[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, September 25, 1996
.1532 
[English]
The Chair: Order.
I have John Loney's permission to begin. He's going to be a bit late. If he has any questions on any of the things he will miss, we'll take a break. We'll try to sit down and give him all of them. I think he should be okay, because he has a lot more experience than most.
Ray, you've got ten minutes to do your presentation, and then we'll ask you some questions. Don't think you have to jam everything in, because if there's anything we don't understand, there's no time limit on the questions.
Mr. Raymond Bonin, MP (Nickel Belt): I have 10 minutes to present?
The Chair: Yes, you do, but you don't have to use it all up.
Mr. Bonin: No. I understand what it's like. The faster I go, the sooner you go home. Right?
The Chair: No, no.
Mr. Bonin: Thank you very much for this opportunity to address Bill C-266, an act to amend the Competition Act.
To evaluate this bill in a proper context, the following questions must be answered.
One, should an individual have the right to report a violation of a law of this Parliament or the right to refuse to participate in a violation of a law of this Parliament without the fear of losing his or her job?
Yes, an individual should have that protection. It is a principle found in many laws already: the Ontario Public Service Act, the Ontario Environmental Protection Act, the Nova Scotia Environmental Protection Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and the Yukon Environment Act.
The U.S. Congress goes further and covers many private sector industries. In New Jersey they call the bill the Conscientious Employee Protection Act. An employee cannot be disciplined for reporting or refusing to participate in any breach of law, whether federal, state, or even local.
Two, should a Canadian with knowledge that a violation of an Act of Parliament has been or will be committed have the right to file an anonymous complaint, and should the government have the legislative ability to accept the anonymous complaint and investigate? Yes. Crime Stoppers is founded on those very principles. The Competition Act contains many dispositions that are violations of the Criminal Code.
Three, should the Competition Bureau have access to new investigative tools to uncover individuals and corporations who engage in anti-competitive activities? Yes. Anti-competitive activities ultimately hit consumers in the pocketbook. Canadians must have confidence that everything possible is being done to ensure that competition in the economy is preserved.
.1535
George Addy, former head of the Competition Bureau, said in June 1995 that the Competition Act is an adequate piece of legislation. The problem is the gathering of the evidence to prove illegal acts. Who has the evidence? The employees. But they have no mechanism that allows them to bring forward their information without fear of being disciplined.
George Addy said that the Competition Act could be improved by (1) protecting the confidentiality of complainants; (2) private sector voluntary agreements that provide employees with the complaint mechanisms for reporting violations of the law. Bill C-266 legislates Mr. Addy's recommendations, because industry's self-regulation of competition issues is nonsense.
The highlights of Bill C-266 include the idea that Canadians can report violations of the Competition Act anonymously and the information will be kept confidential; making it illegal for an employer to discipline or fire an employee who refuses to participate in or reports a violation of the Competition Act; allowing an employee who is disciplined to go to a court of competent jurisdiction and sue for damages or reinstatement.
Before we proceed to questions, I will mention that a public comment was made by the member for Ottawa Centre, Mac Harb, that what we need is whistle-blowing legislation. His comment was endorsed by the Minister of Industry, who would be responsible for this act. What we're talking about here is in essence whistle-blowing legislation. It was inspired by the gas companies. There is a perception in Canada, valid or not, that Canadians are being cheated, and as legislators we have to alleviate that fear.
I'm open to questions, madame la présidente.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Are there questions from members of the committee?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): That's clear, Mr. Bonin. You're describing a case of improper whistle-blowing, but subclause 64.1(3) of your bill makes clear provisions for such a case. Something like this could have been used for blackmail purposes, but if the Commission concludes that a person engaged in whistle-blowing with malicious intent, the right to confidentiality disappears and civil action can be taken. That answers my question. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: That was easy, wasn't it. We're finished.
Mr. Bonin: Whether or not it was easy depends on the outcome.
The Chair: You shouldn't judge from the number of questions you're asked. Sometimes we all agree and we don't ask questions, and sometimes we just think it's ridiculous and we don't ask questions. So there's no hint there.
Mr. Bonin: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you.
Next we have Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Chuck Strahl, MP (Fraser Valley East): Thank you.
I'm of two minds on this bill that you have before you, Bill C-236. It's a nice short bill. It's not a difficult one to wade through. The crux of the issue is the importation of radioactive waste, and whether or not we should move proactively as a government to prohibit that before there is some challenge to that idea, likely from the Americans, who may want to store their radioactive waste in our country.
