a court in respect of an offence; a debt arising out of a recognizance or bail; alimony money or child maintenance payments; any debt or liability arising out of fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity; any debt or liability for obtaining property by false pretences or fraudulent misrepresentation.

In other words, you can misappropriate money, write bad cheques and steal money from your employer, but if you're held liable in a civil court for assault and incest, there's no comparability there. So clearly there's an imbalance.

We could have an impaired driver who racks up a fair amount of fines and tries to declare bankruptcy. He has to pay his fine for impaired driving and cannot clear that of the court, but at the same time he can walk away from the civil judgment that orders him to pay some psychological services to the victim. There's clearly an imbalance as to the order of magnitude and the nature of the consequences we're looking for.

As you know, the criminal court certainly has a limit as to how far it should be going in making restitution orders or compensation orders. That is often left to the more appropriate tribunals, such as the civil side, for liability in ongoing damages and finances to restore the appropriate situation.

I'm simply asking that the list that exists now have an additional category, and that's exactly what my bill does. It adds to the list and simply says that any damages in respect of an assault or battery awarded by a court pursuant to a judgment rendering in a civil proceeding and any interest on the damages before or after judgment ordered by a court are payable by law.

In other words, a civil court has some hope or prospect of being able to help these kinds of victims. That's why I believe the matter is so pertinent, especially when we hear these days of the increasing concern of violence in the family. This should be recognized.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

Under the category of not getting blood out of a stone, there's no immediate benefit to the abused wife or whomever. What you're saying is eventually, if this man gets a job again, he will not be able to discharge this. He will in fact have it sitting on his back and will eventually have to pay it.

Mr. Forseth: Well, it's to make that kind of situation parallel to the existing situation of him owing a fine, child maintenance payments or alimony payments.

The Chair: But it's not an immediate benefit; it's a long-term commitment.

Mr. Forseth: That's right. What I'm saying is there's a great loophole in the law on the balance of comparing certain situations. Certainly there would have to be a civil court to make a judgment, and part of that process is ability to pay.

We have situations where judgments have been made, but I tried to outline the imbalance there, where a bankruptcy can be declared and they can walk away from that consequence.

The Chair: Thank you.

There are no other questions. You were very clear. Thank you very much.

Mr. Forseth: Thank you.

The Chair: Don't take that as a good sign or a bad sign. I can't predict.

Mr. McClelland.

Mr. Ian McClelland, MP (Edmonton Southwest): Hello, Madam Chairman and colleagues.

This may be a first for this committee, because I'm not here to suggest my motion should be made votable. As a matter of fact, under the criteria for what is to be deemed votable or non-votable, my motion very clearly should not be votable. In any event, the intent was to use this motion to advance the debate. That is what it is doing and that is what it will do as a non-votable motion.

.1615

I don't think it is necessary to put people into a position where they would either have to vote for or against singing the national anthem. I think it is pretty much guaranteed who would be in favour of it and who would not be. It's a question of how we go about doing it, because as far as the federalist parties are concerned, I think it is pretty much unanimous that it would be a worthwhile thing to do.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. McClelland. Since you've said it's not votable and we can't in fact make any conclusions here today on this matter, does anybody have a quick question? No? Thank you.

That was a quick little lobbying trick, eh? Well done.

Mr. Epp is not here yet, nor are Mrs. Gaffney, Svend Robinson, and Nelson Riis. Mr. Fournier is going to present for Mr. Assad.

The Clerk: No, Mr. Mills is going to present for Mr. Assad. In fact, our receptionist is telephoning now to see if Mr. Mills can come early.

The Chair: Okay, that's fine. We can take a break for five minutes.

.1619

The Chair: We're ready for you, Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp, MP (Elk Island): I am again substituting for another person. I have a perfect record now, you know. The last time -

The Chair: Do you charge your colleagues money for doing this?

Mr. Epp: No, actually I don't believe in that kind of kick-back.

The Chair: Just checking.

.1620

Mr. Bélanger: What kind do you believe in?

The Chair: He exacts twelve days of House duty from them.

Mr. Epp: Anyway, I have a perfect record so far, so I hope I'm able to do the same with this one.

This is a bill by my colleague from Yellowhead, and it has to do with the post office.

I'm sure you are all aware that Canada Post is probably one of the larger corporations and larger employers in the country, so the future of Canada Post is very important. We believe the operations of Canada Post, its efficiency, and its service to the Canadian people would be better served if Canada Post were, in fact, totally privatized. That is, if the operations were privatized, they would compete on a level playing field with other suppliers of similar services.

We're speaking not only of the movement of ordinary first class mail, but also about the other areas in which Canada Post has become involved, namely the courier service and the ad mail service. These are areas in which Canada Post is using its monopoly to compete with and, in some cases, edge out some of the private companies who are totally legitimate employers, taxpayers, etc. We think they should be playing on an equal playing field, and this would be best served by privatizing the operations and the services of the corporation. Basically, it would no longer be a crown corporation, as it is now.

That's the essence of the bill, but I would also like to go further to say I would urge you to consider making it a votable motion because of the fact that it is so important to Canadians right across the country. I think it would be very good if members of Parliament could actually bring this to a point where there is a decision made, at least at this stage. It could be that the majority of the current members of Parliament may think this is not the way to go, but I think it would be a very important way of getting the debate up in the country, as well as in our House. So I urge you to make it votable, as well as to allow it to be one of the private members' motions to be debated in the House.

