[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, March 13, 1996
.1536 
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting to order.
We have managed to fit in everyone but Mr. Gouk, who is either not in the country at this time or is in the Maritimes. Rather than hold the whole process up, we're waiting to hear from Mr. Boudria, who is consulting with your whips at this time. It remains that it's only one person. As we get to that bill, though, I have some serious reservations as to whether or not it would be relevant in terms of being votable. If we could just listen to everybody today, this thing may solve itself by the end of the session.
Luckily, Mr. Stinson won't yell at you, Mr. Breitkreuz.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz, MP (Yorkton - Melville): I don't know.
The Chair: Your job is to mellow him out through this presentation, please.
You have five minutes to present to the committee, and then there will be questions asked by various members of the committee.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to appear before this committee.
The motion I'm bringing to you with the hope that it will be deemed votable states:
- ...in the opinion of this House, the government should enact legislation which would require
that a binding, national referendum be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians
whether or not they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on demand.
I'll go through the eleven points that you use when you select the items that are to be votable. I've reviewed those eleven items and I am quite certain that my bill meets all of those tests, although I'm not going to go through all of them.
Number one says private members' bills or motions should be of national, regional or local significance, highly contentious or non-controversial, and to be selected as votable items, motions or bills must not be trivial or insignificant. Motion 91, which I'm putting forward, is not trivial or insignificant. We're debating whether or not voters have the right to direct their federal government health care funding to medical procedures they think are most essential and of the highest priority. We're debating whether or not Parliament should decide for the people or whether the people have the right to decide for themselves.
.1540
In the 1991 provincial election in Saskatchewan, two-thirds of the voters held a plebiscite during the time of the election to de-insure funding for abortions. Two-thirds of them said that it should be defunded. A January 1995 poll conducted in Alberta produced a similar result, with 73% of women and 69% of men opting for defunding of abortions.
We're talking about approximately 100,000 therapeutic abortions being performed each year in Canada. About 70,000 abortions are performed in hospitals at a cost of about $500 each or $35 million per year. Another 30,000 abortions are performed in free-standing clinics at a cost of about $250 each or $7.5 million. Physicians' fees were calculated in 1992-93 to be $9.1 million.
As to point two, it does not discriminate in favour of or against a certain area or region.
On point three, it does not deal with electoral boundaries or constituency names.
I'll comment on point four a little more. It does not require an obvious amendment nor is this motion redundant with the law, because the people have never, ever been given an opportunity to vote in a national referendum on this important issue. Motion 91 is not fundamentally ineffective to implement its own intent, nor do I believe is it unclear in its meaning or defective in its drafting.
My motion does not propose a wording for the question on the ballot; I am not doing that. It proposes only that the question be placed on a ballot at the time of the next election.
On point five, it's very different from specific matters already declared by the government to be on its legislative agenda. To my knowledge, it has not appeared before the House before. This is a completely new item.
As to point seven, I believe it's the best way to deal with it. It's a very controversial matter. Any time you have a referendum, the information all comes out into the public domain and then is discussed thoroughly.
It allows members of Parliament to express their personal views on a private member's bill. I think the best way to deal with this issue is through a private member's bill. It is not partisan. It doesn't belong to any one political party. It does not use language...nor could it have the effect of violating the spirit of the reform of private members' business.
The last main point I'd like to make is in regard to point nine. It's not clearly unconstitutional that they infringe upon provincial legislative authority, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or any other entrenched constitutional rules. It does not contravene any of those. In fact, I would like to say that I think it would diffuse the concern that is out there now that one province is going to be pitted against another in regard to this issue, because it is already coming up in the provinces and I think it would be good to deal with this here.
As to points ten and eleven, it does not relate to any question that's substantially the same as any question before the House, and it's not the same question contained in any other votable item in this session.
That's my presentation, and I hope you will accept my bill as being an important one that needs to be voted on.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson (Okanagan - Shuswap): You say here ``abortions on demand''. Could you define that a little bit? Are you talking about all abortions?
Mr. Breitkreuz: No. There are certain abortions that would not be regarded as a matter of choice. I'm not referring to those. I am simply referring to abortions that are an option. If the mother's life is at risk or anything like that, I am not referring to that.
Mr. Stinson: How would you go about doing a referendum on this? Have you given any...?
Mr. Breitkreuz: That's not part of the motion. The referendum and the question that would be on the referendum ballot would have to be decided by the members of Parliament. I am simply asking whether or not the members of this House of Commons would be willing to put that question to the people of Canada. Then we would probably have to have some kind of committee struck to do that if it was deemed accepted to the members of Parliament.
The Chair: Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I have a question for you concerning the constitutionality of the ninth test. You mention a binding referendum. In English, it's clearer: binding national referendum. Our courts already ruled on this in 1919 in the case of The Initiative and Referendum Act and stated that there could not be any binding referendum, because all referendums were necessarily consultative because otherwise, we would infringe upon Her Majesty's authority to have submitted to her bills from the elected and unelected Houses of the federal Parliament.
.1545
I would like you to explain the meaning of the word "binding" to me. Is it morally binding or legally binding? I think there would be a problem if we added the word "legally".
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz: I was sure that as the members of Parliament debated this question, all of these things would come out. It's not my intention here now to define all of these things in law. I hope that the three hours of debate that would take place would define a lot of these issues.
I think it would be as binding as the Charlottetown accord. I think the government would then be obligated to follow up on this. I don't think it's anything that the courts could then rule against. If the people of Canada clearly said this, then I think the government, in my own opinion, would have a moral obligation to follow through on this.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I would like to bring up the merit of the question, Mr. Breitkreuz. I think it's normal to do so. You mention abortion on demand. If I understand correctly, in reading the wording of the question, you do not support free choice as far as abortion is concerned, and it's your right to hold that opinion.
But in carrying your motion, would we not create two categories of Canadian women, those who have the necessary resources, who live in urban areas and who could make use of the free access to abortion recognized by our courts in the Morgentaler and Borowski rulings and the other Canadian women, who live outside urban areas, in provinces where provincial governments are much more reluctant, if not squarely opposed to implementing our courts decisions? Don't you see that this could lead to a problem of putting Canadian women in different categories?
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz: The intention of my bill is not to get into that discussion. I emphasize again that this would be a referendum on the funding of it, not whether or not it was ``choice''.
You said that I believed in - I'm not sure what - ``choice'' or ``pro-life'' or whatever. I'm not in either of those camps in regard to this referendum. This is a referendum to have the people choose, not to start getting into the various issues as to whether you do or do not believe in abortion. That's not my intention.
My intention here is to ask the people of Canada whether or not they are in favour of public funding for abortion on demand. Do you see the intent? I don't want to get into a discussion on whether or not I believe in abortion.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Breitkreuz, I don't want to enter into this discussion at all. I just want to emphasize that carrying this motion would be a first step towards the goal of outright breaking the rule of universality and accessibility to all types of health care, be it in the case of the flu, cancer, heart disease or an abortion, and that a health service would be de-insured if your motion was carried. That is the only point that I wanted to bring up. I know there are two schools of thought in Canada and that you probably belong to one of them, and others to...
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz: I appreciate what you're saying. This is all a matter that would have to be debated during the referendum campaign. This is not something that I think should be simply debated in Parliament.
We already know that some of the health care funding is at risk. I think this may be something that would allow people to debate what they would like or not like to be included in health care. I'm sure it would end up being a much broader debate possibly than just abortion funding.
I think that debate should be held publicly. My bill would give an opportunity for the entire debate to take place as to what you think is a necessary medical procedure and what isn't. It may not just be in regard to abortion on demand. It may go further, and I think it would be a very healthy thing for the government to have that kind of discussion Canada-wide.
The Chair: Mr. Loney doesn't have any questions. I thank you very much for coming.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Stinson was next on the order. He's willing to wait till the end, because he's stuck here with us for hours anyway.
.1550
Mr. Cannis is next.
Welcome, John. You have five minutes for your presentation. Don't rush, because then we take as much time as we need to ask questions.
Mr. John Cannis, MP (Scarborough Centre): Thank you for the opportunity. This is my first time presenting myself and my motion, so I appreciate your help in this as well.
My motion is on immigration consultants. My main objective with this motion is to inform the House and the people that problems exist in the immigration consultancy industry, which, as we all know, has really exploded in the last several years.
Primarily because of the willingness to trust and a poor understanding of Canada's immigration laws, new immigrants and people wishing to immigrate are being taken advantage of by immigration consultants. A large majority of these consultants charge exorbitant fees to assist immigrants or potential immigrants to gain access to Canada...and also individuals who wish to sponsor their relatives to come to Canada. Many of these consultants have no training or expertise in the immigration process. They make claims to new immigrants on which they cannot deliver. In some cases an immigrant's total savings are wiped out by these consultants. In most cases the advice given is common knowledge and can easily be obtained, at no charge, from the immigration offices.
As the system stands now, there are no requirements for licensing, no bonding prerequisites, and no rules and regulations that govern this specific industry. Not only are immigrants being defrauded of their savings and receiving no real assistance, but the immigration system is being manipulated both here and abroad.
I've heard of several cases where thousands of dollars have been paid to immigration consultants, who have made promises that they could speed up the process or simplify the entire process for new arrivals or individuals living in our country who are in the process of trying to obtain status. In some cases I've heard of people being deported or having access denied even after having given their total savings to these consultants.
One example I can give you is that of one specific family that was in Canada for six and a half to seven years. They were from a country that...we would not classify them as refugees. For years the family were led to believe that their application would be approved, at a cost of close to $10,000. The end result was that they were asked to leave, which of course they did.
I've heard of another case in which individuals had established a business and were working and were able to secure drivers' licences, OHIP cards, etc., to no avail. The charge was something like $1,000 for a letter.
I also find it quite unacceptable because some of these consultants end up by guiding their clients to MPs' offices, leading them to believe that the MP can solve their problems, can go to bat for them, and that it's in the MP's power to overturn decisions made by the Department of Immigration. Of course additional pressure is put on the MP's office, him or her and the staff, even continuously to lobby the minister directly, in most cases to no avail.
