Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Issue 13 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 2, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill S-10, to amend the Excise Tax Act, met this day at 10:00 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Colleagues, this is the fourth meeting of this committee to consider Bill S-10, to amend the Excise Tax Act by removing the GST from reading materials. This is a private member's bill, sponsored by our colleague Senator Di Nino, which received second reading in the Senate and was referred to us.
We have already heard from officials of the Department of Finance. Today, we are very pleased to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Tony Valeri, M.P. With him are two officials, Mr. Steve Tierney, Director of Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance; and Mr. Andrew Marsland, Senior Chief of Operations, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance.
We will hear from the Parliamentary Secretary, after which the sponsor of the bill, Senator Di Nino, will have an opportunity, as is our custom, to have the last word on this bill. If it is your wish, we will then proceed to clause-by-clause study.
Mr. Valeri, welcome to the Senate and to this committee. Please proceed.
Hon. Tony Valeri, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before your committee and to have an opportunity to contribute to your study of Bill S-10.
As you indicated in your opening remarks, with me are two officials from the Department of National Finance. They will be able to respond to questions of a technical nature that may arise during this presentation.
The intent behind Bill S-10 is to promote literacy and education as well as to support a strong Canadian publishing industry. In that respect, the intent of the bill is laudable and raises important issues which everyone around this table understands and is concerned about.
However, I must ask a basic question: Will exempting reading materials from the Goods and Services Tax, as proposed by this bill, be the most effective way to use government resources to achieve the stated objectives, objectives which involve the achievement of improved literacy rates, a better education system, and a stronger Canadian publishing industry?
I argue that Bill S-10 is not the most effective way to do that. It fails to target those who would benefit the most. I respectfully submit to this committee that the cost of exempting reading materials from the GST would have a much greater impact if it were targeted in a much more direct manner.
With respect to literacy rates, would removing the GST from reading materials be the most effective way to improve literacy levels when those who would benefit most are highly literate individuals who purchase reading materials in large quantities? The answer is no. Perhaps that is why the vast majority of OECD countries, including every member of the Europe Union save the United Kingdom, apply their sales taxes to books. This includes Denmark and Sweden, two countries which boast exceptionally high literacy levels while taxing books at the rate of 25 per cent.
This government has pursued an alternative strategy to improve literacy. We have introduced a 100-per-cent GST rebate on all books purchased by public libraries, schools, universities, colleges and community groups that help individuals, regardless of income, get the tools they need to learn to read.
In addition, the government increased funding for the National Literacy Secretariat by over 30 per cent last year, from $23.3 million to $30.3 million, creating more opportunities for individuals to improve their literacy and communication skills.
As to the second objective of improved education, the government also recognizes the need to help students as they pursue higher education. Indeed, the Canadian Opportunities Strategy, unveiled in the 1998 budget, contains several initiatives aimed at enriching support for students and their parents. The initiatives include the establishment of the Canada Millennium Foundation Fund, enhanced assistance for advanced research through increased funding for granting councils, and assisting graduates who are managing their student debt loads.
Finally, with respect to Canadian publishing, some have argued that taking the GST off reading materials would be a better way to support Canadian authors and publishers. However, that is far from clear, since this would not only exempt Canadian products but also competing foreign material. With this in mind, as with literacy and education, the government has chosen instead to take a more targeted approach to fostering a vibrant Canadian literary and publishing industry.
Funding to the Canada Council, which provides support to Canadian writers and other artists, was increased by $25 million in 1997-98, and an additional $15 million a year has been invested in measures to promote a viable and competitive book publishing industry.
In conclusion, the government believes that the targeted measures it has adopted are preferable in meeting the objectives of promoting literacy, education, and Canadian publishing to simply removing the GST from reading materials. Indeed, Canadians can be assured that their government will continue to take such targeted action in order to improve the competitiveness of Canadian workers and the strength of our culture industries.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Valeri.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Valeri, at the beginning of your remarks you stated three intents of Bill S-10. I believe that if you read the material on the bill, you will find that the main intent for the introduction of Bill S-10 was to keep a promise made to Canadians by the Prime Minister of this country, practically every member of cabinet of the present government, as well as members of the previous government, both in cabinet and outside, and many members of the House of Commons, particularly many Liberal members. Do you not think that is a worthwhile objective?
