SUB-COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

SOUS-COMITÉ DES AFFAIRES ÉMANANT DES DÉPUTÉS DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, May 12, 1999

• 1535

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we'll call this meeting to order. As you know, this is the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. We do have quorum, and we have a long list of people who are waiting to be heard today. As usual, we'll take the five minutes, and each member will be given that to explain his or her position with respect to why their items should be selected and made votable. At the end of that time, we'll adjourn in camera, and we will review and deliberate and select, in any combination between motions and bills, five items that will be deemed votable.

I want to note that Mrs. Wayne, who had motion 334, does not want her item chosen as a votable item.

I also want to bring to your attention something you should have had in your office, and that is the memorandum from Bev Desjarlais, the member of Parliament from Churchill, regarding M-208, as well as Judy Wasylycia-Leis, the member of Parliament from Manitoba, with respect to her Bill C-482. Both of those individuals are unable to be here today, but they do want us to consider the motion and the bill, as I've outlined, as we deliberate, and to have them for consideration. So if you could keep that in the back of your mind as well, it would be appreciated.

We'll lead off and begin then with Bill C-502, Monsieur Guimond,

[Translation]

five minutes, please.

Mr. Michel Guimond, M.P. (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—Île d'Orléans, BQ): Dear colleagues, I thank the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business for giving me the opportunity to convince it to decide that Bill C-502, an Act to Amend the Income Tax Act (Deduction of Expenses Incurred by a Mechanic for Tools He Acquired for Employment) is a votable item.

I would like to make a few preliminary comments. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief and stay within my five-minute time limit.

First, let me remind you that this problem of expenses incurred by mechanics for tools has already been raised by the Standing Committee on Finance. On this point, I refer you to a report filed in December 1997.

Also, the Bloc Québécois Member for Rivière-des-Milles-Iles, our colleague Gilles Perron, had already written to Mr. Martin, the Minister of Finance, and received a reply. Let me read you a part of this letter from Mr. Martin:

Actually, some workers to have to spend considerable sums of money for their working equipment, but it is difficult to find a solution.

I respectfully submit, ladies and gentlemen and colleagues, that Bill C-502 could solve the problem as expressed by the Minister of Finance himself.

Let me remind you that in order to be hired by a garage, a mechanic has to provide his own tools. Like me, you are democratically elected parliamentarians and you have visited the businesses in your ridings during your campaign. You know that it is difficult, during an electoral campaign, to visit residential areas. Often these days, both spouses are away at work and as we try to reduce the time lost during the electoral campaign, we often visit garages. You have seen mechanics in these garages and you know that a tool box can easily cost at least $10,000. For specialized mechanics, it can even amount to $30,000.

Mechanics have precarious jobs and are often victims of seasonal fluctuations. Note that mechanics are often laid off during slow periods in winter or during the summer holidays.

• 1540

A mechanic's basic wage, after one or two years, is $10.00 or $15.00 an hour. Of course this is much more than the minimum wage, but if you take the cost of tools into account, these workers are at a disadvantage because they have to buy essential tools.

This bill seeks to provide a more equitable solution for mechanics. Note that forestry workers can get tax deductions, especially if they are working with chainsaws. Musicians already have these tax breaks, as well as farmers, physicians, dentists and other businesses. We know that businesses can deduct the purchase price of essential tools for their workers, such as computers, as operational expenses.

Given the high price of tools, there is a scarcity of jobs in the automobile mechanics sector, and I think that the chief effect of adopting this measure would be to foster job creation in the automobile sector. To some extent, this could create jobs for youth, and young students might show a renewal of interest in studying automobile mechanics. This profession used to be coveted by our youth. Not all the young people of Quebec and Canada decide to go to university. We need workers for doing all kinds of jobs. I think that automobile mechanics are an asset to our society.

I respectfully submit, ladies and gentlemen and colleagues, that this issue is a totally non-partisan one, and as such it seeks to abolish an instance of inequality in the labour sector. And to offer clear evidence that this is a non-partisan issue, let me remind my colleagues that a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, while the Conservative Party was in power in 1992, had tabled a similar bill. An NDP member had also done that at that time, and more recently, in 1997, a colleague from the Reform Party, Mr. Benoit, also filed a similar bill.

I'll conclude and say that I'm respectfully submitting this bill which is consistent with the four criteria the Committee on Private Members' Business laid down in April 1999 as to whether a bill could be votable.

First of all, I think this is a matter of manifest public interest. That's one of your criteria.

Secondly, I respectfully submit that this is a matter that is not on the government's present legislative agenda and something the House of Commons has not yet spoken out on. So I believe the bill is consistent with your committee's second and third criteria.

Finally, I submit that this is a matter that goes beyond purely local interest, beyond any single region or province. All mechanics in Canada, from St. John's, Newfoundland to Victoria, BC, throughout the Yukon and Nunavut, are directly affected and my bill is not expressed in partisan terms.

For all those reasons, I ask the Committee on Private Members' Business to declare this Bill C-502 votable, the whole respectfully submitted.

The Chairman: Thank you, sir. Do you have any questions for Mr. Guimond?

[English]

Mr. Jordan, please.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Guimond. I have a couple of questions. I'm reading the bill here and I'm trying to follow it. Is there an upper limit to what someone could deduct in a given year?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: No, I did not set any upper limits. In fact, we should talk of a cost of at least $250 for each tool. That would be the maximum limit.

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan: Per tool—$250 per any one tool.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes.

• 1545

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan: Does it apply to apprentice mechanics or is it just mechanics once they have their cards?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Not only the apprentices; all mechanics who must provide their own tools.

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Including apprentices.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Including apprentices. Anyone working as a mechanic: apprentices and experienced mechanics.

The Chairman: Thank you. Any further questions? Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Guimond, I've already heard a lot about this bill. This question is actually important in our communities. Has there been any kind of lobby movement to make mechanics' tools deductible?

Mr. Michel Guimond: To my knowledge, there is no such lobby.

Mr. André Harvey: There is no association.

Mr. Michel Guimond: There's no association, no lobby, no union. I could have gone about this differently and met with the unions. We know that garage workers, in our area, at least, in Quebec, usually are unionized with the same union and bargain at a central table. However this is a purely individual undertaking. The workers involved told me about this concern of theirs during pre- election visits or when I go around on visits in the course of my work.

A member is first and foremost a citizen. When you get your car fixed at a dealer's, you sometimes talk things over with the mechanic. That's something they've already made me aware of.

You're asking the question: that kind of toolbox costs several thousand dollars.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[English]

Ms. Grey.

Ms Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): How about carpenters?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: My bill deals only with mechanics. You'd have to look at other job categories. I have a list of some other workers, like carpenters and joiners. Someone else would have to do the same thing for their job category.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Basically, dear colleague, you're saying that this is a matter of equity. The workers in some professions are far better paid and don't have those obligations or, if they do, can claim a tax deduction.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, you have the help of professionals. I mentioned dentists. It is true that to set up a dentist's office costs many hundreds of thousands of dollars, but the income is usually proportionate.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: The expected income is also very high.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes. It's true that a clinic can cost almost $1 million, but the dentist is in a position to pay it off within a few years.

Mr. André Harvey: Thus, you are telling us that the so-called manual labour professions are penalized as compared to the professions when it comes to tax deductions.

Mr. Michel Guimond: That is what this bill is driving at.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[English]

Thank you, Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Next is Mr. Goldring, motion 464. Mr. Goldring, please.

Mr. Peter Goldring, M.P. (Edmonton East, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I'm pleased to be here today to pitch for my motion 464 to be recognized and to be votable. This motion calls for the government to institute national standards for veterans' health care, with maintenance and special needs provisions, and to have these standards agreed upon by all provinces before devolving responsibilities to any province for any portion of care.

This has been a concern for some time with the changing health care and the changing veteran care situation across the country. One of the most recent areas of concern was the Perley-Rideau Veterans Health Centre here in Ottawa, where responsibility was devolved to the province, with set ideas on what they thought the level would be. That has since been changed, and changed quite dramatically too. It also is of concern in other areas, such as Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue in Montreal; there's talk of turning that hospital over to the provincial control as well.

• 1550

What this calls for is national standards of veterans' health care, and there are very good reasons for it too. One of the main reasons is that veterans' war experiences are not comparable to civilian life experiences. On their war experiences, I speak not as a veteran but as an ex-member of the military. I have first-hand experience of some of the conditions that we have in the military and some of the things that have affected us in later life too: smoking, drinking, and, for the veterans who did serve, post-traumatic experiences. This manifests itself in things such as... I visited the veterans hospital in Edmonton, the Mewburn Pavilion. They had quite an extensive collection of oxygen tanks, and the reason for that was that veterans tend to be very heavy smokers throughout their lifetime, and that brings itself through into lung conditions and others.

So when we talk about comparing veterans' health care to ordinary civilians' health care, it's not a simple function of comparing them as equals. They have different conditions that have been caused by their experiences.

In regard to the post-traumatic experience, I had a personal experience with it. I was in the air force and picked up a man downtown at the hotel, as a policeman. I thought that was pretty terrific service. On the way to his house I found out why. He broke out and started hollering and screaming. I asked my sergeant afterwards, what was that? He had a war experience that only surfaces every once in a while, but when it does it's very disturbing to everybody around him, and its directly war-related. He was a tailgunner and taking off he saw a plane behind him. He shot the plane out of the sky. It was our own plane.

These types of war experiences are the kinds of things that affect the veterans. The care has to be gauged for the veterans, and national standards would be able to allow for this and allow for customizing care for veterans so that they get the level of care and the type of care that is directly war-related or veteran-related.

This has been, as I said, a strong concern when we're devolving the powers and responsibilities to the provinces. It's a concern here. It's a concern in Calgary. It's a concern in Edmonton. It's a concern across the country. I believe we should have national standards. I believe they can be instituted, and before we devolve responsibility to the provinces, I believe the provinces should agree to subscribe to these national standards. That's the purpose of this motion.