The reason I'm of two minds on this, Madam Chair, is that back in March, when I tabled this bill, the government had not brought forward any legislation, although it had been promised by successive governments for probably twenty years. Shortly after I brought the bill in, Ms McLellan did bring in a bill to address the whole nuclear industry - a very extensive bill that covers everything from the control board to the make-up of the AECL and so on. Her bill does not call for the banning of the importation of radioactive waste, however.
So the reason I'm of two minds on this - and maybe I'll take direction from you on this as a committee - is that the bill does fit into the parameters of her bill. It doesn't do what she wants to do, but it is a hopeless overlap. Her bill does deal with radioactive waste, but mine preceded her bill, so I'm not sure what to do with it.
I'll give you the rationale for why I wanted to proceed with this, and then maybe you can give me some direction on what I should do with it, because we're going to have two bills before the House that deal with similar issues. I don't know what we do there.
I do believe Canadians in general do not want to have radioactive waste in their backyard. I believe the bill is sound that way. It took, as you know, eight years and probably $20 million for the siting task force just to find a town that would even accept the low-level radioactive waste. So I think there is big public sentiment in support of this bill.
.1540
To reassure the people in the nuclear industry, I'm not talking about the disposal of plutonium from warheads. In other words, with the way it's set up right now, any good that we could do - and I think we could do some good in Canada to burn up that radioactive product from warheads - would come after it was processed in the United States and brought in as fuel, not as waste. So it doesn't prohibit us from dealing with the plutonium. But on the waste issue, I think Canadians have a lot of unanimity.
The reason I think the bill is necessary is that there have been a couple of groups that have specifically shown interest in bringing in....
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): Mr. Strahl has asked for our advice. My understanding of our terms of reference is that if a private member's bill is brought forward and it overlaps into government bills forthcoming, that in fact precludes us from accepting it as a votable item anyway.
The Chair: But Mr. Strahl has made it quite clear that this bill goes one step further than the legislation that is before the House, so I'd like to let him finish.
Mr. Strahl: The reason I think it's timely and necessary - in other words, it could be just a philosophical argument - is that there have been two groups that have actively lobbied the government for the privilege of bringing in radioactive waste from outside the country.
The Meadow Lake Tribal Council, in northern Saskatchewan, reported in February of last year that they would be prepared to accept radioactive waste stored in the Canadian Shield on their reserve land. The benefit of that, or the ease of that, is that since it is reserve land, they have almost total control over the land and the subsoil beneath it. As part of their economic development plan, they thought they would accept, for a price, to store radioactive waste on their own soil. Of course, it is their own soil, but it's also Canadian soil. In other words, it's a proactive attempt by the Meadow Lake Tribal Council to bring in radioactive waste for storage. I don't think Canadians want that to happen, yet it has been proposed and encouraged by the Meadow Lake Tribal Council.
The other is the Pinawa task force itself, which as you know is dealing with what to do with the Pinawa site in Manitoba. I've been there a couple of times, I've talked to people there, I've been on site, I've been down in the mine, or down in the hole in the ground - whatever you call it. I'm all in favour of storage of Canadian waste there. As one of their money-making ideas, they're proposing that they could store waste in the Pinawa site, which I'm not opposed to. I think they've done a lot of extensive work there, and I think there are some really logical reasons for why it should go there. What they're proposing, though, deals not just with Canadian waste from Canadian nuclear reactors and Canadian sites. They're proposing to bring it in either by ship or other ways into Hudson Bay, to transport it into Canada from places around the world for storage at Pinawa.
We have to deal with our own waste; our own waste is our own problem. But I would say that Canadians would argue - and I would argue, certainly - that this isn't about Canadian waste. This is about becoming a dumping ground for radioactive waste from around the world.
So, again, there are those two proactive attempts to bring radioactive waste from around the world into our own storage areas, our own garbage dumps. And because nobody has ever slapped them down, nobody has ever said nay to this, I think this continues to be considered as a viable option.
As they say, America alone has enough high-level waste - not low-level, but high-level - to fill 86 football fields a metre deep. This stuff has to be put in a tube this big around, and be sunk into the ground at 500 to 700 metres below the soil. It's a huge thing to get rid of. The Americans, I believe, are looking for a place to do this where it won't be politically sensitive in their own backyard, and I think they'll look to Canada.
If it ever starts, because of NAFTA and many other agreements, we won't be able to stop it from coming into Canada. If you accept it from any one country, you're going to have to accept it from around the world. That's the agreement we have under GATT and NAFTA. And from the U.S. alone, there are 77,000 tonnes of this stuff to store.