Mr. Valeri: I believe that the objective was to find a way, in a time of limited resources, to improve literacy levels in this country. The approach which this government has taken to improving literacy has been to provide a 100-per-cent GST rebate on books purchased by public libraries, schools, universities, colleges and community literacy groups, which assist those individuals who can least afford to buy books and, in that way, assist those most in need.
Senator Di Nino: Have you had an opportunity to read the testimony of witnesses who have appeared before this committee?
Mr. Valeri: I have reviewed some of the testimony, although not all of it.
Senator Di Nino: Your arguments this morning are not in agreement with the comments made by the witnesses we have heard, on nearly every point. One theme throughout the presentation of the witnesses was that it is important to allow people, particularly people in the lower-income scale, the ability to buy books. I believe it was Roch Carrier who said that it is interesting that studies show that, unless there are at least 10 books in a house, literacy suffers.
Mr. Valeri: When looking at the available information and the studies that have been done, there seems to be little correlation between the tax rate applicable to reading material and the literacy rate in a given country. I point to Sweden, which taxes books at 6 per cent but scores considerably higher on literacy surveys than the U.K., which does not tax books. If your argument is that a reduction in taxes on books will improve literacy, I would respectfully suggest there is information disputing that.
Some individuals who appeared before this committee argued for zero rating of magazines to increase literacy and said that foreign titles have a 7-per-cent to 15-per-cent advantage here in Canada. In fact, that is not the case. Non-resident magazine publishers that solicit orders from Canada must register and collect the GST.
Senator Di Nino: We also heard that the Department of Revenue has decided that it is nearly impossible to try to make that stick.
The reality of the issue is simply this: A number of expert witnesses, people who deal with this every day of their lives, suggest that the removal of this tax would help to improve literacy in this country, as well as all of the other points that you made.
There has been some question as to whether the removal of the GST and the ensuing increase of literacy would have an economic benefit. I received a letter this morning from Canada Post proposing a literacy award. In that letter, they say that approximately $4 billion annually is lost to the economy because of low literacy rates in this country. Would that not be in itself a reason to ensure that we do everything possible to make literacy rates better in this country by the removal of this tax to allow people, particularly those in the lower-income scales, to buy more books?
Mr. Valeri: The point you make in terms of the economic costs associated with low levels of literacy is one with which every senator around this table would agree.
The government has taken other steps. We recognize that literacy rates in this country are higher than other countries around the world on the whole, although we are perhaps below Finland and Sweden. We have taken a very different and targeted approach from the one you are suggesting by providing funding to the national literacy secretariat and targeting those individuals on the lower-income scale in this country who might not be able to buy a book, irrespective of whether or not books are taxed. We have targeted that assistance and allowed a 100-per-cent GST rebate to public institutions such as libraries, schools, universities, colleges and community literacy groups that can reach out within their own community and assist those individuals who are suffering because of illiteracy.
Senator Di Nino: That is not what we heard from the witnesses. If I have time, I will return to this later.
Senator Maheu: I should like to raise two areas of concern. First, I have been told that the cost of removing the GST from books would be in the area of $425 million. Is this is a figure with which your financial staff would agree?
Mr. Andrew Marsland, Senior Chief, Operations, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance: Our estimate is that the cost of removing the GST from all reading material would be in the region of $300 million per annum.
Senator Maheu: If we assume that the government accepts this bill, how would "reading material" be defined? I have been concerned about that from the beginning. Magazines and newspapers are basically advertising.
Another area which deeply troubles me is pornography, particularly the undue sexuality in books that are available to children, as well as hate literature, and so on. Although the writing and publishing of hate literature is prohibited in the Criminal Code, many of our libraries carry books that can incite people to hate and to propagate the hate.
