[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, September 28, 1995
.1521 
[English]
The Chair: I call the meeting to order.
We will start with Mr. Strahl. Apparently it's customary to give you only five minutes. I was just informed by the clerk that the previous chairman was very lenient with time, but I'm mean, so I'll give you six minutes if you're very lucky.
Mr. Chuck Strahl, MP (Fraser Valley East): Thank you, Madam Chair. Six minutes should be plenty anyway. It will leave time for questions and comments.
This bill I put together, an act respecting the office of an auditor general for the family, is really in response to a couple of things. First of all, I believe that Parliament has long recognized the value of an independent body tasked to observe and comment on federal government programs. We can use different examples to show that, the most famous being the Auditor General, who protects taxpayers from government misspending, inappropriate programs or wasteful programs. We accept that the Auditor General has a role in providing Parliament with an independent voice, rather than a legislative voice, to advise Parliament when the Auditor General finds something that is out of line financially. We accept that as a good principle.
Recently the government has taken an initiative to move toward an environmental auditor. That's another example. It's not a legislative body, but someone who is tasked to come to Parliament to say whether legislation is working well or not working well as it affects the environment.
I think we have lots of historic precedents in this House, where we accept outside bodies coming in, not on legislative matters but in advisory capacities, to give us advice on how government programs are being administered and how they are affecting us.
I have been disturbed that there is no independent body in Canada tasked with the protection of the family. We all just kind of take it for granted that the family will be looked after, that the family is important. Everyone says that the family is the cornerstone of society and so on, but the fact is that there is no independent body specifically tasked to report to Parliament on the status of the family, the state of the family, or how programs have benefited or been a detriment to the family within our country. So I think that is the concern.
You can find lots of examples of Canadian studies as well as North American studies that show the importance of the family. It's almost a cliché, but certainly last year was the international year of the family and we didn't move in any significant way to bring about an independent body to report to Parliament. But certainly we have lots of studies that show how important the family is to educational standards of the children, to suicide rates, to the tendency to stay in school, to the tendency to abuse alcohol and drugs and so on. So much of that is dependent on the status of the family. The whole cycle of poverty and abuse is radically affected by the family. All these things affect society as a whole.
.1525
The Vanier Institute of the Family in Canada says Canada's divorce rates have jumped from the lowest rates in the world in 1965 to one of the highest in the world by 1988; again, a trend none of us encourage and none of us like to see. Maybe there are lots of reasons why it happens, but again, I think some of it may be that we're not addressing the needs of families and we don't have an independent body reporting to Parliament about what those needs could be.
Even in the tax regime there have been discriminatory tax regimes in the past, regimes that have discouraged people from marrying because the tax law has been set up in such a way that if you just share a household you get more of a tax break than if you are actually married. Again, it's not a good trend if you are to encourage families in Canada.
So that's why I have proposed this auditor general for the family. It's a small office. As you see, I don't know how small it should be. I did want to put a limit on it, though. I suggested twenty people maximum. It could even be smaller, I wouldn't doubt. Certainly it's a far cry from the 600 or so who are in the Auditor General's department. I would think it would be a small number of people who are tasked to observe federal programs and report back to Parliament once a year.
The bill recognizes the importance of the family, the fact that the Canadian government considers the family important, that we're worried if it's coming under fire, and we want to find ways to make sure it survives and survives well. I think the only way to create that parliamentary advocate for the family is to...well, it is not the only way, but this is certainly a very positive step. If we were to make this bill votable, I think it would be a very positive step on behalf of all Canadian families, it would be received very positively within the community, and it would send a message that we too think every year is the year of the family.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Strahl.
Welcome, Mr. Caron. You have missed only about one minute.
Are there any questions from members of the committee?
Mr. Stinson (Okanagan - Shuswap): He answered one question that has been put forward, and that is the size of the employment.
Mr. Strahl: I did suggest in the bill that I wanted to limit the size, because I know these things tend to grow and grow. So I specifically limited it to twenty people. If this were to get to committee we could discuss whether twenty is the perfect number. I guess that could be amended. But I do think it doesn't have to be the biggest department in government in order to have an impact. We all know the impact of an auditor general's report to the House. We'll see the same thing from the environmental auditor general, where people and the government don't always act but they are forced to listen.
