[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, February 4, 1997
.1532 
[English]
The Chair: We're going to start now.
You have five minutes and then we ask you questions. We'd like you to try to keep your answers as short as possible.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain, MP (Guelph - Wellington): Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I'm pleased to be here to share with you my rationale for motion 243. As you know, the motion calls on the government to continue and enhance its efforts to address the underground economy. Among other measures, the motion asks for a national education campaign and increased enforcement.
The underground economy is seen by some as an anti-GST measure. It is not. It costs each and every Canadian lost tax revenue; less money for the Canadian pension plan, workers' compensation, and employment insurance, and it costs Canadians in lost jobs. The underground economy contributes to our national debt and makes the job of deficit reduction that much harder. Committee members, the underground economy means that we must all pay more in taxes, it places our social programs at risk, and it is unfair to the honest taxpayer.
I recently had the honour of chairing a subcommittee that studied this issue. The subcommittee was part of the national Liberal caucus committee on economic development, which I chair. We listened to witnesses from a number of sectors, including officials at Revenue Canada. That department has made a number of important steps in reducing the effects of the underground economy. However, until we as legislators and leaders in Canada begin to discuss this issue further and look at ways to effectively deal with this problem, make no mistake, it will continue.
My motion calls on the government to forge partnerships with other levels of government, industry, and labour in developing a coherent and national policy.
Members from Quebec in particular will know that the provincial government there has recently initiated a province-wide advertising and education campaign to help Quebeckers realize that the underground economy places our children's future at risk. One of the advertisements on television in Quebec has a long table with people performing transactions under it. At the end of the table is a child, a reminder that this child is really the person who suffers the most when we deal under the table.
In order for any effort to be successful, government must have the support of the public. My motion calls for a plan of action to be established by the government. We must work together in a non-partisan, effective approach that will first educate and then enforce policies that will find solutions to this problem.
.1535
It is believed that the underground economy occurs the most in the construction, home renovation, auto sales and repair, hospitality, and jewellery sectors. No one really knows the overall cost, but it is estimated to cost you and I, and every Canadian, between $23 billion and $156 billion annually. In other words, that's anywhere between 2.9% to 20% of GDP. Given that our government is committed to reducing the deficit to 1% of GDP by 1998, we can imagine the seriousness of this problem, and the benefits that would occur should solutions be found in the near future.
Madam Chair, committee members, this is a serious problem. Our subcommittee entitled our report ``Our Future at Risk''. Our future is at risk as long as we allow the underground economy to take from seniors, veterans, education, defence, and health care. Indeed, all government programs and services are affected. I ask that you deem this motion votable so that, at the very least, members of the House of Commons can encourage the government to do more to raise the profile of this issue. This is an important opportunity for us to discuss this issue in Parliament, our national forum, and to begin to work together to find real, long-term, and effective solutions to this problem.
The Chair: Are there any questions, gentlemen?
Mr. Frazer, (Saanich - Gulf Islands): It appears to me that one of the pitches you're making is one of advising Canadians of the impact of the underground economy and how it affects the people because the taxes are being averted. Could there not be a substitute for the bill by asking the CBC and CTV to build information-type presentations on this to accomplish that? It strikes me that if you don't do it by that menu, you're going to be into people sneaking around and reporting on others. I think Canadians would probably object to that.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I think that is one avenue. There's no doubt about the value of the education end of it through the CBC or any other forum you would wish to employ. But as a government, I think we also have to look at real strategies. For instance, perhaps under the Minister of Finance we could have a round table with these sectors I mentioned - the jewellery, auto, and construction trades. We know this abuse is very high in those areas. We also know it isn't just the avoidance of paying the GST, but people have quite frankly come to accept that as a reason. It's like not wearing seatbelts. It was very acceptable in this society; however, once the seatbelt law came in and people became educated, it no longer was acceptable.
This is clearly tax evasion, and it hurts everybody. I think education is a good component of it, but it's not enough. As a government, we have to be serious about a real strategy.