Defining "reading" and defining the "electronic highway" is something about which I feel strongly. Having considered the bill and having read the testimony of some of our witnesses, have you thought about that, and do you have any comments to make?
Mr. Marsland: There is no definition in the bill. It is simply all "reading material."
If one tried to construct a definition, one would have to bear in mind all kinds of considerations. There is a definition of "book" in the Excise Tax Act for the purposes of rebate. It is quite a broad definition and there are certain exclusions. That is targeted towards the rebate for public institutions. In essence, the legislation relies on the public institutions to decide what is an appropriate purchase, and the rebate flows from that decision.
Senator Maheu: Are CD-ROMs covered?
Mr. Marsland: No, they are not.
Senator LeBreton: Thank you for appearing here this morning. I am sure the irony has not escaped you, sitting here as a Liberal member of Parliament defending the GST.
Mr. Valeri: I am defending literacy.
Senator LeBreton: I wish to take you back to some testimony given by Mr. Gzowski, who said:
Literacy is, or ought to be, a civil right in this society...
and:
...is there not a social obligation, a public obligation, to give them a hand...
He then went on to talk about the symbolism of removing the GST from books and reading materials.
He talked about a pyramid with upper-income Canadians being at the top and lower-income Canadians and Canadians on fixed income being at the bottom. He talked about these people not being the people who would necessarily frequent public libraries. These are the people who would go to the bookstore, see a book priced at, for example, $5, go to the cashier, and with the GST added at the cash register, it would dissuade them from buying the book.
In your view, would it not make reading materials more accessible to lower-income Canadians and people on fixed incomes if they could go to a bookstore and afford to purchase books? It would be symbolic if there were GST on books. It would be a matter of government keeping a promise and saying, "We think reading material is so important that we do not think it should be taxed."
Mr. Valeri: Thank you for your comments. I know that they were not made in a partisan way.
Senator LeBreton: Of course not.
Mr. Valeri: I also find it ironic that you are here as a Conservative senator calling for exemptions to a policy which was put in place by a Conservative government.
As to Mr. Gzowski's comment on the symbolism of removing the GST from books, and his comment that lower-income Canadians would have greater access, I suggest that removing the GST on reading materials would not provide any direct benefits to those most in need of literacy training.
As to the total cost of providing such relief, I would also suggest, that probably only a small fraction of those who are most in need of literacy training would receive the benefits.
I go back to the comment that I made earlier that everyone around this committee table is in agreement, and certainly the government is in agreement with you, that literacy is an issue of national importance and that the government needs to take measures to improve literacy in this country.
The fundamental disagreement is the approach to achieving that objective. I am suggesting that the targeted approach that we have taken in providing the GST rebate to public institutions, as well as improving the funding for the secretariat, is one which we feel will provide better results in terms of literacy rates for this country than the tax expenditure in the area of $300 million which was mentioned earlier by the official. In fact, if it started to further erode the tax base of the GST, it could escalate to some $2 billion.
You may have seen the article this morning about the pressure to cut taxes. Varied comments are being made about the approach governments should take in providing relief. One of them would be a reduction in the GST which was mentioned earlier by Senator Di Nino with respect to books. Others call for a straight cut in the GST. Yet others call for personal income tax reduction.
We say that in a time of limited resources -- because, although the books are balanced, the senator certainly knows what it was like to live through a time when Canada was not in great financial shape, and we do not want to go back to those times -- every expenditure and investment which is made must be measured against the fact that we want to stay in balance. We never want to go back to go back to where this country was in terms of our deficit and rising debt. We must measure the outcome of our investment. We believe that the outcome would be greater with respect to literacy if we target those resources in a more effective manner.
Senator LeBreton: Absolutely. It was our government that introduced the GST to achieve the results that we are now seeing. That was part of the whole debt and deficit reduction program.
On this specific question, not only did we hear from witnesses from the literacy groups but we also heard representatives of the Canadian booksellers. We have individual small store-owners who must deal with the public. They are answering for the government.
