[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, April 26, 1995
.1808 
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order.
We're looking at votability for private members' business. Our first witness is Christiane Gagnon in relation to Bill C-277. Welcome.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (member for Québec): I am pleased to be here.
[English]
The Chairman: You may wish to present to us the reasons why your bill should be made votable. We take usually no more than 10 minutes. You may proceed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: I am tabling my bill on genital mutilation. I think this bill is votable for a number of reasons. You have ten criteria for determining whether a bill is votable or not and I think my bill meets many of them.
The first criterion is that it must be of national interest and not futile or insignificant. I believe there are 15 groups supporting this bill, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada; Violence-info, les Cercles des fermières du Québec, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Council on the Status of Women, the Service d'information en contraception et sexualité de Québec, l'Association ukrainienne-canadienne des droits civils, le Mouvement des femmes chrétiennes, le Réseau des femmes noires francophones de Toronto, the Internation Federation of Gynacology and Obstetrics, the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Family Care International, Quest for the Eradication of Female Genital Mutilation and the Quebec Department of Justice.
There are several proponents from various groups, such as those representing the status of women or cultural communities. I therefore think this bill is of national interest.
Secondly, one of the criteria is that the government must not plan to pass relevant legislation.
.1810
After seeing the government's reaction to a request to amend the Criminal Code, several requests were sent to the Justice Minister. They were flatly denied. During an intreview, the Minister said he didn't see a need for such a bill, which meets the fifth criterion. My colleague Maud Debien and I have discussed the matter with the Justice Department, and we were told the matter was being reviewed but there was no commitment to amend the Act.
When Mr. Pierre de Savoye appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, he asked the Minister about it and the Minister confirmed there was no need to amend the Criminal Code.
The Minister did, however, concede one point: He would rather focus on education and information rather than amend the Criminal Code.
Several countries have already passed legislation: France, Egypt, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Holland and Belgium. Right now, 100 million women are affected by this custom, mostly in African and Asian countries. Every year, there are 200 million new victims.
In 1992, Canada welcomed 3245 female immigrants from countries where genital mutilation is practiced, and according to doctors and social workers, mutilations are being done here in Canada. So the problem is being imported into our country.
I am fighting for this bill for ten reasons. Genital mutilation is unacceptable for a number of reasons: medical, social, psychological and legal. International organizations have all condemned the practice.
Moreover, every international conference on the status of women has voiced its disapproval of the practice. I attended the International Conference on Global Population and Development Health in Cairo and I can assure you it was a hot topic. In fact, Turkey planned to pass legislation on it.
Canada has signed international agreements dealing with this practice. It endorsed all of the resolutions made at international conferences. It must therefore practice what it preaches and guarantee that mutilation is not practiced on its territory or by its nationals.
We must send a clear message to cultural communities that choose Canada and Quebec as their adoptive country because it is obvious some medical and social intervenors are not sure what to do about it. Legislation would solve that problem and would clarify the procedure's legal status. Current provisions in the Criminal Code may indeed be enough to launch a legal suit, but that has not yet been done in Canada.
One can conclude that police officers and Crown prosecutors are as unclear as doctors on the legal status of genital mutilation. A specific provision banning the practice would make it easier to go to court and would clarify the law.
Just think of the case where judge Verreault and another judge handed down judgements that took into account cultural and religious rights. We would be sending a clear message to judges and other stakeholders.
This act would publicly and unequivocally spell the end for this practice. A clearly worded official ban is the best educational tool. Why wouldn't the government pass this bill and use the opportunity to launch a public awareness and information campaign on the subject?
Before people saw Janette Bertrand's show, which portrayed genital mutilation, people had never even heard of the custom, which is still being practised today.
The Criminal Code has provisions on offences covered by the general provisions, such as drunk driving. Why not pass legislation that would help women?
.1815
A woman's right to physical integrity is no doubt as important and could easily be protected by adding a section to the Criminal Code.
If you think of all the organizations in support of legislation, you can see the Department has no reason to say that the proponents working with target groups are against criminalization. A clear message must therefore be sent to cultural communities, since this practice is unacceptable in a democratic country that defends women's rights.
Let me add that we meet several criteria: criterion n0 1, legislation of national interest, not futile or insignificant; criterion n0 5, the government does not plan to pass legislation on the matter; criterion n0 6, the matter has never been raised on the floor of the House; criterion n0 7, no other procedure available; criterion n0 8, drafting in non-partisan terms; criterion n0 9, criminal law, therefore a federal jurisdiction; and criterion n0 10, the House has never dealt with the subject.
[English]
The Chairman: Questions, Mr. Langlois, as briefly as possible, for all of us.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I will be as brief as Mrs. Gagnon, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to say that in the English version, 244.1(a) seems much clearer than 244.1 in French. I think it might be a good idea to rewrite the French version. I find the English version much clearer because it says ``excise the labia majora''. There seems to be a problem. It's a very theoretical question.
Right now, excision or infibulation could perhaps - I emphasize perhaps - be considered assault causing bodily harm. Do you know of anyone who has been sued for practising excision and infibulation in Canada and who may have had accomplices?
Mrs. Gagnon: Evidence has shown the practice does occur, but it is not declared publicly. Social workers have said procedures had occurred and I have also heard that, some husbands have asked doctors to resew their wives' labia until their next baby was delivered. Those things are taboo.
That is why I want to send a clear message to cultural communities from Africa, because it is mostly those women who are subjected to this type of procedure.
Mr. Langlois: When you talk about sending a clear message, I automatically think of the maximum sentence of five years in prison. The maximum sentence is interpreted by our judges, our courts, as being the maximum sentence for the worst offenders, in the worst circumstances. Perhaps this maximum sentence of five years is too light in the worst cases, namely of repeat offences of excision or infibulation, because the general criterion in the Criminal Code is that the maximum sentence is 14 years for violation of physical integrity. Why did you limit the sentence to five years?
Mrs. Gagnon: Why did I limit myself to a maximum five year sentence? If the after affects were more serious, then other laws would be enforced, in the case of a death, for instance.
Mr. Langlois: Thank you. That's all.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. White.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): No, Mr. Chairman. I think my question was asked.
[Translation]
Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds - Dollard): To respond to Mr. Langlois' objection about the maximum sentence not being 14 years, I think Mrs. Gagnon first wants to draw parliamentarians' attention to the matter. If her bill is accepted, voted on and passed by parliament, then afterwards, there can be amendments to the justice subcommittee's text.
I just have one question to ask. You said the Minister of Justice flatly denied your request. He feels a legal suit could be filed and fought on existing legislation.
.1820
If I understand correctly, the purpose of your bill is to have this explicitely mentioned in the legislation to send a clear message to cultural communities. Is that correct?
Mrs. Gagnon: Yes.
Mr. Patry: That is why you are tabling this bill? There is no other reason?
