Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 12, 1997

.1533

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.)): Order.

Welcome, Madam Venne. You've been here before. You have five minutes to do a presentation, and then I'm going to try to keep the committee members' questions moving quickly, because we have a vote at 5:30 p.m. We'll see how we do.

[Translation]

Ms Pierrette Venne, MP (Saint-Hubert, BQ): I would first like to thank the members of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business for giving me the opportunity to speak to my Bill C-226.

To better understand the amendments I wish to make to the Criminal Code, I think it is important to give you a little background. In February 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in the McIntosh case. It was a trial for second degree murder during which the accused pleaded self-defense.

The accused, a disc-jockey, had asked the victim to repair a sound system. During the eight months that followed, the accused made numerous attempts to recover his stereo which was in the victim's possession, but was unsuccessful in doing so. The day the events took place, having been advised that the victim was at home, the accused went there, having taken the trouble to take a kitchen knife with him.

When he arrived on the premises, he had an argument with the victim. According to the accused, the victim pushed him and they fought. It is when the victim grabbed a buggy and held it over his head pointing at the accused that the latter stabbed him to death with the kitchen knife he had brought with him.

One of the questions the Supreme Court was asked was the following: if the accused is the assailant, can you claim you acted in self-defense as provided for in subsection 34 (2) of the Criminal Code?

Five out of nine Supreme Court judges said yes. That conclusion is based on an interpretation of section 34 of the Criminal Code.

.1535

Subsection 34(1) begins as follows:

(1) Everyone who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault...

whereas subsection 2 begins as follows:

(2) Everyone who is unlawfully assaulted...

There is no mention whatsoever of ``without having provoked the assault'' in subsection 34(2).

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Antonio Lamer, came to the same conclusion, in this particular case, that subsection 34(2) applied to first-time assailants. He stated as follows:

The Supreme Court asked us to legislate when the Chief Justice said, and I quote:

So, as Chief Justice Antonio Lamer said in his ruling, the purpose of my bill is to correct an absurdity whereby an assailant can claim he acted in self-defense under the circumstances described in subsection 34(2). An historical review of section 34 as it currently reads has lead us to believe that in subsection 2, the legislator forgot to include the terms ``without having provoked the assault'' when he subdivided that section.

In fact, the old section 45 of the 1892 Criminal Code, which is the basis for subsections 34(1) and 34(2), was subdivided in 1955. During that review of the Criminal Code, the first part of the old section 45 became subsection 34(1) and the second, subsection 34(2). The new subsection 34(2) made no reference to non-provocation, whereas the old section 45 did include the expression ``without having provoked the assault''. When the legislator revised the Criminal Code in 1955, he simply forgot to include the stipulation of non-provocation.

As legislators, it is our duty to intervene and rectify the situation. That is why it is important that my bill be put to a vote. We cannot allow assailants to claim they acted in self defense under the circumstances described in subsection 34(2). By making the amendments I suggest, a first time assailant could still invoke section 35, which, by the way, is much more restrictive, since the accused must show that he refused to continue fighting.

Those are the explanations I wanted to give on the amendments I suggest to the Criminal Code. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

Are there any questions?

[Translation]

Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): I want to be sure I fully understand your bill,Ms Venne. In 1982, when that custom was included in the Code, such a defense would not have been possible.

Ms Venne: That is correct.

Mr. François Langlois: It only became possible after the Code was revised in 1952 or 1953 -

Ms Venne: In 1955.

Mr. François Langlois: ...and two subdivisions were made.

Ms Venne: In fact, it was when two subsections were made out of the same section.

Mr. François Langlois: Thank you. I have no further questions.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam Venne, I remember when this was in the news, and I remember thinking that it seemed to be very illogical.

At that time the response was, as I recall, that the person who had the kitchen knife took the knife because they felt they may be attacked by the person who ended up being killed. I thought that was illogical.

.1540

I don't recall the specifics, but I remember that when I was making exactly the case you are making in this bill, the position was put to me that the people who drafted this envisioned this kind of situation happening. I can't, and I agree with you, but can you tell me if you recall from that time, when it was brought up in the House as well, what the argument was that said the bill was soundly drafted, even though it seemed to be illogical?

I agree with you; it doesn't make sense. But the argument was made at the time that it did make sense. Do you recall what that argument was?

[Translation]

Ms Venne: No. Honestly, I unfortunately do not recall what you are referring to.

However, as I explained in my brief, the illogical part in all this is that there is a section 35 that provides for a case like Mr. McIntosh's. It is obviously that section that should have been used instead of subsection 34(2).

[English]

Mr. Ian McClelland: Thank you.

The Chair: I don't see any other questions.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Venne.

[Translation]

Ms Venne: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ringma, this is your last official act. You're not going to retire quietly; you're going to leave -

Mr. Bob Ringma, MP (Nanaimo - Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Chair, I have to apologize if I'm late. I thought I hit it right on the barrel. I'm splitting time with a committee upstairs.

The Chair: You're fine. Go ahead. You have five minutes.

Mr. Ringma: I'll start by using the words I used when I introduced this bill in the first place.

The bill is based on input from my constituents and represents what the average Canadian feels an MP's pension plan should look like. Unlike the government bill that we have already had on this issue, my bill would do away with the cash-for-life plan, in favour of a privately controlled RRSP-style fund with no contributions from the taxpayer.

My bill would allow MPs to plan ahead for the future or provide them with funds for transition back into private life.

What this subcommittee wants is for me to give the reasons it should be votable. The best way of doing that, Madam Chair, is for me to go down your list of criteria.

Number one is that a private member's bill may be of national, regional, or local significance and can be highly contentious. To me this is a national bill. It is highly contentious between political parties, and to a much lesser degree with the public, because the public has a lot of thoughts on it. It certainly is not trivial.

Point number two, you say bills should not be discriminating in favour of or against a certain area or region. This of course is not in that category. It's not a regional thing at all.

Your third criterion concerns electoral boundaries or constituencies - not applicable as well.

The fourth is that the bill should not require obvious amendment because it is substantially redundant with the law. This meets that qualification. It's a pretty brief bill, but there's nothing in it that would be redundant with the law.

The fifth criterion is that the subject of the bill should be different from specific matters already declared by the government to be on its legislative agenda. I would point out to the committee that of course the government's bill on members' pensions has come forward, but it is no longer on the agenda, and there's nothing coming up that we can foresee where this would be in competition.

Six, depending on the context of political issues and events, the number of times a topic has appeared in the House may be of significance. I would underline there again that this issue has been in the House once, because of the stand that Reform took from day one in entering Parliament in 1993 and our stance on members' pensions. Therefore it has come up and the government has given its say in the legislation that was passed.

.1545

Nevertheless, my point is that in the public's mind, and I would say that's the majority of the public across Canada, this is still very much an issue.

Number seven, all other factors being equal, lower priority should be given to a motion that would deal with matters that the House could address in some other way. This cannot be addressed in any other way.

Number eight, motions couched in partisan terms should not be selected. Reform as a party is partisan in this matter, but the bill itself is certainly not couched in partisan terms.

Number nine, bills shouldn't infringe on provincial legislation or on our Charter of Rights. That is non-applicable.

Number ten, bills or motions relating to a question that's substantially the same as a question already voted on by the House in session should not be selected in this session, and that is non-applicable. It has not appeared in this session, and when it was discussed before the House two years ago a totally different bill was before us.

So that takes us to number eleven, which is that items raising the same question that were already selected as a votable item should not be selected. Again, that's non-applicable.

So I think for all of those reasons, Madam Chair and members, the bill is very much of interest to the public. Therefore it should very much be a votable bill. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ringma.

Committee, remember our questions are on the votability, not on the essence of the bill. Do we have any questions?

[Translation]

Mr. François Langlois: Mr. Ringma, there is something that bothers me, and I will ask you to convince me why we should go over members' pensions, when we have already done so in this Parliament. That is what bothers me. I think that the likelihood of the bill's success is not a criterion. You said it should be of national interest. I agree with you. I agree with everything you say, except one thing, and that is that a government bill on which the official opposition has had the opportunity to express its views has already been dealt with during this Parliament. That is the only objection I would have at this stage.

Mr. Ringma: Mr. Langlois, my bill is very different from the one passed by Parliament two years ago. It is really different because it says we should have something similar to what the ordinary people, the voters have. That is what I am presenting, which is that Canadians and Quebeckers also want.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Ian McClelland: Madam Chairman, any questions have to do with the votability, not the substance of the bill.

The Chair: What we don't do in here is debate the merits of the bill. We merely ask questions of clarification to help us decide if this should be a votable bill or a non-votable bill. We don't get into a debate with the person presenting.

Mr. Ringma: That is why I tried to use your criteria to establish that.

The Chair: No, that's very good. That was fine. Mr. Langlois was having the presenter clarify just one section.