When we introduced the GST, we considered the possibility of excluding books and reading materials, realizing that, perhaps, it was an area that should have been exempt. Having said that, how do we respond to Canadians involved with literacy groups and booksellers when they remember not only a vague promise but a specific promise made many times by the government to remove the tax on reading materials? How do you answer that specifically?
Mr. Valeri: Specifically, I would answer that the objective of access to reading material, to books, to improved literacy, is being provided through assistance by the government to public institutions because we want to target those individuals that are most in need and those individuals who do not have access to bookstores.
In answer to the argument that an individual in the low-income category will not buy a book because of GST, I would submit to you that perhaps those individuals who are most in need in the low-income category do not go into a bookstore because they cannot afford to buy a book. We need to create better access for those individuals to improve their literary skills. We are attempting to do that by providing a 100-per-cent GST rebate for books purchased by public institutions, libraries, colleges, universities, and community literacy centres which are in a direct outreach mode to those individuals who need it the most.
Senator LeBreton: That is not how the witnesses interpreted the promises.
The Chairman: I wish to thank you and your officials for appearing here today.
The Honourable Consiglio Di Nino: I will make some brief comments, but first I will address some of the points made by Mr. Valeri.
As to the question of direct benefits to literacy, that is, funding the secretariat as opposed to the effects of passage of Bill S-10, all of the witnesses refute Mr. Valeri's position. He referred to an article concerning a looming tax-cut battle and reducing the GST from 7 per cent to 5 per cent. However, he neglected to say that the recommendation also includes exempting a number of items such as books and magazines. Others are certainly pushing the same position on this.
All of the witnesses, who had a keen interest in literacy and reading, have agreed with the principle of this bill. Each witness brought a particular insight to the issues. Let me comment on a few of them.
All of those witnesses agreed that literacy makes economic sense. This morning I received a letter from Canada Post announcing their Freedom Literacy awards. The letter states, in part, that poor literacy skills cost the Canadian economy approximately $4 billion in lost productivity each year. That is good economic reason to eliminate GST on reading material.
As well, taxation discourages consumption. Taxation hits the poor the hardest. Education is not the only answer to literacy. We have a social obligation to help people to learn to read. Reading to our children is the most important thing we can do. Those are some of the important comments made by our witnesses.
One of the most eloquent and truthful comments made was made by Peter Gzowski who told us that removing the GST on reading material is more of a symbolic gesture than an economic one. He is right. This is not a question of money; it is a question of values. It is a question of the kind of society we want, and the kind of society we should have.
We are entering an era where the ability to read is becoming more crucial than ever. Those who cannot read or who read poorly will be left behind. They will be part of the have-nots. The government, through the Department of Finance, has argued that we should not fiddle with the GST. It is there and we should live with it. The government has asked where the replacement revenue will come from and has claimed that programs already in place are a better solution to literacy than removing the GST. Obviously, the witnesses spoke eloquently on that point.
Here in committee, Liberal members have asked repeatedly about the definition of reading material. I agree with them that is a bit of an irritant but, in reply, I have suggested that government, both through Order in Council and the Revenue Canada interpretation bulletin, should define this term as they see fit over time, and from time to time.
However, all the arguments and debate aside, in the end, it boils down to one thing: promises -- promises made on numerous occasions by members of the present government both before and after 1993; promises made by members of the previous Conservative government and the Conservative Party. We promised the Canadian people we would get rid of this tax.
We have an obligation to keep that promise and, as we have heard from the our various witnesses, getting rid of the GST on reading material is the right thing to do.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I sense that after four meetings and numerous witnesses it would be the wish of the committee to make a decision on this bill and to report to the Senate.
Let me point out the options to the committee. First, the chairman would entertain a motion that the bill be reported without amendment. Second, the chairman would entertain a motion that the bill be reported with an amendment, there being not much point in going into clause-by-clause since the bill contains only one clause. Third, the chairman would entertain a motion that the committee recommend that the bill be not further proceeded with.