.1545
Just to repeat what I said to begin with, the minister's bill does deal with radioactive waste and accepts it as an option. Her bill says -
The Chair: I'm sorry, can I interrupt you? You're more familiar with that piece of legislation than I am. Does it specifically state in it that we will accept waste from them?
Mr. Strahl: No, it says at the discretion.... I just want to get my facts. It will allow the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is a new creation, to possess, transfer, import, export, use or abandon a nuclear substance. In other words, at the discretion of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, they can import this if the commission grants a licence.
So this bill is dealing with a similar topic. It's just taking an exactly opposite point of view.
Jack, as you say, I'm not sure how we handle that.
The Chair: You've just done a very effective job of convincing us not to make this votable. All you have to do is vote against Anne McLellan's bill to produce what you want. Or do you want to centre in on one particular issue and give support to the rest of the bill? You have to decide as you're presenting to us. As I say, you shouldn't have gone there, because you gave me more information than I needed or wanted. What you're saying to me is that your reading of her bill precludes yours.
Mr. Strahl: Yes.
The Chair: So you're withdrawing your request to have it made votable.
Mr. Strahl: I think I have to, maybe. I came to get some advice. My reading of it is that it's exactly opposite to the minister's bill on that one issue. Now the big bait is, as you say, is that just too bad or should I say it's a totally different subject matter? That's why I want -
The Chair: Let me interrupt you again. I'll ask Mr. Lee.
We're very fortunate to have the chair of private members who was here when in fact a bill was made votable. Minister Copps had announced the intention of introducing legislation on a subject way back in 1995. Apparently, your committee made that votable because the legislation hadn't actually been introduced. Do you remember doing that?
Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): Yes.
The Chair: Has Anne McLellan's bill been introduced, or has the announcement been made that this is her intent? I'm not asking you, Derek; I'm asking the guy who's sitting here convincing us to not make his bill votable. This has been a very enlightening 10 minutes, Chuck.
Mr. Strahl: I'm trying to think. I have seen the bill, but it has not been -
The Chair: It has not been tabled?
Mr. Strahl: From the House leaders' point of view, it's not on the order list of something that's coming up yet, so I don't know -
The Chair: I would suggest that if you believe in the subject material of your bill, then you should do a better selling job. She may never introduce that. If that's just intended legislation, other legislation may take precedence.
Mr. Strahl: Yes.
The Chair: Do you have a comment, Mr. Lee?
Mr. Lee: On the issue of whether or not a subject matter has already been taken on by the government, referring back to that bill on endangered species, although a minister in the government had announced that it was part of the legislative program, nothing had been introduced at that time. Since there was nothing concrete, we felt we were free to proceed. It's worth noting that as of today, the government still has not introduced anything on that endangered species topic.
The Chair: Thank you. Do you have any knowledge of whether Ms McLellan...? Does anyone know? I don't think it's been filed. If so, I'd be more familiar with it. Mr. Langlois, do you know?
Mr. Strahl: It has been promised for 20 years. The reason -
The Chair: Chuck, why don't you leave, come back and start again, and pretend the bill never existed so you'd like to make a real good pitch for this one.
Mr. Strahl: Okay. I'll leave it with you. I think it's a good bill, and I think it would get wide support from a lot of areas. As you say, I keep thinking the minister's going to do it. Maybe she's not. It doesn't appear she is, and I'd like to have it votable. On the other hand, I don't want to waste the time of the House. I sincerely don't want -
The Chair: I understand and appreciate that.
Mr. Strahl: So I'll leave that with you.
The Chair: No, don't leave. We may have some questions. You don't get off that easily.
Mr. Strahl: Okay.
The Chair: Mr. Langlois, do you have any questions? No. Mr. Loney?
Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): Not till I see the minister's proposed bill.
The Chair: We could be waiting for 25 years.
Mr. Frazer: I was going to ask Chuck, if he's seen the minister's proposed bill, whether or not he could put in amendments that would accomplish what he wanted to accomplish. But obviously, if you haven't seen the bill, you don't know.
Mr. Strahl: That's the point. It certainly could easily be done, but I haven't been able to do that because it hasn't been before the House.
Mr. Frazer: Okay.
Mr. Strahl: The reason I introduced it originally was to force the government's hand to try to get them to deal with this issue before it blows up. That's the wrong word to use on the radioactive front, I guess. Before it becomes....
.1550
The Chair: Thank you.
Now, if anybody in the Reform Party chooses Mr. Strahl to come to do a presentation on their behalf, they should think again, because he practically convinced me -
Mr. Strahl: Thank you for your kind words and your neutral position.