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

Are there any questions? Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Peter, I have an uncle in Perley-Rideau hospital too. That one has been devolved to the Ontario government, has it not?

Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes, it has.

Mr. Joe Jordan: They reclassified it as a long-term care facility, and that really impacted their funding, I understand.

Mr. Peter Goldring: There have been several things that have been impacting the funding, but there is still some questioning in the courts because there was a three-way agreement that devolved it. Veterans Affairs was a signator to the agreement, and there's a feeling that they still have a responsibility to try to institute... That is a very big concern. In my mind, they're trying to give a standard of care of ordinary civilians and trying to place that on the veterans, and it's having some difficulties.

Mr. Joe Jordan: How many of the institutions have been devolved or passed on to the provinces?

Mr. Peter Goldring: I'm not sure of the exact number of them, but among the ones that are of big concern coming up is Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue in Montreal. There's a feeling that we still could correct... and I think we could have agreement on some standards with the provinces, even where it has been devolved.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Thanks.

The Chair: Any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Goldring. I appreciate it.

Mr. Proctor, with respect to motion 97.

Mr. Dick Proctor, M.P. (Palliser, NDP): I should start with an apology. I don't have a written presentation to give to the committee, but I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you.

• 1555

This has to deal with what I think was a clear invasion of privacy. It involves the electronic media, and I think Parliament should be concerned and we should take some action. Let me just provide the background for the benefit of the committee.

In December 1996, someone by the name of Lori Foster, who six months later turned out to be a constituent of mine, was invited to appear, and did appear, on a CBC town hall forum. She asked Prime Minister Chrétien a question regarding unemployment. You may recall the nature of the Prime Minister's response to Ms. Foster was the object of considerable controversy in the following days and weeks.

Lori Foster did not sign a release at the time of the broadcast, but she was advised by CBC that segments of the program might be rebroadcast for news purposes, as they subsequently were. However, if you fast forward to the middle of the election campaign, Ms. Foster was astonished to discover that her likeness and the voice-over of her question were contained in an ad that was sponsored and paid for by the Reform Party of Canada.

She complained to the Reform Party and asked by what authority they had used her likeness in a political advertisement and requested that the ad be pulled. She was told by the advertising agency for the party that they had tried to find her to seek her permission, but were unable to reach her, and that the ad was running only in western Canada. This also was not true, because she got calls, in fact, from people she knew across the country who were saying, I didn't realize you were a supporter of the Reform Party. She was told that ad was going to be pulled E minus six; it was pulled at E minus two.

Ms. Foster was extremely upset by both the invasion of her privacy and what she felt was the duplicity involved. In a written communication, she said, and I'm quoting:

By using my likeness and identifying me by name and city, the implication was that I was a supporter of the Reform Party. I do not want what happened to me to happen to others.

She did contact, on her own, Elections Canada officials, but was informed that Elections Canada has no authority over the content of ads by political parties.

Mr. Chair, I have been before the committee that oversees Elections Canada, and it's my understanding—and I checked with our NDP member who serves on that committee—that they have not yet reported. They may be reporting in the fall. Apparently there's some holdup. I have no knowledge about whether they intend to deal with this or not.

I'm not trying to pick on any particular political party. I've worked in the back rooms of my party, and I know what happens in the heat of a campaign, that we don't always get releases when we should. But I really think, as we go further down the road and get more electronic media and the rest of it, we really should take some precautions so that individual Canadians do have some assurances that their likenesses will not appear on television ads paid for by any political party—the NDP, the Reform, or any of the other parties.

So that's what's behind motion M-97.

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

Are there any questions? Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Is the act illegal, to use someone's likeness?

Mr. Dick Proctor: No, that's what the concern is. She was informed by Elections Canada that there isn't anything to prohibit what was done in this instance from being repeated.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

If this isn't—and I've no idea where they are and what's in it—part of the amendments to the Elections Act, is it your intention to propose amendments when that comes before the House?

Mr. Dick Proctor: I have already. I appeared before the committee in February 1998, and as I say, they have not dealt with it, and it's premature to guess whether they're going to deal with it or not.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there any other questions? Miss Grey.

Ms Deborah Grey: Did they get a release from CBC? Why was it not so disdainful for her that she happened to be on news clips—because we all saw that on 100 news clips—but she was upset because Reform used it in an ad? Was she upset about both of them?

Mr. Dick Proctor: No, she wasn't. And I—

Ms Deborah Grey: So she didn't care that her face was splashed all across national TV?

Mr. Dick Proctor: No, but—

Ms Deborah Grey: Did she like that part, but just didn't like being affiliated with the Reform Party?

• 1600

Mr. Dick Proctor: She didn't tell me, Miss Grey, whether she liked that part or not.

Ms Deborah Grey: Okay.

Mr. Dick Proctor: But I would say in my own mind there's a qualitative difference between being on a television news clip and being in a television ad. I think she saw the difference, and her friends saw that difference as well.

Ms Deborah Grey: Now, I'm still a little concerned about the details here, because if we're going to talk about this and vote on it in the House of Commons, we need some details regarding the specifics of it.

If she was told by somebody that this was just in western Canada or whatever, then what you're saying, because her friends saw it locally, is that the ad person was lying, right?

Mr. Dick Proctor: Or the person was misinforming, anyway. I believe the ad agency—

Ms Deborah Grey: Surely they know where they... you've been in the back rooms. You know where you do media.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes, I know. I believe the ad agency for the Reform Party that she was dealing with was based in London, Ontario, and when she contacted them, after the story became public, after she saw it or people phoned her, she was told that it was running only in western Canada. Then the calls started coming in from friends and acquaintances, who I understand lived in eastern and Atlantic Canada, who said they too had seen the ad. She wasn't in eastern Canada, but she was being told that she had... In effect, I think this was a national ad, although she was initially told it was only in western Canada.

But I don't think that's the central issue either. I think it's a question of running her face at all, and her likeness, without getting her permission.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I know that during the last electoral campaign, all the candidates from all the parties were not necessarily responsible for the publicity campaign.

I'd like to ask my colleague whether, while working on his bill, he had a chance to think about the restrictions that political parties sometimes place on certain types of publicity. For instance, publicity that absolutely excludes certain people or that has overtones of racial prejudice, like what we saw levelled against some Quebec politicians during the last electoral campaign. Has he had the chance to think a bit about this or does this only concern people who are not actively involved as candidates in electoral campaigns?

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you very much for your question.

[English]

That's a difficult question to answer. My initial instincts would be that I would want to be very careful about rights and freedoms of political parties to do negative or positive ads, because I think there are repercussions, positive or negative, to those. I would want to be very careful about going too far down the road, although I don't hesitate to say that I personally found those particular ads to be reprehensible.

But I think the issue I'm talking about has to do with individual liberties and freedoms. In this case, I don't think due diligence was done for Lori Foster. And I think a political party... I'm not singling out any party, because as I said in my statement, I think we're all capable of doing that in the rush to get the film into a can and onto a network. But I think it's incumbent on all of us, especially as our reputations, both as politicians and parties, diminish in this country, to do everything we can to ensure individual rights and freedoms are protected—in other words, that waivers are signed, that before an ad appears, either in a photograph or on TV, people have signed off on it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Nystrom, and then Madam Lalonde.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): I'm just wondering, Dick, whether or not you had a chance to do any research in terms of what the precedents may be in other jurisdictions in the country. Are there any provinces that do what you're suggesting, or are there any other parts of the world that have anything we could go by in terms of having some precedence? If so, how has it worked in those jurisdictions? If you haven't had a chance to do so, I understand.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I have not had a chance to do so. I think it's an interesting question, and perhaps we can do some more work on that. I'd be happy to do that if there were support for this motion going forward.

• 1605

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I guess the last question would be this. I think this has probably happened to all political parties at one time or another. Have you had a chance to do any research as to how common an occurrence this may be, or is it fairly isolated?

Mr. Dick Proctor: I agree with you; it has, I'm sure, happened. I didn't do any television advertising myself, but I tried to get releases and waivers from folks that I used in campaigns, photographs, or leaflets, as I'm sure other people did. I think it perhaps needs to go beyond just trying your best, and there's some culpability here. There are certain hoops we have to go through, and I think this would be one of those hoops that we should all attend to.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde, do you have a question?

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Have you already thought about the fact that during an election campaign a party would be barred from using any kind of historical sequence? Ms. Foster wasn't contacted, but I doubt whether Mr. Chrétien would have agreed with her. This would considerably change the type of publicity. If I understand this correctly, it would always have to be done by actors or by people who have accepted and who have been identified. Is this in the public interest? I imagine that this is what you want to do.

[English]

Mr. Dick Proctor: Well, thank you very much for the question. I guess I would respond by saying I think there's a qualitative difference between a public figure and a private figure.

In this instance, Mr. Chrétien, the Prime Minister, is a very public figure. But Lori Foster was not a public figure, at least not before the ad started to run, or let's give Miss Grey the benefit of the doubt and say not before she first appeared on CBC back in December 1996. She did not want to be associated in any way, shape, or form with the particular ad that ran. I think we need to be very cognizant of that and separate out the politician, the public individual, from the private individual, and I think that's why I'm lobbying for some changes here.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: In summary, your motion forbids political parties from using the name or the appearance of a person in their publicity. In my opinion, the term "a person" means every person. You would not exclude those who are already public figures. Besides, we would have to define this.

[English]

Mr. Dick Proctor: Well, yes, it certainly wasn't intended that a political party shouldn't be able to run the likeness or image of the Prime Minister or the likeness or image of the leader of the opposition or anybody else that's running, I think, for public office. This is designed for the protection of what I would say are more private Canadians than our politicians.

The Chair: Thank you very much. This is your last question.