I come from the private sector. I believe that guidelines should be established, that there should be rules and regulations, that there should be things such as fee schedules, and that there should be a clear understanding by an individual of exactly what he is getting into when he approaches an immigration consultant. I find it is unacceptable in today's environment. When we visit a dentist, for example, we know exactly what the charge will be for the service he will provide.
.1555
I know we're touching upon provincial jurisdictions here as well, but I firmly believe that, because immigration is a federal jurisdiction, we can work with the provinces to make sure that those wishing to undertake to represent people are guided by specific rules and regulations, and bonded at the same time, so there is some protection for this client.
I was happy to see in the Montreal Gazette, dated November 28, 1995, that one of the reports that came from the committee recommended rules and regulations be brought forth. Indeed, it was long overdue. The Toronto Star, on December 6, under ``Darts and Laurels'', also commended the committee for its work and the fact that it is looking at and possibly proposing rules and regulations that would oversee this specific industry.
That kind of sums it up. I have brought some packages with me that I would like to pass around that give you a much more in-depth description, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any questions? Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: I just wish we had received these copies before your presentation.
I find it hard to believe there's no law governing these consultants at all, provincially, federally or through the Law Society of Upper Canada. Has the Law Society not raised this issue?
Mr. Cannis: I think it pertains more to the licensing bureau for any individual who wishes to establish a business than to the Law Society.
In my private life I operated an employment agency and we were guided by the Ministry of Labour. There were specific guidelines we had to adhere to. Each year we had to pay a renewal fee for our licence. We were always available to allow the ministry to view our records to make sure we kept within those guidelines. If there was any misrepresentation, our licence could have been stricken from the wall, forbidding us from operating.
We were given specific guidelines as to how we could advertise. A lot of advertising takes place in this industry and it is very misleading, again, because there are no set guidelines.
Mr. Stinson: Are all provinces set up the same way? Do any provinces have guidelines with regard to these consultants?
Mr. Cannis: To the best of my knowledge, no province has any set guidelines to monitor the immigration consulting industry. It is a problem that not only occurs here, if I may say, Madam Chair, but also outside Canada. I think we are all aware of that. I would like to take just one moment to elaborate.
Individuals apply to come to our country and, of course, they are literally guided, if I may say so, in how to, when to, and what responses to make. When they arrive on our shores the process unfolds and they visit an immigration consultant. He or she know the ins and outs of the industry and how to create stumbling blocks. An individual may eventually be deported six or eight years down the road, when in essence this could have been addressed within a year or two. Of course, we all understand the costs we incur and what we could save along the way.
I think for this licensing aspect we could maybe expedite that process and have a tremendous saving as well.
The Chair: Mr. Loney.
Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): Mr. Cannis, with reference to the article in the Montreal Gazette of November 28 entitled ``MPs' report urges regulation on immigration and zones'', I believe that involved a group of immigration lawyers from Toronto who were appearing before the subcommittee on diminishing returns. Am I right?
Mr. Cannis: That's correct.
Mr. Loney: What has become of that? Has there been any action on that since then?
Mr. Cannis: There has been nothing specific. That is why I think we have to take it to the next level.
.1600
I think the lawyers who have worked on immigration cases are certainly a cut above the average individual. Today, John Smith can just decide he wants to be an immigration consultant. These people who are applying are sometimes desperate people who reach out through a local newspaper. Once you're inside the door, this consultant can eventually guide you to the lawyer. He acts as the go-between, but little does the person know he can go directly to the lawyer.
Mr. Loney: Or to a member of Parliament.
Mr. Cannis: Or to a member of Parliament. I view my position as that of a member of Parliament; I'm not an immigration consultant. People have come to our offices and we have guided them to the immigration offices.
I have one specific example to put to you, if I may. An individual had his mother living with him here in Canada. He was within his rights to sponsor his mother. He visited an immigration consultant who indicated it would cost him about $5,000 to complete the process. In reality - and we guided him toward this - he only had to go to the immigration office, get the application and fill out the information. I'm happy to say that as of today he has done so, saving himself $5,000. Of course, there are fees everyone has to pay, but it certainly should not cost $5,000.
We do the best we can, through our offices, to help them, but there are many cases where there is abuse beyond words.
Mr. Loney: Personally, I have worked on several cases where they've gone through the process of paying $1,000 or $1,500 to so-called immigration consultants and they have failed. Then they have come to me, as a member of Parliament, and, luckily for the persons involved, we were able to complete the cases for them. But they blew $1,500, which they paid out in this one case.
Mr. Cannis: There is also pressure that is put on members of Parliament. Like yourself, I've had people come in. My response is to ask them to have their consultants call me, but ten times out of ten they do not call. Obviously they know what they're going to be confronted with.
They act as go-betweens. I have nothing against that, to tell you the truth, provided they help make the process more transparent. The individuals seeking help, as I said earlier, should have fee schedules for whatever services they are going to receive and some assurances - no guarantees, mind you - of what exactly the consultants will undertake on their behalf. If it's just to set up a meeting with the member of Parliament, surely that is unacceptable.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Langlois, do you have any questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: No, it was quite clear. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Cannis.
Mr. Blaikie.
Mr. Bill Blaikie, MP (Winnipeg Transcona): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I don't have an awful lot to say. I'm familiar with the process. In fact, I was part of the committee that recommended private members' bills go through this procedure.
At one time, after this procedure was established by the acceptance of the recommendations of the McGrath committee, there was a standing committee on private members' business, which met for the sole purpose of considering which private members' bills would be selected as votable. I served on that committee for the duration of its existence, until it was merged into another committee, at a time when committees were rationalized. I say all of this by way of wanting to claim that I think my motion with respect to child labour fits well the criteria that were established for selecting motions that could be deemed to be votable.
I think some of the criteria we established may still exist somewhere. Motions should not be particularly regional in nature so there is no opportunity to set up one region against another in a particular motion. Motions should not be partisan. They should not be something the House has recently divided on or that the House could reasonably be expected to divide on in the near future. Motions should not be unconstitutional. The concern in this respect was particularly with respect to bills, whereas I suppose motions can be as unconstitutional as they like because they're non-binding motions. On the face of it, motions and bills should not be inadequate or contain some error of fact or other legislative problem within them as they stand.
.1605
Having said all that, I think the whole issue of child labour is something that is topical. It's become more topical than ever as the result of the work of the young man from Toronto, Craig Kielburger, who, as we all know, tagged along - I don't think ``accompanied'' is the right word - with the Prime Minister on his recent trip to Asia, trying to raise with the Prime Minister the question of child labour. He did meet with the Prime Minister.
Subsequent to that particular incident, there was a commitment made by the government in the throne speech, and I quote:
- In keeping with its commitment to advancing human rights and dignity, the Government will
make the rights of children a Canadian priority and seek an international consensus to eliminate
exploitative child labour.
If this motion were to be debated and voted on and passed, I think it would create a situation that would be useful to everyone, particularly the government, in terms of trying to build that international consensus. Even though I'm from the opposition, I would like to see the government, when it's trying to build that international consensus, say that it's speaking not just with the authority of its own agenda, but with the authority of Parliament as expressed around this particular motion.
So in all those respects I think it would be a useful opportunity for Parliament to express itself on this particular issue. It could be useful to the government in building a certain kind of momentum around this issue, and I think it fits the kind of thing we were looking for way back when, when we were looking for motions and bills that might come to a vote.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.
Are there any questions? Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: I'll have to plead a little bit of ignorance here, Bill. You have in your motion ``as defined under International Labour Organization conventions''.
Mr. Blaikie: Yes. That's the ILO, the International Labour Organization, which is headquartered in Geneva and which the Government of Canada belongs to, is a signatory to, and sends representatives to. We put that in the motion simply because we didn't want some arbitrary definition of child labour, but one that was internationally accepted.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Thank you very much.
Mr. Blaikie: Thank you.
Madam Chair, what timetable is the committee on? When will you be making a decision?
The Chair: We're going to try this evening because we have to go to procedures tomorrow morning with some recommendation. We'll do our best to make some decisions this evening.
Mr. Shepherd. Welcome, Alex.
Mr. Alex Shepherd, MP (Durham): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
The Chair: You have five minutes to say whatever you want, and then we're going to grill you.
Mr. Shepherd: Okay. I believe I've given all the members handouts of what I'm going to read here.
.1610
Madam Chair, committee members, I am pleased to be before you today to present my private member's bill on a taxpayers' bill of rights. I introduced this bill in Parliament well over a year ago, and since that time I have had requests from Alberta to the Maritimes to do radio talk shows and other forms of commentary regarding the concept of the bill. I am happy to say the bill has wide acceptance among the populace and has attracted a broad base of interest.
What is a taxpayers' bill of rights and why is it important that the House debate this at this time? Let me say that no one would want to defend the right of tax cheaters and evaders, and, generally speaking, those who work for Revenue Canada are fair and diligent in their conduct.
I have here with me today the Income Tax Act, as voluminous as it is. These sections here in particular are sections that deal with the ability of Revenue Canada to seize property, chattel, to garnishee bank accounts, to call on third-party payments, to seize accounts receivable, etc. These powers have gradually increased over the years and have been focused in the hands of the bureaucracy. In addition, as Canada's tax rates have spiralled, more and more demands have been put on Revenue Canada to collect the maximum from the system.
Remember that Canada's personal income taxes are the second highest, behind only France, among the OECD countries. This pressure will often lead to overzealous actions on the part of Revenue officials. In my former life I practised as a chartered accountant. I can assure you that while these actions were not perhaps common, they were also not rare.
The bill does not mitigate the power of Revenue Canada, but it creates a taxpayer's ombudsman who would act as an intermediary in dispute resolution in order to ensure that the department is acting fairly with the general public. I suggest that the office can be run out of the existing budget allocation of the department.
In the case of audits and other investigations, it mandates a process for completion where the taxpayer is not at fault in slowing down the process. Many taxpayers have had their lives and indeed, in some cases, their businesses in limbo for years before audits are completed by Revenue Canada.
