[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 14, 1996
.1531 
[English]
The Chair: Order.
Mr. Dupuy, you're presenting for Eleni?
Hon. Michel Dupuy, MP (Laval West): That is correct.
The Chair: I don't know if you've ever done this before, but it's five minutes in presentation and then we can ask you questions. There's no time limit on those.
Mr. Dupuy: Very good. Eleni would have liked to speak to her motion, but she's on her way to Greece. She asked me to fill in.
The Chair: I told her that if she really cared about this, she'd cancel the trip to Greece. Don't you think that?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: That's a small joke.
Mr. Dupuy: That's a serious assignment.
The Chair: I know - and I'm just jealous.
Mr. Dupuy: So am I.
Perhaps just a brief word of introduction...why me rather than so many competent people?
I have had a running interest in Cyprus over the years, starting with my previous career as a Canadian diplomat. At one time I served in NATO and I was involved in some arguments between Greece and Turkey.
Later I had the opportunity of visiting Cyprus. Therefore I have had the opportunity of meeting the Greek side of Cyprus. I did not cross into the Turkish side, which is always a bit difficult when you start with one side. I walked along the Green Line, I talked to the UN soldiers, and so on; hence, my continuing interest in Cyprus.
Since time is very short, I would prefer to avoid getting into the substance of the motion. I wouldn't say it's motherhood, because obviously it's an interesting motion, but I would like to address the question of why Canada should be taking action, why now, why Parliament, and why it is a private member's motion.
The reason is that Canada indeed has been very involved in Cyprus, from many viewpoints. The most important was our participation in the UN forces in Cyprus. We lasted there for a long time, actually the better part of the 22 years or so. I can testify to the fact that, of all the foreign countries that manned the Green Line, to this day Canada is the most popular with the population and with the government. So we have a credibility there that gives us a very special position.
We're members of NATO. We're fully aware of the points of view of both sides. We're friends to Turkey as well as to Greece. We're a member of the Commonwealth, and obviously the Cyprus government likes to talk to us as a Commonwealth country.
So there is a good reason for Canada to state a position, since the voice will be heard.
Why now? After so many years, why should an initiative be taken?
.1535
The situation is deteriorating between Greece and Turkey. They were on the verge of a confrontation over sovereignty over small islands in the Aegean Sea. Both countries have been rearming. The only place where they really confront each other is in Cyprus, because the Turkish army is on the one side and there isn't much of a Cypriot army, but there is an agreement between Cyprus and Greece under which Greece would come to the rescue of Cyprus if attacked. So it could become a battleground if things got out of hand. It's one important reason to act now and to use the momentum towards demilitarization.
I said momentum. That's another reason. The Parliament of the European Union has pronounced in favour of demilitarizing Cyprus. So has the Congress and so has the Australian Parliament. The New Zealand Parliament will discuss a motion in a similar sense, and of course demilitarization has the full support of the United Nations. So there is a momentum there and this is a good time for Canada to follow suit.
Why the Canadian Parliament? Quite frankly, I believe it is important for the Canadian Parliament and for the House of Commons in particular to get involved in foreign affairs. It was always good. The debates that took place were always important. There were debates about Bosnia, but in my humble view it is a good thing to have our colleagues given a chance to discuss important potential flashpoints in the world.
Why a private member's motion? I've had the opportunity to talk about Cyprus with some of our colleagues on both sides of the House. The idea of demilitarization has not been objected to. It has been viewed by our colleagues as a positive move. It is non-partisan.
Of course, there is no better or more effective foreign policy or foreign policy move than a non-partisan move. The best indication of non-partisanship is to have a private member's motion, if it gets the support from the other parties.
So these are the points, Madam Chair, but I would be very pleased to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Dupuy.
First I'd like to apologize to Mr. Langlois. This is very rude. I couldn't decide if it was ruder to start without you or to admit I hadn't noticed you were here or not here, and I did not notice you weren't here. I just started. I think I saw the clerk out of the corner of my eye and assumed it was you. I am sorry.
Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson (Okanagan - Shuswap): I have just a couple of questions. I'll have to plead ignorance as far as the total situation over there, but they've been trying to settle this for how many years? How long has this been going on? And also, how far would you see Canada going down this line?
Mr. Dupuy: On your first question, the issue arose with the independence of Cyprus, which is post-war, so it's a long story. The northern part of Cyprus had important minorities of Turkish origin that reached back to the old Ottoman Empire, so there is a long historical record.
The Government of Cyprus tried to develop a package that would give a fair amount of autonomy to these Turkish minorities. The United Nations was involved to facilitate the process of what was known as ``communal talks'', but they never worked out. One must bear in mind that over the years there has been historical rivalry and tension between Greece and Turkey, here again embedded in the Balkan wars of the early 20th century.
.1540
Eventually Turkey decided to move militarily. They attacked and conquered the northern part of Cyprus. Their declared motivation was to protect the minority population of Turkish origin. The United Nations was quick to intervene and to obtain a ceasefire. NATO played a part because there could be no worse situation than two NATO countries going to war. And, indeed, a ceasefire became effective only a few days after the landing.
But the ceasefire line, known as the Green Line, has been there ever since and all efforts by the United Nations to bring the parties together have failed. Things have been made worse in a sense, because the Turkish side of Cyprus declared its independence, and although that independent northern Cyprus state is not recognized by any other country in the world except Turkey, it still exists. It is there.
The only positive aspect of the situation is that ever since the invasion and the ceasefire, there has been no flare-up or occasional firing. But it used to be a tinderbox. Now things have quieted down, and the anxiety now current is there because tension is rising again between Greece and Turkey. If an incident happens on the Green Line, of course it's a tinderbox.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I would like to call on your expertise as a diplomat and a historian. Since the Republic of Cyprus is bounded by this demarcation line you referred to earlier, can one imagine - I'm speaking to the diplomat here, in light of the current geopolitical context - a solution that would not take into account the existence of the two legal entities on the island?
Mr. Dupuy: My answer is yes. In fact, I think that for the long-term, it is the only solution. The current solution is truly abnormal. It has been brought about by the policy of the Turkish army. That policy derives from Turkey's domestic policy, and the army had a very important role to play in that regard at some points, since civil power was not always very solid. The backdrop for that, of course, is the Kurdish revolt. There is a difficult situation in Turkey. The Turkish army would naturally be very reluctant to withdraw from Northern of Cyprus.
What reasons for hope are there where Turkey is concerned? Firstly, the civil government began to assert itself about ten years ago. Civil authority is thus gaining ground.
Secondly, Turkey realizes perfectly that its economic future is in part related to the European Union. Greece is in the European Union, Turkey is not. The reason given for that by the European Union is that as long as Turkey continues to occupy, in violation of all United Nations principles, territory in a friendly and independent country, it will not be allowed to join the European Union.
So that economic pressure is being brought to bear on Turkey. There is also pressure, of course, from the United States and the international community.
.1545
I think we may see the withdrawal of the Turkish military, and progress may come in that way. That cannot happen if we do not see the withdrawal of the military presence on the south side, that is to say on the Greek side.
Demilitarization may be an opportune solution, because both sides would save face. The Cypriot government is ready to demilitarize and to say: "We will demilitarize, without affecting the independence of the Turkish-Cypriot Republic". Thus, they are not trying to tie demilitarization to a political settlement.
Of course, once the armies have withdrawn from the territory, the situation between the Turkish population to the north and the Cypriot population to the south may change considerably.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Loney. No questions?
Thank you very much. I think Ms Bakopanos will be very pleased with your presentation. I'll have to give her a full report.
Mr. Dupuy: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you for coming.
Mr. Stinson, you're next on the list. Would you be more comfortable if we left you to the end?
Mr. Stinson: Yes, I see there are people waiting here.
The Chair: We'll leave you to the end.
Mr. Stinson: I have to stay here anyway.
The Chair: That's right. You're a captive audience.
Bill.
Mr. Bill Gilmour, MP (Comox - Alberni): Do you want me to read the motion?
The Chair: No. We've read it thoroughly. But if you want to address it in any way, that's fine with me.
Mr. Gilmour: Sure.
I bring this motion to your consideration to be selected as votable because I believe it meets the criteria for selection of votable items drawn up in 1987 and as such is an appropriate votable item.
The protection of individual property rights is significant to Canadians. It affects all Canadians and is a fundamental part of Canadian law and society. Motion 205 asks the government to provide greater protection of individual property rights by amending the Canadian Bill of Rights - not the charter, but the Bill of Rights - by adding two new sections.
The first section would allow a citizen the right to their property unless the person received a fair hearing in accordance with principles of fundamental justice. The second section would give the individual property owner the right to fair compensation for the property within a reasonable amount of time.
Property rights are not presently included in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In federal law, the Canadian Bill of Rights provides a marginal degree of protection. Subsection 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights states:
- (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property,
and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
A poll conducted in 1987 found 81% - and in a later poll in 1992 it was 87% - of Canadians in favour of increased property rights, and many national organizations have come out in favour of strengthening individual property rights. Other countries have taken steps towards greater protection of property rights. For example, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Italy and the United States recognize compensation for property loss. In the U.S. it's the Fifth Amendment that allows that protection.
As an issue, property rights crosses all party lines and is represented on both sides of the House as a value to be cherished and protected. Protection of these rights has been supported by all sides of the House. Both John Diefenbaker and Pierre Trudeau fought hard to have property rights included in the charter, but they were not.
