[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, December 5, 1995
.1529 
[English]
The Chair: I'd like to call the meeting to order, please, as I see a quorum.
All of you have the required documentation in front of you.
Mr. Bryden is not here, but my understanding is that he's sending someone in his place. However, Mr. McTeague is here. Would you like to be the lead hitter today, Mr. McTeague?
Mr. Dan McTeague, MP (Ontario): What are the rules?
The Chair: The rules are that there will be a five-minute presentation followed by questions from the committee, and we'll make our decision later.
Welcome.
.1530
Mr. McTeague: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
I'd like to start my presentation by saying that the bill I have proposed is the result of several requests from my fellow citizens. It is an idea that has developed following the unfortunate death of a two-year old child in my riding. His name was Stewart Marriott. He died the 21st of April 1994 and he has been my inspiration for this bill.
[English]
Madam Chair, I wanted to point out to all those in attendance that Bill C-353 is designed to provide a national organ donor day. The idea is to bring the scope and awareness to the people of Canada as to the real need that exists.
Let me provide the committee with a very sound statistic. Of the nearly 300 people who received transplants of vital organs last year, there were 3,000 in need who did not receive them.
The issue is critical because there is a lack of coordination between the public's awareness and the need to sign those donor cards. There's a need to coordinate some of the foundations, such as the Kidney Foundation, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, and the Lung Association. Many of these groups have their own way of proceeding in terms of organ transplants, but there is very little coordination.
I think the bill would help put a focal point to the need to create at least some recognition for those who provide the gift of life for others. This would be done, Madam Chair, by providing an honour roll on April 21 of every year, which ironically falls in national Organ Donor Awareness Week. By the way, that's only an Ontario movement, so there's kind of a patchwork. It would be something we could coordinate with the media, and as well, upon acceptance by the Speaker of the House, issue a list of those who in giving of their lives have given the gift of life to so many others.
There are some who might consider this motherhood and others who may consider the bill itself to be sort of pie in the sky in many respects. I don't see that, Madam Chair. I think we have to try to break down people's level of uncomfortableness with the notion of donating organs.
To my knowledge, there is only one religion that prohibits the donation of organs, and that is the Taoist religion. Most other religions for various reasons will give some consideration to it. There's also a question mark on Jehovah's Witnesses, but that's not something I can certify because I know many Jehovah's Witnesses who have given in the past.
I think it's important we recognize that this bill has never been presented before the House of Commons. This is a novel bill. It is not something that has been done in the past.
The real purpose is to design and create a national awareness for what I believe to be a national tragedy. There are far too many people out there who die on waiting lists. You had to be with me two weeks ago here in Ottawa when I met with Leonard DeMille and 50 other heart transplant patients, people who are living testimony to the proof that donations where it counts really can help, including on a transnational basis. Many people at various ages were given the gift of life simply because somebody thought enough to sign the card.
I'll conclude by saying, subject to your questions, that I'm somewhat concerned about the latest moves in the province of Ontario. In the guise of trying to streamline and ensure there's proper identification, they've gone to a plastic card. I don't have one because I have the old driver's licence. That plastic card does not give the driver the ability to sign their donation card, so it is a bit of a problem. I think it's one of the things we can help coordinate at the national level to ensure that at the end of the day we have as many people as possible signing those cards.
.1535
This bill speaks for itself. On April 21 of every year there would be an honour roll published and given by hopefully the Speaker of the House. I seek all-party support for this. I do hope that, given the presentation and subject to your questions and the answers I give, it will indeed be deemed votable.
Merci, Madame la présidente.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McTeague.
I have a quick question. I'm always aware of expense. I must confess that although I have every intention of donating organs, I didn't sign my new driver's licence on the back. I think the awareness is important. Do you think it would be possible to mail out a sticker to those who intend to do it, which can be stuck on that card? I think if you tell the Province of Ontario that they have to redo their cards, they may just have hysterics.
Mr. McTeague: Well, that's possible. When there's any renewal of any type, the Minister of Transport often communicates with people. I spoke to someone at MTO not more than two weeks ago who suggested that they could also institute this when one was given a fine, or perhaps at the time of renewal. It would be possible to send out a simple application, one they tear off and keep in their wallet, as they've done in the past. The other one would be appended to the existing driver's licence card. So it is quite possible to do that without involving any cost.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson (Okanagan - Shuswap): Can you not get a medical donor card now to carry with you at all times?
Mr. McTeague: I think that's possible, but we're trying to find the most expedient means by which to do that. Something most people have to do at some point is get a licence. Many of us who drive will sign that card or will give at the point of death some kind of notice to the medical officers that yes, we indeed allow this to happen.
There has to be some more awareness, Mr. Stinson, from the perception of the medical community, in dealing with a grieving family, because time is very crucial.
Mr. Stinson: I have one other question. You said that 300 received and 3,000 were still waiting. That's in a one-year period?
Mr. McTeague: Yes.
Mr. Stinson: So that was 3,000 last year, and this year we could be looking at another 3,000 accumulated, bringing it to 6,000 on a waiting list?
Mr. McTeague: Absolutely. You have to go to something like Sick Kids hospital in Toronto or the children's facility here in Ottawa, CHEO, to know how many young people and people in general who need an organ donation and can't get it are on dialysis or various forms of medicine. They are literally dying in front of us. Because people had some difficulty with the issue of donation or because there isn't enough awareness, a young person who could give the gift of life may die tomorrow and it's not done.
Every year there's a huge carry-over of people who are very sick and who could use the donation, yet there doesn't seem to be a real coordinated effort or a national effort to keep reminding people every year to sign that card. If my youngster or my parent should die, are their organs capable of being used to help someone else live?
The Chair: Thank you very much.
The next witness is Mr. Murray.
Mr. Ian Murray, MP (Lanark - Carleton): Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm appearing on behalf of Mr. Bryden, who had to catch a plane. I think, as he knew how effectively I'd argued the case for my own private member's bill before this subcommittee, he thought his bill would be in good hands.