The Chair: Next is Mr. Lee.
Mr. Derek Lee, MP (Scarborough - Rouge River): Thank you.
Colleagues, the subject of my bill is one I know has not come up before as a motion or a bill in this Parliament, not in the last 129 years. My research has been fairly careful and I think I am correct in that.
As you read it, you will see the motion reconfirms Parliament's right and authority to call for persons and papers and records. That is in effect the power to require people to attend and answer questions and to require them to produce documents. In my experience this particular area is the greatest single obstacle I have ever encountered as an MP in doing my work at committee. It's not such a problem in the House, because we generally don't call people to the House. The ignorance out there and the denial out there, both in the public and in the executive branch of government, are huge and an embarrassment to me as a parliamentarian.
In the background to this, which is outlined in the page I've passed on to you, the rights of Parliament and the authority of Parliament are all referred to and described variously in Maingot, Beauchesne's, Erskine May; and the Supreme Court has continued, quite appropriately, to confirm the existence of this body of parliamentary privilege as part of the law of Canada. What's missing is a clear articulation of Parliament's authority in this regard. Parliament continues to rely on the phrase ``the power to call for persons, papers, and records''. I think that's the precise wording. A lot of people don't know what that means. That phrase is essentially the power to require attendance, to compel answers to questions, and to compel production of documents.
One example that exists for me - there are many - occurred in about 1991. I was on the justice committee at the time and we asked for a document, unexpurgated. The government said no. After a few weeks we ordered the production of the document. The government said no.
I then, sitting in opposition, rose in the House and alleged a breach of my privileges. This was accepted prima facie and it was referred to the privileges and elections committee; and their report back to the house confirmed this. You'll recall the Conservative government was in power then, and at both the justice committee and the privileges and elections committee members confirmed this parliamentary authority. However, when it came back to the House the Solicitor General had been changed and the new Solicitor General essentially gave in and said, we'll give you what you want, we'll enter into a House order, a consent order, to give it, but we will not confirm the report of the privileges and elections committee.
At the time the consensus among the government members of the committee and my colleagues was let's go for it, and we got the documents. However, it failed to establish a precedent, because the department soon forgot. It wasn't long after we entered into this Parliament that the Solicitor General pleaded ignorance of the precedent. Secondly, the House had never adopted the original report of the privileges and elections committee.
.1555
As a result, there are ministers, MPs, kings, queens and citizens who are unaware of this. Consequently, when we go into Parliament, when we are at committee, we don't get the response that should be there when the committee orders. It's not a member ordering or requesting; it is the committee that must do this.
I feel this has to be rectified. The existence of this circumstance is eroding the public's confidence in Parliament. We are more than just a debating club and a cheering section for the government.
The Senate of Australia found it necessary to do this in 1975, and did it. The British House of Commons found it necessary to do this in 1947, and did it. I have a ton of material and quotations from all kinds of interesting people that confirm all of this. The problem is making it real in the Canadian House of Commons.
For 129 years we've muddled along without articulating this. We simply assume that all of these authorities from the British House...and we've let authors and commentators and others muddle along in this field for 129 years. I think the time has come to end this. I think the House must confirm it, and the way to do it is in a motion.
I've given my best shot to crafting a motion that suits. I've worked with our parliamentary counsel, Diane Davidson, and I've worked with others as well. The wording you have is the one before you.
If passed, this would be a benchmark, a benchmark that can be referred to from here on by every MP who follows us. It will be written in stone. The House will have confirmed it and it will be there for all the Parliamentary writers, all the Beauchesnes, all the speakers and all the MPs who come into this place, once and for all.
I point out that it is non-partisan. It is pro-Parliament. Someone has to look after Parliament, and I don't think it's the job of the executive branch of government to do that. It is the job of MPs.
I also point out that the powers outlined in the motion are not new. They exist. It just takes a station wagon full of lawyers to dig out all the precedents, go back 300 years in history and be able to explain it. However, there is no modern articulation of this for the Canadian Parliament. I am submitting this for that purpose.
The Chair: I feel like I'm in the presence of a dramatic moment. Thank you.
Mr. Lee: We shall see.
The Chair: Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I experienced somewhat the same situation as you, Mr. Lee, although for less time, when I was a member of the Sub-committee on National Security. As members of Parliament, we are entitled to expect witnesses who appear before us to be co-operative. A number of the witnesses we heard from seemed outright hostile to me, and despite repeated requests, refused to answer questions or answered evasively.
You spoke about what happened in the 1991 Gingras case, which you reported to the House and to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Does your experience as Chairman of the Sub-committee on National Security confirm the impression you had in 1991?