Ms Deborah Grey: Just given your history and what happened to you recently on the airplane, I bet you a dollar you're going to be on an ad somewhere in the next campaign.

Mr. Dick Proctor: But I'm a politician.

Ms Deborah Grey: Okay, so you're considering yourself a public individual. Where do you draw the line? I suspect that somebody somewhere is going to be putting you in an ad, Dick. Are you then just completely public and that's fair game?

Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes, I think so. I've got my name up, I'm a candidate for office, or I did in 1997, but Lori Foster didn't have her name up in 1997, and I think there is a fundamental difference.

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

Mr. Shepherd has Bill C-476 and Mr. Lee will represent him. Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee, M.P. (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Chairman, colleagues.

Mr. Shepherd wasn't able to be in town today and I'm very pleased to represent him here. He is the mover of Bill C-476, and, as you may have noted from your notes or briefing, this is a bill that would require the government or a minister, at the time the government or the minister introduces a bill or a regulation, to make a declaration of the estimated cost of implementation of the bill or regulation for the first five years of its operation. That declaration of the cost of implementation would be tabled in Parliament and published in the Canada Gazette.

• 1610

Now, this particular bill was introduced in the last Parliament and it was adopted in Parliament. It was designated as votable and it was adopted at second reading in the House and referred to committee. Unfortunately the time clock, or the dissolution of the House, terminated the bill's existence.

So Mr. Shepherd feels it is a bill, and I feel it is a bill, that has a lot of merit. Obviously colleagues in the last Parliament felt it did, and I hope you will see that it has sufficient merit and broad enough application, good enough public purpose, to warrant its being designated here. It will be a tool that will enhance fiscal transparency right at the beginning when a bill or a regulation is moved or put into the public process.

I understand all of the bills and regulations that are made now do have a costing mechanism, but that is an internal costing mechanism, and I'm not so sure the public or MPs who vote the money always get a chance to see that. I can't say they never do, but obviously Mr. Shepherd feels that having a routine, consistent process that provides for the disclosure of these estimates will allow everybody, through the transparency, especially the MPs but including the public, to know what we're getting into, how much we will have to spend, how much we will have to borrow. So I commend the bill to you for votability.

Thank you.

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

Are there any questions? Miss Grey.

Ms Deborah Grey: Thank you, Derek.

I can see merit for this too, but if you give an estimate of the cost over the first five years of it... I just look at the main estimates of how long you and I have been in Parliament here, and there just seems to me to be a great big “oops” attached to a whole lot of it. So what would be even the benefit if you were out a billion or two?

Mr. Derek Lee: Well, I've got two things to say.

It is notable that Mr. Shepherd did not provide an estimate of how much the implementation of his own bill would cost. But in fairness, it's much better to try to miss the mark than not to try at all. If our objective here is to ensure as comprehensive an accountability as we can manage in the political context, then it's better to have some procedure that puts something up front than not to have anything at all.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I know you're at a bit of a disadvantage because it isn't your bill, but nowhere in here do we define what cost is. I guess we're talking about very narrow economic costs. Do you want to see me jump up and down and talk about full costing and environmental costs and social costs? I just get a little nervous that it's just the economic costs when really there are a lot of costs that aren't captured in that concept.

I know we're not supposed to talk about the details, but it intrigued me.

Mr. Derek Lee: No, I hear you. Mr. Shepherd's target here is clearly cost meaning the estimated government expenditure.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

Mr. Derek Lee: Sure, there are a lot of other potential costs that you could add in—cost of compliance out in the public—but I think he's looking at the costs that we would vote on in annual budgeting here in the House of Commons, so that we would know about it before we adopt the measure rather than after the measure is adopted. Then we get to look at it either in a vote in the House of Commons, as in a budget vote, or in those program spending envelopes, statutory spending, where we don't actually vote the money.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Last question, Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'd like to ask Mr. Shepherd if he's thought of the possible ill effects of this kind of bill. First there's the evaluation issue with perfectly identical financial criteria, and this issue has already been raised.

• 1615

Secondly, to avoid problems with accountability if they ever had to spend over that limit governments could be more generous from the start with regard to the basic cost.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: No, I don't think that's Mr. Shepherd's goal here.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I mentioned the negative effects. I'm sure that this is not what he intends.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Shepherd would, I'm sure, take the view that shining light on potential government expenditure would not be in any way perverse; it would simply cause us to do our job by exercising some foresight.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That's exactly what he would've said.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Excuse me, but you did not understand my question. May I put it once again?

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: Take another kick at the can.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: A negative effect is a non-desirable effect that could stem from this. I was saying that the motion could draw criticism to the government for having published a very tight guideline for costs. The negative effect could occur when the government anticipates a cost, includes some leeway but finally, the information about the bottom line is not correct. To the contrary, the government would keep a certain amount of leeway.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: Yes, you're suggesting that by being up front about estimated costs, it might cause a chill factor and give Parliament cold feet and they wouldn't proceed with a good measure simply because it looked like it was going to cost too much.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: No, this is not what I meant.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: I'm sorry. I missed it again.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Excuse me. Before building a building or some other project, we evaluate the costs, but all kinds of things can happen to increase that cost. Therefore, a government wanting to protect itself against costs going over the limit could give itself some leeway at the time it makes announcements.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Lalonde, we'll take that as a point of view that you have, and, Mr. Lee, I think we'll conclude at this point.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Redman, with respect to C-409.

[Translation]

Ms. Karen Redman, M.P. (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Good day. I'm very pleased to appear before you today to discuss the reasons why the sub-committee should consider that Bill C-409, an Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, is a votable item.

I'm sorry about not making a fully bilingual presentation today.

[English]

Colleagues, $19 million has been lost by senior citizens in the last three years due to mail fraud. Bill C-409 will ensure that Canada Post does not deliver contest lotteries or prizes that require individuals to pay out before they are able to claim their prize. Cards such as these instruct readers to phone a 1-900 number in order to claim their prize. This is at a cost of $4 per minute. These misleading cards are showing up in our mailboxes with more frequency, and the odds of Canadian consumers being victimized are growing.

This bill also instructs Canada Post not to deliver mail that displays a logo that mimics a federal government logo. This again is intended to confuse and dupe Canadian consumers. This type of deceptive advertising threatens the legitimacy of Canada Post. As parliamentarians we have an obligation to protect the Canadian consumer and to ensure that the government's crown corporations are not participating in activities that have the potential to harm consumers. Canada Post participation in telemarketing mail lotteries gives legitimacy to unethical practices of these lottery organizations. It is my opinion that Canada Post is being used as a tool by these organizations to deceive and make money at the expense of Canadians—vulnerable Canadians, such as the elderly.

• 1620

For seniors, being able to shop by phone and mail is a necessity. Unethical telemarketing practices affect the confidence of seniors who rely on using mail and the phone to do their business.

Yesterday I received a letter from Scamblock, and they write:

Seniors often remark at our presentations that “opportunities” to win can't be fraudulent if they are delivered by Canada Post. They truly believe that our government would never allow a Crown Corporation like Canada Post to put income above the needs and best interests of its citizens.

Bill C-409 protects the Canadian consumer from telemarketing mail scams. You will note the statistics on the pie charts I have provided. This is an issue of significant public interest, as it affects Canadians from coast to coast.

This past February, the Globe and Mail reported that a Montreal-based firm, which awarded sweepstakes prizes all across Canada, received a record fine of $294,000 for deceptive advertising. The courts have now recognized that this is a serious problem, and it is now time that we as parliamentarians assess the role of Canada Post in delivering telemarketing mail.

The Canada Post Corporation has a responsibility and an obligation as a crown corporation to deliver ethically responsible mail. This bill ensures that this responsibility is met. The federal government is not currently addressing telemarketing mail schemes. It is an issue that deserves considerable attention and debate. Only by being votable will this issue get the public attention and study it deserves.

There is strong grassroots support for this bill. You will note the letters of support from organizations such as PhoneBusters, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, and Scamblock, who are highly in support of this bill.

It's also significant to know that it is a well-known fact that the Canadian judicial system has traditionally been lenient in giving sentences for this kind of fraud, and it has led to a proliferation of telemarketing fraud scams operating from Canada.

I would like to make it clear that we are not legislating the circulation of these contest cards or preventing companies from producing them. What we are doing is legislating the role of Canada Post. In fact, Bill C-409 encourages responsible growth in ethical telemarketing.

You will find in your review of Bill C-409 that it does meet the subcommittee's criteria lists. As we are all aware, colleagues, this is the year of the older person. What better way for this government to demonstrate our support and interest in protecting and assisting seniors, as well as all Canadians, than by passing Bill C-409?

I look forward to your questions. Thanks.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Redman.

[English]

Are there any questions?

Mr. Nystrom, and then Miss Grey.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Karen, I'm very interested in your bill. I wonder if you have looked at other parts of the world to see what they've done with their postal systems. Is there a precedent for this somewhere that might be helpful? Did you get a chance to do that research?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I haven't done international research at this point.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I have just one more question. Why are seniors hit so much harder than younger people? Is it because they have more time on their hands, or is there some other reason for that?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I haven't seen statistical data, but the statistics would show you obviously that they are by far the most impacted group. As Scamblock said, because it's being delivered by Canada Post, there's sort of a naive belief that it must be legitimate. There are fast-talking salespeople.

I think they tend to be more isolated from the rest of society, and therefore they look to the phone, the television, and the mail as their extension to society. Perhaps because they're not involved in day-to-day activities, as younger people are, they're a little bit more vulnerable to these fast-talking salesmen and scams.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: And saleswomen.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes—salespeople, excuse me.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Miss Grey.

Ms Deborah Grey: Thank you, Karen.

I'm just thinking here. I guess it's maybe because I'm not a senior, but when I see junk coming in the mail, I don't blame Canada Post for it. I think, who are these guys that they've gotten my address from some place I signed or a hotel I stayed in, or they buy a list from the Canadian Direct Marketing Association? That's who I would find myself more frustrated with than Canada Post.