Madam Chair, we often hear that Canadians believe the taxation system is too complex and incomprehensible. I believe this occurs partly because of continuous and random changes to the system. These bureaucratic changes to the act create a barrage of paper and bewilderment among the general public.
My bill would limit amendments to the act to affect up to only 1% of taxpayers per amendment, and cumulative amendments could only affect up to 3% of taxpayers annually. Major amendments would only occur every ten years. I believe that if taxpayers were given this degree of certainty, they could adequately plan their affairs and indeed gain a familiarity with the system itself. We would need less tax advisers and there would be less expense to the general public.
The bill also restricts the ability of Revenue Canada to force the disposal of final residences of seniors over the age of 60. Many of us have heard the horror stories of widows being forced to sell their own residences to pay the income tax debts left by the demise of their spouses. This bill would restrict Revenue Canada until the earlier of an actual sale or the demise of the final spouse. It does not restrict the ability of the department to hypothecate the property.
Finally, the act provides for compensation of up to a maximum of $50,000 for wrongfully treated taxpayers. This would provide for out-of-pocket expenses.
Why would we need this? I would like to use a specific example that occurred and involved one of my constituents.
Jane - not her real name - was a hard-working, single parent of two teenage children. She did not draw welfare, even though financially she would have been better off. She worked part-time as a cash register operator in a local grocery store. She had some slight history of heart problems, even though she was only 45 years old. She had her life completely in balance: post-dated cheques for her car insurance, telephone bills, rent, etc. She ran into the common problem of taxation on her child support payments, which she originally had not budgeted for, but she came to terms with Revenue Canada and paid this off by making monthly payments. This relationship had been going on for two years and she was slowly paying off her indebtedness. She went through two collection officers who recognized her situation, and was paying as agreed. But then a third collection officer came onto the scene - and let me say that it is not uncommon for some upwardly mobile people to make waves within the department. In early December 1995, without notice, he seized her bank account, which netted him a sum total of $94.
.1615
Jane was not a strong person. The assault on her dignity and watching her cheques bounce at the bank, which was charging her $25 per cheque, was too much for her. She had a heart attack and was off work for two weeks, during which she did not get paid. As a result, she could not buy Christmas presents for her family, and I had to direct her to a local food bank to get a Christmas turkey.
The department finally admitted it was wrong, but this did not reverse the hurt. It reimbursed her for the $800 in lost wages and other expenses. You have many cases like this in your own ridings.
In closing, let me say that I have here one of many court cases, Colin McPhail v. Her Majesty the Queen, which was tried in the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, on January 28, 1996, and which notes onerous activities of Revenue Canada. These types of trials would be unnecessary with a taxpayers' bill of rights.
I have given you articles that I have written. The first is an article that will be published this month by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation; the second was published in August 1995, in CA Magazine; and the final one was published in the summer of 1995 in The Canadian Parliamentary Review.
Finally, the United Kingdom has a taxpayers' ombudsman and the United States has a taxpayers' bill of rights, which was first enacted in 1988 and was recently strengthened. Canada is silent on this issue; thus I believe this bill is timely, appropriate and long overdue for debate in the House.
The Chair: Thank you, Alex.
Are there any questions?
Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I haven't read your bill in its entirety. Would it allow the taxpayer's ombudsman to make recommendations to the government so that cases be dealt with inequity as opposed to the strict rules of law, which might lead to injustice for the taxpayer?
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: The concept of reporting by the ombudsman is for him to report on an annual basis to Parliament, basically documenting areas of problems that have existed within the administration and suggesting changes to the system that could address them.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: If I understand correctly, the taxpayer's ombudsman would not be a person to appeal to if the tax review court had ruled against a taxpayer. That taxpayer could not say: "I have lost in law, but in equity, I would ask the taxpayer's ombudsman to make a recommendation", as is done in Quebec, where the ombudsman sometimes recommends to the government to proceed in equity rather than adhering to the strict rules of law.
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: Yes. I think if you read the bill, it actually talks about how the tax department would conduct itself in dealing with audit situations. It's more of an administration of the system rather than a specific reinterpretation of the law. In other words, it is really talking about how you exercise the powers that exist under the Income Tax Act, and specifically some of those areas that revolve around seizures and some of those negative things that are there for collection purposes.
The problem is that when you have a big envelope like the one Revenue Canada has over the whole country, invariably some of the wrong fish get caught in the net. I think that's basically what this legislation is attempting to deal with: what do we have as a recourse for, say, the Janes of this world who obviously can't afford a lawyer? Some kind of a redress to the normal system will be able to appeal this to an ombudsman, who would review the case and presumably question whether the enforcement mechanisms undertaken by Revenue Canada are fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: At clause 2 of the bill, there seems to be a difference between the English and French versions. In the English version, it is stated that the person who is appointed is so by the Governor General under the great seal of Canada "on the recommendation of the Senate and the House of Commons". Therefore, there should be a recommendation. In the French version, it is stated that the person is appointed after consultation and not on the recommendation of the House of Commons and the Senate.
According to you, should the appointment be made with the consent of the House of Commons and the Senate or after consultation with the House of Commons and the Senate?
.1620
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: I presume it would be after the consultation with the Senate and the House of Commons.
Mr. Langlois: You can consult with the House and have negative advice and proceed with the nomination, but with the English version you just can't do that. You must have a recommendation from both Houses. Maybe it's too semantic, but I'm asking the question.
Mr. Shepherd: Quite frankly, I'll have to take that under advisement and clarify it for you. I'm not exactly certain of the concern there.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Perhaps the interpreters could help me. Do you see a difference in French between "sur la recommandation du Sénat et de la Chambre" and "consultation"? Since I'm told there is a slight difference of meaning, I would just like to raise the matter.
Thank you, Mr. Shepherd, and thanks to the interpreters as well.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Loney.
Mr. Loney: Mr. Shepherd, I'll quote from page 2 of your presentation:
- My bill would limit amendments to the act to affect up to only 1% of taxpayers per amendment,
and cumulative amendments could only affect up to 3% of all taxpayers annually. Major
amendments would only occur every ten years.
Mr. Shepherd: The bottom line is that uncertainty is being created by government. I think we would gain a great degree of certainty within our economy if people understood what the rules were and had some kind of feeling of consistency of what they're going to be, say within the next ten years.
I guess basically what I'm saying is that rather than have a tremendous randomness within the tax collection system, we should have some degree of certainty. In some real ways we do this now. Generally speaking, it is a thought process that we usually get major tax reform on a ten-year basis, although that's not written in cement anywhere so it depends on how that falls out. The concept is that there's some degree of certainty for taxpayers. If people could understand at least what their marginal rates....
I'll give you an example. Today, individuals are seeing 92% of their disposable incomes being allocated to debt servicing after taxes. People live in a degree of uncertainty of what the income tax system is, generally speaking. I'm saying that we could at least give these people some kind of signal. We're not saying that we're never going to eliminate your taxes, but we're saying that within a certain regime we're going to allow you to be able to understand a little bit better.
This is a whole roller coaster that people have to live in their lives, and part of it is the Income Tax Act. We don't know what you're going to do to us next year or the year after that. Actually, a lot of small businesses will tell you that they can notice people stop purchasing, stop consumption, two months before a budget because they have no idea what the impact of that system is going to be on their common lives. I think it would help if we had some legislation in place that at least gave them some degree of certainty.
In addition, the other side of it is that people feel so negative about the income tax system itself because they believe and are led to believe that this is a very onerous and time-consuming problem that people just can't understand. One of the reasons they can't understand it is that people manipulate it almost on a weekly basis, changing the administrative practices and the laws that go through here.
I can remember that when I practised, every week I would get a stack of amendments to the Income Tax Act this thick. The problem is that when you create that degree of uncertainty and randomness in legislation, nobody's going to understand it, including all the tax experts.
.1625
Why do we have all these amendments? Are they necessary? I suspect that if you put a framework around it and said, ``No, you can't do it'', or, ``You're going to have to reserve your major amendments for a ten-year period'', then we would get a degree of clarity out of the existing system that we don't have today.
The Chair: Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: No questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Alex.
Dale Johnston, you have five minutes to do your presentation.
Mr. Dale Johnston, MP (Wetaskiwin): I am sure that will be ample time.
My motion is M-154: that in the opinion of this House the government should support the right of all job applicants to be evaluated solely on the basis of merit.
Let me begin by saying that I believe in equity. Equity is a very admirable quality to seek and I support it fully.
As the Reform Party critic for labour issues, I have had the opportunity to meet with management and workers in federally regulated sectors who have told me that they don't want hiring quotas. Workers want to compete on a level playing field where they have an opportunity for advancement based on their knowledge, ability, and merit. Management want to have the best-qualified people to fill jobs in their organizations.
Operating a business in today's economic climate is difficult enough without the added burden of government regulations dictating whom you can employ.
Employment competition based on merit principles is the key to both equality and productivity.
Bill C-64, as passed in the House during the last session, was touted as a guarantee that employers in the public and private sectors would be able to draw on the talents and expertise of all Canadians. I submit that, in this age of technological and educational advancement, job applicants should be assessed on their suitability, not on their gender or race or the presence or absence of a physical handicap.
Employment equity programs hurt the designated groups they aim to help, because such programs carry with them the presumption of gender or racial inferiority. No employee wants to be known as the token hiree.
Employment equity programs are opposed by the vast majority of Canadians. In a December 1993 Gallup poll, 74% of respondents said that qualifications should be the sole criterion for hiring for management positions. A Decima Research study conducted in the same year found that there was strong opposition to laws relating to workplace hiring. In 1995 voters in Ontario elected a party that promised to do away with employment equity laws.
I believe that motion M-154 meets the criteria for selection of votable items as set out in the private members' business committee of 1987, because it is a contentious issue of national interest.
In 1993 the Auditor General said that the old legislation that was passed in 1986 should be reviewed before new legislation was introduced. That did not occur before Bill C-64 was passed.
Employment equity legislation is a denial of basic human rights.
It certainly doesn't deal with electoral boundaries.
The intent of the motion is clear and straightforward and would not require any amendment.