[English]
Mr. Lee: Nothing has changed. The government officials who appear before our committees are provided with vague information about what their responsibilities are.
.1600
I point out that another committee of this House, the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, asked the Deputy Attorney General to concur that Parliament had these powers and rights. The Deputy Attorney General said yes. His words differed from the then-existing departmental memorandum, which was prepared for use by civil servants in appearing before committees. I read it, and I found it very distasteful because it didn't articulate Parliament's authority in this regard.
The justice department then embarked on providing a new memorandum. When we asked them about three or four months ago if we could see a copy of the memorandum, the justice minister said no. In one sense we were being foolish in believing that the executive branch of government would properly articulate and outline Parliament's authority in this regard. Why should they? They're not working for Parliament and most are ignorant of the parliamentary law.
So that issue still exists with the standing joint committee. We're looking for the memorandum from the Privy Council Office that is supposed to explain the obligations of civil servants when replying to committee questions. It's still not in print as far as I know. The justice minister doesn't want to release it. It's one or the other.
So nothing has changed, and in fact, in my view, nothing will change until Parliament clearly articulates the law. There is no other institution in this country capable of articulating what the law is. That institution is Parliament. The courts do not interfere or meddle in the parliamentary process. That's a constitutional principle. It's been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada as late as three years ago. They will not interfere with Parliament's processes, so there's no place we can go to get this articulated.
Parliament would never ask the government to pass a law of general application articulating it. That's not the way to handle what happens in Parliament. It is Parliament that must firm up and reconfirm it - not articulate it, just say what it is. It's 129 years overdue.
At the beginning of every new Parliament there are words used by the Speaker in his petition to the crown that reconfirm Parliament's authority and privileges, and those five or six words that are used contain in body this one authority that's contained in my motion. It also contains a whole lot of other things, but we are now down to the point where all of this body of parliamentary law is contained and reiterated in about six words every four years and consequently people don't know about it. People don't understand it.
The Chair: Monsieur Langlois? Mr. Frazer?
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Lee, I too have experienced the situation you've had on committee. It occurred with the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs when we were questioning CSE and their representatives and their responses were evasive. The responses were half measures. There was a refusal to answer in some cases.
My question I guess gets back to my background as a service person with security clearances. How far do you see the authority you're seeking here going? Does this compel people to reveal to that committee things that might be construed to be classified with regard to government operations or the safety and security of the country?
Mr. Lee: That's an excellent question and I have to put in the following context. I can't answer it with one sentence. There are obviously matters that will be inquired into at parliamentary committee that should be morally, or just by common sense, not public: some matters of commercial confidentiality, some matters of privacy, some matters of confidences to the crown, some matters of national security. Clearly, the parliamentary committee table cannot be a conduit to make public a whole lot of stuff that in the ordinary course shouldn't be public.
.1605
The point is that Parliament has the full authority to get that information. If Parliament can't get it, then we're out of business; we can't do our job.
So what we've got to do is affirm the principle that we are entitled to it, but in every case where a question of confidentiality, national security, confidences to the crown, or conflict with other statutes comes up, I expect that the committee will use common sense and go in camera.
In one case, in one committee I served on, we called it ``shirt sleeves''. It wasn't even in camera; it was just the committee members, with taking of notes. The notes are kept aside for the common-sense reason that the information we were receiving, which was in a security area, was better kept where it was.
That's a matter for the committee to decide. I point out here that although the law is - and it's clear - that the committee has the full authority of the House to order production and attendance and answers to questions, if any enforcement is necessary it must go back to the floor of the House. In that process one would expect that the various political and common-sense criteria would be brought to bear.
If I hadn't been able to get back to the principles, how in the world would I ever have got the unexpurgated documents from Corrections Canada in 1991. I had to go back and move contempt of a minister before I got them to cough up.
What I'm saying now is that we have to go back and affirm the principle so it will never again be debated, never be in doubt. At that point the committee is in a position to make appropriate arrangements, to use common-sense arrangements to deal with those contingencies.
Mr. Frazer: I don't disagree for one moment with what you've just said, but it seems to me that it begs the question that there would then have to be a requirement that committee members who are made privy to this type of information are also sworn and agree to maintain the security or the secrecy of the information presented to them. Otherwise, it might get out onto the street and there would be no comeback to the committee person who revealed it to say ``You didn't abide by the agreement that had been made''.
Mr. Lee: God forbid that a member would be aware of information that a public servant is aware of! How could we ever let this happen?
