[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, February 4, 1997
.0930 
[English]
The Chair: Order.
Welcome to the committee. You have five minutes. You are here to convince us not necessarily of the merits of your bill, but of the merits of having a debate on it in the House that's made votable. You may begin.
Ms Colleen Beaumier, MP (Brampton): The motion is that in the opinion of this House the government should introduce legislation to protect public servants who report wasteful spending, illegal activities, or any other incidents that threaten the integrity of the Government of Canada.
As this motion suggests, the purpose is to introduce some sort of legislated protection for public servants who report any illegal activities, suspected or otherwise. Unlike their counterparts in the United States, public servants in Canada do not enjoy any special protection from reprisals should they report any fraudulent activity. We lack the mechanisms necessary to report and investigate suspected fraudulent activities.
All too often we read about this in the newspapers after the fact. After the fact is too late. We need to catch these kinds of problems early and ideally to create a climate where individuals who contemplate such activities know they simply cannot get away with this kind of behaviour.
I have worded this motion in very broad terms because I believe parliamentarians from all parties, academics, interested organizations, and of course public servants themselves should have a say in the creation of this legislation. It's particularly important to hear from the public servants to determine the shape this whistle-blower legislation should take. It's the public servants who must feel that any such regime affords them the kind of protection to be effective.
I've introduced this motion because during the three years or so that I've been a member of Parliament I have been approached on several occasions by constituents who are public servants, or who deal with the public service, with reports of suspected abuse in various departments. My main concern in these instances is to report the suspected abuse while preserving the identity of my constituent. I have done this in the past and the concerns were investigated, but I was not happy with the process or lack of process to adequately deal with these complaints. I'm quite confident that my experience is not unique among members of Parliament and the experiences of my constituents are not unique. We need whistle-blower legislation.
The problem is that currently, under the terms of the Financial Administration Act, public servants are required to report any suspected fraud or be fined up to $5,000 or five years in prison. The requirement to report abuse or suspected abuse must be balanced with protection.
The legislation that this motion proposes the government introduce would serve two functions: it would provide protection for public servants who fear reprisals, and it would function as an incentive for public servants to follow the letter of the Financial Administration Act. My own preferred approach for formulating such legislation would include extensive public hearings to ensure we are able to create effective whistle-blower legislation.
There has been some excellent work done in Canada on this issue. I would like to cite two initiatives.
In 1986 the Ontario Law Reform Commission released a position paper calling for the creation of an office of special counsel whose purpose would be to receive allegations of wrongdoing from public servants. The OSC would launch an investigation, if warranted, while ensuring the confidentiality of the complainant.
In 1994 the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada released a series of recommendations as part of its document called ``Lifting the Silence''. The institute recommended the establishment of an office of the ombudsman, assigned to a function similar to that of the proposed OSC. The office of the ombudsman would also have the authority to ensure corrective action is taken.
.0935
Finally, as a member of the Government of Canada, it was a 1993 election commitment to introduce whistle-blower legislation, and I would like to push the government a little bit to get this legislation moving.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Beaumier.
Are there any questions from the committee?
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): How did you intend to institute this thing? If the bill were made votable and were to pass in the House, do you foresee the installation of a federal ombudsman?
Ms Beaumier: The purpose of this motion, in order to have an effective whistle-blowing regime, is to set up the consultative process, a royal commission, a white paper, or it would be sent as a task for a standing committee. I think there are many different interested parties on this issue, and I would hope that they themselves would draw up the legislation.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Thank you, Ms Beaumier. I see that the motion must be viewed from a broader perspective. You are talking about exposing as to the waste of public funds. Are we dealing here with informing the media or informing specific persons in authority in the House or within the Department of Justice? Are you targeting any one person to whom the information would be given?
[English]
Ms Beaumier: I would hope that it would be a newly created body within the government.
No one would be going to the press. It would just be a mechanism for a body of people who would be given the power to investigate while protecting the identity both of the accused and the reporter. I wouldn't think it would go to the press.
Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): But in the event that it does go to the press, then the person would have no protection. The whistle-blower would have no protection if they went directly to the press rather than bringing it to the committee.
Ms Beaumier: Definitely. But I would think the whistle-blower wouldn't be going to the press; they would be going to the -
Mr. Loney: I can cite an incident where they did go to the press directly.
Ms Beaumier: But the creation of a body to deal with this would eliminate the need to go to the press.
The Chair: I think the question Mr. Langlois has asked, which has been answered, is that this is a mechanism set up not for people to just make wild accusations publicly but in fact to go to an appropriate body.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Well you partly answered my second question but I'm going to ask it to you anyway. When we speak of illegal activities, we are obviously talking about legislation which would prohibit certain activities. You also mentioned any other act that would threaten the integrity of the Government of Canada.
Now that's a very broad expression, and this is perhaps a more political consideration, perhaps even a partisan one, for any individual or civil servant. A person may feel that the government of the day is committing acts which, from a political standpoint, are damaging and constitute acts which would threaten the integrity of the Government of Canada.
Evidently, you can see what might happen; one must be able to make a distinction between the right to inform without reprisals and the right of the government to have the loyalty of its civil servants. There is a balance which must be maintained.
.0940
[English]
Ms Beaumier: No, I don't question what you've said at all, but let me talk about some different instances I have dealt with.
I'm told that in one department there are actual exchanges of moneys for services by some of the civil servants there. I have been contacted about untendered contracts being issued and about conflicts of interests that are bordering on kickbacks being received. I think these are the kinds of issues that would be dealt with. I also think this is why we have to set up a consultative program to make sure the criteria are set out.
The Chair: Do I assume, Madam Beaumier, that's why you've asked for a motion, rather than a specific -
Ms Beaumier: That's why I've asked for a motion. It's not that easy. The legislation won't be that easy because it's not uncomplicated. We need a parliamentary committee or a royal commission to draft the legislation.
The Chair: Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer: While it's desirable that the identity of the individual blowing the whistle be protected, there are many cases where that won't be possible because there's only one source from which the information could have originated. Therefore, the identity will obviously be known. How would you foresee them being protected in that situation?
Ms Beaumier: I'm not looking at the legislation. I'm looking at the need for the legislation and the need for setting up a committee or a having a body to draw up the legislation and deal with these issues.
The Chair: Mr. Loney, do you have any more questions?
Mr. Loney: No.
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Beaumier.
Ms Beaumier: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Mills, please. Welcome, Mr. Mills.
Mr. Dennis Mills, MP (Broadview - Greenwood): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I understand that I am present today to try to convince the committee that this private member's bill is worthy of a vote rather than a motion.
First of all, I would like to take just a minute to tell you about the background of this particular bill. As you know, the gambling industry today, just in North America, is worth over $500 billion. And the whole thrust of Internet gambling is taking off. It's like a house on fire. People who are computer illiterate are starting to get into it. There are many Internet gambling sites throughout North America, and throughout the world, for that matter.
