[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, September 24, 1996
.1540 
[English]
The Chair: Order, please.
Mr. Mills, welcome. You have ten minutes.
Mr. Bob Mills, MP (Red Deer): Basically, this is a motion, motion 31, and it reads:
- That, in the opinion of this House, all proposed peacekeeping or peace-enforcement
commitments involving more than 100 Canadian personnel should be put to a free vote in the
House for approval or rejection.
First of all, I think peacekeeping, as all of us would agree, is something of national pride. I think it's more. It certainly goes beyond party boundaries. It goes beyond anything that we would think of as partisan politics. I do believe it is a great force in national unity.
Any time we deal with human life - our daughters and sons - it is something that all members of Parliament should have an opportunity to speak to.
I think it is for those reasons that members of Parliament would feel close to this issue.
I think it's important that we get information out to the country, and there is an opportunity through the House of Commons to get all of the issues on the table and put forward the arguments for or against a particular mission.
All of us agree we can't be all things to all people; we can't go everywhere. There are close to 100 hot spots in the world right now, and obviously we do not have the manpower or the resources to satisfy all of the potential requests.
We put the number 100 in there because that would allow for missions... We have many missions around the world that involve two, three, ten people, observing elections, that sort of thing, and they would not be part of this motion. This basically covers troops. We thought 100 was a figure that could be there, but that of course would be up to a committee to decide.
Most important about all of this is that we have already demonstrated why something like this would and could work, and I believe it would have all-party agreement as to why it would and could work.
When we first came here, we did have four take-note debates, and these take-note debates were after the regular hours of the House. They were attended by sometimes as few as two or three people. They were late in the night and were basically those people who were on duty or whatever.
We then tried - and I'm talking now about the foreign affairs committee - something new, and this was largely worked out by all-party agreement, and it was worked out with the encouragement of the minister. Mr. Axworthy felt that, as a past committee member, we had to try something new rather than the system that was there, which wasn't working. So we did have an all-committee information session, followed by a debate on Haiti, and that occurred in June.
It was our first shot at it and we did have some problems, but at the end of it everybody felt they had all of the issues put forward and they felt much more satisfied with the result of that. So when they went back to their riding and someone said, well, my son or daughter is...how come, at least those of us on the committee could answer that question much more fully.
Because of that experiment, I'm pretty convinced now that this would work in the House as a whole and it would be a most interesting and most meaningful debate, and I believe a non-partisan debate.
.1545
I have included in my handout for you some of the quotes of some of the people who are most involved in peacekeeping. Certainly, Mr. Axworthy is a very strong proponent of this sort of debate, as you'll see from his quotes. He said, ``We still need and want the expressions of opinion of members of Parliament on what they think''. Obviously, that open debate in the House would allow that.
The Minister of Defence says very clearly that he wants to get to the issue of cost. He knows that's an issue for Canadians, and that's one that can be brought out in open debate. The BQ defence critic clearly states and has supported all along the feeling for open and clear debate on the issue of peacekeeping.
As I say, I think peacekeeping goes well beyond a partisan issue. It's one of Canada's and our representation in the international community. It is a cause that I think every Canadian can unite on.
I believe one of the problems we're having today is a lack of information prior to these missions. I believe opening the House up for that debate and letting members of Parliament express themselves on the issue once they know the facts would help in the communication to Canadians on an important item like this.
That's basically it. I feel pretty strongly about this. I feel we would get a lot of support for this. I think it would go across all party lines. That's why I suggest, as Mr. Axworthy has suggested, that a free vote would work within the mandate of something as non-partisan as this.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mills. You've been very succinct.
I am opening the floor to questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I would have a comment instead. Mr. Mills, you don't have to convince me that parliamentarians need to have an opportunity to take a stand on issues of major importance for all Canadians.
My question refers to a technical aspect of the wording of your motion. You specify a free vote in the House but we all know that motions similar to that of your colleague from Mission - Coquitlam, Ms. Jennings, Motion M-89 calling for a free vote, were defeated. Bill C-210, tabled by Ms. Grey, along the same lines and suggesting a procedure for the recall of members, was also defeated.
Aren't you afraid of killing your motion by requiring a free vote? They will tell you that at any rate votes are free in the House. I can still hear the speeches that were made in the past, during the 35th Parliament. Is your goal only to initiate a new debate on these issues or is the word "free" an absolute requirement, without which you would not have submitted your motion?
Whether you like it or not, within political parties votes are free only to a degree. Debate takes place in caucus and when you get to the House, positions are clearly staked out. There may be some mavericks, but general positions have been set.
I only wanted to deal with the word "free" in your motion. As to the rest, I am on board.
[English]
Mr. Mills: I think I would defend the use of the term ``free vote'' in the sense that, as I say, this will not be - and in three years on the committee this has not been - a partisan type of issue. I believe in the House of Commons it wouldn't have to be that way either, where it would be a matter of the lives of our Canadian troops, our Canadian police, our Canadian medical staff, whoever we send on a particular peacekeeping mission. I really believe people should be uninhibited by their party allegiances on something like peacekeeping. I don't think it is a party issue.
I think all of us are proud Canadians. When we go across the border and to foreign countries we are ambassadors for this country. There are places we should be and there are places we shouldn't be or can't be for various reasons, and those should be expressed freely by members in the House. So I would argue fairly strongly for the importance of an open debate as opposed to a situation in which each party chooses its two members to speak. That's not what I have in mind.
.1530
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: If I may rib you a bit, your quote from Dr. Jacob on page 2 of the English text, is it meant to show that you do not share Mr. Hart's point of view about the press release?
[English]
The Chair: Be careful, Mr. Mills. I think you're being taken for a short ride here.
Mr. Mills: Basically all of us have agreed that we need to set the criteria, the mandate, the cost - all of that - openly in the House. That's what we need to discuss openly and clearly, and that's exactly what we all stand for. The point of these quotes was to point out that it's really not a partisan issue. All of us agree with these sorts of issues.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Langlois.
Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Mills, am I to understand that implicit in your motion is a requirement for both the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of National Defence to provide an overview and specifics of what the cost might be, what the reason for the engagement is, and this type of thing? Is that in there?
Mr. Mills: Those details will be provided as part of the briefing to members of Parliament prior to their actually debating the issue. Once they have all of those facts and listen to the debate, they would be expected to vote based on what they had heard and what they got from their constituents.
Mr. Frazer: I guess what I'm asking you is whether it should be included in your motion that it would be a requirement for those two departments to provide input that would then be able to be considered by the members of Parliament.
Mr. Mills: Obviously that is the intention, and that is expected. I would say quite honestly that both departments have not been unwilling to provide the briefing for a few people. Why not provide it for all members of Parliament on an issue like this? I know there are lots of issues that are politics, but this I believe is not that way.
I agree with you that this is essential. I do not believe we would have a minute's problem getting that information from either Defence or Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Frazer: Thank you.
The Chair: Just to make it clear, Mr. Frazer, when motions of bills come before us, the wording is not approved, changed, or otherwise. What we're doing is listening to the exact wording that Mr. Mills proposes. When it gets into the House, he can then change, amend, or otherwise clarify.
Mr. Frazer: I guess what I was getting at was his intention on this, because I think it's vitally important that if this bill is chosen to be a votable bill, this should become part of it.