That ends my presentation. If there are any questions or comments, I would be glad to hear them.

The Chair: Are there any questions, gentlemen?

Now I see why they send you.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: Why are you presenting this motion? Do you feel that the Canada Post Corporation is not providing at the present time the service that it was set up to provide? Do you feel that Canadians are not receiving the appropriate level of service they require?

[English]

Mr. Epp: I do indeed believe that. Canada Post has extended beyond its original mandate of delivering mail and now does much more than that. It has encroached substantially on the courier business. That's well known. I also believe it has done so unfairly, which is the reason for this motion: to privatize it in order to make it an equal playing field for the competition.

I have talked to several individuals who are involved in the courier business and who have made a very strong case to me. I'm persuaded by what they've said. They cannot compete with Canada Post in a straight courier business because Canada Post is offering customers the service at less than cost. As members of Parliament, we're not able to actually get the truth out of Canada Post because of the fact that they are not required to separate these different components in their accounting system. They give a consolidated financial statement at the end of each year and it covers the whole operation.

.1625

For example, earlier this year they received a 2¢ increase in first class mail. As I recall, they had a loss of around $40 million, and that's what they used to justify the increase. Yet all the studies we were able to do show that their first class mail is in fact more than self-sufficient.

Because they're not required to separate their work, what they do is piggyback courier service onto their mail. Because of the high price they're charging for the first class mail, they basically drive the couriers out of business. They're doing that by being able to charge the cost of the operation to the first class mail and then their costs for the courier are much less.

The same thing is true with ad mail. When I was the critic for the post office I had a number of presentations from small-town newspapers whose very lifeblood is advertising and the inclusion in their papers of the occasional flyer. Canada Post undertook to print and deliver these flyers at less than the cost for the small newspapers, so they were losing a substantial portion of their income.

At the same time Canada Post has a monopoly on their first class mail. They can just come to the cabinet here and say we had a $42 million loss and we need an increase, and they do it. When they asked for that a year and a half ago, we asked a whole bunch of questions. We wanted the facts out on the table. Canada Post and the minister did not provide us with those answers. Consequently, because they didn't provide us with the answers, we can only conclude that they do in fact have something to hide in terms of the balance between how they charge their costs to the different components of their operations.

We think that if we made it a private corporation, they would have to compete. Then other business people, like the couriers for example, could also undertake to carry first class mail and it would be of benefit to Canadians right across the country because they would get a competitive low price in all the areas.

The Chair: Mr. Epp, from a historical point of view, you realize of course that the courier services came into being because of postal strikes. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The postal service was there. The courier services came up because of strikes I can remember as a kid, and that's a long time ago.

Mr. Epp: Not entirely so. It's true that it was the postal strikes that really gave them a boost, because at a time when the postal workers were on strike, then of course people who needed small parcels and mail delivered went to the couriers wholesale. Even though by law it's supposed to cost three times as much to deliver a small parcel, a courier cannot deliver it in competition with Canada Post. So normally when Canada Post is operating, these couriers do not get that business. They were in place and they did fulfil the function during the time of the strike.

The Chair: I know you're pinch-hitting, but were you able, in preparation for today, to look into any studies that have been done that would show that the taxpayers of the country as well as the business people would actually get a deal?

For example, you pay one price for a stamp no matter where you're having a letter delivered in this country and Canada Post has to absorb the cost for delivering to areas that are very difficult to reach. That's an equalization idea that goes with federations. Have you done any studies or do you have access to any studies that show we'll actually save money?

Mr. Epp: I don't even know whether such studies exist, whether anyone has done them.

The Chair: You're telling me that couriers can't compete; they're more expensive.

Mr. Epp: This is based on the data they've put together. Of course it's from their own business point of view, but when they presented the numbers to us we could see exactly what was happening because they showed us those numbers. These were just private firms that did this. It wasn't an overall study. I don't remember them now, but they showed us the numbers of their operations and what it costs them per parcel. They have to get so much and then there's a little profit built into it. Canada Post was actually providing that service at less than their cost.

.1630

I have on file - and maybe I gave that to the new critic for Canada Post, but it was in my files originally - a letter that one of these firms received, where it was directly quoted that, we're taking you away as our supplier of courier services because Canada Post is offering it to us at this price, and it was substantially less.

The Chair: I'm glad to hear that.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Bélanger: I take it that this entire motion is based on the premise that cross-subsidization between first mail revenues is by using first class mail revenues to subsidize parcel delivery, and so forth. Is that the premise?

Mr. Epp: I'm not sure that would be the entire premise of the motion, but it would certainly be a substantial part of it because of the fact that Canada Post is entering into competition, but at the same time, they have the monopoly on first class mail and they can use cross-subsidization in order to lower their costs.

Consequently, we are saying that if it were privatized and if it were true competition, then it could work the other way as well, and that would be more fair for the consumers.

Mr. Bélanger: Is it accurate to believe that there is currently a case before the courts in the province of Quebec on that very issue, brought to the courts by one or more of the couriers operating in competition with Canada Post?

Mr. Epp: That's possible, but I'm not aware of that.

Mr. Bélanger: I believe that's the case. So you're not aware of that.

Mr. Epp: No, I am not aware of it. If that is the case, then I suppose, in my view at least, that would actually strengthen the reason for this motion.

There may also be a legal thing, which I'm sure you would want to check on -

Mr. Bélanger: That was my last question to the clerk.