When I ran in 1993, I know that people really talked a lot about the underground economy at that time. They don't do so as much any more, but I don't think it's because they think there has been a solution. I think they realize it's still out there and is very prevalent. I think they just think that perhaps we, as legislators, haven't done enough in that area.
Mr. Frazer: Is it really the GST that's being avoided here?
Mrs. Chamberlain: It is, but that's not the crux of it. The real avoidance is that these people are not paying taxes. If they earn $50,000 or $100,000 under the table, it's a cop-out to say it's just the GST.
Mr. Frazer: The law is already in place, though, so they are breaking the law. What you have to do is get one of the parties involved in this thing to snitch on the other. I'm not sure that you can appeal to the moral conscience of people when they're saying to themselves, I can make $50 or $100 by not recording it. I agree with you, and I agree with the thrust of it. I'm just not sure there's a way in which we can enhance the procedures that the government is already using.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I would hope we could get the players from those industries together in a committee-type process in order to tell us what we need to do. I think a number of them - actually, the construction trades - have actually worked on this particular problem of the underground economy, because it obviously hurts their workers. They steal the jobs from unionized workers, from people who are legitimately employed. They can go in under the table and do the jobs for less, and, quite frankly, they hurt the honest businessperson.
.1540
I think we have a role to play. I don't think we've talked much about it as legislators.
The Chair: Brenda, rather than making this into a specific bill, have you made this a motion simply because you're trying to make it very broad and are going to ask all the facets of the government to come up with a strategy to attack this?
Mrs. Chamberlain: Yes.
The Chair: When we have stuff here and it's in the form of a motion, I find that you usually have a very good idea. What you want is for the government to kind of work on this and pull it together.
I shouldn't be helping you sell your motion, but one of the most flagrant things that I've noticed since I've been in this business is the number of people who supposedly work on contract, but they really don't. They work 9 to 5, but nobody's paying UI on them, nobody's paying benefits, nobody's paying OHIP. Everything's just cool because they're supposedly on contract. The number of people who submit a bill to their boss for a luncheon and then reissue it on their income tax somewhere else.... Sometimes one guy takes one half of the bill and another guy takes another. It is an absolutely pervasive thing to do, and they do it right in front of MPs.
I have people come into my office or into my house to clean the carpets and they want to know if it's cash or if I want a bill. It's like, do you know who I am or who I think I am? It is all-encompassing, and I think that's probably why....
I shouldn't do this, should I? I'm just excited. I'm going to learn to be quiet.
Do you have a question, John?
Mr. Loney, (Edmonton North): Yes.
In the last line of your motion, you would increase enforcement. What enforcement is in place now that you would increase?
Mrs. Chamberlain: Efforts through Revenue Canada.
We looked at this issue under the economic caucus umbrella. It is our committee's belief that they have undertaken some really good initiatives already, but we really believe they need to put more people on that. Please forgive me here, but while Reform might say we can't hire more people, the reality is that I think this is money well spent because it would enhance what is already being done. I think we can use more enforcement in this area through Revenue Canada. Some of the things they explain are working, but again, the public doesn't know about this. I would bet that they really don't know that the government's doing anything.
Mr. Loney: It seems to me that the departmental officials who are pursuing this are working from 9 to 5, and 99% of your underground economy is from 5 to 12, but -
An hon. member: Are you volunteering?
Mr. Loney: No, but I'm saying contractors are doing this. They're not doing it during regular business hours; they're doing it after hours. They're doing it on Saturdays and Sundays. I'm looking at how you're going to increase that enforcement.
Mrs. Chamberlain: It would be done through the means that Revenue Canada has already employed, and through stepping those up by hiring more people. As a committee, we thought that would be viable.
The Chair: Every one person hired at $40,000 has to collect at least $400,000 worth of outstanding money for the government in order to earn their keep. It would be a nice job for you when you retire, John.
Mr. Loney: Of course.
Mr. Frazer: Brenda, can you enlighten me? Is barter legal or illegal under this? Can somebody say, you fix my roof and I'll fix your basement? Is that acceptable or is that breaking the law?