Mr. Frazer: Well, no, but what I'm talking about is, don't you agree that -
Mr. Lee: I'm being sarcastic.
No, I don't agree. There are some categories of information in our system of government that are usually subjected to oath, Privy Council oath, secrecy oath, and when we're getting into this territory, up to now our committees haven't acquiesced in this, always being reluctant to concede that Parliament didn't have the right to have it as a right. However, of late, from speaking with colleagues, I think most colleagues would accept the common-sense approach to take an oath or be security-cleared - if the need arose.
The only committees I can think of where that would come up would be committees dealing with foreign affairs, national defence, and national security. Those are items of microcosm, micro-procedure.
If we don't establish the principle, then all other questions are moot; you never get to have a discussion or compromise, because the information simply won't be given or the witness simply won't turn up.
What, may I ask, would we do if a witness failed to turn up?
Mr. Frazer: Subpoena him.
Mr. Lee: We don't have subpoenas, sir. All we have is what I'm articulating here.
Mr. Frazer: But it's in law.
Mr. Lee: What I've articulated is the law. What do you mean by ``it's in law''? This is the law.
Mr. Frazer: That's what I say: it is the law.
Mr. Lee: Parliamentary law.
Mr. Frazer: So you would subpoena him. It's as simple as that. That might even get on the street and the radios and papers -
The Chair: What we have to do, gentlemen - and you should know better, Derek - is not to get into a debate over the merits of the bill, only over whether we think it should be a votable bill or not.
Are there any other questions of clarification?
.1610
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I would just like to make a comment. I believe you had to make a telephone call at 4 p.m.
[English]
The Chair: It's not my children, so it's all right. I will keep going. It's only a lawyer in Toronto.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: My comment doesn't necessarily call for an answer, Mr. Lee. I have a great deal of trouble accepting your last statement in response to Mr. Fraser. You said that parliamentarians sitting on committees could be required to take an additional oath.
In my view, the oath we all take as parliamentarians under section 128 of the Constitution, which entitles us to sit in Parliament, requires us to comply with confidentially requirements totally when we meet in camera. Even if we were to take five or ten other oaths requiring us to maintain absolute confidentiality, the first oath is the one that counts. If we break it, we break the whole chain of trust and are guilty of contempt of Parliament and liable to any sanction that may apply. I don't see what would be gained by requiring us to take additional oaths.
That may be another discussion,but I think the oath I took when I was sworn in as a member of Parliament, as did all our colleagues here, is the oath that binds me and requires me to abide by the rules of Parliament. The rules for sitting in camera are extremely strict, and if we were to break them, we would be liable for punishment that could include our expulsion from Parliament.
[English]
Mr. Lee: In fact, Monsieur Langlois, for the last eight years I have agreed with the position you take that no additional oath is necessary. However, merely for the sake of discussion, I had accepted that we have colleagues who would accept the additional oath if asked for the purpose of facilitating the exchange of information. But I happen to agree in principle with the position you take.
The Chair: Are there further questions?
Thank you, Derek.
Next is Mrs. Terrana.
Mrs. Anna Terrana, MP (Vancouver East): Thank you for seeing me. Bill C-307 is an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. The provision is that every polling station on election day will close at the same time regardless of the time differences across the country.
The reason for this bill is the alienation of the western provinces, the feeling of non-participation on the day of the election when at 4:30 p.m. in British Columbia you know the results of the Atlantic provinces and at 5:30 p.m. you know the results of Quebec and Ontario. It's a very big chunk of the country, but of course the number of people is much less than in the eastern part of the country, where two-thirds of the population lives.
This has always been a great source of discomfort for me as a citizen. I often wondered why they didn't change it, but evidently nobody did it before. Now I am in a position to bring forward this particular issue.
The act gives some provisions. One of them is subsection 79(3), which says that we vote on a Monday unless it's a national holiday, in which case we vote on a Tuesday. Subsection 105(5) that says that we vote for a period of eleven hours, from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. There is also an exception in section 324 for those constituencies with two or more time zones, in which case the returning officer decides. Section 160 asks that ballots be counted immediately after the close of the poll, and there is no provision for delay.
Section 328 says it is an offence to publish election results in any area before voting ends in that area. I must say that this doesn't work. At one point I heard that they had imposed a blackout, but the blackout did not work. I went to visit a polling station at 5:15 p.m. in 1993, and I was told that we had won in the Atlantic provinces and we were taking all the seats in Ontario. So again, many people don't vote, but it's not even that so much as the fact that you feel you are not participating in the process and you do not count.