Canadians are concerned now more than ever that their individual rights need to be protected. They were denied the right to vote on property rights in 1982, when the Constitution was repatriated, and then in 1992 they were denied it again when property rights were removed from the Charlottetown Accord, against the wishes of many Canadians.
.1550
Present members can give Canadians a chance to vote on this motion through a vote in this House. This issue has not been debated or voted on in this session, nor has this item been declared to be on the government's legislative agenda.
I believe this is an issue on which most members will be united. I hope members will agree that this is a significant issue of national importance.
In closing, I ask that this committee consider this issue carefully and support this motion as a votable item in the House. I thank you for your consideration.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any questions? Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: Can you tell me if Canadians ever had this protection for property rights?
Mr. Gilmour: No. As it stands now, just about any regulation that's passed will supersede this. A regulation just about wipes out whatever protection there has been. So it's not there. It's really loose, and federal legislation in any area can just override the protection.
I think it's a fundamental right that most Canadians are looking for. I hear this in my constituency, as I'm sure you all do in your constituencies.
Mr. Stinson: Yes.
Mr. Gilmour: As a votable item in the House, there's a chance that all members of the House will have a good look at this.
Mr. Stinson: So it was never in the old BNA Act or anything like that?
Mr. Gilmour: It's in the Bill of Rights, but it doesn't have any weight.
Mr. Stinson: So government can take property without giving compensation?
Mr. Gilmour: You've got it. Yes.
The Chair: You mentioned that it hasn't been voted on or discussed in this session.
Mr. Gilmour: Yes.
The Chair: Do you know if it has been discussed in previous sessions? It sounds familiar.
Mr. Gilmour: There was a similar bill by Mike Scott in the last session. It was not exactly the same, but it was similar. I don't think it was votable.
Mr. Stinson: I don't think so.
The Chair: Would you remember?
A voice: I don't think it was.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilmour: My pleasure.
The Chair: Mr. Martin has asked to be delayed on the schedule.
I see that Mr. Thompson is here, so I'll ask him to come up.
You won't have to sit waiting for a long time this time.
Before you start, Mr. Thompson, just to test my own memory, has this come before us before in a slightly different form?
Mr. Myron Thompson, MP (Wild Rose): This came before you before as an order on probation issues rather than parole, temporary release.
The Chair: All right.
Mr. Thompson: It was supposed to be that the last time, but it ended up being just probation. Rather than cancel it the last time and redo it, we went ahead and attempted it on that, with the hope that we could admit it if necessary. Now we're attempting again.
The Chair: I was just checking my own memory.
Mr. Thompson: There is some similarity, but it's not the same.
Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for allowing me to present my private member's bill, Bill C-224, hopefully in order to make it votable in the House of Commons.
I will attempt first to explain why my bill warrants being presented. By answering all of the criteria set out in the selection of votable items, I hope to prove that indeed it should be a votable motion.
In all my travels across Canada I've met with police forces and officers throughout the land, as that fits in with my criteria as justice critic. In these meetings I've always asked these individuals if they could think of anything that would make things better for them to accomplish their job or if they could give me suggestions that I could bring before the House of Commons that would indeed make society safer.
Bill C-224 addresses a common concern across the land, particularly in the major cities and in other places, by stating that if a person fails or refuses to comply with a condition of their parole or of an unescorted temporary absence or on reasonable grounds is believed by a peace officer to have breached or to be about to breach such a condition, they then have the power to arrest that person without a warrant.
A frequent example of this that was shown to me in a number of places is the case where a person has been told that it is a violation of their parole condition to visit a bar or an alcohol establishment of any nature, simply because the person who has had problems - usually it stems from this addiction.
.1555
In many cases the police know who these people are and who's out on parole in their jurisdiction, and while patrolling these establishments they spot these individuals violating these conditions. The situation now is that the police officers have no authority to arrest this person. They have to contact the people in charge at the parole board or the officer in charge and wait for the processing of a warrant to be able to arrest this individual. Generally this takes many hours and it is seldom, if ever, completed before the person leaves the establishment.
If my bill is passed, it will restore the power back to the police to arrest this individual on the spot. In many cases, this will prevent this individual from committing further crimes or endangering society in any way.
Another frequent incident where this bill would be effective is in the case of those who are out on parole stalking an individual. In our Criminal Code, subsections 264(2) and 264(3), there's a definition of what criminal harassment is and the punishment for this crime. In the government's new Bill C-27, the case of death occurring during criminal harassment is addressed. In both of these measures, there's no prevention in place. This particular bill will allow a preventive measure.
We have examples every day from police forces where ex-husbands, for example, have threatened to get revenge. In many of these cases, these people are out on parole, and even though they are violating their probation order, the police must once again wait for a warrant in order to arrest them. If the police had proper authority as provided in this bill, and they found the individual in the vicinity of an ex-wife and breaking the condition of their parole or unescorted temporary absence pass, then they would be able to arrest him on the spot. This would ultimately protect many women in their fight to survive in several instances.
In terms of the criteria to make this bill votable, this bill would be considered to have national significance because it affects the Criminal Code of Canada. In no way is this bill contentious, controversial, trivial or insignificant. It essentially enhances the safety of all Canadians by increasing the number of people who are able to monitor those individuals who are out on parole or temporary absence or probation.
It will allow our police officers to patrol the streets along with our parole officers. This therefore increases our front-line workers, which will help reduce crime and save lives in many instances. In no way does this bill discriminate in favour of a certain region or area in the country, nor is it redundant with the laws that already exist, nor is it ineffective in its intent or defective in its drafting.
This bill will be applicable across the country. The police have been calling for this authority from coast to coast in order to effect the safety of all Canadians.
This bill doesn't affect government's legislative agenda, nor is it a partisan issue. If anything, this bill is providing further clarity to subsection 733(1), which was outlined in the government's Bill C-41 that was passed last June. In that bill they didn't address the expansion of powers to police officers. My bill would rectify this situation. All in all, this bill should receive high priority, since this cannot be dealt with through another procedure.
The government has just completed significant amendments to the Criminal Code in Bill C-41 and is now proposing further amendments in Bill C-27. It is unlikely that this issue will be back before the fall session. Now is the time that this bill should be dealt with.
Finally, in no way does this bill infringe upon provincial legislation or the Canadian charter or federal-provincial relations. The terms of parole are set out by court order, while cases of unescorted temporary absence orders are deemed by the National Parole Board. This bill will work as a means of carrying out both of these agencies' orders by giving police officers the authority to oversee their judgments. In addition, this bill will enhance federal-provincial relations by giving the provincial and municipal police forces the powers to effect enforcement in our society.
.1600
I hope you can all see the importance of this bill in our fight against crime. This will affect everyone in the judicial process, but ultimately give our front-line workers the authority they need in order to make our streets safer and to save lives in the process.
I received a letter from the Canadian Police Association stating:
- On behalf of the Canadian Police Association, I would like to offer our support for Bill C-224...
- Your bill would allow peace officers the power to arrest a person who they suspect is in breach
of a probation order or a parole condition without having to obtain a warrant. The current
situation requires peace officers to contact the suspect's parole/probation officer before any
action can be taken. This exercise can be time consuming and is largely unnecessary.
- Thank you for taking an interest in this matter. It will make the difficult job of peace officers that
much easier. Thank you, and we wish your bill success.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Practically speaking, do you see a difference between the bill you are presenting and another bill that would criminalize a parole infraction, so that a peace officer could, should he have reasonable and probable cause to believe that the individual is committing or about to commit an offence, proceed to arrest him?
There is just one problem that I see there. That would allow for the arrest of individuals who are not directly committing a criminal offence or act. This would allow us to bring them back before a judge more easily. I don't challenge the scope of the bill and I understand it very well, but wouldn't it be simpler to criminalize parole violations directly?
[English]
Mr. Thompson: Somebody correct me, but it's my understanding that these breaches are already against the law. The problem is that the police don't have the authority to move in on those who are under court order of parole, temporary absence or probation. They're simply asking, rather than reporting and then having such a tremendous amount of time elapse before getting any results, to have the opportunity to prevent anything from happening by giving them authority to arrest on the spot.
I believe the breach itself is against the law and that due process would take place immediately following the arrest.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Suppose an individual is not suppose to leave his home between 8:00 in the evening and 8:00 in the morning. He must stay at home, but a policeman sees him at 11 p.m. in a bar. The policeman simply reports the fact and the individual will probably be summoned to justify his behaviour. The burden rests on the individual. If he cannot justify his absence, he will have violated the conditions of his parole and will be reincarcerated. The fact of violating parole conditions is not as such a criminal act, but it is a reason to put an end to a person's parole.
I understand the purpose of your bill very well, which is to allow someone to act immediately, when the individual is there, rather than going through a long procedure. You can act on the spot, as the English expression has it. I understand the objective of your bill. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Thompson: Yes, basically that's what they're saying: There have been too many incidents wherein if they only had the power to arrest and take control of the individual on the spot a crime could have been prevented. It's a preventive measure to go along with all of what is in the Criminal Code that addresses these breaches.
.1605
I believe it's only common sense that all of us want to see people better protected, and when a person who is released from jail on these various conditions is not living up to what's required or has been ordered by the courts, then I think it only makes good sense to bring the matter under control as quickly as possible.