Those are the three options, other than a simple motion to adjourn the committee, which means we will have this matter on our agenda at our next meeting.
Senator LeBreton: I move that we report the bill to the Senate without amendment.
The Chairman: It is moved that the bill be reported without amendment.
The chairman is not unmindful that this is a motion that may not be unanimously received, so I will ask the clerk, who has been receiving notices of changes in the membership of the committee, to read the names of the members of the committee.
Ms Nadine Huggins, Clerk of the Committee: The committee membership consists of Senator Di Nino, Senator Cook, Senator Cools, Senator Ferretti Barth, Senator Graham, Senator Johnstone, Senator Kenny, Senator Comeau, Senator LeBreton, Senator Lynch-Staunton, Senator Maheu, Senator Murray, Senator Phillips, and Senator Callbeck.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, there remains a little problem with the definition. Senator Maheu and I were discussing the matter this morning. I do not mind working with my colleagues opposite to see if we can propose an amendment on the definition of "reading material" which would satisfy both sides. I do not wish to speak on behalf of Senator Maheu, but we thought that might be accomplished at third reading.Is that correct?
Senator Maheu: That is correct. I do not think we should delay the matter today.
Senator Cools: Do I understand that Senator Maheu is saying that she is willing, right now, to support the proposal to report the bill without amendment?
Senator Maheu: It can go back to the house.
Senator Ferretti Barth: No, I wish to propose an amendment.
The Chairman: Just one moment. We have a motion before the committee. Senator LeBreton has moved that the bill be reported without amendment. Senator Ferretti Barth has something to say.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: I have nothing against this legislation which will encourage people to read. We are exposed to a great deal of advertising and we have already heard people talk about pornography and violence. I have no objections to removing the GST from reading material, except when it comes to pornographic or violent material.
The Chairman: Senator Maheu has already indicated to us that she intends to table an amendment motion at third reading calling for a clarification of the meaning of "reading material."
[English]
Senator Cools: I should like to respond to Senators Di Nino, Maheu and Ferretti Barth.
I very clearly understand the wish of the committee to report this bill without amendment. However, I also very clearly hear a request by Senator Maheu and Senator Ferretti Barth to move some amendments in the chamber at third reading. I have also heard, from Senator Di Nino, a clear commitment to consider those amendments positively if there can be agreement with Senator Maheu.
Having heard all of this, I wish to say that I am prepared to vote in favour of the committee reporting the bill without amendment.
The Chairman: Perhaps the chair was wrong and this motion may not require a division. Is there any further discussion on Senator LeBreton's motion?
Senator Cools: Senator Ferretti Barth is relatively new to this process and I believe we have a duty to support new senators. Senator Ferretti Barth informs me that she is interested in proposing an amendment. I would invite Senator Ferretti Barth to consult with Senator Di Nino and, based on the commitments that have been made here, we can go ahead and vote now.
The Chairman: Senator LeBreton moves that Bill S-10 be reported to the Senate without amendment.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Congratulations, Senator Di Nino, you have passed this hurdle at any rate. Your bill has gone passed second reading and will be reported, without amendment, to the Senate.
The committee continued in camera.
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 3, 1998
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-12, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, met this day at 3:30 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We have witnesses today from the government and from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. After we have heard them and had any discussion that you deem necessary, we might, if it is your wish, proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill and decide what recommendation to make on it to our colleagues in the Senate.
Please proceed, Mr. Discepola.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola, MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada: Bill C-12 is very straightforward and very clear. It corrects the inequity that currently exists between the two groups that participate in Canadian peace-keeping initiatives internationally, that is the members of Canada's armed forces and the members of the RCMP.
Specifically, the bill broadens the protection afforded to members of the RCMP in the event of injury, illness or even death resulting from participation in UN peace-keeping missions.
Let me begin by explaining the proposed amendment to you and what it means for Canada and our international peace-keepers.
Our Canadian peace-keepers are pressed into service in the most devastated war-torn regions of the world. These highly qualified individuals work to restore law and order in countries in the throes of civilian and often military conflict. Canadian peace-keepers are regularly exposed to danger, whether they are on duty or not.