Mr. Epp: - and that is whether we can actually bring a motion into the House at a time when it is before the courts.

Mr. Bélanger: I don't know, but the motion seems to be there in proper format, and so forth. As to whether or not making it a votable motion would have an impact on the bearings of such a case or the case under discussion, I wonder if the clerk would be kind enough to advise us on that.

The Clerk: Madam Chair, in the short term, the debate would simply permit members to express their opinions on the subject. If it was a votable one, obviously it would be the opinion of the House, but there would be no procedural or legal follow-up required.

Mr. Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any further questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Epp.

Mr. Epp: Thank you, and I appreciate your kind consideration of my colleague's motion.

The Chair: The next time I'd like you to come forward with a motion that says we deliver mail every second day to every house in this country, and then we'll save some money.

Mr. Epp: Actually -

The Chair: Go off and work on it, Mr. Epp.

Mr. Epp: - that's not politically correct, but it is a thing....

I should also say, just as I'm getting up to leave, that the role of Canada Post is going to change of necessity. I already know large numbers of people who have abandoned their use of Canada Post because of electronic mail.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Epp.

It's my fault; I instigated it.

Mr. Stinson: You're not supposed to do that.

The Chair: I know.

Mr. Epp: When that happens, of course, it will be much better for it to be privatized so it can compete with other firms. Thank you.

The Chair: Mrs. Gaffney, welcome.

Mrs. Beryl Gaffney, MP (Nepean): Thank you very much. It's on Bill C-241, which was a motion, motion 14, that was before the House previously on the Order Paper. It was deemed votable, debated, and adopted at that time.

Why I am putting forward a private member's bill on the same topic is, first of all, because we still haven't proceeded. We've made headway, but we haven't reached where I would have hoped we would be. I'm really concerned that this thing can get lost somewhere with more important business being placed on the Order Paper before it.

I have spoken with the justice minister's department and they are moving on it. It looks like the taxation of child support will change. It looks like there will be laws in place to govern that, and also laws in place to govern guidelines for judges, and enforcement for people who are not paying what is required.

This bill is being put forward as a safety measure to keep this before the government to make sure it does happen. The justice department assures me that it's going before cabinet, probably within the next six weeks, before the House rises for Christmas.

.1635

So this bill might never come before Parliament. That could very well happen. This is just putting more pressure on.

The federal-provincial-territorial family law committee's report really backed up what I've been saying and made recommendations similar to what I was saying in my motion. The task force that was set up by the justice department, headed by Sheila Finestone, the one across the country, also supported what I was saying in my motion.

It's like the person who wears not only a belt on his pants, but also suspenders. I'm really using this as a process to ensure that it will be carried out by the government.

I'm asking that it be made votable. I know that you are going to have difficulty in looking at this. I have difficulty in rationalizing in my own mind why I am doing this. Why didn't I put a motion on the Order Paper at the same time as I put a PMB forward? It was mainly because I knew that the motion would be dealt with immediately but with the PMB I was at the mercy of the draw. The draw has now happened, and this is where I'm bringing it forward now, too.

If there are any questions on this, I will be pleased to answer them. It's difficult even for me; it really is.

The Chair: The bottom line, though, on the bill is that the husband or the spouse who no longer has custody of the children will pay full tax -

Mrs. Gaffney: No, that's not for me to decide. It's up to the cabinet to decide that. I'm just saying that there's something wrong with the taxation system. There has to be more fairness. There's not fairness in the system as it is. It's up to the cabinet to decide whether they will split it, or whichever way they will do it. I don't know. All I'm really saying is let's get some fairness in the system. I'm not making that decision; it's not mine to make.

The Chair: Then the explanatory note is not clear to me. It says that the bill would amend the Income Tax Act so child support payments would not be deductible from the taxable income of the person making the payments.

Mrs. Gaffney: I'm sorry. Where's that?

The Chair: That's your explanatory page, 1(a). It goes on, ``and are not taxable as income for the recipient''. The simple, Reader's Digest version, in my opinion, is that the non-custodial parent pays full tax and the custodial parent pays no tax, which is the way in which it works in marriages.

Mrs. Gaffney: Isn't that awful. I haven't read this.

The Chair: It's on the right side, Beryl, under explanatory notes. I just want to be absolutely clear.

Mrs. Gaffney: So child support payments are not deductible from the taxable income of the person making the payments and are not taxable as income for the recipient and include....

I hate to say it, but that is not entirely correct, because it could end up that they will split the income. It could end up in that manner.

The Chair: So will a court decide or -

Mrs. Gaffney: That will be decided by the cabinet. They're making that decision.

That means we have to alter this. l guess I should have read this. I trusted somebody to do it.

The Chair: Unfortunately, it can't be altered once it's before us.

The Clerk: Madam Chair, as you know, the explanatory notes are not a part of the bill. But certainly the explanation is a problem.

Mrs. Gaffney: So I can change that? I'll have to look at this, because that wasn't the intent.

The Clerk: This is an interpretation by legal drafters, I suppose.

Mrs. Gaffney: There's any number of different ways they can go on this. I know they are looking at any number of different ways.

The Chair: So that's definitely not your intent?

Mrs. Gaffney: No, that wasn't my intent.

The Chair: We'll pay very careful attention to the wording when we debate it and make sure we won't misinterpret it.

Are there any other questions? No?

Mrs. Gaffney: It's fairly painless. Thank you.

The Chair: Did you want pain?

Mrs. Gaffney: No, I don't want any today.