The Chair: Are there any other questions? Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: Everybody here knows that Vernon is part of my constituency. We had a very bad incident there not too long ago, but just before that we had a lady who was assaulted by her husband and she's been left with a permanent disability. The police had full knowledge that this man had a tendency to become violent and they said that their hands were tied. Although she had laid the original complaint, she never followed up on it, and so their hands were tied in picking this individual up at that time. Would this bill have allowed them any more leeway?
Mr. Thompson: No. This bill is strictly dealing with those people who are in violation of parole, temporary absence or probation, because a very large number of the crimes that are committed are by these very individuals - repeat offenders who are breaching the rules of their release.
I think just yesterday there was evidence of it, where a person who was on parole managed to get in the vicinity of ex-wife and he beat her severely with a ball bat. You probably saw that. The police knew he was out. They phoned me today to let me know that they could have prevented it because they knew he was out, they know who he is, and yet they could do nothing but report.
Mr. Stinson: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Loney.
Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): To still empower the peace officer to make the arrest without a warrant, he would have to recognize the individual.
Mr. Thompson: Yes.
Mr. Loney: Would this negate filing an information? Or if, say, a peace officer was driving the street in a cruiser and he saw the individual on the street and suspected that he was in violation, would this empower the officer to make the arrest on the spot?
Mr. Thompson: Yes.
The Chair: Are you finished, Mr. Loney?
Mr. Loney: Yes.
The Chair: I'm just curious. I'm going to bring up the same questions I did here last time.
Two areas of it concern me. One is where the exact wording said ``or is about to''. How would an officer be absolutely sure that this person is about to commit a crime? How would they make that judgment?
Mr. Thompson: They wouldn't be required to make that judgment. Their judgment would be that they are in breach of the court order by being in the vicinity of an area or being out on the street after a certain hour - whatever the case might be. They are in breach of the order.
The Chair: In the example you gave of the gentleman who has a problem with alcohol, or the lady, being outside a bar and getting arrested before they go into a bar, where being in a bar is a breach of parole, would they be arrested once they step through the door or would they be arrested on the street for looking at it?
Mr. Thompson: I would imagine it would be depending on what the court order said. A lot of times I know court orders say that you're not to be within the area of an alcohol establishment.
The Chair: What about the issue Mr. Loney touched on, that you'd have to recognize the person? Are you leaving a lot of discretion to officers to pick up someone based on the fact they look like someone else, and for public harassment of individuals who have the unfortunate face that looks like someone else?
Mr. Thompson: I asked that question of the police themselves. I found it astonishing when they drove down the streets of Toronto, for example, with me in the back seat of the car, and they'd say, that's Paul So-and-so; we picked him up three times and he's out on parole for this or that. A little later there's another one, and a little later there's another one. They seem to know quite well who these people are.
.1610
Of course, that potential is there. I would assume they could pick up the wrong person thinking it was the right person. I think it would be minimal. It's a matter of which is better, making an error on the odd occasion by stopping the wrong individual or getting the right one before he has injured, harmed or killed someone.
The Chair: In this, then, you are giving the police that power. You're saying to them that if they think this guy looks like somebody else and if they think he's about to do something he shouldn't, then they have the power to arrest.
Mr. Thompson: No, not if they think he's about to do something. Please don't confuse this. They can arrest him if he is in obvious breach of his court order, of parole and temporary absence. That they do know. They are notified when these people are released what the criteria is so they can report to the probation or parole officers. However, there's seldom any response because of the lack of people to enforce the court orders.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you.
The Chair: Welcome, Mr. Tremblay. You've probably done this more times than I have. You have five minutes to do your presentation, and then we'll be asking very gentle questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay, MP (Rosemont): You know the criteria better than I do: this motion is votable and it raises a new topic. From the broader political perspective, it is important that the motion be a votable item and that it be debated on three occasions.
The matter if very current. For instance, we just heard today that a father had abducted his child. The child was taken illegally to Egypt and the mother has not seen her child again. Since we have no treaty with Egypt, she has to plead her case in Egypt, under Egyptian law, pursuant to Egyptian culture, before Egyptian courts.
She was to appear yesterday, and with the assistance of the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, we managed to have the court appearance postponed, because she had only been given a week's notice that she had to appear in Egypt. She had to bring two witnesses with her. She had to pay top fare for her plane tickets, that is $1800 each, etc. We thus managed to have her court appearance postponed to June 10th. So, as you can see, the matter is very current.
We need the support of Parliament in this area. There are two international treaties, the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, which is a legal treaty that countries may adhere to. Unfortunately, only a certain number of countries have chose to adhere to it, especially Western developed countries - Europe, Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia. The main purpose of the treaty is to allow a child that has been illegally moved from one country to another to be brought back to the country it was in at first, so that justice can be done in the original country. It also applies to relations between Canada and the United States.
.1615
For instance, if a Canadian man or woman lives in the United States with an American spouse and one decides unilaterally to leave with his or her child and come to Canada, according to the international agreement, the child will immediately be brought back to the United States, and the mother or the father can assert their rights and plead their case in the country they are living in, according to the rules they accepted at the outset. Our problem is with the countries that did not sign the treaty.
There is also the United Nations International Convention on the Rights of the Child, but that is not a treaty that has a legal application. The United Nations Convention can no doubt be used to interpret the law in the countries that signed it, but it does not have a legal application; it deals with principles and is meant as an incentive.
It stipulates that the countries must adhere to the Hague Convention or sign bilateral agreements amongst themselves to deal with the problem of the illicit removal of children by parents who have a dual nationality or different nationalities.
It is a growing phenomenon because of the increasing international movements of persons and Canada's openness to immigration. Thus, many people have dual nationalities.
Each case is absolutely dramatic. In this case, the mother had the legal custody of the child. The father and the mother lived together, but were not married and the father did have visitation rights. One weekend, he took the child and phoned the mother on the Sunday night to tell her that he had gone to Egypt with the child. That happened three years ago and she never saw her child again.
I discussed this with the minister and the people concerned, but it is very difficult for the government to exert pressure on the Egyptian government. However, some attempts have been made to negotiate a bilateral agreement. France did manage to negotiate such a bilateral agreement with Egypt.
When there is an agreement, the country is under the obligation to intervene quickly and bring the child back. The courts will no doubt deal fairly with the parties involved.
When children are abducted from countries that have not signed the Convention, the situation is very complicated. For instance, in the case I mentioned involving Egypt, the fact that the persons are not married makes the situation very difficult before Egyptian courts. But there's something more serious still: the child has been baptized in the Catholic faith. I could show you a letter from the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs counselling the person involved to have the baptism annulled, because her chances of winning her case in Egypt with a child... That is considered an insult over there, apparently.
I am not an expert on Egyptian culture, but I would like to give you some idea of the problems one faces in such situations.
As parliamentarians, we may be in a better position to act than the Canadian government. The government has the obligation to intervene, but we could exert political pressure on the government, a pressure that could be conveyed to the Egyptian government, since the Canadian government must also live with its Parliament.
It is important for parliamentarians to intervene in this case. It seems to me that this motion should receive broad, if not unanimous, support from the Canadian Parliament. That would help things considerably in the case mentioned in the motion.
.1620
The woman in question is a citizen of my riding. I would like the broader issue of civil law in the case of the international abduction of children to be a current concern of the Canadian government and I would like it to attempt to negotiate bilateral agreements with the countries which have not or do not want to sign the Hague Convention. I would like the government to give this greater priority in its political agenda. That is my submission.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Are there any questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I'm going to summarize what I've understood. Ms Tremblay has a son,Karim Noah, and according to a ruling made by a Canadian court, she has legal custody of that child. Karim Noah is a Canadian citizen who has been abducted by a resident who has foreign citizenship.
Mr. Tremblay: I don't know if he has obtained Canadian citizenship, but he is certainly an Egyptian citizen, and perhaps also a Canadian citizen. I can tell you that a criminal warrant was issued against him for child abduction. One must distinguish between the civil and criminal aspects of the case.
He is officially being sought by Interpol. He appeared in court this morning in Egypt. The problem is that we have no extradition treaty with Egypt and furthermore - I don't know if one can say this publicly - I have met with police officers who told me that we will not benefit from any cooperation on the part of Egyptian police in a case of abduction, because as far as they are concerned, a boy must have the father's religion, etc.
So, there is a criminal dimension to this matter. There is a warrant. The man is wanted, but he cannot be found, and for Canadian police forces or Interpol to be able to intervene, he must be in a country with which we have an extradition treaty. We do not have one with Egypt.
But that does not solve the problem of the child. Since criminal charges have been brought against the father, were he in France, Belgium, the United States or Great Britain, he could be arrested. The Canadian police would go and get him. He would be brought back here, but his child might well stay with his family, as is often the practice in those countries.
We know that the father - I cannot confirm this - travels in various countries, but the child is being raised by his grandfather or his father's family. That is their tradition.
Our concern is with the child and the mother. There is a criminal dimension to the case that is not easy to solve. However, that is not what I would like to talk about. Rather, I would like to say that in spite of the criminal charges, in spite of the fact that the man is sought by Interpol, the mother has not seen her child for three years. Nor has she seen the father, but the lawyer informs us that he was in court this morning. For our part, we managed to obtain, this morning, a postponement until June 10.