The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier): Two questions, one on procedure first. Is there not a need for a private member's bill that would cause the government to incur expenses to have some sort of pre-approval from the Governor General?
The Clerk of the Committee: You're talking about the royal recommendation?
Mr. Bélanger: Something like that, yes.
The Clerk: Previously that was the case, Madam Chairman, but the Standing Order requiring that every bill that would incur the expenditure of public funds has been amended to require simply that before adoption the royal recommendation is required.
Mr. Bélanger: So it's before adoption. Thank you.
The Clerk: Yes, before adoption. Bill C-316 is a case in point.
Mr. Bélanger: The second question is a matter of definitions. Bills usually have a clause on definitions. Is there any particular reason why you chose not to include one?
Mr. Strahl: No. I put a short preamble in there, but I didn't include a definition. I guess you could, but I didn't. There's no reason I didn't, I don't think.
The Chair: Mr. Caron.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron (Jonquière): The whereas clauses refer mainly to the nuclear family, that is the father, mother and children. However, in today's society we have several types of families. Would this bill's provisions apply to all of them?
.1530
[English]
Mr. Strahl: I think it would, at least indirectly, in the sense of what makes for good child care laws or good laws as they affect children and families and so on. I think it would affect all people in one way or another, because just by inference it always will.
I put the nuclear family down because I don't think it's a judgment call as to whether other relationships have value or not, because they certainly do.
It's just like a secretary of state for women's issues, for example. We don't say, because of that, that only women are important in Canada, but we recognize that women have some needs that are being addressed in that department. In the same way, you would have an Auditor General for certain things that you're trying to promote.
It's in Canada's best interest to promote the family, and if the government is doing things that discourage families or that for financial or other reasons force families apart or are discriminatory tax regimes, then that's an unhealthy trend in government and in society.
Innumerable studies show that promotion of the family, trying to keep families together, is a positive thing in society. Other families exist and other relationships exist, and of course many of them are good and that's good too. But just as we have an advocate for women's issues, just as we have an advocate for other groups within government, this would be an advocate for the family. It would not imply that anybody else isn't as important, but right now there is no advocate for the family.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: I have no further questions.
[English]
The Chair: We cannot change the bill if we decide in our deliberations to make it votable, though. It will go forward exactly as it is. But for our own deliberations I would encourage you, from both Mr. Caron's question and Mr. Bélanger's question, to provide some definitions for us so we shall know exactly what we're dealing with - any other definitions or any other concepts you're referring to. Now, these cannot change the bill, but they will help in our deliberations. If you will provide those to us within the next couple of days, I'd appreciate it.
Mr. Strahl: I can do that.
The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing today.
Our next witness is Ian Murray.
Mr. Ian Murray, MP (Lanark - Carleton): I'm pleased to have this chance to explain to you why I believe the bill I have put forward to recognize the Canadian horse as the national horse of Canada is of national interest and not as frivolous as it might appear to be at first glance.
When I was approached by a breeder of one of these horses - it's not someone who lives in my riding, but I subsequently learned that one of the largest breeders does live there - I obviously gave it careful consideration, just because of the subject-matter of the bill, and I had to ask myself if I wanted to be associated with something that could appear to some people to be frivolous.
However, I recall that in previous Parliaments we've had a bill that passed the House and the Senate and became law that recognized the beaver as the national animal of Canada. We've had a bill to recognize hockey and lacrosse as national sports in Canada.
It's my view that, just because the Canadian horse might be little known to the general public, this doesn't mean that it should be ignored as a part of our heritage.
I'll give you a thumb-nail history, if you'd like one. I don't pretend to be an expert on the horse. As I say, I was like most other people: I had never heard of it before I was approached. It does have an interesting story, though.
Its origin was the stables of Louis XIV. It came over to New France in 1665. Therefore they were the first horses used to clear, plough, and cultivate Canadian soil. By the late 19th century there were only a few pure-blood Canadians left. That's partly because they were often used to interbreed with other horses. I believe Morgans were very similar, and they were interbred with Morgans.