Mr. Svend Robinson, MP (Burnaby - Kingsway): As long as they're not saving it for me.

The Chair: But you're our favourite. Are you presenting for Mr. Taylor?

.1640

Mr. Robinson: Yes. Am I on now?

The Chair: You're on.

Mr. Robinson: First of all, I want to extend an apology on behalf of my colleague Len Taylor, who had very much hoped to be able to make this submission directly to the subcommittee but unfortunately isn't able to do so. He's in his constituency and has asked me to appear on his behalf.

I want to state right at the beginning that while Len has done a tremendous amount of work on the issue that is before the subcommittee, the issue of aboriginal land claims, I can't pretend to be an expert or anything near an expert on the issue. But I'll try to make the argument as well as I can on Len's behalf and to answer any questions there might be.

I think you have the motion that Mr. Taylor has submitted, M-484, calling on the government to consider the advisability of establishing a new, independent aboriginal land claims commission, as recommended in the 1994-95 annual report of the Indian Claims Commission.

I have reviewed the provisions guiding the subcommittee, the criteria that guide the subcommittee in determining what should constitute a votable item, and certainly my view is that this motion does fulfil all of the criteria that the committee established for consideration of private members' business. I would hope that the committee, in applying the criteria - and I think they are still the same criteria in force from October 1987, Madam Chair - would agree that certainly it does fall within the criteria and that none of the criteria would bar it from consideration.

I will tell you in brief what this is all about. The Indian Claims Commission is a body that was established in July 1991, and that body, made up of five members, has the ability to advise the government and other parties when there are differences of opinion on specific land claims. It doesn't have any enforcement powers or anything of that nature, but when there is a disagreement on either a specific land claim or compensation criteria that are applied by the government in negotiating the settlement of a claim, this Indian Claims Commission can make recommendations.

This commission, as I said, was established in 1991. It was intended to be an interim body. There was a joint working group established at the same time, hopefully, to come up with some recommendations for a new means of dealing with land claims. However, that process effectively broke down in 1993.

So what's the situation now? The Indian Claims Commission has stated very clearly, in its most recent annual report, that:

The return of Native land is central to any real progress on the wide range of problems that face First Nations today. Meaningful self-government, and true economic self-sufficiency, are dependent upon an adequate land base. It is time for a fair and equitable process.

What this commission does, members of the subcommittee, is to recommend in the strongest possible terms that there should be a new claims policy and process that does not involve the present circumstances, which in Canada judges claims against itself. That's what happens now. Effectively the Government of Canada has to decide whether or not a claim against the government is valid.

So the most important recommendation that this Indian Claims Commission has made is that there should be an independent claims body to at least perform the initial assessment of the validity of first nations land claims against Canada, and that's recommendation number one in their report to the government.

They view this as a very important recommendation. Certainly, my colleague Mr. Taylor has pursued this issue: he has raised questions in the House; he has followed up in the adjournment proceedings. Yet there's no indication at this point that this is on the government's legislative agenda. I know that's one of the criteria that the committee applies. If it's something the government says it is going to be proceeding on, then the committee doesn't want to take up private members' business time to move on it. But it's not. The government has not made up its mind, and obviously members of the committee will have their own views as to whether it should or shouldn't proceed. But I don't have to tell you that those views are not what guide you in making a decision as to whether it should be votable.

This particular issue of an independent aboriginal land claims commission is one that effectively has been the policy of the Liberal Party, certainly going into the last federal election. I know how important those promises that were made in the red book are to at least some members of this committee, and I want to remind you that one of those promises in the red book was that:

A Liberal government will be prepared to create, in cooperation with Aboriginal peoples, an independent claims commission to speed up and facilitate the resolution of all claims. This commission would not preclude direct negotiations.

.1645

That is the commitment that was made. This motion would facilitate the creation of that commission and the fulfilment of the promise that was made.

Finally, I would underscore the urgency of this matter. It was deemed by the Indian Claims Commission to be a very serious matter. It said, ``Everything that we have learned as a Commission to date indicates that it is imperative to commence the process of reform immediately.'' It goes on to strongly recommend the creation of this commission.

This would be a means for the House and all members of the House to have an opportunity to debate the merits of this proposal and, in turn, make a recommendation to the government with respect to fulfilling not only this recommendation but also the commitment that was made in 1993.

The Chair: Are there any questions? Mr. Stinson.

Mr. Stinson: Who would set up this commission and who would sit on the commission? You say it would be independent, but how would this work?

Mr. Robinson: The exact framework of the commission hasn't been determined. It would be appointed by the federal government in consultation with first nations people, and presumably with the Assembly of First Nations and other aboriginal bodies.

It would be an arm's length body. It would be an independent body that wouldn't, in a sense, be a department of government or anything of that nature. It could weight the arguments made and facilitate the process of claims negotiations. But members of Parliament would presumably want to have some input into the exact framework and structure of it during the course of this debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Caron: Have you any idea of the amount of work facing this commission, given the overall number of claims in Canada?

Mr. Robinson: Yes.

Mr. Caron:Considering the scope of its mandate, staff levels and membership, this would certainly be a fairly important body.

Mr. Robinson: That's true, and it will have a great deal of work to do because, as the member pointed out, many land claims have not yet been settled under the existing system.