At this time none of this has a regulatory body. As a result, sites are being set up in the islands and in Indonesia and different parts of the world where there are no real enforcement activities or regulatory activities, no background investigations on the operators, no prize payment bonding, no errors and omissions of insurance, no limits on the maximum amount per day or per week that a player can lose, no control of underage gambling, no information highway gaming tax with different rates for charities, states, native peoples, private enterprise, no licences for operators and major suppliers, money laundering control, hacker protection, player account funds and credit card data protection, and arbitration of disputes.
.0945
Because Canada is a leader in the world in the whole realm of the information highway, we should be the first country to try to get a comprehensive piece of legislation that puts a framework and a body of control on this whole realm of Internet casino gambling.
There's another reason the Government of Canada should do this. As you know, the whole game of lotteries has been devolved to the provinces. It started with Joe Clark in 1979 and it was completed under Otto Jelinek in 1987. When we're talking about the information highway role, we really are dealing with state-to-state. If all of a sudden we just let every province do this, the next thing you know we're going to have nine or 10 different standards and we will have a very haphazard approach to this.
Also, from a public policy point of view, there's a terrific opportunity here for the Government of Canada to capture in a fair way a tremendous amount of revenue, and when I say revenue, I mean in the tens of billions of dollars. Once you have a system set up that has the stamp, the imprimatur, of a G-7 country, you know people are going to flock to those particular sites to play.
There's a way here, through the revenue stream and through proper regulation, monitoring, and control, to take a tax revenue that could be in the billions of dollars. If I had more time, I could even argue that this could be the instrument that would allow us to save our national health care system in this country.
This is a bill where all members of Parliament should be accountable, whether they're for it or against it. It's a bill that will not appeal to those who freak out when they hear the word ``casino'' - they'll run to the hills for cover - but I'm telling you, we have to face this head-on, because this whole realm is evolving fast.
Just a few months ago Bill Clinton appointed a gaming commission, which will be looking into this area. With all the expertise that exists in the United States, if they feel it's in their best interest to get a regulatory handle on this rather than just pretend it doesn't exist, I can tell you, if they take the lead, we'll be left in the dust.
So I'm urging you to consider that this be a votable bill in the House of Commons.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Mills, how could this particular bill impact on the activities of people who have Internet sites which are located in the islands you mentioned earlier, such as the Caribbean or countries where there is no regulation?
[English]
Mr. Mills: Well, it wouldn't eliminate those particular operations, but if there were an organization regulated by the Government of Canada, that would give the consumer - not just the consumer here, but the consumer in other parts of the world - the satisfaction that all the various areas of exposure were covered.
As I mentioned earlier, it would regulate the whole area of underage gaming, the background investigation of these Internet casino operators, the area of money laundering, hacker protection, player account funds, credit card data protection, etc. Right now all of this is happening with these island operations, and there is no regulatory body of substance that controls it.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Oh, I think I understand. If I understand you correctly, you want to assure that people who go to casinos, wherever they may be in the world, that Canada would offer them their own Internet site and that they would have some legal guaranties of confidentiality. Am I wrong?
.0950
Mr. Mills: That's exactly right.
Mr. Langlois: Very well. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Loney.
Mr. Loney: Mr. Mills, how to you propose to police the regulatory process?
Mr. Mills: One of the ways you would police this is if you had a law that governs this whole land site Internet casino system in Canada, then you would have people apply to become part of that regulatory approved system. As you went through the background investigation, you would analyse the credentials of the various people involved: the individuals, the banks, and the financial institutions, because you have to have a relationship with a major financial institution to operate the debit credit card system.
You would have all of these people sign on and you would have complete, ongoing audit surveillance of their books and records and their customer client base at any given time, no different from Revenue Canada.
Mr. Loney: But how would that apply to offshore sites?
Mr. Mills: Well, it doesn't apply to offshore sites. In other words, right now they are operating offshore sites and they are unregulated, but my view is if you had a Government of Canada imprimatur on an approved operation, that would give the consumer the type of protection I'm talking about - a fully regulated, fully audited operation.
The Chair: Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer: I guess my problem, Mr. Mills, is I agree with the thrust you're taking; I just don't see how it will work. If you put an age limit on it, they won't use the Canadian one; they'll go elsewhere. If you put a credit limit on it, they'll go to the credit limit within the Canadian one and then they'll go elsewhere. I don't see how you can....
Many people have been trying to control the use of the Internet, and up until now, anyway, it's been very strongly resisted. In fact I think it hasn't happened.
I agree with you that people might be attracted to use the Canadian casino gambling system because it is regimented and regulated, but that wouldn't prevent people from going elsewhere.
Mr. Mills: I totally agree that we would not capture everyone out there. Obviously some people would choose to go off and play with an unregulated system. We cannot control all of that activity that happens on the information highway. But my view is - and others have tested this view - that if people feel an organization is monitored, respected, and trusted, they're much more prone to go into that type of system.
I don't want to mislead you into thinking this is an airtight operation. It cannot be. But the alternative is to just let these unregulated operations pop up each day, every week of the year, and let them go and do their whole thing, when in fact we have an opportunity here to be leaders in the world in what probably right now is the biggest industry in the world, and that's the gaming industry. It's a $500 billion industry just in North America.
As more and more people become literate with their computers, etc., you can be sure that if we're not in there to organize, regulate, and set up some kind of protective mechanism, for sure they're going to play with the one that's unregulated.
Mr. Frazer: Would it be fair to say that what you see here is a cash cow that Canada is not currently involved in but should be involved in, because it would generate a lot of income?
Mr. Mills: I personally believe ``cash cow'' is the understatement of the decade. I've worked with people who have crunched numbers. Obviously these are hypothetical, but they were calculated by people who have worked in the gaming industry. There could be upwards of $20 billion to$30 billion a year - a year - and right now we're just looking the other way. We're talking about a substantial amount of money to the treasury of Canada.
Mr. Frazer: Voluntary taxation.
Mr. Mills: Yes.
Mr. Frazer: Thank you.
The Chair: I can't help myself; I have to ask this question. By regulating it, putting the stamp of Canada on it, and saying it's safe, it's clean, and you can play in this field, are we not literally encouraging people to gamble?
.0955
Mr. Mills: It's no different from what we have right now with bingos, charity casinos, professional casinos, bingos and little....
The Chair: What is your point, Mr. Mills?
Mr. Mills: I do make the point, Madam Chair, because it is already a $500-billion industry. Whether people like it or not, this whole notion of the moral argument is out the window. What's important is that we set up a system - and we can do it with the technology today - so people whose incomes are under a certain level are not able to kick in. In other words, when you have a regulated system, you must have a pre-approved card to get access to this particular game. It's like getting a credit card. If I am unemployed, I don't have the resources or there is some other reason why I shouldn't have access to a credit card or the Internet, I can't play.
The Chair: Would that be like telling an individual you have to have a certain income and a certain type of health and we'll give you a card that says you can smoke x number of cigarettes and after that you can't?
Mr. Mills: It's not a health issue. It's making sure that unless a minor sort of steals his father's or mother's card and has the password, or whatever.... We can't stop that kind of thing and it will go on regardless. But it means we can have a system where if someone steals the card, there's a limit on it. It's no different from the current sort of system we have today. This is not big brother interfering. There is a big market out there operating on a daily basis, and we're not a part of it.