Imagine the expenses involved. The woman works in the compensation department of the National Bank. She must pay for her own plane tickets, as well as those of the witnesses and her lawyer. In fact, she had to change lawyers three times over there. The Canadian embassy helps her to the extent that it facilitates sending and receiving faxes, communications between her and her lawyer, etc., but there is no financial program by virtue of which she could be helped in other ways. It is a very serious situation.
It is very important that pressures be brought to bear in this particular case, but also to urge Egypt to sign a bilateral treaty with Canada. Should they do so, the costs involved in such a case would be much lower and there would be greater respect for the law.
.1625
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other questions? Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: I had a case similar to this myself, only it was right here in Canada. We had trouble with different provinces and different laws.
Are you asking in this bill for financial help?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Personally, I think that the Canadian government is sympathetic to this case. The Canadian government was one of the most active in promoting the Hague Convention. It is difficult to exert pressures on the Egyptian government in situations involving human rights. In fact, the prime minister and all of his ministers are very uncomfortable in this issue.
So, I feel that as parliamentarians - and I think that is the raison d'être of this committee - we can deal with certain situations. I'm convinced that government members would vote in favour of the motion. That would give the government additional important tools to bring pressure to bear. It is very important that the Canadian Parliament express itself on the matter.
I'm not asking for financial assistance because I would like to see the situation settled through the signing of a bilateral agreement. I think that if this question were raised more frequently with the countries with whom we do not have an agreement, we could eventually consider financial assistance. My concern, quite frankly, is for the mother and her child, and all of the others who are waiting. I would like to see us move quickly on this issue.
Of course, asking for financial assistance in this case is tantamount to admitting that we cannot make progress. It is like saying that the present situation is going to continue. I am not ready to do that.
[English]
Mr. Stinson: Thank you.
Mr. Loney: How old is the child?
Mr. Tremblay: He was three and a half. Now he's six and a half.
Mr. Loney: He was born in Canada?
Mr. Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Loney: His mother is Canadian?
Mr. Tremblay: Yes.
Mr. Loney: But you're not certain about the father?
Mr. Tremblay: Well, certainly he was working here. I don't know. I can phone and find out his status. He was working in Canada, so he must have had some papers and all that. He has been here for many years. His brother is still in Ontario. He has a business.
Mr. Loney: You mentioned that he was to be in court this morning?
Mr. Tremblay: In Egypt.
Mr. Loney: In Egypt, yes.
Mr. Tremblay: Yes, he was. Well, on Monday.
Mr. Loney: There could be a very serious problem with the Egyptian law, because the tradition there, I believe, is that as a kind of adoption, the father can give his son to his immediate family.
Mr. Tremblay: You're right. That's one of the problems. Yes, you're right. With a daughter it's later.
Mr. Loney: Yes.
Mr. Tremblay: We face this kind of problem. Just imagine that he could bring to the court a photograph of the mother of the child with a bad suit, and just forget it; it's done.
That is the objective of the international convention. If you're married or you have a child in Canada, you should live by the rules of the country where you live. If a Canadian is living in Australia, he or she has to live by the justice of Australia. It's the same for Egypt.
Mr. Loney: In this case they wouldn't recognize any rights for the mother at all.
Mr. Tremblay: We know that legally she does not have much chance, but because of that, it's more important to have this motion three times in the House. We will have it by June, about the same day, I think. She will be there June 10. I think it will be on June 10 or 11. I don't know when we can have this motion in the House, but depending on the judgment and the reasons they are giving to her, we can come back and then show to everybody what has happened and why.
.1630
Mr. Loney: Or why not.
Mr. Tremblay: Why not, yes - and then come back again.
It's not an easy problem. I understand that, but there is an international convention. It's quite simple. Chapter 11 in the United Nations convention promotes the signature of the...or bilateral convention. We have gone far, but we have to enlarge the club and have some pressure from the House of Commons.
The Chair: Mr. Tremblay, you've made that point very clear.
John, do you have any other questions?
Mr. Loney: No, not at the moment.
The Chair: I'd like to ask you a couple of questions, because our job here is to try to select motions and bills that are of national interest.
I don't want to appear to be unsympathetic to this particular case. My understanding is that you've been in the House for many years. Do you know how many other countries with which we in Canada have similar dealings don't have a treaty agreement with us?
Mr. Tremblay: Yes, there is only... I can't tell you.
The Chair: Would it be hundreds?
Mr. Tremblay: We don't need so many. We have a lot of people from Morocco in Quebec, or from Pakistan and other parts. Maybe you have to select for bilateral agreements countries from which -
The Chair: Mr. Tremblay, the question I'm asking you is, in your knowledge, are there many countries where the same incident could occur -
Mr. Tremblay: Yes.
The Chair: - with which we don't have bilateral agreements?
Mr. Tremblay: Yes. I don't know of any bilateral convention that Canada has with another country. The Canadian action has been to bring countries to the convention. That has been a new strategy for some years now. We now have to have bilateral agreements because they don't sign for -
The Chair: In your many years of experience here, would you assume that there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of cases like this across Canada?
Mr. Tremblay: Not hundreds of thousands. No.
The Chair: Hundreds?
Mr. Tremblay: Yes, hundreds - and more, because of internationalization, globalization. It's the same dynamics as we have with economics, but it's -
The Chair: Mr. Tremblay, had you been in our position in deciding if it's votable, would you be very concerned that if we made your bill votable, hundreds would come to us from many ridings?
Mr. Tremblay: I didn't catch the last part of your question.
The Chair: The translator will do a good job.
I'm asking you to put yourself in our shoes for a minute. If in fact we were to make this specific case votable, if you were in our shoes would you be concerned that every MP across the country would then be lining up to bring similar cases to have the weight of Parliament behind them?
Mr. Tremblay: I am just trying to remember. I don't remember any cases like that.
The Chair: Well, would it be a concern of yours? I'm expressing my concern.
Mr. Tremblay: No. Well...
The Chair: One of the jobs we have -
.1635
Mr. Tremblay: No... There are not hundreds of countries where we have so many problems. There may be more than one thousand... I have no concerns about thousands of kids, but maybe... Sure, there is some organization - in French it's called Réseau enfants retour. This organization is working to help people even if
[Translation]
the child was kidnapped by someone else.
[English]
and there are different cases. We live with this situation in Canada too. For example, the people are from Alberta, and the wife is going back to British Columbia. In most of the cases we had some role. We did establish it in the last twenty years, but now it's done, and it's more difficult to enlarge these kinds of treaties or bilateral agreements with other countries, so we have to push a bit, and for Parliament, I think it is important.
I think maybe we will have some of the cases, but the other reason this motion is formulated that way is that it was the mother's decision. If she has been working on it for three years... I did ask her if she wanted her case to be public. To me that's her decision, and that's private. It's a civil question, a private question, so I just limited myself to that, because it was her decision to go public. Maybe some others will go public too.
I know of another case, a woman who had five children and her husband is gone with the five, so maybe we will have some other cases.
The Chair: Okay, Mr. Tremblay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Tremblay: But here the RCMP has a bureau, and they don't have hundreds of cases, maybe...
The Chair: Do you have another question, John?
Mr. Loney: I was just going to say there's no doubt that it would set a precedent.
Mr. Tremblay: To have this question in Parliament?
Mr. Loney: Yes.
Mr. Tremblay: No.
Mr. Loney: For consideration, yes, I think it would. I think your whole case is going to rest on whether the father is a Canadian citizen or has dual citizenship, as far as exerting any pressure on the Egyptian government or the Egyptian authorities is concerned.
Mr. Tremblay: No, I don't think so. Egypt didn't sign, but they were at the meeting...not all the countries.
They signed the United Nations agreement on the child. There is already international pressure on Egypt. The French had a bilateral agreement with Egypt, and I'm not asking you about some other countries that I don't have to name here, but the French had a bilateral one. They were supposed to be in the process of adopting that convention. They were at the beginning of the process, but they didn't adopt it. Each country has to adopt some laws to enforce it. They are supposed to be in that process for many years.
I'm telling you, and I have it here, France has one with Egypt, so there is already a country we can work with. But I'm just telling you...and you can ask your own ministers. I think that Parliament could and should play a role in that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tremblay. We've given you plenty of time. We've given all the questioners plenty of time. Thank you very much. You've done a good job of presenting your case. The lady is very lucky.
Mr. Tremblay: [Inaudible - Editor] told me that we have to repeat all this, only...
The Chair: Repeat, repeat, repeat. Madame Tremblay is very lucky to have you helping her. I assume she's not related to you.
Mrs. Guarnieri, welcome.
[Translation]
Ms Albina Guarnieri, MP (Mississauga East): I will not make a long speech.
[English]
I don't plan to be very wordy. I think my bill is pretty straightforward. It aims to end concurrent sentencing for serial rapists and murderers. Currently, whether one person is killed or ten are, it really doesn't matter; you get the same sentence. In essence, it's a volume discount that murderers and rapists get.
.1640
The purpose of my bill is to recognize victims as individuals rather than faceless people. The second purpose is to achieve truth in sentencing.
I believe it fills the criteria for the selection of votable items. I have a letter from legal counsel stating that it does. It certainly fulfils the object of national significance. It's certainly not trivial and it's not substantially redundant, with the Criminal Code as it currently is written.