The Chair: Mr. Murray, it's like riding a horse; you have to get back up and try again.
Mr. Murray: That's right.
I have no information from Mr. Bryden; I have nothing to read from right now. All I have is a copy of the bill. As you may know, to summarize what's written, this bill will permit any official to release to the public information from an audit carried out by the Minister of National Revenue on the financial records of a registered charity or non-profit organization.
I understand that Mr. Bryden had suggested to Revenue Canada that they may want to look into the financial statement of a certain non-profit organization, which they did. When he tried to find out the results of that audit, he was told it was private information that could not be shared with him. If there were an audit of a publicly held corporation, then shareholders would have a right to know the results of that audit. As I understand his view of the situation, he feels that taxpayers of Canada should have a right to know the results of an audit when a charity or non-profit organization is audited.
.1540
In short, that's what this is all about. As I say, I don't much pretend to be an expert witness on this bill, because I'm not. But if you want to ask questions, I'll do my best to answer them.
Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier): It's a novel approach.
The Chair: He's being falsely humble.
Mr. Bélanger: It's not fair, but I have to ask it anyhow. There was another private member's bill from the same member and the House voted on it. It was referred to committee and it dealt with the same area. Would you know offhand how the two are related, if they are?
Mr. Murray: You test my memory a bit. That was Bill C-224, I believe, which went before the government operations committee. It was then referred to Revenue Canada. Essentially that was seeking from non-profit organizations certain information that would be on their income tax returns. I understand Revenue Canada has come up with a compromise Mr. Bryden is happy with. They will be discussing it with the government operations committee next week.
This relates to an audit, as opposed to the other bill, which really wants to see remuneration of officers.
Mr. Bélanger: My understanding is that both relate to access to information, essentially.
Mr. Murray: I believe that is another element of Bill C-224.
The Chair: Mr. Caron.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron (Jonquière): That's the question I wanted to ask. I had taken part in the debate and I was wondering what the link was. I notice that they are similar questions, but there may be a nuance or a difference. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Ms Meredith.
Ms Val Meredith, MP (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am here to present Motion M-461, a sexual predator motion, for consideration to become a votable motion.
The purpose for introducing this particular motion is that my dealings with other legislation, both government legislation and a private member's bill, showed a deficiency, if you will, in the process.
This motion attempts to have the government introduce legislation that will compel anyone convicted of a serious sexual offence against an adult or any sexual offence against a child to be examined by two psychiatrists. If the psychiatrist determines that the offender, if the victim was an adult, is likely to commit a serious offence in the future against an adult or any sexual offence against a child, the Attorney General of the province ``shall'' - is forced - to bring forward an application for dangerous offender status under the current provisions in the Criminal Code.
The reason I feel it should be voted on is that this is an issue of great importance to all parties and all Canadians. The protection of women and children is something I think we all have as an objective. The issue has not been dealt with by any other legislation, and in my understanding from conversations with the Minister of Justice it is not under consideration. It will require an amendment to the Criminal Code. There isn't any other provision to address this issue. Because of that, this issue is solely in federal jurisdiction and cannot be accomplished by any other level of government.
That is the reason I am before you today, bringing forward what I feel is a very important issue - one that, although we have some provisions in the Criminal Code, brings up one of the areas where there has been a deficiency. I feel this will help to bring the practices and the administration of the law in the Criminal Code into line. It's what Canadians are looking for.
.1545
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: If a person is labelled a dangerous offender, what difference in sentencing are we looking at here?
Ms Meredith: We want them to be brought under the dangerous offender legislation because it recognizes the potential threat of future offences and it keeps people who are deemed by a psychiatrist to have this potential threat incarcerated indefinitely until that threat is no longer there. That's what a dangerous offender application allows.
Anybody who is incarcerated under the dangerous offender application is eligible for a review to consider release, to consider parole, every three years or after three years. So it's not that they're locked away forever and we throw away the key, but it does allow the system to keep them incarcerated until that threat of reoffending is no longer there.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes, I have questions. Essentially you're asking for an amendment to the Criminal Code.
Ms Meredith: That's right.
Mr. Bélanger: Why do you choose to present a motion as opposed to a bill?
Ms Meredith: Because the change is not significant. It can be done through a motion. It's an easier vehicle for doing it. The government can very quickly and very easily make this change.
Mr. Bélanger: You would still have to present the bill to the House for its approval.
Ms Meredith: As I understand it, the government is considering dangerous offender legislation. This motion would encourage the government to bring this aspect into the legislation they're considering.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.
Monsieur Dubé.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (MP for Lévis): My motion has to do with the restoration of the old bridge of Quebec City. I'll distribute my motion, even though my friend already knows of it.
Mr. Bélanger: Have you seen the film Le confessionnal?
Mr. Dubé: I haven't seen that film.
My aim is not to remake history. It has to do with an old bridge built in 1917, the first of its kind in the world. It was built using the cantilever principle and it is of great interest as part of our heritage. Strangely enough, the first to recognize this were members of the American Association of Civil Engineers. According to that association, it is an element that UNESCO should recognize as part of the world heritage. That is not yet the case, even though there are people in Quebec City who are thinking of having it recognized as such.
Presently, the bridge is deteriorating. Those who've seen it recently realize that it is being eaten away by the rust. For the moment, the bridge's safety has not been compromised, but its image is going downhill.
The pont de Québec (Quebec City Bridge) is supposed to be one of the eight wonders of the world. It's a tourist attraction and the gateway to the capital region of Quebec, which is Quebec City. I support the steps taken by a coalition made up of municipalities and organizations to improve what we have.
.1550
CN carried out a study on the pont de Québec and handed in its report to an engineering consultant firm from New York, so that the firm might consult people who were behind the construction of the bridge, to assess its safety, etc....