Mrs. Chamberlain: By today's standards, I think it is acceptable. The reality is it's done all the time, legally.
An hon. member: Is it legally acceptable?
Mrs. Chamberlain: I believe it is legally acceptable, but where you really -
The Chair: No, it's not acceptable.
Mrs. Chamberlain: The chair is saying no. Is that right? How would you ever -
The Chair: Jamie knows. He knows everything.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I would ask how you would ever enforce that if somebody who said he was an electrician was able to fix your light fixture if you helped him shingle his roof the next week. I don't know that you could ever go after that.
The Chair: No, you wouldn't. It's impossible to do, but it's technically illegal because -
Mrs. Chamberlain: That's what I'm saying.
The Chair: - the government's not getting their cut of all the stuff that's going on there.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I think that falls down in the fact that this sort of thing obviously does happen on a one-to-one basis. If you have a skill and I have a skill and we're friends who live next door to each other, then yes, we might do something. But the argument really falls down when you go into it as a business and are making $50,000 or $60,000 or $100,000 a year more above your regular income.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Hanger, welcome. You may begin.
.1545
Mr. Art Hanger, MP (Calgary Northeast): My private member's motion, Madam Chair, is that in the opinion of this House, the government should enter into discussions with provincial governments to limit social assistance available to failed refugee claimants who are remaining in Canada to make appeals to the courts and to transfer the onus of providing further assistance for these individuals to immigrant and refugee aid societies and to other organizations.
Madam Chair, parliamentary approval of private member's motion M-126 would reduce the burden of refugee claimants on Canada's social assistance network. Of course, there is a substantial transfer of dollars to each province in part of the budget.
Most Canadians agree that the full benefits of Canadian residency should be available only to those who have been accepted to Canada as legitimate refugees, not simply as refugee claimants. To extend welfare and other benefits to failed refugee claimants sends a message worldwide that Canada is willing to subsidize a refugee claim irrespective of merit.
Motion M-126 recognizes that welfare falls within provincial jurisdiction and proposes that the federal government enter into negotiations with the provinces to determine if a consensus exists to limit the government-funded social benefits presently afforded to refugee claimants who have been determined not to be genuine refugees but are remaining on to carry out their appeals in our courts.
The total cost of refugee claimants to the Canadian taxpayer represents an enormous burden. Estimates of $30,000 to $60,000 per year, per claimant are widely accepted in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. A good portion of this cost is consumed by social assistance, either in the form of welfare or possibly medicare.
In closing, M-126 meets all the criteria this committee uses to select votable bills or motions. It is of significant national importance. It will not discriminate against any region of Canada. It is clear in its meaning and can be effectively implemented. It is different from matters declared by the Government of Canada to be on its legislative agenda. It is non-partisan and it is not contrary to federal, provincial, or international relations, nor is it unconstitutional.
That is my submission, Madam Chair and committee members.
The Chair: As you know, Mr. Hanger, we ask questions based not on the merits of the content of the bill but on whether it should be made votable or not.
There is a question that I have to have an answer to in my own mind. I have a lot of refugee claimants in my area who do go through the court process. They are held up for quite some time and they often have small children. What would be your alternative? If you suggested that this should go to the House for a vote and the House did vote to enact this, what would happen to those children? Who would feed them?
Mr. Hanger: First of all, let's differentiate between a genuine refugee and a claimant. For the most part, some of those claimants, if you will, are jumping the immigration line and really taking slots that legitimate immigrants have been applying for, for a long time, and have not been successful.
There would be alternatives. Once the court appearance is completed, the adjudicators have ruled, and the claimant is not considered to be a genuine refugee, then the responsibility of course would be for the claimant to have a choice here. They can either return to the country of origin or seek the assistance of other agencies. We've spelled out those particular agencies: the refugee aid societies and other organizations that support in that respective community.
The Chair: Again, you understand of course that many of those agencies do receive federal funding.