The premise is simple: the most dangerous offenders with the most victims spend the most time in jail. Currently, the courts generally have held that multiple sentences will be served concurrently unless the judge exercises his or her discretion to the contrary.
I have letters of support for my bill from Debbie Mahaffy; Scott Newark, from the Canadian Police Association; Sharon Rosenfeldt, Victims of Violence; Marjean Fichtenberg, Citizens United for Safety and Justice; Steve Sullivan, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime; andPriscilla de Villiers.
I don't think I can add anything more to the eloquent letter that was written by Debbie Mahaffy. She writes:
- The ``Justice System'' is not just for the criminals! You cannot, you must not remove or forget
ANY VICTIM from the sentencing equation.
- I fear, there will be too much opposition because Consecutive Sentencing is SO sensible,SO NO-NONSENSE, SO uncomplicated, it may be too simple for some to understand!
- bringing the concept of REASON, `Consecutive Sentencing', out of the shadows where it has
been lost for far too long.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any questions?
Ms Guarnieri: C'est évident.
The Chair: They may just take a second to look through the letters.
Ms Guarnieri: Maybe I was too brief.
The Chair: No, that's all right. Brief is good.
Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: It's a concern out there. I think this has been an issue for a long time. It's good to know that.
Ms Guarnieri: I think Debbie Mahaffy's letter to the Commons was quite heart-wrenching. I hope you all take time to look at it, because it makes the case for why this is an idea whose time has come. She makes the plea on behalf of her own daughter Leslie, Kristen French, Tammy Homolka, Jane Doe, and each and every rape victim of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka.
I don't think that plea should go unheard.
The Chair: Mr. Langlois, do you have any questions? Mr. Loney, do you?
Okay, thank you very much.
Ms Guarnieri: Thank you. Hopefully it was short and sweet. I trust in your deliberations. Merci.
An hon. member: Mr. Assadourian's representation is here.
The Chair: Okay.
Ms Guarnieri: I want you all to know that since I was brief he owes me his first-born. Now he can do his presentation early.
The Chair: No, he can't.
Are you presenting on Mr. Assadourian's behalf?
Mr. Daniel Kennedy (Legislative Assistant to Mr. Sarkis Assadourian, MP (Don Valley North)): Yes.
The Chair: All right. We have to get committee's permission to have a presentation by a staff member. Does anyone have any objections?
An hon. member: Not at all.
The Chair: You're such nice people.
Mr. Kennedy: Thank you. I'm Daniel Kennedy, Mr. Assadourian's legislative assistant. I bring before you today Mr. Assadourian's private member's bill that he is intending to submit to the House.
.1645
It's a bill with which you may be familiar. It's principally the same bill that was introduced last session as Bill C-229.
This bill was conceived out of the notion that if Parliament is to continue to operate effectively, it must do so in a more stable political climate.
Our political winds have shifted dramatically in the past few years. Regionalism and its small interest groups have grown in number, making consensus within Parliament and among Canadians an even greater task.
This bill puts forth the challenge not to the democratic process but rather to the definition of what constitutes a party in a federal election and the obligations it carries to Canadians. If a group applies for party status in an election and cannot fulfil the requirements as stipulated under the amendment, then that said group cannot enter into the House of Commons as an official party, and subsequently it will not receive the rights and privileges normally ascribed to an official party.
Undoubtedly, this raises the issue of proportional representation and all the arguments that stem from this particular topic. On numerous occasions in our history, proportional representation either has been experimented with or, at the very least, discussed at both the provincial and federal levels.
This bill does not want to address this issue in relation to our present electoral system, but rather wishes to create the relation between party recognition by Parliament and the party's representation inside the country under the proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act, as offered by Bill C-229.
That's basically the first thing. I have a number of issues on which I'm ready to answer questions and for which Mr. Assadourian has prepared me. Other than that, I'll have to -
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Stinson, have you any questions?
Mr. Stinson: You said this was under Bill C-229 before?
Mr. Kennedy: That's correct.
Mr. Stinson: What were the results of that?
Mr. Kennedy: The result was that it was deemed non-votable. It wasn't referred to committee.
Mr. Stinson: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I will make my comments later, but had that law existed, we understand that parties such as the CCP, Social Credit, the United Farmers, and the Bloc québécois could not have existed. That would be the scope of that measure, essentially. I fear that it poses a very serious threat to Canada's democratic tradition. In any case, we will debate it.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Kennedy, I don't know if Mr. Assadourian is aware of it, but we all sit on the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs, and we had a thorough discussion of this sort of concept when we were doing Mr. McClelland's private member's bill. It was discussed at great length in that committee.
The bill that resulted from all that discussion ended up partially being Bill C-69, which was killed in the Senate. But it did receive a thorough discussion there.
I don't if Mr. Assadourian is aware of it. If he's not, I'll chat with him when I see him.
Mr. Kennedy: Okay.
The Chair: Thank you. Tell him you did a good job.
Mr. Kennedy: Thank you.
The Chair: Tell him you deserve a raise. I'll sign a note.
Now Mr. Milliken, without your first-born child.
Mr. Peter Milliken, MP (Kingston and the Islands): I was on this committee before. Through most of the last parliament, I was on this committee.
The Chair: I hope you haven't told the general public that this the best committee on the Hill.
Mr. Milliken: I've said nothing. I've been absolutely silent on the subject. Not only have I been silent to the general public, I've been silent to my colleagues in the House.
This little bill I've introduced, Bill C-270, was one that I introduced in the last parliament. Some may recall that - Mr. Loney recounted another incident of this - during the last parliament, in the period from the end of the first session in December 1988 until the commencement of the new session on April 3 or 4, 1989, no supply was voted by the House of Commons. There was no request for supply even in the Speech from the Throne in the first session of the parliament, as I recall. I don't think this was done actually in the second one either, but it was through omission.
But no supply was voted for the period, so the final supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1989 and interim supply for the first three months of the new financial year starting on April 1, 1989 were never voted by the House.
.1650
What happened was that the government helped itself to the treasury through the use of Governor General's special warrants.
There was a tabling in the House of the use of the warrants, and the document was questioned in a committee on one occasion. That was the extent of it. I believe it was the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, but I can't recall. I remember attending a committee meeting and asking some pointed questions. I got into difficulty with the government members for asking them. They thought it was impertinent.
I decided the thing to do was to bring this practice to an end, so I introduced an amendment to the Financial Administration Act to prevent the use of the special warrants between sessions of Parliament.
When Parliament is in session, there's no question that they cannot be used; you must go to the House of Commons and ask for supply. But in this case the government used these special warrants between the first session and the second session of Parliament, effectively sidelining the House of Commons.
The logical effect of it would be that the government could adjourn the House and really run for a couple of years on special warrants. It would not have the House sit at all for any purpose because it wouldn't have to vote itself supply, if the current law stays in force. Most governments wouldn't be so unscrupulous, but legally it could do that.
This amendment is designed to prevent that. It will allow these special warrants to be used only from the date of dissolution of a parliament until a date two weeks prior to the date fixed by proclamation summoning Parliament to meet for the dispatch of business following dissolution. Always, when you have a dissolution and an election is called, there's a date specified in the Governor General's proclamation as the date of recall of the new parliament, so the date will be known and fixed as to when you can use the special warrants. They will not be available at any other time.
If the government needs money in an emergency, it either uses its contingency vote, with which it now operates under the estimates, or it calls Parliament into session and gets the money voted in the usual way. It's as simple as that.
The Chair: That will be really popular with the bureaucrats if this thing goes through.
Mr. Milliken: Yes, you're right. It was very popular when I raised the issue in the committee years ago.
The Chair: I'm going to jump in and ask my questions first, because you guys ask all the good ones by the time it gets to me.
You talked about a dramatic case in which the House could dissolve itself and not sit for two or three years. Can you give me a more specific example of how this bill is going to save us some money or some other embarrassment?
Mr. Milliken: I don't believe it will save us money.
The Chair: Oh, darn.
Mr. Milliken: It enhances the rights of Parliament by ensuring that Parliament's traditional right to vote supply is not bypassed by the use of these special warrants.
The Chair: All right. Any other questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Are you referring to the first date set by the proclamation when the House is dissolved? There is a date in the election writ, a date for the writs and a date is set for the beginning of the session.
If I remember correctly, that date was respected in 1974 because there was a minority government. Normally, the date is not respected and the House is convened much later.
For all practical purposes, would the effect be that the House would be convened more quickly than it is at the present time?
Mr. Milliken: I think that we can change that with this bill. We can change the date on which a new Parliament begins, but my intention is not to avoid that; rather, the purpose is to prevent the government from using the Governor General's special mandates between sessions.
After the speech from the Throne opening the first session, the government could no longer use the special mandates before that Parliament was dissolved.
Mr. Langlois: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: Thank you very much. I hope you'll consider it. I think it meets all the criteria in the little green book.
The Chair: We assumed it would, Peter, or you wouldn't have -
Mr. Milliken: I wouldn't have introduced it or I wouldn't have bothered coming, that's for sure.
Mr. Stinson: You said this is the second time you've introduced this?
Mr. Milliken: Yes, I don't think it got debated before, to the best of my recollection. I only won a draw on the motion once on another bill, I think, and the bill I chose was a different one.
Mr. Stinson: Oh, okay.
.1655
Mr. Milliken: So I don't think it has been debated in the House. We had others that were more pressing.