Mrs. Gagnon: That is indeed the reason and that is why we must be very specific, because I think current legislation is flawed. Compare this to drunk driving, for instance. When the law is very clear, it makes things much easier.
Mr. Patry: Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chairman: Do we have any reliable statistics as to how many women in Canada have been subjected to such a procedure of mutilation?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: I do not have the statistics with me, but I can tell you that 3245 immigrants come from countries where 90% of women are mutilated. They excise very young girls. So you can draw conclusions from that.
I do not want to be sensationalistic, but when I see a six year-old girl getting mutilated... It is done in extended families, by the father, the grandmother or the cousin. A clear, specific message must be sent: Canada is more than willing to accept you, but we do not allow such practices, because our role is to protect women's rights and their physical integrity.
I have given you 1992 figures, but there are perhaps 4000 people from African countries. Because of lower birth rates in the future, Canada and Quebec will have to rely on immigration. As a result, we will be accepting a higher number of political refugees from those counrties.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. White.
[English]
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, if there were cases of mutilation in Canada, would something like two, three or four weeks in jail be adequate? I'm looking for a minimum.
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: A minimum?
[English]
Mr. White: Do you have a certain threshold at which you think that penalty could begin?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: You are asking me whether there could be a minimum sentence for someone who had done an excision?
[English]
Mr. White: I'm curious about your wording. It's been bothering me since I read it, actually. It says that it's not exceeding five years. In other words, it could be two or three weeks.
Would you agree with a judge who passed sentence on somebody for mutilation and gave them two weeks? Does that sound reasonable?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: The Bill could be improved.
[English]
Mr. White: Thank you.
The Chairman: If the goal is to send a message to the new Canadians who might adopt the practice, why not just communicate the message? Why not simply communicate the message directly that it is improper or illegal, rather than changing the law and creating a newly articulated offence, and then going to communication? You're going to have to communicate in any event, I presume.
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon: I do not think that is a very good idea. To make people understand the message or to reinforce it, you need legislation and sentences. Women have made strides because some laws were specific. I think legislation also has an educational purpose, namely to reinforce the information. The purpose of this bill is not to change the Act, but to improve a section of the Criminal Code.
[English]
The Chairman: Next is Dr. Martin in connection with Bill C-301.
Welcome back, Dr. Martin.
.1825
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca): Thank you very much, Mr. Lee. It's always nice to be here.
The Chairman: We await your submission.
Mr. Martin: This is Bill C-301, which is commonly known as the ``three strikes and you're out'' bill. It calls for a mandatory 25-year sentence for individuals who commit a violent felony. Those include things such as manslaughter, attempted murder, rape and criminal acts of that nature.
The purpose of this is to deal with habitual violent offenders and serious felonies to protect society. It's to toughen up existing laws, not to contradict them. Too often we find that the protection of society is subjugated to the rights of the criminal. Giving people a chance is a hallmark of a humane society, but this bill is for those who repeatedly defy the law and the norms of society in a violent fashion and flagrantly abuse innocent lives.
The courts need to be forced to toughen up sentencing guidelines for repeat offenders. Again, that is the purpose of this bill. I'm doing it to deal with those individuals who pose the greatest threat to society.
We have some recent real-life precedents on the ``three strikes and you're out'' bill. It was enacted in 1993 in Washington State. By October 1994 it was enacted in 13 other states, including California, Colorado, Kansas, and a number of others. There are 7 other states that also have it pending.
In short, at least half the states in the lower 49 have adopted, or are potentially going to adopt, the ``three strikes and you're out'' bill.
The fiscal considerations are particularly important in this and have been bandied around. I think it's important to address them here. So I'll hit it head on.
Many of the states, in fact, have done fiscal projections on this. For example, in the California governor's office of planning and research, they estimated that this law, through to the end of the decade, would save the state five times more than the cost of implementing it. These savings come from victimizations, arrests, and prosecutions that will not occur because of the ``three strikes and you're out'' bill.
There's another interesting thing to realize that separates us from many of the states in the United States, which has a much higher rate of violent crime than that of Canada. A third of the inmates in our jails are actually there for the non-payment of fines and for non-violent offences.
I think this bill would also give the penal institutions and the judicial department an opportunity to address this problem to find a more constructive way to deal with these individuals who are incarcerated with hardened criminals. But that is an aside.
Last, I'd say that there is widespread support for this bill across this country. It is, without a doubt, of national interest. Also, the bottom line really is public safety. It is to protect those individuals who are the innocent civilians out there from the small number of individuals who have repeatedly and flagrantly abused, in a violent fashion, innocent people.
I thank you for your time on that. I'm open to questions.
Mr. White: Mr. Martin, I take it that age isn't a consideration here?
Mr. Martin: That's correct. This only applies to adult individuals; it doesn't apply to young offenders at all.
Mr. White: Say we have an 18-year-old person who breaks into a house. There are minor damages or maybe no damages at all. A few coins are taken or whatever. Then we have the same person, a couple of years later, doing a similar thing. Then it might happen a couple of years later. Would you say that person would be in for life?
Mr. Martin: Yes, it's for individuals who are committing violent and serious felonies.
Mr. White: Isn't robbery on your schedule?
Mr. Martin: That's section 344 under the schedule to part XXIV. It's indeed that. That is something that needs to be addressed within Parliament as to whether or not it ought to be there.
.1830
The robbery provision is one you can employ for those individuals who are committing robberies repeatedly over time - those individuals who are committing a robbery, a theft over, which is over $5,000. This is not for somebody who steals a few baubles in the store. Theft over, as you know, has been changed to $5,000 and up, so it's for serious robbery offences.
It's not three offences at one time. It isn't for the individual who, for example, commits three offences and then gets caught. If an individual commits a series of offences at time zero, another series of offences two years after that and another series after that, then they have demonstrated to be abusing the rights of innocent civilians.
So it's not for misdemeanours, which would be theft under.
Mr. White: Thank you.
Mr. Patry: Mr. Martin, in section 246, what does ``overcoming resistance to commission of offence'' mean? The translation in French is difficult. Does it mean that if someone disagrees with something on the environment and goes and does some sitting, and he's caught by the police and found guilty, after three times he's going to be put in jail for 25 years?
What type of infraction do you mean?
Mr. Martin: If you are committing an offence and the police catch you and you attempt to fight those police officers and hurt them, that would be considered overcoming resistance to committing an offence.
Mr. Patry: By hurting them?
Mr. Martin: That's correct.
Mr. Patry: What if you don't hurt them?
Mr. Martin: It would be up to the courts to decide that.
Mr. Patry: That means you could have someone who's 19 years old and has done a little robbery, and suddenly the police want to go and catch him at home. If the kid runs out the back door and puts up some resistance, that's resistance to the law?