Do you think there's a little bit of difference there, or do you think they really believe that because it came from the post office it's to be trusted?

Mrs. Karen Redman: The information we have would tell you that, yes, they do think it should be trusted. I would go back to the fact that seniors are disproportionately impacted by this. It seems to be directed at seniors.

• 1625

Again, we're not trying in any way to censure legitimate telemarketing people. We're just talking about things like this, where at a quick glance the logo would lead somebody perhaps to think it had something to do with the Government of Canada and it would therefore lend legitimacy to it. We're also talking about these kinds of postcards where they don't realize that the 1-900 call costs them $4 a minute.

Ms Deborah Grey: Does it say on there, though, that the 1-900 call is going to cost you money?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Yes, it does, but in very small print. I apologize, we couldn't have them translated, which is why we didn't hand them out. The print is exceedingly small.

Ms Deborah Grey: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I think that this is clearly in the public interest. However, I have some questions about section 40.6, where it says:

40.6(1) Notwithstanding any other section of this Act the Corporation shall not accept at a post office a letter to be transmitted by the Corporation or transmit a letter where the Corporation is of the opinion that the letter

(a) is an invitation to participate in a contest, lottery or game of chance, skill or mixed chance and skill;

(b) contains a statement that the delivery of a prize...

The Canada Post Corporation must open the letter to know that. Are we giving the Corporation the mandate to open correspondence to see what's inside, or does this mean that the publicity must be submitted to the Canada Post Corporation before mailing it out?

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: I do see the reference, and I would go back to the point that we're not asking Canada Post to censor the mail. We're asking them to deal ethically, and we're saying that this is not ethical mail. For instance, if it were in an envelope and it were addressed to an addressee, it wouldn't fall under the criteria of this private member's legislation. Am I not understanding your question?

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Next is Mr. Jordan, and then Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I have just a quick question. It's not just seniors. I have a brother, and every time we get together for family reunions we bug him about the car he thought he won one time. This stuff does get very convincing. I'm just wondering about the logistics. Do human eyes see the mail any more? These are bulk mailouts. Logistically, is this doable? Can Canada Post somehow intercept those things?

Mrs. Karen Redman: Canada Post currently has people who monitor the mail. What this would do is add another criterion to people who are already employed by Canada Post.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. But there are actually two issues, as I see it. There's the fact that Canada Post is participating in these things, but you're also saying that those are fraudulent pieces of mail.

Mrs. Karen Redman: They're scams.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Or are they borderline?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I would say it's mail fraud, because the offers are too good to be true and people aren't winning. They're just simply racking up huge amounts of money.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But there's no other recourse for the regulators under the Competition Act.

Mrs. Karen Redman: It's not covered by the Competition Act. We wouldn't be here with this if it were.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: You say that 70% of the scammed victims are elderly people. Have you any idea of the sums of money involved?

[English]

Ms Deborah Grey: The response may be at 70%.

Mrs. Karen Redman: The response is 70%. It is the elderly who are responding, and it is the elderly who have lost the $19 million over the past three years. It's that group that has lost that money.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Has anyone put a figure on this? Could it be $500 million? Or $700 million? Or $100 million? Has anyone put a figure on this in recent years?

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: Do you mean how many people responded?

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: No. Do you have a rough estimate of the amount involved in the scams in recent years?

• 1630

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: The overall cost is $28 million.

Mr. André Harvey: Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Miss Grey, very quickly, and then Madame Lalonde, just to complete the questioning.

Ms Deborah Grey: Some of these groups are terribly legitimate, and I don't know if I should be mentioning names, but I get, I'm sure, at least three things a week from Reader's Digest. Every night when I come home from Ottawa I go through the mail and there they are. But no one would ever think Reader's Digest is scammy or fraudulent or anything like that.

Where does it end? When you're talking about offers that are too good to be true, if you just waded through some of that stuff, you'd think this truly is too good to be true. There are groups that are legitimate, and Reader's Digest certainly is, but where do you draw the line with a company like Canada Post that's going to decide? You talked about censorship, but who is it that draws the line on what they think is fraudulent or scammy?

Mrs. Karen Redman: To be very specific, what we're talking about are postcards that look like this—

Ms Deborah Grey: You mean postcards that are unaddressed.

Mrs. Karen Redman: —that are unaddressed and are not in envelopes, and mail like this with sort of a pseudo-government emblem. To be quite honest, if they put this in a regular envelope and put a stamp on it or used a postage meter, it would get delivered.

Ms Deborah Grey: Are you saying it should get delivered?

Mrs. Karen Redman: We're not going to ask Canada Post to start opening mail to do that kind of thing. What we're doing is specifically addressing these pieces of mail.

Ms Deborah Grey: But you'll get some moralistic, well-meaning Canada Post employee—and bless them, they're just trying to do their little job—saying, oh, this one looks dicey. I would just be worried about going down that road.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Canada Post already has people who are monitoring the mail. This is pretty easy to identify. We're not asking them to start opening mail or to be intrusive to the Reader's Digests of the world. That's up to the recipient.

Ms Deborah Grey: Did you scratch that one?

Mrs. Karen Redman: No, I didn't.

A voice: Get them on the phone right now.

Ms Deborah Grey: We can chip in the $4.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: We'll turn to Madame Lalonde for the last question.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Is this tantamount to prohibiting using the mail to send out advertising?

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: It's more than advertising, because what it's doing is enticing people to phone 1-900 numbers, and they're losing a lot of money over it. So I would say that this is not just advertising.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I had a subsidiary question, but I will follow up on the question put by Ms... I've forgotten your name; excuse me.

[English]

The Chair: It's Deborah Grey.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Who will decide this? I read various articles. The only letters that can get through are the ones with the approved logo. And as for the rest, they're basically saying that the Canada Post Corporation is forbidden to transmit letters containing misleading publicity aimed at elderly people. To find this out, the Corporation has to open the letter. I don't know how else they could go about it.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: I can just go over this. Very specifically, it's—

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'm reading the bill and I'm not looking at that. Perhaps you didn't express your meaning in that document.

[English]

Mrs. Karen Redman: Sorry.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You said that only letters with a logo could get through. Well, only letters from departments have this logo. Letters that do not come from a department cannot be sent through the Canada Post Corporation if they contain misleading publicity such as would encourage people to dial a 1-900 number. According to you, either one of two things may happen: either the Canada Post Corporation will simply refuse letters without logos, and I would suggest that you put this down in writing, or else the Canada Post Corporation will have to do the screening itself and open letters containing publicity.

• 1635

[English]

The Chair: Madam Lalonde, merci. We'll have Ms. Redman answer and then we'll move on.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Specifically, it is pseudo-government. It wouldn't be that they would open them; it's just that this looks like a government logo, and it's not. So because it's not from a government department and the intent is to be fraudulent, they wouldn't open it; they wouldn't deliver it.

Ms Deborah Grey: But they'd recognize it.

Mrs. Karen Redman: They would recognize it and not deliver it. So it would fall under the heading of ethical mail delivery.

The Chair: Ms. Redman, your research has no doubt looked at the cost to Canada Post for this measure. What is it?

Mrs. Karen Redman: We haven't quantified the cost, and, to be quite honest, I think that's why you won't see Canada Post being a sort of cheerleader for this. But I would go back to the $28 million that has been lost and consider the long-term versus the short-term cost.

The Chair: But you don't know what Canada Post would lose if this were...

Mrs. Karen Redman: They would lose $2 billion a year.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms Deborah Grey: May I also say this is a tremendous brief you have provided. You and your staff are to be commended for it. This is one of the best presentations I think we've ever seen in this committee.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you.

The Chair: Very good. Thank you very much.

We'll move on. Mr. Lavigne, C-405.

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Lavigne, M.P. (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all committee members for inviting me to explain Bill C-405 regarding ballot papers.

Whenever elections are held, some people use names that are similar or identical to names of members, as we saw in Outremont, where someone also named Cauchon ran against Martin Cauchon. Bill C-405 would allow a member to put his or her photo on the ballot paper as well as the photo of the person with a similar or identical name.

In 1993, in my riding there was someone called Lavergne, which sounds very close to Lavigne. This person got 1,800 votes, which I might have had and which I did not get because people voted for Lavergne instead of Lavigne. In the riding of Beauce, there was a candidate called Bernier, a lady who obtained 9,000 votes. Ms. Bernier was able to get these votes because Gilles Bernier was there. He was almost a legendary figure in the riding, and everyone appreciated the splendid work he had done in his time enormously. People voted for this person because of that.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that when a bill is tabled in order to amend the Canada Elections Act, that someone will file an amendment to allow the photos of all members to be placed on ballot papers. Let me explain.

In Canada, 28% of people are illiterate. As these people cannot read, they don't go to vote. When they don't go to vote, they are deprived of their rights, as the member who would like his photo and the photo of a person running against him to be published may be.

After having tabled my bill on May 14, I received a letter from the Association canadienne des gens analphabètes asking me to table another private member's bill with the request that photos of all candidates appear on ballot papers so as to enable them to vote.

If someday you become handicapped and if you have adequate services to help with getting over curbs or into buildings, you'll be very happy. I think that illiterate people are being neglected in their rights and that we should amend the next bill to give a member the right to stand for election without having his votes stolen by some other candidate with a similar or identical name. This would allow illiterate people to vote in Canadian elections.

• 1640

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are there any questions?

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Lavigne. Have you any questions? Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: I would simply like to say that I find this to be a very interesting bill.

[English]

Mr. Raymond Lavigne: People who don't know how to read will be able to vote. There's 28% in Canada.

The Chair: Thank you for that clarification. Merci.

Mr. Nystrom, please.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I think the only danger with your bill is some of us might never get re-elected if we have to have our picture on the ballot.