The Chair: Next we have Keith Martin. Oh, wait a minute. Technically speaking you missed your turn because you were a bit late, so Mr. Szabo is next.
We're all backed up. It's like going to a doctor's office. We overbook. But we got very interested in some of the bills that were being presented and we had to ask a lot of questions. You want us to do a thorough job, I'm sure. My doctor tells me he has to check patients from top to bottom, not just take their word for it.
Mr. Szabo.
Mr. Paul Szabo, MP (Mississauga South): Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
I am sorry I cannot speak French, Mr. Langlois, and I apologize for that.
[English]
I am presenting to you a motion. The motion is that in the opinion of the House, the government should consider amending the Income Tax Act to provide a caregiver tax credit for those who provide care in the home for pre-school children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged. If you recognize those words, you know that they are part of a petition from all across Canada that I have given over 100 times in the House of Commons.
We are living in an age in which families are becoming more and more pressured to care for their own pre-school children because of the availability or unavailability of affordable daycare. Also, the provincial cutbacks because of deficit fighting are causing many families to take on the responsibilities of care for the elderly, the chronically ill and the disabled, who would normally have institutionalized facilities available to them. Those facilities are also quite expensive.
This concept is something I have in a bill that is hopefully to get to this committee eventually. It calls for a number of opportunities to make some taxation modifications that would refocus the existing tax dollars by way of converting deductions to credits and making eligibility tests for things like a spousal amount non-refundable income tax credit or a childcare expense deduction to a tax credit.
To give you an idea, if someone makes $70,000 a year and has childcare for $5,000 a year for their pre-school child, the deduction of that $5,000 generates an income tax refund cheque for them of $2,600. If someone makes $30,000 a year and sends their child to the same childcare spot for $5,000, the refund cheque they receive in the mail is only $1,800. That's an $800 difference for the same amount of money spent on childcare. That's an inequitable situation, and there are other examples of that.
The intent of this motion is not to spend new money but rather to refocus existing tax perks, which are very expensive to Canadians. In fact, the spousal deduction, which used to be a spousal exemption but is now called a spousal amount - it's a non-refundable income tax credit - costs Canada about $1.4 billion a year. It is there whether or not you are caring for children, whether or not you have any other responsibility. It's an exemption or tax break simply because you happen to be a spouse who isn't in the workforce. If we were to submit these benefits, as we have with many of our other programs, to a means test or an income test, it would also make sure it is targeted at those who really need the benefit.
So in summary I'm suggesting to you, and I've given you a summary, that tax reform is inevitable in Canada. They have a blue-ribbon task force dealing with the corporate side. I believe it's very timely, particularly in the cutting mode we are in, particularly at the provincial level, that serious consideration be given to refocusing and rededicating limited resources to those who really need the money. That's those who provide an invaluable service to our society, providing for those in most need - our pre-school children, the chronically ill, the disabled and the aged.
.1700
I would certainly be delighted if you would accept this motion for votable status. I think there a lot of members in the House would like an opportunity to participate in a subject matter that I believe is very topical, very timely and would certainly give us an opportunity to see the sense of the House with regard to assisting those who in fact are not being recognized for their value or the work they do for our society.
As you know, in the census that goes today, one of the new issues is the one of unpaid work. That certainly includes the work in the home, so I ask for your support on motion M-30.
The Chair: Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I am not at all questioning your commitment to family values, and in fact, I congratulate you on that. My question has more to do with the consequences of this proposal.
The fact that we would give a person who looks after children or the handicapped at home a credit that would be deductible directly from the income tax, rather than giving that person a non-refundable tax credit would cost the government some money.
Where would you make up the shortfall? How would you re-balance the books?
[English]
Mr. Szabo: In fact, the intent would be that there be no shortfall. The means test or income test that would be applied would ensure that it's focused on those who need it. Secondly, for instance, converting the child care expense deduction from a deduction to a tax credit would save Canada about $250 million a year alone simply on that change of mechanics. It says one person can't get a $2,600 refund and another one only get $1,800. They would all be the same.
Whatever tax credit rate you set, it doesn't necessarily have to be the minimum, which is presently 17%. As you know, we have split rates on charitable donations, etc., so there is some variability. Secondly, if you make it subject to an income test equivalent to what the old age security is, for instance, in the clawback, in fact that would generate a savings of an additional $100 million.
Then you have to consider the implications if people are prepared to withdraw from the workforce because, after taxation, the cost of providing care to kids or to the needy and their families...and with the cost of employment their net take home pay is so small that the economic decision really is very obvious for them. We don't have to pay for it all, but a slight tax break, a modest tax break, may make it more financially feasible for them to make the choice to stay at home and provide that direct parental care or direct care to their family members who are in need.
If that happens, they free up a job. It also means for daycare space, for instance, that we freed up daycare spaces that we're prepared to subsidize federally and provincially in an aggregate amount of $12,000 per space per year. This is a significant dollar savings that can be forgone simply by reducing the demand for childcare spaces. In addition, that job will be freed up for someone who's probably on welfare or UI.
We have 9.4% unemployment in Canada, and many of those people are people on welfare, single mothers who need that dignity of a job. Those people who are now getting social benefits will be off social benefits, and that's a savings to the government. They will be taking a job, and chances are they will be paying more tax on the same job because they don't have the same deductions as the person who withdrew. So a single person taking that job would actually pay more tax because they wouldn't have the childcare expense deduction that the former holder of that job did.
There are many elements to the equation. I don't think I want to dwell very long on the mathematics. The principle here is very important.
For instance, in my petition that I've been giving, the preamble says that managing the family home and caring for pre-school children is an honourable profession that has not been recognized for its value to our society. If we cannot embrace that principle and extend it also to those who provide care to the chronically ill, the disabled and the aged, then I think we're lost. We have to embrace those principles first.
This is the motion. It's an opportunity to discuss societal values and tax equity in our system, which I think are very important issues, very topical, and I'm sure members of Parliament would like an opportunity to talk about it.
The Chair: Are there any more questions? Mr. Langlois.
Mr. Langlois: Non, merci.
The Chair: Mr. Stinson?
Mr. Stinson: No.
The Chair: Mr. Loney?
Thank you, Paul.
Mr. Szabo: Merci beaucoup.
.1705
The Chair: Dr. Martin.
Mr. Keith Martin, MP (Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca): Thank you very much, madame la présidente.
The Chair: You're welcome.
Mr. Martin: The motion I'm presenting to the committee today, motion 206, came out of the disarray that we've seen over the last seven months over who or what can secede from Canada. There's a lot of conflict and uncertainty as to what can or cannot secede and under what criteria an area can secede from Canada.
That's the purpose of this motion. I've taken up the five principles under international law that govern who or what can secede and they are listed in the motion. I will not go over them.
I'm trying to put forth a tangible set of criteria that would have to be met for the federal government to consider negotiating with any secessionist claim from any area within Canada. We need some very clear guidelines. Certainly those were lacking in the last referendum, and there's no move right now to try to clarify the air as to who or what can secede.
I've used these international principles that are commonly accepted and in fact have also been accepted by members of the Quebec provincial government. As an example, Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister, Jacques Brassard, stated that democracy is paramount and that, no matter what any court or constitution may say, international law takes precedence over internal law in such cases, and you can always say that secession is illegal.
But this motion would give the members of the House the ability to in some way formalize the criteria for secession. That in a nutshell is the purpose of this motion. I hope the committee will find it within themselves to make it votable.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Questions?
[Translation]
An honourable member: In English please, because my French is very poor.
[English]
Mr. Langlois: On the last criterion for the secession, you state that two-thirds of the population must answer in the affirmative in order to pick up the two-thirds threshold.
Mr. Martin: That is correct. The two-thirds is what is commonly considered to be a valid or an acceptable percentage under international law. They don't make it 50% plus one. International law says that a two-thirds majority is what is deemed to be necessary for any area to secede. You can look at examples such as what happened in Slovakia, where over 70% voted for secession, or in Turkish Cyprus, where 90% of the population voted in favour of secession.
Mr. Langlois: Merci.
The Chair: Are there any other questions? Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: I'm going to disqualify myself from this one. That is about the only question I would have had.
The Chair: Mr. Loney? Thank you very much.
Mr. Martin: Thank you.
The Chair: Short and sweet.
Now Mr. Shepherd.
Mr. Alex Shepherd, MP (Durham): Thank you very much, Madam Chair and committee members. This is the second time I've been here in a month or so.
The Chair: You must have a lot of good luck.
Mr. Shepherd: The bill you have before you today, Bill C-214, is called the program cost declaration act. To answer one of the questions that the chairperson mentioned earlier, I think this would in fact reduce some of the costs of government.
Basically it's a very simple act. It requires that any legislation that's presented to the House of Commons prior to its presentation is to receive a costing; in other words, how it's going to affect the costs of the operation of the government. It goes one step further and allocates that cost on a per capita basis based on the last census taken in Canada. In other words, the program is going to cost$30 million, and then divide that by 30 million Canadians, and that comes out with the cost on an individual basis.
.1710
The second tier of this is to require that costing methodology be attested to by the Auditor General. What I'm saying is basically that the Auditor General would attest that the methods used to arrive at the costs were fair and reasonable.
Clearly what I'm suggesting are estimated costs, but it's not unusual in everyday accounting practices that people would say the method that you used to arrive at these costs was fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
That's the basic essence of the bill. I think there's one other point, that any place where that program was being delivered to the general public the information would also be available.