Under the leadership of John Manley, we have the best information highway record of any country in the world. We could easily lead the way in this with the G-7 countries, and in the process pick up a minimum of $20 billion to $30 billion a year for our treasury.
The Chair: Have you ever broached the subject with the industry committee?
Mr. Mills: We obviously would hope that this bill would be referred, and that's what we requested.
The Chair: You have to this point not suggested it to the minister or to that committee.
Mr. Mills: No, but that's where we're hoping it will be referred.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mills: I have talked to people, unofficially, in the department and to iSTAR and other people, and they are in total agreement we should get a handle on this.
The Chair: Okay. Thanks, Mr. Mills.
Mr. Mills: Thank you for the opportunity.
The Chair: Mr. Allmand. Have we pulled all Liberals this week?
Mr. Warren Allmand, MP (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Good morning.
Bill C-249 is a bill to amend the Nuclear Liability Act. The Nuclear Liability Act was passed in 1970 but wasn't proclaimed into operation until 1976. It says that if a nuclear energy facility breaks down and there's a leak or whatever, those who operate those facilities will be limited to paying damages up to $75 million. That was the figure fixed by the legislation in 1970. The law also says that if the damages exceed $75 million, the government may compensate above the $75 million.
My bill would increase the $75 million liability up to $500 million. And it provides that where the liability exceeds $500 million, the government would have to pay compensation if a commission set up under part II of the act, which is provided for already, recommends that extra compensation should be paid. Right now, on that recommendation, the government can accept or refuse the recommendation of the commission.
Why am I making these provisions in a bill? First of all, many people don't know this, but individuals in Canada can't get any personal insurance coverage for damages from a nuclear accident. You can search everywhere, but not one insurance company in Canada will do it. They won't do it because they know it's a risk and a possibility. It hasn't happened yet in Canada on a wide-scale basis, but you cannot get personal insurance.
.1000
There are now 23 nuclear electricity reactors in Canada. Most of them are in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick, but are not limited to there. If we took into account inflationary terms, the$75 million limit that was set in 1970 would be equivalent to $279 million in 1989. I don't have recent updated figures, but there was controversy at the time over whether $75 million was adequate or not.
In a brief to the Ontario Hydro hearings in 1990, experts put forward that a severe accident at the Darlington Ontario facility could reach $1 trillion. They based that on the accidents that took place at Three Mile Island in the United States and Chernobyl in the Soviet Union. By the way, the Chernobyl accident of 1986 resulted in $300 billion in damages. The damages to Kiev, which is farther from Chernobyl than Toronto is from Pickering, were $100 billion to individuals, properties and so on. The damages in Ukraine and Belarus amounted to approximately $300 billion.
I referred to the Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979, but there was also an incident at the Pickering A Unit 2 facility in 1983 where a leak occurred. They were able to close down the facility quickly enough so the leak didn't spread, but the repairs necessary to the facility as a result of that leak cost $100 million.
Attempts have been made to declare the Nuclear Liability Act unconstitutional. Following the Pickering leak in 1983, the City of Toronto, with Energy Probe and a woman by the name of Rosalie Bertell, undertook legal action to have the Nuclear Liability Act declared unconstitutional. That action went through the courts for 10 years, from 1986 to 1996, financed by the City of Toronto and Energy Probe collecting funds from individuals.
Ontario Hydro, New Brunswick Power, and other interests fought this case. It was one of those legal cases that went out of control. Finally the plaintiffs ran out of money and stopped the case. It was in the appeal courts at the time. It never got to the Supreme Court. I mention that simply to indicate there's an awful lot of interest in this.
I would like to refer very briefly to some of the material that has been sent out, and there's a lot of discussion on this in Canada. It drops out of sight in the news of course when there are no breakdowns, but whenever people realize what could happen... For example, if you were affected by a nuclear accident due to the breakdown of Pickering or one in New Brunswick or Gentilly in Quebec and the winds deposited radioactive fallout on your home, business, farm or workplace, they could become uninhabitable for between 10 years and 100 years. It could cause cancer to loved ones. It could cause genetic damage to the individuals who were caught in this. The resulting damages are just unbelievable, as they were in Chernobyl in the Soviet Union.
Even the Department of Natural Resources, which is responsible for this bill, Anne McLellan, is looking at increasing the limits themselves. My bill will push this to the fore and provide a lot of discussion on it. There's an awful lot of interest in it from the people who know about this matter.
There can be discussion as to the amount. I've shown an increase from $75 million to $500 million. That could be amended in committee if you declare the bill to be votable. It's the principle that counts. The limits are way too low right now. There's no protection for Canadians who live near these nuclear facilities - I say ``live near'', but you can live within 100 miles and still be affected. The principle is important.
.1005
I'm flexible on the $500 million. Whether it should be $600 million or $1 billion or whatever, that could be dealt with in committee. I'm not flexible on - and there's a lot of discussion on this - the obligation of the crown to pay damages that go beyond the liability stipulation of the companies involved, because it's the crown, the government, that authorizes and licenses these facilities. If they license unsafe facilities, they should bear a certain responsibility.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's the proposal I have before you. It's one that causes lots of concern. It's in the news whenever there is a breakdown in one country or another.
By the way, I didn't mention this, but this is also important: You should know that in 1995, in one year, there were 786 unusual incidents recorded in Ontario. That means anything from a minor leak to a breakdown in the equipment. Of those 786 unusual incidents, 391 required a formal report to the Atomic Energy Control Board. So while we haven't had a Chernobyl-type thing yet, we've had a lot of accidents that have happened. They've been caught before they got out of control, but we need some kind of insurance to protect ourselves against this thing if it does happen, which would be an awful incident.
The Chair: Are there any questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Allmand, you were speaking about the bill which had been adopted in 1970 and proclaimed in 1976. Given that you yourself were in the House of Commons and on the government side, I would like you to explain to us how it is that it took so long. But more specifically, in regard to the first paragraph in your bill which deals with basic insurance, I would like you to explain to us whether this is an insurance in the sense that it is the Crown which would have to provide a guarantee or are we dealing with an insurance covered by underwriters?
Mr. Allmand: The companies involved in this industry have insurance up to $75 million. Therefore, even if individuals cannot obtain insurance, large corporations can obtain insurance one way or another. I am not aware of the terms of those agreements, but, for the time being, these23 installations are insured by the companies in question. In certain cases, it is the provincial government which provides the insurance, for example, through the New Brunswick Power Corporation, Hydro Quebec and Ontario Hydro. In the West, there are some as well, but I do not know their names. Generally speaking, they are Crown corporations, government companies.
Mr. Langlois: Ordinary citizens such as you and I cannot get insurance against risks of a nuclear nature. Is this because the risk is too high or cannot be assessed, so that premiums cannot be calculated or would be too high, whereas in the case of a company who is paying premiums, there are included in its profits and losses?
