[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 12, 1996
.1529 
[English]
The Chair: Order, please.
The agenda lists twelve people. There's one to be added, and that's Mr. Hermanson. I don't know if you have the new version.
.1530
One of the difficulties we've had is the commitment made to both opposition parties that the private members' bills and motions would be prepared before the House and starting on March 18. The original schedule had us meeting today and tomorrow, and next Tuesday for those who couldn't have made it to these two appointments. We have tried to reschedule everyone and so far we've had only two that we can't reschedule. But for the House business to go on, we must have a report go to procedure and House affairs this Thursday, to the House on Friday, and the bills and motions will start next week.
So we have a tight timeline. We have twelve people to hear from today, and we'll try to get everybody else on tomorrow.
In the past, when someone was drawn and was unable to make their assigned appointment, they had two options: The first was to have us debate it without their presentation, which has happened on many occasions. The second was to send a substitute to present the case for them, and we've had that also. So these are the alternatives we'll be giving everyone for whom we can't come up with an amicable solution.
Mr. Stinson (Okanagan - Shuswap): I have a problem with this. It is not their fault if they can't be here. This is a scheduling fault that is not of their making. So I think maybe we have to address that as well. This is private members' business, and I would not want any private member coming back and saying to me that due to the wrong scheduling they received, we've basically interfered with their draw.
The Chair: It is a technical problem on our part, because usually the whip's office schedules two days and says, okay, you're going to pick five and five.
I was just talking with the clerk, and I'm not sure.... Mr. Langlois could probably help us; he's the most experienced person on this committee. According to the clerk, if the other two can't make it we must have the unanimous agreement of the House to defer them into the next batch. We usually do only two days of deliberations; however, I think the clerk allowed three days because we had been told there wasn't a big hurry to get these forward. In fact there is.
Could you help us, Mr. Langlois?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Knowles could help us the most, but I did understand that in order for this to be included in the next draw, we will need an order from the House. Otherwise, it will be dropped.
The Clerk of the Committee: In the case of a bill, it cannot be dropped, but we cannot indicate that it will be selected as a votable item. We cannot say that the bill will be dropped. A motion can be dropped if a member does not present it, but in this case, it simply falls to the bottom of the list.
However, I don't think that is what you're asking.
[English]
I don't think that's what you're asking, Madam Chair, is it?
The Chair: No.
The Clerk: The list still stands, and what you do today has no impact on the order of priority or the order of precedence except insofar as items are chosen as votable or not. Members still maintain their place on the order of precedence, regardless of what happens here.
The Chair: So all that happens at this meeting is you decide which of the ones, as they come out in this order, are going to be votable. What Mr. Stinson is saying is that members who are not able to present their cases in the two days we have scheduled are at a disadvantage in that they're not going to be pleading their cases as strongly as someone else might.
Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I have a simple question. Were some members informed that they were scheduled to appear next week - and because of this, they arranged their schedule so as to be available to come before the committee next week - and would these members, because of a new decision, then be unable to appear?
If that were the case, we would have a serious problem on our hands. Otherwise, I would be willing to sit for an extended period of time for two days in order to hear the members. If there are some who are not on the Hill because they thought they would only be appearing next week, then they were given the wrong information. I think that in all fairness, we should postpone their appearance and prepare our report after we have heard from them.
I don't know if that is what Mr. Stinson was alluding to.
[English]
Mr. Stinson: I want to do what's fair for the member who's gone to the work of putting this forward and has the luck to be drawn. I don't care what party they belong to, everybody who's completed this process has done an extremely large amount of work.
The Chair: Let's answer the question Mr. Langlois has asked. Were these other four told that next week would be fine?
.1535
The Clerk: I communicated with all the members on the list, Madam Chair, with the intention, following discussion with your office, that we would try to do it in two days, but with the third day being open if necessary. I communicated the intention that the subcommittee hoped to be able to do it within two days, but that Tuesday of the following week was available if necessary. I guess I'll let them suggest that.
Four members said that they couldn't be here this week.
The Chair: But two have changed, so we're down to two.
The next question: when you say here that five motions and five bills are to be chosen, is there a way in which we can amend this by choosing four and four and then do another draw and add it to those people next Tuesday?
Mr. Stinson: Will these people be guaranteed to be in that draw?
The Chair: They are already drawn. They are already in the order. That doesn't change. All we're doing today.... I'm asking, because I don't know: can we change it to four and four today and still hold a meeting next Tuesday?
The Clerk: Madam Chair, I believe what you're asking is whether or not the committee on procedure and House affairs can report twice to the House or our subcommittee can report twice to the committee on procedure and House affairs prior to its report to the House.
The Chair: Yes.
The Clerk: I don't think there's anything that would prevent the procedure and House affairs committee from reporting twice. It's never been done before, but....
The Chair: We do all kinds of unusual things. Don't we, Mr. Langlois?
Mr. Langlois: We do.
The Chair: Whenever the two of us are on a committee, it's always trouble. Of course, Mr. Stinson is here to keep us fair.
What do you think, John? You've been on the committee before.
Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): I don't know if you can report twice.
The Chair: Often we've been given the assignment of picking three and three. If we were to say that they say we can have five and five, if we pick.... Let's say that we find three or four really good ones at the end of this two-day session, and then we sit again next Tuesday and we find another one - we can continue to report, can we not?
What do you say, Jamie? You're the legal beagle.
Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): I think that at any one time there can be no more than five votable motions or five votable bills. So if the committee selected only three or four in its first report, then it could top up the other ones next week, assuming that the ones who are heard next week do not have their first hour of debate before the second report is tabled in the House.
The Chair: Okay. Where on the order are the ones we're having problems with?
Mr. Stinson: There is also concern about the March 18 presentation in the House.
The Chair: No, Mr. Stinson. What Jamie has suggested is that we can never suggest more than five and five, but we can suggest three and three. So if we decide at the end of tomorrow that we have three clear motions and three clear bills, we can present those on Thursday and they can start the business of the House on them next Monday. We can still sit on Tuesday, as you've suggested, and hear those people fairly. We might decide that none of them is votable, or we might decide that two of them are votable, but we still have that option.
Mr. Stinson: How does that affect the presentation to the House, though?
The Chair: That's what we have to look at. If the people who can't make it are low on the list on prioritized listing, then we're okay. If they are one of the first two up, then we're in trouble.
The Clerk: The two members who are not available this week are Mr. Gouk, who is number 12, and Mr. Hanger, who is number 21. Of course you have Mr. Harris, who is being replaced by Mr. McClelland. Mr. Harris is number 15.
The Chair: So all of them coming up to number 12 in one week is almost impossible.
The Clerk: No. For number 12, you'll be into the second day of the week after the House resumes after the Easter break.
The Chair: I think we just solved our problem.
Mr. Stinson: I'll have to get that explained again, because we have people who'll be coming forward on March 18. That's the date here to put the presentation before the House.
The Chair: Let me try this again. Jamie, do you want to do it?
The Clerk: I think I should do that as procedure, Madam Chair.
The Chair: All right. Go ahead.
The Clerk: If our subcommittee reports to the procedure and House affairs committee with votable items for Thursday morning of this week, then the procedure and House affairs committee could report to the House on Friday of this week, which means that number 1, Mr. Morrison, would be called on Monday of next week.
Mr. Stinson: Which is?
The Clerk: March 18.
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Morrison is here.
The Clerk: He would be up to present his bill to the House for the first hour of debate.
.1540
With regard to the members who cannot appear, if they were to appear Tuesday of next week and the private members' business had already begun, their item would not be up to the House until at least the week after the House resumes after its Easter break. So if this subcommittee wishes to hear them next week and report to the procedure and House affairs committee, which, if it so wished, could make a subsequent report to the House, they could still be considered if this subcommittee doesn't fill its quota of votable items this week.
The Chair: If there are still spaces.
The Clerk: If we do not fill the quota.
The Chair: I would venture to say we could almost ensure we don't fill the quota by not picking more than four and four. The maximum we can send forward is five and five. If we decide ourselves, today and tomorrow, to pick four and four or three and three, there will still be spaces available.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Can the clerk tell me whether private members bills that can be introduced again pursuant to motion number 1 affect in any way the number of motions or bills that we could select as votable items?
The Clerk: Not at all, Madam Chair, because all of these bills have been referred directly to a committee. Therefore, these bills no longer appear either on the order of priority or on the Order Paper.
[English]
The Chair: If an error has been made, it has been in our knowledge of when the bills would start to be discussed. We can't change that. If they need business as of Monday, we're going to have to provide them with business. Does that sound like a fair compromise, Mr. Stinson?
Mr. Stinson: I think part of the problem is that it's going ahead too fast for the members to have the bills up for March 18.
The Chair: But, Mr. Stinson, they were scheduled to be up on March 18. It's neither here nor there. That doesn't affect our decisions.
An hon. member: March 25 is what we were told.
Mr. Stinson: You were told March 25?
An hon. member: Yes.
The Chair: There is another alternative. We can start hearing the people who are scheduled today, because they're going to build up very quickly. We can have the whip come in tomorrow to try to explain to us what the alternatives are and what our problems are. We can schedule that fifteen minutes before we hear the next set. However, there's no reason why we shouldn't go ahead and hear everyone today.