Canadians are proud of their peace-keepers and expect the government to grant them the protection and benefits commensurate with their living conditions and work abroad.
The Special Duty Area Pension Order recognizes that our peace-keepers work under very special conditions. Canadian forces members are on duty 24 hours a day when assigned to special duty areas like Bosnia and Haiti. A Canadian armed forces member who suffers an injury or illness or who dies while on duty in these special areas automatically becomes eligible for pension benefits in accordance with the Pension Act.
The same cannot be said for RCMP members currently on duty abroad. They are not eligible for benefits under the Pension Act, unless their injury, illness or death occurred during their regular shift. According to the existing legislative provisions, the onus is on the employee to prove that his disability was directly duty-related.
Ever since a detachment of Canadian forces personnel first participated in international peace-keeping missions in armed conflict zones, it has been recognized that it would be unfair to require these individuals or their beneficiaries to prove that the injury or death is work related and occurred while that person was on duty.
Whereas the presumption is made in the case of a Canadian forces member that his injury, illness or death occurred while on duty in a special duty area and is therefore service related, RCMP members must prove that this was the case, although similar circumstances may prevail.
This bill corrects this inequity. It ensures that Canadian forces members and RCMP members are treated equally. It also recognizes that Canadian peace-keepers are never really off-duty and are constantly exposed to danger, even when their shift is over.
[English]
At the present time, for instance, members of both forces are on a mission to Bosnia, which has been declared, again, a special duty area. In accordance with this Special Duty Area Pension Order, members of the Canadian Armed Forces are considered to be on duty 24 hours a day with respect to any injury, illness or death. Members of the RCMP, however, are considered to be on duty only during their shift and are therefore treated differently than military personnel participating in the same type of mission, even though they are enduring the same conditions and exposed to the same dangers.
These special pension benefits take into account the increased risk associated with peace-keeping duties. The amendment will extend the same kind of program to disabled RCMP peace-keepers. This amendment reflects the changing role of peace-keeping and how Canada, a country respected worldwide for its commitment to peace-keeping, has provided what many countries need most to sustain peace -- a respect for the rule of law and a method of fairly enforcing that law.
We must remember, therefore, that the RCMP members participating on these peace-keeping missions are also volunteers. They are dedicated and highly skilled individuals who assist troubled countries in creating a new respect for law enforcement and the law itself. The job is not an easy one, nor is it without significant, personal risk. Therefore, it is very important that the RCMP members serving as peace-keepers be treated fairly and that they and, more important, their families can be confident in the adequacy of the coverage and benefits to which they are entitled. This bill, in my opinion, strives to do just that. It seeks equity for all Canadian peace-keepers, whether they are military or RCMP personnel.
In supporting this bill, senators and parliamentarians will acknowledge that the contribution of the RCMP peace-keepers is equal in value to that of their colleagues in the Canadian Forces. However, we must act quickly. Members of the RCMP currently serving their country in peace-keeping missions must be ensured that they will be protected in the event of injury, illness, or even death.
I hope that this committee will understand the fairness of the amendments proposed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and that senators will support this bill.
I would be only too pleased to answer any questions that you may have at this stage.
[Translation]
Senator Maheu: I have a hard time believing that it took until 1998 to correct this injustice. I cannot conceive of us sending RCMP members on missions to Haiti or Bosnia without providing them with adequate protection.
Mr. Discepola: What more can I say, other than that we have acknowledged that an inequity existed and that we are attempting to rectify the situation.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Are members of the RCMP federal police officers?
Mr. Discepola: Yes, senator, they are.
Senator Ferretti Barth: What happens then in the case of provincial or municipal police officers? Should a conflict arise, all law enforcement personnel could be pressed into peace-keeping service, if required. If a conflict like this were to arise in the very near future, would provincial police officers be entitled to the same treatment as federal police officers?
Mr. Discepola: No.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Is it not unfair as well not to plan for what may happen tomorrow?