Ms Beaumier.

Ms Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): I think Mr. Langlois addressed my concerns as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ringma.

Mr. Ringma: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Karygiannis.

.1550

Mr. Jim Karygiannis, MP (Scarborough - Agincourt, Lib.): Madam Chair, colleagues, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to come before you and address what is important to me.

Before I continue, I couldn't but reflect for 30 seconds that 50 years ago today in the province of Ontario there was a move by the then Minister of Finance to levy a 7% taxation on corporations. I said to myself that 50 years later perhaps I'll be getting in that boat.

The bill that's presented calls for a reduction of entertainment deductions on section 67.1 of the Income Tax Act from 50% to 0%. It should be noted that the present government reduced the deductions from 80% to 50% in the 1995 budget. Although at the time there was a great amount of fuss made by the restaurant lobby groups about impending doom, the effects were negligible.

I believe the effects of this amendment on the restaurant business would be very small, while the net effect on government revenues would be significant. It would also have the added benefit of giving the general public some sense of fairness in regard to the tax system.

While many of us eat and drink in restaurants throughout the country and attend sporting and cultural events such as the opera, the ballet and the Blue Jays games, it seems patently unfair that certain groups get to write off half of the cost of such expenses while the vast majority of Canadians pay the full price. It's especially galling in the sport industry that large blocks of seats at baseball and hockey games are sold at inflated prices to corporate interests that in turn get taxpayers to subsidize them. This of course leads in the long term to having a taxpayer subsidize the inflated salaries of professional athletes.

I believe this is a very important issue that deserves to have a full hearing in the House and it is worthy of being designated a votable item.

The Chair: Does the committee have any questions?

[Translation]

Mr. François Langlois: Mr. Karygiannis, thank you for your brief and clear presentation. I basically do not see any problem. I think most Canadians are upset to see that a certain group of people can get tax deductions for entertainment and get certain services at half price.

Is your bill an ad hoc measure that would come into effect immediately, without requiring a total overall of our tax system? I think this falls more under the heading of a tax reform. There hasn't been one in Canada in 25 years. The middle class is still being hit the hardest and nothing has changed. I see that this would be one way to go about it. Have you looked at the potential domino effect of your bill?

[English]

Mr. Karygiannis: Merci. It should be noted that we went from 80% to 50% in the 1995 budget. I would be willing to entertain suggestions by colleagues that we don't go overnight from 50% to 0%, but we take it over a five-year or six-year period. The first year we go from 50% to 40%, then from 40% to 30%, 30% to 20%, 20% to 10% and so on. The middle class has an unfair burden on its shoulders while the corporates are able to get away with it. So we can probably phase it in over the next four or five years, but the change did occur from 80% to 50% in the 1995 budget.

The Chair: I don't think you answered Mr. Langlois' question. Mr. Langlois was asking you whether you would do this in isolation or whether it is more appropriate to do this as part of a whole tax review. I think that was the question. In other words, is this the only goal, or do you want total tax reform?

Mr. Karygiannis: No, this is the only goal.

The Chair: This will sit in isolation and you won't wait for a budget. Will it be implemented immediately?

Mr. Karygiannis: It can be implemented over a five-year period at 10% per year or we can implement it immediately.

The Chair: Okay. Are there any other questions? Mr. McClelland.

Mr. Ian McClelland: In your comments you made the assertion that when the entertainment expense deduction went from 80% to 50%, there was in fact no negative consequence as a result of it. Do you have any evidence to back that statement up?

.1555

Mr. Karygiannis: I have some evidence, not mathematical evidence, but there's evidence in conversation with people in my riding, with people within the food industry, with the restauranteurs themselves; they didn't see their sales drop.

Mr. Ian McClelland: How about the employment in the restaurant and hospitality industry in the country? Do we know whether there are more people employed in that industry today than prior to the 1995 -

Mr. Karygiannis: My belief is that it's the same.

Mr. Ian McClelland: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms Beaumier? No?

Thank you very much, Mr. Karygiannis.

Mr. Johnston, I think you can begin without Mr. Benoit. He's very thorough in doing his homework and he's probably read it.

You're doing M-308?

Mr. Dale Johnston, MP (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Right.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. The motion has to do with the membership of a union having an opportunity to vote on a restructuring proposal put forth by their employer.

In November, of course, we saw a financial crisis arise in Canadian Airlines International. The fate of all of the employees seemed to rest on whether or not one particular union would have an opportunity to vote on the restructuring proposal.

Madam Chair, I did put forth at that time a motion in committee that suggested we should amend or at least look into the possibility of an amendment to section 108 of the Canada Labour Code that would allow members of a bargaining unit to vote independently on a restructuring proposal put forth by their employer. That motion was struck down, of course, in committee, but it is interesting to note that the minister did in subsequent days - about two days later - use a section of the act that allows for a ministerial intervention on a piecemeal basis.

Where I'm coming from on this is that if the minister sees fit to use that portion of the code on a hit and miss basis, or at his whim, then perhaps we should write it into the code or at least amend section 108 to the point where employees would have the opportunity to vote on a restructuring proposal.

We're not talking about an area here that is going to have any overlap of jurisdiction into the provinces. This is strictly for the Canada Labour Code and section 108 in particular. I don't believe this is going to affect the bargaining process in any way, because we're talking specifically about a restructuring proposal that is either going to mean the survival or the demise of the employer.

For those and various other reasons, I believe this motion would probably qualify and I would like to see it be a votable motion.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any questions from the committee? Mr. McClelland.

Mr. Ian McClelland: Mr. Johnston, I take it by this that obviously an employee would have the opportunity to vote by leaving the employ if they didn't like a restructuring proposal. So this really has to do with the right of an employee or a group of employees to overturn or overrule a union representation. My question is whether or not this speaks specifically to the right of an employee group to overturn their union representation.

.1600

Mr. Johnston: Yes, I think it does. It really has nothing to do with the certification or decertification of the union though. It does have everything to do with the membership of the union being allowed to make a decision, and certainly we're not prejudging what that decision might be. That decision could go one way or the other, but at least it allows them the freedom to make the decision one way or the other without interference by the hierarchy of the union.

Ms Colleen Beaumier: In terms of your motion, when you're talking ofemployees, are you talking unionized employees only, are you putting a size on a company? Or is your motion basically to say that the employees have the right to direct the employer on how he's going to run his business? I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Mr. Johnston: To clarify one point, yes, I'm talking about unionized employees having the right to vote on a proposal that's put to them that obviously means either the success or the demise of their employer and in that hangs the balance of their employment. Yes, it's unionized employees, and it's giving them an opportunity to vote unencumbered by their -

Ms Colleen Beaumier: Yes, the unionized was what I wanted to know. Now, what about the size factor? Are we talking about a small company that has five unionized employees because they are part of a larger union?

Mr. Johnston: Maybe I should explain first, Madam Chair, that the Canada Labour Code only applies to about 700,000 workers across Canada who are employed in the transportation, railways, and trucking industries, and it really doesn't affect the small-business people with three, four, five, or twenty employees.

Ms Colleen Beaumier: Thank you.

The Chair: Are there any other questions? Thank you very much.

Mrs. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy, MP (Calgary North, Ref.): Hi everybody. I'm Margaret Bridgman today.

The Chair: Welcome, Margaret. You have five minutes to present and then you may be asked some questions.

Mrs. Ablonczy: I'm speaking in support of Ms Bridgman's request that her motion, M-139, be made votable. You have copies.

I want to make four quick points before we get to questions. One is that in the motion we're talking about the benefit of doubt going to victims. I think there would be a number of areas where this would be pertinent: the benefit going to address the matter of payment of the offender's debt to society; the interests of justice being satisfied; peace of mind for the victims; certainty of protection from intimidation, harassment, or interference; and other legitimate rights and considerations.

When the motion talks about the benefit of doubt going to victims and their families, I think those are the kinds of considerations the Parole Board would be looking at. I wanted to talk a minute about that because I think it's something we want to be aware of. We think those are the considerations that should be given importance and priority in Parole Board hearings.

The second point I would like to make is to just refer you to the National Parole Board mission statement. Essentially, the mission statement talks about the protection of society by the integration of offenders back into society. It doesn't question whether in fact that goal or mission of the Parole Board really is in the best interests of society, and I think that re-evaluating those assumptions underlying the mission statement of the Parole Board would be a good thing to do.

.1605

Presently, the emphasis is on the rehabilitation, the reintegration aspect of what the Parole Board does, and not overtly, or explicitly, on the protection and safety being placed first and foremost on Parole Board operations.

The third point I'd like to make is that this motion does in fact meet the criteria of a votable item, and in particular addresses an issue of substance and significance, which also is an issue of clear and present concern to Canadians.