[English]
Mr. Allmand: In the 1960s, when nuclear energy was first being developed, the companies that were developing the equipment, such as General Electric and Westinghouse, went to the government and asked for a law that would relieve them of any responsibility. They got that, the Nuclear Liability Act - but that's another question. You cannot go against the companies that produce the equipment; you can only go up to $75 million against the operators of the equipment.
Many people in Canada and the United States objected to that and thought that was wrong. Generally, manufacturers have a liability. The law of 1970 relieves them of any liability.
When this thing was in discussion in 1970, it took six years to put the thing into force because the individuals, when they saw what happened at Three Mile Island and other places, began to see the breakdown and terrible damages that took place. They tried to get insurance. The insurance companies wouldn't insure them. What they were trying to do is put the burden on the government to force insurance on the operating companies.
.1010
I presume that the individual insurance companies won't insure because the risk is too high, and as you point out, it's too difficult to assess the risk. It goes out of control. As I mentioned, in Kiev it was nearly $200 billion. In the entire area around Chernobyl, it was over $300 billion assessed. For some of that damage, there was never any compensation paid. People are suffering, dying. Their farms have been ruined. Their houses have been ruined. They had to leave those homes; they can never go back to them again. There's medical and genetic damage, cancer, and other things they're not even aware of yet.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Allmand, I think I would agree with you that maybe the figures should be discussed further, because the examples you've given indicate that $500 million is perhaps not nearly adequate for the coverage.
Mr. Allmand: I believe the government was thinking of going up to $1 billion, but they haven't come to any decision.
Mr. Frazer: I recognize that there should be a responsibility, because the government is the agency that authorizes the implementation of the plan and there should be some obligation by the government. Had you considered perhaps what they do with bad drivers? Insurance companies are required to cover bad drivers, albeit at a higher premium, but where it gets to where an individual insurance company says no, I'm not going to insure this guy, they say he has to have insurance, so you must all take a pro-rated risk. Would you consider this as a possibility, that insurance companies might be obligated to -
Mr. Allmand: Do you mean for individuals?
Mr. Frazer: No.
Mr. Allmand: For the companies.
Mr. Frazer: For the companies.
Mr. Allmand: In fact that's what's being done. Right now the law obliges all the operators to have insurance up to -
Mr. Frazer: But are the insurance companies obligated to provide the insurance?
Mr. Allmand: I don't know exactly, in answer to the question, since more than half of the facility operators are governments or agencies of government. New Brunswick Power I'm not familiar with. In Quebec, it's Hydro Quebec; it's a government agency. In Ontario, Ontario Hydro is a government agency. In the west, I'm not too sure. Sometimes they're public utilities but owned by private shareholders.
Right now, the law forces them to have the insurance either through their governments or through.... So they have to have it to operate now. We are doing that.
The present law forces them to have insurance coverage up to $75 million. As you say, the correct figure is in question. That's not really what is important to me. What's important to me is that it's way too low right now. If there were a breakdown at Pickering or at Darlington, the damages to that large population area would be incredible - incredible. Toronto would become a ghost town. That's why the City of Toronto spent ten years in the court trying to get this thing declared unconstitutional.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Allmand: You're welcome.
The Chair: We're taking a little bit more time with each presentation than we normally do, because as you all know, we've had some concerns about the committee, and we're in the process of reviewing our mandate and looking at revision of rules. Until we do that, what we're trying to do is make sure everybody who comes here feels as they leave the room that they've had a thorough airing. But I would ask everyone, please, to keep your answers in the answer portion as short as possible so we can get through as much as we can.
Mr. Cannis.
Mr. John Cannis, MP (Scarborough Centre): Now you know how I lost my hair.
The Chair: I was just sitting here thinking that John and myself, and André - God rest his soul - were all in Kiev after the Chernobyl affair. We actually had a chicken with three wings there one night for dinner, so I'm starting to worry a little bit.
Mr. Cannis: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity.
Madame Chair, the purpose of this bill, Bill C-296, is to require federal inmates to complete programs that will assist in their rehabilitation and make their release on parole contingent upon their successful - and I stress successful - completion of such a program or programs. The question today is why this committee should consider this bill or make this bill votable.
.1015
I submit to you that this bill, Bill C-296, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, meets the criteria as set out in this committee's report to Parliament in October of 1987 for the following reasons.
My bill is neither trivial nor insignificant. It is a bill of national significance. And because it would effect changes that would have impacts on the way federal prison inmates are dealt with and released, it is an issue, of course, that is very important for our national public safety.
It does not discriminate in favour of or against a certain area or region of the country. As a matter of fact, it affects the entire country.
And to my knowledge, the subject of this bill is different from specific matters declared to be on the government's legislative agenda.
This bill would not be considered unconstitutional and does not deal with partisan subject matters.
The Auditor General most recently reported that the government spends approximately $75 million a year trying to rehabilitate federal prisoners without any assurance that the offenders are getting the right kind of treatment or that the results justify the costs. In my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of many other people, this should not happen.
The mission statement of Correctional Service Canada says its role is to actively encourage and assist offenders to become law-abiding citizens. Then, of course, we should be assured that this is being done before the offenders are released back into society. Allowing offenders to be released while they still pose a risk to society is of course doing a great disservice to the public and is putting everybody at risk.
I am not saying today that the programs being offered by CSC are not effective or state of the art. As a matter of fact, studies show that we have some of the best programs in the world. What I am saying, however, is that more attention needs to be paid to how they are administered to offenders. We must ensure that offenders are being placed in the proper programs and that they are completing these programs successfully before they are considered for parole.
We should also ensure that the appropriate programs are available across the board, not just to one specific individual or in one penitentiary, etc. I believe that availability is a problem that must be and should be addressed.
Madam Chair, there are several examples that I could bring forth, but I know time is limited, as you mentioned earlier, so I'm going to refer to only one example.
I used this example when I spoke about the Young Offenders Act. This specific article is about two young people, Jamie Taylor and Mark Williams. As a seventeen-year-old, Mark Williams, with his brother, attempted to break into an apartment and pick up whatever they could. They accidentally killed the lady living in the apartment. The article goes on to say that today Mark has a five-year-old son. He states in the article that he has had virtually no treatment. He is now married with a five-year-old son he sees on a weekly basis. Williams says he's seen his case management team about four times in six years. His case comes up for parole in 1998. I need not say more.
This individual has developed an anger within himself. He goes on to state how over the years behind bars he's seen people getting gang-raped, getting stabbed and getting clubbed with pipes and baseball bats. He's seen his best friend hang himself after parole was denied. He saw another friend get his throat slashed. It goes on and on.
Minister of Justice Allan Rock stated in his presentation that the initiatives of the justice department are to punish and to rehabilitate at the same time. I believe that with my proposal we are asking for these inmates to be part of this program if they want to be considered for parole. In simple terms, if you pass, you graduate, and if you don't pass, you don't get considered.
Look at some of the examples from the Auditor General's report, where he states that 17% of the $10 million devoted to rehabilitating sex offenders in 1994-95 was spent on the treatment of twenty prisoners - and I'm not going to refer to the region - which works out to about $85,000 per offender without any proof that they were the right offenders or that the program was working.