.1550
Mr. Hanger: They receive federal funding for organizational purposes only, not as a means of welfare support or otherwise. I am aware of that.
I think that is a responsibility, if you're looking at those aid societies, of coming up with funds outside government sources.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer: I take it, Art, that what you want to do is make Canada something less of a soft touch for bogus refugees. Is that correct?
Mr. Hanger: That's my point.
Mr. Frazer: Do you think that if the aid societies were required to provide the support, they would discourage people from even trying the system if they thought they were illegitimate?
Mr. Hanger: It's a well-known fact worldwide that all you have to do is land on Canadian soil and make the declaration that you are a refugee, and you are entitled to all the amenities the country can offer.
We're not objecting to that, and neither is this bill, or saying that the person should not be heard. Under the Singh decision, it's very clear that they should be granted a hearing. We're saying what should take place afterwards, when the claimant is turned down, is not considered to be a legitimate refugee. That is the point in question. If you're not considered to be a permanent refugee, why should the country pay for support at the level it pays?
It is clear in the 1994-95 estimates what the cost of support reflects on the taxpayer. It's between $30,000 and $60,000 per claimant, and there are often, as was the case last year, over 15,000 claimants not considered to be legitimate refugees. If you multiply $30,000 at the low end of the scale by 15,000, you get a substantial number of dollars. Our estimates, from what we can tell just by using the government estimates, land somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1 billion a year.
The Chair: As a point of clarification, Mr. Hanger, those 15,000 were accumulated refugees over many years. Those cases -
Mr. Hanger: No.
The Chair: Yes. Those cases were settled last year.
Mr. Hanger: No. I think we're getting two things mixed up here. The amnesty that was granted was a different group altogether. They would be consistent with some of those that had been turned down but within the system for a while. I'm talking about the number of applicants we have on a yearly basis, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30,000 to 35,000. Only approximately half of those each year would be accepted as legitimate refugee claimants.
Again, is it the responsibility of the state and the taxpayer to subsidize over a long period of time? We're saying no, that this should be a debatable topic, it should be brought before the House, and the people of the country should have the final say.
The Chair: Are there any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Hanger.
Mr. Penson. You're here for Mrs. Jennings.
Mr. Charlie Penson, MP (Peace River): Yes, Madam Chair.
The motion 267 proposed by Daphne Jennings is, under Standing Order 97(1), that a standing, special or legislative committee to which a private member's public bill has been referred shall in every case either report the bill to the House, with or without amendment, or present to the House a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill and giving reasons therefor.
The essence of this is that in the case of a private member's bill that has been deemed votable, has passed second reading where it's had a vote in the House of Commons, and has proceeded to committee, the committees in a couple of instances have killed these private member's bills in committee without referring them back to the House so that members of the House of Commons, other than the 15 or so members in committee.... Nobody knows the reason why it happened.
Daphne has asked me to present the case. We think this motion should be votable so that there's a chance for a debate and a vote in the House of Commons.
The Chair: Has she set any time limits?
Mr. Penson: No, not that I'm aware of.
The Chair: So it could still be off in oblivion for five years without a time limit.
.1555
Mr. Penson: That's a good point, and I think maybe that's something that could be talked about in debate if it were to become votable. That may be a problem that needs to be resolved.
The Chair: The only reason I'm asking is that in this committee, as you well know, we've formed our own subcommittee to look into how we can improve private members. This has been an issue that we've pretty well come to a consensus on, but we were kind of hoping we could set some time limits on it.
Mr. Penson: I'm sorry I don't have a very good answer for you, but I'm just pinch-hitting here.
The Chair: That's okay. I was just wondering if she had pondered a time limit. I think when she came to present to the committee she said six months.
Mr. Frazer: I wonder, Madam Chair, with regard to that, since the committee has been charged and is in fact dealing with that, does that make Mrs. Jennings's motion -
The Chair: No, because our committee hasn't come to any conclusions on a report yet.
Mr. Frazer: But it is a government -
The Chair: No, not yet. She has a legitimate right to present it to us.