This study came to the conclusion that it is necessary to quickly invest about $63 million within at most 15 years, or the bridge's safety will be threatened. According to this study, it would cost $100 million to demolish the bridge. And that is what it would come to if the bridge was in danger of falling down, because given where it is located, it would block the river.
The building of a similar bridge would cost $600 million, whereas a bridge such as the one right next to it, the pont Pierre-Laporte (Pierre Laporte bridge), built in 1974, would cost $250 million. In these circumstances, faced with huge short or medium-term costs, it is absolutely essential that the old Quebec City bridge receive better maintenance.
This is a matter of dispute with the Quebec government, which rents it for $25,000 a year so that it can be used by motorists. CN is the owner. Presently, the Quebec government is saying: "Make the necessary repairs and we may consider increasing the rent". This is the quarrel that is dragging on.
And that is why I am presenting this motion and asking that it be made votable. It's important because it's more cost efficient to invest $63 million spread out over a number of years so that the government and the taxpayers can avoid the costs I mentioned earlier.
That is essentially what I had to say. I will gladly answer your questions.
Mr. Caron: In the Canadian national privatization Act, if I remember correctly, the pont de Québec (Quebec City bridge) was not mentioned specifically.
Mr. Dubé: That's correct. In that act, the government prefers to keep amongst its assets the CN Tower in Toronto, for instance. On the other hand, the pont de Québec was considered to be one of the CN assets to privatize. It would seem that as a private company, CN, is not very interested in paying for the restoration of the bridge.
The federal government should invest in it. The transaction between CN and the federal government isn't quite official yet. The government has a double standard: it keeps amongst its assets the CN Tower, and leaves the pont de Québec in CN's hands.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: I gather that CN is still using this bridge.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Yes.
[English]
Mr. Stinson: Do you know how many times a day CN traffic goes over this bridge?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: The last time I looked into the matter, a few months ago, the train crossed the bridge 25 times a day. You must understand that VIA Rail handles return transportation between Quebec and Montreal. There's also all the freight transportation from the Quebec City area towards the East.
.1555
These freight trains use the pont de Québec. If there wasn't any bridge, they would have to go 200 km further, to Montreal, and so travel an extra 400 km to move freight towards the Atlantic. So for CN, this bridge is very important.
[English]
Mr. Stinson: Has anybody been to see CN to see whether or not they're willing to do the upkeep for this bridge?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Over the last five years, CN has considerably reduced the amount it spends on bridge maintenance, supposedly to force the Quebec government to increase its contributions.
CN and the Quebec government are bound by a 40 year lease. The lease is valid until 2010, I believe, to the tune of $25,000 a year. CN strategy was, when it was still a Crown corporation, to cut bridge maintenance so as to make it unacceptable and create a sort of emergency feeling. This is what I am referring to now, because the situation has become unacceptable.
Mr. Bélanger: The second criterion on the criteria list that we must consider when choosing votable bills or motions is the following:
- Bills or motions that appear to discriminate in favour of or against a certain area or region
of this country should not be selected as votable items.
Mr. Dubé: I'm not suggesting getting around anything. This is the first time I've presented such a motion. I've been an MP for two years and this is the first time that my name has been drawn. Please note that I only spoke of the CN Tower in answering a question that I was asked. I did not use it as an argument.
So there is no discrimination per se. What I'm saying...
Mr. Bélanger: Excuse me, Mr. Dubé, but you're going too fast. We're talking about discrimination for or against. In this case, it would be discrimination for, because I don't think you would say you were against something else.
Mr. Dubé: I'm not presenting it in terms of discrimination for or against. I'm just saying that it was the first bridge of its type in the world, that it has been recognized as part of the world's heritage by the Americans and that they are so interested in it that some of them are willing to contribute financially to a coalition for the restoring and promoting of the bridge. It has a bit of a special status given that it is part of the world's heritage.
Mr. Bélanger: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Dubé, my understanding is that CN has the ultimate responsibility for keeping the bridge in good working order. You say there is a coalition of people who are interested in raising funds. Is that an avenue you have considered pursuing? Has there been any degree of success?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Once the pont de Québec's restoration is completed, the coalition wants to promote and develop it. It would even like to open up information booths, where people could get interpretation of the heritage aspects of the bridge, of its unique characteristics, of the fact that it is the first of its type in the world. The coalition is also promoting the restoration project, because you can't expect volunteers to be able to collect from individuals, the sums necessary to restore the bridge. I don't think we should count on that.
Moreover, it would be unfair, in my opinion, to ask people to set up a foundation to raise funds, when elsewhere throughout Canada the other bridges belonging to CN would not be called on to do the same.
.1600
[English]
The Chair: You say CN was trying to let it get really run down, to an emergency situation. What do you foresee them doing to get trains through that area if the bridge collapses or is no longer usable?
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Still, they ordered a report which cost them many hundreds of thousands of dollars to be reassured concerning the bridge's safety. The report states that, over the next 15 years, there won't be any safety problems. The report also says that if nothing if done in the short term over the same period, there will be a risk of problems occurring, and the bridge's demolition will have to be considered.
I've perhaps gone too far in my reasoning. However, CN - and it didn't hide it - wanted the main tenant, the ministère des Transports du Québec (Quebec's Transportation Ministry), to voluntarily reopen the lease and increase its contribution.
We were faced with a chicken and egg situation. Where to start? The Quebec government refused to increase the rent if the bridge remained in the state it was in. It asked that they start by ensuring regular and even preventive upkeep of the bridge, as the report ordered by CN recommended. Otherwise, it didn't care to increase its contribution.
Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Dubé, was this motion debated, or was it tied to an amendment, during the debate on the bill privatizing CN?
Mr. Dubé: I don't know whether you are leading me into a trap or not, but I'll tell you the truth and the facts. In the context of the privatization last year, we moved a motion asking that the bridget be withdrawn from CN's asset and becomes the federal government's responsibility. We also moved an amendment of a different nature, which didn't necessarily have to do with maintenance as such.