Lastly, then, to say why we are asking the motion be made votable, it is an important issue of safety and fairness to law-abiding citizens and innocent victims of crime, and voting on this motion would also allow the House to consider whether the National Parole Board should be reformed to better ensure its operation in the best interests of victims and their families, of public safety, and also in the interest of justice.

That is all I have to say in support of this request to you, but you may have questions.

The Chair: Mr. Langlois.

[Translation]

Mr. François Langlois: Ms Ablonczy, judging by the wording of your motion, you plan to give the benefit of the doubt to the victim, and not to the prisoner. That presupposes that under current legislation, the National Parole Board would have to give the benefit of the doubt to a prisoner who makes this request. That is not my understanding of the current legislation.

I'd like to know on what you are basing your argument when you say that the prisoner wouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt as though he had it at the present time.

[English]

Mrs. Ablonczy: That question is why I referred to the mission statement of the National Parole Board. It says it makes independent, quality conditional release and pardon decisions and clemency recommendations. Clearly, all this is focused on the criminal, the convicted person. It also says that ``the board contributes to the protection of society by facilitating the integration of offenders''.

It doesn't talk about any priority being placed on the protection of society, or that being a consideration where something is in the balance. It simply assumes the protection of society will be facilitated by integration of offenders. I think the assumptions and the balancing of the criteria being applied by the National Parole Board is a very cogent issue and why the motion was brought forward.

Mr. Ian McClelland: I have a question that may be technical and it may not be apropos here. I understand that when a perpetrator is charged by the state, it's the Queen versus the perpetrator, so that the victim is taken out of the equation and it becomes the state versus the perpetrator.

If that's the case, I'm wondering if the motion would be.... I know what you're getting at the with the public safety, but I'm wondering if the use of the victim and the victim's family in this motion strengthens the motion or not. If I read the motion and the preamble correctly, it's to try to change the focus of the Parole Board to give the benefit of the doubt to society rather than the prisoner. Could you comment on that, please?

Mrs. Ablonczy: I think the element of society, when we refer to public safety in the motion, is maintained, but the motion does bring much higher the whole area of victims' rights. As you know, particularly with the events of this week, that's a matter that the public is more and more demanding be addressed.

.1610

I think society as a whole is the broader base behind the justice system. But I think what is happening is that people who have been victimized, whose liberties and rights, property, lives, and family well-being have been violated by crime, are looking for a much higher level of recognition. Victims themselves and those who are more directly affected by crime than just all of society are saying ``Look, we count for something, we should have some legal rights here. We should be identified as having interests that must specifically and explicitly be protected.''

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Ablonczy: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: Just as an advance warning, Mr. Riis and Mr. Solomon have asked to change places, because Mr. Solomon has to catch a plane. So don't be surprised if he comes in and we let them switch.

Mr. Guimond, you have five minutes to do your presentation and then you may have some questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond, MP (Beauport - Montmorency - Orléans, BQ): Colleagues this is a relatively uncomplicated bill that provides for an amendment to the Canadian Criminal Code to give international cruise ships the permission to continue to operate their casinos while in the Canadian zone.

I'd like to tell you at the outset that I'm not a casino fan. I do not want to promote gaming, betting and so forth. I would first of all like to make you aware of the economic spin-offs that such a bill could have for our Canadian tourist industry.

An hour after leaving the Port of Halifax and Port of Vancouver, you're already in international waters. The cruise ships going to Alaska or elsewhere can operate their casinos as soon as they leave English Bay, in Vancouver. The same goes for the Port of Halifax: an hour after they've left port, cruise ships can operate their casinos. However, in the case of the St. Lawrence ports -

I'm not only concerned with the St. Lawrence ports because the cruise industry has indicated to me that some cruise ships could cruise up the St. Lawrence Seaway and initiates stopovers in Toronto, around the Great Lakes and even in Thunder Bay. So it's not only the ports of the St. Lawrence and Quebec's tourist industry that would benefit from this provision. The province of Ontario and the Maritime provinces could also benefit from it.

The bill is to give the cruise ships operating casinos the permission to keep them open up to an hour before they dock. As it is, as soon as the ship is off Anticosti Island, the casino on board must shut down because they're in Canadian waters.

Now this is a captive clientele. The provinces operating casinos, Quebec and Ontario, cannot say that because those people are going to continue gambling on board ship they will be losing income in their provincial casinos. What we are dealing with here is a captive clientele and my bill provides that casinos would shut down one hour before docking. So one hour before docking in Hamilton, the casino would close.

I'll be happy to answer your questions. Before concluding, I'd like to emphasize that the cruise ship market is very important for Quebec in terms of economic spin-offs.

.1615

For your information, the 1996 cruise season for the port of Vancouver and thus for the whole Alaska cruise market, led to economic spin-offs of some $200 million and 701,000 visitors. These are very rich people. These cruises cost up to $10,000 US per week.

They're mainly Americans. These provisions don't concern any Canadian ship going from port to port on the Great Lakes and operating a casino there. That's not really it. We're talking about international cruise ships operating casinos.

So these are mainly Americans paying up to $10,000 a week for the cruise and statistics show that during stop-overs, when the passengers go visiting, the economic spin-offs are of the order of $150 to $200 US per day per person. Canada's whole tourist industry could benefit. So, colleagues, I'm asking you to please accept this bill as a votable item in the House.

Mr. François Langlois: Am I summarizing your thoughts or your bill correctly when I say that this would allow Central Canada, especially Quebec and Ontario, to enjoy a treatment similar to that enjoyed by the Pacific and Atlantic provinces at the present time?

Mr. Guimond: Yes. It would allow them to enjoy interesting tourist spin-offs and, as a result, they'd have economic spin-offs. It's true that it would create some parity between the East, the West and Central Canada. I think that all the Maritime ports like Saint John, New Brunswick and Halifax would benefit from this bill with an increase in the number of stopovers. The tourist cruise industry mentioned to me that if they could operate casinos there would be far more stopovers in those ports. So the whole Halifax market would benefit. These cruise ships leave New York, stop over at Halifax, go into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, up the Saguenay Fjord and all the way up to Quebec City and Montreal.

Some of the narrower ships that can get through the Seaway's locks could even go as far up as Thunder Bay.

I talked about this to my colleague, Joe Comuzzi, the Member for Thunder Bay, and he was supposed to make you aware of the fact that this would be an interesting bill for central Canada in terms of economic spin-offs.

[English]

Mr. Ian McClelland: Do you envision entrepreneurs commissioning a ship for the express purpose of being an international cruise ship - that is, the United States and Canada - and doing gambling cruises from, for instance, Halifax down the St. Lawrence and into the Great Lakes?

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond: I would just like to clarify a term. May be I wasn't quite clear. These are not gambling cruises. They're simply cruise ships that have the services of a casino on board. We all know that when it's 10:00 pm and we're smack in the middle of the Gulf of St. Lawrence or in the glacier area of the Alaska Coast, there is nothing to be seen outside. So there are activities organized for the people on board. There are shows - we know about those - and there is a casino. So these are not gambling cruises.

The international cruise market depends on the vagaries of what happens on this planet. The passengers on these de luxe cruises do wonder whether they'll go for the Mediterranean cruise this year. Remember the Achille Lauro hostage taking a few years ago. A passenger was shot on board. Pirates took hostages on that ship. After that, for a year or two, people just didn't cruise the Mediterranean any more; they preferred cruising in the Caribbean Sea or off the Coast of Alaska, for example. So this is just to get rid of an additional obstacle to getting more and better tourist and economic spin-offs. The purpose of this bill is to get rid of an irritant.

.1620

[English]

The Chair: If I might, Mr. Guimond, I think Mr. McClelland asked a specific question. He asked if you could foresee boats constructed and put on the sea specifically for gambling if this rule were to be implemented.

Mr. Ian McClelland: When I asked that question, Madam Chair, I guess I was wondering whether it was germane, because it doesn't speak to the votability.

The Chair: No, but it's a good question. I liked it, therefore I let it go through.

Mr. Ian McClelland: The point is, the Casino de Montréal is in Montreal. Where do the profits flow from these international ships?

We'll just stick to my question.

The Chair: The question is, if this bill were to be made votable and passed into legislation, could you foresee, under the auspices of this bill, gambling boats specifically built and registered as international boats and put on the St. Lawrence strictly for gambling? People don't really go on a cruise at all; they just go up and down the St. Lawrence, and they gamble.

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond: No. Let's ask ourselves why the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes would become a privileged destination to go to a casino. If that restriction were taken out, how could the casinos could become a pretext for a cruise? It's not really that. People go on cruises first and foremost to admire the natural beauty surrounding them. But when the natural beauty can't be admired for whatever reason, either because the weather is too cold, or it's raining, then people will look for other activities on board. That's what I meant when I said that the bill's purpose is to get rid of an irritant.