Meanwhile, he states here, the remaining $8.3 million was spent on 1,800 others across the country. That's approximately $4,600 per individual. I think this lady who lost her life was certainly worth more than $4,600.
.1020
There are numerous other examples I could refer to. It states here in another article that public safety is being jeopardized as dangerous offenders are put on the streets through the bureaucrats, who are totally incompetent.
I think the obligation we have as legislators.... Legislation is always brought forth that is intended to do well and improve our lives and our nation as a whole. What I'm asking here through this bill is to do a little bit of fine-tuning on some of the initiatives that have been brought forth by the Minister of Justice. We've often said that not everything is perfect. I don't believe the packages the justice minister has brought forth are perfect.
Every now and then some individual comes up with a suggestion that will help improve the legislation and allow the residents of our country to know that we're taking every possible initiative to improve and protect our safety.
That's it in summary.
The Chair: Mr. Cannis, you suggested to us that you've presented this material at the justice committee previously. What was their reaction?
Mr. Cannis: No, I did not present this material specifically. I know I've been speaking about this for quite some time. I'm well aware and not naive: I know that in order to advance an idea you've got to go through certain channels. I know some of the suggestions I've made, Madam Chair, certainly have been brought forth. There have been changes made, and I'm quite pleased about that.
One of the initiatives I've been speaking about for a long time is this initiative, making the parole request contingent upon successful completion of a rehabilitation program.
The Chair: Okay. Let me ask you a question again, then. Did you broach that subject with the justice committee when they were reviewing sentencing legislation?
Mr. Cannis: No, I did not. I know it was mentioned, and I was hoping somebody would pick it up.
The Chair: I'm just curious as to what their reaction would have been.
For my own curiosity, if you have someone who's in a program or incarcerated, and their sentence is ten years, let's say, and they opt out of all these programs, don't want to go into anything, and when their ten years are up, they get out - you have no problem with that.
Mr. Cannis: Well, I do have a problem. I know, of course, there are initiatives today enabling somebody to be declared a dangerous offender, for example, a lot more easily than it was five or ten years ago. I think an individual like this certainly poses a danger to society, but if he has served his full sentence, then I have nothing to say but release him, because he has served his full penalty.
I think this individual, though, if approached, as I believe at times they are within the system, will want, like Mark Williams does, for example, to lead a normal life. He wants to lead a normal life with his five-year-old boy and his wife, but he's not prepared. He's saying that he's not prepared. What is going to happen to a Mark Williams when he gets out?
There is another case, and I do have the article from one of the local papers not too long ago, where this individual is about to be released in the next little while. He has refused to take any kind of treatment. He knows he is going to do his full time and there is literally nothing we can do, unfortunately.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Are there any other questions? Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Cannis, I have two concerns, I guess. First of all, you said rather categorically during your presentation that this is not counter to the Constitution. Have you run it up against the Charter of Rights? Is it possible to insist that people take courses?
Mr. Cannis: I firmly believe - and I've looked into it - it would not be going against our Constitution, simply because if they serve their full term, Mr. Frazer, they will get out. If they request an early parole we're simply saying yes, you can have early parole, but there's a program you must complete.
Mr. Frazer: In fact they get out on a statutory release at two-thirds of their sentence, so they don't serve their full sentence.
I'm just wondering, would the Charter of Rights permit us to force them to participate in a program they said they don't want to go into?
Mr. Cannis: I don't think we're forcing them.
Mr. Frazer: But that's what you're talking about: a requirement for inmates to participate in a rehabilitation program. That's a requirement. Is it forcing?
Mr. Cannis: There's a fine line. If he wishes to request early parole, then we have a request as well, and that is to complete the program. Maybe I should look more into that, if it is....
.1025
Mr. Frazer: The other hang-up I have is that anybody can play the game. If you force somebody or require them to do it in order to get parole, they'll go through the motions. Unless they're motivated to take the training and listen to it and try to change their behaviour, you haven't accomplished a thing other than that they've become a better actor. I don't know how you come around that one.
Mr. Cannis: I agree with you, but I'll refer back to the Minister of Justice's initiative, and that is, to punish and rehabilitate at the same time. If we just have the program there and we aren't taking a proactive approach towards rehabilitating these offenders, then we're not accomplishing the other half of his initiative - or this Parliament's initiative.
Forcing somebody? I don't know; I guess we cannot force anybody to take the program. Being a good actor? I assume they can.
I look at it this way. Maybe the next lady's life would be saved if a Mark Williams gets out, if he's rehabilitated. If we can save one life I think we're ahead of the game.
Mr. Frazer: I find this Mark Williams thing is not acceptable. If an individual is looking for treatment I think it should be made available to them. I agree with you on that one.
The Chair: Have you done anything about costing the program out, John?
Mr. Cannis: No, I haven't costed it out, but I think when we look at the millions of dollars that are being spent here.... And according to the Auditor General the money is there. I think what we have to do is streamline these millions into the proper areas. When he states here that we spend about $85,000 per offender - surely when we look at what it costs to educate an average child per year in our school system, and they go through an entire day of curriculum, from nine in the morning to3:30 in the afternoon, it's a drop in the bucket in comparison. If we were to maybe -
The Chair: The difference there, John, would be you have a class of 30 kids, and that's costing about $5,000 a kid. I know someone who works in Metro Toronto West Detention Centre, and they can't deal with more than three or four individuals at a time, just because of the nature of the beast. So the cost would be exorbitant. I'm just curious. I'm not putting a cost on saving young offenders or whatever. I'm just curious as to whether you've done any calculations, that's all.
Mr. Cannis: No, I have done no calculations as to what the cost would be. I'm looking at the figures that are now available to us, and how they're broken down per offender according to the Auditor General. I'm saying surely there have to be better methods nowadays available to us. Maybe what we have to do is look elsewhere as well, in other countries, as to what other models they are using.
The Chair: Have you done that, John?
Mr. Cannis: No. That was my next step.
The Chair: Okay.
Any other questions? Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I don't really want to get into the merits of the bill, but there are certain elements there that I would like to see explained.
In penitentiaries, there were programs which allowed certain inmates to leave or to receive more individualized college level or university level courses. I believe that these programs have been cancelled. You are not trying to have them reestablished directly, but...
I would say that there are at least two categories of inmates who will have a lot of trouble using the provisions of such a program, those who are undereducated and those who are older.
Take the example of someone who is 55, which is not old in our society, who is an inmate, who has little education, who has a ten-year sentence to serve and who will perhaps be released in six years, at age 61, on the verge of obtaining his old age pension. In that case, are we making a truly worthwhile and adequate investment?
There are also people who are highly educated. If Colonel Frazer received a prison sentence tomorrow morning, I wonder what retraining we could provide him, because he is already so highly educated. What would we do with a person like our friend from Saanich-Gulf Islands? If he could not benefit from it, someone else could.
What category of inmates are you targeting and what would you do with the others?
.1030
[English]
Mr. Cannis: I agree with you that Karla Homolka today is getting an education. I'm not sure if she is getting a master's degree or a PhD.