Mr. Bélanger: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Be very careful when the Americans covet a bridge. They bought London Bridge and look at what they did with it. Watch those guys.
Mr. Stinson: It doesn't look too bad where it is.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I haven't seen London bridge. Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Hermanson is next. You know the five-minute rule, don't you?
Mr. Elwin Hermanson, MP (Kindersley - Lloydminster): We'll do our best.
I don't envy you your job, but I think you're doing it very well. You seem to be very fair, and I'm sure that many times you'd rather be doing something else.
The Chair: Flattery will get you nowhere.
Mr. Hermanson: My motion is M-436, and it states: ``That this House support the creation of an environment in which agricultural producers make their own decisions as to how their products are marketed.''
The motion I've selected to be debated in the House is one that's important to agricultural producers right across the country. It's not regional in nature, but rather crosses provincial boundaries.
The recent plebiscite in Alberta on the marketing of wheat and barley, the results of which will be known tomorrow, will have an impact on how the debate on this motion will proceed. Clearly there's a growing trend towards a system in which producers will have the opportunity to decide how their products will be marketed. It's a new and growing attitude amongst the agricultural sector.
There's also a growing interest in producer-directed marketing, associated with a report being produced by the Canada-U.S. Joint Committee on Grains, which is due to be released at any time, and also the Western Grain Marketing Panel and the Canada-U.S. Trade Panel on Supply Managed Industries. There is an upheaval in the way we market our products in many areas of the agriculture industry.
.1605
The Canada-U.S. Joint Committee on Grains, in their June interim report, made some basic commitments to reduce trade distortions between the two countries in the area of grains. While the Canadian grain system was developed primarily for export marketing, with an emphasis on quality control and system coordination in a single-desk system, the American grain industry was developed for a larger domestic market as well as for export, with a flexible, open marketing system to handle a higher volume and more classes of grain.
An analysis of the Canada-U.S. grain policy was undertaken in light of the longer-term outlook for policies on trade and recent market developments. The commission concluded that changes in export and domestic policies in both countries are essential to overcome the difficulties and to realize the potential benefits of freer trade in grains and grain products. This is from their June report.
Furthermore, it was recommended by the commission that both countries eliminate discretionary pricing practices, specifically: first, that the United States eliminate or significantly reduce with a view to eliminating its wheat exports program; and second, that the Canadian Wheat Board be placed at risk of profit or loss in the marketplace or conduct itself in an equivalent manner. This is an issue of great concern to the agri-producers in the prairie provinces.
We have been told that the commission's final report will not differ substantially from the June interim report, although our recommendation is that it should still be taken seriously.
The Western Grain Marketing Panel will be holding hearings throughout the country, or at least throughout the west, on grain marketing issues. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food suggested that this process is designed to provide all interested parties with better access to all available facts and background information about our existing and potential markets, the commodities and products we sell to those markets, and the marketing systems we have or could have to maximize our sales volumes and returns.
We're not sure whether this panel will engage in a full-blown discussion on dual marketing of wheat. If that is the case, it would only solidify the need for Parliament also to address the issue. The trade panel looking into supply-managed industries also necessitates creating an environment where the producers are given a choice. The move toward a more market-driven system for poultry and milk products is inevitable with the reduction of import tariffs under GATT.
So the Alberta plebiscite, the Canada-U.S. Joint Commission on Grains, the Western Grain Marketing Panel and the supply-managed sectors are all having a good, sincere, solid look at how they market their products.
As you know, there is some government involvement in the marketing of some agriculture products, whereas they take a hands-off approach to the marketing of other products. That has been a contentious issue in the agricultural industry. Is there room for both? Is one way of marketing preferable to the other way of marketing?
For instance, it's a little known fact amongst the general public that the way wheat is marketed in Canada is different between the prairie provinces under the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a federally controlled crown corporation, and the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board, which is a producer-controlled marketer of wheat. We're talking about the same commodity within Canada marketed under two different systems, and the debate is certainly raging within the industry.
I would like to see that debate brought into the House of Commons. I think you would find interest amongst all the parties. I certainly know there would be interest in the prairie region, but I believe those interested in agriculture from the Bloc as well as the Liberals, the NDP and possibly the Conservatives, although there are not many of those.... I certainly know in our caucus there would be an interest in debating how much control producers have over the marketing of their product.
There's that, in conjunction with all of these panels that are reviewing the situation but aren't particularly being debated in the House of Commons itself. There's a debate in the industry that I am trying, through this motion, to transfer into the House of Commons so that we can come to grips with those same issues as the elected representatives in the country.
I think I've used about my five minutes.
The Chair: That was good.
Mr. Caron.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: You spoke of wheat marketing. Would your motion also affect the marketing of milk or dairy products? In Quebec and in Ontario, there are supply management systems, marketing boards, quotas specifically for dairy producers and all of this is being negotiated in the context of the GATT and NAFTA agreements.
.1610
So could this motion influence the questioning of systems such as milk marketing in Quebec and in Ontario?
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: That's a very good question. Yes, the scope of this motion includes all the sectors of agriculture. So it would include the supply-managed sector, which as you know very well has come under a great deal of scrutiny and pressure with the signing of the GATT and the ending of article XI under GATT. That no longer restricts imports of supply-managed products into Canada but rather puts up a tariff wall, which will be coming down and will make those industries more vulnerable to international trade.
There are some pressures within the supply-managed industry as to the interprovincial market share of particularly industrial milk, and as to whether that market share between the provinces should be fixed in stone, or there should be some innovative new approaches to handling the domestic marketing of milk and also other supply-managed products.
The whole dropping of the tariffs and the fact that there's some question as to whether values of quota will remain at their current levels or be reduced in value will also have an impact on how supply-managed goods are marketed. That can all be debated under the scope of this motion.
Mr. Caron: Merci.
The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: In this environment you propose to create, would it be feasible that the producers would choose the current methods of marketing their products?