Mr. Stinson: I'm for that. It's just that -
The Chair: And I don't disagree with you. We don't want to disadvantage the people who have been given false information. Okay?
Mr. Stinson: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: To make it easier for our two colleagues, Mr. Gouk and Mr. Hanger, we could hook up with them by video conference. I know that on Sparks Street, we have videoconferencing facilities. They wouldn't have to be here in person. Modern technology makes many things possible. It's just a suggestion.
[English]
Mr. Stinson: That's not a bad idea, but there's still a problem. Some of the members were told they would not be going forward to the House on presentation until March 25. Now they've moved it up to March 18.
The Chair: That's one thing I can't take responsibility for. I follow orders.
Mr. Stinson: Yes, but this is what's happened, you see. People may have scheduled a speaking engagement somewhere else on March 18 and now they have a private member's bill coming before the House. Is that fair to the private member? That's one of the concerns.
The Chair: I don't disagree with you about the information that was given out. That was the information the clerk had, and that was the information I had. However, it was subsequently changed.
Mr. Stinson: Yes. That is not the fault of the private member.
The Chair: What we'll do tomorrow is have the whip or someone else come, and we'll sit down and discuss it privately before we get started on the second set of presentations. Is that agreeable?
Mr. Stinson: Yes. They're before us now, so let's hear them.
The Chair: Mr. Langlois, is that okay with you?
Mr. Langlois: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Morrison, you have five minutes to do your presentation.
Mr. Lee Morrison, MP (Swift Current - Maple Creek - Assiniboia): Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I want to promote my Bill C-219 as a votable bill for two principal reasons. One is that it has a direct personal effect on rather large numbers of people who are employed in federally regulated companies. With downsizing now proceeding at an accelerated rate, a lot of the older employees who suddenly are going to find themselves without jobs because they have reached the magic age of 55 and are therefore in many cases eligible for some reduced pension benefits will be deprived of severance pay, even if severance pay is being delivered to the younger employees who are laid off at the same time. This is a form of age discrimination.
.1545
A ruling has been brought down by an adjudicator on this particular problem with 133 former employees of Motorways. He ruled that the law is clear that Motorways had the right to deny these people their severance pay. Because of the way the Canada Labour Code is written he had no choice. It cost these people anything from $6,000 to $8,000 apiece. They were rather meagre severance benefits, but they were severance benefits.
The adjudicator said that for them to get both pension and their severance pay would be a double benefit. But that's not true. The two concepts, pension and severance pay, are in no way related. Neither one has anything to do with the other. People who have paid into a pension for years and years own that pension. The fact that they own it should not detract from their right to get severance pay under a severance agreement. Yet that is the way the law reads.
I have looked into the law fairly closely. This clause can be removed from the Canada Labour Code without any spin-off effects onto other regulations or legislation. A clean cut can be made so that in the future - of course it's not going to help the people from Motorways - when people are laid off from federally regulated companies, if this is indeed passed by Parliament and made law, they will no longer be subject to this discriminatory provision.
That is my case. There's no ideological basis to this. I have discussed this bill with members from all four parties and I have been getting considerable private support on my position on this. I believe if this is made votable it is a bill that has a chance of passing, because there's no axe to grind. This is just to fix up a flaw in the Labour Code.
I have a minute or two left. If anybody would like to ask me a question about this, perhaps we could proceed in that way.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morrison.
Are there any questions?
Mr. Loney: Mr. Morrison, your proposed section 235 stands alone; there's no tie-in with any other section.
Mr. Morrison: It's tied in with 236. But the bill as it is written does cover that. What I meant is it doesn't flop off into other legislation.
The Chair: Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Through you, Madam Chairman, I would like to ask a question which was regularly raised by my honourable friend from Fraser Valley West, Mr. White. How much will this measure cost? If eligibility to receive severance benefits is extended to persons who currently are ineligible, would this mean that other persons also affected by the same layoff would receive lower benefits? I realize that this is not a Créditiste proposal that you are making and that we will not be printing up money for these people. After all, we only have one pool of money to draw from. Where will the money be found to pay the people who, under your proposal, would become eligible to receive severance benefits?
[English]
Mr. Morrison: This is a matter of private companies paying out of their funds to reimburse the employees. This is not government money. If, as in the case of Motorways, it is a bankrupt company and a limited pool of funds is available, clearly if the 133 people had got their fair share there would have been less for the thousand or so other employees. But which is more unjust, that the 133 get nothing and the remainder get it all, or that the soup be slightly thinned and everybody get slightly less? That's the point.
.1550
It should not in any way, shape, or form be confused with the pension issue. The pension issue really has nothing to do with it.
The Chair: Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: He just answered my question in regard to the pensions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Gallaway, I must apologize. The clerk misdirected me. You were first on the list. But you're such a patient soul.
Mr. Roger Gallaway, MP (Sarnia - Lambton): That's okay. I'm on House duty.
The Chair: You have five minutes. Just as clarification, you can speak the full five minutes. Any questions we ask you are on top of that, so you don't have to feel you have to leave time.
Mr. Morrison, had you said everything you wanted to say?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, I have. Thank you.
Mr. Gallaway: Madam Chair and members of the committee, I'm here to explain why I believe my bill, C-216, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, the policy section, warrants being put to a vote.
Quite simply, consumers have demanded that we put an end to negative-option billing for new programming services. Certainly, we all remember the consumer revolt against the cable companies in January 1995 and we all remember the nationally televised apology by Rogers Cable, but the fact is that nothing has changed since that time. Even after the consumer revolt and after all of the complaints to the CRTC and to us, the cable monopolies continue to use negative-option billing to market the last round of specialty channels and the onus is still on the consumer to somehow cancel the new service before it shows up on their bill. To this very day, the CRTC continues to endorse negative-option billing as a necessary evil when new programming services are introduced.
The timing of this bill is appropriate, because the CRTC is about to consider 40 new applications for specialty and pay-television services. Additionally, there are new players entering the market for such services. For example, the phone and satellite companies will soon be in competition with the cable companies. By passing this bill, C-216, we would ensure that negative-option billing by these new distribution undertakings, as they're called, would simply not be an option.
I think we learned two lessons from last year's consumer revolt. First, the CRTC doesn't understand consumers. The fact is, people don't want to pay for something they didn't request and they may not even want.
Secondly, the use of negative-option billing for new programming services can actually jeopardize the very service it's supposed to sell. The consumer backlash did little to enhance the popularity of new specialty channels; in fact, some are struggling to stay alive. This should be reason enough to ban negative-option billing for new services. But Bill C-216 will accomplish this goal by amending section 3 of the Broadcasting Act by providing, in the context of the broadcasting policy, that a cable distributor should not demand money from a person for the provision or sale of a new programming service where the person has not agreed to receive the service.
Section 5 of the Broadcasting Act creates an obligation on the CRTC to regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system with a view to implementing the broadcasting policy as set out in the act.
So let me briefly address your criteria for the selection of votable items. First, consumers want these changes, and I think that's fairly self-evident. This bill does not discriminate in favour of or against any certain area or region of the country. It has nothing to do with constituency names or electoral boundaries. This bill, as drafted, will make the necessary changes to the Broadcasting Act to ban negative-option billing for new programming services. As I stated earlier, section 5 of the act creates an obligation on the CRTC to implement the broadcasting policy, as set out in the act.
The subject of this bill is not on the government's agenda. The issue has been raised at numerous times in the House and I would suggest that it has also been raised on multitudinous occasions in caucuses of all parties.
All other factors being equal, the passage of this bill is the only way for the House to adequately respond to consumers who demanded action during last year's revolt. This bill is non-partisan; it addresses an issue that members would likely find difficult to oppose. We all represent consumers, no matter what party or region of the country we're from.
Finally, this bill addresses a subject that is clearly within federal jurisdiction. There are those who would suggest that it's not, but we will provide you with the.... This is not consumer protection legislation; it is broadcasting policy legislation. So there's clear constitutional evidence on that, and I cite Professor Hogg at the University of Toronto, who's the leading expert.
.1555
Finally, the subject of this bill has not already been voted on during this session, and there are no other votable items on this subject.
In conclusion, I ask you to support it. Consumers have demanded it, but I would also point out to you that I'm attempting to quantify the number of responses we've received from other members. It's quite considerable. This bill has been endorsed by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre; we've heard from Michael Janigan. We've also heard from Rosalie Daly Todd at the Consumers' Association of Canada, who called my office today and said, ``We want to support it. We're behind it''.
The Chair: Although I shouldn't lead off, I'm tempted to ask one question. What do the various broadcasting companies think of it?
Mr. Gallaway: I have not heard from them.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: I couldn't resist that one.
Mr. Loney: You took my question.
The Chair: Sorry. I'm not supposed to do that.
Mr. Gallaway: It's not the broadcasters. It's the cable companies.
The Chair: The cable owners.
Mr. Stinson: I can imagine what they're saying about this.