What we're trying to do with this legislation is to increase the accountability of our governmental system to the people. It has always amazed me that legislation comes forward in the House of Commons and nobody knows how much it costs. It seems a pretty basic question.
We often hear ministers and others suggesting costs, but when we actually delve into the process of how they're arrived at, they're closeted and often held in secret and I suspect are often contentious as to how those numbers were arrived at. We only know that because, by examining the Auditor General's reports, we can see after the fact how much deviation has often occurred in those programs.
I think looking at the big picture is how we develop the deficit and debts that we've had in this country. I think some of the partial reasons are that programs seem good at the time and ministers of all political stripes, for whatever reasons, bring these forward and possibly not necessarily knowingly but sometimes realistically underestimating the real true costs of those programmes.
Often in government it occurs that we don't really know what the costs are until the bills start coming in. It has always struck me as a kind of oddity of government that it's like going out and buying a car, kicking the tires and doing all those wonderful things, putting the options on it, going home and not ever asking how much it's going to cost and waiting for somebody to send you a bill. I think that has contributed to our deficit and debt problems.
I've taken the opportunity to compare what other jurisdictions do. Once again, the United States has a program very similar to this. It has been operating in the United States for some considerable time. Also, Australia has a system much similar to what I'm recommending.
In support, basically I have a letter here that I'd be happy to hand around. It is a letter from the Auditor General himself stating that he thinks this program is fair and reasonable and the time has come to manage costs within government.
Of course, the Treasury Board is basically responsible for some of this process now. It's interesting to note in some of my initial discussions with some of the people who work in the Treasury Board that they think this would be a very good piece of legislation as well and would make the functioning of the Treasury Board a lot smoother because ministers wouldn't be constantly arguing with Treasury Board to execute their programs. They would have already taken the time to know how much they're going to cost and how they're going to fit in with the overall concept of government financing.
I think the general public in this country are concerned about accountability and I think the other aspect of that is that they seem to look at government financing as a total conundrum. I think the concept of having a per capita cost for every program that's available means that people will start focusing on what it's going to cost them.
.1715
We've developed a strange system in this country, where we believe in the magic of government. We can ask for services and, somehow, somebody else is paying for them. If it was specific and we said we're going to present you with this program, and by the way, it's going to cost you, the individual, x number of dollars, people would begin to have a different perspective on the programs they are asking for from government. I think they'd also have a better understanding of how government financing works.
In my own constituency we have this problem with the GST. There is a huge group of people who somehow think it can mysteriously disappear, not asking where that $20 billion in government revenue would come from.
We're not trying to turn everybody in this country into a bunch of accountants, but we are trying to get some knowledge into the average person's hands. I also think it would make our role as parliamentarians a little more credible if, every time a program came in, we knew exactly what it would cost our constituents. We could make those value judgments about whether they are fair and reasonable or are too costly for the average person. If we had some of this program in place years ago, we might not have the deficit and debt situation we now have.
A lot of the pressure in government to deal with deficit and debts is because we've put our whole country to the wall. In a lot of cases it's international investors who are telling us to clean up our act or they won't buy our bonds any more.
We shouldn't have gone to the point where we let international investors control, to some extent, what we have to do. That's how far this process has gone. As we deal with our deficit and debt problems, I think it's appropriate to put management systems in place so that the Canadian people can control future government spending.
That's the essence of this bill. It's simple and straightforward. I believe it satisfies the conditions of a votable bill. I believe it's national in scope and is timely. At a time when people are asking for more accountability, I think it would be appropriate for this bill to receive full debate in the House of Commons.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Shepherd. Questions were racing through my head while I was listening to you.
I want some clarification. When a new program or a change of program is proposed by the government or through a private members bill or a committee, will any change or new program be costed out?
Mr. Shepherd: That's correct - anything that's presented to the House of Commons. Most of those bills with government legislation and the actual introduction of government legislation -
The Chair: A lot of secrecy surrounds budgets, and there is a lot of taking from Peter to pay Paul, a lot of shifting. Are you concerned that public knowledge of the cost of the programs - don't take this as controversial, I'm really curious - would affect the budget process? Would they use it as an excuse to drop programs because they have a price tag attached to them?
Mr. Shepherd: The process of budget secrecy and that whole area - our own finance minister has tried to move away from that and create a more open process. The whole budgetary process starts two or three months before the budget - public consultations about where we're going to put money.
The other thing, of course, is that the budget is an estimate of the future year's revenue and expenditures. So somebody is going to have to fit with them. I think it would assist the budgetary process and the Minister of Finance, because those programs, when they're presented on the House of Commons floor, would have to fit within that process almost immediately. What I suspect happens is that if a program been announced, somehow we'll delay it and try to get it into next year's budget if it doesn't fit into last year's budget.
These are all the things that happen. I think it would be a more open process. I think ministers would be a little more cost conscious about the programs they present.
If you look at government and all these ministers, only two are responsible for cost control. One is the finance minister and the other is the President of the Treasury Board. To compare it to a hockey game, we only have two players on our side and all the rest are trying to score against us. We need more protection so that those costs don't get out of hand.
.1720
The Chair: I agree with you, but I just wanted you to say it.
Do you believe that in most departments they cost them anyway? Do you think this information must be available within departments, particularly since our government came in and we're so concerned that the other two parties in the house try to keep us on track on deficit reduction? Do you not believe that most of these programs are costed out? Is this information just not shared with us?
Mr. Shepherd: I guess the answer is no.
The Chair: That's scary.
Mr. Shepherd: I think it depends on what department you're talking about. I think some departments are a lot better than others. A lot of what we've been doing is cost-cutting as opposed to creating new programs. Having said that, when I try to discover how new programs are costed, I'm led to believe that it's not a full costing.
Some of these programs require external costing. Where we're going to rely on external sources to execute them, we need third-party cost information, but that's rarely done in this system. I think we will see where some of these things went off the rails in the next year or so when our people have made proposals on x number of dollar costs and if they can't deliver...
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any other questions? Mr. Loney.
Mr. Loney: What would be the cost of predetermining the cost of the programming?
Mr. Shepherd: First, to follow up on the chairperson's comment, it's something they should be doing. I think the only incremental cost would be that of the Auditor General. Within the Auditor General's mandate, I suspect he would be able to allocate funds from current auditing procedures, because he's forced to look at something after it's happened - about five years after the fact. If he had the assurance that he could intervene in the process - I'm not talking about his getting in the way of government policy, but about intervening in the sense that there's some kind of control going on at the legislative level rather than his simply coming in after the fact.
I think that's a very frustrating thing. People read the Auditor General's report and discover that $200 million was wasted here and $300 million there, but it's long after the door's been opened and the horse has gone. If we could find some way to bring that test function closer to the actual process that's going on, I don't think it would cost us and would save us a significant amount of money.
Mr. Loney: I raised the question as a means of determining what the net saving might be.
Mr. Shepherd: To be honest with you, that would be a horrendous job. It would be a million-dollar study to look at all the government programs and how much it costs to cost them. Surely there are people in those departments who now do some of that work. I don't think they do it as comprehensively as they should. Maybe it's a matter of setting up a standard that we expect from those departments prior to the presentation of legislation.
The only real cost that I can see would be an argument from the Auditor General that he has a little more work. However, my argument to him would be to reduce his historical audits and move more up front. All you have to do with the Auditor General's function is ask what methodology of costing was used.
In other words, he won't actually go through and try to figure out every dollar that's been spent. How did you arrive at it? Did you pick the number out of the air? Or did you go out and look at the real world costing and how many man-hours are going to be involved? How many materials? How many widgets are you going to buy and how are you going to deliver the program? Are you going to use the information highway? What's all that going to cost them? Are 20% or 100% of the costs accounted for?
Mr. Loney: So it would be more a matter of redesigning the administration that's in place rather than creating a new program.
Mr. Shepherd: I believe so - streamlining the existing system.
The Chair: Would it be fair to say that in the short term you're not talking about saving money as much as about prioritizing?
Mr. Shepherd: I think you'd save money just through the methodology of the system. I often think supplementary estimates are just a disguise for people who overran their budgets. That happens in our system. While the Treasury Board does its best to try to control costing, once the program is issued and out in the general public it's very difficult. You agree to deliver x, and halfway through the delivery process it's suddenly costing you more than you dreamed possible because you hadn't taken into account all of the thought processes involved.
.1725
If you had that kind of management system in place I suspect you would reduce cost, and I think ministers would be a little less desirous of presenting grandiose plans that we can't afford.
The Chair: It might also inhibit some of those nice fat cheques that we send out to50,000 organizations and I'm always sending back.
Are there any other questions? Mr. Stinson.
Mr. Stinson: This sounds very familiar. Was this before the committee before this bill?
Mr. Shepherd: No, I had another bill called the taxpayers' bill of rights. The taxpayers' bill of rights started off as an omnibus bill - a free bill - so I broke it up. The taxpayers' bill of rights talked about a taxpayers' ombudsman and some of those things - with accountability in government as well - but this addresses more of the actual legislative process.
Mr. Stinson: Okay.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Alex.
We don't have Mr. Crête. Have we -
The Clerk of the Committee: We telephoned him, Madam Chair. Perhaps we can telephone him again.
The Chairman: All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stinson, you're our last presenter.