To use an expression from down home, we're just inviting lady luck onto our own boat. You just maximize your opportunities when you want to get economic spin-offs. If people don't come to our neck of the woods, they'll just go elsewhere. The Holland America Line Westours Company whose headquarters are in Vancouver and which is the owner of the Ms Veendam andMs Westerdam, has purchased four big cruise ships that can accommodate 2,500 passengers each. When you build a floating palace today, there are always black jack and roulette tables on board.

Once again, I'm emphasizing that I'm not promoting gaming. Don't think I'm a compulsive gambler. I don't even go to the Hull casino. On the contrary, I'm not sure, that, as a society, casinos in our communities, casinos anywhere on earth... Why would I go promoting casinos?

It's only to get a higher number of stopovers, because there is a market for that. If they don't come up the St. Lawrence and if the House of Commons does not have the political will to accept to change the Criminal Code accordingly, then they'll just go elsewhere. They'll go to the West Indies, to the Mediterranean Sea or through the Panama Canal. These are all economic spin-offs that Canada won't enjoy.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

Madam Beaumier.

Ms Colleen Beaumier: What you're talking about is that this would apply to the Great Lakes region only. I mean, we're not envisioning cruise ships on the lakes located between the U.S. and Canada that may be large enough to accommodate one of these ships; they can dock out in the middle and make it an international cruise. So you're not envisioning this situation as one of the results from it.

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond: Ms Beaumier and members of the committee, please examine the wording of the bill closely. It provides for operating casinos on international cruise ships. We're not trying to use this to get around -

.1625

I myself went to St. Louis, Missouri, last year. I went to see the Mississipi because I was previously the transport critic and I was always hearing about the Mississipi. I went to see the Mississipi and I saw the floating casinos. These are not boats, but structures with funnels. They look like a boat. I don't even know if they float. They are attached to the land.

That's not what I'm talking about. We're talking here about casinos on board international cruise ships.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Guimond.

Do you have any more questions?

[Translation]

Mr. François Langlois: I would like to ask a final question if I may. It is along the same lines as yours, Ms Parrish. If a boat was sailing from Toronto to Buffalo or from Toronto to Niagara, New York, it would not qualify within the meaning of the legislation, because under 207(a) it is an international cruise ship because of the fact that it links two ports in two different countries.

Mr. Guimond: No. That is not the intended purpose. We're looking rather at New York, Baltimore, Halifax and perhaps a trip to Greenland or into the Gulf of the St. Lawrence.

Mr. François Langlois: I think that the legal wording limits the scope of your bill.

Mr. Guimond: A ship flying an American flag with a casino on board could go around Orléans Island, in my riding, and stop there. Would such a boat be covered by the definition? It would not be an international cruise ship. These are not gambling cruises; they're not cruises for the purpose of gambling.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon, MP (Regina - Lumsden, N.D.P.): Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to make my presentation now. I did speak with Len Taylor, who is going to make a representation on behalf of Nelson Riis and who was scheduled at this time. He said he would appear after me, because I have a plane to catch.

Members of the committee, you have a copy of my motion that the government should consider the advisability of establishing an energy price review commission to monitor and regulate gas or energy prices set by oil companies.

Just a few points. Some of you are aware generally of the issue because of some of the work I've done on this matter in the past. I have about four summary points, maybe six.

Fact one: the average daily price of crude oil from 1990 to this year has been declining year over year according to statistics from the various provincial governments.

Fact two: in certain regions, when gasoline prices increase they usually go up within the same hour without any competitive pricing practices. This has caused a lot of hardship with respect to certain economic sectors in our country.

Fact three: when prices do increase, explanations by oil companies are usually quite humorous. For example, you'll recall that last spring when they increased gasoline prices the oil companies in the industry said the prices were going up because Iraqi oil might be coming on the market. Of course that didn't happen, and of course that's obviously opposite to all economic indicators and economic theory out there. But that was their explanation. It was quite humorous.

It was doubly humorous three or four months later when prices went up once again and they gave the reason as being that Iraqi oil was not coming on the market. Which is it? Either it's coming on the market or it's not, but it can't increase prices both ways.

That's one example. I could give you a dozen that are equally bizarre and certainly equally as entertaining that they have publicly stated.

Fact four: prices always seem at the gasoline pumps to respond immediately to crude oil price increases, yet when crude oil prices decline there's a lag of many months in gas pump decreases, if any at all.

.1630

The next point is that we're told our gas prices are competitive. They always tell us, ``Well, look at the prices in the industrialized countries of the world; they're all higher.'' You ask them how many of these industrialized countries are net producers of oil, and the answer is zero. They're all net importers of oil and gasoline.

I asked them for tables showing a comparison of all the net producers - that is, net exporters - of oil and gasoline, as we are in Canada. If you look at those tables, you'll see we're the second-highest of all the producers in the world when it comes to gasoline prices.

Another point is that oil company profits have increased year over year. Over the past four years they've been at record levels. At the same time they're laying off a number of people, so they really can't give the excuse that their industry is having difficulty and they have to increase prices to meet that.

Finally, we should be aware that energy is an underpinning element in our economy. Everything depends on energy, whether it's industrial work being carried out or whether you're farmers or truckers or consumers purchasing goods that have to be transported across our huge country. Yet it's the only element in our economic sector that's not regulated.

We even regulate communications, where there are all kinds of competition, whether it's cable or radio or TV. There are all kinds of competition in those sorts of communication fields, and you don't necessarily have to rely on them, but they're very important to our economy. We all agree with that. But everybody depends upon oil, whether it's for home heating fuel or propane or gasoline for your vehicles.

In summary, I'm asking the committee to consider this motion, which doesn't establish an energy price review commission, but it gets the government to look further into the matter.

The final point I want to raise is that right now you see prices fluctuating across the country, and they've actually come down in some areas. The main reason for that is the oil companies are under criminal investigation by the Competition Bureau, the criminal investigations branch.

In Saskatchewan the prices were the highest in the country, even though our province is a net exporter of oil, and they were the highest when you factor out taxes. That was the case until the criminal investigation was undertaken in Saskatchewan, and all of a sudden we saw prices drop to a very competitive level.

We need something more consistent. We need some sort of reference point. We need something that will say to the oil companies, yes, charge whatever you like to make a profit, but don't gouge consumers on one of our key economic inputs, and that's energy.

The Chair: Are there any questions?

Mr. McClelland.

Mr. Ian McClelland: I know what you're getting at, and I'm sure everybody here wonders at the fact that the prices go up and down. There doesn't seem to be any retail competitiveness. I understood it had more to do with the lack of competition. It's very difficult, because there are so few refiners, for people to be competitive on a retail basis. They're paying the same amount for the wholesale price for the product.

The same thing happens to cigarettes; they're the same price no matter where you go. So is milk and so are all kinds of things we buy on a daily basis. It doesn't matter where you go; the prices are all the same, or very similar. What happens if we start with this and where does it stop?

Mr. Solomon: First of all, cigarettes aren't the underpinning of our economy. They are optional, and of course if I had my way, I think they should be illegal, because they do injure and kill a lot of people.

Second, with respect to products such as milk, there is some management supply. Governments do have control over ensuring there is a high-quality, reasonably priced food product like milk available to Canadians, and it is regulated through the various milk boards in this country.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Mr. McClelland, but the point we're making here is the entire Canadian economy depends upon energy, whether you're in business or living in a residence, unless you happen to have property in Barbados or the Caribbean where you spend eight months a year, where you don't need energy.

Gasoline, propane, and home heating fuel are absolutely necessary in our economy. They're absolutely necessary in everyone's life. It's direct in most cases, but those who aren't using it directly are using it indirectly, whether they're taking a bus or whatever.

That's the difference. This is a key economic component.

.1635

We do regulate radio stations. We can tell radio stations what to not broadcast, what kind of music they should broadcast, or what kind of Canadian content to have. Radio stations are important to our life, but if there were no radio stations around tomorrow, people wouldn't be dying.

Mr. Ian McClelland: But we don't tell them what they should charge.

Mr. Solomon: We don't tell them what to charge?

Mr. Ian McClelland: Yes, for their advertising time, but we can tell them how much -

Anyway, thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Solomon: Yes, that's debating the point.

The Chair: You're just slipping a little.

Mr. Ian McClelland: Yes, I'm sorry.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Langlois.

Mr. François Langlois: There are some things I do not understand in the current system and you could probably clarify them for me, Mr. Solomon.

As regards air navigation, we realized in a subcommittee chaired by Ms Parrish that there was no difference in the price charged by Air Canada and Canadian Airlines for the same destination. They are in a duopoly situation and they fix the prices. If you were to purchase a ticket in Ottawa to go to Edmonton, it would be the same price for both companies. Don't try to negotiate. There seems to be a monopoly, an agreement.