The government must give this extremely important independent body the resources it needs. Without these resources, the claims settlement process could be further delayed. For example, asMr. Stinson is well aware, British Columbia has been waiting many years for a settlement of Niska land claims. There are many other similar land claims outstanding. Therefore, it is very important that this commission be established as soon as possible and that it be given the necessary resources to do its job.

This is one of the reasons why I hope the committee will allow a debate. If Parliament votes in favour of this motion, perhaps this will prompt the government to set up this commission to deal with the current backlog.

Mr. Bélanger: There is no need for partisan admonitions to convince the committee.

Mr. Robinson: I simply wanted to give some punch to this motion. If a government has a Red Book...

Mr. Bélanger: That's not necessary. I even think that it hinders the debate.

Mr. Robinson: Everyone is entitled to his own views.

[English]

Mr. Stinson: Should the federal government bear the total cost of this, or would you be looking at an offsetting way of paying for this?

.1650

Mr. Robinson: Frankly, that's the kind of detail I don't have, Mr. Stinson. My colleagueMr. Taylor would no doubt have an answer for you on that, but as to how it would actually be financed, I don't know whether there would be some involvement of the provinces and territories as well, since these land claims do affect them also.

It's a very good question and, again, one of the issues that hopefully Parliament could consider in debating the motion.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Robinson: Thanks very much.

The Chair: Mr. Riis.

Mr. Nelson Riis, MP (Kamloops): My bill is generated by the concern that the existing trade agreement with the United States and Mexico is relatively silent on this issue. I will just mention three or four of the criteria I think this bill will fit under.

It's certainly not a trivial or insignificant proposal in that water in Canada is akin to blood in a body. Without fresh water, without adequate water safeguards and so on, this would be.... It strikes me as something very Canadian, our waterways and freshwater resources.

It doesn't discriminate against any particular part of the country. There are diversion plans in virtually every region, some more significant than others, but particularly the James Bay diversion projects into the Mississippi Basin, and more recently in British Columbia, the diversion of the Thompson River, which is a subsidiary of the Fraser River, into southern California through a number of natural waterways, and so on.

To my knowledge it in no way reflects any specific work on the government agenda, either in the near future or in the long term. The only area where it might come into some question is if the government develops a comprehensive water policy for the country. We have some statements at this point, but not a comprehensive water policy.

I don't think there's anything particularly partisan about this. A number of people have indicated support for the bill, some formally, some informally. The member for the Reform Party from Revelstoke is one of the formal seconders, but people from all political parties, both recognized and unrecognized in the House, have indicated interest and support for at least the principle represented here.

With that, I'll say it would be one way to eliminate or at least to reduce the concern that some groups and individuals in Canada have that the FTA and now the NAFTA provide some opportunity for future water exports to the U.S. and to Mexico, northern Mexico particularly. This would rule out that possibility, at least in terms of inter-basin transfers. This wouldn't preclude bottled water, small-scale transfers and so on. We're talking about the shifting of water from one river basin into another for export only. This does not preclude inter-basin transfers between provinces and so on. That's provided for here. It's only for exports.

For that reason, Madam Chair and members of the committee, I'd like to propose that this be considered for more extensive debate because of its importance, and that it be votable one day.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there any questions from the committee? Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Bélanger: Just to pursue non-exclusions, if you will, would this preclude shipping water by pipeline?

Mr. Riis: Well, it may. Again, that might be fine-tuning. It would not include obvious small-scale things like bottled water. I know there are three or four small communities along the Canada-U.S. border now that require it for domestic water supply.

.1655

Mr. Bélanger: Or an aqueduc. I don't know the English term.

Mr. Riis: A canal.

Mr. Bélanger: Would it preclude that as well?

Mr. Riis: Yes, it probably would. I would say that something on the scale of a water tanker, pipeline or canal would be prohibited under this legislation. This is my interpretation of this.

Mr. Bélanger: Merci.

The Chair: Thank you very much. A very clear presentation.

Mr. Riis: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

When will the committee make the decision on the items that are votable or not?

The Chair: It may be this evening, tomorrow, or later in the week.

Mr. Riis: But it's some time likely before the week is out. Is that a fair question?

The Chair: Yes.

The Clerk: Mr. Riis, the new list, of which you're a member, will come into effect on Wednesday, November 22. In order for the subcommittee to have the largest possible number of votable bills available to it, it may wait until the very last minute before it reports. In theory, they could report to the House by Friday.

Mr. Riis: But this round would start on November 27?

The Chair: Wednesday, November 22.

Good evening, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills, MP (Broadview - Greenwood): I'm here on behalf of my colleague from Gatineau - La Lièvre. This concerns funding of political parties. Are you aware of this motion?

The Chair: Yes. We're a very aware group of people.

Mr. Mills: Would you like me to proceed, Madam Chair?

The Chair: Yes, please.

Mr. Mills: As you know, the current system in place for the funding of political parties has a number of shortcomings, which need to be corrected. The public perception, of course, is that big business and interest groups have a disproportionate influence on the political process through their financial contributions.

So our colleague has come up with a formula, as you know, that he has put forward in a motion. He, of course, would like to see this motion in his proposal votable when it comes before the House, which is, I think, on December 6.

Madam Chair and colleagues of the House of Commons, I think that our fellow member here has a very interesting idea. I have to confess to all of you that I have received large donations from time to time from big corporations, not necessarily because I wanted to receive those large donations, but sometimes those larger corporations are what you need in order to get a critical mass of a campaign together.