.1615
Before this bill, two bills were presented. One, in 1982, was Bill C-113. That was for staggered hours. It went just through first reading. In 1988 Bill C-79 was to abolish the prohibition of premature election results, before polls closed, which again will go against the principle I just discussed. It didn't even get into second reading. Of course, this is something that has been discussed for years. Probably because of the small numbers in the western provinces it was never forceful enough to win the battle.
In 1989 the Lortie commission was struck. It produced a report in 1991 recommending staggered voting over ten hours. We talked a lot about staggering hours, but it wouldn't work either, because we still would know the results. It is difficult because we are such a big country with so many time zones.
However, a survey taken in 1990 - the only survey on this subject that I know of - showed that 70% of the respondents said it was a problem; at least 41% said it was a serious problem; 50% approved strongly that we should make a change; 29% approved; and 11% were opposed.
So I am here to ask that we support making this bill votable. There is not much flexibility, but surely there is some flexibility. What I'm proposing right now is too late for.... We're going to around 11:30 p.m. for Newfoundland, but surely that can be changed. The flexibility exists only between.... We could close in British Columbia at 6 p.m., but it's still 9 p.m. in Ontario and Quebec, 10 p.m. in the Atlantic provinces and 10:30 p.m. in Newfoundland.
The people I talk to, my colleagues, are supportive of the bill. Many of my colleagues in the Atlantic provinces.... The seconder was an easterner from Prince Edward Island. The people I spoke to in Ontario seemed to be supportive. The party is supportive, because at this point they have been talking about it but have not done anything as yet.
So here it is for you to consider. I hope you support the votability of this item, especially because it has to be discussed. We have to open the doors to change, because elections only occur every four years. They think it's a little bit of inconvenience for some of the other provinces, but after all, it's only once every four years. For the good of Canada, I think we should be able to accept some changes.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Terrana. For simplicity, what you want is for the polls to open and close at the same physical time, no matter which part it is in Canada, rather than by the time on the clock.
Mrs. Terrana: At this point, we are open at the same time. It doesn't matter what time it is in any province. I'm proposing that we open at 8 a.m., when it would be 11 a.m. in Quebec and Ontario. It would be noon in the Atlantic provinces and 12:30 p.m. in Newfoundland.
The Chair: But the voting would go very late at night in some provinces.
Mrs. Terrana: That's right. So it's quickly brought down to ten hours. Let's say we bring it down from 7 p.m. in British Columbia. The closing I'm proposing now is 7 p.m. in British Columbia and 11:30 p.m. in Newfoundland. So the idea would be to bring it down an hour. We can't do much more than that; otherwise, we don't give the residents of British Columbia a chance to vote after work. So if we go to 6 p.m., it would be about 10:30 p.m. It's a little late, but....
The Chair: Mrs. Terrana, it's not our job to change your bill; if it's debated in the House, you can amend it. But would it not be a simpler thing to keep the hours the same but have the boxes sealed and not opened for counting until a particular time?
Mrs. Terrana: The concern in the Lortie commission report is that they feel they cannot keep people lingering around too long, and that would defeat the purpose. They even suggested that we do it over a period of two days so that people don't have to stay there and we do one portion of the counting one day, one portion another, and then count the ballots.
The Chair: We all wait around and hold our breath to see if we've won or not. Charming.
Mrs. Terrana: That's another alternative, by all means. Again, it could be another alternative. I thought of that too. Again, we don't have to follow the report, but it's food for thought.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any other questions?
.1620
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: The Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, made some comments on this subject when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House affairs. This matter concerns him as well. I find your point very legitimate. With all the media we have at our disposal - we need only think of the Internet or American radio - there's nothing we can do to prevent the release of information that some parts of Canada already know about. It would be pointless to proceed differently in the East.
It might be a good idea to discuss your comments and those made by Elections Canada.Mr. Kingsley had a proposal whereby a very small percentage of the vote would be revealed, probably in the region of Newfoundland in question. That was the point I wanted to make. I also see this as a problem. The only difficulties are that the results come in very late and people have to get up when the alarm clock goes off the next morning.
Of course, these events only happen once every four or five years. You certainly focused on a problem we have in our democratic system in Canada. When people vote in Comox - Alberni, they should not know how their fellow citizens in Labrador voted.
Ms. Terrana: I was in Ottawa when the election was held in British Colombia, and I stayed up watching television very late. I was on the telephone at two in the morning talking to people I know. This is a problem. My solution would be to change the time zones in Canada. But that wouldn't work.
[English]
The Chair: It's another private member's bill.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[Translation]
Ms. Terrana: Probably one put forward by Mr.Langlois.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs. Terrana.