Mr. Raymond Lavigne: That's not the case for you. No problem.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: One thing I like about this—I'm very biased toward putting this as votable—is one purpose of private members' hour is to debate new ideas, something new and something different. This is something different.

[Translation]

Are candidates' photos used in any other country in the world? I was in South Africa five years ago, when Mr. Mandela was elected. There were 15 political parties in South Africa, and there was a photo of the leader of each party, but not of every candidate.

Are there any other countries in the world where party leaders' photos are used, or photos of candidates?

[English]

Mr. André Harvey: What country is it?

[Translation]

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Are there other countries?

[English]

Mr. Raymond Lavigne: Which country has pictures on the—

Ms Deborah Grey: South Africa.

[Translation]

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Oh, excuse me. I was in South Africa when Mr. Mandela was elected five years ago. They did not use candidates' photos, but rather photos of party leaders, Mr. Mandela, Mr. Buthelezi, Mr. de Klerk—

A voice: What about the candidates?

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: Photos of party leaders. Are photos of candidates used in other countries? Have you an example of this?

[English]

Mr. Raymond Lavigne: I think in France they use that, but I'm not sure.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm going to ask a very technical question. If there are two candidates with the same name or similar names, do you include every candidate's picture, or just the two that share the same name? If I were in a situation like that, I would want my picture on it.

Mr. Raymond Lavigne: It would only be for the two candidates with the same name. If they're going to modify the law, maybe somebody can make an amendment to have all the pictures there. When I put my project on the table, I didn't have the letter from the people there. They need it. That is why I did not do it.

The Chair: Very good. Thank you very much.

Miss Grey.

Ms Deborah Grey: Do you think maybe Lavergne was upset that you took some of their votes?

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon, M.P. (Québec, BQ): —House of Commons, when my electors tell me that I made a fine speech, I thank them for it.

• 1645

Good day. I'm glad to be here this afternoon to request that my bill be considered votable. This bill seeks to create a position of poverty commissioner responsible to the Auditor General.

I would like to explain how I came to this idea of proposing the appointment of a poverty commissioner. We know that in 1989 the House of Commons unanimously adopted a resolution to eliminate child poverty. Ten years later, we see that the rate of child poverty has increased by 60% and that the number of poor children has risen from 1 million in 1989 to 1.5 million today.

Many organizations agree that something is lacking. We are not able to measure the effectiveness of existing programs. We have seen the federal government avoiding its responsibilities in the case of the Canadian Social Transfer; the government took $20 billion from employment insurance, but did not index child tax benefits or the tax tables. Some measures along these lines could have helped families a little bit more and would have reduced poverty to quite an extent. There are other measures which would serve to help needy families, but the federal government has not done its homework as far as family support is concerned.

There have been many studies and reports published on poverty, by the National Welfare Council, by the Canadian Council on Social Development, by the UN, by Campaign 2000 and Statistics Canada, among others. Even though very many people have looked into this matter, there is no one source we can refer to if we are looking for information to assess these impact studies on poverty.

I approached several departments to find out how many programs the federal government created to help poor children, and learned that there were some 40 programs spread over 10 departments. I spent six or seven months on this work, but I could not find out the costs, let alone the impact of these measures or funds invested to fight poverty.

I discovered that we do not have the necessary tools to measure poverty and assess the effectiveness of the federal government's programs and policies. Most of the witnesses who spoke before the subcommittee on children and youth at risk also deplored this lack of information.

This position of poverty commissioner could be a tool for members of Parliament. We know how difficult it is sometimes to get information from a department such as the Department of Human Resources Development. In spite of the answers which the Minister may give us in the House, it is quite difficult to get the real information.

A poverty commissioner would analyze the causes and effects of poverty in Canada. He would assess the effectiveness of measures taken by the government and would tell us when it is failing to act in time. He could also advise the federal government on measures which might help to reduce and eliminate poverty. The poverty commissioner, who would answer to the Auditor General, would table an annual report in the House of Commons.

I looked at six other solutions, but will not list them all today. The creation of a poverty commissioner seems to me the simplest, the most effective, the most credible, the most rigorous and the most transparent.

I am asking that this bill be chosen as a votable item because we know that poverty is something which concerns many people and the media are talking about it a great deal. It is difficult to define clearly the assistance provided by the two levels of government. Some provinces do more than others. We know it is important to respect provincial jurisdictions.

I often ask myself what we are really doing about the help we want to provide to children and youth at risk. Are we going to create new programs? Will we be encroaching on programs which certain provinces set up? Last week some witnesses told us that the Department could not tell us what is actually going on in all the provinces. We feel powerless in the face of increasing poverty, and many people are very indignant about this.

We know this is a problem which is of great concern to the public as a whole. Taxpayers pay out a considerable amount of their salary in taxes and expect the government to use these monies in an efficient manner.

• 1650

My office has received many letters of support. I have consulted all the organizations involved in the fight against poverty. The 39 members of the Bloc Québécois support my bill; all the Conservative members support it; 19 New Democrats, almost all their members, support it; 13 Reform Party members support it; as do 10 Liberals. All this to say that members from the other four political parties support my bill, and this is something quite rare, here in the House. Partisanship is being set aside. I could probably have obtained the support of more members, but I stopped there, because it is quite exhausting to try to see everyone and explain the details of a bill, with all the time that we have to devote to our work in the House.

This bill calls for the appointment of a poverty commissioner whose role would be similar to that of the environment commissioner, except that his would be a social mandate. Three years ago, the Auditor General deplored the fact that it was difficult to reassure taxpayers about funds assigned to fight poverty. This year again, he said that it would be a considerable challenge since it is difficult to measure the impact of programs administered by the departments. Funds are granted, even though no one knows whether the programs are affected or whether the amounts are adequate.

I also have the support of the Canadian Council on Social Development, which also finds it difficult to obtain administrative information from the various levels of government. The National Anti-Poverty Organization as well has given me its verbal support. My Bloc Québécois colleagues have sent copies of the bill to organizations in their ridings, and they have received it very favourably.

The Chairman: Excuse me, Ms. Gagnon.

[English]

We're now at seven minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Very well, I had finished.

[English]

The Chair: We usually allow five, but I'm giving you some latitude. Can you wrap up, though, soon?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I wasn't lying; I had really finished.

The Chairman: Thank you. Are there any questions?

Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to congratulate Ms. Gagnon for the work she has done on this subject. It is true that growing poverty in this country is a fact, an extremely silent one, and all the more serious because of it. Our party is very aware of this grave problem. A sub-committee which is visiting all regions of the country to consult Canadians is looking into it.

There are already many programs in existence and it would be hard to find a department which has not been involved in this question. As you have found out over the past six months, it is a very complicated situation. What did you think about Mr. Charles Sirois's proposal? He suggested that we consolidate all programs and offer a minimum guaranteed income. This income could be set at $12,000 or $15,000, and people who decided to work would get additional income.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We heard about this idea of a guaranteed minimum income from various circles. We must not forget, however, that such a program would have provincial implications, and provincial jurisdiction would have to be taken into account.

Mr. André Harvey: You seem to think that there is a solution to this problem of poverty which will be clear, transparent, easy to manage and less finicky than all the existing programs. Mr. Chairman, we have seen that when a single-parent family with two young children and an income of $31,000 receives an increase it is penalized.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: As I was saying, we must not overlook provincial jurisdiction in this area. We hear ideas like this expressed by people who work in this area, but we must also consider the crumbling of our spending power. It is very difficult to know how funds are being used. Various contradictory articles have appeared in the newspapers, and I think that you are quite right. But the Bloc Québécois has not finished looking into this question of a guaranteed income.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Jordan, please.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Just a technical question. Does the Auditor General appoint the commissioner of sustainable development now? Is that the way it works?

• 1655

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Yes, he would be appointed by the Auditor General.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Mr. Nystrom.

[Translation]

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I support your proposal to have a poverty commissioner appointed by the Auditor General of Canada. Would this commissioner be a federal-provincial agent, since poverty concerns not just federal jurisdiction, but also provincial jurisdiction?

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Are you asking whether my proposal would include a poverty commissioner in each province? I considered this possibility, but I rejected it because I was afraid that we would be getting into provincial jurisdiction. I thought it would be preferable to look first at what is being done at the federal level and at the impact of programs set up by the other provinces. We need to know what is going on in the other provinces and identify any possible duplication. That way, we can see whether we are wasting our time and money on ineffective programs which were created only because of a desire for visibility. It would be very costly to appoint commissioners in each province, in addition to setting up a poverty commissioner's office. As well it would involve a considerable amount of bureaucracy.

The Chairman: Very good.

Thank you very much, Ms. Gagnon.

[English]

Moving on, we have Mr. Harb with motion 468.

Mr. Mac Harb, M.P. (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. This motion, as it reads, is really asking the House to ask the government to look at the possibility of recognizing multiple chemical sensitivities, chronic fatigue syndrome, and fibromyalgia as illnesses that have the capacity to cause disability. From 2% to 6% of the Canadian population has one or two out of those three illnesses. Many of those people are in fact considered disabled now, and many of them do not participate in the workforce.

It should be votable because of the nature of it. It's national and it crosses boundary lines. People are affected from all walks of life in pretty well every province and territory across the country. Also, having it votable will allow the House of Commons to debate it and create an awareness across the country for these terrible diseases.

Also, if the government recognizes these diseases, it will allow the organizations that deal with fibromyalgia, chemical sensitivities, and chronic fatigue to embark on some activities, such as fundraising, that will allow them to do more research and other things like that.

I will stop at that, Mr. Chair. I know many members of the committee are quite aware of at least one of those syndromes, and I will allow some time for questions.

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

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I don't want to go down the CPP disability road any further than I have to, but if I'm not mistaken, some of these diseases right now aren't necessarily recognized as disabling. So if the government were to vote and pass this motion with the House, would we then be instructing CPP disability or Workers' Compensation in provinces to recognize... I'm just wondering what the implications are.