Mr. Hermanson: Certainly.
The Chair: Thanks very much.
Mr. Peric, you have five minutes. This is going to be hard for you.
Mr. Janko Peric, MP (Cambridge): I'll be even shorter than five minutes.
Madam Chair and colleagues, I'm seeking today your support for Bill C-299, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, which means an increase in contributions and pensions.
Right now 40% of Canadians in the workforce are covered by private pension plans; 60% are not. The fact is that over 55 years of age, somehow we slow down and productivity is not there. People over 55 are saving money for retirement. At the same time we have young people on unemployment or even in the underground. They have no opportunity to enter the workforce. Most of the young people are more qualified than the people who are in the workforce at the present time. But the question is, can the older people retire with 25% of earnings? Impossible.
My bill is proposing 35 years of contribution right across the board, from coast to coast, which means it's portable and universal. After 35 years people would be eligible to retire, regardless of their age, which would improve our workforce. It would give the opportunity to young people to enter the workforce, and our economy would drastically improve. The fact is young people are spending money buying cars, starting families, buying homes and so on.
We have evidence that our pension fund is going broke, and if we don't take care of ourselves today, eventually we won't have anything to rely on when we retire.
That was less than five minutes. If you have any questions, I'll be more than glad to answer.
The Chair: Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: Is this to be a mandatory fund you're talking about here?
.1615
Mr. Peric: Yes, it would be a mandatory fund. It would be self-contributed, self-funded, and the fund would be managed by the board, which would be composed of people from the private sector as well.
Mr. Stinson: So it wouldn't be a board put in place by government.
Mr. Peric: No, it would be appointed by Governor in Council.
The Chair: Would you be increasing the rate of payment into the pension plan to cover this? We're already in a huge unfunded liability.
Mr. Peric: Yes. The interest would have to be drastic - in five years up to 150%. But the thing is that the revenue after they retire after 35 years would be 60% instead of 25%, as at present.
The Chair: Has anybody in the finance department worked out the math with you to see if this is even doable?
Mr. Peric: They are looking into it. As a matter of fact, I've been talking to financial institutions and people from insurance institutions. Individuals are praising this idea, but officially they will not come out and put their names on paper because they are afraid of losing jobs. Even the bureaucrats are afraid that eventually they would lose their jobs. But I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned about all Canadians, that even housewives and people from the private sector, such as farmers, would be eligible to contribute to that fund.
The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: It seems we're getting into the content. We should try to avoid that, but I have to ask this question. Part of your bill says that as of January 1988, people who are 65 - pension age is 65 - would be at no less than the poverty-line income set by Statistics Canada.
Mr. Peric: Yes.
Mr. Bélanger: You also say if this works, pension income would be 60% of salary. What if 60% of salary is less than the poverty line? Would the pension be higher, then?
Mr. Peric: No. The pension is 60% of the poverty line. It would apply the same as to, let's say, wealthy people. They wouldn't get up to 60...after 35 years.... We know there are generations and generations on welfare.
Mr. Bélanger: Let me use numbers. Someone's earning $10,000 and they turn 65.
Mr. Peric: Yes, and the poverty line is, let's say, $15,000.
Mr. Bélanger: The poverty line is $12,000. Would they then be earning $12,000 in pension?
Mr. Peric: No, 60% of $10,000.
Mr. Bélanger: So they could end up earning more than they were before...in contributions.
Mr. Peric: They would have to contribute.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Peric.
Mr. Peric: Thank you. I hope you're going to consider this bill as a votable item. This bill will take care of Canadians, especially the new generation. Otherwise we won't leave security for them.
The Chair: Ms Venne is not going to be attending.
Mr. Bélanger: She still wants her motion to be considered.
The Chair: She wants it considered, but she won't be able to attend.
The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Bélair can't be here any earlier than 4:40 p.m. He'd originally been scheduled for 5:00 p.m. Perhaps we could telephone Mr. Solomon's office in case he could come now.
An hon. member: Was Mr. Solomon supposed to be here?
The Chair: We've been a little faster than normal; he was scheduled to be later. We're just now calling to see if he can come down earlier.
.1620
The Clerk: We've normally been scheduling every ten minutes, but perhaps I should revise that to every five minutes.
The Chair: He's never dealt with a committee like this before. We're amazing.
The Clerk: I'm overwhelmed by the speed, Madam Chair. Usually we're way over.
Mr. Stinson: It's nice to have it over with.
The Chair: We're efficient.
Mr. Stinson: [Inaudible - Editor] but that wouldn't be fair.
The Chair: No, that would not be fair, plus you'd have to clear the room. Since there's no one to clear, though, is there anybody...?
The Clerk: It is being broadcast.
The Chair: There is one thing we probably could do, if you want. The M's are all finished.
Mr. Stinson: So we would have to clear the room.
The Chair: Do you want to do that?
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: How many bills can we chose today? Is it two bills on top of the motions?
The clerk: Two of each category.
Mr. Caron: Thank you.
The clerk: It's written on the other side of your agenda, if you have it.
[English]
The Chair: All right, can we cut the broadcasting and go in camera?
The Clerk: We're going to go in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
[Public proceedings resume]
.1640
The Chair: Welcome, Mr. Solomon.
Mr. John Solomon, MP (Regina - Lumsden): Thank you very much. I apologize for not being here earlier.
The Chair: It's not your fault. We're ahead of schedule.
Mr. Solomon: I was meeting with my leader. It would have been rude of me to leave in the middle of my meeting with him.
I thank you for your patience and am pleased to appear before you. Would you like me to make a little presentation on the bill?
The Chair: Yes, please, in five minutes if you can.
Mr. Solomon: Bill C-270, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, would be a very positive move in changing the pension schemes of members of Parliament. In essence, the bill makes the pension plan a money purchase plan. Right now we have a defined benefit plan; I propose a defined contribution plan.