This is not likely to appear in the government's agenda during this session of Parliament, and this issue needs a further airing, since the passage of Bill C-64 was flawed. I say that because I believe only four of fifty witnesses were taken from the Reform Party's list and during the clause-by-clause consideration debate was limited to five minutes per clause.
It should be given a high priority because the government is not likely to introduce changes to the employment equity legislation and Canadians are seeking a change. It's important for the will of Canadians ultimately to be done.
It does not violate the spirit of reform of private members' business.
The motion is not unconstitutional and does not infringe on provincial jurisdiction.
It is not a violation of basic human rights.
It has not been voted on or brought before the House during the current session of the House.
.1630
The Chair: Thank you.
Any questions?
That was a very clear presentation.
Mr. Johnston: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Brevity is the soul of something or other.
The Chair: Mr. Williams.
It's beginning to look like a Reform caucus meeting back here.
Mr. John Williams, MP (St. Albert): Aren't you enjoying it?
The Chair: You have five minutes to give your presentation. Hopefully it will be just as clear as the last one and there will be no questions.
Mr. Williams: I'm sure it will be, Madam Chairman.
It's a pleasure for me to appear before the committee to ask that my motion, M-166, be deemed to be a votable motion. This is a national issue, if I may use that term, because it actually deals with what I call the realm of good government of the Government of Canada.
I'm asking that the report of the Auditor General be automatically referred to the various departments on which he expresses his opinions, and that they be required to table a response to the Auditor General in the House. The public accounts committee does not have the time to deal with every issue raised by the Auditor General.
The Auditor General of Canada is an officer of the House of Commons; he is not a civil servant. He tables his report now on at least three occasions every year, telling parliamentarians and Canadians about the issues and the concerns he has regarding items he has investigated. Remember that he reports to parliamentarians. By and large, his reports are referred to public accounts and from there, as I said, they look at it, investigate some items, and report to the House. But they can't deal with them all.
If we are to close the loop of accountability, we need to ask that the departments respond to parliamentarians on issues raised by the Auditor General. That's all we are asking for in motion 166 - that we close this loop of accountability.
The Auditor General is telling us, as parliamentarians, that he has a concern, and we let the matter drop unless we go through with motion 166. Surely, when our finances are in the state they are in today, when every dollar has to be accounted for, and the Minister of Finance has talked about addressing waste at every opportunity...if the Auditor General finds there is waste or mismanagement or lack of accountability or that something is not working as well as it should, and he tells us as parliamentarians that this is the case, then surely we can and should expect a response from the departments giving their side of the story and telling us how they intend to address the issue or whether or not they agree with the Auditor General and what remedial steps they are taking.
That is the intent of motion 166, that we close the loop of accountability by asking departments to respond and table a report, through the minister in the House of Commons, in response to concerns raised by the Auditor General. That, Madam Chairman, is its essence.
Looking at the other points that one is supposed to address from A Practical Guide to Private Members' Business, I do not think numbers two, three, and four apply. The subject in number five is specific, and this is a new issue. For number seven, as I mentioned earlier, I think it is important that we address these points with the current situation.
In closing, then, on November 10, 1995, the President of the Treasury Board tabled a report in the House of Commons. It was called ``Strengthening Government Review''. During his delivery, Madam Chairman, he said:
- In a larger sense this document is also part of our effort
- - that is, the government's effort -
- to fulfil the government's election promise to Canadians. We told them that we would make
government more efficient...[and] affordable. We also promised we would make it more
accountable.
He went on to say:
- As the auditor general pointed out in his 1993 report, the government's feedback system does
not always work as it should.
And to again quote the President of the Treasury Board:
- There is still room for improvement. We are committed to do what it takes to continue down
[this] road.
I feel motion 166 goes a long way towards seeing the Reform Party working with the Liberal Party to address a serious issue of accountability in government and to improve government in order to help us deliver to Canadians what they want.
Thank you.
The Chair: Amazing.
Mr. Williams: Wonderful.
The Chair: Are there any questions? No? Excellent.
Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Grubel, if you can continue in this mode, we're going to be out of here before midnight and Mr. Hermanson won't kill me. He waited forever yesterday, and now he's waiting again.
Mr. Herb Grubel, MP (Capilano - Howe Sound): May I start?
The Chair: Yes, you may. Just remember that you have five minutes, though.
Mr. Grubel: Madam Chair, a few years ago when I was an academic, I published a paper with the C.D. Howe Institute on the subject of my private member's bill: the prohibition of deficits and limitations on government spending levels. Research on this project led me to two new insights about the nature of Parliament and government spending. I wish to share them with you today because I believe they have an important bearing on the merit of my bill and your decision to permit it to go to the House for second reading and debate.
My first point relates to the fact that all modern democracies have restrictions on the sovereignty of legislatures to pass laws that restrict basic individual freedoms. In Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Like similar provisions elsewhere, it is designed to protect the democratic system and individuals from the effects of laws passed by majorities in order to gain short-term political advantage for themselves. I believe history has now shown that there exists a similar need for restrictions on the fiscal sovereignty of Parliament. The deficits and accumulated debt of the last two decades stand in evidence of this proposition.
You might ask why these restrictions are needed now and were not needed in earlier times. The answer lies in a second proposition recently developed by social scientists. It suggests that much of government spending is designed to buy the votes of special interest groups, which then deliver them in return for substantial benefits to themselves. The costs of these benefits are small for each of the remaining voters, and they have no incentive to oppose such special interest group spending and the politicians who initiated it. Importantly, the bulk of the cost of deficits due to this type of spending is imposed on unborn Canadians who do not vote and who cannot defend themselves.
One of my friends and colleagues, James Buchanan, received a Nobel Prize for the development of this idea, which is now widely accepted and is the basis of my own concern over the size of government.
Most spending on special interest groups does not serve the broad public interest. Cumulatively, its costs have brought about the present financial crisis. As someone said, special interest group spending is the Achilles heel of democracy. It has become such a big problem in recent decades because of the development of modern communications technologies that have raised the organizational efficiency of even small interest groups.
My bill requires the government to balance its budget every year, and it requires that spending increases be limited to the rate of inflation and population growth. If these requirements are violated, members of Parliament who voted for the budget will be fined. Their pay will be reduced by an amount equal to the percentage by which the deficit exceeds spending or by which the maximum growth rate of spending is exceeded, multiplied by five, with some upper limit.
I will not go here into some of the other provisions in the bill. I have asked someone to pass out to you a popular summary of what they are: the need to have an annual contingency account; special conditions under which the government can violate the basic prohibitions and members don't get docked for their pay; upper limits on fines on members of Parliament; and other measures designed to prevent government from the buying of votes through indirect mechanisms.
Bills prohibiting deficits and providing for spending limits are considered essential by many who interpret recent deficit spending and debt accumulation as being endemic to the unrestrained fiscal freedom of Parliament. They have been introduced for this reason in most provincial legislatures in Canada.
.1640
Others, on the other hand, believe that such bills are unworkable and destabilizing. I think our Parliament would benefit greatly from studying carefully the arguments on both sides of the issue, which would take place if the bill were brought to the House for open debate. I hope you will make such a debate possible by your vote for letting this bill go forward.
Thank you for your consideration.
The Chair: Questions? Seeing none, thank you very much.
Mr. Grubel: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. McTeague.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague, M.P. (Ontario): I would like to start by showing you a little photograph.
[English]
Madam Chair, it's a pleasure to be here once again. Although it was unfortunate that prorogation caused my previous bill, Bill C-353, to die on the order paper, I'm relieved to see that the same bill has been re-presented to this committee under Bill C-202.
The basis for my bill, which is the recognition of national organ donor day, would take place on April 21 of every year. It is based on an honour roll. It's also predicated on a need for public awareness.
I previously spoke, with the exception I think of only one member here, about the importance of this bill. It is designed to coordinate very much the need in Canada to address the more than 3,000 people who, at any given time, need the gift of life. Every year, there are only about 10% who are able to give in fact to about 10% of the people who receive. Therefore, there are many, many people who are in need. Because of a lack of coordination and no public awareness, and because the federal government is not sitting down with many of the partners, we see that the gift of life is simply unattainable for most.
The picture I've shown you is of a former constituent. His name is Stuart Herriot. He died April 21, 1994. The tragic circumstance of his death involved the unlatching of the rear-door van of a minivan. He subsequently succumbed to his injuries, and several of his organs were donated to other children at the Hospital for Sick Children.
I use that as a crucible or as a test for my own vindication of this bill. That's to demonstrate that, out of tragedy, there can come good when people stand together.
I'm asking this committee and this Parliament to consider enacting a piece of legislation that would recognize all of those who, in dying, give their organs so that others may live.
It may also bring attention to - I've worked with many of my provincial colleagues - ensuring that the card or the famous donation slip that you have on the back of every driver's licence - in some provinces it's the case; in others it's not - is also given much more emphasis so that people know that there is the potential for saving other lives.
Time is very critical, but so is education, which is why this bill is designed to help educate people such that, once they pass from this planet, others may survive.
Since the introduction and approval of the bill - sort of the bridge too far; we almost made it last time - many groups have been in touch with members of Parliament of all political stripes. I think that's the theme I want to point at here: this is a matter that transcends partisan consideration for all members of Parliament.
Take the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Kidney Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Lung Association, and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. Many of these groups have come forward to give some very positive input as to the need of this bill. It's not simply a bill that would simply say we're happy that there are people out there who give the gift of life.
It's also designed, with the cooperation of many of the communication instruments at our disposal, to recognize that this is an important facet in our society. Also, as a caring society and country, and as caring parliamentarians, we can actually do some good collectively and with one voice.
I would urge that this committee reaffirm its earlier decision to allow this bill to go ahead. I understand and defer to many other colleagues who are coming forth with good bills, but I think this is one that addresses very fundamentally the role of this committee, which is to identify bills that are important to all Canadians of all genders and races, and certainly of all regions.
.1645
[Translation]
If you have any questions about my bill, I'm available for a few minutes.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions? Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: My questions were answered before. You know my feelings on what's happening here already.
The Chair: Since you were here last time, I actually found my driver's licence and I signed the back of it.