I would hate to think that the people who have made large contributions to me - I think in my particular case, it's no big secret that I'm very close to the Magna organization, because I used to work there. I know that people would probably think or suspect that I'm under the influence of this corporation a lot, so I have to work doubly hard to try to prevent a perception, or even a reality, that the influence of larger corporations - I gave that specific example - causes me to think or act or vote in a certain way.

I can't help but believe, though, that there's no doubt the public would perceive that those people who make larger donations to me have a far greater influence than those who made some of the smaller ones.

.1700

I think our colleague is onto it. It deals with a lot of what we had to talk about in the red book. I know this doesn't concern our opposition members here, but I think that's something you could probably relate to. So I'm appealing to this committee to consider that our colleague's motion is votable.

The Chair: Mr. Stinson.

Mr. Stinson: I have a couple of quick questions here. In here it states 99¢ per capita. I take it you're talking about the constituency here. That would leave the question about the cost of getting around in the north and areas of B.C., northern Ontario, northern Quebec, Labrador, and so forth. The population is very sparse and they would be at a distinct disadvantage.

Mr. Mills: No, I don't think so. Under our current system, in remote regions and disadvantaged regions we have a formula. I guess this could be modified a bit, but there's a formula for covering air fares to remote regions under the current system.

Mr. Stinson: What about travel? A lot of places, particularly in central B.C., have no airports, but it's a long way by highway. For example, the population in downtown Toronto is large compared to the Salmon Arm or Kamloops area, where the travel would still be more costly.

Mr. Mills: Yes, but this has to do with the funding of political parties.

Mr. Stinson: Oh, okay.

The Chair: Let me clarify that for my own benefit. The 99¢ per capita goes to the central Liberal Party or the central Reform Party or the central Bloc Party, and then they dole it out to the candidates?

Mr. Mills: Yes. That's really the way it would be under this motion.

The Chair: So a riding my size would generate $250,000. It would go to the Liberal Party and they'd decide, in their wisdom, how much of it I'd get.

Mr. Mills: Somebody like you would probably only need one-tenth of that.

The Chair: Right on. I would be a moneymaker for the Liberal Party, I tell you.

When I look at the motion, it doesn't have the specifics of this explanatory sheet.

Mr. Mills: In fairness to my colleague, he was unfortunately detained. He wasn't able to get here today because of a travel arrangement that couldn't be in place. So I'm not properly equipped to deal with the specifics of this, but of course at the next meeting he would lay all of those specifics on the table. Today I'm only here to talk about the notion that it could be votable.

The Chair: In fairness to you, Mr. Mills, you're always properly equipped.

Mr. Mills: Is that on the record?

The Chair: To debate.

It does say right here in the motion to open the concept. I don't think the motion before us needs the specificity of what's been handed out. The concept you're after is there's something rotten in the state of Denmark and we need to look at it.

Mr. Mills: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any other questions on this motion?

I don't agree with you, by the way.

I need a clarification from the clerk, since I think I'm the only regular member of procedure and House affairs. This has been brought forward as a subject for debate at procedure and House affairs by the Reform members and it hasn't been resolved. It's still under discussion there and it's been put to a committee. Does that cause us any problem?

The Clerk: Was it referred to the committee by an order of the House?

The Chair: I can't remember. I just know it pops in there every once in a while.

The Clerk: Our guidelines say if it's on the government's agenda. Because it's on the agenda of another committee, I don't believe that precludes us from making it votable.

The Chair: Good. Thank you.

Are there no other questions?

Mr. Mills: So everybody's onside with the voting?

The Chair: Dennis, don't push your luck.

Mr. Mills: No, I just wanted to make sure I understood. I'm just Mr. Assad's assistant here today. I don't want to screw up this assignment that he gave me.

The Chair: You have presented his motion well. We won't be deciding for awhile.

Mr. Mills: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Mills: Did you want to ask a question?

The Chair: He's not allowed to ask a question. He's not on the committee.

Mr. Mills: Oh, sorry.

The Chair: He can ask you a question out in the hall.

Mr. John Solomon, MP (Regina - Lumsden): That's not true.

The Chair: That's not true?

Mr. Solomon: I was told I was to be here.

.1705

The Chair: No, you're here to answer questions.

Mr. Mills: I'm getting out of here while the going's good, okay? I want all of you to be the witnesses that Ms Parrish paid me a compliment today. It's going to be all over the Hill.

The Chair: As long as it's not in Frank magazine!

Mr. Solomon, would you like to start your presentation, please? We have a copy of your bill.

Mr. Solomon: That's great.

The Chair: We do. Are we one step ahead of you, or what?

Mr. Solomon: No, I have a copy - I sleep with my legislation just to make sure that it's close to me at all times.

Members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and make this representation on behalf of Bill C-314, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.

As you know, the purpose of this act is to require all pension or retiring allowance payments received by a member of Parliament that are paid from public funds to be deducted from the member's sessional indemnity.

There are two reasons why I've put this bill forward. Number one is the fact that Canadians are quite concerned about double dipping. They are concerned about huge amounts of money being paid to elected officials without knowledge of what those amounts are. We've seen the review of the members of Parliament pension plan, which was a good review in general. I think the intent of the House of Commons with respect to reducing cost to taxpayers in that pension plan, diminishing return to the member of Parliament and making it more difficult to qualify were elements that taxpayers appreciated; I think most Canadians did.

This is a bill that really is a codicil of that pension bill, because what it does is it says to the taxpayer that if they're going to pay pensions to their servants of the public - that is, their elected servants - they should only be paying one income, whether through a pension or through an income through a member of Parliament.