Mr. Martin: Running away is not. Overcoming resistance would be if he beat up the police officer. That would be overcoming resistance to committing an offence.
Mr. Patry: Thank you.
Mr. Langlois: Dr. Martin, as a lawyer, I always try to find some loopholes in the sections of our laws. If I were a counsel to an accused, under this section I would just suggest to him or her to plead guilty, because your section specifies a person who is convicted. You have no provision for a person who pleads guilty to an indictment or a charge against him or her.
Mr. Martin: I'm sorry; I don't understand the question.
Mr. Langlois: I will rephrase it in French.
Mr. Martin: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Your bill says in clause 761.1:
- 761.1 (1) Not withstanding anything in this act, everyone who is convicted for the third
time...
What you propose would not apply to an individual pleading guilty to a charge as indicated in the schedule. The only case you anticipate is that of an individual pleading not guilty and then found guilty at the end of the trial. This would be the first loophole.
Other questions have been quite adequately covered by Dr. Patry, but I would like to know if in your view for that section to apply, the individual should go to trial and then be found guilty or should an individual pleading guilty, when that is possible, also receive a life sentence, in which case both situations would be treated the same way?
.1835
[English]
Mr. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Langlois: Merci.
The Chairman: I have one brief question. You have left out ordinary sexual assault, as opposed to aggravated sexual assault. You have left that off your list.
Mr. Martin: Actually, on the bottom, Mr. Lee, in number 2, the offence provided for section 144, rape, of the Criminal Code is also included in this.
The Chairman: Okay. And you've left out murder in your list, presumably because there's a potential life sentence attached.
Mr. Martin: That's correct. Murder already has a potential life sentence.
The Chairman: Potential, but second-degree murder is not there.
I would concede that the list is changeable at committee; I recognize that.
Mr. Martin: Clearly I will take the wisdom of Parliament and the committee into consideration on that.
I'd like to answer your question, because that's exactly the same question I asked the lawyers in Parliament: Why wouldn't we have second-degree murder and first-degree murder in this? They said the penalties exist already to have up to 25 years for that.
The Chairman: As a maximum.
Mr. Martin: Yes.
The Chairman: This is a minimum penalty for this one.
In any event, that's fine.
Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I would like to draw your attention to item two of the schedule. Is it your intention to have a retroactive piece of legislation so that an individual who, prior to January 4 1983, would have been found guilty of rape could say his sentence be cumulative with a new sentence for sexual aggression? Is it possible to add a sentence to another one?
[English]
Mr. Martin: No. That's an interesting question that was brought up. The same situation existed in the United States. They wondered whether they should make it retroactive or not.
I think it would be fair to start off at time zero and start this now for the future. The object is, number one, of course, to protect society, but two, it's to act as a dissuasive mechanism for those individuals who choose to engage in that.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Martin.
Our next presenter is Eleni Bakopanos in relation to motion M-418.
Welcome, Ms Bakopanos.
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos, (Saint-Denis): Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Have you appeared before us before?
Mrs. Bakopanos: No. This is the first time.
The Chairman: We take five minutes to hear from you and then we blitz you with questions.
Mrs. Bakopanos: Okay.
I'm distributing a text.
The Chairman: If you read what is there, you will consume most of the time.
Please commence.
[Translation]
Mrs. Bakopanos: First of all, I wish to thank the members of this committee for the consideration they gave to motion M-418 regarding Canadian citizens reported missing in Cyprus.
If M-418 were a votable item, Canada's international reputation as a country respecting human rights would be improved.
In addition, recent resolutions adopted by the United States and the European Parliament make it necessary for us to express our commitment regarding this humanitarian issue to the international community.
At a time when respect for general principles of international law and fundamental human rights are necessary prerequisites to a just and stable international order, Cyprus remains an unacceptable and tragic exception.
More than 20 years have passed since the illegal invasion of nearly one third of the island of Cyprus by Turkish forces. Further to the Turkish invasion of 1974, 1,619 Greek Chypriots have been reported missing, and are still missing to this day. This number includes 993 soldiers and 126 civilians. The figure includes 112 women as well as 26 children under 16 years of age.
Most of these missing persons were arrested by Turkish soldiers, and, long after the conflict was over, they're still living in the occupied zone, or held in Turkey. I visited Cyprus last January, and I heard countless messages of appreciation and gratitude from the authorities who met with our group.
Both organizations and individual citizens strenghtened my determination to find a just and valid solution to this problem. This visit also made it possible for me to understand the situation of families whose relatives have been reported missing, as well as the enormous difficulties faced by these families when they attempt to trace their missing loved ones.
.1840
[English]
As you all may be aware, our peacekeeping forces have participated in operations under the UN for nearly 30 years. Although we as a nation do not have the power to bring about a solution to this problem, we can do our part in helping to locate missing persons so families can once and for all learn the whereabouts of their loved ones.
Although many international organizations, including the UN and Amnesty International, have taken strong positions against the plight of missing persons, none have been successful in finding these people. No excuse can justify the fact that these people are unaccounted for after more than 20 years.
I have attached for your information the text from numerous resolutions that have been adopted over the years regarding the issue of missing persons in Cyprus. I begin with the International Committee of the Red Cross, in which they declared their alarm at the phenomena of force or involuntary disappearances perpetuated, connived at or consented to by governments.
Next are five UN resolutions on missing persons from 1975-1982. On April 2, 1992, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a report of the European Commission of Human Rights that referred specifically to the missing Greek Cypriots and noted that the fate of these persons remains unknown.
Despite the adoption of these resolutions and the establishment of a committee on missing persons in Cyprus in 1981, which worked in cooperation with the UN Secretary General, the fate of the 1,619 missing persons has not yet been ascertained. The fact that over 20 years have lapsed since the disappearance and that the Cyprus issue does not receive much media coverage today does not diminish the importance of this issue.
Recent actions taken by the United States Congress and the European Parliament demonstrated that the issue of missing persons remains an issue that must be addressed. They have, in turn, passed resolutions to investigate the disappearances of these people.
The United States Congress legislated an act on January 25, 1994, declaring that investigations of the whereabouts of the United States citizens missing from Cyprus since 1974 will take place. The United States further approved a budget of $1.5 million U.S. and established a special office in Cyprus, which is staffed by three members. This act further states that any information arising from the investigation on others missing from Cyprus will be reported to international or non-governmental authorities.
Finally, this month, the European Parliament, inspired by the U.S. resolution, called on the European Union to take the necessary steps to investigate the fate of the persons listed as missing since the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus and report back to Parliament as soon as possible.
These resolutions were tabled in the human rights subcommittee of the European Parliament. I have attached copies of both the U.S. and the EU resolutions for your information. I believe that Canada's voice is essential to help the efforts of the U.S. and the EU.
By making motion 418 a votable motion, we will be demonstrating the Canadian Parliament's commitment to this humanitarian issue, which is in line with our international reputation as a defender of human rights.