Mr. McTeague: That's encouraging.
The Chair: It was missing for three months.
Mr. McTeague: Madam Chair, if we could get all 294 other members of Parliament to do the same, we might double the number of people who actually donate.
The Chair: I got my whole family to do it too, so we're four.
Mr. McTeague: Thank you.
The Chair: It's a good thing I wasn't stopped without that driver's licence.
Mr. Hermanson, the most patient man on the Hill.
Mr. Stinson: I thought I was.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson, MP (Kindersley - Lloydminster): Every time I come before this committee - it's only been twice now - I thank God that I don't sit in your spot, because you have the unenviable task of trying to remain alert and bouncing around like a ping-pong ball from one issue to another.
I'm here to present motion M-176, which is a motion I introduced in the last session before we were prorogued. I brought forward an argument to this committee at that time that it be made votable. In your wisdom, I believe you chose not to do so, but I think it's even more significant in light of recent events.
My motion states that this House should support the creation of an environment in which agriculture producers make their own decisions as to how their products are marketed.
I know there's a long list of criteria you use to decide whether a bill or a motion is worthy of being made votable. I know that this motion fills all of the criteria you have to deal with. I'm not going to go through all of them, because most of them aren't even relevant to this motion. The one thing I will bring to your attention is that this issue is raging throughout the agricultural community, not only in the prairies, although it certainly is there, but in Ontario, Atlantic Canada and in the lower mainland of British Columbia, where the supply-managed industries are the predominant agricultural sector.
Since I last appeared before you, we've had a survey that was commissioned by the Province of Saskatchewan in which 58% of Saskatchewan producers said they believed that participation in the Canadian Wheat Board should be made voluntary. This is revolutionary in my province. It's an extremely important piece of information, and it adds a reason why this issue should be debated in the House of Commons.
Since I last spoke to you, the supply-managed sector has come under the scrutiny of the American government. Of course you know we're hearing very strange things south of the border in light of their preparation for the residential election, the primaries.
What in fact has happened is that the matter of whether or not Canada is justified in putting its tariffs on supply-managed goods has gone before a trade tribunal composed of two Americans and two Canadians and is chaired by a Brit. Their deliberations are totally out of the hands of producers, but producers are going to have to cope with the results of their decision.
This is very indicative of the concerns of people involved with agriculture. A lot of their marketing decisions are out of their hands and beyond their control. They're very concerned about that.
I said this debate is raging throughout the country, which it is. It's being debated in the coffee shops of the prairies, the rural communities of southern Ontario, the Maritimes, and the lower mainland of British Columbia.
The place in which it hasn't been debated extensively is here in the House of Commons. I think it is incumbent upon us - I think we owe it to the industry - to have a significant debate on a votable motion in the House that deals with the whole issue of whether or not producers should be in the driver's seat when it comes to determining how they market their own products.
Some are and some aren't. Some conditions are beyond their control. Others are very much within their control, except the government is playing a role. Government has played a role in supply-managed industries, but that has been changing. Government has played a significant role in the marketing of western grains through the Canadian Wheat Board, and there is extreme scrutiny of the board at this time.
.1650
Therefore, because this is a national issue of concern that is being debated amongst Canadians but has not seen significant debate in the House of Commons, I would again urge you to make my motion M-176 a votable motion.
I thank you again for your patience in hearing my argument.
The Chair: I thank you for your patience in hanging around here yesterday and today.
Are there any questions?
By the way, for those of us who suffer slightly from attention deficit, having fifty subjects in a day is great. I love it.
Mr. Hermanson: You do a good job.
The Chair: Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard, M.P. (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): This is the third time I've had the pleasure of appearing before your committee. So I have been quite lucky. However, my efforts have not always resulted in a votable bill.
The bill I am proposing today refers to an incident that occurred last August in my neighbourhood. The war between motorcycle gangs such as the Hell's Angels, resulted in the death of an 11-year-old boy. As a result of this incident, some people wondered whether Canada needed anti-gang legislation.
As a result of my consultations and reflections on this matter, I have decided to suggest today that Parliament debate this issue. My bill, if passed, would contain the main provisions of the type of anti-gang legislation that most chiefs of police in Canada from coast to coast are demanding. My bill focuses chiefly on three points.
First, the bill would create a new type of offense that of living off the proceeds of a criminal organization, and would define the term "criminal organization". It is defined as a group of individuals who habitually engage in activities that bring them into serious conflict with society or with the police. I think any serious, experienced magistrate would be able to use this initial definition in such a way that there would be no danger of abuse or arbitrary practices, which is something everyone here would like to avoid. In addition to this definition, the bill borrows a provision from the existing Criminal Code, in which it refers to five individuals who have already committed one or more organized crime offenses within a potential criminal organization. This provision became part of the present Criminal Code with the passage of Bill C-61 by the previous government.
In addition to this new definition, which I believe respects fundamental human rights in terms of case law, the unique feature of my bill is that it enables the courts and the Crown to apprehend criminals who, so far, have been untouchable.
It must be understood that the bill takes into account the fact that the leaders of organized crime must be apprehended. At the moment, we have legislation that allows to arrest more junior criminals, but we have no provisions in the Criminal Code under which to arrest the people who give the orders, because the Criminal Code is worded in such a way that proof beyond any reasonable doubt is required.
It is a well-known fact that the people who give the orders and those who carry them out are two different groups. My bill proposes that there could be a reversal of presumptions, but also that they could be used by the Crown.
There are three such presumptions. The first is that when an individual is deemed to be a member of a criminal organization, he or she is deemed to live off the proceeds of it. Secondly, if an individual's tax records show (and since Bill C-61 they can be checked) that he or she became unduly rich between the time of arrest and the time at which the reprehensible act was committed, the Crown could use this as a presumption that could demonstrate that the individual can live off organized crime or the proceeds of a criminal organization. The third presumption is that individuals for whom there are grounds for thinking that they frequent or are deemed to frequent the bunkers or other places associated with criminal organizations would be deemed to live off the proceeds of a criminal organization.
It is therefore a very important bill. I was reminded today that the Toronto chief of police had told the Globe and Mail that he feared the same thing that happened in my riding in Montreal may occur this summer, since clashes between gangs to increase their drug trafficking territory were far from over. The problem is not restricted to Quebec.
.1655
I am concerned, since I am a member from Montreal, but there is a national association of police chiefs that also feels the problem is becoming a major concern. The association has representatives from Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal and even the Maritime provinces.
I am sure you agree with me that the matter is urgent and that there should be a vote on this.
The Chairman: Mr. Langlois.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Ménard, I read your bill very attentively, and you know I'm also interested in these issues. As human beings and individuals, we all have values, and as members of Parliament, the values of our environment sometimes transcend our own, which is a great credit to us.
You made some assumptions in your bill. At some point, you probably came to the conclusion that you had to stray from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the 1960 Canadian Declaration in the last two sections to make sure this bill does not fail a constitutional test.
Since this would be the first time in the history of the Canadian federal Parliament that the section 31 notwithstanding clause is used, I would like you to give me a brief explanation - I know you are very good at being brief - of what lead you, as an individual and as member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, to the conclusion that some rights should prevail over others. That is gradation. Why is it that some rights in this bill would prevail over the rights granted under the Charter? That is the entire point of my question.
Mr. Ménard: We know full well that I am a democrat, and a pink one at that. I thought about that a great deal. I realize that tabling a bill is serious business. I met with three groups during my consultations. I met with criminal lawyers, leaders and Crown prosecutors.
All three groups agreed that the current legal provisions violate paragraph 11(d) of the Charter, which deals with presumption of innocence. However, it seems obvious to me that sometimes Canadians and Quebeckers might wonder whether their elected representatives should be defining the extent of their right to safer streets and to put an end to this scourge.
Our duty is to say there cannot be an anti-gang law, that would meet our objectives, without imposing a limit to that right. However, we suggest that the three assumptions you referred to will affect the administration of justice and the principles of natural justice, where individuals are tried and know why they were apprehended, and where evidence can be disproven.
The respondent's lawyer could very well argue that the assumption made by the Crown is invalid due to lack of adequate proof. So, in the justice system, the right to be represented and the right pertaining to evidence taking will clearly apply. As you know, the notwithstanding clause can apply only to section 2 and to sections 7 to 14, which are the legal guarantees for a five-year period.
As legislators, we should therefore give ourselves the tools to eradicate this scourge which isn't about to disappear. Let's give ourselves the tools we need by applying the principles of administration of justice as much as possible. In five years, once we have fought the scourge with the help of police and the RCMP, who are very concerned about this problem and who have formed a committee called CAPLAM, the bill will then be sent back to the committee that will then have to study it. I am sure that if we gave our police force and the RCMP the tools they need, we would be able to eradicate this scourge.
I met with the RCMP and Mr. Sangollo in Montreal. You'll be surprised to hear that they knew the criminals. They knew where their money had come from. They knew how they operated, their areas of influence. However, they were unable to arrest them because of the rules of evidence taking. Enforcing the rules of evidence taking might mean the death of another child in our streets. I do not think that is what Quebeckers and Canadians mean by freedom.
.1700
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Ménard.
Mr. White.
Mr. Ted White, MP (North Vancouver): Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Welcome. You have five minutes to do your presentation and then if there are questions -
Mr. White: There's a little bit of confusion to sort out first, Madam Chair. My paperwork shows my motion as numbered 143, but I noticed that Mr. Stinson's motion was numbered 143 and mine shows as 141 on your paperwork.
The Chair: These things happen.
Mr. White: So mine is actually 143.
The Chair: We've got it. Thank you.
Mr. White: Good. I wasn't sure whether it was me or the paperwork.
The Chair: Always assume it's us.
Mr. White: Okay.
This motion M-143 does deal with the Constitution, and the timing for it to have come up is very good. It's presently programmed for debate sometime in May, and it would be very good for the government to get some sort of idea of the feelings of members by having the motion votable. Of course, the constitutional review starts next year, and as this is a very important part of the Constitution, it would be very good for the government to have guidelines from its members.