Mr. Mac Harb: It would not really do that. It would simply direct the government to look into the diseases a little more seriously—do some hard-nosed work on them.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. So the fact that they “have the capacity to cause”—

Mr. Mac Harb: They could.

Mr. Joe Jordan: —is not a direct reference. Okay.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You don't seem to think there would be any repercussions on the Canada Pension Plan. What is the purpose of your motion? Do you want to have these diseases recognized so that people suffering from them may obtain compensation?

• 1700

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes, that possibility does exist, but it is not the primary aim of this motion. I am suggesting that the government carry out its own study and analyses. If it concludes that people with fibromyalgia or multiple chemical sensitivity who are confined to a wheelchair are incapable of moving around and working, these would probably be considered to be extreme cases who should receive compensation.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[English]

Miss Grey.

Ms Deborah Grey: Thanks.

Further to Joe's question that the government should recognize... and then later on you say they have the capacity to cause disability. Wouldn't one generally lead to the other if you're talking about CPP disability? If you make the assumption that one has the capacity to cause that, then almost by definition, by recognizing that—and maybe that's not a problem—this would become part of CPP disability. But then you would be into a huge discussion, rather than just this.

Mr. Mac Harb: There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that you are absolutely quite right. That's why, at the end of the day, if the government undertakes a study and finds out that we have a serious problem here, with one out of 15 people totally disabled, then we have a major disaster on our hands. But the reality of it is, one out of 15 may be totally disabled and incapable of carrying on with their work.

The mere fact that a person has been diagnosed with fibromyalgia... despite the fact that they might be in a wheelchair, they would still not be able to collect disability at this time.

So this is what it does. It tells the government to look into it. It really is not high in their hands if, at the end of the day, they find out it has merit. Then they will do it. If they find at the end of the day it doesn't have merit, they'll say “Look, it doesn't have merit here”. A mere suggestion by the House of Commons really does not mean the government must recognize these diseases. It recommends that the government look into them. Then it's up to them to decide yes or no.

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

Are there any other questions?

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

[English]

Thank you.

Mr. Chrétien, motion 236, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien, M.P. (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to thank you for allowing me to appear before your committee, which will decide whether my motion will be debated for two hours in the House and then voted on.

My motion is designed to improve the Upper Chamber, or indeed to consider abolishing it. My intention is to improve the way our fellow citizens currently perceive our political and democratic institutions. No one is indifferent to Parliament or the Senate. We have to try to restore the image of these institutions, and if this is impossible in the case of the Upper Chamber, we should perhaps consider abolishing it. We must review the role of this institution, look at the tasks assigned to senators, examine the way appointments are made, and compare senators' salaries with the amount of work they do and their attendance in the Chamber.

I was speaking to Eugene Whelan this week, and he told me that when he was a backbencher, he had tabled a motion to abolish the Senate.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I remember that.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Now, when you speak to Eugene about his retirement in a few weeks' time, tears come to his eyes.

It seems likely that almost all Canadians would like to see quite a change in the Senate, or even its disappearance, with perhaps the exception of a handful of privileged individuals who hoped to be appointed there.

• 1705

When I presented my motion in October of 1997, I was supported by my colleague Derrek Konrad of Prince Albert. I am hoping I can convince you that my request is well-founded when I ask for an additional two hours in the House of Commons and a vote on motion 237. I would very much appreciate your agreement. If you have any questions, I will do my best to answer them in order to support the motion I have presented. Thank you for your attention.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chrétien.

[English]

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I don't know how or why these things get drafted this way. Would it not be more appropriate to say “The Parliament of Canada should proceed with an in-depth reform”? You're saying the government should. Do you think maybe an all-party committee or something... or is that what the term means?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: You know that I am not an expert.

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan: Also, the government should initiate it, but I guess who participates in it is the second step.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there any other questions? Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I would just say it's a magnificent idea. I'm sure Roger Gallaway would say the same thing. I think the time has come to have

[Translation]

a debate on the future of the Senate of Canada, which has given rise to a great deal of opposition throughout the country. I imagine the same is true in your riding and at many people are now opposed to the Senate on the grounds that it is not democratic, since senators are not elected. Is that correct?

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: As you know very well, Mr. Nystrom, this sort of my pet subject in my riding and in my region, particularly in the Eastern Townships. Last Summer, I had no trouble getting 12,000 signatures.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: You didnÂt say 2,000 but 12,000 signatures?

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Yes, 12,000. It takes a lot of work to get 12,000 signatures. One person refused to sign my petition and as a joke I asked whether he wanted to become a senator. I believe that was indeed the case and I would not be surprised if he were appointed. It was a challenge for me to go and meet him; he is a personal friend who works for another party, of course, not the Bloc Québécois.

When Senator Hébert had to retire at the age of 75 and leave the senate riding of Wellington, which is where I live, I suggested to the Prime Minister that rather than appointing another senator he should use the money for poor people in the Sherbrooke region. I added that if he felt he must appoint another one, he should choose someone from the region so that we could ask the new senator to turn his salary over to the poor. The Prime Minister did not listen to us, however, since he appointed someone who was originally from Lac-Saint-Jean who had never set foot in our region, who probably did not know the shortest way to Sherbrooke and who has never been seen again since the day of his press conference. This person has no ties with our region, no sense of belonging. As you put it so well, it is a very anti-democratic institution.

Improvements need to be made. If this cannot be done, it should go the way of the legislative council in Quebec.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Miss Grey, please.

Ms Deborah Grey: Thanks.

Lorne, I'm always amazed that you come from such a sparsely populated area of the country, and yet you're going to turn regional representation and just abolish it. But we could get into that and debate it in the House.

Regarding the actual shape this thing would take, Jean-Guy, do you have some parameters as to how this in-depth study would look, who would be on these committees, and would they travel across the country?

Mr. Joe Jordan: It's not a study. It's in-depth reform.

Ms Deborah Grey: Okay, but you're going to have to study it first—

Mr. Joe Jordan: No, that's what I mean.

Ms Deborah Grey: —because the government, as you know, has no intention of reforming it or abolishing it. That's what I'm asking you. How are they going to undertake this in-depth reform? It's great to say... and I think it's a terrific idea, but what does it mean?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: I would like to see the motion put to a vote. If a good majority in the House wanted to adopt it, the government could set up a committee to look into the matter.

• 1710

There could be a freeze on Senate appointments for a certain number of years. Since senators have to retire at the age of 75, their numbers could be allowed to drop by attrition, which would give the committee more time.

If we look at the history of the Upper Chamber, we see it was essential in Great Britain. When democratic institutions were established there, the members of Parliament of the period were peasants with little education who might sometimes pass undemocratic legislation. For some farfetched reason, for example, they might pass a law to have someone hanged in the marketplace. The senators, however, were noblemen, more judicious and better educated, who would not accept such a law and that person's life would be saved.

The commoners did not necessarily vote democratically, and senators had a mitigating influence. We know this is no longer the case today. Even in Great Britain, the existence of the Senate as we know it is being increasingly challenged.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chrétien.

Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Jean-Guy, would you not say that most Quebeckers would like to see the Senate abolished?

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Yes, of course they are for the abolition of the Senate, but as you know very well, I have no illusions about what changes might be made.

Take salaries for example. What do you think senators would say if they were told they would only be getting $1 from now on? As you know very well, it is a hidden form of social welfare reserved for a certain number of privileged individuals.

I was saying that the Senate kept the Conservative Party going artificially for four years when there were only two Conservative members in the House of Commons. The block of Conservative senators kept the party going artificially. So it might be more difficult to get agreement on abolishing the Senate. Perhaps if we were to ask senators not to work for free, but to accept a wage which was—

The Chairman: Mr. Chrétien.

[English]

we're now sort of getting into the debate of what your motion says and I would prefer we not get into that, because I think we'd be here all day and maybe even longer. We want to move on.

Monsieur Harvey, did you have a quick question?

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: He was doing very well right up to the last minute.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Oh, oh!

Mr. André Harvey: Jean-Guy, I am somewhat disappointed because, as Ms. Lalonde pointed out, the main idea is that Quebeckers generally favour the abolition pure and simple of the Senate, rather like what was done in the case of the Legislative Council.

I would like to know why you changed your point of view in this motion. It seems to me that it would have been preferable, as a matter of principle, to maintain your original course and submit your idea possibly for a vote in the House; that way we could have had an interesting debate on abolition, pure and simple. It would have been much clearer than trying to deal with Senate reform, since we know we would run into all sorts of constitutional problems. The right of veto is very complicated. The debate on abolition is simple and could lead to a decision.

I would like your opinion in this regard.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: As you know, Mr. Harvey, you would have to get everyone to agree, including the Senate, in order to abolish the Senate.

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Mulroney already suggested that.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: I imagine that they refused.

Mr. André Harvey: Yes.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: If we cannot get their agreement, we should stop appointing them and proceed by way of extinction.

Mr. André Harvey: Even there, you have a constitutional problem, because the government is obliged to fill Senate seats for legislative reasons.

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: That is news to me. The government is obliged to do so?

Mr. André Harvey: Indeed.

The Chairman: Thank you, sir.

[English]

Mr. Anders, Bill C-469, please.

Mr. Rob Anders, M.P. (Calgary West, Ref.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

• 1715

Mine is Bill C-469. The summary of it is to prevent trade unions whose collective agreement requires an employee to pay union dues from using those dues for political purposes, unless the employee notifies the union in writing that the employee consents to those dues being used in such a way. Now, there's a fire-starter for you.

In terms of the list of criteria, I think it's pretty clear and complete in effective terms, in terms of how it's been stated. In terms of being constitutional, I don't doubt that, in terms of the way it's drawn up. It does deal with the Canada Labour Code, so it is something of federal jurisdiction, and it affects around 700,000 workers in this country.

