Evidence of meeting #19 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was police.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you very much.
My son is a police officer, and I talk to lots of RCMP. What they tell me they want from Bill C-18 is pension portability. We're looking for more RCMP officers. We want to be able to retain police officers, but we also want to attract experienced police officers from other police forces. There's a real stopgap when pensions can't be transferred over.
I'll give you an example. Clearly, if you came from another profession and you wanted to change to another type of work in the same profession, if any other community.... I think this bill is very fair, because it acknowledges the expertise of police officers who have been brave enough to apply for the RCMP. The RCMP put their lives on the line every single day. They're in the forefront every single day.
That being said, they're looking to this committee to pass Bill C-18 very quickly so we can get more police officers on the streets, and they won't be penalized because they've entered the RCMP. It's plain and simple. The RCMP frustration is when they look at the Hansard and look at the remarks, they wonder, “Isn't this pretty straightforward? We just want to be able to get our pensions going so we can enter the RCMP and continue our careers.”
Does someone want to comment on what I'm saying about that? I'm interested in hearing from Mr. Cape. You said you work with the SRRs.
12:15 p.m.
Director, Pension Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
The concern that you raised before about the members is a valid point. When you're the director of pension services--and you have to remember the RCMP is a very close group--there's no hesitation for someone who's out in a detachment in northern Alberta in picking up the phone and calling me, saying, “What are you doing for me on the pension issue? I'm retiring next year, and this portability question hasn't been addressed yet. How is this going to impact my pension?”
Well, it's going to impact your pension negatively. You joined the force and weren't able to move your moneys over from your other pension; therefore, it's going to impact what you get when you leave.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
So RCMP, would you not agree, can figure this out? Or police officers can figure this out? Would you not agree it would be a detriment to signing up for the RCMP?
12:15 p.m.
Director, Pension Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It would definitely be.
I should also mention that Mr. Delisle is the representative on our pension advisory committee and other pension issue groups that we have in terms of the RCMP pension plan. He communicates with the membership and the other SRRs across the country, and other SRRs communicate with their membership to identify what the burning issue is for them. The burning issue they identified was the portability question.
12:15 p.m.
Director, Pension Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
We have an older force. A lot of them are retiring. Number one, we need to replace them, which gets into the issue of safety and security. But second, it gets into the issue of their being penalized because this portability bill isn't in place, because they can't transfer their money over. They're going to be penalized financially.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Joy Smith Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Exactly.
Can someone maybe comment on the safety of our communities, particularly in our remote areas? When they go to northern Canada and are stationed at some of those northern postings, there's a big sacrifice made by the RCMP. Often their families are up there; they're cut off from different kinds of advantages they might have in other communities.
I hear from a lot of RCMP officers in the north that they went into the RCMP because they believed it was a flagship of Canada and that they could be of service to our country. They protect very well the communities that other people wouldn't even go into.
So can you comment on the safety of all Canadians when we don't have enough RCMP or police officers wanting to go into the RCMP? I say this because they do look at their families, and they do look at their future, and the pension portability is a big part of that.
12:15 p.m.
President, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association
In the same vein as you, if you realize that we have over 10,000 members right now who have gone through new cadet training, you will realize that all 10,000 are in the position you're talking about. That's what we're talking about; we want to represent them.
Also, regarding the example of one member retiring next year who would like to have pension portability, that person has twenty years of service. Twenty years ago there was no talk about pension portability whatsoever. They are not the people we're looking at right now. What we're looking at is taking care of the people who are taking care of Canadians everywhere.
Every year we have 1,200 of them who go through training. So next year there will have been 11,000 who have gone through new cadet training, and there will be 12,000 the year after that. If you look at the numbers from 1993, when they were first hired, you will see that they'll be able to retire in five years, or four and a half years. A person who is working beside us will be able to count on getting six months more of a pension than ours. That's what we're talking about: unfairness.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
No, you cannot. Thank you. We're at six minutes.
I want to go to Mr. McTeague for five minutes, but before I recognize him, I would just like to remind members that the statutory amendment sent here and the bill being amended by Parliament deals with the RCMP Superannuation Act, not the RCMP Act. So our focus is on the superannuation provisions, and not the RCMP Act itself.
Mr. McTeague for five minutes, please.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Cape, how difficult is it for you to achieve your goal of helping the recruiting efforts when you are possibly presented with the spectre of two classes of officers?
12:20 p.m.
Director, Pension Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
From my perspective, we are talking about a situation where we're trying to do more for our members. The issue of these anomalies is created by the fact that they can't count their time at depot, while the others can count their time spent training. I'd have to look at the issue in terms of whether they all are receiving six months training. Are some using brief periods of training in their own police force plus depot training with us?
I can't answer your question in terms of what the impacts are because I haven't done the research on that.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Cape, maybe I could ask you this, and maybe even Mr. Delisle can answer this question.