The motion reads:
- That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support the elimination of section
15(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 as it derogates from the principle of equality enunciated by
section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, that the government should work
towards enhancement of equality in the workplace by ending the discriminatory hiring
programs that have resulted from the affirmative action provisions of section 15(2).
We all know that section 15(2) was placed in the charter for well-intentioned reasons, to ensure that we worked towards equality. But there are many people who now consider that it's actually hindering the movement towards equal treatment for all Canadians, without the consideration of race, gender, or religious preferences.
The issue is truly of national importance. It should receive a serious debate in the House and, in the interests of democracy, be followed by a recorded vote. The motion doesn't single out or discriminate against any particular area or region of the country. It's pretty well clear in its meaning and intent. It would be easy to implement if MPs chose to follow the will of the voters on this issue. The motion is non-partisan in nature. There would be minimal costs associated with running a referendum, if it were deemed necessary to confirm the will of the people at the time of the next election.
There are no government bills or motions presently before the House dealing with this issue and there have been no private members' motions or bills drawn on this subject since the last election.
The motion is not unconstitutional, doesn't infringe upon provincial legislative authority, and does not impede federal-provincial relations or international relationships. In fact, it would enhance international relationships since many other countries, particularly our largest partner to the south, are actually moving away from this type of provision. Many of the programs that were introduced under similar affirmative action programs in the United States are now being struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.
Finally, this member would like to place on the record that he believes all private members' business should be votable, just as a basic principle of democracy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do have these notes, which I can hand around so that you have them for reference purposes.
The Chair: Are there any questions from the committee?
Mr. White: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Solomon.
Mr. John Solomon, MP (Regina - Lumsden): Thank you, Madam Chair and distinguished members of the committee. I'm grateful for having had you cooperate with hearing me today. I was out of town yesterday afternoon and unable to attend that meeting.
I'm appearing before you today to request that you consider my bill on establishing an energy price review commission, votable in the House of Commons. The purpose of the bill is to review and regulate wholesale and retail prices of gasoline. The bill would facilitate reasonable consistency in prices from region to region. It would look at the issue of competition to ensure that collusion does not occur in the pricing of gasoline, and would prevent dominant suppliers from setting unreasonable prices.
.1705
Just to give you some background, members of the committee and Madam Chair, over the last number of years we've seen fluctuating prices of gasoline. In particular, in some regions prices are much higher than others when you factor out the differential in provincial gas taxes.
I will use the example of Saskatchewan, as it is the one I know best. Saskatchewan produces 15% of the entire oil production in Canada. We explore for it, produce it, refine it and process it in Saskatchewan. When you factor out the provincial tax differentials, the price of gas in Saskatchewan is higher than, for example, Ontario. Even though you have to pay a little extra fee -
The Chair: I have no problem with this.
Mr. Solomon: I know. I'm just using it as an example from one region to another. Everyone will know that when the price goes up in Toronto, in one hour every other gas station has the same price. There has really been no logical justification or attempt recently to publicly justify these price increases. Saskatchewan's price right now is 58.9¢. It was 55.9¢. There has been no justification for the increase.
If you look at the price of oil reserves for the past ten years, it has declined year after year. It's about the same this year, on average, on a daily basis, as it has been over the last two or three years.
When you look at the oil companies' profits, for example, Shell Oil had a profit increase in 1994 of 43% over 1993 and an increase last year of 63% over the previous year. It made a profit of $523 million, which is neither here nor there, except that it has not justified why it has had to increase the price of gasoline. In spite of the fact it made a substantial profit, it laid off 471 employees.
Imperial Oil had a 29% increase in 1994. Last year it was a 43% increase. It made a profit of $514 million and laid off 452 employees.
So some things are going on out there that are quite unusual, and there have been a lot of questions. I've had literally thousands of people raise this issue with me.
In the last two years I've attempted to have the Bureau of Competition Policy review the matter. Of course, it really can't undertake an investigation unless it has a letter from the president of Shell saying to the president of Imperial Oil, ``Let's collude and increase prices''. Of course, those letters don't exist, because there are basically four oil companies in Canada that establish the pricing of gasoline.
I'm asking the committee members to consider these things. It's a consumer issue and it's an economic issue. Energy is very important in our economy. It's very important to our consumers. The only justification they sometimes give is the increase in the price of oil, but they never tell you that 10,000 items are manufactured from a barrel of oil. For example, this microphone and this water jug are manufactured from oil. The desk is manufactured from oil by-products, as well as the curtains. Almost everything you see has had some connection to the petroleum industry and a barrel of oil, yet the prices of these things don't fluctuate day by day in a monopoly situation, no matter where they're sold.
I think there is some very significant evidence that would conclude that this kind of commission should be established, to try to make sure consumers, businesses and governments are treated fairly with respect to purchasing their gasoline.
Are there any questions? I could go on for a couple of hours, but we don't have the time.
The Chair: I have one question. You said energy is so crucial to our existence, but are you not worried that if we do that with oil products or gasoline, the next thing will be some other commodity that has a very low number of marketers? Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, my favourite -
Mr. Solomon: For example, we have a quasi-judicial body called the CRTC that regulates communications. We can communicate with each other without having to be regulated, but it regulates licences for television and radio and cable companies. They have to appear before the CRTC in order to establish certain price ranges for their products to their customers, yet not all people subscribe to cable or have satellite dishes. They can't afford them nor do they need them. In many cases, they can't provide them because of their rural locations. But everybody has a connection to energy. It's a natural diminishing resource of our country. Whether it's gasoline, natural gas, home heating fuel or propane, all these resources are very important to the running of our economy.
.1710
If nothing else, there should at least be a regulating force or a regulating influence on energy, as opposed to things like communications, which I think are also very important to have.
The Chair: Does anyone else have a question? Thank you very much.
Mr. Solomon: Just a final comment, if I might. The example with communications is that when Rogers jacked up its prices without telling its subscribers, the CRTC was going to investigate and suggest it roll its prices back. In view of the fact that Rogers had a lot of unhappy consumers, it voluntarily rolled back its prices. This has not been evident in the energy industry, I'm sad to say.
The Chair: Thank you. You must be getting the same phone calls I'm getting.
Mr. McClelland is replacing Mr. Harris. Welcome. He must have a lot of confidence in you.
Mr. Ian McClelland, MP (Edmonton Southwest): Madam Chairman and members, as the chairman suggested I am filling in for Mr. Harris, who is in his constituency and didn't feel it appropriate to spend $2,000 to come here to do this, although it is certainly worth it in spades.
The Chair: Don't try to win my favour by saving airline money.
Mr. McClelland: We'll do anything we can.
This legislation, Bill C-201, seeks to put a minimum penalty for killing someone when you're drunk and driving a car. That's really what it is. Today, although there is a 14-year maximum penalty, there is no minimum penalty for killing someone while driving a car drunk.
The genesis of this is that a drunk driver sped through a red light causing a collision in an intersection killing three members of the Ciccone family in Prince George.
Mr. Johnson, the driver, was arrested and charged with three counts of impaired driving causing death and one count of leaving the scene of the accident. Mr. Harris witnessed the aftermath of the accident and followed the case through the local media. He waited expectantly for the sentence to find out about justice being done in the case of this horrific crime against the Ciccone family. However, on December 22, 1995, the driver, Mr. Johnson, was sentenced to three and a half years for taking the lives of three people from one family. That's just over one year per life.
The sentence outraged the citizens of Prince George and public demonstrations followed at the local courthouse. People were enraged that such a light sentence could be handed down for such a devastating crime. It has to be noted that the devastating crime is not just to the people who die. In many cases the people who don't die find themselves brain injured or physically injured for life. The impact on the family is far-reaching and lasts far beyond any sentence that the impaired driver gets, even as envisioned with a minimum penalty that this bill would provide.
Research into this, in the genesis of this bill, indicates that the sentences for impaired driving causing death are basically lenient. They average from three to four years across the country. So the three-and-a-half-year sentence in this case was not untoward. It was about the average.
In discussion with the crown prosecutor who was involved in this particular case, it was learned by Mr. Harris that in this case he was expecting the maximum penalty to be from six to eight years. That's where the number seven came from. It came from the fact that the crown prosecutor felt that the average they would ask for in a case like this would be from six to eight years.
We have to ask ourselves what would be the consequence of having a minimum sentence for impaired driving causing death?
.1715
The essence of it is this. If someone is impaired - that means if their blood alcohol content is.08 or more - when involved in killing someone, they would have an automatic penalty of seven years in jail: no ifs, no buts; that would be it. Impaired driving, .08, kill somebody: seven years in jail. No questions, no plea bargaining, no nothing; that's what it is.
Would this be a deterrent? That's what this is all about. It's about deterrence. Once somebody is dead, they're dead. What we want to try to do is to reduce the number of people and families who are impacted on by impaired driving causing death.
I should point out as well that this bill has been endorsed by members of all parties in the House of Commons. It has been strongly endorsed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, and by Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving.
In 1994, 87,838 people were charged with impaired operation of a car and 100 people were charged with impaired driving causing death. In addition to the 100 people charged with causing death, 919 were charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm.
Then what we need to do is find out if there is real evidence that would support the notion that mandatory sentencing would in fact reduce the number of people who would be killed by impaired drivers. Supporting this is that in 1992 Statistics Canada published a paper crediting an apparent decline in the frequency of impaired driving in the previous decade at least in part to changes in federal and provincial legislation pertaining to impaired driving, to increased enforcement of these laws by the police, government-funded rehabilitation programs, community initiatives targeting impaired drivers, and changes in societal attitudes towards drinking and driving. There has been a 7% decline in the rate of persons changed with impaired driving in 1994. Compared with 1984 the rate is a decline of 47%.
This dramatic decline is directly attributed to the fact that the penalties are stiffer, that they're being enforced with more regularity, and that societal attitudes about impaired driving are changing: it isn't something that is just sloughed off. I know for many Canadians, at least in my generation, we have all been...there but for the grace of God go I. But society has changed. This bill then reflects the societal change, the mores. We're recognizing that to kill a person with a gun or to kill a person with a car is no less of a loss to that person and to their family, and there should be and there must be a minimum penalty for causing death while impaired and driving.