The Chair: Her parents are paying for that, by the way. University degrees aren't paid for by the system. Her parents are paying her fees.
Mr. Cannis: Okay, there was mention of college degrees. I don't know if they have correspondence courses or what.
I'm not focusing on that area. I'm focusing on programs that will help these individuals re-enter society, whether they be anger management programs or skill sets to secure a job for the 50-odd-year-old individual who, when he does come out 10 years down the road, most definitely will not be equipped to re-enter society insofar as what has happened in that 10-year gap.
If a job is secured, let's be honest, the risk all of a sudden diminishes for him to reoffend. If the individual has no academic qualifications for whatever reason, maybe they could package the program to give him some skill sets in that area as well. But I'm talking more of life skills, the human skills types of programs.
Referring back to Mark Williams, it states here that he unfortunately was abused as a young man. He was left alone. He focused on watching macho movies - Young Guns, for example, he states here. His hero was the gunslinger Billy the Kid, and it goes on. My suggestion is that we focus the training programs more on those areas as opposed to academic achievements. If academic achievements help them add that other dimension and the professionals in that area see it as appropriate, I think they would be the ones to decide that.
I'm simply saying that the parole request is something that's there and there's no price tag attached to it. It's more a voluntary initiative now as opposed to mandatory. I'm saying there's an exchange here. We'll meet you halfway; we'll give you something, but you give us something in return.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Mr. Loney: I have one question. How do we separate those like Mark Williams from those inmates who are only doing the rehabilitation programs to make their time go easier? We have the cost of trying to rehabilitate these people and they're not interested in rehabilitation. The word on the street is that it's much easier to do your time if you enter one of these programs, plus there is the benefit that you're eligible for early parole.
Mr. Cannis: I'll go backwards. The benefit that you're eligible for early parole obviously could be looked upon a little differently. When you look at the parole requests that are brought forth - and I should bring this document out - the number of cases, parole hearings, the Auditor General found serious problems with federal initiative to return offenders to society.... Many parole hearings are cancelled because of incomplete rehabilitation programs, release plans and preparation. I can submit this -
The Chair: You can't go on much longer. You have to give Mr. Loney a short answer.
Mr. Cannis: The statistics here speak for themselves. We're not spending time to initially screen the list of people who could go into these programs. If we made an initial investment in creating a short list of the serious individuals who are interested in taking the program to improve their lives as opposed to the actors, maybe we could pull a few out of the lot who will re-enter society prepared.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Miss Grey, you're here for Mr. Hermanson.
Miss Deborah Grey, MP (Beaver River): Thank you. I am here presenting forElwin Hermanson on Bill C-250, as you know, which is an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act regarding confidence votes. It was brought in during March and I think it certainly deserves to be votable.
.1035
The act would provide for a maximum duration of the House of Commons of four years. A federal election would be held on October 20, 1997, and every four years after that on the third Monday of October. That's really important, because in the last year of a parliamentary mandate, things get a bit stale anyway. We can see that already in parliamentary sessions. As you get over the peak -
The Chair: I thought yesterday was exciting.
Miss Grey: Well, I'm not sure how many people lay awake last night thrilled at some of the legislation that was coming forward.
Anyway, once we get over the peak, we all know everyone is gunning for an election and that's what's coming ahead. If we knew exactly when it was going to be, a lot of this fuss would probably be eliminated.
Provision is made in the bill for the House to continue after four years in time of war, invasion, or insurrection, so long as the continuation was not opposed by more than a third of the members in the House. So it does take into account that there is the odd crisis in the country, and we would be able to look after that.
The act also provides that no dissolution of the Parliament can be sought except where the House adopts a non-confidence motion and the Governor General is satisfied that it's not possible for the government to be formed that has the confidence of the House, whereby he or she could trigger this election.
Finally, the bill provides that by-elections are to be held within two months of a vacancy of the date fixed for the general election. The by-elections would be held on the third Monday of April or October except in the year prior to a general election. We're in that situation right now, with two upcoming by-elections, and nobody has any idea when they're going to be held.
I have some general arguments in favour of fixed election terms. We talked about it somewhat under Bill C-63, the changes to the Canada Elections Act, but these amendments were rejected in that. It's important that we bring them back again and make sure we do deal with them, because with the changes that have been made under Bill C-63 - some good and some not so good, from my viewpoint - there is real merit and good reason that we would have fixed election dates.
First of all there's enhanced accountability.
Secondly, there's better representation. It would reduce the threat of dissolution, which is always a major factor used by governing parties to keep their MPs in line. Of course there's always the guessing feature, and we've all been talking about that the last 36 hours since we came back. When is it going to be? That's the main topic of discussion here, rather than what's going on in the country.
Thirdly, it would give greater fairness. It would remove the governing party's advantage of choosing the most opportune moment to call an election. The result would be a more level playing field for all political parties. Certainly we've seen that happen when a government makes a change. For instance, I refer to Bill C-63 again. It would be great if you could say that starting in the next Parliament these things are going to happen, but when the government does hold the reigns of power, they have that power as well.
There would be more certainty. It would give government reasonable and sufficient time to develop and implement their legislative agenda and it would allow them to take some time for some of the more difficult decisions.
It would give a healthier and more open public debate. It would allow for more constructive debate in the House, since opposition parties would know the government has a fixed term.
It would be most cost-efficient, and I'm sure we're all concerned about that in the room. It would allow political parties, election officials, and candidates to better plan for elections; therefore procedures could be streamlined and costs reduced. There would be more time to train enumerators and carry out other election preparations. As you know, an election costs millions and millions of dollars, and of course it keeps the pollsters going around and around as well, because they make their living off whether it's going to be now or later and asking all those questions. It would be far more cost-efficient.
Let me finish by saying Bill C-250 does completely satisfy all the criteria for selecting votable items. It's of national importance. It's certainly clear in its intent. We would know exactly what we were dealing with for dates of elections. It is not on the current government's legislative agenda. It is drafted in non-partisan terms, because it would put all political parties on a level playing field. It has been debated widely in Canada for years. It is highly relevant, and it would be good for us.
Being as we are moving into an election year now, the government should seize this opportunity to encourage a really vigorous debate in the House of Commons on this issue. And as we all take off out of the starting blocks toward the next election, we'll know what we would be dealing with.
The Chair: Miss Grey, I want to take a bit of an unusual step. Normally we ask for a legal opinion while we're in the debating session, but I'd like Jamie, if he doesn't mind, to speak.
We have two opinions on whether this is constitutionally sound or not, and I'd like him to air it in front of you as well, just so you're sure we've looked at both possibilities. I'm not asking you to debate it with him; it's merely so we know what we're listening to.
Go ahead.
.1040
Mr. James R. Robertson (Committee Researcher): I believe the House of Commons had an outside lawyer, Susan Krongold, who does legislative drafting for the House, to provide a legal opinion, which I think has been provided to members. The question is posed whether the bill is clearly unconstitutional, and she answers no.
She then goes on to explain that in her view there are some difficulties with respect to the Constitution Act, 1982, section 4, which requires elections to be held every four years, and also with section 50 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which requires the same thing.