While there are only two Canadians among the missing people, there are hundreds of Canadians of Cypriot origin who are affected by the disappearance of these people. This would be, in my opinion, a very positive thing for this government to do.
Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Thank you, Mrs. Bakopanos, for the work you have done on that issue, work that certainly gave us food for thought.
Do you believe that the Republic of Cyprus government, or the Republic of Turkish Northern Cyprus, has information regarding the missing persons, or do you believe that the situation is totally out of control?
An inquiry conducted under the authority of the UN, of the US, or of Canada, might very well hit the same wall of silence. It happens quite often that people reported missing, as was the case in Argentina under the military regime, are never found again.
Mrs. Bakopanos: I have two answers to your question. The committee handling that issue for the Greek Cypriots invited us to meet them in Cyprus last January. They told us that the other government did have such information.
I cannot state categorically that the other government does have information regarding the two missing Canadian citizens, one of whom is from my district. This is one of the reasons why I am determined to bring this issue before Parliament.
.1845
There is a Canadian citizen in my riding that I see every Sunday at church crying because she does not know where her son is. I find it unacceptable for someone not to know.
If her son is missing, she should be told there is no trace of him. Even if the government has all the details, the government has not sent any response as to the whereabouts of that person, who was a soldier in 1974. The government did not say it did not know; it simply did not answer. I do believe people should get an answer.
In my brief, I also refered to five Cypriot-Americans about whom the United States government has been trying to get information for years.
The United States has decided to try other ways to find them and they decided to go on site.
Mr. Langlois: When you say detailed investigation, that could be done by CSIS, secret services, or any other means.
Mrs. Bakopanos: I have a suggestion. If you want my opinion, given that the United States have already set up an office there for this mission, we could send someone from the Canadian government to join the American delegation to look for the two Canadian citizens.
Mr. Langlois: Thank you, Mrs. Bakopanos.
Mrs. Bakopanos: It would not cost anything; that is all I am asking. That is one option.
[English]
Mr. White: Mrs. Bakopanos, were these two people Canadian citizens at the time of their disappearance, or are you saying they are dependents of people who are now Canadian citizens?
Mrs. Bakopanos: One of them was a 24-year-old McGill University student, who was born in Montreal. So he was a Canadian citizen.
As for the other one, who lives in my riding, his mother and sister are Canadian citizens, but he wasn't a citizen in 1974. He would normally have become a citizen. He was supposed to come to Canada after serving in the army, but he disappeared in 1974.
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: I have one last question for Mrs. Bakopanos. Of the missing 1619 Greek-Cypriots, none is still alive?
Mrs. Bakopanos: No one knows.
Mr. Patry: But Cyprus is not big enough to hide them?
Mrs. Bakopanos: That is not the problem. The Turkish government does not want to give the committee any information on people who went missing on the Greek side of Cyprus and does not know if those people are missing.
As I said in my presentation, one of those people was less than 16 years old. That child may still be alive; he lived in the northern part of the island. But no one can answer my question because no information is provided, despite pressure by the United Nations.
Mr. Patry: When was the last time the United Nations put pressure on the government to provide information?
Mrs. Bakopanos: The United Nations passed resolutions last June.
Mr. Patry: Thank you.
Mrs. Bakopanos: I have given you copies of some of the resolutions along with my presentation.
[English]
The Chairman: Can you advise us of the current position of the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs in relation to either of these two cases?
Mrs. Bakopanos: They haven't done anything on these particular two cases. Basically External Affairs has been dealing with the overall issue of the illegal invasion by the Turkish government. It has not dealt specifically with the issue of the missing persons or of the two Canadians.
The Chairman: If I were a relative of one of these persons and I wrote to them, do you know what the department would write back to me?
Mrs. Bakopanos: I think there have been representations made to the department in the past by, I'll call them, national organizations of Greek Cypriots. They were to no avail as far as obtaining information is concerned.
I would also like to say, Mr. Chairman, that if the committee deems it appropriate, I'm willing to allow less debate than normal on this motion in order to permit other members to bring forth their motions for debate, or other bills.
The Chairman: You're proposing less than three hours?
Mrs. Bakopanos: Yes, if the committee so desires.
The Chairman: Colleagues, is that okay? That's great. Thank you.
Mrs. Bakopanos: Thank you.
The Chairman: Our next presenter is John Nunziata in connection with motion M-293.
Mr. John Nunziata, (York South - Weston): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.
.1850
The motion reads:
- That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate steps to initiate a
Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Air India disaster of June 23, 1985 which claimed the
lives of 329 people.
When we watch on television and sympathize with the Americans on what happened in Oklahoma City, their biggest, most gruesome and hideous act of terrorism, we're reminded of what happened to our fellow Canadians 10 years ago. This year is the 10th anniversary of that particular act of terrorism.
No one has been convicted or found responsible for this act of terrorism. The families are still waiting. A number of us, including the chairman, have been calling for a royal commission of inquiry for a good number of years.
Just by way of background, I should advise that there are allegations the government agencies were warned in advance of the actual disaster that something might happen. With regard to that warning, on the day the flight took off from Canada the radar unit at the airport malfunctioned. Instead of bells and whistles going off, the luggage was hand-searched with the use of a wand.
Subsequent to the bombing itself, the Security Intelligence Service admitted in court that they falsified affidavits in order to obtain judicial warrants. There were cases of CSIS tapes that were erased. They say it was done by accident. Some suggest it was because of an attempt to cover up gross negligence on the part of people.
In any event, there's a lot to this. The families are still waiting.
There has been a royal commission in India. There has been another inquiry in Cork, Ireland. Yet in Canada, for whatever reason, the previous administration and this one - to date - have refused to initiate that royal commission of inquiry.
There has never been an offer of a substantial reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible. There are allegations that the Government of India might somehow be implicated. There are a lot of unanswered questions.
In my view, and in the view of relatives of those who were murdered, only a royal commission of inquiry will answer some of the questions. There's also a belief that a royal commission of inquiry could assist in the criminal investigation.
One of the reasons given for not having a royal commission is that it might impede the criminal investigation. But it is 10 years now that we've been waiting and the criminal investigation is not very active, if at all. So I would urge you to select this item as a votable motion.
A good number of members of Parliament are familiar with this, or have constituents who have families or relatives who were on board that plane. To give members of Parliament the opportunity to do something on this, the 10th anniversary of the bombing....
I want to make one final point. When I was watching what was happening in the United States, I was reminded that the Canadian government did not have a national day of mourning or a memorial service of any sort for those who were murdered. The flags on Parliament Hill and elsewhere did not fly at half-mast.
.1855
What in fact was the first act of the Government of Canada after the bombing in 1985? Our Prime Minister picked up the phone and called Rajiv Ghandi, the Prime Minister of India, to offer condolences.