I'd be happy to accept any questions.
The Chair: Actually, I have one. When you were describing the case that was given the three and a half years, you said the prosecutors asked for six to eight years.
Mr. McClelland: The crown attorney in this case said they normally would be asking for a high of six to eight years. The crown attorney in this case said if ever there was a case that cried out for the maximum penalty, this would be the instance. The judge gave the average penalty, which is three and a half, if the average is from three to four. It's discretionary.
The Chair: Yes, it is discretionary. I guess the thing that makes me a little nervous - and you can explain this to me - is you say it's a deterrent, and that's the object of the bill. If it is a deterrent and if there is still a possibility of eight years being given by a judge, why would a compulsory seven years make a difference? That person going into court could have been given eight years. It didn't change him from getting behind the wheel of a car drunk.
Mr. McClelland: But the person wasn't.... The person was given three and a half years.
The Chair: But there was a possibility -
Mr. McClelland: There was a possibility, but not a certainty, and it's the certainty that has the societal value as a deterrent. A possibility of getting caught doesn't prevent someone from doing something wrong. The certainty of being caught might cause people to give second thought to what they're doing.
.1720
So that is the nub of this: we have to take the probability out and add certainty. The certainty of seven years will be far more of a deterrent than a possibility of serving time, depending on how much you pay a lawyer and how good your lawyer is.
It's just not fair that someone can kill three people in a family - God knows what other devastating injury took place - and perhaps get three and a half years, perhaps get seven years, depending on whims and plea bargaining, and all the other vagaries of the criminal justice system.
The Chair: The study by the Addiction Research Foundation in Ontario shows that the most serious deterrent to drunk driving is the possibility of losing your licence for a year. That stops more people from driving drunk than anything else does.
Mr. McClelland: They wouldn't have to worry about losing their licence for a year if they had seven years in the slammer.
The Chair: That's true.
Mr. McClelland: We are not concerned the slightest amount about the person who committed the offence. What we're concerned about is the impact on the families of the victims.
The Chair: Okay. That's fair. I'm asking only because I'm curious. Please don't interpret a question as -
Mr. McClelland: I didn't. Not at all. I just wanted strongly to reinforce that.
Mr. Stinson: I know this case very well, what you're talking about here. In a certain case the guy had been convicted four times; this was his fourth offence.
In my constituency we have what is known, probably Canada-wide, as the ``killer mile''.
The Chair: Where you live?
Mr. Stinson: Yes, it's in the constituency. The name is in regard to drunk-driving deaths.
Mr. McClelland: That's a good point. Very few people would start out on an evening, get drunk, get in a car, and say, ``I'm going to kill somebody''. They aren't necessarily bad people. They're people who have made a decision, a lifestyle choice, and have done something, and they have to accept the consequences of what they have done. It has nothing to do with whether people are good or not.
The recidivism, the rates of repeat impaired driving and repeat impaired driving causing death....
Very often we find that people who do this kind of thing don't have insurance, don't have registration.
I don't want to generalize, because this certainly is a tragedy to the people who do it, too. I can imagine if I had had one too many and I was driving somewhere and I killed someone. I would be just as culpable. It can happen to any one of us, but it's something we have to accept responsibility for when we decide that we're going to have a drink.
The Chair: The job of this committee is to look at a piece of legislation that's going to affect every Canadian -
Mr. McClelland: Exactly.
The Chair: - from border to border.
Mr. McClelland: Exactly, and that's why this should be votable, because it sends a message to everybody. When we talked about the statistics and the reduction, a 47% decline from 1984 to 1994 in the number of people who were charged with impaired driving, it is a direct result of societal change and enforcement, and this is one more step in that direction.
The Chair: Tell Mr. Harris that you did a first-rate job.
Mr. McClelland: I have, in both official languages, a handout.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Harper is here for Mr. Hanger. Welcome.
Mr. Ed Harper, MP (Simcoe Centre): Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I am here on behalf of Art, who unfortunately could not be here this afternoon. He has prepared a presentation, which I'll be pleased to read on his behalf.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to bring this motion before you to ask for your consideration. I believe that this motion deserves votable status because it offers a real, substantive, and permanent solution to a problem that has cast doubt not only on our refugee system but also on Canada's entire immigration program.
The Immigration and Refugee Board was set up in 1989 to hear the refugee claims of people who have travelled to Canada and are claiming persecution abroad. Just prior to that the Supreme Court handed down a decision, the Singh decision, which said a refugee hearing on paper, without an interview, violated principles of natural justice. But rather than creating a system in which quick, expedient, but truth-seeking interviews could be conducted by trained immigration officers, the government of the day created the Immigration and Refugee Board.
.1725
Since then the IRB has lost all credibility both inside and outside of Canada. While the international refugee-accepting community accepts about 14% of claimants who desire refugee status, the IRB accepts 60%, 70%, and even 90% of claims in some regions.
The IRB, because it is accountable to no one and is staffed by lawyers who have a positive stake in the number of refugees accepted, cannot function as an accountable, efficient, and responsible body. It has built-in biases towards the acceptance of all claims, including the claims of people with chequered pasts. Canadians have been outraged to learn that members of the IRB have gone to Kingston penitentiary to conduct refugee hearings.
The public is under the impression that the IRB works for special interests, not the Canadian interest; that it's a body that accepts anyone, with no real screening; that the IRB is a waste of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of taxpayers' dollars each year. In my opinion these impressions are not false. They're true. The IRB does not work. The IRB is not screening refugee claims for legitimacy. It is accepting virtually anyone who has the means to travel to Canada and make a claim.
There is something insidious about this that isn't apparent at first. Canada imposes a quota on the number of refugees it can accept each year. Because of the ultra-high numbers of refugee claimants accepted by the IRB in Canada, most of whom would never fit the United Nations definition of a refugee, the numbers of real refugees Canada can accept overseas is sharply curtailed. These are refugees who are suffering in war zones or in camps and who don't have the money needed to buy a plane ticket to Canada. These should be Canada's highest priority, but these are the people the IRB, ironically, is shutting out by opening the doors wide to those who know they'll never be refused by the IRB.
There is another way: get rid of the IRB, give its functions over to well-trained officers, and impose a strict definition of refugee on asylum-seekers. By doing that you'll make the system accountable, vastly cheaper, vastly more committed to the national interest, and much more humanitarian. It's a win-win situation. Real refugees win and Canadians win.
The IRB allows people into Canada who shouldn't be here. It wastes money and refugee spaces and is sidelining real refugees who may not live until next year if we don't help them out. The IRB must go.
I look forward to this debate reaching the floor of the House, and I look forward to all members having an opportunity to take a stand on whether they support the status quo or they support the national interest. I hope you'll support making this a votable motion.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you.
Any questions? Mr. Stinson?
Mr. Stinson: You already know my feelings.
The Chair: Maybe I myself am misinterpreting, but in my area, which has 40% immigration, the IRB is a board of last resort. It's an appeal board. The official IRB is manned by citizens selected from the community and the immigration officers you talk about do all the normal paperwork. If someone gets turned down, then they go to the IRB. That sounds like what you're getting towards. That's how it should be functioning. It is functioning that way in my area. I'm just wondering if it's different in different parts of the country.
Mr. Harper: I brought Morten along with me as an assistant, because I just got this. Perhaps Morten could address it.
The Chair: Come on up.
Mr. Morten Paulsen (Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff of the Leader of the Reform Party): The IRB has two functions. One is to screen refugees and the other is to hear immigration appeals.
The Chair: Right.
Mr. Paulsen: The function we're talking about is the screening of refugees.
.1730
The appeals function is something the IRB does very little of in fact because most appeals go to the courts. The motion here would turn the refugee termination function of the IRB, which is its principal function, over to well-trained immigration officers. Immigration officers who are not capable of hearing appeals on a legal basis in immigration cases would turn those appeals over to the courts, which is where they rightly belong.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: This was already deemed votable on November 10, 1995, and debated in the House on December 14, 1995. How much time was allotted to that debate?
Mr. Paulsen: I'm afraid I'm not aware of that.
Mr. Stinson: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I would like Mr. Langlois to come back. We're going to hear your presentation now, so it would be only fair.
Mr. Stinson: I have a bit of a concern here. As you probably know, I don't like what's already happened here with regard to some of these bills. I think I will just withdraw mine from being votable. There's a bill here that was already passed as votable, and in all good conscience I cannot see any way that I could go against what was already decided in private members' business.
The Chair: What was your bill?
Mr. Stinson: Mine was about criminals and people in mental institutions in regard to voting.
The Chair: So the thrust of your bill is to withdraw the right to vote?
Mr. Stinson: Well, I'd like to have seen it votable, but I would be in conflict with what I strongly believe our preference should be here.
The Chair: All right. I will accept the withdrawal of your motion, but if it's all right with you, I want to take a minute to have the clerk explain to you and to all of us what's actually happened here, because it's unusual for all of us. I'd like to give him an opportunity to explain once again what's happened with these bills and why they're back here.
I don't want you to withdraw it without giving this very careful thought, because if the assumption is that the ones that were votable before are automatically to be made votable again by this group, then we misled all the people who came in and presented to us. That was not the intent of this committee. We cannot assume that because they were already votable before the House prorogued, they will automatically be votable now; otherwise all those other people who presented to us were here under false pretences.
I would like the clerk to explain again exactly what situation we're in, because it is unusual. Then I want you to give it careful thought before you withdraw.
The Clerk of the Committee: Madam Chair, we are in a unique situation because for the first time the House permitted members to reintroduce, not motions, but bills that had been adopted at second reading or beyond, and if those members did introduce them or do introduce them, they went right back to the stage they were in. The order only applied, of course, to bills that had been adopted at second reading in the previous session.
This has happened before in the case of government bills, but it's never happened in the case of private members' bills, so that's unique. They're protected. But there's nothing in the House procedure or in the House rules that applies to other things that were done in the previous session. So from a procedural point of view, everything is wide open. The members of the subcommittee can make up their own minds about how they would like to address motions they may have made votable, for example, in the previous session. They're completely free to do that.