The Chair: Yes, and it's helping you to make your decision, just as when Mr. Langlois zeroed in on the words ``free vote''. But I just want to make it quite clear that we don't change the material.
Mr. Frazer: No, no. I understand that.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Loney, do you have a question?
Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): My question was going to be quite similar to Mr. Frazer's. What would be the limit to the involvement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence with regard to their influence over the committee?
Mr. Mills: I would obviously expect them to be key speakers in the debate - probably lead off the debate, in fact - on an issue of peacekeeping. They should be the ones with the most background and the most information. Likewise, the critics of the other parties would have their opportunity, because they should be the best informed.
From there, however, I am concerned that it doesn't get out to the rest of the people. So they would be there to listen, because it's done in an open Parliament. It's done not...I don't know what you'd call it. Would you call it a take-note debate? That isn't really what I'm getting at, because, as I told you, that failed. I am saying that you have people from your riding who are potentially affected by this, and as a taxpayer you're affected. As a Canadian, you're affected. So you have to be there to listen to the ministers, the critics, and any other member of Parliament who wants to talk on that issue for whatever reasons. Maybe they're personal. Maybe they're immigrants from that area. Some people have very close contacts with some of the areas we would be discussing for peacekeeping.
.1555
Mr. Loney: But it would be exclusive to the issue before us.
Mr. Mills: Oh yes.
Mr. Loney: It wouldn't be a forum for a critique as to what either minister had done or hadn't done.
Mr. Mills: No. I would see that we have a potential peacekeeping mission A, B or C, but only on the specific issue that you'd be discussing. We would look at whether we should go to A, whether we can afford it, and whether we have the manpower, etc. Then the decision could be made by the House of Commons.
Mr. Loney: Thank you for that clarification.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mills. We will be discussing the list tomorrow and you'll hear from us in due course.
Mr. Mills: Good. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Ms Torsney, welcome to the committee today.
Ms Paddy Torsney, MP (Burlington): Thanks. I just have a couple of things to distribute to you.
The Chair: You have approximately ten minutes, Ms Torsney.
Ms Torsney: Now I know what the witnesses feel like when they face the clock, which doesn't work in this room.
The Chair: That's right. It's my one chance to make you stop talking, if I want.
Ms Torsney: That's right.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today.
The bill I'm proposing relates to the information available to you when you go to the House of Commons cafeteria, McDonald's, or the coffee shop in your neighbourhood. For those of you who suffer from food allergies or who have children who do, the information you get is often patchy at best and it can sometimes cause some severe reactions in your families.
I've done a lot of work on the issue, as I'm sure many of my colleagues have done on their bills. The initiative started with a woman in my riding who collected over 100,000 signatures many years ago after her son died because apple turnovers are apple turnovers. They contain apples, pastry, maybe some sugar, except at Arby's they contained ground hazelnuts. This child, her 17-year-old son, who was very informed about his illness, did not know that and had an anaphylaxis reaction and died in his father's arms upon arriving home. Betty Lou Taylor has turned that death into a real movement for action.
There were a couple of other attempts in the past to get this bill before the House and to have some action taken.
The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association has an initiative called Allergy Aware, but it's spotty in its application.
We did a survey way back in 1994 and had much positive response, actually from people around this table, about the issue in their own families and what their awareness of the issue was. We believe it's a public health and safety issue. People have a right to eat in restaurants. Most of us travel. We know that you can't always eat at home, and yet often you're given wrong information and people don't realize the severity of it.
Restaurants need to have somebody designated who can give you information about what you're about to order. But restaurateurs need to be able to change their menus; they need to be able to have different suppliers. How do we match those interests and how do we balance those off?
Finally, it is federal jurisdiction because it is a matter of public health and safety. The current legislation under the Canada Food and Drugs Act relates to pre-packaged food sold in grocery stores.
The department experts who are working on some changes to the act have underlined that food allergies are a serious problem and have identified a priority list of allergens. But they're not going to do anything about restaurant food, or so we've been led to believe.
The third page of the backgrounder shows how it would work. You walk into Stan's Restaurant and tell the server you're allergic to milk, nuts, or whatever. You ask if they can please find out if an item has anything in it. Generally, the chef would be able to tell you that, and if they don't, someone should be able to.
In a branch restaurant like McDonald's or Dairy Queen, they would have binders. Some of them already do this, or alternatively and additionally they would have a designated employee who could give you some information.
.1600
You would be surprised at the number of doctors who cannot get accurate information for their own children. The cost to our health care system is outstanding, to say nothing of the lives that are lost.
Interestingly, anaphylaxis is not a reportable cause of death, so we can't even get accurate information. It's under choking, heart attack, or a whole bunch of different things, but it's not reportable. We estimate that at least 50 people a year die in Canada from improper information.
To underline that point, on August 13, 1996, the Minister of Health, in coordination with the school boards, listed a new brochure and made it available for school boards across the country. It's a handbook on anaphylaxis, because so many children are affected in the schools. Yet you go to a restaurant and you can be additionally at risk.
It is a serious issue and we need to get some action on it. That's why I hope it will be a votable bill.
Are there any questions?
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Torsney.
I'll start on the other side of the table this time.
Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer: I guess my concern would be that, as you mentioned, in an individual restaurant there should always be someone there. I'm wondering about the ability to accomplish and enforce this type of thing. It seems that it might impede a small restaurateur from being able to operate a profitable business. How would you enforce it? How would you assist him in accomplishing this?
Ms Torsney: Actually in small restaurants and in an individual establishment it's almost easier to do. There are generally one or two people preparing the food. Even if the menu lists some of the ingredients in the item you're allergic to, or if that's the normal way they make up the pasta, or whatever, by identifying what you are allergic to, they can very easily make substitutions or changes.
I've been with people who've asked if there was chicken stock in something and they didn't know. They have to know; they're putting something in our food. They ask if there are nuts in something and are told no. They have said they are really allergic to any kind of nuts. They are told it wasn't mentioned that it has coconut, after the person has had it. That can cause death, yet they don't seem to be aware sometimes that these issues are serious.
In fact, for an individual restaurateur it's the easiest way to do it. The branches have more of a route.
Mr. Frazer: I guess my concern is the practicality of this. You say any employee in either a small restaurant or in a chain. Is that reasonable? Would it not be better to say that there is a designated person who shall have that knowledge?
Ms Torsney: Each employee must know who the designated employee is and to take it seriously. In each case we've said a designated person in the restaurant at all times has to know. So it's either the chef or the manager or, in the case of a branch, they have a booklet and/or a designated employee. One person on staff has to know what's going into the dish you're about to eat.
Mr. Frazer: Thank you.
The Chair: I have one question, if no one else has questions.
I'm concerned about restaurant liability. It's like doctors' malpractice insurance. Do you anticipate that once we put this compulsion on people they will have to know what's in the foods or they must have someone on site who does? There's going to be a whole new industry paying for restaurant liability. The price of everything you order will go up and it will become a serious problem, particularly for small restaurants.
Ms Torsney: The interesting thing is that with a lot of legislation and a lot of issues of liability, you must have made an attempt to honour your commitment to people. So if you have a practice that's in place and you try to honour that to the best of your ability, generally you're viewed as having taken appropriate action and therefore the circumstances are mitigating if you are in trouble.