There was a very disturbing mind-set that existed then - and this probably was the cause of a lot of what happened with this particular case - that because these people wore turbans and their skin was off-white, somehow these people were not Canadians.
The fact remains that this is the worst mass murder in Canadian history. It's probably one of the worst ever in the history of the world. We in Canada have not yet had a royal commission of inquiry. I think Parliament should be given the opportunity to voice its opinion.
Thank you.
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions.
Mr. Nunziata, what were the nationalities of those people on board.
Mr. Nunziata: They were East Indian.
Mr. White: All, or were there -
Mr. Nunziata: They were mostly East Indian.
Mr. White: I thought there were some Americans on that flight.
Mr. Nunziata: Not to my recollection.
I'm sorry, did you ask what nationality?
Mr. White: Yes.
Mr. Nunziata: They were Canadians of East Indian origin.
Mr. White: Yes, but were there not some Americans on that flight?
Mr. Nunziata: Not to my recollection. I think about 308 of the 329 were Canadian citizens.
Mr. White: And the others were...?
Mr. Nunziata: Indian citizens.
Mr. White: All right.
Mr. Nunziata: It was a flight en route.... As you may know, it took off from Vancouver, landed in Toronto, then was en route to Bombay.
Mr. White: There is a reason I asked. You did say that India and Ireland had some form of inquiry. Did no other country undertake an inquiry?
Mr. Nunziata: There were only three countries that had a direct involvement: India, because it was an Air India plane and there were some Indians on board; Ireland, because it happened off the coast of Ireland; and Canada.
Mr. White: Were there any awards, compensation or anything like that resulting from that?
Mr. Nunziata: The civil actions are still continuing, or they may have been resolved. But if there was any award, it certainly wasn't substantial.
Mr. White: It wasn't a Canadian flight, but has the Canadian government, for example, Transport Canada, done anything at all other than what you've said?
Mr. Nunziata: They say the investigation is ongoing. A couple of years ago they sent an RCMP team with a submarine, one of those subs that goes under water, to try to retrieve evidence from the bottom of the Irish Sea. But other than that, there's no desk with any significant resources to investigate this with vigour.
The time has come when we can't simply say, well, we'll just continue on ad infinitum waiting for this criminal investigation to be concluded.
In my view, it's stalled. It stalled a number of years ago. Either that, or they know who did it and they just don't have the evidence.
Mr. Patry: I have just one small question. Did the royal commission in India and the inquiry in Ireland come up with any satisfactory conclusions?
Mr. Nunziata: There was the Kirpal.... I can provide members of the committee with copies of the reports, but there was nothing conclusive.
The bombing took place on an anniversary; I think it was the second anniversary of the bombing of the attack on the temple in Amritsar. So the world was on heightened alert for something to happen.
Here in Canada there were only two Air India flights. Obviously Air India was a target. If CSIS was doing its work, there should have been enhanced security. There wasn't.
They say they had a lot of intelligence and they were monitoring people. But they didn't have any Punjabi-speaking people to decipher the information, because the Punjabi-speaking officers were on vacation.
The Chairman: I resist the temptation to ask questions or engage in the discussion. But that's a good presentation and it's brought out further questions.
Thank you very much, Mr. Nunziata.
Mr. Nunziata: Thank you.
The Chairman: Our next presenter is Raymond Lavigne, in connection will Bill C-313.
.1900
Good afternoon, Mr. Lavigne. If this is your first time in front of this subcommittee, I should advise that we usually allow about five minutes to the presenter. Colleagues may then wish to ask questions.
You may proceed.
Mr. Raymond Lavigne, (Verdun - Saint-Paul): Thank you.
I'll express myself in French because it's easier for me.
[Translation]
Colleagues, Bill C-313 was conceived and introduced in first reading following some representations made to my office, to the office of Mr. Clifford Lincoln, the office of the Honourable Minister for Manpower, Ms Lucienne Robillard, and that of the Right Honourable Prime Minister, Mr. Jean Chrétien, by employees of ADM Agri-Industries Limited.
I firmly believe that this bill answers their concerns as expressed during their visit, after discussing the matter with their union.
But this morning, while my staff was putting a finishing touch to my request before your Committee in order to make this a votable item, at 11:45 a.m., I received a call and a fax fromMr. Paul Tremblay, chairman of the Syndicat national des employés des minoteries ADM Agri-Industries Limited, and from the CSN, asking me in his own behalf and on behalf of his members, to withdraw Bill C-313.
I have tabled a copy of these documents. You have my presentation as well as the facts on the pink sheet. I therefore regretfully request that Bill C-313 be withdrawn.
I want to apologize to all the people who worked on this project and also to you, my colleagues, for wasting your valuable time. I also bid good luck to the union and the workers of ADM Agri-Industries Limited.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I suppose we should commend you for your efforts to contribute to the resolution of that collective bargaining dispute.
It is certainly not a major problem for us to have you withdraw an item; that perhaps makes our job a little easier. Thank you for attending.
Mr. Lavigne: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Lavigne, procedurally it is necessary - -not before this committee but before the House - for you to request the consent of the House to withdraw your bill from the Order Paper.
Mr. Lavigne: When do I have to do it?
The Chairman: You would do that after consultation with the House leaders at your mutual convenience. I have no doubt the House would grant its consent.
Mr. Lavigne: No problem.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Our next presenter is Sarkis Assadourian in relation to Bill C-274.
Mr. Assadourian, welcome back.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian, (Don Valley North): Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Good to see you again. We have about five minutes to hear from you, and then colleagues may have questions.
Mr. Assadourian: I'll make it very short because I've prepared a brief. I can pass this brief to you so you can read it when you deliberate on your own.
The Chairman: All right.
Mr. Assadourian: Basically this bill calls for designating the second Sunday in September as Grandparent's Day in Canada. As you know, many provincial governments and municipalities in the country do that. But we have never had a day especially designated for grandparents in Canada as such.
As you know, the population in Canada is gradually getting older; it's not getting younger. As we go on, in the year 2025 18% of the population will be over 65. I'm hitting that goal before I get to 2025, but I'm trying to get myself ready. Hopefully many of us will become grandparents and we'll have a day to celebrate with the family and grandchildren.
.1905
It's very important that we do recognize the contribution of grandparents, especially when we go through changes in society, divorces, breakdown of the family, and what have you. Children look toward a stable situation in a family; I think grandparents contribute to that.
I will not go over all the points I prepared for you. I would like to say that in 1977 Jimmy Carter declared the second Sunday in September as a day for grandparents to be recognized and celebrated throughout the country.
I think we should do the same things and give the grandparents of Canada equal treatment, just as we do for mothers on Mother's Day and for fathers on Father's Day.
If you have any further questions, I would be more than happy to entertain them. The bill is set forward.