As regard oil products and oil derivatives, if you are in Ottawa and look on both sides of the street you will probably find that in one location the gas is being sold for one tenth of a cent less than in another. My riding is bordered by the State of Maine. I cross over from time to time. The other day I noticed in Maine that over a 23-mile distance the price of gasoline varied by up to 25 cents from one service station to another.

Is it because they have a variety of suppliers that they can get involved in price wars? What is there to prevent agreements to artificially fix prices? I have the impression that in Canada the prices are completely artificial and fixed rather dubiously.

[English]

Mr. Solomon: I think you make a couple of good points. As Mr. McClelland was referring to, I think perhaps the real problem is that we have four or five oil companies in Canada that set the prices. In various economies that would be considered an oligopoly. Of course the four or five companies have strategically located refineries across the country where they may not provide fuel to their own stations in a particular region in which they have no refinery, but they have reciprocity agreements with various companies.

For example, the Co-op refinery in Regina is the only one in Saskatchewan. They provide fuel for Imperial and Shell in Saskatchewan, and the reciprocity is with the Imperial refinery in Edmonton, which provides fuel for the Co-op stations in Alberta. That's just an agreement. They mix their own gasoline according to the formulas. They have these reciprocity agreements.

So there are a very small number of competitors in the country. In the United States, they do have stronger anti-combines legislation than in Canada. We used to have an anti-combines act called the Combines Investigation Act. That was abolished under the previous Conservative government. It was replaced with the Competition Act, which has a much watered-down regulatory influence on industry.

In the States, when gas prices went up unjustifiably, President Clinton, with respect to the laws he had at his disposal, was able to launch an inquiry overnight, because there are laws to protect consumers in the States that we don't have in Canada.

So as for the suggestions that many people have made that Canada has really a monopoly in terms of gas pricing, there's more evidence to suggest that although it may be the case here, certainly in the States that would not be allowed because of their very stringent laws and very severe penalties to corporations that do establish monopoly pricing.

So that's one of the reasons you see the competitive pricing in the States, even in smaller communities in Montana and North Dakota where the population is smaller than Saskatchewan's. Their price variations are much greater than in Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. François Langlois: I would like to give you an example for which there isn't even an answer. In my riding, the Saint-Romuald Ultramar refinery, located on the St. Lawrence, delivers to the whole area, and no one can negotiate the prices charged, which are set before hand. The same trucks leave from Saint-Romuald, go across my riding and supply the State of Maine. The people in Maine pay less for the gas purchased from Saint-Romuald, with transportation included. There is a very serious problem there, perhaps it could be resolved one day.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Solomon: Thank you.

The Chair: Have a good flight.

Mr. Solomon: Thank you. And I just might add -

The Chair: On your non-flight-controlled aircraft. Air Canada or Canadian Airlines?

.1640

Mr. Solomon: Actually, to get to Saskatchewan, the quickest way is by Air Canada. You have to fly on three planes if you fly Canadian.

The Chair: You're a good NDP man, flying the people's airline.

Mr. Solomon: Yes, well, it used to be the people's airline - pleased to be of service.

The Chair: Mr. Taylor is next and then Mr. Bhaduria.

Mr. Len Taylor, MP (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake, N.D.P.): Now that he's gone -

The Chair: You are a good sport to let him sneak in.

Mr. Taylor: I appreciate the opportunity.

Nelson asked me to address you today on his legislation, Bill C-232, because he had to be away today as well. This is a subject-matter in which I'm particularly interested, and I hope that you will see fit to support the motion for votability within the House.

Bill C-232 was before the House in another form before. It was in another House under another name and did receive some debate on the Hill. When it was debated as Bill C-202 back in 1995, it did receive support from all parties in the House, but it wasn't votable and therefore didn't go forward.

The bill defines several key terms that have relevance to the discussion of water management. It establishes a code that water suppliers would adhere to. It provides for an information-gathering period after passage of the bill. It allows the minister to call for research studies, and it allows the minister to call for testing if required.

The Governor in Council may also make regulations under this bill to protect and enhance drinking water quality, but most importantly, the bill prohibits unilateral provincial inter-basin transfers of water, something that has been an issue in Canada since the debate around the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and is certainly an issue under the provisions of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Some people have said this isn't the problem, don't worry about it. Others do have some difficulties with this. A number of bulk water export schemes have been planned all over North America, which would send fresh Canadian water into the United States. These schemes vary from bulk tanker exports to projects, to the diversion of rivers, such as the Thompson River. There are also grand schemes such as the one called ``The Great Recycling and Northern Development Grand Canal''. The Grand Canal scheme would involve damming James Bay and diverting a number of Canadian rivers through the Great Lakes south into the United States.

Currently we have no laws to prevent either of these matters from happening - tanker truck activities moving south or diversion activities in Canada.

I want to quote briefly a Library of Parliament research branch paper done by Daniel Dupras in 1992. The paper was on NAFTA and Canadian water resources. The conclusion of Daniel's paper in 1992 says:

In other words, he argues that there is some uncertainty in the legislation that does prohibit this, and he says that it would be useful to have a specific piece of legislation that prohibited water diversions or transport from taking place.

.1645

I might add that the Province of British Columbia has already passed legislation in this regard. There is jurisdiction in that regard, but obviously it doesn't protect Canadian waters as such.

My friend Nelson Riis, who is proposing this bill, says:

The Chair: That was a very clear presentation. I'll have to report to Nelson that you did such an excellent job there was no need for questions.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Taylor: He'll be even happier when you -

The Chair: I know, if we make it votable.

Mr. Taylor: Okay. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you for coming.

Mr. Taylor: I was delighted to.

The Chair: Mr. Bhaduria.

Mr. Jag Bhaduria, MP (Markham - Whitchurch - Stouffville, Lib. Dem.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the chair and members of the subcommittee for allowing me this opportunity to present my private member's bill, Bill C-345, today.

As you are aware, Bill C-345 is the legislation that would provide for the limitation of interest rates on credit cards, effectively reducing the present exorbitant interest rates that are currently levied by the major banks and major retailers.

All members of this subcommittee are knowledgeable about the unprecedented profits made by the major banks last year. Indeed, collectively they raked in more than $6.3 billion in profits.

It's interesting to note that excluding the Bank of Montreal, no other major financial institution divulged just how much profit it raked in on credit cards alone. The other major five banks currently have about 16.5 million Visa and MasterCard credit cards in circulation, which means that one out of every two Canadians has a credit card, and that includes children and babies.

When one factors in the industry executives' figures of $14 to $18 a year for each card as an average, current, after-tax take-in, one is astounded to discover that the five major banks are netting between $230 million and $300 million in profit each year on their credit card operations alone.

Currently, financial institutions have a variety of credit cards available to the consumers, with interest rates that range from a low of 9.25% to a high of 19%. Major retailers have been charging 28.8% interest on their cards since the early 1980s, and there has been no downward movement, even though the Bank of Canada discount rate is at the lowest rate in four decades.

The bottom line is that according to Industry Canada, Canadians are carrying about $20 billion in outstanding credit card debt.

My bill would ensure that any credit card issued by a financial institution or major retailer would not carry interest at a rate more than four to five points higher than the Bank of Canada discount rate. Effectively, it would drastically reduce the current interest rate charges on credit cards, which in turn would allow Canadians to increase their purchasing power. If less is paid in interest charges, obviously more money can be funnelled into the Canadian economy, thus providing a boost.

.1650

In conclusion, Madam Chair and the members of the committee, I believe it's extremely important that Bill C-345 be approved as a votable item, because it would send a strong signal to the major banks and retailers that Canadians would like to have rational, fair, and just interest rates in their daily financial dealings when using their credit cards. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bhaduria.

Are there any questions?

Ms Colleen Beaumier: I'm just wondering why Mr. Bhaduria doesn't figure why, especially with the arrival of U.S. banks into Canada, this would not be an issue that would be taken care of by the laws of supply and demand.

Mr. Bhaduria: Historically, the fact is that unless something positive is done by the legislator, the business community goes hand in hand in making sure that their bottom line is much more than what the consumers would like to have. Based on the availability of credit cards in the U.S., the historical fact is that multinationals will go hand in hand with our own national banks in maintaining the profit level.

I personally do not feel that the introduction of more banks would bring the interest rates of 28.7% or 28.6% down to a more reasonable level.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bhaduria.

Mr. Bhaduria: Thank you very much indeed.

The Chair: What's very difficult here, when you're voting, whether you agree or disagree with the.... You have to keep thinking whether or not you would get a healthy debate in the House of Commons. Would you have enough speakers? Is it something that should be aired, and would it give some guidance to the government even if it fails? Would it shake things up? That's one of my criteria. Whether I would support it or not is irrelevant.

Often I've agreed to make unanimous something I hated, such as the damned gambling on the Internet issue.

Mr. Ian McClelland: Did that come to the Committee of the Whole?