But they're governed by other legislation and they have other liabilities and responsibilities. To me this is the most basic one. They have to know what they're serving you. If it's a life-threatening situation, surely that's the most important way. If they know that they can't continue to fill you up with alcohol until you're barely able to walk out of the restaurant and get into your car, surely they should know that the cookie they place beside your coffee could kill you.
The Chair: Another question is one of complacency. I'm concerned that there are a lot of people out there who know they have children who have very severe reactions to these things. Once we bring in legislation like this, what happens? If I had a child with a problem like that, I'd be loathe to go into restaurants, frankly.
Ms Torsney: Yes.
.1605
The Chair: If you become complacent, you could go into a restaurant and someone could switch the ingredient at the last minute and your child could die. You are less alert to the problem, I think, once we have the great government taking care of us. Has that thought entered your head?
Ms Torsney: I've spoken to a lot of people about it, and parents and people who have these kinds of allergies are constantly on their guard. They never have a free moment. Eating in a restaurant is a huge risk for them.
The current environment means they're often given misinformation that will in fact kill them, or people don't take it seriously. I don't think they're going to be complacent. They all should be carrying EpiPens and be able to deal with the issue.
If a doctor in my own riding, a physician, has to rush his child three times to the emergency ward in our riding after asking what ingredients are in the food and if there are any nuts because his child is allergic, and he can't even get accurate information, then how are the rest of us supposed to be able to go to a restaurant anywhere?
The Chair: Do you know of any other jurisdictions where such legislation has been passed?
Ms Torsney: No. I think there have been some patchy applications in the United States. I think there have been some initiatives, but it hasn't really been taken on.
As I say, the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association does have an initiative called Allergy Aware. We were at their reception and I saw a lovely little sign placed in front of a booth. There was a fellow carving up roast beef and I said, ``Oh, that's the Allergy Aware program. Can you tell me what that means?'' He asked what I wanted to know. I said, ``If I was allergic to nuts, what would you tell me?'' He said not to eat nuts.
The Chair: Pretty good advice.
Ms Torsney: I said it was in reference to his food and he said he didn't know anything; he didn't know what to tell me.
That is complacency and that is a problem. If I really have an issue, what am I supposed to do? Lock myself in my home and never go out? Children eat out; families eat out. Families are on the move. They need to have some ability...
I think it's important to note that Betty Lou Taylor and I are not asking for absolutely no peanuts served in any kind of establishment anywhere in the world. People who are that allergic are going to take precautions anyway. We're just asking that if you ask what the food is in an item, they can make sure there are no nuts in it and they can tell me if there are nuts in it.
The Chair: Mr. Loney.
Mr. Loney: How would you enforce the restrictions beyond the restaurant itself? You make reference here to the smaller restaurants. Most restaurants buy all their flavouring ingredients commercially and, depending on what has the lowest market value at the time, base the cost of that ingredient...
Generally, there are four basic ingredients in flavouring. Let's say it's commercial chicken flavouring. It will say right on there that it has this, this, this and\or this. Depending on what three of those ingredients are the cheapest, that's what goes into those ingredients. How would you enforce the ingredients that the restaurants are using as their ingredients?
Ms Torsney: As I say, in a small restaurant, if I'm that allergic and it's one of those possibilities, I won't eat that item. I'll ask them to please not put a certain cooking oil into the food as I think there could be a risk. If it has coconut or sesame oil listed as one of the three potentials, I would ask them to please use Crisco or just not put any oil in it. Give me an opportunity to have dialogue to know before you kill me.
That's why I've said that a binder would be more appropriate in a chain restaurant, like a Dairy Queen or an Arby's. They could rip the label off the back of the box and put it there and say, ``This is our cooking oil for this week. It says `may contain' so now you decide.'' There's more of an opportunity for people to be informed about their choices and to make choices. Right now they don't have a hope. They don't have anything.
The Chair: Has your question been answered?
Mr. Loney: I still have some doubts about the enforcement, because all the restaurants are buying these commercial ingredients.
Ms Torsney: But they have labels.
Mr. Loney: I know they're labelled, but if you're looking at the ``and\or''... There are maybe six major companies in Canada selling food ingredients to restaurants, large and small, whether it's a chain or a small private company. How do you provide a market for them? Where would the restaurateur go for ingredients? They're all doing the same thing? Every restaurant supply chain in Canada does the same thing. They provide an ingredient.
.1610
Ms Torsney: To some extent, Mr. Loney, it is already governed by the Food and Drugs Act; packaged goods are labelled. If there's a question...if there's something in the ``may contain'' that I'm allergic to, I won't include it. If you're making my pasta tonight, I'll ask you not to use that bottle of ingredients. I can see ``may contain'', so I've got the labels, I've got the packaged goods that go in. Great. As I say, it's even easier.
The Chair: To keep you on track, because we're losing some of our other people and we're a little late, I think what Mr. Loney is looking for is enforcement. How are you going to enforce this?
Ms Torsney: As I say, restaurants are governed by a number of other pieces of legislation. I think consumers will also help; they are asking for help, they've been asking for help for a long time. They'll help us enforce it, and it is enforceable.
The Chair: John.
Mr. Loney: There are no ingredient packages on the market today -
Ms Torsney: That are definitive?
Mr. Loney: - that would fall within the jurisdiction of your enforcement. All the ingredients are based on a similar formula, so -
Ms Torsney: Well, my olive oil...it says there's only olive oil in it.
Mr. Loney: - a company would have to create a new product.
Ms Torsney: Well, maybe that's a marketing opportunity for some Canadian companies.
Again, restaurateurs are taking milk out of the fridge and pouring it into a dish. They're taking flour, and it says what kind of wheat flour is in it. They're making a cookie for you, and they're taking the coconut and putting it in there. If you're allergic to coconut, you need to know there's coconut in there. Now, if they're using something that's a mix, show me the label, let me make a choice for my child and me. If you don't even offer me that opportunity, if you don't even realize that you should offer me that opportunity, my child could die because you can't tell me or show me a label.
As I say, it's so easy in an individual restaurant. You can show me the three things that you're going to put into the pasta. It's right there, I can read the labels, I can make a decision.
The Chair: I think we're going to have to go on. We're taking far too much time on this one.
Ms Torsney: I'll be available later today.
The Chair: Yes, you have one more quick question, Mr. Loney.
Mr. Loney: I don't want to prolong this, but I'll raise the question about the coconut. Restaurants can put in coconut, or they can put in shredded wheat with coconut flavouring, which they quite often do. How do you get around that?
Ms Torsney: The package of shredded wheat that might have coconut flavouring?
Mr. Loney: No, no. They take shredded wheat off the shelf and add coconut flavoured oil. When you get a coconut pie, the coconut that's brown on top is actually shredded wheat that's been soaked in coconut flavouring. So those are things that have to be taken into consideration.
Ms Torsney: That then leads to two cases, Mr. Loney.
Mr. Loney: Exactly.
The Chair: Mr. Loney just wanted to make the point. I don't think he requires a response.
Mr. Loney: No.
Ms Torsney: I'm sorry, but may I answer it?