As I recall from the last time I was here for questioning, some of my colleagues are concerned about the financial aspects. I assure you there is no financial contribution to this.
Mr. White: I never said a word.
The Chairman: A little light-hearted banter over economics never hurt anybody.
Mr. Assadourian: I'm following up the questions you asked last time, so I'm just making the point.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. White: Well, there is the cost of the grandparent's card, isn't there, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Who knows?
Mr. Assadourian: That's good for the economy.
I won't object if you consider it to be a votable item, which is really important. It's good for society.
The Chairman: Are there any questions in connection with the concept of a grandparent's day? No.
You're getting an easy ride here, Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Assadourian: I look forward to your favourable decision then.
The Chairman: Thank you for presenting this.
Our next presenter is Mr. Ringma in connection with motion M-381.
Welcome, Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Bob Ringma, (Nanaimo - Cowichan): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, all, I hope.
The Chairman: You can be assured of that. We have about five minutes for you, sir.
Mr. Ringma: I would like to start by reading the motion:
- That, in the opinion of this House, and as the anniversary of the original Official Languages Act
approaches (1969-1994)
- - and I'll explain that in a minute -
- the government should thoroughly assess the way the Act is applied in Canada, by appointing
some individual to carry out a detailed and balanced review of the work done so far, and
reaffirm Parliament's commitment to a just and adequate policy on official languages.
We can look at all the other criteria, except perhaps number 6, and I don't know about it. In my view, numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 are all non-applicable.
Number 6 stipulates that depending on the context of political issues and events, the number of times a topic has appeared in the House may be of significance. Well, I don't know. How can you measure how often this topic of the Official Languages Act has been in front of the House? That I don't really know.
In any event, this motion was first presented last year by Jean-Robert Gauthier, who is now a senator. It's because he was - promoted, demoted? - assigned to the Senate that his motion was dropped.
.1910
But I think it's significant that I find the wording of his motion to review things quite adequate for my purposes, for Reform purposes, for Canadian purposes. So I think that's quite a large point.
The other point I would make - and Mr. Langlois may correct me - is that the Bloc Québécois is as concerned about the Official Languages Act as is the Reform Party, as is perhaps the Liberal Party, I don't know, but as is Canada as a whole.
This Official Languages Act has been in effect for 25, coming up 26, years. The official languages commissioner yesterday tabled his annual report for 1994. That report in itself tells you that the Official Languages Act is not working.
I say very simply, it is time for a review. It's overdue for a review. We should collectively get together, examine this thing, find out what's wrong and what's right, and how we can best correct it for the benefit of all Canada.
My pitch is very simply that. The act needs reassessment. If you get them on a reasonable level of exchange, with no emotion, I think most Canadians involved would agree that yes, it's time. There's enough unhappiness expressed that it's time for us to review it.
So the motion as it stands, with the small exception of the phrase referring to the fact that the anniversary of the original languages act approaches.... That's past. It has approached and gone because Jean-Robert Gauthier has come and gone from the Commons.
Other than that, to say that the government should thoroughly assess the way the act is applied by appointing an individual to carry out a detailed and balanced review and reaffirm Parliament's commitment to a just and adequate policy makes a lot of sense to me. It can do good for all of us and the main good is for the unity of the country.
The Chairman: Well, thank you very much. J.-R. is gone; long live J.-R. I'm sorry.
Mr. Ringma: There you go.
The Chairman: In any event, colleagues....
Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Thank you, Mr. Ringma, for your presentation. In the French version you mention the nomination d'un individu where as in English you are talking about appointing some individual. Would the fact that this individual is or has been Commissioner for Official Languages in Canada be to the advantage of this review, or would it be a drawback?
Mr. Ringma: I would see it as a drawback. It should be somebody neutral, somebody who is not involved. It would be a drawback to have someone from the office or even the Commissioner himself. It would not work.
Mr. Langlois: Would it be advantageous to have someone who is fluent in both official languages and who has to use both in his work?
Mr. Ringma: It would undoubtedly be a good thing to have someone who is bilingual and who understands Western Canada as well as Quebec as well as the Atlantic. It should be someone who is thoroughly Canadian.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Ringma, not that I want to see you appointed, but you are describing your own career profile. You have lived in various regions of the country, and you have some insight into Canadian reality. Your past experience is giving you that insight and not everybody has had that opportunity. I'm asking you to be as impartial as you can be and to tell me what you think of your own qualifications.
.1915
Mr. Ringma: I agree. I could do this work because I have lived in Quebec for several years. I have lived in the West and even overseas. But anybody with the same background could do it just as well. I have a very good grasp of the Canadian reality, and it would be an advantage, but I cannot assess my own qualifications.
Mr. Langlois: I understand. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. White: Mr. Ringma, what do you mean by ``thoroughly assess the way the Act is applied''? Do you mean the function of the department? The way money is spent in the program now? The cultural advantages of bilingualism? Just what is meant by that?
Mr. Ringma: It means most of what you have said. Anyone who knows me knows that money is near the top of the list here. In my opinion, because the act is the way it is, it gives licence for promotion that is wasteful of money.
But it means the other things as well. It means the impact of the act on the cohesiveness or the divisiveness of Canada as a whole.
You see, having lived in Quebec and being a westerner, I understand when my constituents and others are resentful about the application of the Official Languages Act.
That resentment is transferred to Quebec, and that's wrong. That is unjust. It's because the act is applied and it said, here we go, we'll post signs, here, there, and the other place.... It doesn't matter; we'll translate everything. They see this as wasteful and as a reflection of a certain arrogance on the part of the Ottawa élite, who say this is the act and this is the way we'll go with it.
Maybe I'm being a little overboard in my response, but....
Mr. White: I'm curious as to why one person would be selected for such an undertaking.
Mr. Ringma: I don't have a good answer for that. I think that probably Mr. Gauthier put it together with his practical sense. He didn't want another commission. Probably he thought, rather let's pick a person who's trustworthy, who's knowledgeable, who's this and that and say, fine, here are your terms of reference. Take six months, look at it, and come back with the recommendations. I sense that it's just a practical thing.
Mr. White: The wording here, if I'm not reading this differently, is as follows:
- by appointing some individual to carry out a detailed and balanced review of the work done so
far, and reaffirm Parliament's commitment to a just and adequate policy
Mr. Ringma: No, there are two sections to it. The first is ``to carry out a detailed and balanced review of the work done so far.''
Now, what does he do there? He looks at 25 reports of official language commissioners, at all the complaints that are on the books, and he says, here's where it's lacking, or here are its strengths.
.1920
When I sit on the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages with people like Suzanne Tremblay, every witness who comes in is grilled and there's a lot of dissatisfaction shown.
So I think the individual wouldn't have too great a job in tapping sources like the official language commissioner's reports, which for 25 years in a row continue to say that things aren't working out. So that's that part of it. Obviously he has other sources.