The Chair: Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Gallaway, I am rather ignorant of what goes on outside Quebec. In Quebec, the Consumer Protection Act prohibits certain commercial practices of this nature. Could you give me an example? I'm sitting in front of a television in your riding. What can the cable company do? That's all I want to know. I would rather admit my ignorance to you than look like an idiot in front of my colleagues, because I will have to make a decision.
[English]
Mr. Gallaway: First, three provinces have consumer protection legislation. That deals with what otherwise would be negative options; for example, billing - banks engage in it - and book clubs. You have to understand that with consumer protection legislation a remedy is given to the consumer.
We're not talking about consumer protection legislation; we're talking about the Broadcasting Act and the need to regulate the broadcasting policy as administered by the CRTC.
Consumer protection legislation is within provincial jurisdiction. The broadcasting policy is national, federal, legislation, which is therefore -
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I understand that quite clearly, Mr. Gallaway, as well as the distinction that you have drawn between amendments to the CRTC Act and provincial consumer protection policies.
My question was much simpler than that. I want to know which cable companies services you want banned. It's just that I'm not familiar with such matters. From a legislative standpoint, I understand very clearly what you are saying.
[English]
Mr. Gallaway: There's only one service, which is the supply of television channels. That's all we're talking about here. The other suppliers we're talking about are the telephone companies.
I don't know if that's what you're referring to. I'm not certain that I understand your question.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I'll try to put it another way. If you still don't understand, then I'm the one with the problem, not you, Mr. Gallaway.
You talk about the consumer. Which services available to him for a fee would you like to see disappear? In other words, you represent the interests of the voters who are offered services. What I would like to know is what kind of services are they being offered?
[English]
Mr. Gallaway: The services are simply the supply of television programming to an individual's home, the consumer's home.
The question is this. If I turn on my television today and there are 40 channels of which I'm aware and which I want delivered to my home and for which I pay, then I have no problem. But if a government agency, being the CRTC, decides that tomorrow I will have 45 channels - not 40, but 5 more - and I'm going to pay extra for those, and I didn't ask that they be delivered to my home nor do I want them nor am I interested in them, then the broadcasting policy appears to be, because the CRTC chooses not to enter the field, that you will receive them and you will pay for them.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: If your bill passes, would the consumer then be able to select the channels he wants to receive from a wide range of options? Could he say: I want CBC Newsworld, RDI, CNN, and so forth? Could he select five channels and only pay for these five channels, while someone else could choose 15? Could this happen?
.1600
[English]
Mr. Gallaway: No, not at all. It only means as the new channels are introduced into the cable system in the future - we're talking about this day forward - the consumers will have a choice as to what they will receive and therefore what they will pay for. It will not affect the current system.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: That's all. Finally, I understand.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: I think most of the questions have been asked. That was Professor Hogg, you said.
Mr. Gallaway: Yes.
Mr. Stinson: He will come up with the legalities in regard to this.
Mr. Gallaway: Yes, because there are those who would suggest.... Three provinces have consumer protection legislation that appears to prohibit certain types of negative-option billing. But this is not a piece of consumer protection legislation. There's no remedy. It's simply an amendment to section 5 of the Broadcasting Act, which now instructs the CRTC to say you cannot any longer, in the future, do this.
The Chair: For my own clarification, Roger, and for Mr. Langlois, what happened in that last big blow-up is that they added channels, they billed you for them, and the negative option was that you had to fill something out and send it back and say, don't bill me for it, I don't want it.
Mr. Gallaway: No, actually what happened in the last round was that according to the CRTC regulations you would receive those whether you liked it or not and you would be billed. It was only solved unofficially, by a consumer revolt; by the outcry - I am sure everyone here received calls - saying ``We don't agree with this''. Rogers, for example, agreed to allow people to opt out, but they were not required by law to do that.
So as we see telephone companies coming into this business and the satellite companies coming into this business, the possibility still exists, because the CRTC is still pumping out all sorts of memorandums whereby they say they choose not to elect to deal with negative-option billing. In other words, by omission, they endorse it. So it still exists.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Gallaway.
Mr. Gallaway: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo, MP (Mississauga South): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Colleagues, I've brought before you for your consideration Bill C-204, which proposes an amendment to the Canada Business Corporations Act. There is also a backgrounder, which highlights some of the issues I'm trying to raise here. It's actually a very straightforward bill in what its intent is.
I'll start with the backgrounder. The Canada Business Corporations Act outlines very substantial responsibilities, duties, etc., for directors of corporations registered under the Canada Business Corporations Act. Those duties relate to a duty of honesty, a duty of loyalty, a duty of diligence, a duty of skill, and a duty of prudence.
As you know from the reports in recent press, the issue of directors' liability is extremely sensitive; in fact, so much so that it's becoming difficult to find people who are prepared to be directors of corporations because of the scope of the liability. However, if directors willingly or knowingly...or ought to have known that something was being done or not done that was negatively impacting on their investors and they didn't do anything, they can be personally liable for the damage to the corporation, to the employees, to the investors.
The directors do have very specific duties and responsibilities. They have to take an active participation in those responsibilities. There is also the ever-present risk that they may have a conflict of interest, given their personal involvement in other affairs.
To give you an idea of the currency of the project or this particular aspect, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants just issued this discussion paper called ``Guidance for Directors: Governance Processes for Control'', December 1995. This particular discussion paper actually outlines some of the reasons why the rules for directors have to be revisited. The Canada Business Corporations Act has not been revamped or amended in this regard in twenty years.
Secondly, I note in The Financial Post of February 24, 1996 - the title is ``End Directors' Unlimited Liability, Senate may urge'' - a call for the revising of the corporations act to make it more flexible and in fact to relieve the responsibilities of directors because it's such an onerous situation.
.1605
However, this is a report by the Senate banking committee, which is basically addressing the demands of the corporate sector. It is not addressing the demands of the individual investor, of the employees, and of the corporation itself and the protection of its assets.
I raise with you the issue of Confederation Life. This is one that is going to be very problematic for all Canadians. We all have received information from Bell Canada employees advising us that officers of Bell Canada were directors of Confederation Life at the time when pension funds - or arrangements for pension moneys - were transferred from one carrier to Confederation Life to, according to the employees, the detriment of those employees. This is going to take many years to sort out. We all know that.
One of the things that happens in the corporate director game is the existence of marquee directors. These are directors who are big name players in corporate life, and who sign major signing bonuses and stock option deals with corporations to join a board of directors simply for the optics. Simply, they are there to attract or to give high profile to the corporation or the officials who operate that corporation.
Let me give you an example. We have a senator of the Government of Canada who is also the chairman and chief executive officer of Brascan corporation. According to his bio, he is also the director of 26 different corporations. Colleagues, it is impossible for one person to discharge all those responsibilities at the same time; therefore, this is contemptuous of the rules of directors' liability and the responsibilities of directors.
This bill basically says, let's be reasonable. Let's limit the number of concurrent directorships that anyone can hold in a corporation registered under the Canada Business Corporations Act to a given number - I propose ten, but we can discuss that - in companies in which that person holds less than 5% of the shares of that corporation. I set that specific number of 5% because if an individual has many corporations that he personally set up to handle his personal affairs, and he registered them all and owns them all, or has a major vested interest in them, I do not wish to exclude that person from being able to be a director of his own company.
However, for those who are clearly marquee directors, we must limit the number of concurrent directorships that they have in the interest of employees, in the interest of shareholders, and in the interest of the corporation.
I hope you will accept this as an important matter for us to deal with, and I ask that you please make this bill votable.
The Chair: Are there any questions?
Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: Yes, I have just a couple.
Under this scenario of directors, does it not run into the securities commission on the provincial end of it?
Mr. Szabo: The rules with regard to directors' liability and duties and responsibilities are articulated under the act under which the company would be incorporated. Since we can only deal in this House with federal legislation, this is dealing only with corporations that are incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act. But you are quite right. Each of the provinces has provincial jurisdictions under which companies could register their corporations, and they have rules. Presumably, however - and there have been conformity resolutions made over the years - where and if changes are made federally, they would be adopted provincially and vice versa where they were clearly the same principle.
The Chair: Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I want to thank the witness for his written submission which enlightened us considerably.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Rose-Marie Ur.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur, MP (Lambton - Middlesex): Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the subcommittee.
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to explain my private members bill, C-221, an act to amend the Competition Act. As you can see, the bill would amend the Competition Act by making it an offence for manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles and farm equipment to engage in certain marketing practices with their dealers.
In the great majority of cases in Canada, franchise agreements provide that a dealer will not carry any other line, or dual, without the written permission of the manufacturer. In practice, that permission is rarely forthcoming. The consequences of this restrictive arrangement are that the dealer's investment in one line of motor vehicles or farm equipment very often substantially exceeds the investment actually required to efficiently supply the sales and servicing demands faced by a particular dealer in his or her market.
.1610
By compelling manufacturers and distributors to allow their dealers the choice to offer one or more new lines of motor vehicles or farm equipment, I believe two positive results would come about. First, the investment of the dealer would be utilized more efficiently and effectively. Second, the public and the dealer's world would be better served through a wide array of products and services. As it stands now in virtually 100% of motor vehicle and farm equipment franchise contracts, the manufacturer has the authority to terminate the contract if the dealer does not abide by the manufacturer's rules of dealer purity.