It also serves the purpose of making the member of Parliament's activities - financial and otherwise - transparent. There are examples, for instance in Saskatchewan, where a code of ethics exists, where members of the legislature have to document all of their income over $5,000 received from government agency, board, commission - municipal, provincial, or federal. It's accessible to the public in the sense of letting it know who is paying the income of their elected officials, and I think more and more people want to know that.

What this does, in essence, is acknowledge to the taxpayers the hard times that are in existence in Canada right now. We acknowledge the fact that taxpayers are paying people - for example, MPs in our own House of Commons - who are in receipt of pensions, be they from provincial legislatures, from school boards, from the military, from the RCMP or other municipal, federal or provincial boards, commissions, agencies, or departments, and that if MPs are going to receive that income, then they're going to serve our country and should serve it on an equal footing with all members of Parliament at the basic salary of $64,400 a year.

I am putting a pitch forward to the committee that I think this satisfies the interests of Canadians by making a member of Parliament's financial activities more transparent. It reduces the costs of taxpayers with respect to the income of members of Parliament, and it poses a very positive ethical question and answers it to the effect that he who pays the piper calls the tune - if the taxpayer is going to pay you, you should be accountable to the taxpayer. If a member of Parliament is going to receive pensions from various other sources, you won't necessarily be serving the taxpayers; there's a potential conflict of interest in terms of serving those who pay your pension.

Most importantly, it deals with what I define as the true double dipping. This is where you're receiving public income through a public pension as well as a full salary with all benefits as an elected member of the House of Commons. I think that this double dipping, or reverse double dipping, as some people have referred to it, should be votable, and members of Parliament should stand in the House and say to their constituents that this is wrong.

.1710

The example I use, which is the best example, is of myself. I was a member of the Saskatchewan legislature, and as long as I serve my country in the House of Commons, I will never receive one penny of pension income. That is my personal credo. I have made that public knowledge, and I will live up to that for as long as I shall continue to serve in the House of Commons.

I think that other members should have a like interest with respect to our country and to our Parliament.

I will answer any questions you might have.

The Chair: Thank you.

You have made it very clear that it is from public sources. With the logic you are using, how do you justify not including ``from any pension funds''? For example, if you are retired from the Royal Bank of Canada and you are collecting $1.2 million in pension funds from a private source, in fact you are collecting profit from the Canadian taxpayers that's keeping the Royal Bank going. How do you separate these ideas? Or is this just a starting foray?

Mr. Solomon: This is the initial response to, I think, some of the cynicism in the public. I would like to see an omnibus bill that would cover all income, in particular pension income from the private sector. I am told by the drafters of the bill - because I initially wanted all pension income, be it private or public sector, to be included in my bill - that the House of Commons can deal with only the public sector.

The question you pose is important, because it perhaps could be addressed in a code of ethics bill. I understand that a committee has been struck by the House of Commons and the Senate that is reviewing that very issue. That could be addressed in that manner.

This was a first initiative. I thought that if the House of Commons could adopt this, then the logical conclusion would be to follow up with more an omnibus bill, or a more broadly based bill.

The Chair: On a practical basis, if one was to retire from teaching, for example, and do what you have done and say, I will not collect my pension until I retire from the House of Commons, at that point is that pension accumulating in a fund?

Mr. Solomon: Some are and some aren't. The defined benefits will not accumulate and the defined contributions can accumulate.

The point here is that we can't, as a Parliament, restrict people from receiving a pension through law, according to the legal beagles who drafted this. What we can do, and what this bill does...you are entitled to whatever pension you earned.

For example, if you are making $50,000 a year in pension plus you are a member of Parliament, the House of Commons will only pay the difference between the salary of $64,400 and your pensions. So you are in essence making $14,400 a year to serve as a member of Parliament, plus your tax-free allowance for expenses. But you are getting your pension already from the taxpayer, so you will have the same amount of money in income as other MPs.

I tried to do some research on this. It was very difficult, but in my preliminary, cursory research I was able to determine that between 55 and 65 members of Parliament currently receive pensions or possible pensions from the public sector. If it was implemented, this could be a very significant cost saving for the federal government.

Mr. Bélanger: Could the effect of this proposed act be to create two levels of income of members of Parliament, in the sense that this would eliminate the pension benefit that sitting members might be receiving from previous employment versus the members who might be receiving an income from current employment other than as a member of Parliament? For instance, people might be doctors and carrying a small practice, planning for when they will no longer be a member, or lawyers, or people receiving royalties from books they might have published, and so forth. Could that be one of the impacts of this legislation?

Mr. Solomon: This legislation doesn't deal directly with that, Mr. Bélanger, but it does set a precedent. We have to have a code of ethics that will address the issue of other income. At the least, that income should be public knowledge. It should be in the public records somewhere.

This is the case in Saskatchewan. When you run for office and you get elected, you have to post your assets - you, your spouse, and your children. You also have to post for public access any income that you receive outside of being a member of the legislative assembly in Saskatchewan.

.1715

This bill does not deal with the other income. It is basically a pension bill that, again, focuses on the concern of taxpayers who feel they are really paying some of their elected officials a whole heck of a lot of money when all they are really doing is being a member of Parliament. That's not to diminish the role of a member of Parliament by any means, because it is a very taxing job.

The Chair: ``Taxing'' is a poor choice of word, thank you.