They...me...Paddy's Restaurant, Paddy's Diner, is either soaking the shredded wheat in the coconut oil - and I know I'm doing it and can tell you that - or I'm putting in a product that is coconut oil soaked shredded wheat, which has a label on it according to the laws of the country right now. Show me the package it came from. I can make the decision. Tell me what package it came from. Give me a choice.
The Chair: Mr. Loney, do you have enough...?
Mr. John Solomon, MP (Regina - Lumsden): Madam Chair...
The Chair: No, no, you can't ask those questions.
Mr. Solomon: I just want to help her out here.
The Chair: No, never mind.
Mr. Solomon: I am a former Dairy Queen franchisee and -
The Chair: But do you want us to pick her bill over yours? Don't help her. You need coaching yourself.
Mr. Solomon: Dairy Queen does print these sorts of labels. That's easy to do.
The Chair: Thank you for sharing that. Now, we're going to pick her bill instead of yours, so you're wasting your time.
Mr. Solomon: Also the amount of energy, calories, and things like that.
The Chair: John, you're not asking any more questions. I'm going to skip you for the next three customers.
You, Ms Torsney, out. Enough.
Mr. Loney: I'm not trying to establish an argument against the bill; I'm just asking questions.
The Chair: Mr. McTeague, quickly, take the seat. I don't think I want to chair this committee any more, and I don't think you want to be a clerk here. What a crowd!
Ms Torsney: Thank you.
The Chair: You're welcome. Out!
You have only two minutes, Mr. McTeague.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague, MP (Ontario)): We're shifting from coconut oil to gasoline.
[English]
I'm of course presenting what I hope will be an opportunity to have a second reading of my bill, C-267, regarding the question for gas price notification.
.1615
I see that the antecedents here have been a question of specific issues to one of general issues, which I think no member of Parliament here has had an opportunity to ignore. That is the question dealing with the cost of gasoline, which is a necessary commodity, no matter where you are in this county, no matter what region of the country you come from, no matter which way you vote.
Madam Chair, the issue before most Canadians today deals with understanding why we are paying the price we are paying today for crude oil, and the price we are paying specifically at the retail pumps.
Over the past several months I've done a number of ventures from coast to coast. It would seem, certainly from discussion with many colleagues, that the question of notifying consumers is paramount. It is one thing for consumers to lament the high price of gasoline, but there seems to be absolutely no explanation by either the oil industry or any member of Parliament for the cost of gasoline.
For that reason this bill would have the effect of requiring the oil industry to provide a 30-day notice period for any increase in the price of gas above 1% at the retail level. The 30 days is not etched in stone. The 1% is not etched in stone either. But it deals with the frustration we see four or five times every year when the price of gas seems to precipitously move up by anywhere from 5¢ to 10¢ a litre.
I know that you, Madam Chair, and I witnessed that over the Easter period, when the price of gas not only in Ontario but also in Alberta increased in one fell swoop by 8¢ a litre - no justification, no explanation. Besides eroding the confidence of motorists and consumers, I think at the end of the day it left the petroleum industry in a position in which it was vulnerable to critical, cynical attacks. I think the oil industry would be very supportive of an opportunity to communicate to consumers, where they sought the information, the reasons behind any increase in the price of gas.
I realize the sensitivities that deal with the question of regulation. This is not regulation, nor is this price manipulation. This bill, in essence, amends the Competition Act to require the Minister of Industry to receive notification 30 days before. It is, if you will, the floor we should expect as far as it concerns trying to get some accountability for gas prices in this country.
Madam Chair, I recall that many years ago there was a voluntary practice at the pumps by many of the gas stations to at least give a breakdown of the cost of the product. No such voluntary opportunity is given to motorists, and of course when the motorists are angry, as we've seen in the cable debate, they come to us.
That's why I think this private member's bill will allow consumers to get from their members of Parliament, from the industry, or from the Minister of Industry an explanation for the high or the low price of gas. It's really up to them to make that decision, and they can judge for themselves.
I think I've said enough on that. I know there may be several questions on this and if there's something
[Translation]
that I have not explained or anything that is not clear, I'm here to answer your questions as quickly as possible.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Langlois, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. McTeague, you obviously researched the issue. I'm always surprised to see that in Canada there is no more than a tenth of a cent price variation, whether you buy from Petro Canada, Shell, or any other oil company.
I was in the US recently, and just in the State of Maine, I've seen variations of up to 30 cents a gallon.
Are you familiar enough with price setting mechanisms to explain why, in an American state, for the same gas with an octane number of 87, there are variations of up to 30 cents a gallon from one city to the other, whereas here there is none?
Mr. McTeague: The reason is very simple. I will tell you what I said to a number of weeklies throughout the country.
The truth is that there is a monopoly on refined products in our country. Twenty years ago, there were a number of oil companies, such as BP, Fina, Texaco, Gulf, etc. Today there are only three major players in Canada.
I know that in your area, there are some locations where Ultramar or Irving are present, but generally there are only three companies that currently control the price of gasoline. Of course, these are Petro Canada, Shell and Imperial, that is Esso.
.1620
Another trend has emerged. I refer to the attrition or squeezing out of independents who used to work with dealers. These were real businesses that could negotiate prices with the company that was selling them gas.
In the last five years, there's been a reduction in the number of gasoline retail distributors in every region of the country. There are three reasons to this.
The first has to do with environmental standards. Second, the credit terms set by the major companies were changed to a large extent to the detriment of the independents who were squeezed out of the system.
You also made a comparison with the US. Americans have antitrust legislation that has no equivalent in this country. Even though we have a Competition Act, it is not in tune with the current situation of having only two or three players in the country today.
This does not really affect my bill. However, it will make it possible to raise the questions you asked and let people come to their own conclusions once they are familiar with the facts.
Mr. Langlois: The reason I ask is to have a better understanding of the facts. Why then shouldn't there be a subparagraph (d) to your section, saying that the Minister must approve such an increase within 30 days?
Mr. McTeague: This might be unconstitutional because price setting is under provincial jurisdiction. At the federal level, we cannot do something like this in an area that, according to me, is of provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Langlois, I did many interviews, in small communities like Baie Comeau, Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!, in small towns and villages in Quebec where the issue has been raised, and I gathered information on the extent and limits of federal powers.
Mr. Langlois: You've done very good work, Mr. McTeague.
Mr. McTeague: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer: I have a follow-up to Mr. Langlois' question. The provincial taxes that are added to gasoline and so on are pretty well established in advance, and I don't quite see why it wouldn't be appropriate for the minister to say he either approves or disapproves of the increase based on the facts as he knows them.
Mr. McTeague: You make an excellent point, Mr. Frazer. As I would have indicated, it's not a matter for the federal government to regulate the prices. They may pass judgment on that. As members of Parliament and as a responsible government, if it is deemed by consumers to be unfair or grossly out of proportion with what people would consider fair or equitable, I think we would be directed by our constituents to respond in any way we can, including working with the provinces, who I believe have a role here.
All I'm really trying to do is to provide people with some scope of understanding, rather than simply seeing the price of gas, as in Edmonton - I did an interview there just two weeks ago - rise 4.5¢ a litre without any given explanation, with the oil companies simply saying tough or giving no explanation at all or perhaps giving something like the little diagram we see here from the Petroleum Communication Foundation...which actually has no basis other than the federal and provincial taxes. All the other prices are fixed. If you go from month to month they change.