This whole issue was brought to my attention shortly after the last election. One of my constituents, who is a dealer in new and used farm equipment, has contracted with Ford New Holland Inc. He wrote to me, and I quote:
While it is true we have all signed agreements alluding to the sale of competitive products, it should be noted that...for many of us, we had no option but to sign this agreement for our ability to stay in business hinged on the exclusive availability of the [Ford New Holland] line. ... If I chose not to sign, I would have lost the business my father and I worked 40 years to build.
It is true that Ford New Holland is not restricting the number of agencies we represent, as long as they are housed in separate facilities. ... Most of the lines Ford New Holland deems competitive do not represent enough volume to operate as a stand alone dealership. Therefore their demand for exclusivity leads to lessening and even elimination of competition. This policy has far reaching consequences to our customers as well. By reducing the number of agencies willing to handle a line, you also reduce the availability of service and repair parts. Our farmers today do not need a further erosion of service.
Why should rural Canadians be denied access to all lines of agricultural equipment? As far as I'm concerned, it is essential that dealers be given the freedom to carry several lines of equipment to be of service to their specialty farming customers.
I can also tell you that all major farm equipment associations across Canada have been lobbying the federal government for years to have these erroneous restrictions on their livelihoods loosened. The same is true of motor vehicle dealers. In fact, a 1993 survey of Canadian car dealers showed that about 50% of the dealers would try to add another line if wide-open dualling were permitted.
What is especially troubling is that this practice is common in the United States, where among 20,000 dealers in 18 states several makes of automobiles are being sold from a single lot. U.S. franchise and anti-trust laws prevent the kind of restrictive agreements that prohibit the practice of dualling in Canada.
The same is true for farm equipment dealers, where in 16 states the legal position is that dualling of farm equipment by a dealer is not permissible cause for a supplier to cancel a dealership's agreement. Contrary to the position of the very same companies in Canada, with each one of New Holland, John Deere, and Case markets, the products are very successful in the states of the United States where that restrictive conduct is forbidden by law.
After two years of trying to convince both the Ministry of Industry and the amendments unit of the Bureau of Competition Policy of the need for a loosening of the current provisions governing motor vehicle and farm equipment dealers, I am more convinced than ever that the only constructive remedy is a legislative amendment to the Competition Act. In fact, in our discussions on dualling issues, the bureau itself has agreed that the present act simply does not and cannot in a normal situation prohibit or regulate anti-dualling conduct by manufacturers or distributors.
Section 77 of the act does allude to exclusive dealing. However, the substantial lessening of competition tests currently imposed by the act for the director to be able to move against the restrictions on competition occasioned by anti-dualling provision is unlikely to be unequivocally and clearly present in the case of most dealerships in Canada. Therefore, on its terms, I believe the present act is simply not adequate to deal in a proper and effective way with anti-dualling provisions in the franchise agreements.
In conclusion, I believe this bill addresses many concerns that are relevant to Canada's small business community, including the freedom to run one's business as freely as possible. I believe it will certainly result in job creation, and finally, I'm confident that the bill meets all guidelines to be considered as a votable item.
I thank you for the opportunity to present my bill to you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Thank you for your presentation. Apparently, you spoke a little quickly for our interpreters.
[English]
Mrs. Ur: Excuse me. I have a problem that way.
.1615
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: We all have the same problem when we read a text in our own language. We have a tendency to pick up the pace.
There is a saying that you cannot compare apples and oranges, but basically, the aim of your bill is to allow McDonald's to sell Kentucky Fried Chicken. A Ford dealer could sell GM products in a small community.
You raise an interesting point. However, I do see some negative aspects. Large, well-established dealers could buy up smaller ones no longer capable of expanding, thereby restricting competition. Thus, they would have a monopoly on prices. The balance in the Canadian economy stems from the fact that to a certain extent, consumers can shop around for the best price. Are you not concerned that this would create a monopoly or duopoly in Canada and that ultimately, the consumer would pay the price? That is my only question.
[English]
Mrs. Ur: Actually, I really don't see my bill as a monopoly. I see it as access to product in the rural parts of Canada, where there's limited access, to be serviced as they are in large urban centres. So I really don't see it as a large corporation going in to buy out a small corporation. I see it as two units going under the same roof to work for the same product line.
Presently, if you have two product lines you certainly aren't held back from doing so, but you have to have two office structures. You have to have two sets of equipment and two sets of personnel. I see that as being rather redundant when we're trying to amalgamate and make a level playing field so we have the avenues for small business to progress.
I feel this bill would be beneficial to small business and to consumers. It would provide them with access to a product line. They would certainly be able to shop around if they had access to more than one product line under one roof. So I don't see it as big companies coming in to take over, I see it as the opposite. We're providing more product line for our consumers where it's important.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Loney.
Mr. Loney: The bill, as I understand it, pertains to the distributor and the manufacturer. What about two distributors exchanging lines, which is quite frequent in rural areas? If I go to a Case dealer and I tell him I need a tractor, but not his particular tractor, and I want to trade in two of my tractors or something, most times he's quite willing to make the deal for me.
Mrs. Ur: That may happen in certain circumstances -
Mr. Loney: I happens a great deal.
Mrs. Ur: - but they want to be able to carry the full line, and not just in an option case like that.
Mr. Loney: But how would this bill affect that type of dealing?
Mrs. Ur: I don't think there would be a negative effect at all. It would probably be complementary, because presently this is what they're trying to do in a subtle way by providing the opportunity to service all needs of the community. It's not to say that one company is better than the other, but one company, whether it deals in cars or farm machinery, carries a different product line or an enhanced product line compared to another dealership. So we're providing the market with adequate equipment, cars, or whatever to have a choice.
This was reviewed earlier by the Minister of Industry, and this bill did not fall within ministry guidelines, but there wasn't exactly a negative response to the situation. People have certainly grown to understand where we're coming from with this proposed private member's bill.
The Chair: Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: I can understand where you're coming from.
I have a couple of questions here. When you go into blanket marketing or the acceptance of all these implements, you'd be looking at a massive structure just for parts. I'm wondering how that would affect anybody who could compete.
Mrs. Ur: Presently, as I've said, there are establishments that carry two product lines but they have two offices. So I really can't see that being a problem. I'm certainly not a mechanic, but from the little I've worked on the farm in that aspect, I know you don't necessarily have to have a GM part to go into a GM car.
.1620
Mr. Stinson: Sometimes it will fit, but most times it won't.
Mrs. Ur: I tend to be a thrifty shopper, and I don't always go to GM. It's not that I have anything against GM.
The Chair: From the point of view of a votable bill, do you think you might actually be defeating the purpose with a bill like this? I ask this because there's nothing that will force a dealer to deal with a company once we pass this bill.
Let's say that it's votable and it's passed and we say that from now on dealers can't put this stipulation. Will there not then be even more subtle pressure to give three or four product lines to huge corporations that can handle it all? Won't it really kill the little guy?
Mrs. Ur: No, because it's not really a product line. It's manufacture. It's not products per se. It's lines, whether it be GM, Toyota, or Honda. It's not the product line; it's the brand name offered. You have more than one brand name offered through one facility.
If anything, it gives businesses and consumers a choice and gives small business a level playing-field so it can offer two lines of product from one facility, instead of having two buildings, which is A-okay now. If that's okay, then why is it so hard to put those two buildings into one and resolve that large expense for the businesses? We are here to make small businesses move ahead, not to deter them.
The Chair: So the Eaton of farm manufacturing can have ten lines, a huge plant, a huge warehouse, and a huge display. He can carry ten and he can be the Eaton of farm equipment. Is he not going to squeeze out all of the little guys who can afford to carry only one?
Mrs. Ur: Here again, I believe it's total access for the consumer. Now it's limited because, yes, you can carry two lines provided you have, again, the two offices. But that defeats the purpose.
Last year Mazda Canada offered that it would certainly appreciate selling another line of vehicles, but because of the provisions currently in the Competition Act, no one has come forth. So the want is there.
The Chair: I'm sorry to have kept everybody at the back of the room waiting. Because we had a bit of a procedural thing to straighten out, we were 15 minutes late in starting.
Mr. Stinson: I'll take the blame for that.
The Chair: We'll try to keep going as quickly as possible.
Madame Venne.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good morning, honourable members.
My bill will give witnesses involved in proceedings relating to an offence of a sexual nature or where it has been alleged that violence has been used or threatened the protection that is currently extended to young people under the age of age of 14 pursuant to section 486 of the Criminal Code. As I said, this protection already extends to persons under the age of 14. This means that the accused will no longer be able to cross-examine a witness himself. In such instances, the judge will appoint a lawyer who will conduct the cross-examination.
The aim of this bill is to eliminate legal anomalies such as the trials of Agostino Ferreira and Valery Fabrikant, among others. Ferreira was able to freely cross-examine the women whom he had illegally confined and sexually assaulted .
I would like to point out that the constitutionality of this bill is maintained because the accused maintains his right to cross-examine witnesses and therefore to receive a fair trial. From this moment on, the cross-examination will be conducted by a lawyer acting on the accused's behalf.