Mr. Solomon: Yes, okay. It's a very time-consuming and difficult job.

What it does is show or signal to the public that members of Parliament are interested in and are serious about some of the decisions they are taking with respect to them and to their tax increases and program and service reductions. It shows that we are prepared to make sure we are treating our own members and ourselves in the same light.

The Chair: Does anyone have any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Solomon.

Mr. Ménard, welcome. Your timing is perfect. We're doing motion 473.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard, M.P. (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): This motion concerns the recognition of Quebec's right to self-determination in the form of a move by the Canadian Parliament to comply with international law and to recognize that Quebec, as a nation, has every right to hold a second, third, and even a fourth referendum and to decide its own destiny.

Basically, that's the gist of the motion. It comes at a time when I sense that there is also a will on the part of the Canadian government to put some constitutional offers on the table. The possibility of a motion relating to distinct society status has also been mentioned. Therefore, as parliamentarians, whether we represent English Canada or Quebec, there is no getting around the fact that the House of Commons will be called upon to take a stand on this question. That is inevitable.

I would like to see a vote that would send a confident, democratic message to the rest of Canada as well as to Quebec. Essentially, that's the gist of the motion.

Since I had several to choose from, I hesitated between this motion and one calling for legislation to outlaw gangs. I liked the anti-gang legislation motion a great deal, because this is a very timely issue, but I felt that in the interests of reopening the lines of communication, I should go with this motion. I felt confident that since we meet here every four weeks, I would have an opportunity to put forward the anti-gang legislation motion at a later date.

Mr. Bélanger: One of the committee's criteria is that the measures proposed by members not already be under consideration. Are you familiar with this criterion? Did it influence your choice?

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Bélanger, this is the third time... Luck was on my side. You are a member of the governing party. If you were to tell this committee that the government was going to recognize in the coming days Quebec's right to self-determination, this would render my motion obsolete. However, I don't think this is likely to happen.

Mr. Bélanger: My question has to do with criteria.

Mr. Ménard: I understand. I don't believe that the government would agree to a motion such as this. There has been some talk of possibly recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, something which the government would be prepared to commit to. We, on the other hand, are talking about recognition in accordance with international law, something which I suspect you know quite a bit about.

Mr. Bélanger: Think what you will, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Ménard: Of course.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, you also realize that one of the criteria is that it is not a partisan motion or is not part of a party platform. Can you explain to me how this would not be interpreted as part of your Bloc platform?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: This is not a partisan motion. It is a national motion to the extent that members of Quebec's Liberal Party or of any other political party would be saying the same thing as me. The issue of the right to self-determination is not a partisan one. The issue is one of recognition under international law and it is linked to the status that Quebec enjoys as a nation. It has nothing to do with partisan policy. I think we can agree on that.

.1720

It seems to me that in the past, committee members were primarily guided by the criterion of whether the government, in this case the government of which you are a member, was prepared to propose a similar formula. I think that this is not the case here. However, this is not a partisan question. It is a topical issue, an important one in terms of re-establishing lines of communication. This vote would be historically significant. It is a vote that will inevitably occur. I think that this motion would provide an excellent opportunity for holding this vote now.

I will prove to you that this is in no way a partisan issue. I raised a question of privilege in the House to see whether it would be possible to substitute this motion on the order of priority for the motion calling for anti-gang legislation. It was the Reform Party that objected on the grounds that it was imperative... The Reform Party whip rose on a point of order, effectively denying unanimous consent, stating that it was important that parliamentarians debate this issue at this particular point in time.

You have to admit that the Bloc and the Reform Party don't very often have the same political platform or agree on the same points. I think as parliamentarians, whether we support federalism or Quebec nationalism - which is quite another matter - we can state with reasonably certainty that the Canadian Parliament has the right to decide whether or not to recognize Quebec's right to self-determination. In concrete, political terms, Quebec's right to self-determination would eventually be expressed in the form of another referendum. This is an issue that will not go away and one that is relevant to parliamentarians.

[English]

The Chair: Is this debate or a question?

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Ménard, what prompted you to seek the unanimous consent of the House to invert the motions on the order of priorities?

Mr. Ménard: Perhaps you followed the events of this summer. Young Daniel Desrochers was killed in my riding of Hochelaga - Maisonneuve. This was a matter of some urgency. In my opinion, both motions are very important. Minister Allan Rock has agreed to meet with Mrs. Desrochers at the end of November. The timing would have been right. But ultimately...

Mr. Bélanger: When did this happen?

Mr. Ménard: When did I raise the question of privilege?

Mr. Bélanger: Yes.

Mr. Ménard: Last week.

Mr. Bélanger: I see. Thank you.

Mr. Caron: I would like to clarify something. Doesn't the fact that the federal government participated in the 1980 and 1995 referendums prove that it recognizes Quebec's right to self-determination? What more does your motion add to Quebec's right to self-determination?

Mr. Ménard: Clearly, this issue has never been debated formally in Canada's Parliament. Some lawyers, particularly those who specialize in international law, have interpreted the federal government's participation in the 1980 and 1985 referendums has proof of such recognition.

My motion would ensure that a formal debate takes place in Canada's Parliament and that each and every parliamentarian has the opportunity to participate. Such a debate has never before taken place in Ottawa.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Stinson, do you have a question?

Mr. Stinson: No, that's fine. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Thank you. Good day!

[English]

The Chair: I suggest we go in camera briefly to decide our process from this point.

[Proceedings continue in camera]