My interest is simply to allow members of Parliament and their constituents, and indeed the government and opposition, to judge whether or not the oil industry is able to communicate effectively to people to tell them exactly why they're paying what they're paying.
Mr. Frazer: As I understand it, the oil companies will advise the minister that it is their intention in 30 days to raise the price.
How is the minister charged to communicate this to us, the parliamentarians, and to the citizens of Canada, so that they can reflect their views to us? Is there some provision for that?
.1625
Mr. McTeague: The provision, Mr. Frazer, would be severalfold, without incurring any great deal of cost.
As members of Parliament, we know very well how prolific some ministers are at putting out news releases. We know that those publications could be made on a monthly basis to inform people why the price is increasing without adding any adjectives that would say this is right or wrong.
It would allow the first line of defence - the members of Parliament - to be able to say, ``Ladies and gentlemen, you're asking why the price of gas went up 2¢ per litre this month despite the fact that international oil prices are going down or that it's now summertime and the winter oil is behind us''. It gives us an opportunity to explain to people the facts as they are presented to us by the oil industry.
I think it would be an excellent PR relationship between ourselves and the oil industry, rather than coming at it from the antagonistic point of view of asking why it's doing something and saying it had better not do it or throwing up some constitutional barrier that pits one region of the country against another. I'm trying to give consumers the opportunity to understand, inform, and educate themselves as to why the price is going up, at least from the industry's point of view.
Mr. Frazer: I guess my concern is with the timeframe. From announcement to institution, 30 days is not very much when you consider that the minister has to appraise it, make his decision, and disseminate the information, and we then have to measure input from our constituents. It strikes me that 30 days - particularly if you're going to have a debate on it or a discussion in the House that people will pay attention to - is a very quick timeframe in which to try to do it.
Mr. McTeague: I think your point is a valid one, Mr. Frazer. That's why I've suggested that the time is not etched in stone. I would be more than interested to hear from members of all sides of the House, particularly in committee, as they might see fit.
The reason 30 days was put in there is that it gives the person - the itinerant salesman in humble Saskatchewan - an opportunity to at least know that if they've got to make a freezer order delivery, it's going to cost them an extra $7. You know constituents, as do I, who are on fixed incomes and to whom $6 extra into the tank means a lot. This gives them an opportunity at least to know and predict what the price is going to be.
I say that in the context that it takes six months for the price at the well-head to be passed through at the pumps, so this does not affect the oil industry.
Mr. Frazer: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McTeague.
Mr. McTeague: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Solomon, you can come and present your bill. Of course, you've convinced us to vote for Ms Torsney, so the chances of our selecting yours are pretty slim, but go ahead.
I'm sorry, Mrs. Hayes is next. You're going to have to wait, unless you want to help her too.
Mrs. Hayes, you're here for Mr. Breitkreuz?
Mrs. Sharon Hayes, MP (Port Moody - Coquitlam): Mr. Breitkreuz unfortunately couldn't be in town today, so he's asked me to represent what he's put to you. I believe all of you received a memorandum from Mr. Breitkreuz -
The Chair: Yes, we did.
Mrs. Hayes: - basically outlining the fact that motion 101 qualifies, certainly according to the guidelines that are given by the committee. I'll just restate it:
- That, in the opinion of this House, the government should not spend any more public money on
non-parental day-care initiatives at this time, and any existing expenditures for child-care
should subsidize financial need, not the method of child-care chosen, and further that the
program subsidize children and parents, not institutions and professionals.
First, this is an issue that's on the table right now with day care. With the red book and so on, the issue of what we do with the federal government's role in day care is in front of Canadians. So it's a very appropriate thing to be brought forward, and it certainly needs to be discussed in front of the public and certainly on the floor of the House of Commons.
The other think I'd like to mention is that this affects the majority of Canadians. I think the statistics would show that about 80% of Canadian families have parents, and 80% of them are dual wage earner families. So they're all probably affected by day care or the care of their children in one way or the other. We need to discuss it as parliamentarians. Right now there's a federal-provincial role that's being discussed - how that's going to happen. Maybe it's time to bring that out in the open.
.1630
Frankly, I feel that nothing is more important in this country than the well-being of our kids. This addresses some of that need. We can discuss it across party lines. We can look and ask what is the role of the federal government in family matters and how best can we address this. This puts forward some suggestions. It puts forward suggestions in light of the fiscal constraints on government right now. Let's talk about it in the House, vote on it, and take a look at it. I think it deserves at least the three hours. If we could have more, that would be fine too.
I'm open to questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Any questions?
Mr. Frazer: I have to confess that I'm brand-new on the committee and I don't recall having seen the memo you mentioned.
The statement ``the government should not spend any more public money on non-parental day-care'' - does that mean no more, or not more than it is at present? Does it mean cutting off the current funds or does it mean the current funds would not be increased?
Mrs. Hayes: My understanding of that statement is that present expenditures would not increase.
Mr. Frazer: But they would be continued.
Mrs. Hayes: What is now put to day care initiatives would continue, according to this...
Mr. Frazer: My concern would be for single mothers or parents who have made their arrangements based on the fact that there is parental day care. It might place hardship on them if they didn't have that continuing.
Mrs. Hayes: This would continue the present funding for initiatives. This is just saying - and I think it reflects the fiscal realities - that we can't afford more. You may recall that there have been different promises of $630 million and now $250 million over a number of years for new initiatives to go forward. This says that may not be the best way to look at this issue, so let's talk about it.
Mr. Frazer: Thank you.
Mr. Loney: The funds being allotted now are based more or less on a per capita basis on the number of children. What happens if there's an increase in that range of children? Today we have a need for 100 children, but 2 years from now or even 6 months from now there could be a need for 120 children in a facility. What happens then if we can't spend any more money? The children are there. How do we designate what child is going to go and what child is going to be turned away?
Mrs. Hayes: I think demographics would show us that the number of children is decreasing in a lot of areas. I think too that we have to focus the spending we do have. This goes into that and says it subsidizes financial need. It may mean revisiting how funds are appropriated to families at different income levels. Let's face it, most government departments are being cut back, and this may be one of those. How best to use limited funds doesn't mean that government-funded day care is the only option. There are other options. What should government be looking at in terms of tax credits, tax deductions or whatever to help with recognition of the cost of parenting in families of different income groups?
Mr. Loney: I'm thinking of my own riding of Edmonton North, where the military is moving in. In a matter of months there will be a tripled need for day care. What do we do in that case?
Mrs. Hayes: Maybe this goes back to some of the discussion. Is government-funded day care the only option? This would say that if parents need assistance in the care of their children, perhaps there are other ways more focused to those who need that, whether through the income tax system or whatever. Let's open it up and see how... Government cannot afford to keep spending more money. Every department is being cut back. This recognizes that fact, but are there ways to help people provide day care for their children, or have the choice - and this is a theme of mine, of course - to be able to have the choice of taking care of them themselves? Maybe some would choose that option as well. Let's see what government can do in this area. Day care is not necessarily... Like so many other things, it is what can government afford and how best to deliver what government can afford.
.1635
Those are basically the questions that are here. The other thing is that this is national. Edmonton is picking up some of the families that will no longer be in Chilliwack and so on, so you may need more day care, but Chilliwack may need less.