The final thing here is to ``reaffirm Parliament's commitment to a just and adequate policy on official languages.'' Obviously one can't reaffirm the commitment until you first clear the air. That's what we have to do.
I really think sincerely that if we discuss it with good faith, this motion can start to clear the air. If after that we can reaffirm Parliament's commitment to a just, reasonable and adequate policy, then we're quids ahead, financially as well as morally.
The Chairman: I'll throw out a rhetorical question. Wouldn't you think that the Commissioner of Official Languages would be a person who, on an ongoing basis, would carry out a detailed and balanced review of how the Official Languages Act was working and would, on an ongoing basis, confirm Parliament's commitment, etc.?
Mr. Ringma: That is truly a rhetorical question, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you. I try to be accurate.
Mr. Ringma: The fly in the ointment is that the Commissioner of Official Languages is dedicated to implementing that act. If it is faulty, as many of us believe, then you can indeed say that that is what he has been doing and that is a reflection of each of his reports. But that being the case, something is wrong somewhere.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Ringma: You have to circumvent that and circumvent the commissioner.
The Chairman: The commissioner would operate under the aegis of the existing statute and wouldn't be aggressively trying to change it, as I would understand. So that's fine.
Thank you very much.
Our next presenter then is Paul Szabo in connection with motion M-382.
Welcome, Mr. Szabo. You have a great-looking wrist watch there. You have five minutes to make your presentation.
Mr. Paul Szabo, (Mississauga South): To explain that?
The Chairman: No need to.
Mr. Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity again to come before you. It's the third time I've been before you, and I'm going to take a different approach.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: Why?
Mr. Szabo: The others didn't work!
This is a motion in the character of considering the advisability of something. It is an opportunity in fact to discuss an issue without being very specific on the details of legislation.
This issue of the underground economy represents a very significant opportunity for members of Parliament to look into a situation that has plagued societies around the world.
It has to do with that age-old cliché about everybody doing it: the cash price. This is costing us a lot of money.
.1925
I've given you a hand-out. It gives you a fair bit of detail. I can tell you that over the last 25 years, among 15 estimators of the underground economy, Statistics Canada's estimates have consistently been the lowest estimates of any group. Their estimates are down in the 2.5% to 3% range. But others go up to about 20% of GDP, representing as much as $140 billion of economic activity taking place in Canada under the ground. These are under-the-table activities that are not attracting the appropriate taxation from various jurisdictions.
We're talking about GST, PST, federal corporate tax, provincial corporate tax, payroll withholding, employer health taxes, you name it. As you well know, when a dollar moves through our economy, it attracts an awful lot of taxation.
But when that economy takes place and that taxation does not take place, that means the rest of us are having to pick up more than our fair share. This aspect of taxation in Canada is an important issue. It's important to every member of Parliament. It certainly was one of the most important issues during the last budget debate, during the budget considerations.
This particular motion basically says, here are some things. We have to talk about these things. We have to talk about it and get the best wisdom of all the members of Parliament who are knowledgeable about this thing. How can we start to address this problem? How can we turn this opportunity into real dollar savings for all Canadians?
If everybody pays their fair share, we all pay less. That's a fact of life. There are too many people out there who are taking care of themselves, bragging to their neighbours and to everybody else, and they're just having a wonderful time at the expense of ordinary law-abiding Canadians.
Now, in this document you're going to basically see my assessment as a chartered accountant. I've now had three meetings with the Auditor General and with his staff on this, and I looked at the history of their efforts. I've talked with Finance officials and with the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
As a result of some of my efforts, there is now an ad hoc committee of the finance department and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. They now have a task force addressing the underground economy. I hope we're going to see some input from them as well.
I've outlined why we should act now because this means real dollars to the government coffers. The general assumptions I've made, the arguments for dealing with it, why people go underground, the objectives of the strategy to address....
Basically it's to generate revenue and to educate Canadians on the fact that this isn't a victimless crime. It's not a victimless crime. All Canadians are its victim because tax evasion leads to job losses and to an increase in our deficit. It means that honest taxpayers are carrying a heavier burden than they should.
It also means that legitimate businesses that pay their taxes and operate under the rules are against unfair competition. They're undercut by those who don't pay taxes, often leading to their bankruptcy. Legitimate business can be led into bankruptcy because of unfair competition.
When you consider the GST, the PST and, say, an assumed average corporate tax rate of 25%, the discount they can make.... In addition, they're getting lower-quality labour because they're not having to follow labour codes and all this other stuff in terms of, say, construction activity, which I refer to as an example.
So that's one of the reasons that the three elements of the motion were basically an enhanced information campaign. There's a lot of information Canadians should know, particularly that if you pay the cash price, if you don't ask for that invoice, it's condoning fraud.
The second aspect is a limited amnesty on interest and penalties. We have come through a recession. A lot of taxpayers have found themselves in some difficulty. For survival purposes, they have said, I'll put a little bit of that under the table.
Once you start doing that, if it carries on long enough and the unpaid taxes build up to a certain amount, it's very difficult to get out.
We have to try to grasp some of those people now before they become so entrenched that they can't possibly come out. The inducement that should come out is: declare your income, pay the exigible tax on that and we'll forgive you, or give you an amnesty on the interest and penalties. That's the second element of the motion.
The final element is to use the construction industry. The finance department finally came back to me and admitted that the underground market accounts for 25% to 40% of all activities in the construction industry. I believe that this is the largest one. It came out in our GST hearings with the finance committee, and the construction industry admits it. They're saying that we have to help them too, because it's hurting legitimate businesses.
.1935
The estimated taxes evaded are $1.5 billion to $2.4 billion.
I realize my time is up, Mr. Chairman. I'm appealing to you to take a chance that members of Parliament who are not members of cabinet can get excited about the underground economy and how we can deal with this problem that we all have.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Szabo and colleagues.
Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Thank you, Mr. Szabo. In your proposal, the part that I find most appealing is paragraph (c).
If I understand correctly, people who renovated their house could, on their tax return, for example on line 411, claim a tax credit for the improvements that have been made. They would probably be asked to produce some proof, that is some kind of contractor's invoice, and failing this, they would have to give explanations. If the work was done under the table, they would probably have to put down the amount paid to so and so, and to say that no receipt was issued. Revenue Canada could then make inquiries in some instances.
This would appear to be a quite efficient, although apparently painless, means to catch whoever is working under the table or paying someone under the table. Have I understood your paragraph (c) correctly?
[English]
Mr. Szabo: Paragraph (c) does in fact represent the most prevalent area of the underground economy. In terms of the mechanics of how they would do it, we are moving towards a paperless tax return now, with E-file. It means you declare it, and our tax system is on the honour system. That's the way it is. The fact of paperwork and all that other stuff is not absolutely necessary, and in fact under E-file would not be, but you'd need to have it on file should you be subject to audit from time to time.