Mr. Penson: I'd just like to add that I feel and I know Daphne feels that this goes to the very heart of private members' business. I gather that's the same feeling the committee has had, and I would really encourage the committee to make this a votable motion so that we can get it up for debate and help the cause along to make private members' business more meaningful.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Finestone, welcome.
Mrs. Sheila Finestone, MP (Mount Royal): I'm very pleased to be here. Believe it or not, I've presented many private members' bills and this is the first time one has been drawn, so I'm really very excited.
The Chair: Congratulations.
Mrs. Finestone: I have no idea what the procedure is, so I will proceed to do what I think would be what I would want.
The Chair: If you want me to, I'll just give you a quick overview.
Mrs. Finestone: Please.
The Chair: Your presentation today isn't on trying to convince us whether we should vote for it or against it, the concept of it. You're here to explain to us why you think it should be votable, why it should get to the House, and why it should have three hours of debate. If we later agree to that, then your real argument is in the House to convince your colleagues. But today you're simply here to explain to us why you think it merits being votable and having three hours' debate.
Mrs. Finestone: Thank you for that clarification. In that light, I do think it should be votable for a couple of reasons. First of all, I can't believe that a country that defines itself as a country of winter has no break between Christmas and Easter. It just seems so unusual.
Secondly, I may be wrong, but I think this particular bill has been through the House either seven or nine times. I think I left you some notes on that. I was in this House when that vote took place the last time and when the debate took place, and it lost by four votes, I believe.
The principle behind it is that because this is a winter country, people are under great stress. This is a time when you can celebrate who you are. It's a different kind of statutory holiday. The Americans have five statutory holidays to celebrate who they are as a people. Britain, France, England, and Germany all have them. Every one of these countries has either 12 or 13 statutory holidays. I've given you the stats and I won't belabour it. Canada has only nine and not one in the winter. It's just ridiculous.
We're in a very fragile state as a country, and this gives us a chance to really celebrate how far we've come and the kind of people we reflect. As a country of a cultural mosaic, it can be a binding national unity debate.
When Mr. Chrétien first brought this National Heritage Day into being - this was in 1973 and he was the minister at the time - he said that the maturity of a nation may be recognized when its people take thought for their past. It is now about the 25th anniversary, Mr. Chrétien is now the Prime Minister, national unity is a major issue, and we don't have a holiday.
I just want to mention one statistic, and I don't know if I included it there. Could you just look at your package and see if you have the statistics on work from Stats Canada? I don't think you have that page. If you don't, I will give it to you for photocopying.
.1600
I was astonished, and I think you will be too. The latest source, the Stats Canada labour force picture for 1996, indicates that in February 1996 the total work hours lost were 28,752,000 hours, and the number of employees affected were 11,101,000. That's almost one out of every three people, which is quite astonishing.
The other aspect I looked at was the statistics between men and women on the days lost per worker-year, recognizing the influx of women into the workforce.
This would give a breather at a very difficult season of the year, and I think it would also allow people to get out and enjoy the winter season. It gives them a long weekend.
I've had tremendous support, I must tell you. I'm not going to leave them with you, but these are the letters of support that have come in from across the country and from my own colleagues, from the Prime Minister down, by the way. I think people are ready for this.
My view is that it should be debatable. It should allow us to have a vision of this country as it has evolved. I do believe we've reached a maturity where we should be celebrating who we are. We are a very distinctive nation on the world map.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois, MP (Bellechasse): Mrs. Finestone, apart from giving us a day's holiday in winter, what would a Heritage Day on the third Monday in February add to Canada Day, which we celebrate on July 1? Would it be, as it were, a repeat of Canada Day in winter?
Mrs. Finestone: It would be more of a consideration of ourselves and our contribution as individuals and families to our communities and villages. We would spend a day living together harmoniously as Canadians.