The Chair: It was made votable.

Mr. Ian McClelland: But it was just to send it to committee, wasn't it?

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): The committee decided to make it votable. I think it went to a committee before three hours of debate had finished. So it has received second reading, but it will be studied by the committee.

Mr. Ian McClelland: How many do we make votable?

The Chair: We can pick up to three bills. It doesn't mean we have to. We can pick up to two motions. That's how many spaces there are for votability. We could do one, two, or three bills, or none. We have done that in the past. We've not formed any consensus. We haven't had a serious -

It is unusual that there's only one Liberal in the batch. It's usually not that way. The luck of the draw has lots of Bloc and lots of Reform. Then you get to test out Ms Beaumier and me and see how neutral we are.

.1655

.1657

The Chair: Mrs. Brown, take a deep breath. We're ready for you, unless someone else comes cruising through that door and you want to give them your spot while you rest for a second.

Mrs. Jan Brown, MP (Calgary Southeast, Ind.): No.

The Chair: You're okay?

Mrs. Brown: Yes, I'm fine, thanks.

The Chair: Okay. You have five minutes to present, and at the end of that five minutes you may be asked some questions or you may not.

Mrs. Brown: Okay, thank you.

As you know, I'm here seeking the opportunity to present a votable motion to the House during private members' business on April 11. I'm going to be addressing the whole issue of freedom of speech within the context of our parliamentary system. I have some prepared notes I'd like to read from.

Over the years there has been no lack of attempts by members of Parliament to challenge the standing rules of the House of Commons or the rules of procedure and process by which the members organize themselves, subject to the guidance exerted by the Speaker. As you are all well aware, none have succeeded, regardless of the argument presented even under the umbrella of our current Constitution and its Charter of Rights.

There is a moral if not legal burden on the House to ensure that none of its practices, under the guise of independently organized rules and procedures, impair the right of every citizen to be heard through their member of Parliament, in a manner consistent with the privileges afforded every other citizen through their members. In other words, what must be challenged is the validity of the House's right to establish a rule of order, a practice or tradition that in its effect affects also the right of every citizen to access the same service equally.

If any member is afforded the opportunity to become a voting member of a committee of the House by reason of his or her affiliation with an established party, then every member, whether affiliated or not, must be afforded the same opportunity. This is a fundamental issue that should have been viewed in light of the rights of the House rather than the practices of the House.

Democracy functions best when many voices echo through the people's court and vigorous debates take place, calling governments to account. However, democracy does not function best when current members of Parliament are disenfranchised because they do not sit with an officially recognized party.

The current sitting members of Parliament without official party status, numbering 15, represent approximately 1.5 million disenfranchised Canadians who have democratically elected their representative to speak on their behalf, and this is where the injustice lies.

Freedom of speech is fundamentally a parliamentary privilege. As Professor W.F. Dawson of the University of Alberta said in 1959:

Members must also be free to speak. This means they have to have opportunities to participate in debate and to participate fully in the proceedings of Parliament, including parliamentary committees. Even if members are not inhibited in terms of what they say in the House, they are still inhibited in not being given opportunities to speak. The right to say whatever you want is meaningless if you have no chance to speak in any case.

Freedom of speech does not mean members have an unlimited or unrestrained right to speak on every issue. It is clear that no member of the House can speak whenever he or she wishes; it is the role of the Speaker to recognize members and to preserve order and decorum. However, the democratic rights of elected members, and through them the Canadians they represent, are diminished when they do not possess the same opportunities as other members.

.1700

While members with no party status may not be prevented from speaking, the fact that they have very few opportunities amounts to an infringement of their privileges and a denial of their freedom of speech. They should not, of course, have special rights, but they should be treated equally to all other members in the House of Commons.

In addition, parliamentary procedure and tradition have been based on the non-existence of political parties. Under our parliamentary system individuals are elected to serve in the legislature. Canadians do not elect parties, party leaders, or governments. The parliamentary system was based on the election of representatives to serve in the legislatures. In fact nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of electing parties.

Authors Eugene Forsey and and Graham Eglington in The Question of Confidence in Responsible Government have stated:

Political parties are important in our parliamentary and political system, but they must not be allowed to completely overshadow the rights and privileges of individual members. We must remember that fundamentally our system at present consists of 295 individual members who were elected by Canadians to the House of Commons, and should be treated equally, whether they choose to belong to a political party or not.

In approaching this issue, it is important that we look at principles. The privileges of members are personal to every member of the House, and enable him or her to carry out his or her parliamentary functions without interference. The reality of how independent or unaffiliated members are treated must be considered. The rights of members and, through them, their constituents must be respected.

The Speaker must be assured that the rights of all members of the House are protected. This is an ongoing process, and must be reviewed afresh from time to time. The question must be asked: Are independent or unaffiliated party members being allowed to fully participate in the proceedings of the House and its committees? The privileges of these members, their freedom of speech, and the fundamental tenets of political democracy must be satisfied.

That is my prepared text.

You know I feel passionately about this, because I feel that one of my most difficult aspects in this past year of my own disenfranchisement - almost one year - has been the loss of my opportunity to speak and debate in the House of Commons. I have sincerely mourned that loss. You have to know that.

So when I speak in the House of Commons on April 11, I'm going to be talking about that. I would like to see this bill receive a votable presence in the House, so that others in the House of Commons who feel as I do can also freely indicate their support for such a motion.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. McClelland.

Mr. Ian McClelland: Jan, do you know of any circumstance where you or any other individual member of Parliament has not been given the opportunity to participate in committee work? What I want to do is find out whether we have a problem on committee, because to my knowledge we don't; it's just in the House where this problem exists.

Mrs. Brown: Well, I guess I have to say this with respect to that: What is the purpose of going into committee if you have no right to vote? You just sit there like a dummy, and I'm talking about a ventriloquist's dummy here. You have no opportunity at all to participate, as you should democratically and freely, in being able to give full expression to your opinions, and then have the right to vote. You don't have that right to vote, so what consequence is it to attend committee if you don't have that right to vote?

That's my democratic right here. I was elected in the last Parliament, and as far as I'm concerned, to be denied the right to vote in committee is a travesty of justice.

Mr. Ian McClelland: Okay, let me ask a subsequent question then. In the House, for independents, what is the procedure now if you as an independent wanted to speak or ask a question?

Mrs. Brown: I was denied the opportunity to speak on Bill C-63, for example, the electoral boundaries act. I had an amendment that, thankfully, the Senate was able to carry through for me, and which actually did result in a change of interpretation in some of the sections of the electoral act. But I was not permitted to speak, because I'm not permitted until 19 members have spoken. By that time, of course, the hours had run out a long time ago, and I was not permitted to speak.

Mr. Ian McClelland: So you were denied the ability to speak as a procedural rule? The Speaker didn't say sorry, Jan -

Mrs. Brown: Yes, the Deputy Speaker did say sorry, Jan, I can't recognize you, because you will have to be number 20, or some such number. Therefore, there was no opportunity for me to speak.

Mr. Ian McClelland: Could I follow up on this a bit then? There are zillions of Liberal members who very rarely get an opportunity to speak, just because of the sheer numbers, for probably the same sorts of reasons. Opposition members get a disproportionate opportunity to speak.

.1705

I'm wondering if you've considered any type of quota or numbers system, so that independent members would not get an unfair advantage vis-à-vis other members who happen to be part of a large majority.

Mrs. Brown: Oh, good heavens, if that should happen, Ian!

Mr. Ian McClelland: But no, there are members of the -

Mrs. Brown: The members of the Liberal caucus, the Reform caucus, and the Bloc caucus have not lost their fundamental right to speak in the House of Commons. I have. That is an injustice. I'm a democratically elected member of Parliament.

Indeed a roster system certainly would be arrived at within the context of the House of Commons, and with the discretion of all members of the House. It would not be that absolutely every debate would involve myself, for example. It would be perhaps once every couple of weeks that I would have a chance to speak. But it would be a roster and a quota system of some kind.

Mr. Ian McClelland: So it could be by lot then?

Mrs. Brown: Yes.

Mr. Ian McClelland: Everybody who wants to speak could put their name in a hat, and it could involve members of the government as well.

Mrs. Brown: It's part of an ongoing roster, yes.

Mr. Ian McClelland: Thank you.

Ms Colleen Beaumier: I have a question. I believe there would have to be some major changes made to the Parliament of Canada Act. I think that one of the.... I'm new to this committee today; I'm just filling in.

Is it in the national interest? I'm not sure you really satisfied my belief that the criterion is the national interest. All I've really heard so far is what has been in Jan Brown's interest. I'm not sure how this addressed the national interest criteria for votability.