It basically means there must be some inducement. The reason why I want to offer a tax credit or I suggest it as one option, although there may be others, is that the reason the underground economy exists is because there is no paper trail. There is no invoice that can prove a contractor received moneys for work done. They don't give a piece of paper, just cash, or whatever, and nobody can know. You can't prove it, they're scot-free, and they've got a better deal.
The finance department did an assessment. The finance minister saw my proposal. He must have had a slow day because he actually read it. He gave it to his officials and asked them to give him an economic assessment.
This job that they did is totally unsatisfactory, absolutely right off the wall. They went out and sought ways to say why we can't; they did not think of ways how we can. They've gone down here. They even forgot the provincial tax implications. They've not even considered the ripple effect.
They've also assumed that you would provide this credit to all home renovations and improvements. Quite frankly, the majority of activity doesn't happen on major renovations, where you're adding a major addition to your house, or something like that. Nobody's going to take the risk of not having a guarantee and proper labour standards and labour codes. It is the incidental renovation improvements. It's those thousand dollar or less items.
The size we're talking about here is very large, but it's a large number of small transactions. That's why we need public pressure. We need public participation in fighting the underground economy. It's absolutely everywhere, and it's costing us a fortune.
Mr. White: Paul, I can see where if we allowed for the write-off on these kinds of expenses, we'd be back into looking at the capital gains on our residence, for one thing.
.1935
Mr. Szabo: We actually would not, because capital gains are not exigible on principal residences anyway.
Mr. White: They're not now.
Mr. Szabo: They're not now. If they were, in terms of capital gains, if you got a GST rebate on work done, maybe all we're talking about is to give them an input tax credit that a business would get for incurring GST so we'd just be refunding them, say, 7% of the price.
It's some incentive for those who are a little uncomfortable doing the cash deal, who would rather have the piece of paper and the protection of a guarantee of those. Quite frankly, think about it. If you had a disreputable contractor who's been doing this for a long time, do you think he would ever even take the work if you insisted on a piece of paper? His whole house of cards would come down.
When people start saying they want the piece of paper because they're going to get a GST rebate of 7% on it anyway, that's enough for them to say it's worthwhile going after this rebate and asking for the piece of paper.
It's going to mean that those disreputable businesses will not give the piece of paper, they will not get this business, and that business will shift into the legal market. It will go to honest businesses.
Mr. White: It has been my experience that a great deal of the underground economy comes between contractors. This wouldn't necessarily fit in here, would it? Where one contractor does work for the other, and so on, a tax credit doesn't provide an incentive for them to get out of the underground because they're getting 100% back on their dollar.
Mr. Szabo: I think I can help you there. The GST system also works on the end consumer, whether you go contractor to subcontractor to subcontractor. Eventually it gets down to a consumer or a purchaser of the goods and services. They're the ones who pay the tax.
For those that happen between contractors, which is also a problem, you may be aware that in the recent budget there are new reporting requirements in the construction industry for subcontract to subcontract. I can tell you that it's because it's one of the recommendations I had made to the minister as a result of doing this work on the underground economy.
We just said that this is the sector in our economy that has the most prevalence of underground activity, and why don't we use it as a pilot to see how much revenue we can in fact generate by just putting the reporting requirements on the main contractor on payments made to subcontractors. That's the paper trail that we're talking about for end-use consumers. The budget now provides that paper trail for intermediaries in the construction industry.
Mr. White: That leads me to the question I was first going to ask. I was under the impression that the revenue minister is already undertaking some form of task force, study, or analysis of exactly this problem. Is this pre-empting anything that might be going on?
Mr. Szabo: I presented this to the minister in November 1994. He was the first one to get it. He gave it back to me and said to run with it because it wasn't anything he was prepared to deal with.
His initiatives have been entering into the information-sharing agreements with the provinces, as I think you are aware. I think all but one province is done. I think everybody will be on side very shortly. They also have stepped up some other aspects of the investigation work. They have a lot more investigators going at it.
This is the enforcement side that the minister has been dealing with. My initiative here is on the voluntary compliance side. It's the preventative side of the equation.
I think I understand where the minister is coming from, but I don't believe a target of 150 prosecutions a year even puts a dent in what we're talking about. That's what their budget is for and what their target is for. The Auditor General is concerned about the time it takes to get through the process of the courts and all the rigmarole. You understand what I'm saying.
The Chairman: I just want to point out that I think you made reference to criteria number 5, and it refers to matters that are already declared by the government to be on its legislative agenda, as opposed to a policy agenda, or whatever.
.1940
Mr. White: I understand that, but I was more curious about whether this goes far enough, in view of the fact that I understood the revenue minister was looking into this seriously. But 150 convictions -
Mr. Szabo: It's the other side.
The Chairman: It may not go far enough. I'm sure if we made Mr. Szabo minister of revenue, he would augment his motion significantly.
Mr. White: Maybe we should make that motion.
The Chairman: Yes. In any event, if there aren't further questions, we can merge to a close.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Szabo: Thanks for your time. I know you work very hard. This is one of the most fascinating committees.
The Chairman: Keep saying that; keep telling us it's fascinating.
Mr. Szabo: It's quite an education.
The Chairman: Thanks very much.
We will stand adjourned to the call of the chair. Dr. Patry had indicated that the next scheduled meeting date for us was not good for his agenda. So we will try to look for another time that's acceptable to all of us. Barring that, we'll proceed with that time.
Mr. Langlois: Do you have a schedule of the justice and legal affairs committee for next week?
The Chairman: Do you mean of all the committees?
Mr. Langlois: No, of justice and legal affairs for next week.
The Chairman: I'm sorry, I don't.
Mr. Langlois: Are we sitting in the evening?
The Chairman: Monday night only, as I understand it. Monday night is the only night when the justice committee would sit, ordinarily.
The Clerk of the Committee: You'd be sitting Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons presumably, so perhaps Tuesday evening would be the time to aim for.
Mr. Langlois: Yes, in principle.
Mr. White: Phone my office. I don't know.
Mr. Langlois: It would be agreeable for me Tuesday at about 6 p.m.
Mr. White: It might have to be earlier. I think I have a caucus meeting.
The Chairman: Tuesday evenings there is always a bit of a wrinkle on caucus and regional caucus meetings.
Mr. White: You could phone my office.
The Chairman: Yes, make the usual phone calls and see if there's a window that's better than Tuesday.
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, before you pound the gavel, most of us obviously were talked to by a senator who is trying to get through the Senate bill, S-7.
The Chairman: At this point we can perhaps adjourn and continue our discussion. We'll adjourn the meeting and then we can continue to talk about the initiative of Senator Kenny.
Mr. White: Fine.
The Chairman: I'll adjourn the meeting to the call of the chair.