It would work thus: the member of Parliament would put a dollar into a monthly pension account. It would be matched by the federal government, and with accumulated and compounded interest over time, it is what would be available to purchase a life joint spousal annuity.
This plan is not out of the sky. It has been implemented in Saskatchewan, both for the public service and for the MLAs. In 1977 the Saskatchewan government changed the public service pension plan from a defined benefit - that is, a formula - plan, to a money purchase, matching plan.
That was done because of a concern. Even though Saskatchewan was into huge surpluses in annual budgets, lots of government programs for people and the lowest taxation rate in the country, the New Democratic Party government of the day believed very strongly that this would not last forever and that we should at least fund our pensions entirely, 100%. They did this for the public service in 1977 because at that time there was about $2 billion in unfunded liability for just 25,000 public servants.
The MLAs were changed two years later, in 1979. It was grandfathered, in the sense that if you were elected prior to that date you had the choice of converting to the money purchase plan or staying under the old plan. As we saw in Saskatchewan a few months ago, in the spring, those who chose to stay in the old plan - for example, Premier Romanow and some of the cabinet ministers who had been there since the 1960s - had a plan that was so rich that they had to pass special legislation to curtail the benefits. There was no example of any elected official lasting in public office to the point where their pensions would exceed their actual MLA stipends.
The bill will save taxpayers money as well, because there will be no unfunded liability. In essence, it would reduce the cost. Some pension experts believe that right now the existing MPs' plan costs about $5 for every $1 the MP puts in: $5 for the taxpayer, $1 for the member of Parliament. Under the money purchase plan, it would be dollar for dollar.
In Saskatchewan it works a bit differently. If you're elected at a certain age - for example, if you're under 30 when you're first elected - then you contribute 9% and the government matches it by 9%. If you're between 30 and 40 when you're elected, then you put in 9% and the government puts in 10%. If you're between 40 and 50, then you put in 9% and the government puts in 11%. If you're over 50, then the government puts in 12% to your 9%. So it adjusts for the age when you get elected, and it sits there compounding.
It also provides for members to withdraw under certain health conditions if they require it. If they're not able to work, for example, then they can withdraw it at an earlier age.
It's a flexible plan. It's one whose time I believe is coming.
It is a proposal that was put forward to all the provincial governments, and the national government actually, back in 1978 and 1979 by the Saskatchewan minister in charge of finance, who was also in charge of the pension plans, Mr. Wes Robbins. It was at a federal-provincial conference that this proposal was put forward for all the federal public servants, provincial public servants, MLAs, and MPs. Of course it was tabled because they felt that defined benefit was still the way to go.
.1645
As we've seen over the years, defined benefit pension plans, including the MPs' pension plan, are grossly underfunded, which means the taxpayers are liable for future benefits to be paid to these pension recipients.
I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
The Chair: Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: When you mentioned dollar for dollar, does this mean you can contribute more?
Mr. Solomon: No, it means that it would be set in legislation. In my bill I said 11%, because when I first had it drafted that's what MPs contributed. It was 11% of their salary, and it would be matched by the employer at 11%. In essence, you're getting a deferred benefit of 11% of your salary, plus the amount you put in, which is tax deductible, on a monthly basis when you deposit the money.
In Saskatchewan there are a couple of funds. One is for the public service. There are some for crown corporations. There's one for MLAs. There are separate superannuation funds and they each grow differently. The average in Saskatchewan has been around 10% or 11% a year since 1977.
There's also legislation that says if there's a drop in the fund or a dramatic increase, then it's limited to a drop of only 3% from the previous year. For example, let's say the fund made 10% two years ago on actual earnings, and the earnings dropped down to 3%. You wouldn't be given 3% that year; you'd be given 7%, because there's a 3% ceiling. Here's the reverse: if it goes up from 10% to 20%, you only get a 13% bump in your annual account. It's to stabilize the fund so that you can basically have an idea what you're planning for. It has proven to be really efficient and cost-effective for taxpayers and beneficiaries.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Mr. Solomon: If I might add, Madam Chair, in my view this plan is an important one to consider for voting because it can be introduced at any time, and it can provide members with the option to opt in and be provided with funds that would match their previous contributions and earnings over a certain amount of time. It would also perhaps be an opportunity to look at making it effective after the next election.
That's what happened in Saskatchewan. They set a date. The election was held in 1978. The bill became effective in 1979 because it was passed after the 1978 campaign. They made it effective for everybody after the next election, but all existing members could opt in if they wished. It was totally optional. As we've seen in Saskatchewan, since 1979 only four members are under the old plan that still exists. We had a total turnaround.
It's really a bill that I think is the only way to go, whether it's the MPs' pension plan, the public service pension plan, or even a portable pension plan accessible to all Canadians.
Thank you very much for your time.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Solomon, for coming over quickly like that. We appreciate it.
Mr. Bélair.
[Translation]
Mr. Reginald Bélair, MP (Cochrane - Supérieur): Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me come here this afternoon. I'd like to present a private bill, which will mostly interest workers who want to get a university degree.
Let it suffice to say, for the moment, that pursuant to section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act as it is now - it will change with the passage of Bill C-111 - , a worker may register at a college and get a certificate while receiving unemployment insurance benefits, which a student who want to register at an accredited university cannot do.
.1650
In my view, this is a discriminatory measure. Moreover, I think that given statistics for last year, there are certainly a number of good reasons to extend this privilege to people who want to get a university degree in order to change jobs, to retrain for another job.
I'll show you some figures to support my argument. The number of jobs for which employers require a university degree increased by 17% over the last two years.
On the other hand, the number of jobs which only require a high school education or less has dropped by 19%. So you can pick out the trend immediately. University degrees are much more in demand than high school studies. For 50% of the jobs newly posted, employers today asked for a university degree.
Today, only 25% of the workforce have university degrees.
My project goal has to do with people who have worked at least ten years. If I've chosen this period of time, it was to bypass lifelong students, in other words those who work for one, two or three years, who go back to school two or three years and who start the same cycle over again. In order to get around those people, a worker will have to have worked at least 10 years. He or she will have to have been a part, in some fashion, of the workforce for ten years.