Mrs. Brown: The last changes to this particular structure, with respect to affiliated parties, occurred over 30 years ago, in 1965. We probably have lost some of the finest speakers and debaters who brought forward ideas in this Parliament. We've seen that in the last four decades. We have not heard from a single NDP representative in solid debate, as a true participant in this Parliament. That's been a loss for our Parliament and for our national agenda.

This is not just for Jan Brown. This is for the 15 others out there - all of us included make 15 - representing 1.5 million disenfranchised Canadians, if you consider that each of us represents about 100,000 people.

So it is in the national interest that people from across the country who are currently disenfranchised have an opportunity to be heard in the House of Commons through their members. And that's the point.

Ms Colleen Beaumier: Fine, thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. François Langlois: Ms Brown, the Elections Act is far more advanced as regards the recognition of political parties. This is an almost inevitable reality in our system. You say that 295 members were elected on an individual basis. Technically speaking, that is true. However, the majority belonged to political parties. Mr. Bernier, who is representing the Beauce region, is the only member who was elected as an independent, the Elections Act itself doesn't particularly help independent candidates.

Therefore, in Beauce, Mr. Bernier cannot collect public money or issue receipts for tax purposes. He cannot designate enumerators for the April enumeration even though he won the election. There may be some distortion there but you are fundamentally calling into question the reality of our parliamentary system.

Taking the argument a little further, all of us here could say that we are affected by that reality to various degrees. Given that political parties exist and that we delegate, through the Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs, through a committee of whips the power to designate committee members, we all occupy ejectable seats. We have seen during this Parliament, particularly on the government side, that members who voted according to their convictions lost their seats.

I don't know if that happened on the opposition side, but it's obviously logical that it would happen quite often on the government side. I don't know if we are going to change people's mind-set through a motion. Tightening of party lines is a reality which has been around for quite a long time. I am not in favour of that, but we must realize that the expression of individual opinions has not been facilitated in Canada for some 50 years, probably since the end of the Second World War.

.1710

When you reread the political history of Canada, you realize that our grandparents, that is our grandfathers and the few grandmothers able to come here, probably had more freedom of expression between the two world wars than is the case now, because the party system has become stifling. You are opening up a very broad debate here, which I don't think is a bad thing in itself.

[English]

Mrs. Brown: Well, all I have to say in response to your eloquence is that more's the pity that members in the House of Commons are not permitted to speak as individuals who represent their constituents. It was the constituents who chose them to represent them.

If in a certain part of the country constituents choose to elect a majority, then indeed that party in effect has a group of individuals. They're still individuals within the collective that represents them in the House of Commons. It is this clubbiness in this House of Commons that results in much of the punitive measures that have been undertaken toward those members who have chosen to stand on principle and represent their constituents on issues of principle or on matters of principle with respect to society as a whole. Because of this clubbiness they now find themselves sitting outside that star-spangled number of 12, for which they would get official party status.

All I'm saying is that my privileges as a duly elected member in this House of Commons have been breached by the rules of the House of Commons. It's an injustice to all of us who sit on that back bench. We are disenfranchised, and have thus seen our constituents disenfranchised as well, because we have no opportunity to speak in debate.

I could care less about Question Period. But I believe that in debate it's a very important part of our work here to bring forward the ideas as expressed by our constituents. It's also very important to take that same broad base of support and ideology from our constituents into committee to help craft the legislation of the day.

The Chair: Thank you. That's it?

Mr. Benoit, you have five minutes for your presentation, and then there may be some questions.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit, MP (Vegreville, Ref.): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm pleased to be here this afternoon. I'm here to ask for your approval of Bill C-375, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act, to be a votable bill.

I'll provide a little background first. Then I'll go through the points on which you base your decision, and just make a few brief comments on each of them that applies.

First, in 1994 the ministers from the provinces, the territories, and the federal government signed an agreement on internal trade. This agreement was created to run an open, efficient, and stable domestic market that would lead to long-term job creation and economic growth through the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers.

The removal of these barriers was negotiated by a committee of cabinet-level representatives from all the various governments. All the decisions of the committee are made based on consensus, which has been interpreted to mean unanimous consent. So even to complete the agreement on internal trade, there is a requirement of unanimous consent, and it isn't working. The deal hasn't been completed, and deadlines have passed.

The purpose of this amendment is to change that requirement for unanimity on the part of all provincial and territorial governments and the federal government to a formula, instead, that would include the support of at least two-thirds of the provinces, which includes 50% of the Canadian population.

So I believe this amendment will facilitate the completion of the agreement on internal trade, which, it has been stated, is of importance to this government. I believe it is of importance to all Canadians, because of the positive impact on job creation and the economy.

So that's a little bit of background.

In terms of the criteria you use to determine whether you will make a bill or motion votable, the first says that the private member's bill may be of national, regional, or local significance, and so on.

I would just like to say that the barriers to interprovincial trade within Canada have had a negative impact on the Canadian economy. I think that's been well documented. For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has stated that as little as a 10% increase in interprovincial trade would create 200,000 jobs - a tremendous impact. The Fraser Institute has said it would increase family income by $3,500 a year. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has said that it would put $6 billion to $10 billion into the Canadian economy.

.1715

So the impact of opening and removing these barriers has been well documented and is quite dramatic. This bill will help to do that, I believe.

In terms of the second criterion, Bill C-375 certainly wouldn't discriminate against any region or province; in fact, it would do just the opposite. It would provide an opportunity for Canadians to prosper through making a more open and competitive economic union. So it takes out some of the discrimination that is already there between provinces due to artificial barriers that have been set up.

Point three I don't think applies.

Point four: The agreement on internal trade is an agreement between the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, which was already signed outside of the auspices of the federal government. The agreement was implemented by Bill C-19, which was the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act, and it's this act that this private member's bill would amend. It's the implementation act, and that does fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government and this Parliament.

On the fifth point, regarding the subject of the bill, it should be different from specific matters already declared by the government to be on its legislative agenda. In fact, Minister Manley voiced his concern in Edmonton on February 24, when in commenting on the agreement he said:

So he too is really concerned about the fact that the agreement just hasn't been completed.

On the sixth point, the only other time that interprovincial trade has been debated in the House at all was with Bill C-19, which was the implementation bill for the agreement on internal trade. So it certainly isn't something that's come up again and again and that has been dealt with. It hasn't been dealt with.

Point seven I don't think applies.

Point eight, on partisan terms, certainly there's nothing partisan about this bill. In fact I don't believe passing this bill will reflect negatively on government at all. In fact it will show a spirit of cooperation for an initiative that in fact was taken by this government. So I certainly don't think that's an issue here.

The final point I'll comment on is the ninth point, that the bill should not infringe upon provincial legislative authority, and so on. This bill enacts a common goal, which was sought by the first ministers when they signed the actual agreement on internal trade. So it would only in fact help implement an agreement that has been approved by all governments - federal, provincial, and territorial. So certainly I don't think that would be an issue.

I'll just leave my presentation at that and open up for questions.

The Chair: I don't think there are any among us who wouldn't like to see all interprovincial trade barriers break down. I admire your dedication to this, but I have a little concern, particularly with the delicate balance now between provinces and independence and how everybody's very sensitive.

It's in fact an agreement between the provinces, an agreement between the provinces and the federal government, and agreements are just that: they're negotiated. If we were to impose on the provinces that are so far reluctant to come into these trade agreements, would we not be just causing severe difficulties with those provinces? Are we not actually infringing on a provincial agreement or the free will of a province? It was part of the red book. You catch more bees with honey than you do with vinegar. If we bring a fist down from the federal government on the provinces that don't want to agree to this, are we not actually infringing on a provincial agreement or the free will of a province?

Mr. Benoit: The fact is that every deadline that was set by those who signed this agreement who expressed a strong desire to have these barriers broken down has passed and the agreement hasn't been completed in any of the areas laid out. Clearly, the requirement for unanimity just doesn't work.

.1720

Those two sections of the Constitution that give jurisdiction to the federal government not only to remove these barriers but that clearly demonstrate the responsibility of the federal government to never have allowed them to be put in place in the first place.... Those sections would certainly give the federal government the authority to say that we're not going to require unanimous consent from all provincial and territorial governments. Instead we will require a majority of the provinces, including a majority of the population, to back the change. Many provinces have expressed this desire as well.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, with respect, you are from British Columbia, are you not?

Mr. Benoit: No, I'm from Alberta.

The Chair: From Alberta. That's even more interesting. Could you imagine Mr. Klein, if we just decided out of the clear blue sky that we were going to come in and tell several of the prairie provinces, whether they agree or they don't agree, that we are going to do this because that's the federal jurisdiction and we're exercising it...?

Mr. Benoit: Steve West, who is in fact the minister responsible for this, has said very openly - and has given me permission to tell you this - that he supports this formula, as have many of the other provinces. He completely supports this formula being put in place.