.1535
By 1886, though, a sufficient number of admirers of the breed got together to establish a breed registry. Then in 1907 the federal Department of Agriculture surveyed 2,500 horses and, of these, 969 were accepted and registered as foundation stock.
After that, a federal experimental farm at Cap Rouge near Quebec City began a breeding program in 1913. That went on until World War II, which brought the program to an end. The Quebec government then took it over in 1940 and the program continued until 1981. The facility was closed at that point and the horses were sold at auction.
Once again, there was concern on the part of individuals who were admirers of the Canadian horse that it might be threatened. Those individuals stepped in and were able to bring the population up to healthy numbers. By 1991 there were more than 1,000.
In essence, I'm just suggesting that this is an important part of our heritage, which is little known in Canada but which I think deserves to be recognized for its contribution to the development of Canada. There are many people out there who are horse lovers as well and who feel strongly about it. I'm quite pleased and proud to bring their cause forward before this committee.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Murray.
Are there questions?
Mr. Stinson: Where did this horse stem from? We have Morgans, quarter horses, thoroughbreds, pintos, Appaloosas, and so forth in horses. How did this become the Canadian horse? Horses were introduced by other countries to the continent.
Mr. Murray: One thing I did do when I was first approached was to talk to a veterinarian who is familiar with horses and has spent his life around horses. I asked him whether we could look on the Canadian as a genuine Canadian breed. He thought there might be some concern vis-à-vis thoroughbred horses, but after thinking about if for a few minutes he said he would have to come down on the side of the Canadian.
As I said earlier, I'm not an expert on horses, but actually it has been recognized for a long time. In fact, in 1909 the House of Commons dealt with it in some manner that apparently led some people to believe that it had already been declared the national horse. When my staff did the research on this, it was determined by the Library of Parliament researcher that it could not be said that it had been declared the national horse of Canada, but for a long time it has been recognized, if not officially, as a stand alone Canadian breed.
Mr. Stinson: So if it were found out through some form of test that it was a mixture of a Morgan and something else, you wouldn't be afraid at all that you're going to get the associations that hold these as their horse symbol upset?
Mr. Murray: Not really. I guess I come down on the side of believing that it's good for a country to have symbols of its heritage. If someone were to determine at some point in the future that it had a mixed ancestry, it wouldn't really bother me.
Again, I come back to the comment I made about how these were the first horses used to break land and to plough and all that in Canada. It's just a recognition of the role they played in opening up this country.
The Chair: I'd like to interject. I should give everybody a chance, but I can't resist.
When they came over from France, were they mutts or were they a particular breed? Did they have a name there and are they called the Canadian horse there?
Mr. Murray: That's the question that I didn't answer but was trying to.
The Chair: I knew you didn't; that's why I jumped in.
Mr. Murray: I don't have anything with me that would answer the question. Yes, I know, I'm ill-prepared, but I'd be happy to find out for you if I can.
The Chair: That would be helpful. It'll be your homework. You can submit it to us.
Mr. Murray: Okay. It's a very valid question.
Mr. Bélanger: We can always put it on the $3 coin when we get it.
The Chair: Do you have a question, Mr. Caron?
.1540
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: This past winter or spring, I watched a CBC television report on Canadian horse breeders. They staged a demonstration of some sort on Montreal's Mont Royal to recall that it was this particular breed of horse that had been used on Quebec farms and in lumber camps.
If your bill passes, would this simply mean that the Canadian Parliament is recognizing this breed as the national horse of Canada?
My other question is this: do other countries have a national breed of horse? I am not talking about animals recognized as national emblems. For example, does either England or the United States recognize a national breed of horse?
[English]
Mr. Murray: I am not aware of that. I didn't do that research. I was taking my guidance from the idea of the beaver as the national animal of Canada as a precedent for naming an animal.
As for what it would mean to the country, it would obviously mean a lot to the breeders, and I don't mean that in commercial terms. These are people who got together because they loved the breed and wanted to see it prosper.
I should mention as well that we all have seen the horse many times. It is the horse in Cornelius Krieghoff's painting, the one called Bilking the Toll. It is quite a famous picture and people are familiar with it.