Regardless of what is going on in some places, Canada is something of a miracle. Most Canadians can speak to each other with mutual respect. We have changed the constitution of our small community and have really made it evolve. This would be an opportunity to express our personal characteristics and our beliefs. It would be a private act, not a public one, unlike the events we celebrate together such as Canada's national Flag Day, Canada Day or the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. It would be more of an opportunity to say: ``Thank God I am lucky enough to live in a decent, friendly country surrounded by all this friendship.'' These kinds of qualities are not reflected in any other country on the planet.
Mr. Langlois: Thank you, Madam.
[English]
The Chair: I'm going to make my mother do cabbage rolls that day. I can taste them now.
Thank you very much, and congratulations on being drawn.
Mrs. Finestone: I think it's so exciting. I don't envy your task, by the way.
The Chair: I'm ready to put in for a transfer.
Paul, on the other hand, has probably had more bills drawn than any other human being alive in the last three years. How many times have you been here, Paul?
Mr. Paul Szabo, MP (Mississauga South): I respect the integrity of the process.
The Chair: You still didn't answer the question. It's at least eight.
Mr. Szabo: It works beyond that.
The Chair: It's a lottery. You have it pulled out of a lottery, which we have no control over. This character has horseshoes coming out of his ears.
.1605
Mr. Szabo: This item is motion 306, which states that, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a public safety officers compensation fund to receive gifts and bequests for the benefit of spouses and children of police officers and firefighters who lose their lives in the line of duty.
I also have a private member's bill, Bill C-314, that enacts this motion. It received first reading on June 17, 1996, and a copy is circulated to you so that you can see some of the details as they would appear in the bill. I've tried to outline in this handout some of the questions that you may have with regard to the motion.
First of all, who are public safety officers? Those are basically firefighters and police officers, including the jail or prison guards, as defined under the Criminal Code.
What is being proposed is that a charitable foundation be established with an administrative board of directors appointed by the Government of Canada and representatives of the various groups. The board would receive applications for assistance and assess the need on a case-by-case basis. Based on that assessment, a payment may be made to the surviving family members, being the spouse and children of public safety officers who lose their lives in the line of duty.
Where would the money come from? In drafting the bill, and indeed this motion, I worked with the private members' office to ensure that it qualified under the criteria that it not involve government spending. Indeed, this is establishing the foundation as a registered charity to receive gifts or bequests in the form of a will, or by some organization who would like to make a contribution, such as the unions or the associations of the various groups, and certainly the municipalities, who have a vested interest in managing and supporting the affairs of public safety officers in our communities. The motion does not call for any funding whatsoever by other levels of government, but of course the foundation would, as a registered charity, be permitted to receive any moneys that may be appropriated to it by any other level of government.
I thought you might be interested in the number of public safety officers who have been killed in the line of duty over the last decade. The Canadian Police Association - who heartily endorse this particular bill and motion - have reported some 50 deaths. You have a booklet in front of you that.... Actually they did a memorial service on Parliament Hill this past year. There were 50 deaths over the last decade.
The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, who also have been strong supporters of this and visited members' offices last year presenting this to us, reported 40 firefighters perished in the line of duty, and incidentally, some 2,400 firefighters injured - seriously injured in the line of duty.
I thought it was an interesting fact also that the average age of these public safety officers who died in the line of duty was only 35 years of age, which might indicate to you that they are at the prime of their life. They probably have young families, and they are probably at risk of not having the kind of financial protection for the family for the rest of their developmental or family years.
Finally, why is the fund being proposed? I think all of us have seen news reports where a public safety officer has lost their life in the line of duty, and we see officers coming from right acrossNorth America to attend the service in respect of a fallen colleague. So Canadians are aware of these risks, and when one of them loses their life in the line of duty, I think all of us do mourn that loss. This kind of a fund, therefore, would be one way in which Canadians could make a tangible contribution to honour the courageous service of those public safety officers - and to assist, where there is a need established - their loved ones in that time of need.
.1610
That's my presentation. I'd be happy to accept any questions.
The Chair: Are there any questions?
Mr. Frazer: I'm not quite sure why we're looking at the motion rather than the bill.
Mr. Szabo: It's the lottery. The bill wasn't picked but the motion was.