Mrs. Terrana: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr. Ménard, welcome.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): Good afternoon, everyone. I will be quite brief, in light of the fact that the wording of my motion is quite clear.
As the Official Opposition critic on labour relations, I would like to have a debate in the House on the right of the RCMP to unionize and negotiate its working conditions. I would like to inform my colleagues in the House and the members of the committee that the RCMP is the only police force in Canada at the moment that cannot negotiate its working conditions.
In accordance with the wishes of the RCMP union representatives, the motion does not refer to the right to strike. The RCMP would like to negotiate its working conditions and the arbitrary conditions of the current situation, in which a commissioner appointed by the government is both judge and jury - that is the commissioner both runs the RCMP and makes decisions on labour relations matters. The RCMP wants the right to bargain, and when it encounters difficulties, to proceed by way of binding arbitration.
That is the general thrust of the motion. It shows considerable respect for the initiative taken at the request of the Minister of Labour, the honourable member from St-Léonard, Mr. Gagliano. He asked three labour relations professors to review Part I of the Labour Code. These three individuals concluded that it was ridiculous that a single police force in Canada not be able to negotiate its working conditions. They suggested that this could be done under Part I of the Labour Code.
That is the main point of my motion. The rest concerns details, which are important, but which do not merit raising here. I think it is important the Parliament of Canada study this matter.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions from the committee? Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Ménard, I'm a little confused. You said the current thing of arbitration where the arbitrator is both judge and jury doesn't suit you, and yet you're talking about going to binding arbitration rather than the strike route. Can you differentiate between the two?
.1625
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: At the moment, there is no arbitration procedure. The Commissioner of the RCMP makes decisions on labour relations matters. He is both judge and jury. He is the chief administrator and also the person who must analyze disputes and make decisions.
So the suggestion is that there be an arbitration procedure, as exists in a number of municipalities throughout Canada. Given the unique nature of the RCMP and its mandate, we acknowledge that there is no point in establishing a process similar to the one provided for in the Public Service Employment Act, which may be decided by a vote. The idea of having an arbitrator who would hand down binding decisions has been accepted, however this would be done outside the RCMP, and the arbitrator would not be the Commissioner. I think that is the important distinction.
There is something paradoxical about the fact that the Commissioner, who is a manager, must make both decisions regarding the administration of RCMP staff and binding decisions regarding specific labour relations disputes, even though bargaining is not possible and there is not necessarily any appeal procedure.
The situation is discriminatory because police forces in other provinces, including the Quebec Police Force and the Harbour Police are entitled to bargain collectively, whereas the RCMP does not have this right. Its situation is therefore unique.
I would point out that the members of the RCMP are not demanding the right to strike.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Do you have some idea of who would select the arbitrator and how it would be done so it would be acceptable to the Solicitor General, the commissioner and the gentlemen involved?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: When they appeared before the various authorities, they said that both parties would have to be consulted - both the employer and the spokespersons for the RCMP members. This is the approach used in municipalities or in the case of advisory committees. Both parties are consulted and can express their views on the procedure that should be used and the arbitrator or adjudicator who should be appointed.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: But in your presentation, you did say ``binding arbitration''. That means the arbitrator who is chosen will eventually have the authority to say ``This is the settlement and that's all there is to it''. How would that individual or those individuals be selected?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: The main point is that the arbitration will be binding, that the decision made will be implemented. However, both labour and management representatives would be consulted regarding the choice of an arbitrator. This is done elsewhere.
Moreover, the RCMP members do not want a provision for conciliation and mediation with the right to strike 30 or 60 days later. The procedure proposed would be a little more rigorous. We have to get away from this idea of having the Commissioner, who's appointed by the government, being both judge and jury and making binding decisions. I think that is the main source of irritation. In addition, these people are not covered either by the Labour Code or by the Public Service Employment Act. So there is a sort of legal vacuum, as was recognized in the Sims Report.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other questions? Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: In the end, Mr. Ménard, once both labour and management have been consulted, who will have the authority to appoint the adjudicator?
Mr. Ménard: The ultimate authority?
Mr. Langlois: Yes.
Mr. Ménard: I think this would be done on the recommendation of the Solicitor General. I think we could provide for some sort of procedure. At least, that's what I understood from what the RCMP representatives said when they made their presentation to various groups. They want to proceed by way of consensus. However, they acknowledge that it could be done by order-in-council or through a bill, on the recommendation of both parties.
In strictly legal terms, this will be the responsibility of the Solicitor General.
Mr. Langlois: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Ménard.
[Proceedings continue in camera]