Mr. Loney: I'm thinking of one particular day care facility in Leduc that hasn't grown much, but the parents are having to pay more because the funding does not cover that increased cost. It's already going up without cutting back or freezing the allotment.
The Chair: That is a comment rather than a question, Mrs. Hayes.
Mrs. Hayes: Okay.
Mr. Loney: It's a fact.
The Chair: I agree with you. I'm just saying that I don't think it requires an answer on Mrs. Hayes' part.
Are there any other questions?
Mr. Frazer: Just one, Madam Chair.
I don't disagree with the thrust of what Gary has put forward, but I wonder whether we are creating a precedent where we recognize some but not other parents as child care providers. Would there be a massive demand from all parents across the country who decide to provide care to their children that they should be subsidized?
Mrs. Hayes: I think this would address that. I think a national day care program would do just that. It would say you need your child taken care of, and the federal government will do it for you regardless. That may mean less funds for everybody because everybody qualifies just by needing day care outside the home.
This says let's revisit that, let's look at financial need so that we target it to people who need it. It also targets the money not to the institutions and professionals, but to the children and parents. If the parents have children who need day care, they receive the money needed to take care of that child. They can then choose to have the auntie or the neighbour do it or whatever. It widens the scope, it gives more choice, and it makes things more affordable for those who need the help. I think what you're saying is a federally funded day care program does just what you fear - everybody qualifies, so everybody's going to take their piece.
Mr. Frazer: My concern is how you establish financial need.
The Chair: I think we're getting beyond the actual scope of this debate.
Mrs. Hayes: Similar to other government programs, I think there could be some sort of income tax test or whatever.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mrs. Hayes: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Solomon, you have exactly 30 seconds. We're trying to make up for lost time.
Mr. Solomon: I have a question for the members. Have you seen the bill?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Solomon: So you've read the general purpose of the bill.
The Chair: Yes, we all have it right in front of us.
Mr. Solomon: I have just a bit of background. This is the bill that I'm putting forward that will amend the Patent Act. It's a bill that makes changes to the Patent Act to allow generic drug companies to compete against brand name pharmaceuticals under a compulsory licensing provision. Many people want this done. It's not just my initiative.
This will amend Bill C-91, which is the drug patent legislation. Bill C-91 was passed by the former government in 1992 on the premise that it would, first, provide jobs for Canadians, and second, provide increased protection for pharmaceuticals and, with that, stable and low-priced prescription drugs for those who required them. Of course, neither of those has been fulfilled. Since this bill has passed we've had about 1,200 fewer jobs in research and development in that industry in Ontario and about 800 fewer jobs in Quebec.
.1640
That's important, but almost as important is the fact that the price of prescription drugs has increased in two areas. The average prescription bill has gone from about $12.48 to over $24, which is about a 93% increase.
When you look at the licensed drugs, which this bill pertains to, during the period from 1988, which was the implementation of Bill C-22, the forerunner of C-91, the price has not reflected a 93% increase but in fact a 258% increase. These are statistics provided by Health Canada.
This bill will change the monopoly provision for prescription drug manufacturers. They have a 20-year monopoly to charge whatever they want for these prescription drugs. This will change to basically a marketing period of four years, at which point generics can compete.
As you may know, the generic companies are mostly Canadian. They produce copy drugs on the basis of licences and royalties to the inventors and to those who hold the patents. It's my sense that this bill is going to be very effective because it will reduce costs not only to consumers and those who require prescription drugs, but to medical plans and to prescription drug plans.
We've seen that in Quebec recently they've had to diminish the coverage of prescription drugs, mainly because of the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs, and so Quebec people are not as protected as they used to be. Saskatchewan has had to do this over the years because of the increase in licensed prescription drugs across the country, and this has affected their plan, which was very comprehensive.
I'm asking the committee to consider making this votable on the basis that, first, it will provide more jobs, and second, it will save $1 billion over a six-year period, according to Health Canada statistics. It will save more than that, as a matter of fact, if you consider individual purchases.
It will also assist the federal government in its battle with the deficit, because it will mean fewer cuts required to health care. About 15% of health care costs now are related to prescription drugs. They've gone up from about 7.9% to 15% since these bills were passed in the House of Commons.
The Chair: Now that you've dropped that small atom bomb, I'll see if there are any questions.
Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Solomon, I missed the first part of your presentation and I will not ask you to repeat what you've already said. Is the basic purpose of your bill to give more room to generic drug companies as opposed to patented medicine firms that come under the Patent Act?
[English]
Mr. Solomon: In essence, it will provide generic drug companies with the opportunity to license and copy the patented drugs after only a four-year marketing period.
This will not diminish any substantial intellectual protection afforded to those who have researched and developed the drugs - because it's a royalty system - except that generics can produce it and they will pay a royalty on the basis of the sales of the drugs.
The pharmaceutical corporations, the prescription drug manufacturers, the major international corporations who have argued for establishment of these laws in Canada and around the world have always used the argument that they will increase job opportunities, increase expenditures in research and development in the countries in which they get this protection, as well as keep prescription drug prices down.
For every country you talk to that has been forced to do this 20-year patent - Chile, Argentina, Mexico - the ultimate result, after they've passed the legislation, is that the jobs have diminished.
For example, since 1988 we've lost over 800 jobs with the pharmaceuticals in Quebec alone and 1,200 in Ontario. So I think this is proof of what's happening in Canada.
But certainly it will diminish the profits that the international drug companies take out of the country; that's for certain. They will still make profits. They will still get royalties on the drugs that have been licensed by generics. They will also have an opportunity to charge - as they do now for a 20-year period - whatever they want over the 4-year marketing period.
.1645
As a matter of fact, in many cases the 20-year period has been extended by the large multinational drug companies to up to 23 years through various court battles and delaying tactics.
That has really gouged consumers and health care plans. It has diminished the capability of government to provide prescription drug plans to their citizens provincially, and it certainly has affected our medical care system across this country in a very dramatic way.
By the way, I have support from a number of seniors organizations, doctors and the Government of Saskatchewan, and the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association liked the initiative. It will also increase the number of people working in the generic drug industry.
Mr. Langlois: Merci.
Mr. Frazer: Does the bill you're proposing conflict at all with NAFTA?
Mr. Solomon: That's a good question. I have an interpretation from Professor Castel of Osgoode Hall, a lawyer. He argues that compulsory licensing is actually covered by article 30 of the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. That article was included in the draft final act for the Uruguay Round - the Dunkel draft - and by article blah, blah, blah.
Basically, he is saying that NAFTA doesn't have a direct influence unless you're the multinational drug companies that say it should. But it's up to interpretation and debate, and it is not locked in stone.
Mr. Frazer: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Loney, you have no questions?
Mr. Loney: No.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Solomon.
Mr. Solomon: May I just add one final comment, Madam Chair? Patents are supposed to recognize the creation of a product for the common good. When the common good is not protected, and in fact when only the wealthy or those who have the ability to buy these particular things, which are very necessary to return to health or to sustain a healthy person...it's no longer in the common good.
I think the Parliament of Canada should be taking this into consideration and acting on behalf of the common good.
Thank you for your consideration.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Robinson. We're sorry to have backlogged everyone and kept you waiting. We'll be a finely tuned machine by tomorrow. We're rusty from the summer. We're asking a lot of questions because we've been sitting at home with our families with nobody to ask questions of. It's okay; we'll get it out of our system.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson, MP (Burnaby - Kingsway): Thank you very much. I will try to be brief, and brave.