I think her position is that there are two difficulties with the bill, one being that an amendment to these sections would require provincial input - either a majority of the provinces or all of the provinces - and the second being that there may be a change in the responsibilities of the Governor in Council.
I looked at it yesterday with one of my colleagues, and our feeling is that this bill does not in fact purport to amend the Constitution in any way. The Constitution Act - both the original 1867 version and section 4 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - says that no Parliament may last for more than five years. That sets the outer parameters. All this bill is saying is that within that five-year period prescribed by the Constitution there must be an election at a fixed interval. And it sets out the criteria on which that date is established and set.
I think the bill does not indirectly or directly amend the Constitution. It is merely amending federal statutes, the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act, to prescribe a procedure for holding federal elections and providing more certainty for them.
I was just looking at it, and section 2 of the bill specifically says that it doesn't affect the prerogative of the crown to prorogue Parliament. So my view of the bill is that it does not infringe the rights of the Governor in Council or the Governor General. It preserves that. It merely sets out a procedure that must be complied with.
Miss Grey: Thank you.
In regard to the section on the provinces, I think every province in the country would be thrilled to have fixed federal election dates, because there's always that juggling back and forth. John and I are going through that right now in Alberta. Everyone is always jostling for position, or the provincial government is going to go ahead, etc. It's a real shemozzle when you have both going at the same time. So I think that section would be well worth it as well. And after your legal opinion, I rest my case.
The Chair: It's interesting. I want you to know that we actually have three legal opinions now -
Miss Grey: Super.
The Chair: - because whoever helped Mr. Hermanson draft the bill originally is obviously a lawyer who's employed by the federal government. We've had three opinions, so among ourselves I think we're on fairly safe ground in knowing that at least we should be discussing this bill, that it is bona fide to discuss.
I just want you to know what goes on in here. Everybody thinks we are this little secret committee, but we're really not, are we?
Miss Grey: I appreciate that. I did have that document provided to me as well, so that's just great.
The Chair: Are there any questions of Miss Grey?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I have a few comments to make, Ms Grey.
They concern the merit of the bill. Proposed subclause 2.1(1) mentions four years. You have chosen four years rather than five. Is there a particular reason why a Parliament should not last for the whole term set out in the Constitution?
[English]
Miss Grey: I think if a government is going to do a very effective job not so much time can be wasted. And certainly you can accomplish a great deal in four years rather than five.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Proposed subclause 2.2(2) is an attempt to circumvent a constitutional convention, because it is not written anywhere that the Prime Minister or a minister of the Crown acting on behalf of the Prime Minister shall ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament.
In my view, using a statutory instrument to try to delimit a constitutional convention is like crossing a porcupine with a snake. It is not necessarily bad, but dissolution still remains a royal prerogative. If, in a crisis, the Governor General, on behalf of Her Majesty, is of the view that the House must be dissolved, we cannot use a statute to prevent the Sovereign from proceeding with dissolution, and I understand that. You do not need to convince me on the substance of the issue, on the merit of holding elections on a set date. It is clear that all of the speculation that occurs roughly18 months prior to the end of a government are such that the focus is not on the legislative or political activities, but on the date of the next election. We witnessed that in the weeks that preceded the reopening of Parliament.
.1045
The issue is not so much the merits of this bill but the fact that it is introduced in view of the next election. So on the form, I do not need to be convinced.
[English]
Miss Grey: Thank you. Let me just briefly say too that in that section the bill states that the Prime Minister must request the Governor General to dissolve Parliament but does not necessarily require that the Governor General accede to the Prime Minister's request. The act specifically provides that these provisions do not alter or affect the power of the crown to prorogue or dissolve Parliament, so the Governor General still is able to do that, for instance, in a non-confidence motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I have one last question. I do not understand proposed subclause 329(2) on the last page of the bill. Could you explain it to me?
[English]
Miss Grey: If a vacancy occurs in the House of Commons sixty days prior to the date set for a by-election - as I mentioned earlier, in April and October - if it is within two months of that, the vacancy shall be filled at the next by-election. In other words, they're not going to call a by-election for February and then again in April. We have fixed by-election dates too, in April and then again in October. So if it's going to be within two months of that, you wouldn't have one and then have another one on the automatic date.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you for your patience.
Miss Grey: Thank you.
The Chair: We will report to Mr. Hermanson that you did an excellent job.
Mr. Crête, welcome. Bonjour. You have five minutes for your presentation.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (member for Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): I introduced the motion to make all Crown corporations subject to the Access to Information Act, because my three years of experience as an MP have led me to realize that bodies like Crown corporations, which are basically nothing but a different administrative structure set up to increase efficiency, should involve ministerial accountability.
We face somewhat special situations where ministers are accountable, whereas the corporations that report to them can avoid having to release certain documents under the Access to Information Act. We have seen that in several cases.
I would simply mention the Canada Post Corporation, the expertise of which has come under scrutiny for several years. As members of Parliament, we have no way of obtaining information under the Access to Information Act, because we are told that the Canada Post Corporation is not subject to the Act.
It is a bit like creating a body that reports to a minister but has so much leeway that we are not able to obtain the information we need to assess how efficient it is. That is perhaps why, with the Canada Post Corporation, we ended up with the Radwanski Committee, that is to review the Corporation's mandate outside of parliamentary activity, because we did not have the necessary tools to give the appearance of justice in that respect.
I have another example: the Export Development Corporation. As an MP, I could be interested in knowing the outcome of that type of corporation's efforts for the businesses in my riding, excluding the names which would be protected by the Access to Information Act. They could give us excerpts that would enable us to assess the situation, however at present, the organization is using the fact that it is not covered by the Act to refuse to transmit the relevant information to us.
I have one final example: VIA Rail Canada Inc. There again, there are issues that affect citizens, and representations have been made at our offices. Each time we try to obtain information to assess the relevancy of lines, client groups, etc., as soon as we touch upon elements that are the least bit strategic, but that would be available if VIA were covered by the Access to Information Act, our efforts are thwarted. Our efforts are thwarted, because these organisations are excluded solely because of their legal status. However, they are accountable to the public, because they are a public service.
.1050
In summary, there are many public services that are currently excluded from the Act but should not be. If they weren't excluded from it, there would be better transparency and citizens would have access to better information. That is the essence of my motion.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Crête, if the corporations you have mentioned were subject to the Access to Information Act, could we end up in a situation where privileged information would be made public and scooped up by private companies working in the same area, or are we talking about organisations that have a true monopoly, which would exclude any implication for private organisations?
Mr. Crête: Your question will allow me to provide some clarification. We are not asking to have access to all information on these corporations. We want the provisions of the Access to Information Act to apply to them. The Act already contains a series of exceptions and conditions that restrict and govern the way that information is released.
So subjecting these corporations to the Access to Information Act does not mean that they would be forced to open all of their books tomorrow morning.
Currently, you cannot obtain personal information on someone. It is not allowed under the Act. Only information of a general nature, charts, etc., can be made public.