As for your question, no, it wouldn't mean an awful lot other than highlighting a part of our heritage I think is worth knowing about. It wouldn't confer any special status. It would probably lead to an increased number of them being bred in Canada and would probably contribute to keeping the breed alive.
As I said earlier, it has been threatened at times in the past, and only because some people have worked together to keep it alive is it still here.
The Chair: Is that okay, Mr. Caron?
Mr. Caron: Okay.
The Chair: I feel like I am back in my role as a school teacher. You are our second delegate and our second one who is getting homework.
Let us know what its name was in France, if it still exists, and what it's called there. Mr. Caron's question is whether any other country has recognized a breed as their national horse breed. I would appreciate those answers. You may submit them to us before our deliberations.
Mr. Murray: The last question may be difficult to research. The others shouldn't be.
The Chair: We have Mr. Assadourian next.
I haven't given the detention yet.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Welcome.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian, MP (Don Valley North): Thank you. Congratulations to all the new members. I have been here a few times. This is the first time I see -
The Chair: Apparently you are an old standby. We are going to get one through.
Mr. Assadourian: I didn't even bring my notes. I know the subject by heart.
The Chair: You know the rules. You have about five minutes.
Mr. Assadourian: I won't take five minutes.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Assadourian: This is the fourth motion regarding grandparents. I presented the first, the Reform Party the second, and a Liberal member the third. This is the fourth one.
It is basically a recognition of grandparents' contribution to our society. They take care of our children.
I am not an expert grandparent yet, but am looking forward to it, as I am sure everybody here is.
Somebody is objecting to my statement.
However, in numerous countries and in the United States, the second Sunday in September has been declared National Grandparents Day. Some provincial governments have done so here in Canada, as have some municipalities.
I think there is wide support for National Grandparents Day to be recognized on the second Sunday in September. I urge you to pass this votable motion so that we can get this out of the way. There is widespread support in the country. I have faxed some members who have asked for some details. I have more information. I could give you all the information about the grandparents.
.1545
There must be millions of grandparents in the country now, and there will be more as we grow older. This is basically a simple recognition of their contribution. They save us millions of dollars and this motion doesn't cost a penny to implement. So it's a win-win situation for everybody concerned, and I urge you to accept my plea and make this motion a votable item.
If you have any questions, I will be more than happy to answer them.
Mr. Bélanger: Just out of curiosity, why the second Sunday in September? Why that particular day?
Mr. Assadourian: I asked the same question. Nobody knows why. After the Labour Day weekend kids go back to school and the grandparents start picking the kids up from school or what have you, because the father and mother have to work. So they figured that would be the best time to honour and recognize their contribution.
Mr. Bélanger: I presume this would be very popular with the retail industry and with the Hallmarks of this world.
Mr. Assadourian: As I said, some provincial and municipal governments already do recognize grandparents on a small scale.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: You said that certain countries observed a similar kind of holiday. To which countries are you referring?
[English]
Mr. Assadourian: I know for sure the U.S. has done it, and I think some European countries have done it. Jimmy Carter did it in the U.S. in 1972, actually.
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: How long has the United States been observing this holiday?
[English]
Mr. Assadourian: Since 1972, and it's on an ongoing basis.
We're glad we have grandparents. We can have a day. There is no end to grandparents'....
The Chair: What Sunday did they select?
Mr. Assadourian: The second Sunday in September.
Hopefully this can be done internationally, so that every country will recognize the second Sunday in September. If you had it on the second Sunday in May, for example, it would not be universal.
All over the world, Mother's Day is on the same day. You can't have two different Mother's Days in one year. It's the same approach. I think it's only fair.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Assadourian: Does anyone need more information? Is everyone satisfied?
The Chair: I think they're happy. You're the first student who doesn't get any homework.
Mr. Assadourian: Oh, I've done lots of homework over the last six months on this subject.
The Chair: It sounds like it. Thank you.
Mr. Assadourian: Thank you very much.
Mr. John Finlay, MP (Oxford): We can make September Song the theme song of Grandparents' Day.
The Chair: Whose bill are you here to defend?