I'm asking the committee to declare votable a motion that I believe the committee has before it, M-241. The purpose of this motion is pretty straightforward. It's asking that the federal Minister of Transport establish a Canadian test site for what's called Operation Respond.
Operation Respond is a computerized database of hazardous materials that would help improve safety for firefighters and, I might add, for other emergency workers as well, and help save lives and property.
Some members of the committee may be aware of the background of this particular issue. Frankly, it's one that's been around for too long.
One of the most dangerous aspects of firefighting is circumstances in which firefighters are responding to incidents in which there are hazardous materials. In many cases they are not aware of exactly what those materials are.
There is supposed to be a placard or, in some cases, other identification on the...whether it's a railway car or other carrier. In some instances, that simply isn't there. In other instances, there's real concern about ambiguity. For example, there may be a number of different chemicals that mix, and so on.
Time is absolutely critical in responding to these things. In a number of instances, some firefighters in particular have had their hands tied. They couldn't respond, in some cases for a number of hours, because the current system in place, which is called CANUTEC, simply wasn't adequate. You have to telephone, then they check, and then they get back to you.
There are a couple of examples I'd give very briefly. There was a situation in Guelph in which there was a storage tank that spilled liquid chemicals that were very toxic and very flammable and made it very harmful to breathe.
.1650
Unfortunately under the existing system the firefighters weren't able to identify the contents from the truck itself. All they could do was evacuate the area. They had to wait two hours. This was in Guelph. The chair may actually be familiar with this particular incident. Finally they were able to respond.
Another one, which was even more serious, was a situation in the town of Linwood, Ontario. A volunteer fire department responded to a truck fire. It was an insulation truck. They started to try to put the fire out.
They phoned CANUTEC to find out what chemicals were on board. They were finally able to get the manifest out of the glove compartment and find out what chemicals were on board. CANUTEC got back to them and said, stop your suppression efforts immediately because there could be contamination of the firefighters.
So they're asking that there at least be a test of this in Canada. This particular system, Operation Respond, is currently being used in a number of American jurisdictions. It's working. It's saving lives. It enables them to respond more quickly.
They're not asking that this be implemented throughout Canada.
[Translation]
They're only asking that there be a test to see if it will save lives.
[English]
There seems to be some bureaucratic resistance somewhere in the system. I've been involved in private member's business for some time. I've had many items. This is the first instance where I've actually sought to have one of my items declared a votable item.
It is the kind of thing where Parliament, hopefully on a non-partisan basis, could send out a clear signal to the Minister of Transport, that we want to see some movement on this. Many of you have been on the Hill when the firefighters have lobbied us on this issue. I think you all know it's one of their top concerns.
The Canadian Police Association as well has identified this as an area of top priority for them. Railway workers and others in the transportation field have all said, look, there's no reason not to make an effort, to do a trial.
That's the purpose of the motion, to get out there and send a message from Parliament to the Minister of Transport that we believe this is an effective way of helping to respond to emergency situations.
Some of the areas that are most directly affected are major transportation corridors. Interestingly, Mississauga, my own community - the lower mainland - and the Winnipeg area are the three areas that are most directly affected by this because of the transportation networks that go through.
You know the argument. It's one of those issues where members of all parties are on record as supporting this. I would hope that by declaring this a votable item, we could, by consensus, see some movement on an issue that sorely needs it.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Robinson. The reason Mississauga was chosen was that we were the site of the great train derailment.
Mr. Robinson: Exactly.
The Chair: I can remember grabbing my canary and my dog and having to live at my mother-in-law's for two weeks. It is burned permanently in my memory as a less than pleasant experience.
Are there any questions? Mr. Langlois?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Robinson, how are firefighters currently trained? Through the mail?
Mr. Robinson: There are many types of training. It depends on the region and the jurisdiction. The problem comes from the fact that the current response system is a national system. It's called CANUTEC. It has nothing to do with training. The issue is how to respond quickly and efficiently. The problem is not training. It has to do with implementing the required technology to have an efficient response.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Robinson: Thanks very much.
The Chair: Obviously the firefighters did a very good job lobbying all of us, because we have no questions.
Mr. Robinson: That's good.
Mr. Frazer: You told me I couldn't ask questions.
The Chair: I did not.
Next it's Mrs. Chamberlain.
I'm sorry to keep everybody waiting. Sometimes it's good for you to sit and listen to some of the other bills. You realize what a difficult task we have. I think people believe that a lot of the bills in here are frivolous. They're all very good. We have a good batch this time.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain, MP (Guelph - Wellington): Thank you. Actually, Madam Chairman, I really enjoyed listening to them.
The Chair: Which ones would you vote for?
.1655
Mrs. Chamberlain: Well, I thought the Mississauga one would be a big hit with you.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mrs. Chamberlain: Madam Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to share the rationale behind motion 265. As you know, the motion calls on this government to ask the Standing Committee on Justice to draft a seniors bill of rights.
We are all aware that our population is aging. In Ontario, for example, it is expected that there will be a 55% increase in the senior population in the next 15 years. That includes a 132% increase in the 85 and up age group.
As legislators, I believe we must be prepared for this aging population. I sought the advice of a number of these seniors groups, as well as my constituents, in considering this motion today. Not surprisingly, seniors are concerned about the issues of health care, personal finances, and abuse.
There was also a reminder that many seniors feel vulnerable to a number of factors that are often beyond their control. This makes them unique.
As governments across Canada evaluate division of powers, responsibilities, and as they are fighting deficits, we cannot forget the people that are most affected.
Seniors remain a group that is often directly affected by changes in our social policies. We in Ontario have witnessed the recent introduction, for example, of user fees for prescription drugs. I envision the bill of rights as a road map for governments, health care workers, advocates and Canadians in general to use when dealing with seniors.
Many of the organizations and individuals I have contacted, including the Canadian Association of Retired Persons and the Prince Edward Island Senior Citizens' Federation, have asked that the following be considered: a reminder that seniors should be free of discrimination; freedom from elder abuse; the right of seniors to participate in their own destiny; and the right to be heard on all matters of general public interest.
There was some discussion on whether the bill of rights should also include a list of responsibilities and obligations, including preparation for retirement, reporting of any abuse, and maintaining relationships with family and friends. This is certainly an interesting concept that may be discussed by the committee on justice.
Madam Chairman, I believe this will be an important debate for us as federal representatives and for our constituents. A constituent, Jo Zettle, wrote to me and reminded me that seniors should not be treated as second class citizens because of their age. ``Many seniors love to talk about the past, but they are also very now people,'' my constituent wrote.
Finally, in a recent Ottawa Sun article, reporter Jacki Leroux posed as a senior. She wrote:
- Perhaps most annoying were the assumptions that were made about my mind. Whether it was
buying something in a store, giving directions to a cab driver, ordering lunch or using a bank
machine, the message from most service people was clear - all people with grey hair must have
Alzheimer's.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any questions from the committee?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Ms. Chamberlain, concerning the bill of rights that you would like the Standing Committee on Justice to draft, would these be provisions enshrined in the Constitution that would override other federal legislation?