Mr. Frazer: I'm not particularly happy with the government being in the pension business as much as it is already. Couldn't what you're proposing be accomplished by having a charitable organization organized to receive bequests and so on in support of exactly what you're talking about? You're not talking about any additional government money being given to this, other than the fact that obviously it will cost the Canadian taxpayer substantial amounts in support of the committee and the management of the fund. Could that not be done by a private organization?
Mr. Szabo: Yes, it could. But it would be a blanket right across Canada. It provides a national focus because we're dealing with national police forces such as the RCMP, right down to the voluntary firefighters in the local communities.
The International Association of Fire Fighters came before members of Parliament last year with this proposal. They presented it to us on the basis of the U.S. model that's been in place since 1976. There they have an automatic payment to all officers killed in the line of duty; that's what they wanted to do. In this case, because it's a start-up situation, it is up to that board to consider it on a case-by-case basis until they determine whether they have the financial viability.
I think the fact that you cross the federal jurisdiction, like the RCMP, down to the provincial jurisdiction, like the OPP or the QPP or the Alberta Provincial Police, and then into the municipal jurisdiction or regional police - you also have municipal firefighters - there are so many jurisdictions that they couldn't possibly be coordinated by.... There is no common bond by association.
Mr. Frazer: But there isn't with the federal government either.
Mr. Szabo: There is to the extent that it would be a starting point, and representatives of the various groups would be appointed to the board of directors. It also constitutes a registered charity under the auspices of the federal Income Tax Act.
Mr. Frazer: I understand that, but it could be granted to a private charitable organization.
Mr. Szabo: It could, but the support of the federal government also gives it some credibility in terms of a Canadian value. I think that's an important part of it, that all Canadians mourn the loss. This is a way in which Canadians, through a Canadian-led instrument, could tangibly support a situation. It's a recommendation.
Mr. Frazer: I participated in the remembrance ceremony last year for the policemen here on the Hill. That wasn't organized by the government; it was organized by the police departments. There was even international representation. I just fail to see why the government should involve itself in yet something else and get into the bureaucracy of it.
Mr. Szabo: The government's involvement would be only to the extent that it would be initiating the appointment of a board. The board and the charity after that becomes self-sufficient and has to manage its own affairs. It's then up to that charity, as any other charity, to raise its own funds for administrative purposes, to assess need, to make awards and grants, etc. The feds are out of it. I think it's the leadership role in a more symbolic way.
You were here for the memorial service, but that was for police. The firefighters were not there.
The Chair: I'm an old police brat. My father was on the metro force and they had a widows and orphans fund. They used to have the police games and they would sell advertising and raise their own money. It was an excellent source of funds for families left in that condition.
You're saying that firefighters don't have anything similar. Do you know if the federal government peacekeepers have any such fund?
Mr. Szabo: I think the peacekeepers as well as the RCMP are employees and already have coverage, so the need may not be as important in those cases. If there are five children left, though, even if you had insurance through an employer it still might not be enough for the long-term need. That's why I think it's important that everybody be eligible.
.1615
I'm not sure where the peacekeepers really fall here, but this group would obviously be in a position to modify its mandate or make recommendations to expand it if that were deemed appropriate. I think that's something that should be considered.
The Chair: I think metro police were a good model, though, because my father always used to joke that he was worth more dead than alive. He received two and a half times his yearly salary, he received all his pension, paid in full until the last child left school, and so on. So it was a good model.
Obviously you're saying it doesn't work for all those other organizations.
Mr. Szabo: The issue really is that if you establish a vehicle in which Canadians can tangibly show their support or their respect, I think the organization will be in a position to respond to the need as well in an appropriate fashion. I think it would be sufficiently arm's length, as any charitable organization must be, and would report formally under the rules for registered charities, to make sure it's meeting its mandate and fulfilling that criteria under the registered charity rules.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Szabo: Merci.
The Chair: We'll move in camera now and begin the hard part of the job.
[Proceedings continue in camera]