In terms of being a matter of significant public interest, it is national; it is broadly based. We have provincial elections, for example, in Ontario and New Brunswick, and one expected to be called fairly soon in Saskatchewan, where this type of issue will have a direct impact on the outcome of those elections. I think we can see that debating this issue will have an impact federally as well.

In terms of where this is being talked about right now, we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge in the province of Quebec with regard to a group led by a fellow in Gatineau by the name of Jocelyn Dumais. It touches on the issues of cross-border labour arrangements between Ontario and Quebec.

I'm going to go through the other criteria here. It should be something that's not part of the current legislative agenda. I think it's pretty fair to say that I haven't seen anything coming out of the government so far to talk about this issue and address it. Anyhow, it meets the list of criteria.

In terms of some of the other things I have to add to this, polling data I have indicates that the majority of people in Canada support it. Even more interesting, though, is that it's right across all political spectrums. So I think this is something worthy of debate.

Environics Research did polls on this in April 1995 and showed that, looking at households across the country, unionized households, and even if you break it down among political party supporters... in Alberta, for example, 85% of people believe unions shouldn't be able to use dues for the support of a political party. Even in the NDP, for example, you see a majority of people who either somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with union dues for the support of a political party when it doesn't meet with the employees' personal support, and we see that carried right across the political spectrum. So I think there's room for debate on this issue. I don't see a problem with that.

In terms of some of the things that are happening, some articles that have been done, I know the National Post has recently written on this. One group, Ontario for Responsible Government, has come out with an ad campaign called “Forced Dues Blues”, and it talks about captive revenues and economic interests of workers sometimes differing from those of their unions, and saying that workers have an independent civil right and also independent political interest from, sometimes, their union leadership. Evidence of that would be that even though a lot of unions came out against Mike Harris in 1995, there are a lot of union workers who still voted for Mike Harris in the election. This is, of course, being dealt with right now in the province of Ontario as well.

I could go through all of this—political freedoms of workers being too important to be left to judges, and therefore it would be time for the federal and provincial legislatures to openly defend the issue. I have articles here and letters from teachers who live in the province of Ontario who have issues with regard to how their union dues are being used to support causes they don't personally believe in.

Diane Francis has done a number of articles on this issue, the whole idea of there being a right to associate and also there being a right not to be forced to associate. The Equality Party in Quebec has also touched on this—decisions that force association that the courts found to be unacceptable. Anyway, I'll leave it open for questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Anders.

Are there any questions? Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Rob, I know in Ontario there were a few court cases along these lines and the court found in favour of the union. Is that because something like this wasn't in the Labour Code? Are you trying to close a loop here?

• 1720

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes, that's basically it. I'm going to question you for a second. Would that be the Merv Lavigne case?

Mr. Joe Jordan: He was a community college teacher who objected to the union making a donation to a certain political party.

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes, there have been a few cases, the Merv Lavigne case being one of them. Another one that might have been championed, but it never did reach the courts because of intervenor fees, was Norma Jansen's case in British Columbia.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So this is designed to address the fact that right now the courts are finding in favour of the unions or go some direction towards closing that loop. Is that correct?

Mr. Rob Anders: Yes, it is looking to close that loop. In some of those court decisions it's not quite as cut and dried as one would suppose. If you look at the actual decisions and the write-ups on those things...

Mr. Joe Jordan: If you look at the administration of a union, a certain percentage of the dues are spent on administration and everything else. How do you ever figure out whose dollar goes where?

Mr. Rob Anders: When a union, for example, goes ahead and takes out ads for political purposes—

Mr. Joe Jordan: If the total revenues to a union, through union dues... let's say they spend 5% on political donations. Then all they would need is 5% of the membership to say that's okay. Is that right?

Mr. Rob Anders: No, because it's everybody's dues in common that are used for that purpose. That money, therefore, should be seen as going toward other causes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So any one union member could veto any expenditure? I just don't understand how this works.

Mr. Rob Anders: No. It's a question of how the funds get applied. Everybody, for example, is affected by the use of the funds. Basically, nobody's funds should be used in a way that is untoward their own person.

Mr. Joe Jordan: If I complain, they say no, your funds went to buy that filing cabinet, Mr. Jordan. How do I know? I'm just wondering how it works.

Mr. Rob Anders: Filing cabinets are fairly cut and dried, though, in terms of their being used for the administration of the union. Say, for example, we're talking about bus billboards, TV ad campaigns, signs and placards for the purposes of a political event or an election. Those are clearly distinguishable from a filing cabinet.

Mr. Joe Jordan: What percentage of the revenue budget raised through union dues is spent in those ways?

Mr. Rob Anders: It depends on the given union. Some unions spend more than others. There are some unions that don't spend any of their money.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. For a union that spends, let's say, 20% on direct political contributions that are cut and dried donations to a political party, if 20% of the contributors say that's okay, then what's the number you need to stop that?

Mr. Rob Anders: Union members should be able to determine whether or not those dues should be used for political purposes or whether or not they're used for collective bargaining purposes. It's a question of whether that 20% is better used in a direct political association or better used for advances for the union.

Mr. Joe Jordan: If the majority of the union objects, does that stop all of it?

Mr. Rob Anders: This concerns individual workers being able to opt out of having their dues used against their wishes, with written consent, with a letter.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Just getting back to my point, then, if 20% of the union membership says it's okay, then they say that money went to this, your money went to administration...

Mr. Rob Anders: Let me break this down for you. Let's say, for example, one were to give $1,000 a year to their union. Let's say 5%, $50 of that, was used for political purposes and it was clearly demonstrated as such. With written consent that person would be able to opt out of having that $50 used for those purposes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. I have it now.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: You are talking about advertising costs during an election. Would this cover what the nurses in Ontario are doing at the moment, working not for a party but against a party?

[English]

Mr. Rob Anders: My apologies. My translation device was switched onto the wrong channel. I only caught the end of the question. I know you made a reference to the Ontario nurses. Because that's a provincial jurisdiction, it wouldn't be affected by the Canada Labour Code.

• 1725

Ms. Francine Lalonde: No. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about whether this covers not the Ontario situation but some unions who would act as the nurses in Ontario did, who are investing money not for one candidate but against one party.

Mr. Rob Anders: Whether or not one campaigns directly for a given candidate or one campaigns directly against a candidate, it is being used for political purposes. There is legitimate debate within the labour movement in terms of whether or not that money should be going strictly for collective bargaining.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Does this cover the use of funds for union purposes during an election?

[English]

Mr. Rob Anders: I'm trying to follow the gist of what you're going after.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: That is very simple.

[English]

Often unions use the election to make publicity against the government because it has done this or that. They want to promote their own needs or interests. Does it cover that also?

Mr. Rob Anders: There's a distinction here between whether money is being used for a political party or for a political cause. I would be willing to debate—

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: ...doesn't make that difference.

Mr. Rob Anders: Actually, if I may refer to it, it does refer directly to money being used for a political party. There's debate as to whether or not that should be more broad and whether or not it should also apply to political causes. So if someone were to pose an amendment to this, then therefore you would be able to talk about not just political parties but also political causes. I would be friendly to that type of amendment. As a matter of fact, there is actually higher support in the public for going ahead and addressing political causes, not just political parties.

Right now, the way Bill C-469 is structured, it deals specifically with money used for political parties by trade unions. If we wanted to, we could expand that debate to move beyond political parties and move toward political causes. That would include a wider umbrella of activities.

The Chair: We get the gist. Thank you very much, Mr. Anders.

A quick question, Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I have a couple of questions. I wondered why you, Rob, as a gentleman who is fair, wouldn't apply a symmetrical point of view to corporations. Maybe you have a granny who invests in the Royal Bank or Proctor & Gamble. That granny of yours might not want part of the profits of that company to be supporting a certain political cause or campaign. Why wouldn't you have, in terms of your bill, a similar proportion where she'd get a bit bigger dividend because she objected to some of that money going into a political cause or to a political party? It seems to me that would be fair in terms of how you treat them both. Both unions and corporations have similar treatment today in terms of political contributions. In Quebec there's a law that is radically different from the federal one and has great restrictions on unions and on corporations for contributions of up to $1,000, I believe.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Unions cannot make...

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: But they're treated the same. I wondered why you didn't do that.

Mr. Rob Anders: Right. Here are the distinctions I would draw. In privately run corporation—in other words, it's not a public share offering—

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I'm not talking about that.

Mr. Rob Anders: —I know—then of course that is up to the direct owners of the corporation. In a case where they're publicly traded shares, which is the one you're referring to, the distinction is that unions enjoy something separate in the law from what a business does in terms of a closed-shop arrangement, a compulsory arrangement, and also in terms of... It's because under law the unions enjoy an exclusive right or a monopoly bargaining right, or what you would call a compulsory portion, where the government can basically mandate that people be members of a union and a union is allowed to consider whether someone is a member in good standing or not. That type of provision doesn't exist for corporations. It's the special arrangement that is recognized in labour law for the existence of trade unions, which doesn't apply to corporations. That is essentially the difference between the two.

The Chair: You've made your point. Thank you very much, Mr. Anders.

Any other questions? Thank you.

• 1730

We have Ms. Lill here for Ms. Davies with respect to M-604, and I remind members that we're running about 15 minutes late. My apologies to you, Ms. Lill, and you, Mr. Laliberte, but we'll try to expedite as best we can.

Ms. Wendy Lill, M.P. (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much. I'm really a very poor replacement for Libby Davies. She is not available to be here. She had to be in her riding for a very special event.

I'm speaking on behalf of her motion, M-604, that in the opinion of this House, the government should adopt a national housing strategy and housing supply program, in cooperation with the provinces, that recognizes housing as a human right and meets the goals of providing an additional 1% of federal budgetary spending to meet basic housing needs in Canada.