.1625
As for the criteria that the committee occasionally considers, I would point out that the bill does not discriminate in any way against a particular region of the country. It does not call for any obvious amendments to existing legislation; it merely calls for changes to a section of the Criminal Code. It is not part of the government's legislative agenda.
In closing, let me simply say that sexual assaults and violence in general are endemic problems in our society. An accused who chooses the self-defence route only compounds the victim's sense of horror and trauma. The goal of this bill is to prevent victims from having to confront yet again the person who assaulted them.
I will now be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Venne.
[English]
Are there any questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: If I understand correctly, Mrs. Venne, the aim of your bill is quite broad. Anyone who testifies in proceedings relating to a sexual assault where the use, attempted use or threat of violence has been alleged enjoys the same protection. In only a few cases does the Criminal Code provide the accused with the opportunity to conduct the cross-examination of the witness himself.
Mrs. Venne: What the bill would do in these specific instances is ensure that the same course of action currently set out in sections 486(1.1) and 486(2.3) of the Criminal Code is followed. This is precisely the same definition as the one currently contained in the Criminal Code for persons under the age of fourteen. My objective in tabling this bill is to see that these provisions apply not only to persons under the age of fourteen, but to all persons and to all victims.
Mr. Langlois: As Justice Critic, have you heard any concerns expressed by members of the legal profession or by voters in particular regarding the trials that you just mentioned? If so, what were these concerns, provided, of course, you can share them with us?
Mrs. Venne: We have heard from various associations which intend to support the bill. I could make their views known to the parliamentary Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, if the bill ever gets that far. However, you must have followed as I did in the newspapers the events surrounding the trial of Agostino Ferreira which were extremely traumatic for the victims. There were reports about the trial every day in the newspapers. Of course, he had not yet been found guilty, but he was the accused and as such, he was able to cross-examine his victims. Later on, people said: Yes, he was guilty. It's regrettable, because he was allowed to cross-examine his victims and he forced them to relive their nightmare. The circumstances of the trial were widely reported and we received calls from attorneys and criminal lawyers all of whom felt the same way. I believe this bill could ease the victim's burden.
Mr. Langlois: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: As a point of clarification here, you said this includes ensuring that the interests of witnesses are safeguarded in proceedings in which the accused is charged with a sexual offence. This goes beyond being just a victim. This means anybody who happens to be in that room -
Mrs. Venne: Exactly.
Mr. Stinson: - or at that place where this assault takes place falls under the same protection where they will not be allowed to be cross-examined.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Let me say right away that the bill does not eliminate the possibility of cross-examining victims. They will be cross-examined, but by a lawyer, not by the accused himself. Does that answer you question?
[English]
Mr. Stinson: Yes, it does.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs. Venne.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Thank you.
.1630
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Hoeppner. Thank you for waiting so patiently.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner, MP (Lisgar - Marquette): Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Bill C-212 I think meets the criteria for the selection of all the votable items that are more or less subject to its scrutiny. It deals with an issue that is significant, since it proposes to make the Canadian Wheat Board more accountable and hopefully it will be the first step, which will be a value-for-money audit and special examination by the Auditor General. The bill may be of particular interest to those in the west, but it should be of interest to all Canadians, especially taxpayers.
The issue of Canadian Wheat Board accountability has been raised many times in the House of Commons. It is a very significant topic and people want action on it. While the topic has been raised in the House before, the actions of this bill have not been attempted before.
The bill does not interfere with provincial legislative authority or any constitutional rules, and it does not impede normal federal-provincial or international relations.
I think this bill presents the best method possible to begin the first step of bringing the Auditor General's presence into the Canadian Wheat Board. As I have stated, this bill could be followed by other legislative measures that could enable the Auditor General to conduct special examinations and value-for-money audits. Bill C-212 proposes to change the auditor for annual audits, but this could be just the beginning of the process.
We have a huge debate going on in western Canada now over whether we should have single-desk selling or dual marketing or open markets. The large producers, who are about 20% of the population, produce about 80% of the product, so they are the producers who are pushing for more accountability or more openness in the markets.
Accredited exporters also feel at times there is retribution by the Wheat Board if they fail to play ball with them, because we have a special crops industry which has to market through the same transportation system as the Wheat Board grains. There's always a bit of conflict.
There's conflict when it comes to allocation of cars. One of the simple examples I can give you was in 1994, when we had some fusarium problems, and we also had labour problems and shortages of cars. Some of the special crops people or the exporters had to cut back by 50% of the contracts they had sold. That put them into a real bind, because the Wheat Board, with the backtracking issue, which you've heard of before, was more or less using more cars than it should have had. Because they have the political clout, they can demand the cars when they need them, more or less. That is one issue I think the Auditor General would have been able more or less to block before it really became a serious problem.
Also, the grain shipments at Churchill have always been a sore point in some of the northern parts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, because grain companies, private exporters, have their terminals at Vancouver or Thunder Bay. This means extra shipping costs. They feel very strongly some of that grain should have gone through Churchill. As we know, during the 1980s, when the Russians were buying quite a bit of grain, they even made it known to the Wheat Board that they would put in icebreakers at their own cost, if they were needed, because it was such a huge benefit to them to have a shorter route to ship grain.
So those are all things the Auditor General would be very capable of spotting and maybe exercising some kind of direction on to the Minister of Agriculture or to the grain industry over what should be happening.
As I find out now, discussing this issue with some of the people in the Auditor General office, they feel quite comfortable with having to do it, because they're very professional and they've had the experience with auditing crown corporations. Also, it would benefit them somewhat when they sign the audit books for the government when they do the auditing themselves. It gives them a little more confidence in what they're signing than when it's done by private auditors. So that's another issue that would be very beneficial in having the Auditor General look at it and making suggestions or giving direction to the grain trade.
.1635
As you know, in Manitoba today there's a huge battle going on. There are something like 30 RCMP and a whole bunch of customs officers trying to stop the exportation of some of the waxy barley, which is a special product that has just come on the market lately. The Wheat Board cannot market it, but it will not allow the farmers to market it themselves. There's a huge split developing in western Canada on what type of marketing system we should have.
I think if this bill became votable and was passed in this House, it would also more or less work as a mediation bill to bring farmers closer together and put more trust into the Wheat Board. That is one thing that is lacking today.
I, myself, had some experience with the exporting of grain on our own when we had the fusarium wheat, which was not marketable. I know there's a tremendous amount of red tape and also suspicion at times that things are not done properly, which we found out later on. It has given us some insight on our own farm operation as to what probably could benefit us if we could maintain a single-desk marketing system or if it becomes a dual marketing system.
I would personally hate to see the competition done away with and just have grain companies do it. That has always been my point of view as a farmer.
I feel this bill will calm some of those concerns and probably give us a more honest and accountable Wheat Board.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hoeppner. It sounds as if you want this bill to do a lot more than what it says.
Mr. Hoeppner: Well, it's a step, as I said. It's a step, and the Auditor General knows other legislation will have to be enacted before they have total control of it.
The Chair: Any questions from the committee? No?
Mr. Hoeppner: I think this is a bill that every member should be able to support in the House because it makes the crown corporation more accountable. It can probably save taxpayers' money. So it has those advantages, plus I think it will restore the credibility of the Wheat Board. Suspicion is there. Whether it's right or wrong, we don't know.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hoeppner.
Mr. Stinson has reconsidered.
Mr. Stinson: Just one thing, what stopped you from getting this through the Access to Information Act?
Mr. Hoeppner: The Wheat Board is not subject to the Access to Information Act. I have another bill that I put in, which I thought would also help toward doing away with some of the distrust, but I could only bring forward one bill at this time. I hope that if this one passes, the other one can probably follow at some time.
I think it's also very important because the issue of the huge severance packages that Wheat Board commissioners had more or less negotiated for themselves plus the pension plans they set themselves under the Canadian Wheat Board Act makes it very suspicious to some of the farmers. They would like to see it become more open and accountable.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hoeppner.
Mr. Hoeppner: Are you done with me?
The Chair: We're finished with you for a bit.
Mr. Hoeppner: Okay. Thank you very much.
The Chair: I think it's actually to everyone's advantage, despite the fact you're probably bored silly, to listen to the other presentations. You realize how difficult our choices are. This has been a really terrific batch of private members' bills. We do not have the judgment of Solomon here, so sometimes it's good if you hear the other bills that are coming forward. You realize you are not being cheated out of something when you don't quite make it.
That was addressed to you, Ms Meredith, particularly. I'm just amazed at how patient everybody is being, and I thank them.
Ms Val Meredith, MP (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Madam Chair, I'm here to present my motion, M-116, for your consideration in having it made a votable motion.
The motion I am proposing deals with sexual predators. It is trying to encourage the government to make an amendment to the part XXIV of the Criminal Code to recognize that there are individuals who commit sexual offences, particularly serious sexual offences, against adults, or any sexual offence against a child, who should be dealt with and recognized as a potential reoffender.