A Crown corporation is established as the result of a decision that it is of a public nature, if not it would be completely privatized. If its public status is maintained, it is logical for us to have access to relevant information.
I would add that my motion would allow debate on some corporations that should be exempted from the provisions of the Act. The issue could be debated and the necessary amendments presented, but the principle of excluding the vast majority of Crown corporations from the application of the Act seems to run counter to the current trend, which is to make information available.
Mr. Langlois: The fact that you have not used a bill, but instead a motion makes it possible to broaden the debate a bit. Moreover, there have been cases of that this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Crête.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Mrs. Hayes, let's see if we can get you finished by eleven, because we have another committee that we have to go to. If not, would you mind coming back to answer questions later if it takes a bit longer than we think? It would be late this afternoon, probably after 3:30.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes, MP (Port Moody - Coquitlam): I'll try to go quickly now, if possible, and we'll see how the time goes. I would prefer to do it now, as I'm sure you would.
The Chair: Okay, let's get it over with.
Mrs. Hayes: I've put forward Motion 147. I'll just repeat what it says:
- That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider, in conjunction with the
provinces, the active promotion and implementation of the Unified Family Court in order to
emphasize mediation in family law issues, and to improve the administration of the
interjurisdictional aspects of family law.
First of all, this motion is certainly not trivial or insignificant. I believe it addresses serious problems in matters of family break-up that are faced by people in every province and in every territory of Canada. The Divorce Act is presently being amended through the government's Bill C-41, which is presently before the Senate. However, that bill in no way addresses all the problems experienced by Canadians across the country within the existing divorce process.
.1055
I put it to you that children are the greatest victims in the present process. This motion is intended to significantly reduce the potential of harm caused to children by the divorce proceedings. It is therefore a definitely non-partisan issue, as all parties have expressed great concern over the well-being of children. The most relevant case in point is the health committee's study - actually it reported and was in the news yesterday - which recommended a twelve-week mandatory course prior to divorce. That indeed would fit in very nicely with a review such as the one we've suggested in this private member's bill.
This proposal by no means discriminates against any area or region in the country. It is a proposal that demands working with the provinces. That's a notion that has a lot of merit, and precedents are already in motion with the government on social transfers. This would propose extending that into this important area, and move toward a consistent approach in law across matters of family jurisdiction across this country.
This motion addresses what I see is a serious omission in present legislation, and it's not redundant with law that now exists. To my knowledge, this issue has not been addressed directly in this House before, certainly not within the last four years. Bill C-41 does not broach this particular aspect of the divorce process at all. The issue could be better addressed through government legislation, but there's no evidence that the government intends to introduce legislation in the near future to demand mandatory mediation or to help the provinces set up a unified family court.
It does not relate to any similar question already voted on by the House in this session or the last session, nor is not similar to any other item already selected as votable in this session. I see this motion as going towards provincial-federal efficiencies in cost and in consistency and generally and specifically towards the best interests of children across the country.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Any questions?
Mr. Frazer: Sharon, can you just give me a little amplification on how you see - to quote from your motion - ``the active promotion and implementation of a unified family court''? What sort of action do you see the government taking on this in order to accomplish that?
Mrs. Hayes: Right now, marriage is provincial, while divorce is federal. Because of that, there's federal and provincial jurisdiction involved when a marriage dissolves, depending on what aspect of the marriage is being addressed. That has caused problems, both within the process definitely and more specifically within the family that's going through this. Generally speaking, property and spousal support are provincial, while child support and other things are federal, and the total picture becomes confused.
It is within the jurisdiction of the federal government to go to the provincial governments and propose that this come under one legal roof in order that we're not talking in terms of two legal processes or two jurisdictions. That has been done. There have been precedents in both Manitoba and British Columbia for short periods of time, and for different reasons, actually. The reason for this would be specifically to look at a court in which it does come together so that the very notion that's been put forward - mediation - becomes possible under one roof, and over all aspects of the family break-up.
This is something that I believe the justice department has been looking at. I would like it brought forward into the public sphere so that we can see how the federal government.... It may mean a combination or a blending of jurisdictions. It's therefore a matter of the levels of government deciding to cooperate, rather than taking their own jurisdictions and thus creating confusion in the results.
Mr. Frazer: So when you say ``promotion'', you're saying that the federal government should take the initiative with the provinces to establish this thing?
Mrs. Hayes: Yes. Someone has to take the lead on this. If they are left alone, they'll just carry on under their own jurisdictions.
Mr. Frazer: In the previous examples where this did work - I think you mentioned Manitoba and British Columbia - were these on specific cases? And if they decided to go away from it, why did they decide to go away from it?
Mrs. Hayes: I don't have the details with me. Within British Columbia, I have heard that it was a cost factor, but because of.... The Socred government put it in, and the NDP took it out. I believe that was within the last decade, not in very recent history. The notion, though, was that it worked very well but perhaps wasn't set up efficiently. It did serve the public better, however, and that's what I will come to.
.1100
With divorce rates going up by a factor of eight in the last thirty years, I believe we have to see some real movement by government to address what is happening in that area across this country.
Mr. Frazer: So the decision to desist was caused by political philosophy more than anything else in this case. Is that right?
Mrs. Hayes: I believe so.
Mr. Frazer: Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Ms Hayes, I have a comment rather than a question, but this may prompt you to make a comment.
In 1867, when the Fathers of Confederation decided upon the distribution of powers, families were established for life. At that time, divorce was quite exceptional. Moreover, one had to table a private bill before Parliament to obtain a divorce. Society has therefore changed a great deal.
Curiously, marriage and divorce come under federal jurisdiction, whereas marriage rights, such as the proclamation of the banns and the officer who is authorized to perform the wedding, come under provincial jurisdiction. Under section 92, all matters pertaining to property and civil rights also come under provincial jurisdiction.
Consequently, when there's a divorce, when a couple breaks up, all of these things come into play. Spouses who have lived together have acquired assets. These assets must be shared, sometimes in accordance with provincial laws and sometimes in accordance with federal laws. Sometimes people seek recourse under provincial legislation and at other times under the Divorce Act, and this becomes more difficult. I think that anything we can do to alleviate the situation of people whose marriage has failed would be welcome. We don't want to add to their troubles.
Obviously, I feel that the solution would be to transfer responsibility for both divorce and marriage to the provinces, which would resolve the problem. You have touched upon an issue which I feel merits consideration, at least by this committee. Thank you, Ms Hayes.
[English]
Mrs. Hayes: I'll just make another comment in response to your comment.
Unfortunately, it is constitutionally mandated to be federal, so it does mean that there has to be an understanding between the two levels. What you say is very true, however: it cannot simply be transferred without a constitutional amendment. A unified court can be established without a constitutional amendment, though. So as you say, this is to open that debate.
The Chair: Okay, thank you very much. We did get through it.
We will meet again in Room 306 at 3:30 p.m. I hope we see all the same smiling faces; it's very difficult to make decisions if we haven't listened to everyone. What I am going to try to do this afternoon is tighten things up a little in order to see if we can get through them with enough time for a bit of debate at the end.
Thank you. We're adjourned.