[English]
Mrs. Chamberlain: I think the issue is that I would like the justice committee to look at a statement. It may comprise a number of things to do with seniors. I think there are issues that are unique to seniors because of their age and the circumstances in which they find themselves when they're elderly.
As I indicated in my preamble, some things like elder abuse and dignity in old age could be considered.
I've met with a number of seniors groups, and I can tell you one thing they talk about is the fact that many issues, like power of attorney - these kinds of things that happen to people when they get old - are things they need to know about, and they don't know about them.
.1700
A number of seniors groups talked to me about an education process of some sort that they should have a right to but don't have. Some of them did indicate that perhaps if we were to go ahead with the seniors bills, it actually would be more helpful to people approaching their senior years, because we would get it right, so to say. But there has been a fair amount of support. The Seniors Mechanism in Regina has supported it, as have CARP from Toronto and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons in P.E.I.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Thank you very much. Thanks for your patience.
Madame Tremblay. You've brought some assistance.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay, MP (Rimouski - Témiscouata): I am appearing before the committee in support of Bill C-297. I would like it to be made a votable item in the House.
I've been before the committee on a prior occasion. I submitted this bill during the first session and my colleague Stéphane came to speak for it because I was travelling to Taiwan with a group of MPs. The committee did not see fit to select the bill, probably because there were other priorities.
This time however, I feel that the committee could accept my submission. I will briefly explain to you why I think this is so.
The House of Commons has dealt with the Riel issue on numerous occasions and maybe the time has come to settle it once and for all. First, at least four bills have been tabled by colleagues from previous Parliaments, in 1983, 1984 and 1987.
A motion from Mr. Skelly, the Member for Comox - Alberni, in October 1989, called for the recognition of Louis-David Riel as one of the Fathers of Confederation.
In 1985, Ms. Copps, in a Standing Order 22 statement, later to be to known as Standing Order 31, called for a posthumous pardon for Louis Riel. That was on the 100th anniversary of his hanging.
On March 10, 1992, following a ministerial statement by Mr. Joe Clark, a motion was made calling for the recognition of the unique and historic role that Louis Riel played in the creation of the province of Manitoba and the inclusion of this province within the Canadian Federation. That motion was passed unanimously voted by the House of Commons.
Mr. Clark mentioned at that time the deep attachment that Louis Riel had for his people and his willingness to sacrifice his life to promote the cause of his people. He said that it was thanks to Louis Riel that Canada extended its borders to the Far North and to the Pacific Ocean.
In 1871, Riel organized the resistance to the American invasion, thus allowing the country to consolidate its borders. On February 22, 1996, Ann McLellan, Minister responsible for the Metis, replied to a letter from Ron Swain, president of the Metis Nation of Ontario.
She reminded Mr. Swain of all that the government had done to mark the contribution of Louis Riel to the development of the country: a stamp issue, tributes through statues or cultural performances, etc., and all the other things I mentioned.
On May 12, 1996, when the new statue of Louis Riel was unveiled in front of the Manitoba legislature, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Lloyd Axworthy, said that for all Canadians, Louis Riel was a Father of Confederation. I quote:
Promises were made to the Metis and they were not kept. As long as I will be in power, I will attempt to ensure that the Metis are entitled to full participation in this country.
.1705
What seems to matter most at this stage is to settle once and for all the case of Louis Riel. There is a deep paradox in Canada. On the one hand, Louis Riel is recognized as a Father of Confederation by the House of Commons and he made possible the development of the province of Manitoba, which led to the creation of Saskatchewan and Alberta, resulting in an extension of our borders, and he put up resistance to the Americans. On the other hand, he was convicted of high treason.
The purpose of this bill is not to decide if, some hundred years later, Louis Riel is guilty or not. But he cannot be recognized as a Father of Confederation and also have a conviction of high treason attached to his name.
It just doesn't follow. The purpose of the bill is simply to remove this stigma of high treason. He may have been guilty of other things, but not high treason.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions? Thank you very much.
Mr. Culbert.
Mr. Harold Culbert, MP (Carleton - Charlotte): Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. First of all, I should tell you that in addition to the electorate, I'm here in this place because I have a great deal of respect and a great deal of love for this country. One of the things I did when I first arrived here in the fall of 1993 and in early 1994 was to make a commitment to the schools in my constituency, of which there are some 42, plus 2 community colleges, to visit and speak to each one of them during my term of office. In doing so, one of the things I began to think of is that we have a giant country that has a multitude of diversities in language, culture, history, and economics. In looking at that, I also wanted to look at what the similarities of our country are, whether they be in the province of Newfoundland, the province of British Columbia, the territories, or all provinces in between.
Some of the things I looked at were the things that unified us: the Canadian flag, which is seen from coast to coast, and our national anthem, which is the same from coast to coast.
Madam Chair, one of the things I could recall as a youngster in elementary school is that every Friday afternoon we used to have a program called junior red cross, and I can remember reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. I often wondered whatever happened to our pledge of allegiance, because I hadn't heard it for many years.
Upon arriving in this place I began to inquire, and I was told that there is still a pledge of allegiance. The words have changed somewhat over the years, but it's there. I asked whether we are keeping it a secret for a particular reason or what the problem is, and they said that no one's come along to really take on the task to promote it. So I got the official words, although admittedly not the legislated words. The official words were brought to me and I copied them and began to transpose them to all the schools, every service club, every legion, and every municipality in my riding at every opportunity. To my surprise, I've been getting requests from other school jurisdictions and other constituencies across the province of New Brunswick, which I might tell you is the only bilingual province in Canada, as well as from other jurisdictions and other provinces across the country. I believe requests came from basically every province and territory.
.1710
One of the things we found in bringing this forth to our schools and in talking to the groups of students assembled therein was that, quite honestly, we're singing our national anthem in our schools as a result of that prompting. Every school is flying our Canadian flag, as it should be, in my constituency, and I believe pretty well across my province now.
One of the questions that came up in regard to our pledge of allegiance is why isn't the House of Commons setting the example for students and for schools right across this country? Quite frankly, I couldn't answer that question. They said to me that when they see it on television, we display the Canadian flag at each side of the Speaker's chair. They understand that we're now singing O Canada on certain days of the week, but why are we not reciting the pledge of allegiance? Well, quite frankly, I didn't have an answer for them.
I said the only thing I could do is try a private member's motion, and I would hope the committee would see fit... Rather than read the motion, I'll leave a copy of it with you. Make what use you can of the pledge. It's yours to use.
I certainly hope the committee will consider making it a votable motion. I first thought of making the request for one day per week of the House, but I feel it is something that should be done following the opening prayer each and every day that the House opens, Madam Chair.
I hope you see fit to support that request.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Are there any questions?
It must have been a very clear presentation.
Mr. Culbert: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you for your patience in waiting this long.
It's now time for the rest of the committee. Mr. Loney had to leave, but he's read the materials. We'll meet again tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. We're in room 208 tomorrow, and our last person will be at 4:10 p.m. From roughly 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. we'll try to complete our business. If we can't, we'll find a more suitable time when we can all meet.
I think it's fairly pressing that we have some selections made for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on Thursday morning. As usual, we're under the gun. If everybody could make sure they're free until 5:30 p.m. tomorrow, I'd appreciate it.
Thank you very much. We're adjourned.