This person will have to have been laid off and have the right to unemployment insurance benefits.
For a person to be accepted - perhaps I should express this in number of hours given that the new bill mentioned hours and not weeks - , I suggest to the committee that a minimum of 600 hours of work during a same year be required, because you have to take for granted that a university year runs from September to April. The person would therefore have four full months to qualify for another year and continue to receive benefits.
Obviously, for each term, we could ask the person to submit a report, his or her report card as they say in grade school, to unemployment insurance so that they can make sure that the student is serious and that his or her marks are acceptable before continuing further.
The summer following the university year, the student will have to qualify again by working at least the minimum number of hours, depending on the area he or she is from.
I summed up the content of the brief I've given you. I leave you the choice. Obviously, I would like my motion to be votable because it is very important, in my opinion.
Not everybody wants to have a college - or Cegep in Quebec - diploma. There are many people who would like to go back to university to finish their studies or simply to start university studies which lead to a certificate, which would certainly help them find another job once their course is complete.
If you have any questions, Madam Chair, I'll gladly answer them.
Mr. Caron: You spoke of a university degree. Some university degrees take three years to complete.
Mr. Bélair: At least.
Mr. Caron: A minimum of three or four years. That would mean that the person could get unemployment insurance benefits for three of four years, however long necessary.
.1655
Mr. Bélair: As long as the person requalifies each summer. That's why I spoke of a minimum of 600 hours a year that the person could do on weekends. Today, you can accumulate each hour worked. I would stipulate 600 hours a year. The person could work every weekend while in university and during the four months of summer, when he or she wasn't studying, to requalify.
Mr. Caron: So the person would have worked.
Mr. Bélair: That's it. It wouldn't be abusing the system at all. Section 26 of the present Unemployment Insurance Act requires that a person qualify for unemployment insurance benefits and that that same person go to college for three years without having to requalify.
To make sure that lifelong students aren't part of the group, I want these people to requalify each year, on top of getting grades which attest to the quality of their work at university.
Mr. Bélanger: Given that Bill C-111 is presently being debated in the House, could Bill C-286 be presented as an amendment to C-111?
Mr. Bélair: I was expecting that question, Madam Chair. I've presented my bill in connection with the present Employment Insurance Act because it is still in force as long as the other one hasn't received Royal Assent.
Today, I'm doing it anyway. It may be a bad or good coincidence that my bill was chosen last week. But in any case, I submit to the House rules of the procedure. If my bill, as it is today before me, cannot be presented in the context of the current act, I'll notify the Standing Committee for Human Resources Development that I'll present an amendment to Bill C-111 when it is before the House at the report stage.
Mr. Bélanger: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Bélair, the clerk has pointed out that we are not part of the human resources committee. We are totally -
An hon. member: You're not?
The Chair: No. We're completely separate.
If I've understood you, you're saying that if this committee is concerned about making it votable, because the legislation is on the floor you have the other alternative, which is to introduce an amendment.
Mr. Bélair: Yes, I do understand that. When we come back I think it's scheduled to be debated in the House on February 16. If the new law has not come into effect by then, I will have the opportunity to do it then. Hopefully the new bill....
I don't know how it really works. Maybe Mr. Knowles would have some advice for me. I am not perfectly knowledgeable. This is getting to be technical.
The Chair: Welcome to the crowd.
The Clerk: For the moment I think we're in a bit of limbo. I know that Mr. Bélair's bill refers to section 26 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. Bélair: That's right.
The Clerk: In the new act, if it's adopted, I believe you'd be talking about section 25.
Mr. Bélair: Yes, it would be section 25 in the new act.
The Clerk: If the new act has been adopted, this bill will of course have to be amended. It wouldn't work. Our guidelines say that normally a bill requiring an amendment would not be considered votable. So I guess it's really the decision of the subcommittee if it would like to consider the existence of Bill C-111, which doesn't exist.
The Chair: Here's a technical question in front of the witness so that he understands as well. Because of the reason you just described, if we shy away from making it votable he still has an opportunity to introduce an amendment to the legislation currently being debated, does he not?
Mr. Bélair: At the report stage.
The Clerk: Or at committee stage, yes. At second reading stage an amendment like that would probably be declared out of order.
The Chair: May I ask a question about the 600 hours that you have as a floor? Would that be compulsory, in other words one piece doesn't fit without the other?
Mr. Bélair: Yes, exactly. It's to avoid the professional students and to ensure that the -
The Chair: I have two in my house.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
.1700
Mr. Bélair: That's just the point. That's exactly what I want to avoid. You could have this professional student who has worked for only one year register at a new university for another four years and be on UI without having to requalify himself or herself once they have been accepted into the system. This is what I want to avoid. In other words, every summer they will be given the opportunity to work those 600 hours on the weekends.
With the new system, every hour you work does count. The figure of 600 hours is somewhat of a balance between the minimum of 420 hours, if you come from a region that has in excess of 13% unemployment, and 720 hours where there is a very low percentage of unemployment. It's somewhat of a balance between the two.
The Chair: Are there any other questions from the committee?
You've done an excellent job. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bélair: You're welcome. So what's the process, Madam Chair?
The Chair: After you leave we go into a deep, dark recess and decide.
Mr. Bélair: When will I hear from you?
The Chair: You won't know until it's filed with the procedure and house affairs committee. The earliest would be this Friday if everything goes according to plan. It will go to the procedure and house affairs committee on Thursday morning, and then it will go to the House as a public document on Friday.
Mr. Bélair: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Mrs. Terrana.
Mrs. Anna Terrana, MP (Vancouver East): Good afternoon. Thank you for seeing me.
I'm going to read, because this is my first private member's bill and I'll feel more comfortable doing that.
I'm really pleased to appear in front of you to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-320, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, registration of political parties, and have it made a votable item.