This motion advances the situation so that anybody who is convicted of sexually assaulting a child or a serious sexual assault against an adult person shall be examined by two psychiatrists. The onus then is such that it takes away any ambiguity that these individuals shall be examined by psychiatrists.
.1640
In the case of this offender who committed a sexual offence against a child or a serious sexual offence against an adult, as outlined in my motion, where the psychiatrists conclude that there is a likelihood of this individual reoffending, the attorney general of the province shall direct these individuals to a dangerous offender application.
All this motion is doing is encouraging the government to change the Criminal Code so that there isn't a question of ``maybe'' or ``if we feel like it'', but rather a question of ``shall'' - that any individual who has been convicted of a serious sexual offence against an adult or any sexual offence against a child shall be processed as a dangerous offender if it's deemed that they're likely to reoffend.
I would hope that this committee will see that this motion is an attempt to address commitments by all parties to the protection of women and children in our society, and that this would be a very good step forward to follow up on that commitment of protection.
The Chair: Are there any questions from the committee? It's very detailed wording, and we're probably all trying to keep up with you on reading it.
Ms Meredith: Yes. As an explanation, the reason it is worded in that way is so that it's very clear that it's not for minor offences, that it's any offence against a child, anybody who is convicted of pedophilia - of a sexual offence against a child - and the serious offences are sexual assault under section 271, an assault that has been proceeded with by way of indictment, which means rather than a summary or fine it's an indictment, it's a criminal offence; section 272, which is sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm; and section 273, which is aggravated sexual assault. So it's very serious charges that we're talking about here - or rather, convictions.
The Chair: Yes, convictions.
Are there any questions around the table? Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: With respect to your very detailed motion, the ins and outs of which I am trying to grasp, how many psychiatrists should be involved and what kind of burden should be put on them to demonstrate prima facie that just cause exists for the attorney general to file an application asking that the person about to be released be declared a dangerous offender?
[English]
Mrs. Meredith: This motion does not supersede the dangerous offender hearing. All it does is force that person who's had these convictions to be dealt with under a dangerous offender hearing application, which means they would then go into another legal process where they would be subject to the due process of law. These psychiatrists would not make the determination of their being a dangerous offender; they would merely direct them into that stream, into that process. The process of a dangerous offender application involves a judicial hearing in its own right with prosecutors, defence attorneys, and a judiciary hearing it. It's just so that these individuals are directed into that process and not left to lose themselves in the system.
Its purpose is to recognize the seriousness of sexual predators and to identify them in early stages, rather than after two, three, four or five convictions. If it can be determined they're likely going to reoffend, then they would be put through the process of a dangerous offender application, a completely separate judicial process that they would go through where they would have defence attorneys arguing on their behalf.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I raise the question, Madam Chair, because in the past, during the first session of the 35th Parliament, several members had tabled motions or bills containing measures that would kick in automatically, whereas I see here that your motion provides for a two-stage process. The determination or opinion of the psychiatrist is not the final word and a judicial hearing is subsequently held. That's made very clear in the last paragraph.
.1645
Thank you for these additional explanations.
[English]
The Chair: On hearing this, I feel almost as if I should disqualify myself, because Mrs. Hayes and I played basketball against each other in high school. But what the heck!
Mrs. Sharon Hayes, MP (Port Moody - Coquitlam): I am sure we won't plead prejudice or whatever at the conclusion.
I am delighted to bring this before this committee this afternoon. My motion, motion 148, is fairly short, fairly straightforward. It simply calls upon the government to recognize a burden of taxation, pressures of taxation on the Canadian family as opposed to specific members of society, looking at the family unit.
I don't know if there is a member representing a constituency in this House who has not had people come to them from their neighbourhoods and from their cities or towns claiming that taxation either has robbed them of choices for their family or has forced them into certain choices. In fact, I have faced people who traced the very stresses on and eventual break-up of their family to financial pressures.
Certainly those pressures have been there financially. Taxes have risen by 1,167% since 1961. In the last ten years, real after-tax income has risen by $21 for the average family. Other statistics say that it now takes twice as many working hours to support a family as it did thirty years ago.
So we have economic stresses on this unit. Individuals work on their own, but there's a unit here in society to which we have to pay attention.
Just to underline that, I brought a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article XVI says:
- The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by
society and the State.
The first is that this unit is fundamental. It is not a trivial item that we're looking at. The family is a fundamental unit of our society.
The second point is that seemingly it is a forgotten unit as far as the choices that are made are concerned. Not a lot of mention is made of the family. Certainly I haven't been able to track down any other bills that relate specifically to taxation on the family.
And it is universal. Some of the things we look at within the guidelines ask about provincial jurisdiction. This is a Canadian icon, I'll say, that goes from coast to coast and should be of great importance across party lines, across borders of provinces, and certainly in every home of this nation.
In government we look at things - children's rights, women's rights, or whatever - within the context of this Parliament, within the context of the next few weeks. Let's take a look at this fundamental unit and see what government taxation is doing to it.
I leave that with you, in support of making this a votable motion in order to spend a bit more time in looking at the importance of family.
I'll be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chair: Mrs. Hayes, you haven't discussed the last little expression here, which says ``...including balancing the federal budget''. Do you want to address that?
.1650
Mrs. Hayes: Again, taxation rolls on in our economy. Certainly we have indications within the budget forecasts and so on that with the spending patterns, as long as we have a deficit, we will not be able to see tax relief.
Of course, with taxation, if families are overtaxed, it means at some point in time tax relief should be part of the discussion as to what the future of our families will be. So when I use those final words ``including balancing the federal budget'', that is part of looking ahead as to what the burden of taxation will be on families.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any other questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois.
Mr. Langlois: I listened very closely to what you had to say. You certainly share your views on the importance that should be placed on the family unit once again. In the past 20 years, the role of the family unit has declined considerably in importance and every effort possible should be made to reverse this situation. The juvenile delinquency rate would probably be much lower if the family unit were valued more and if, instead of thinking very individualistically, we turned our focus to this unit which has had to face too many pressures in Canada. I agree with you on this point.
However, I do have some problems with one particular area and I will close with whatMs Parrish said earlier on. You will no doubt manage to convince me that I am a little wrong about this. You call on the government to balance its budget, on the one hand, and to provide tax relief to families, on the other. If the government balances its budget and decides to give some tax relief to members of the family unit, it will have to look elsewhere for other sources of tax revenue. Where do you suggest it look, if it in fact does move to provide tax relief to families? In other words, you feel that Canada's tax system is poorly designed. If you believe that families bear too great a share of the tax burden, who do you feel is not being sufficiently taxed?
[English]
Mrs. Hayes: Again, I would agree with most of what you have said. We obviously are kindred spirits, in Prince Edward Island talk.
On the question you ask, if you take a close look at the motion, it is to take immediate measures to provide the family with tax relief.
It's true that tax relief may not be immediately available, but an immediate measure would be a determined effort to balance the budget. Without a determination to balance the budget, we will never see tax relief. That is the first step, certainly, in the direction where real tax relief will be seen.
So again, reading this carefully, the first step to real tax relief, in my opinion, and I would think to an economist's opinion, is in that particular item of balancing the federal budget. That would be a first step.
Then perhaps in the debate of the motion itself in the House other measures will come forward, future steps that can be taken and priorities when the budget is balanced. Then we have the choices as to where to put the surplus, where to spend that and how that should be apportioned according to the importance of family and the neglected importance of family in the past. We have to re-establish priorities.
Does that answer your question?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you for your patience.
Mrs. Hayes: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Hill.
Mr. Jay Hill, MP (Prince George - Peace River): Thank you, Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen.
Bill C-218 seeks to reinstate capital punishment in cases of first-degree murder where the convicted is over the age of 18.
In the backgrounder I provided you I get into the eleven criteria, so I don't think it's necessary for me to go through it step by step during the short time I have here.
.1655
I think this bill really hits home on what exactly is the primary purpose of our justice system. To me it's to protect Canadian society. We see a growing clamour from Canadians all across the land for increased penalties for some of the more heinous crimes in our society. That's really the purpose behind bringing forward this bill to reinstate capital punishment.
I feel quite strongly that one hour is insufficient to address this issue properly. Were this bill to be deemed non-votable, it would have only one hour in the House of Commons, and I think there would certainly be grave concern across the nation that such a small amount of time was dedicated to something the majority of Canadians have consistently been calling for for quite some time.
On the issue of the last time or how long it's been since it was debated - I know that's one of the criteria - it's been quite some time since the reinstatement of capital punishment has appeared as a votable item on the floor of the House of Commons. You'll also notice in the background I've provided it gives a history of capital punishment in Canada since 1967: the four times since then, almost thirty years, when this subject has been before the House and the outcome of the votes.
You'll note the last time was June 29, 1987. It was a very narrow vote. The difference was just eleven votes. It would have taken only six members to vote the opposite way to see capital punishment reinstated at that time. I guess it's anybody's question whether it was a really free vote or not at that time.
It's very clearly of national significance, as I've said. It's neither trivial nor insignificant. It cuts across all regions and linguistic and cultural boundaries. As I've said, in poll after poll more than two-thirds of Canadians support the reinstatement of capital punishment. Canadians obviously want it, when 69% clearly say that in the most recent poll.