.1735
The Chair: I might add that what you're presenting today is a motion. None of the motions have been recycled -
The Clerk: That's right.
The Chair: - and we are to select five.
I don't want you to disadvantage yourself; that's all. These are motions. Yours is a motion. No votable motions from the last session are before us today.
Mr. Stinson: From the last session?
The Chair: That's right.
Mr. Stinson: They're all bills.
The Chair: We're picking five brand-new motions with no preconceived notions about whether they were votable before or not.
The Clerk: About bills, I think we have a couple of votable bills and a couple of.... Well, we have Mr. Hanger's motion, which was votable in the last session, and you have Mr. McTeague's bill, for example, which you made votable in the last session.
The Chair: How many motions from the last session do we have - ones that were votable?
The Clerk: I think we have just one: Mr. Hanger's. We have a motion from Mr. White that was not votable -
Mr. Stinson: Not votable.
The Clerk: M-41 was not votable but was debated last April. So it's only one motion, that of Mr. Hanger.
The Chair: Okay. I just want you to be clear.
Mr. Stinson: Yes. When we do this, I have concerns.
The Chair: I understand your concerns, but as I said to you before, this is a reconstituted committee. Two of the four members are different from the last time. We would be extremely dishonest if we had a parade of people come through the last two days with the preconceived notion that we already have some chosen bills.
The issue you are talking about is much more fundamental than our selection process right now. You're talking about the whole prorogation and how you feel about that. If you would be willing to go ahead and finish the process, I would invite you to come to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when we present them and present your concerns there. Is that all right with you?
Mr. Stinson: Yes.
The Chair: Now, would you like to present your motion for our consideration?
Mr. Stinson: Yes, I'll present the motion.
My private member's motion, 143, deals with what I regard as an important issue that should be made votable. The motion states that in the opinion of this House the government should consider the advisability of amending section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms according to the amending formula provided for in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which amendment would read as follows:
- Every citizen of Canada, except one who is (a) confined in a penitentiary, a prison, or a
psychiatric institution, or (b) at large from a place referred to in paragraph (a), with or without a
lawful excuse, has the right to vote in an election of Members of the House of Commons or of a
legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
Historically, in 1992 the federal government lost a case to Richard Sauvé, who is serving a life sentence in Kingston Penitentiary and who has also sued the government for the right to vote. So in 1993 Parliament passed Bill C-114, which gave federal voting rights only to prisoners who are serving two years or less and who are therefore in provincial rather than federal facilities. But the new bill was also challenged. Again the federal government lost, which allowed all prisoners to vote.
For the 1993 federal election, 7,502 prisoners registered to vote and 6,500 actually cast ballots. I am not able to determine the exact effect of this vote on the election outcome because prisoners' votes are joined with those of other absentee voters, including the military. However, averaging the number of voting prisoners by the number of 295 federal ridings means it is probable that there were significant enough numbers of prisoners voting to have effect on the outcome of some very close ridings.
.1740
Prisoners and inmates in any institution are regularly subject to pressure from people who have authority over them. For example, they could be told to vote this way or they won't get dessert tonight. So it may not even be fair for the inmates themselves to put them in such a position of voting. The fact is that most either do not want to be put in such a position or simply do not care, as is demonstrated by the fact that less than 25% of inmates were registered to vote in this last federal election.
I believe the Canadian people have strongly indicated that when a person is convicted of a serious offence, it means they ought to receive an equally serious punishment. To allow such people to vote, especially when their numbers are such that they could actually determine the outcome of an election in a hotly contested riding, I personally believe is unjust, and it goes against the wishes of law-abiding Canadian citizens.
Another factor is cost. On average, it costs $9.38 for you and I to vote. The average cost for prisoners is $23.81.
Regarding the question of whether or not inmates of mental institutions should be allowed to vote, I'll ask you to recall how many times you've heard about a person who has admitted to committing some particularly awful crime, yet did not stand trial and instead was committed to a mental institution. Today the practice is to ask only whether or not the inmate of the mental institution can answer three simple questions: his or her name, age, and hometown.
So is it remotely fair to law-abiding and informed voters to place their vote on an equal footing with people of borderline intelligence, people who have committed serious crimes, or people with such serious mental problems that they require daily supervision? The fact that all such people are now eligible to run for the office of member of Parliament or of a provincial legislature leaves our entire democratic system open to ridicule and abuse.
In conclusion, I believe private member's bill C-143 should be seriously debated by members of this Parliament because it is involved with the way we run our democracy. It is an issue of national importance, especially at election time. Therefore, I ask you to declare my motion 143 a votable motion.
Thank you.
The Chair: I'm going to restrain myself from making a small joke.
Mr. Stinson: Go ahead.
The Chair: They're not going to vote Reform, are they?
Mr. Stinson: No.
The Chair: Not the guys in jail.
Mr. Stinson: No. The problem is some of them don't even know.... I can relate to you an example that I overheard personally after the election about one person. He came out of the election box - and I don't know why they never picked up on it - and was told, ``No, It's the bottom name. Just go in there and put down the X at the very last one. Surely, you can understand that.''
I have no hesitation about saying this because my name was the bottom one during that campaign.
The Chair: How did you do in that poll?
Mr. Stinson: Actually, I won quite handily, but it was still brought up. To me, that in itself brings into question what really goes on in some of these cases.
The Chair: Do you see any difference between that and a seniors' building? There are a lot of nursing homes and seniors' buildings that are polling stations. The seniors are subject to the same types of pressures, because short-term memories are shot and the nurse who takes them in can tell them how to vote.
Mr. Stinson: I do see a difference. I don't believe that somebody should be telling anyone...or maybe not be allowed to vote if they're that incapacitated mentally. We just don't know what is going on in those cases. I think what happens in some of these institutions when they are allowed to vote is of concern to a number of people. What bothers me just as much is that under our system now, these people can even run for positions of authority in government.
The Chair: But they couldn't get out to serve, could they?
Mr. Stinson: Well....
The Chair: Jamie has an explanation. Is this being approved right now?
Mr. Jamie Robertson (Committee Researcher): My understanding is that in the case that struck down the provision that said only prisoners serving less than two years can vote, the Federal Court - I believe it was the Trial Division, as Mr. Stinson said - ruled either during the summer or last fall that the provision was unconstitutional and that all prisoners must be allowed to vote. The case is being appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal by the federal government, but it probably won't be heard or decided for some time, and I expect it will have to go on to the Supreme Court of Canada for a final determination.
.1745
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
The big question, my illustrious team, is this. In previous sessions we've managed to take 10 or 15 minutes and dispose of this. But we have five bills, five motions. We've had a quite extensive list of people. We have a vote at 6 p.m. I'm wondering how amenable the three of you would be to coming back at 7:30 p.m. and spending an hour, or whatever time is required.
Mr. Stinson: I'm amenable to that. I have another caucus meeting, but I'll get out of that. To me, private members' business comes first and foremost.
The Chair: The clerk is double-checking.
Do we have a vote at 6 p.m.?
The Clerk: Yes. You have a vote 15 minutes before the end of government business tonight, which I suppose is really at 6:15 p.m. That's when the bells will be beginning, anyway.
The Chair: That gives us a half hour. Do you want to get started? We can do either the bills or the motions?
Mr. Stinson: Do you want to start? Does anybody want to grab anything to eat first? You're not going to get a chance later.
The Chair: What would you like to do, Mr. Langlois?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I am willing to do a bit. We will see how far we get, and if we cannot finish, we can think about it during the vote or over a sandwich. I think it would be good to start the process. We will have to give this much more thought than usual.
[English]
Mr. Loney: Later.
The Chair: My difficulty is that I have students here and there's a dinner with them at 6:30 p.m. as well. I would like to make at least an appearance in there for 15 minutes, because I'm going to disappoint two kids if I don't. It's right down the hall.
Mr. Loney would rather wait.
Frankly - and part of it's my illness - I'd like to take a break. I'm finding that I'm saturated. Is that all right with you?
Mr. Stinson: Will these be on the air?
The Chair: It won't be once we start debating. We're merely setting our agenda.
Mr. Stinson: I'm comfortable with taking a break right now.
The Chair: At what time would you like to meet back here? At 7:30 p.m.?
Mr. Loney: There will be two votes.
Mr. Stinson: We have two votes?
Mr. Loney: There are three, actually. I believe there will be three motions.
A voice: Yes, but there are definitely two votes.
Mr. Loney: Yes.
The Chair: Would 7:30 p.m. be fine with everyone?
Mr. Stinson: That's fine with me. It's up to the others. I'm comfortable.
The Chair: I will also be the schoolteacher and ask you, since during the votes we don't have a lot to do when we're not actually voting ourselves, if you would take your folders and refresh your memories on yesterday's subject so that everybody will get a fair hearing.
Mr. Stinson: There's a lot to go through.
The Chair: It's quite a mound of stuff. We'll separate them into two stacks. We'll do the motions in one and the bills in another. We've been very efficient in the past, and we should be very efficient this evening.
I regret keeping you, but the whole timetable of the House has been shortened on us, and I hate failure. They said to do it, and we're going to do it.
So we'll be back here at 7:30 p.m. and we'll try to do it as quickly as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: When Mr. Lee was Chairman, we often had three-hour or three and a half-hour sessions. I am not ready to start at 7:30 tonight and finish at 11:00. If we think we can go a bit faster, it might be possible. We always try to reach a consensus. I think we had a vote once, and it was much longer. But we will give a try and see how far we get. Ideally, we should have paired off in the House and continued to sit, but we didn't. So, I agree we should reconvene at 7:30.
[English]
The Chair: I might also add - and I don't want to sound as if I'm boasting - that we've never taken more than 15 or 20 minutes when I've been chairing it, and that was picking two and three. So let's expand it and say that we're going to give ourselves an hour.
These guys can vouch for me.
Right, Mr. Stinson?
Mr. Stinson: Just one time I think we took about 45 minutes.
The Chair: No!
Mr. Stinson: Yes, I think we did once.
The Chair: You are damaging my reputation.
Mr. Stinson: No, no. I would never do that.
The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.