Mr. Darrel Stinson, MP (Okanagan - Shuswap): I too feel kind of privileged in some ways. I was before the committee not very long ago in regard to another bill.
I've tried to bring this before the House because in the last little while the issue of separation has raised its head, and not only in the province of Quebec; there has also been an ongoing discussion in my home province of British Columbia. This is something we will have face probably sooner rather than later, and maybe on more than just one front. I drafted Bill C-230 hoping we could put some guidelines in place.
Since the Quebec referendum there has been an ongoing argument about whether or not the rules were followed. My main concern is that we get some rules in place so that everybody understands exactly what is at stake and how the game should be played.
I sent my bill to all of the provincial premiers, and I was pleased to receive an answer from a couple of them. One was from the Premier of New Brunswick, who said in part:
- I was pleased to receive a copy of this Bill regarding a national referendum to authorize the
government to negotiate terms of separation with Quebec. This has been mentioned frequently
as a possible option for the federal government, and I am interested in reading your bill to learn
more of the details surrounding this possibility.
- I appreciate your commitment to the promotion of national unity and assure you that there is no
issue of more importance to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador than the
preservation of a strong and united Canada.
In my bill I suggest the federal government should agree on a binding national referendum, allowing it to negotiate with an area voting to separate. In the bill I also say if, and only if, Parliament determines that certain basic conditions have been met. Those conditions would include that the question asked was clear.
.1730
I provide that both the ballot and advance ads must state that a vote to separate means a vote to become a separate state, foreign to Canada, to cease to be a province of Canada and to cease to have representation in the House and Senate. It would also mean losing the right of Canadian citizenship, the right to a Canadian passport, the right to unrestricted entry to work and travel in Canada and the unrestricted right to work in Canada.
My bill also would allow Parliament to debate exactly what it means to separate from Canada, what the majority of passage would be. My bill says 50% plus 1 of the vote, which I agree it should be, but I think this should be part of the debate that takes place on the floor.
I do not think this bill falls into any party's agenda. It is a concern of all parties in the House, and I believe it will be of great interest to the people of Canada to hear this debated upon and even voted upon at this time.
I could go on to cite what other people, including the Premier of Quebec, have said in regard to this issue, but we can bring that up through discussion on this. I'm just hoping we give it the consideration I believe we should.
The Chair: Are there any questions of Mr. Stinson? Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: This is extremely detailed. I think it would be difficult for someone to find their way through it. In clause 3, page 4, Mr. Stinson, it is stated that after a referendum is held in a province:
[English]
the House of Commons and the Senate must check if:
- (f) any electoral district used in the referendum had been altered in a way that would
significantly reduce the proportion of voters who are aboriginal people or people with an ethnic
origin other than French-Canadian in the electoral district from that existing in the district at the
provincial general election preceding the coming into force of this Act.
Why do you refer specifically to French Canadians in one of the clauses of your bill?
[English]
Mr. Stinson: It's because this specific reference came up in regard to the arguments during the Quebec separation. This should probably not just pertain to Quebec, but at that time there was an ongoing argument in regard to aboriginal peoples in Quebec and their right to stay within the confines of Canada if they so wished.
Mr. Bouchard stated all throughout that a democratic process - and this is my own belief - should take the majority of any area. A good place for debate on this would be in the House, actually, to see how we should define ``area'' within the province, or ``peoples'' within the province.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: You deal with the problem of partition head on, Mr. Stinson. Does that mean that within provincial boundaries, you would leave it up to certain entities - and you even referred to ridings - to decide not to be part of the negotiating unit if they voted against separation.
For example, in the province of Alberta, where the riding names are very descriptive, let's assume that in the case of a referendum on the secession of Alberta, the yes side won, but that the riding of Calgary-Centre voted no. Calgary-Centre would then be surrounded by a sea of ridings that voted yes.
.1735
Would there be some way for the people of Calgary-Centre, given that the others votes yes, to review their decision? Or would the decision be final, with the result that this riding in the middle of Calgary would, somehow - I don't know how - still be part of Canada? I'm trying to see how we could solve these partition problems, because the same thing would apply to Quebec, which could look like swiss cheese, with holes everywhere.
[English]
Mr. Stinson: It would apply the same in British Columbia, where I'm from. This is what we have to debate, and put the rules in motion. We have to have this set of conditions on how this would apply. All my bill is trying to do is open this up so we can start putting some of this in place and take the worry and the concern away from both sides.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Thank you. I have no further questions.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Stinson, I have a concern in the summary, because - as Mr. Langlois mentioned - the bill is rather difficult to get through. When you say ``The Senate only participates in the validation and approval process if it is a representative elected body at the time'', your bill in effect is useless until we reopen the Constitution and decide whether the Senate in fact should be elected or not elected. In other words, none of this could come into effect as long as we have the same system of government that we have now.
Mr. Stinson: No, not so. What that's saying is that it would still apply with the Senate as it sits now or if the Senate was ever elected.
The Chair: All right, then I didn't read it carefully enough.
Mr. Stinson: Okay.
The Chair: ``The Senate only participates in the validation and approval process if it is a representative elected body at the time.''
It's been a long hard day and I have a headache.
Mr. Stinson: I know.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I think, Madam Chair, that the answer to your question is in clause 3. If the Senate were not elected at the time of the referendum, the Senate would not be taken into account and the House of Commons would therefore decide on the question. That's how I understand clause 3.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Loney, do you have any questions? Okay, thank you.
We have two bills that have been presented to us that we didn't have presenters for. One was by Mr. Crête, who wants to abolish the Senate - something I sympathize with, but I don't know if we'd get that through right now. The other is by Mr. Ringma, who wants to rediscuss the death penalty. I just want to make you aware of the fact that those two bills are before us, even though there haven't been presentations.
Mr. Stinson: Is there any chance that either one of these gentlemen could come before...? I am not able to make a decision right now in regards to these bills. That's not what you're coming to, are you?
The Chair: Not yet. We're going to talk about that in a minute. I'm just making sure you're aware that both of those were here, both gentlemen were informed. Mr. Ringma declined to attend but still wants his bill to be votable, and Mr. Crête said he would be here, but we have been unable to get in touch with him.
The next problem is that we've got votes at 6 p.m. If the mood of the room is that we can make a decision within the next 20 minutes on some of these - either the motions or the bills - we can do that. There isn't the urgency we had last time. We can reschedule for tomorrow and give you time to think about it. Some prefer that. Some prefer to strike while the iron is hot. I'm here at your discretion.
Mr. Stinson: I'd prefer to meet tomorrow. I'll be honest with you - it's been a long day. I think that when we make decisions too hastily because of time constriction... I'm not trying to be derogatory to anybody here at all, understand that. But it bothers me a little bit, especially in private members' business. I don't care if it only takes us five minutes to get through it tomorrow; if we start on something here and the bells ring and we're out of here, I -
The Chair: There is a third alternative; we can come back after the bells.
Mr. Stinson: I am tied up in caucus.
An hon. member: I have caucus as well.
Mr. Loney: I would prefer to come back tomorrow. We put our witnesses through very quickly today and I'd like to have a chance to study these.
The Chair: Mr. Langlois.
.1740
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I have a problem tomorrow, because I have another meeting starting at 3:30 p.m. It is a meeting of the Sub-committee on National Security and we will be examining the budget of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Perhaps we could start a little earlier, right after question period. That would give me time to think about everything we heard today.
[English]
The Chair: What time is your meeting tomorrow, Mr. Langlois?
Mr. Langlois: It's at 3:30 p.m.
The Chair: At 3:30 p.m. That would be pretty rushed.
Would everybody be available to meet here for lunch tomorrow, or do we all have commitments through lunch?
Mr. Stinson: I'm easy.
The Chair: Or would you like to take time to think about that? We can't leave during Question Period and we need Mr. Langlois because he sat through the presentation. So can we leave it to the clerk to try to come up with at least an hour tomorrow? We may only need 15 minutes, but we should have an hour booked.
How about Thursday morning? That would be great for me. We have procedure and house affairs.
Mr. Langlois: Perhaps just before procedure and house affairs at 11 a.m.
The Chair: Yes, if we'll all be around.
Mr. Stinson: I'm in agreement with that. Mind you, it's without knowing my schedule.
Mr. Langlois: That's 9:30 a.m.
The Chair: John, how about you?
Mr. Loney: Yes, it will be okay.
The Chair: That's 9:30 a.m., Thursday morning.
The Clerk: That's 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. I'll cancel tomorrow and find a place for -
The Chair: Just to get the will of the committee, if Mr. Crête is to approach us to see if he can present at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday morning, would we allow that?
Mr. Stinson: In my opinion, you spend sometimes many months drafting a bill, you wait and you hope you get drawn. If you get drawn and something happens and you can't present your bill, but you have a opportunity to present it next time...we cannot take 10 minutes out of -
The Chair: In other words, your answer is yes, it would be okay to seem him?
Mr. Stinson: Definitely, no problem.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Langlois, would it be all right with you?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Yes, we will have to see what his reasons are. We do have a schedule, and we are supposed to stick to it. If Mr. Crête has some good reasons to put forward, I think we can show some indulgence, but not leniency.
[English]
The Chair: Okay. You're leaving it to the discretion of the chair.
Mr. Langlois: Yes.
The Chair: Merci. Thank you very much.