I might add I asked this question of my constituents about a year ago in a householder and 85% of the constituents in my riding responded to that question indicating they supported the reinstatement of capital punishment.
When it was finally abolished, in 1976, again it was with a very narrow vote. There was a difference of only six votes in the House of Commons.
Clearly it's not on the government's legislative agenda. On a couple of occasions the government has specifically declared that capital punishment is not on its agenda. In my opinion this makes C-218 a very good candidate for votable status. Canadians are asking for it and the only way is through a debate and vote in the House.
On the issue of partisan politics, this is not Reform policy. I should stress that. Our policy clearly states that we favour moral issues, such as capital punishment, abortion, and euthanasia, going to the people as national referenda at the time of an election so every Canadian has to grapple with his or her own conscience and vote accordingly. So it's not Reform policy.
It cuts across party lines. I'm sure if it's deemed votable by your committee people on all sides of the House will be voting either for or against it. Naturally my hope would be that they would be voting the wishes of a majority of their constituents, in the form of a true free vote.
Also in the backgrounder I draw your attention to the Canadian Police Association, which has been calling for a form of discretionary capital penalty for those cases, as I said earlier, of the most heinous crimes in our society.
I'll let it go at that for now. I'll certainly be pleased to try to answer any questions about the bill.
The Chair: The wording of the summary is not necessarily your wording, and I just want you to clarify for me whether you agree with it or not. It says the purpose of this bill is to impose the death penalty in all cases of first-degree murder committed by a person 18 years of age or over. In your description you talk about particularly disgusting crimes such as mass murders and whatever. Do you agree with the wording of this summary or not?
Mr. Hill: Yes.
The Chair: So it's first-degree murder of any kind.
.1700
Mr. Hill: But in practice, there's a very intricate appeal process built into the bill. For example, even if the person convicted chose not to appeal, there would be an automatic appeal. That's the first case.
Secondly, the jury has the right under this bill to recommend clemency to the judge. I strongly suspect that in our society only in the cases of the most heinous crimes would the jury not recommend for clemency - in other words, for life in prison. This bill further states that life in prison should be 25 years without eligibility for parole.
The Chair: Okay. The second part of the summary talks about changes in the length of prison terms that can be imposed on people under the age of 18 who have committed first-degree murder. Can you address that very briefly?
Mr. Hill: The bill breaks it down quite a bit. As you know, under Bill C-37, the Young Offenders Act, in the changes the government brought forward almost two years ago, the penalty for first-degree murder was increased from 5 to 10 years.
This bill would address it further insofar as that those who are 16 and 17 years of age and aren't elevated to adult court would be sentenced to 15 to 25 years, with a minimum period of 10 years. That goes beyond Bill C-37, which requires a minimum of 10 years, but only 6 years would actually be served in confined custody. The remainder would be served in open custody. So it goes beyond that.
Under Bill C-218, a person under the age of 16 committing first-degree murder shall serve 10 to 15 years, of which not less than 7 years would be in custody.
If it were passed it would really send the message to young offenders as well that first-degree murder is not going to be condoned and there are some very severe penalties for it.
The Chair: Thank you.
Do members of the committee have any questions?
Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Hill, I will begin with your last comment about a jury's power to make recommendations. Would you object to a jury, which judges the evidence in a trial by judge and jury, also being allowed to set the sentence, as is the case in several U.S. states? In such instances, after having chosen to convict, the jury decides whether or not to impose the death penalty, instead of merely making a recommendation to a judge. A recommendation can get lost in an administrative or political maze, or it's possible that some persons are able to exert more pressure than others and convince a minister to grant a Royal pardon. Could you live with this?
[English]
Mr. Hill: First of all, the bill does not do that. The bill only allows for the jury to recommend clemency. That's why the bill is worded, as Madam Chair said, that in all cases of first-degree premeditated murder over the age of 18 the sentence shall be the death penalty, except where there are grounds for clemency.
So you're really looking at it in the opposite sense, where the jury sets the sentence, and the bill doesn't do that. I don't particularly favour that myself, if that was your question.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I have a second question. Thank you for giving us a history of the capital punishment votes that have taken place in Canada. The outcome of these votes has always been extremely close. On the one hand, over 60% of the population supports - I'm not questioning your figures - the reinstatement of capital punishment in certain cases. The figure is probably much higher when it comes to heinous crimes. The outcome of the votes in Parliament has always been extremely close.
However, if my memory serves me correctly, the last execution in Canada was carried out on December 6, 1962, that is almost 34 years ago. Have you had an opportunity to verify that this bill is consistent with the criteria set out in section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that no one should be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment? With the adoption of the Charter in 1982, isn't it true that the death penalty is now considered in Canada to be cruel and unusual punishment?
.1705
[English]
Mr. Hill: I don't.
To address your question, I really have to make a number of points.
One is that at this point it's just speculation as to whether it would contravene that part of the charter. I think it would be of concern.
Secondly, with modern technology - and this is in this - the way in which the sentence would be carried out is far different from in the old days, when it was by means of the gallows; in other words, by hanging.
Another point is that some people - and I'm one of those - feel that it is far more cruel to lock someone away in solitary confinement for 25 years. You have to keep them in solitary confinement because you know that they wouldn't last five minutes if they were in the prison yard. We're talking about the cases in which I feel that the death penalty would actually be imposed.
Fourth, the Minister of Justice himself has put forward bills, such as Bill C-104, on DNA testing, that some opponents have suggested would be subject to a charter challenge. I guess the purpose of my appearing before the committee today and in fact looking at its being votable.... To me, that in itself shouldn't negate this bill's going forward as being votable, because even the Minister of Justice has put forward bills that people have speculated might face charter challenges.
In conclusion, I'm quite confident that this would survive a challenge, but I don't have a law degree.
The Chair: Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: I'm fine.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hill.
Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Len Taylor, MP (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Thank you very much for the opportunity to come and present to you today. I'm here to present to you motion 24. It was motion 334 in the last parliament.
It's a simple motion: that, in the opinion of the House, the flag on Parliament Hill be lowered to half mast on April 28 each year to commemorate the national day of mourning for those killed in the workplace, a policy that is permitted under 13(d) of the general rules for flying and displaying the Canadian flag and other flags in Canada.
Most of you will know that just a few years ago it was a private member's bill that made April 28 the national day of mourning for those killed or injured in the workplace. It was a private member's bill that was discussed and debated in Parliament and received the support of the members of the House that today allows us to recognize and mourn those who were injured or killed in the workplace.
This bill tries to take that achievement of Parliament to a point where we can illustrate it visually to the people of Canada. The statement of flying a flag at half mast is a very particular means of expressing our feelings.
After that motion was passed a few years ago, members of Parliament asked that the Parliament Hill flag be flown at half mast. At that time it was suggested that the rules of protocol would not allow that to happen without something extra taking place. In other words, the will of Parliament had to be expressed in order to do that.
The rules of flying the flag are quite simple. It says that flags at federal buildings and other locations are also half-masted subject to special instructions on the death of - in addition to some others - some other person whom it is desired to honour. We interpret ``person'' in the plural, and it is the Parliament of Canada that provides the honour. Therefore, it's very simple that flags could be flown on federal buildings at half mast if Parliament were to express its wishes.
.1710
It requires a vote of members of Parliament for those wishes to be expressed, and to this point, since the original bill was passed in December 1990, governments have not taken the steps to initiate the expression of the will. What I'm asking you to help with today is to make this bill votable so that there is an opportunity for Parliament to express its wish and so that therefore, in honour of those who have died in the workplace, the flag of Canada can be flown at half mast.
I have a multitude of statistics about how many have died, and where they've died and under what circumstances. I'd like to save that for debate. However, if you have some questions along those lines, I'm happy to answer them.
The significance of this, I think, is simply in the fact that Parliament has already expressed its desire to honour these people, and in doing so, we can best honour them visually by half-masting the flag.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any questions? Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: I have one. As you were summing everything up, you mentioned all government buildings. What I read here is the flag on Parliament Hill. Are you talking about all federal buildings across Canada flying it...?
Mr. Taylor: No, I'm sorry. When I talked about all federal buildings, I was referring to the protocol for the flag that essentially applies to all federal buildings. But it's certainly my intention that the flag on Parliament Hill be the one that's lowered to signify Parliament's intentions.
Mr. Stinson: Okay, so it's only the flag here on the Hill.
Mr. Taylor: Yes. I'm glad you asked that. It's simply the protocol that does apply to all federal buildings.
Mr. Stinson: Okay.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Mr. Loney: I'd like to ask one question. That is, in recognition of those who are killed in the workplace, are you talking historically or are you talking for the current year, recognizing those killed in the current year?
Mr. Taylor: Certainly it's an annual celebration now. April 28 is an annual day of mourning for those killed in the workplace, and therefore the first time it flies at half mast it would be considered honouring those who have died prior to that point. To me, then, each time it flies at half mast after that would be for the annual -
Mr. Loney: Extended years.
Mr. Taylor: Yes.
The Chair: Are there any other questions? No.
Thank you very much, and thank you for waiting patiently.