Let's say I want to join a local police service, so I train at Aylmer, for example. If I want to join the RCMP, I'm in Saskatchewan. If the amount of the money I would receive would not be pensionable with RCMP, as I understand it, but would be for those going to Aylmer, as an example, is there a difference in the pay schedule compensating for that lack of a pension or the use of that time, which could otherwise be considered as part of the pension?
12:20 p.m.
Director, Pension Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I'm not really situated to respond to that, because that's a real compensation issue in terms of the overall compensation package.
The only thing I can say is that when we look at compensation in the RCMP, there's a comparative group of eight police forces that we look at for all aspects of their benefits, in terms of pay, benefits, pension, etc. All of that is considered when we look at the pay and benefits for the RCMP.
12:20 p.m.
President, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association
I believe that one point has not yet been developed. Most police officers and other police services who join the ranks of the RCMP don't go to the academy.
They don't have to go back to Regina for six months. They don't. They're taken at par. They don't go back and retrain in the police academy as being non-cadets.
That's not what we're talking about here. These people are the ones who are being right now compared in Bill C-18. Our membership has to go directly through training for those six months.
To me, I do believe, with all due respect, Monsieur Lee, that when we're talking about not an amendment to the RCMP Act, if you look at the definition of membre de la Gendarmerie , which is in Bill C-18, that's what we're addressing here.
Anyway, it's just so that you comprehend that if you have police from another police force who already have some police service, then those people are taken at par.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Delisle, let me ask you this question. You seem to have raised a very important issue with respect to equity and fairness as it relates to that six-month period. Has the SRR ever raised that issue--publicly, privately, anywhere?
12:25 p.m.
President, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association
I haven't seen the letter that was circulated. I wish I could look at it.
You have to realize that because I'm a member who goes along with the thinking that we should have collective bargaining, I've been chastised by the division representative. Technically I'm not part of their caucus. I'm still allowed to be a division representative in C Division, but I'm no longer to participate in their caucus. So whatever they do, unfortunately I'm not privy to that.
I know that they have stressed for years the pension portability, but at the same time, we have stressed for years the time that should be recognized for our cadets. Technically, it doesn't make sense--I know I'm repeating myself here--that almost 8,000 members went through training and were paid during training. Then, all of a sudden, you get 10,000 more members, and 11,000 the next year, who are not subject to the same situation.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
I asked the question, Mr. Delisle, because I don't see that concern raised in what is obviously a letter in reference to you and the great work you're doing. But either they believe it's not an issue or you believe it's an important issue.
I happen to side with you on this, but I have to side only because I tend to believe there's a glaring omission here. With this legislation, if it's to be open, we have to find a way to make sure that we cover that problem.
In order to do that, though, you're suggesting four recommendations. Could you live with just one, or perhaps two--the issue of parity on civilians and the issue of ensuring that there is consistency between RCMP, even if it has to be retroactive?
12:25 p.m.
President, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association
You have to realize that when I came here, I put it in your hands. I know it can done. That's what I've seen in the past. I hope that something will be done about it.
Those issues are real. If you're saying that they're not real, I beg you...because I go through of all the detachments where we're at. Right now about 40% to 50% of our membership consists of the people who went through training. When you raise the issue, you can see that it's a very serious issue for these people.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Looking at the legislation that we have before us, I'm still uncertain as to how we might be able to address the concerns without expanding the scope of the legislation that we have before us.
I'm wondering, Mr. Cape, if you have any suggestions as to how we might as a committee, at this point in time, after it has been passed by the House....
I recognize that we have the ability to make changes. We certainly have the ability as a committee to report, and to investigate all types of things. But in terms of the legislation we have before us, we're limited to the scope of what we were presented with.
I know that there was the portability issue that this legislation was seeking to address, and I now see---
12:25 p.m.
Director, Pension Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
The only comment I would offer is that it goes back to the issue in terms of the scope. Again, you're getting into the RCMP Act and away from the RCMPSA. If you want to recommend that they're considered as employees, well, this act isn't going to allow you to do that. That's a different act. So I can't address that question.
If you're asking whether we should be looking at the issue in terms of impact on members, and looking down the road at perhaps a more collective view of the organization, then yes, we could do that. But the point that I would also make is that the SRRs have identified a variety of issues that go beyond what we have here. This is a burning issue that's been dragging on for a number of years. We're trying to move forward on it. But there are other issues that aren't identified here and that we have to address in the future.
I assure you that the SRRs, or the individual members, will be tracking what we do and how we perform, and will consistently remind us of things that still have to be done and that we'll have to look at in the future.
Again, the core issue is that it's the RCMP Act. So in terms of a lot of these questions, if they were employees, they would get the pension.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
I don't think we've come to a resolution on how we might mesh all of what's being discussed, but I would suggest that we proceed to clause-by-clause with Bill C-18. We ought to address what we can within the current legislation. Then we could take some time as a committee to investigate other ways to propose legislative changes in other capacities, or to other bills. I know that RCMP members across the country desperately want this bill to pass, because it has real-life ramifications for thousands of members. I'm not certain that by getting bogged down, or returning an empty bill to the House, we serve the interests of those RCMP officers.