The Chair: I'm not trying to debate it with you, but I think we have to be very sensitive in this committee that we don't introduce bills that are votable that imply we are going to force something on the provinces in these sensitive times. That's my concern.

How would you address the provinces that flatly refuse to cooperate? In fact we have a lot that are not cooperating now. It's one thing to sign an agreement; it's another thing to actually put things in place to implement it.

Obviously they're dragging their feet for a reason. How would you suggest that we overcome the fact that we're going to have some provinces, the one third that may not agree to this, kick and scream?

Mr. Benoit: Yes, you'll have provincial representatives representing at least a majority of Canadians who agree with the changes to the agreement. Further, I can say that all the provinces and territories agreed very strongly to the principle of removing these barriers. They said we want to do it.

The Chair: Can I go back to my question, Mr. Benoit? I'm going to be a real little dog with a bone on this one. How would you approach the one or two or three provinces that flatly refuse, even though the majority has agreed?

We've just gone through the Quebec questions, where close to a majority agrees on something. How do you impose the federal will on a province? How do you plan in this bill to approach those provinces? Do you just write them off?

Mr. Benoit: The fact is you're not doing that because the provinces have already agreed to do this. It's just a matter of implementing it. You're forcing nothing on the provinces. They have quite freely and in fact with some enthusiasm supported this concept.

Incidentally, Quebec is one of the provinces that favours this the most and has promoted this the most.

The Chair: No, I wasn't using that as an example.

Mr. Benoit: British Columbia is a province that has in fact moved away from the table. This deal will never be finished as long as British Columbia isn't at the table.

It's time for the federal government to take those sections of the Constitution that give them the authority and the responsibility to remove these barriers and just do that. I don't think it's a heavy-handed approach at all. In fact it takes the consent still of a majority of provinces.

The Chair: Okay. Any other questions?

Mr. Ian McClelland: I'll be very brief because you've answered most of it.

This is also my first time here. When we make these decisions we have to make them based on weighted factors, one of which is whether or not the bill is in the national interest. If it's been concluded by virtually everyone that interprovincial trade barriers are against the national interest because of our competitive position in the world, my question is then why a particular province is intransigent in the face of all of the other provinces. Is there a specific reason?

Mr. Benoit: That changes with the premier, Ian. I would say that it's not that a particular province has a problem; it's a particular government, a particular premier. That's what it is. It's political more than anything. In the case of B.C., they have a concern in the area of procurement in the so-called MUSH sectors - municipalities, hospitals, schools, that type of thing. But that changes with the premier.

.1725

To finish the response to Carolyn, Anne McLellan, the Minister of Natural Resources, came out and said the federal government clearly can and should do this. Manley himself has indicated on several occasions that the federal government has to take action.

I feel that the minister may be getting some resistance from within his government, but I think he would be all too happy to have this debated and voted on. I think he could well support it.

Mr. Ian McClelland: Thank you.

The Chair: Any other questions?

Thank you very much.

I think if we move it we may get in our last witness, Mr. Forseth, before the bells start ringing.

We have 15 minutes. Can you talk above the bell and do your presentation? I'd appreciate it. If it rattles you at all just let us know and we'll get you to come back after the votes.

Mr. Paul Forseth, MP (New Westminster - Burnaby, Ref.): Thank you, everyone.

My private member's bill seeks to amend section 41 of the Criminal Code. It says quite clearly:

Although this measure seems somewhat minor - I can see it as a kind of common-sense, non-partisan issue of somewhat low impact - it certainly would support existing law and all of what government has said for years about trying to protect children.

I've received quite a few complaints in my community about those who trespass or are causing a disturbance on public property and really destroying the sense of community and liveability for children of a community centre, public library, a hockey rink or a food fair in a small shopping mall.

For example, we know that malls are a place where youths or undesirables sometimes like to hang out. Sometimes they begin to develop a particular issue of taking it as their territory. They almost take ownership of the territory. Then the whole use and enjoyment of the community centre or whatever is lost for families at large.

The situation now is that if a security guard removes a person lawfully, or if the police come and lawfully remove a person, that individual can simply go across the street, have a cigarette and come right back into the area and do the territorial claim, you might say, all over again.

There is no place in the Criminal Code that states a trespasser must stay off that property for any amount of time. The only way the person can be charged is if they resist arrest when being removed from the property. Therefore, if the person never resists they could continue over and over again to cause a disturbance, and the general enjoyment of the community facility is lost.

So this serious technical gap in the law has been identified to me by my local police force. They have a storefront office right inside a shopping mall within 100 feet of a food fair, and the local police force is totally helpless in this particular situation.

Because the section here also applies to a dwelling house, it reminded me of the issues I dealt with as a family court councillor in obtaining restraining orders for mothers or no-contact orders under the B.C. Family Relations Act. We all know that around these domestic situations where access to children is in dispute, often late at night a policeman shows up. There's limited ability for the law to comply. You'd say, well, you can go to court tomorrow or the following day.

This particular provision would perhaps assist the domestic situation very much. It's not so much that this particular section would ever be used; it's because it's there and would give another negotiation tool to the security guard or the policeman who's responding to that domestic call to provide a backup. They can tell someone that if they don't move on, or if they do try to go back later that night, they will be charged with an offence. Of course, it is only a summary conviction offence, circumscribed by the limits of summary conviction.

.1730

I think if you look at it, it has a lot of merit. It's a very common-sense kind of a non-partisan issue, and when the average Canadian on the street is apprised of the situation they say yes, that really makes common sense.

It's a kind of private member's issue that could perhaps receive support from all sectors of the House without being laden with any other baggage.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much.

Are there any questions? Mr. Langlois.

[Translation]

Mr. François Langlois: Basically, I don't understand. First, there is a difference between the English version and the French version. The French version refers to ``toute personne qui a été éloignée ou a été empêchée d'entrer dans les 24 heures''. That may be a factual situation not resulting from a legal situation. The English version is much clearer. I think that the English version should have priority here because it states:

[English]

[Translation]

The word ``lawfully'' is stated, whereas that is not included in the French version. Please give me one or two specific examples of situations where that might occur. That is where I have difficulty establishing the link.

[English]

Mr. Forseth: All right. The Criminal Code in section 40 allows a person, for instance, who has control of a house to use whatever reasonable force is necessary to remove the person if they're no longer desired. For instance, a boyfriend shows up drunk. He is admitted to the house, maybe has a dispute, does go out onto the porch. The couple are arguing. Really, no offence has been committed, no assault. Maybe no threat has been used, but he refuses to leave the stairs and he's outside. It's kind of this in-between situation. He may or may not have had dwelling rights to this house, depending on how many days he's been there and how many of his personal effects are in there, or maybe they've had a fight and she said that he's no longer there; they never were married. It gets to be a legal problem as to the rights of the individual to be there.

So the policeman comes along and does assist the individual to be removed from the property. Well, the guy goes down and has a coffee at the corner doughnut shop and then comes back. Then we're into a new call - a new set of legal circumstances completely, all over again. So we could do this over and over and over again.

We have the situation in a community centre or mall where certain groups of gang-like young toughs or wannabes take over a community centre or a food fair in a shopping mall, and they make it kind of their territory. They know the limits of the law; they watch the security guards. And they will cause such a disturbance that the whole use of the community centre, the public library, the hockey rink, or the food fair in a shopping mall - no one else wants to go there, and they get to take care of that territory. But if at some point after warnings or whatever they are legally removed, at least it would calm the situation down if they knew they couldn't come back in for 24 hours.

The Chair: Has that sufficiently answered your question, Mr. Langlois?

Mr. Langlois: Ça va.

The Chair: Anybody else?

Ms Colleen Beaumier: I have one. You were talking about ``officially removed''. Are we talking about security guards removing them or are we talking about police removing them before laying these charges?

Mr. Forseth: The law allows you, as an owner of your own house, to use whatever physical force is within the law - what is reasonable. It allows you, as an individual, to remove someone from your own house.

In a shopping mall there are limits to the law as to what a security firm under proper notice and so on can do - physically remove someone who is causing a disturbance, or ask them to leave.

Shopping malls don't like to be particularly offensive to their community; they're very protective of having good community relations. But the situation goes the other way where the whole enjoyment of the community residents, whether it's the local community centre where a tremendous amount of money has been invested by the community so that children can enjoy the facility.... Because of the gap in the law, the whole investment of the community has been lost because eight young people have decided to take over that community centre.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

.1735

We have a decision to make. We had tomorrow morning at eleven booked for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to approve this list. It looks like there will be a lot of votes tonight, and many of us have students here for Forum for Young Canadians.

Instead of meeting back here tonight when we're tired, we'll meet tomorrow morning at eleven. We'll take that first fifteen minutes or however long it takes to make our decision. We'll also finalize our report. If that's all right with everybody, I think it will make for a better decision if we're clear-headed and not tired and wanting to be somewhere else.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;