Mr. Wappel, you're last but not least. I don't know if with that tie you should be allowed to....
Mr. Tom Wappel, MP (Scarborough West): Well, my name begins with W, so I'm certainly used to being last. It's not a problem.
The tie is a gift from my staff, and I honour them in wearing it.
Madam Chair, members of the committee, imagine a country where serial killers, child rapists, murderers and violent criminals can from their jail cells write the stories of their crimes, sell the books to the citizens of the country within which they wreaked such havoc, and bank the money anywhere in the world. Imagine a country where these criminals can collaborate with movie producers, sell the stories of their crimes, be technical advisers to the creation of the movies of their infamous activities, and bank their ill-gotten profits anywhere in the world. It is sad but true that that country is Canada.
This is despite the fact that the common law of our country has held for centuries that a criminal may not profit from his or her crime. That is why a person who murders their spouse cannot collect the victim's life insurance even as the named beneficiary, but should the murderer write a book about his or her crime and make a profit from its sale, surely that is as much profiting from the crime as collecting the insurance. Yet there is no prohibition of this in Canadian law.
A few might argue that these miscreants have a right under our charter to sell their stories in whatever form and pocket the profits. The vast majority of Canadians, myself included, do not share this view.
.1715
How can we prevent such a perversion of the most fundamental principles of crime and punishment, indeed, of justice? My private member's bill, Bill C-205, is an attempt to ensure that no criminal may profit from writing about or selling the story of his or her sordid activities.
The idea was born in the summer of 1993, when I read a news report that Karla Homolka was reported to be considering selling her story for a profit. If Homolka could consider it, why not Paul Bernardo himself, Clifford Olson, Denis Lortie, or the torturer-murderers of Toronto's shoeshine boy, Emmanuel Jack? I consulted with friends in the legal community in the justice, copyright and trademark fields, and the result is Bill C-205.
On what principles is it based? It is based on two, really. First, no criminal should ever profit from telling the story of his or her crimes. Second, criminals need not be prevented from telling the story, provided they do not profit from the telling.
In a nutshell, the bill includes, in the Criminal Code definition of proceeds of crime, any profit or benefit gained by a person or his family from the creation of a work based on the indictable offence for which the person was convicted. Thus, we would be able to seize such profits under the current Criminal Code provisions dealing with proceeds of crime. This is clearly criminal law jurisdiction under our Constitution.
But this alone does not help us if a criminal sells his or her story to a movie producer in the U.S., for example, who deposits the criminal's payment into a Swiss bank account.
In order to capture this possibility, my bill amends the Copyright Act, which is also clearly federal jurisdiction under our Constitution, as well as the Criminal Code, to first provide that the sentence for an indictable offence be deemed to include an order that any work based on the offence be subject to a new section in the Copyright Act; and second, to provide in that new section that in such a work the copyright that would otherwise belong to the convicted person become and remain the property of the Crown forever.
This would permit Canada to bring action in any country of the world that is a signatory to the Berne Copyright Convention to enforce its rights, including seizure of funds paid to the criminal or injunctions to halt the sale of books, movies, videos or that type of thing.
Madam Chair, I want to repeat that my bill would not prevent a criminal from creating a work or collaborating on a work about the offence, but it would prevent the criminal from profiting from that creation.
Why should this committee deem my bill votable, thus permitting it up to three hours of debate, a vote, and at least the possibility that it would be referred to the justice committee for in-depth study, including the hearing of witnesses?
I submit that Bill C-205 meets the test of criteria for selection for the following reasons. First, it deals with matters of national significance. Second, it is not trivial or insignificant. Third, it is not contrary to current law or the charter and would not require significant amendment. Fourth, the subject is completely different from specific matters already declared by the government to be on its legislative agenda. Fifth, the subject matter has not been considered in the 35th Parliament or, indeed, the 34th Parliament. Sixth and finally, this bill does not deal with partisan subject matter.
Indeed, it is supported by many non-partisan organizations including, but not limited to, the Canadian Police Association; the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime; Families Against Crime Today and Violence Against Children; Citizens United for Safety and Justice; Victims For Justice; Emotional Support for Victims of Violence and Their Family; CAVEAT, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination; and Canadians Taking Action Against Violence.
Therefore, Madam Chair, for the foregoing reasons I respectfully urge this committee to deem Bill C-205 a votable bill and allow Canadians the opportunity to ensure that no one makes a dime from committing a crime.
I have a package of material here for the members of the committee, including background notes and that sort of thing, and also a package for the clerk of the committee, which I would be happy to distribute. It's quite thick. It shows, among other things, the news reports wherein Karla Homolka was reported to be fishing for a deal to sell her story. There are various other pieces of information there that might help you in your deliberations.
.1720
Mr. Stinson: This might sound a little bit strange, but Clifford Olson made $100,000 by showing the police where the bodies were. I've talked to some of the parents of the victims, and some of them figure that this was money well spent in order to get these bodies returned. Would this in any way fall into that category?
Mr. Wappel: No, because he was not given the money for the creation of a work about the crimes. He was given money for information leading to the solving of the crime. That's a police matter under the jurisdiction of the RCMP and, ultimately, the Solicitor General. So this bill would not affect police investigations or that sort of thing.
It's talking about a situation, speaking of Clifford Olson, in which he publicly announced that he was going to write a book about the murders that he committed and put it on the public market and hopefully make some money on it from his point of view and put that money into the bank for whenever he would be released.
Mr. Stinson: Good. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I want to thank the member for Scarborough West for his presentation. As is almost always the case, it was extremely clear, eloquent and well-researched. I look forward to reading the background material later on.
I only have one wish, Mr. Wappel, and that is that you become a full member of the Justice and Legal Affairs committee, that is if the committee examines your bill. Thank you.
Mr. Wappel: Only almost always?
Mr. Langlois: Almost always.
[English]
Mr. Loney: Have you considered if the accused were to direct that any profits accrued would be given to the family of the victim?
Mr. Wappel: If I may say so, that's one of the nice things about this bill. With the copyright being in the Crown, any book could in fact be sold, and the moneys would be owned by the Crown and not by the criminal. Of course the government could easily pass legislation to say that any profits that accrued from such a work could be distributed to victims, to families, and that sort of thing.
Mr. Loney: There'd be no preclusion?
Mr. Wappel: None whatsoever. The only preclusion would be that the criminal or his family would not be able to benefit.
The Chair: So you're not designating it to pay down the deficit?
Mr. Wappel: No. There's no hidden, final clause there about that.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: This time around, I will ask you a lawyer's question. If you were Bernardo's or any other accused's attorney, given the privileged information that you might have and released from your professional oath of secrecy by the person found guilty, you could, even with this bill, write a book or take part in a video and reap all of the profits as an attorney. Don't you find this a little unfair to those who are not lucky enough to be lawyers in this country?
[English]
Mr. Wappel: The possibility exists that with the client's permission the lawyer could in fact profit. However, the lawyer did not commit a crime from which he or she would be profiting. The lawyer would merely be telling the story. If Canadians or anybody else chooses to buy such a book, I guess that's freedom in our country to express oneself.
The position I take is that I'm not trying to ban anybody from telling a story; I'm trying to prevent the criminal from making any money, furthering the crime. If a lawyer or a crown prosecutor wrote a story about it - for example, the book on Charles Manson by the prosecutor - this bill would have no effect whatsoever on that. Whether anybody would buy such a book would be determined by the marketplace.
Mr. Loney: Then the criminal could hire a ghost writer.
Mr. Wappel: No, because any ownership in a collaboration or anything like that would be owned by the Crown. So if the lawyer, for example, had a deal that some money would be skimmed over to the criminal, that would in effect be going against the Crown's copyright in the criminal's portion of that. The criminal could collaborate with a lawyer but could not in any way take any profit.
.1725
The Chair: Do you know what's interesting? With legal aid going belly-up, you could write off your legal bills this way. So you'd have to make sure this wasn't in there either. You'd have to give that some consideration in the debate.
Mr. Wappel: We could always make a minor amendment at the justice committee.
The Chair: I think we might have to.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Wappel: Thank you very much.
The Chair: As far as the committee is concerned, Mr. Stinson, Mr. Langlois and Mr. Loney, what I want to do is talk to the whip tomorrow to see if we can get some sort of resolution. Could we try to get here as soon as possible after Question Period tomorrow? We're due to start at 3:30 p.m., and if the whip has to explain anything or if we have to go through any procedures with him, we can give him ten minutes before we get started.
The ultimate objective is to be as fair as possible. Based on the presentations we've had today, we're going to have a hard enough time picking from those we already have.
Mr. Stinson: Yes, it's going to be rough.
The Chair: Yes, this has been very good.
Mr. Stinson: I hope to see all these good ones come up at the same time.
The Chair: We can just throw our hands up and say we'll pick them all.
Mr. Stinson: Yes.
The Chair: Okay, so I'll see everybody here at about 3:20 p.m. tomorrow if you can make it. If I don't have the whip here, I'll at least have a pronouncement from the whip. Hopefully he'll deal with the other two whips as well so that they come in with a unified pronouncement.
The meeting is adjourned.