Government Operations committee  The problem is that putting an amendment in there to refer to the cadet time won't function in any manner because it's not part of service in the force to begin with, because they're not sworn in as members of the force. That is where it does go back to that income tax issue in o

Government Operations committee  It's not within the scope of Bill C-18. The reason is that we would have to have a brand new clause to allow members to elect for cadet time to count as pensionable service and service in the force.

Government Operations committee  The problem is that this amendment under clause 9 of the bill is amending section 31.1 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, and it's saying which definitions apply of service in the force for purposes of part 2. So the definitions are provided on page 2 of the

Government Operations committee  It wouldn't function. It wouldn't work within the legislation because it doesn't form part of the definition of service in the force in the first place.

Government Operations committee  Could I add some clarification?

Government Operations committee  I don't have the reference with me, but it's where it defines eligible service. It's around section 8500 of the income tax regulations, where it defines what “eligible service” is for a pension plan. It must be a period during which the person was actually an employee, that they

Government Operations committee  Under the definition of “service in the Force”, that's where it explains that prior service as a police officer counts as service in the force for purposes of determining eligibility for a benefit. The main provision for electing in the first place, the authority to elect, when i

Government Operations committee  The RCMP Superannuation Act.

Government Operations committee  It's an income tax regulation.

Government Operations committee  Yes, that was mentioned earlier when Mr. Warkentin asked if proposed section 31.1 could be a place to include the cadet time. What I understand is being mentioned right now is on page 2 of the bill, the definition of “service in the Force”. What that does is extend the definition

Government Operations committee  We consulted with CCRA to find out if that was possible, and it would not be in compliance with the tax rule for registered pension plans, where you must be an employee to have the time recognized as pensionable.

Government Operations committee  We would have to consult with the Department of Finance, but that was presented when we were doing the consultation. It's a basic premise for a registered pension plan. You can't provide a pension to someone who didn't have employee status with either a previous employer or their

Government Operations committee  It's more than just salary, because the cadets are paid a recruitment allowance now. So even though they're paid an allowance, it's like they're a student at school; they don't have that employment status under the RCMP Act.

Government Operations committee  It's outside of the pension plan.

Government Operations committee  We have looked into the training period with the other police plans. If they were hired as employees of that force, then it's a tax compliance issue. In order to recognize prior service as pensionable, the member has to have been an employee; so if they were, they could be eligib