Mr. Discepola: The federal government has no legal jurisdiction over police forces. While the RCMP is an agency that comes under our jurisdiction, other police forces come under provincial and sometimes municipal jurisdiction. We have no latitude in terms of regulating the situation.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Are you saying that pension benefits are not subject to provincial guidelines?
Mr. Discepola: Each police force in virtually every province has its own collective agreement. When I was with the Montreal Urban Community, officers often volunteered to serve as peace-keepers. The MUC had made arrangements in its collective agreement to provide them with suitable coverage. Each police force has a responsibility to ensure that if ever one of its members is assigned to a duty area like the one described, the officer in question is entitled to adequate coverage.
Senator Ferretti Barth: This will lead to inequities between police officers, depending on whether they come under federal or provincial jurisdiction. They are still considered peace officers, anytime and anywhere. Perhaps we could take a look at the general provincial guidelines respecting benefits for police officers and see if there is something that we can do.
Mr. Discepola: According to the Constitution, this is outside our jurisdiction.
[English]
Senator Perrault: Mr. Chairman, this is a measure whose time has obviously come. It should have come many years ago. The fact that it enjoys the support of all parties indicates that there is a feeling that there has been an injustice visited upon members of a worthy force these many years.
Are there other measures requested by the RCMP which would lend themselves to legislative action by Parliament? In my view, this package is acceptable. Does the force believe that there are other inequities or inequalities, or does this satisfy most of their concerns?
Mr. Discepola: It is a double-edged sword. This measure clearly addresses their concerns and those of their families with regard to compensation while on peace-keeping missions. The force does, however, have other concerns, of which I believe you are well aware.
Senator Perrault: The force is supportive of this measure, however?
Mr. Discepola: Definitely.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: I was wondering if Senator Ferretti Barth was referring to the officers who went to Haiti to establish a police force? I would imagine that each police force has its own collective agreement in place.
Mr. Discepola: That is correct.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: With its own separate provisions. There is no question that these officers must be protected. We should check the collective agreement of City of Montreal police officers.
Mr. Discepola: Or of all major cities, because officers from across Canada participate in such missions. I used Montreal as an example because I am familiar with the situation there.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: We heard about the officers from Montreal. I am not sure if there were any from other cities. I do not believe that they were covered when they served on peace-keeping duty in certain parts of the world. I am not sure what this all means, but in my view, it is entirely appropriate that they receive the proper coverage. I totally agree with that.
[English]
The Chairman: It remains only for me to thank you. You have been very helpful.
Colleagues, at this time I would normally ask you whether you wish to proceed to clause-by-clause study of this bill. If it is your wish, with leave, we could forgo that process and the chairman would entertain a motion that the bill be reported without amendment. The chairman would entertain a motion that the bill be reported with amendments, if you have any to propose, or the chairman would entertain a motion that the bill not be proceeded with further.
Senator Maheu: I propose that the bill be reported without amendment.
The Chairman: You have heard the motion. Is there any discussion, colleagues?
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Were any amendments made to this bill in the House of Commons?
The Chairman: The bill was reported out of the House of Commons committee without amendment and emerged from the House of Commons without amendment.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: It was passed unanimously in the House of Commons?
Mr. Discepola: There was all-party agreement on this bill, Mr. Chairman.
An important question was raised as to why we have not done this before. Canada started peace-keeping missions only in 1989-1990.
Senator Maheu: That is a long time ago.
Mr. Discepola: Yes, I agree.
Senator Perrault: When a number of us with the joint committee on foreign policy were in New York at the United Nations, the statement was made that, despite all the problems, we are the most effective peace-keepers in the entire world. We want to ensure that it is a first-class and well indemnified force.
The Chairman: This was the first time we sent police forces on a peace-keeping mission. The Armed Forces have been going on peace-keeping missions for a long time.
We have before us Senator Maheu's motion that the bill be reported without amendment. Is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried. We will report the bill to the Senate without amendment.
The committee adjourned.