Mr. Finlay: Thank you, Madam Chair and members.
I'm here to defend Bill C-339, an act to provide funding for interveners before certain boards and agencies. The purpose is to establish the principle that the proponent of a project that requires approval by a federal board or agency should financially assist those who are intervening in the public interest before the board.
My particular interest in intervener funding arises directly from a case that was brought before the National Energy Board recently, in which landowners from my riding and several other ridings between Sarnia and Toronto in southwestern Ontario were intervening. They had to mortgage any advantage from the proponent, which happened to be Interprovincial Pipe Line, to obtain legal assistance, technical assistance and expert witnesses in order to have any credible case before the NEB.
I'm happy to say their intervention was successful in changing the conditions of the proponent, and the board made a recommendation that some monetary contribution from the proponent should be made. For a number of months we didn't think the proponent, International Pipe Line, was going to do anything. But I'm happy to say that in the end they did and have now renewed their application for a change in the lease agreement with the landowners and have taken an entirely different approach. They're sitting down with the landowners there, having meetings there, discussing what they want to do, and they're asking for input from the landowners who are affected by the pipeline. Of course this is exactly what will happen, I suggest, if this bill is passed by this House.
.1550
I think it has considerable support from many. I have quotes from Minister Copps and fromMr. Gilmour, from B.C., a member of the environment committee, who says participant funding is an important tool because it enables stakeholders to participate in the decision-making process.Mr. Len Taylor, who served many years on the environment committee for the NDP, says without adequate intervener funding there cannot be adequate assessment, quite simply because those who wish to challenge the proponent do not have the same access to capital and expertise as the proponent does and as the proponent budgets.
You will recall, Madam Chair, that in answer to my question in the House yesterday about how much participant funding the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act has dealt with, the Minister of the Environment said $860,000 had been spent to date. Under that act it's not clear where the funding is to come from. I'm afraid a good deal of that $860,000 comes from the public purse. It was suggested that it eventually come from fees and fines that people who abuse the environment might have levied against them and that are paid under that act.
My bill suggests quite clearly that a review board of the public body that is holding the assessment vet those people who wish to seek participant funding and they will be funded by the proponent, so in the case of an environmental assessment when Hydro wants to put a new power line through somewhere, it would be Hydro's responsibility.
Madam Chair, this bill is modelled on the Ontario bill, the Ontario Energy Board, which has worked very successfully. I've talked with people who appeared originally, or in early years, before that board. I've talked with the people who appear before the NEB.
Union Gas made a proposal in Ontario some years ago and faced a hearing before the Ontario Energy Board. As many of our big companies and our multinationals are, unfortunately...they had all the answers and they had all the expertise, and the people who opposed them were not treated with much respect.
In the end they had to pay the bills of the intervener because the intervener was judged to be correct. I'm happy to report that certainly Union Gas in Ontario doesn't do that any more. They sit down with the customers, with the people whose land they are going to affect, with the stakeholders, and they talk. They don't go to the Ontario Energy Board any more, because they get agreement before they begin.
That's exactly what I would like to see happen here. We have over 100 boards and commissions that are federally appointed or at arm's length or working under some of our legislation and that make these kinds of decisions. It is my contention that they would make better decisions if they got public input, consultation, and participation at a high level. Therefore, I think it is in the public interest that we see if we can get support from all parliamentarians for this bill. It is not a partisan approach I'm taking, it's a public approach, to make everyone more accountable to our constituents.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Finlay.
Mauril, would you like to begin?
Mr. Bélanger: I'm sorry, I have not read through this yet. I will. But perhaps you can help me. Do you foresee in here a limit to what the proponent could be forced to pay by the number of people applying for intervener funding and the panel deciding to...if they're all very good? Is there an implied or expressed limit somewhere in your bill?
.1555
Mr. Finlay: Yes, there is, because the intervener must account for the funds and make a presentation in an application for funding before he or she gets it. A funding panel will not grant the funding unless it's a bona fide intervention and the people have some credibility. The groups will be asked to join together.
If it's going to be environmental groups, this presupposes that the funding panel will say that the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the environmental law association, the local bird-watchers, the hunters and anglers will have to get together because it's not going to fund everybody.