Homelessness and housing problems are no surprise to any of the people in this room. We're all MPs and we understand the problems facing people. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are homeless. They live in temporary beds, in shelters. Thousands are sleeping in parks or huddled in doorways. Thousands more live in ramshackle, substandard housing, and certainly Libby believes homelessness is not simply being on the street, but it's living in substandard and inadequate housing.

The people in these situations are families. They're young people, refugees, and low-wage workers. They're the disabled, the mentally ill, and the addicted. The street doesn't discriminate; it's a very cold place, and people wake up every morning feeling hopeless. I think the fact that tens of thousands of Canadians are forced to pay more than 40% or 50% of their incomes for little more than eight- to ten-foot rooms in ramshackle buildings is another form of homelessness.

The federal government stopped investing in the construction of new social housing in 1993, and that one single act has meant that 75,000 new social housing units that had been targeted for construction by CMHC by 1997 were never built, and that has had a devastating impact. It's an impact that has to be revisited and reviewed.

It's not just a crisis in large urban centres; it's a crisis in rural, remote, small communities as well.

The federal government has a responsibility to deal with this crisis, based on our international commitments. I should mention that housing is a human right set out in article 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that every man, woman, and child in Canada has a right to live in decent, affordable, secure housing.

In terms of the constitutionality of the motion, the debate around M-604 could help to pave the way toward a renewed approach to housing via the social union process, and I think that's an important aspect for us to consider. In calling for the government to consider committing 1% of additional federal funding for housing, the motion is calling for the 1% solution as a goal rather than a firm commitment. So that's important to realize.

The work of the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee in garnering support for their own 1% solution has had an overwhelmingly successful response, so this isn't way off base at all. It has been endorsed by numerous city councils from Vancouver to Toronto, and individuals, universities, and hundreds of organizations.

In conclusion, I would say that homelessness is a national emergency and a national issue that demands a national solution. That's why the Prime Minister recently appointed a federal minister to examine it, Claudette Bradshaw. She has certainly shown a great deal of interest in wanting to garner a wide variety of debate and review of this subject. This would give her and Parliament an important forum in which to do it.

Finally, supporting the votability of M-604 would provide an opportunity for that debate on homelessness in Canada and would facilitate the government's work in addressing this issue.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there any questions for Ms. Lill?

• 1735

[Translation]

Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Some members, not just from the Bloc Québécois, may say that the federal government has cut back considerably in the area of social assistance or transfers, so that in addition to ending its own programs, it has forced the provinces to reduce their aid.

What do we mean by a national housing strategy in view of this?

You are talking about a housing program, but how would it work? I remember that it used to be a cost-shared program, and Ontario, which was a wealthier province, absorbed close to 50% of the budget. You know that Quebec wanted to opt out.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Lill, please.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I wish Libby were here for the purposes of answering this question, because she has thought about it extensively. I have some information here. Certainly in terms of the idea that Canada would have... federal funds would of course be involved, but it would have to involve the social union, and we would have to start looking at co-op housing and various forms of funding. Again, I wish she were here, because she could give you an eloquent answer on that.

The Chair: I think we take the point. That was very good. We appreciate your coming here to the committee.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Our last member of Parliament is Mr. Laliberte with respect to motion M-292.

Mr. Laliberte, please.

Mr. Rick Laliberte, M.P. (Churchill River, NDP): Laliberte—that's how we say it in Cree. We have a twist between the Métis and the French. But in English it's Laliberte.

Ms Deborah Grey: As in Connie Laliberte. Or is that no relation?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: When the Americans lose their line on that, I tell them, just call me little Bertie.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Go ahead, Bert.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Motion M-292, which is probably before you, is that in the opinion of this House the government should provide initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions, to address environment concerns and high energy costs.

Honourable members, this motion came as a result of my coming back from the Kyoto protocol negotiations that took place last year on greenhouse gases. Whatever I could contribute for us as Canadians... We are in dire need of addressing the issue of greenhouse gas emissions in this country, and this is one of the initiatives that I thought could be best addressed. In the new millennium, we'll be facing major challenges, and part of these challenges is to make opportunities. You know, if life serves you lemons, you make lemonade.

All Canadians are truly concerned about the environment, no matter where you are, and they all want to help to try to clean up our way of life. But a major contributor to the pollution of this planet is in energy production, and it's undeniable that of all the fossil fuels, natural gas is the cleanest.

The northern climate in Canada certainly needs adequate heating, not only in our homes but in our institutions—our schools, our hospitals—and also in our industries.

Natural gas is a very cost-effective fuel. Once you have it, it's very adaptable to pipelining to whatever location or community. It's very easy to maintain. And it's very easy to keep up the fuel bills, compared to others.

But it's only enjoyed in certain regions of this country. It doesn't reach everywhere. Some people who have it may have taken it for granted for the number of years they've had natural gas.

• 1740

The other point is that we export a majority of our natural gas to major cities just south of our border. My view on trade is that you try to trade only your excess. You keep for yourself and your family as much as you need, and then if you have a surplus of it, you start trading. As a country, that should be our view as well.

I call on you to make my motion a votable motion to call on the government to provide initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced areas. These initiatives are needed because of the high cost of capital in most of these areas to access natural gas.

But the economic decisions that are being made are also a detriment to these regions. When industries select or site out a certain development for a factory, a sawmill, or a huge wholesale grocery store that needs high energy, smaller regions or neighbourhoods are not even considered because they're not on the main transportation route and they don't have natural gas as a cheap source. So for us to try to have a tax base, it's a catch-22 situation. You can't have a tax base unless you have an industry, and in order to have an industry you need these infrastructure resources and utilities.

But above all, I think what we should settle on is that it's fossil fuel consumption that has positioned us as the second highest producers of greenhouse gases in the world. That's something we have to be conscious of. This would be a major win-win for all Canadians and also for the Kyoto commitment this country has made.

In addition, we can assume that capital investment is going to be required. So on behalf of all unserviced areas of this country, I humbly ask for a portion of our Canadian capital that sits on this Hill. Just chip off a bit of this capital and spread it around a bit.

Future technologies, I just wanted to highlight, are certainly at a leading edge right now. There's wind energy and solar energy and fuel cells are being developed, but those are just out of reach right now. I think we have to do something immediate, and this initiative calls on the government for immediate expansion. The initiative could take place in terms of infrastructure development, as we experienced its successes in certain municipal and provincial initiatives. This would take place in that sense as well.

I just want to close by saying that we have a history of hunters in my family, so that's the role I envision for myself as an MP here. I only have one arrow. This is my first arrow I'm using here, and with your help, you'll put your arrows together and we'll make it stronger. We'll bundle it a little bit more. But if we were to get all 301 arrows, we could probably bag a good source of energy for Canadians who don't have a cheap source for natural gas, and we could also sleep comfortably knowing that we're using the cleanest source of energy to heat our homes and whatever sources of energy we can produce, either electricity or the industries that will drive our economy in the future. I think it's a win-win situation. I'm looking at the economic cycle and the environmental cycle going hand in hand here. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Laliberte. I have to tell you that was well put, using the arrows. That was very good.

Are there any questions? Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I concur with the chair, Rick. I think it's a good analogy.

It's not unlike the telecommunications infrastructure. Anything that adds to the cost of doing business is going to drive businesses out of the areas where we're trying to get an industrial base, and it's a downward spiral we're facing with that.

In terms of initiatives, do you see a tax treatment for the people who install the lines, or individual rebates for homeowners for the costs they incur, or a direct subsidy? Have you given any thought to how it might work, or have you got that far with it?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: As a rookie, and with the unassuming position I try to keep myself in, I'd like to leave that and empower you as colleagues of mine in the House to make additions. I think there are processes and initiatives that have been proven, but there are also initiatives that have failed. I'd hate to try to sell this as a prime initiative and then find out that it was a failure in some region. That would take the wind out of my balloon. So I just left it as an initiative. It could be a broad majority or it could be specific. I left it open.

Mr. Joe Jordan: You mentioned natural gas being the cleanest, but we were also exporting our cleanest petroleum products. We keep the high sulphur stuff for ourselves and the good stuff we send to other countries.

• 1745

Mr. Rick Laliberte: There was a case in point with certain hesitancies from the provinces to buy into the Kyoto protocol because of their commitment to certain energy sources that may not be so clean. The question was, how dare somebody ask our little province to clean our system when it was the best technology at the time we invested? We're a Canadian bubble, and we have to look at our community as a whole and try to contribute ourselves. That's why I bring it to a national table.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Nystrom.

Mr. Lorne Nystrom: I have just a short question. I have an idea where the unserviced areas are in my own province of Saskatchewan. Can you give us an idea as to how large an area this would cover in Canada? Do you have any estimate of how many people, municipalities, cities, or towns you're aiming at with that one arrow or with a quiver of arrows?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I think it's like a leading edge, where you start a process. We certainly have a process and a proven technology that works there.

Each province, I'm sure, can lay claim to regions that are unserviced. As you say, Saskatchewan has unserviced areas; Alberta, I'm sure, has vast expanses that aren't serviced; and in Quebec, different sources of energy are used, electricity and natural gas, and you have to look at the sources. In the Atlantic provinces they are bringing onstream a major pipeline from an offshore source that comes into Canada and is a source for the maritime states. I haven't looked at statistics with regard to regions or a map, but I think Natural Resources Canada could probably supply us with that. If you request it, I can certainly research it.

The Chair: Thank you.

The last question will be from Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Are you saying, in fact, that the federal government should give directions to the National Energy Board? That it should change the Act? Otherwise, what do you mean? What do you mean by "taking initiatives"?

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm just looking at the whole issue of fossil fuel consumption in this country.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Okay. It's just a general debate then.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: There are coal and diesel, and the cleanest is natural gas. So I'm picking the best and cleanest source. Let's offer it as an expansion in this country.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Fine, thank you very much.

[English]

Thank you very much, Mr. Laliberte.

We'll be back in touch with everyone. Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]