A basic principle of democracy is citizen participation in the system. For most citizens individual participation is limited to voting. For others participation may focus on volunteering in the political process, whether during or in between elections. For us as elected politicians, our participation is as political advocates.
Another appealing aspect of democracy is that it allows competing political philosophies to be debated in the political arena. This public debate encourages political parties to clearly develop and articulate their policy visions. It also allows the electorate the opportunity to be made aware of these competing political visions for our country and enables them to cast their vote for the political party most effectively communicating its vision.
In May 1993 the previous government's Bill C-114, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, was assented to. Prior to this particular bill being passed, the Chief Electoral Officer for Canada could use discretion in deciding whether or not to deregister a political party. After Bill C-114, under subsections 31(10) and 31(11) of the act, a political party that could not field 50 candidates in an election would have its political party status revoked, all its assets liquidated and all debts paid. In addition, the act increased candidates' deposits from $200 to $1,000.
The result of this act was to place restrictions on public participation in the Canadian democratic process. Under section 31, the Communist Party, the Social Credit Party, the Confederation of Regions Party, and other political parties were deregistered. The result was that these parties were silenced. They were not allowed to communicate to the Canadian electorate their competing political philosophies. Thus, this act served to limit overall citizen participation in the Canadian political process. It did this by limiting the number of political parties that could participate in the political process, thereby limiting the number of political party choices available to the Canadian electorate on the ballots.
This act is also undemocratic and discriminatory, as it forbids the establishment of provincially based federal political parties in B.C., the prairies or Atlantic Canada, but allows for the establishment of such parties in either Ontario or Quebec. This comes about due to the 50-candidate requirement that is established for recognition as a federal political party. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec with over 50 seats each would be able to form, and Quebec has already done so, provincially based federal political parties, but all other provinces in Canada have been denied this right as they each have fewer than 50 seats.
.1705
I just discovered that in the Atlantic provinces there are some provinces that have more than50 seats. In fact, Nova Scotia is a good example.
Major newspapers across Canada condemned Bill C-114. Such papers included The Toronto Star, Le Devoir, The Globe and Mail and The Vancouver Sun.
My Bill C-320 proposes to reduce the number of candidates required for recognition as a political party from 50 to 12. This is a number with a lot of possibilities but not many chances of abuse, and it is a more reasonable limit on the democratic tenet of political participation, which I believe is infringed under the current law. It is also a number that allows for the creation in all Canadian provinces of provincially based federal political parties and also gives that possibility to the territories.
As for the deposit to be paid by each candidate, my bill proposes that this amount be decreased from the current $1,000 to $500. This will have the effect of reopening the political door to all those Canadians who want to participate in the democratic process through an articulation of a competing political philosophy or vision, but have been prevented from doing so because of a more prohibitive fee for participating as a candidate.
The last amendment would remove the obligation of a party's chief agent to liquidate the assets of a party deleted from the official registry of parties. This is another unfair practice that limits participation in the Canadian political process by disqualifying parties and people from political participation and by seizing their assets.
During the campaign I was approached on this subject by several people, especially in my riding. I had three people who ran for the Communist Party, so it's not that it put them out of business, but they were not there as a party; they were there independently. They approached all of us; they confronted all of us. Of course, I promised that if I were elected I would try to see what I could do with this bill. In fact, now it's law.
I ask for your support, therefore, in making Bill C-320 votable so that all Canadians will have the opportunity to more fully participate in the Canadian democratic process. Thank you very much for inviting me.
The Chair: Mr. Bélanger, would you like to lead off?
Mr. Bélanger: I got a little confused when you mentioned that some provinces have more than 50. You're talking about the provincial legislature?
Mrs. Terrana: Yes.
Mr. Bélanger: How do you relate the number of seats in a provincial legislature to what you're suggesting here, that it be fewer than 50?
Mrs. Terrana: Because the Canada Elections Act covers all the elections in the country.
Mr. Bélanger: You're suggesting the Canada Elections Act covers elections in all the provinces?
Mrs. Terrana: That's right. This is what I understand. Maybe the clerk can correct me.
Mr. Bélanger: I could stand to be corrected, but I didn't realize -
The Chair: Mr. Robertson, can you help?
Mr. J. Robertson (Committee Researcher): Each province has its own elections act that governs elections to the provincial assembly. The Canada Elections Act only applies to federal elections, and it allocates under the formula in the Constitution the number of seats for each province.
Mrs. Terrana: Well, I stand corrected. This is what the clerk also brought up. It was not one of the subjects that was presented to me during the campaign, but it was surely a subject brought up by the clerk. Evidently there was confusion between him and me. Thank you for correcting that.
The Chair: Mr. Caron.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: Before the Act which brought to 50 the number of candidates necessary to give official status to a party, how many were necessary?
Mrs. Terrana: There wasn't any number. The agent decided whether to get rid of a party or not. I don't think it could have been done, because the Communist Party was a federal party for 73 years.
Mr. Caron: Oh!
Mrs. Terrana: The situation was different. I discussed it with the clerk, and he suggested not doing it because it would mean making money too important.
.1710
[English]
The Chair: I'm a little concerned about the very fringe parties like the Yogic Flyers. It's much easier for them to qualify as a party when they require only 12 candidates. Are you not a little cautious about that problem?
Mrs. Terrana: No. In fact, I think that because we are a democratic country, we should allow people to run if they want to and if they are supported and if they feel they have the capability of doing so.
I come from a country that has a lot of parties. Italy has a proliferation of parties, but it's a totally different background, a totally different culture, a totally different way of looking at things.
I still feel this is quite undemocratic. For instance, let's look at the deposit. Many people cannot afford $1,000 to run. It's an extra burden you put on these people. If we want to be the democratic, compassionate country we are, we should give them the possibility. After all, 12 is still a limit. It's not open to everybody. There still is a limit.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Thanks for coming out.
We'll move in camera.