Mr. Bélanger: Would the shareholders of publicly traded companies making application also be eligible to ask for intervener funding under your bill?
Mr. Finlay: The shareholders wouldn't be acting at arm's length from the proponent, would they? They'd be part and parcel of the proponent.
Mr. Bélanger: But would they be allowed to ask for intervener funding?
Mr. Finlay: I suppose they might, but why would they want to, unless they thought the management was doing something wrong?
Mr. Bélanger: I've found fact to be rather stranger than fiction at times, so I imagine any kind of circumstance could come up where a shareholder or a group of shareholders might want to, or even oppose.
Mr. Finlay: That would be an interesting case. I don't know how we could prejudge that sort of thing. The bill says they must be acting in the public interest.
Mr. Bélanger: But would your bill allow them to apply or not? That's my last question.
Mr. Finlay: I don't know. I hadn't thought of that possibility.
Mr. Stinson: Would there be a capping on this? Would there be a set fund for each individual case? Would an appeal process have to be funded through this, too? What would happen if it were brought against the company, individuals, or whomever, and it was found that there was no real justification for this, through the court case? Would the people who had to put the money up to fund the defence be entitled to reimbursement through the same fund?
Mr. Finlay: That's covered on page 4, Madam Chair, under item (5). There is an appeal, and either an intervener or a funding proponent may appeal the order on a matter of law to the Federal Court of Canada. The court may order that the matter be reheard by a funding panel, or may make such order respecting funding within the provisions of this act as the court sees fit.
The expenses, as you read above, and the amounts are the purview of the funding panel, which is set in place in order to vet the people who might apply and to determine what the funding level would be.
The Chair: Does that answer your question, Mr. Stinson?
Mr. Stinson: I haven't had a chance to go through this.
Mr. Finlay: Oh, I see.
The Chair: I think what you're finding, Mr. Finlay, is that you've whetted a lot of interest here. You've been very thorough and we must all apologize. We pulled all of this off very quickly. We will give it an absolutely thorough reading, and if we have any more questions we can always call you back.
Mr. Finlay: I would appreciate that, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Caron, do you have a question?
[Translation]
Mr. Caron: No, I do not.
[English]
The Chair: I had my staff pull these yesterday, so I was at a bit of an advantage. We will be meeting again. If we have any further questions, I'm sure you're very keen on this and you'll come back if we need you.
Mr. Finlay: Madam Chair, could I just check whether or not every member of the committee received a copy of the bill and a copy of a news release from the Pipeline Landowners Association?
Mr. Stinson: Yes.
The Chair: Yes, and we have a copy of the bill, as well.
Mr. Finlay: Okay. Then you have everything there.
The Chair: I must apologize again. We were trying to make it easy for some members to come quickly because they were going to be away next week. So don't feel you've been given a short hearing. If we have any further questions we will definitely have you back.
Mr. Finlay: I appreciate that, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.
Mr. MacDonald is not here. Can you try to reschedule him for the next session?
The Clerk: I can, Madam Chair, but he apparently will be here.
The Chair: Okay. We can wait.
.1600
PAUSE
.1605
The Chair: May I have the attention of the members for one more moment? Mr. MacDonald is going to come back with the next group on Tuesday.
If any of you would like to have Mr. Finlay back, would you just call my office and let me know? I'm sure he'd be delighted to come back. He'll be here, so if you let me know if you want to talk to him again.... We really didn't get through his material well, and he's obviously very well prepared to answer questions.
Mr. Stinson: Yes, it sounds as if he's right on top of what he wants to talk about.
The Chair: Then I'll adjourn the meeting till 3:15 p.m. Tuesday.
Did you see how quickly we did that?
Mr. Bélanger: Indeed. I'm very impressed.
The Chair: We gave out our homework assignments. We have already had one assignment returned.
Mr. Stinson: How come we don't have more chairs like you?
The Chair: I don't know.
Mr. Stinson: It would make life so much simpler.
The Chair: Thank you very much for coming out. We are going to take a break of an hour and a half and then come back and deliberate.
The meeting is adjourned.