Government Operations Committee on May 5th, 2009

[Michael Cape]

There's just one comment I would make. Again, it goes back to that basic issue. It's not a pension question. It's really an RCMP organizational question, so it's outside the scope that we can even appropriately comment on.

Organizationally, does it make sense or not? That's not for us to decide. We just administer the pension act. Based on direction received from parliamentarians, our minister, etc., and our members' input, we act accordingly. Whether it's right or wrong, it's not for us to make that kind of value judgment.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

But you're the technical people. How do we fix this to make it fair?

[Michael Cape]

It's a question of whether they're employees. If they are, they're in.

[Shelley Rossignol]

It's outside of the pension plan.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

How does it make it fair to existing RCMP members if you're saying they're going to do the partnership agreement that's provided for here? They can enter into agreements, which is a good thing, but they're going to be entering into an agreement with, say, the Vancouver police force, and that agreement is going to allow Vancouver to move their pensionable service to the RCMP. That will take in the training period even though existing members can't. Can that be fixed?

[Michael Cape]

There is a possibility. The act is going to evolve over a period of time. We're going to constantly improve it, update it, amend it, and make it better, based on what direction we receive and what our members feel they require. The issue in terms of how we can fix this today wouldn't be an easy question for me to answer because we haven't done the research in terms of cost. What would be the impact of grandfathering? How far back would you grandfather? Would you pay their contribution as well as the government contribution? Where would the money come from and what would be the source of funds? All those are questions we truly couldn't answer. It's a very big question.

I go back to the issue of the portability as we have it right now on the table. It allows us to at least move forward. If the committee wanted us to explore opportunities in terms of impacts and what this would mean, that's something we could perhaps follow up on as we move forward. Today, it would be hard to come up with a magical clause that would allow this to happen without being able to say to a member of Parliament how much it would cost if they agreed with this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

I have allowed extra time, of course, because of the points of order.

Mr. McTeague, for five minutes.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Cape, I'll pick up where you left off there.

I think members of Parliament want to make sure that there's some semblance of fairness and equity in how this is approached. Specific to the question of the benefits being seen as equal in this new absorption, I'm concerned that the legislation was opened up without due consideration. In terms of the concerns that have been raised by Mr. Delisle, were you familiar with them prior to the work on this bill?

[Michael Cape]

Not specifically from Mr. Delisle, but the SRRs have identified this as an issue that we want to work on down the road. Just for background, in terms of the members' view, the portability question has been hanging over their heads--and Mr. Delisle can probably confirm this--for years. They just want to get this moving and get this part at least addressed and then we'll talk about what happens next.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

The way legislation works is, unless the government really moves--as someone who's passed probably more private members' bills than any other MP--I can say with some certainty that it is at a snail's pace. It's unlikely that those kinds of issues will be addressed. It's not that I don't trust the system; it's that I know they're all conflicting issues.

While we have this open, there's a golden opportunity to try to redress a wrong. My concern here and I guess my question to you is the following. When we consider the drafting of this legislation, knowing that these could be potential problems, how likely is it that you're going to be able to go back to the drawing board to make this right in terms of addressing the issue of civilian parity? It seems to me, Mr. Cape, that we have civilians treated exactly the same on every single police service in Canada, except for the RCMP. We're opening ourselves up not just to the prospect of unfairness, but potentially to a lawsuit. As parliamentarians we want to be responsible that we can accomplish more with this legislation.

[Michael Cape]

I couldn't respond in terms of the other police forces, although I would be surprised, if you're a civilian member on a police force, that you would be receiving benefits as a police officer. The income tax, I would think, would prevent that from happening. Regardless, the issue is that we have an ongoing, good relationship with our SRRs and our membership. There are issues that are on the table that we're addressing, such as portability. There are other issues that we haven't been able to close at this point in time. The only thing I can say is that this is part of an ongoing evolution.

The other point I would make in terms of the basic issue of how we fix this is that we're getting into changing perhaps the RCMP Act, not the RCMPSA.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I appreciate that, Mr. Cape. I'm looking consistently at examples of study after study that demonstrate that there's significant decline in morale among rank-and-file RCMP. That's not just with respect to bonus and merit, which Mr. Delisle has talked about. More importantly, it's how would it be to jump into a police cruiser and the person beside me has been absorbed as an RCMP member from, say, the Vancouver police service, and he or she is treated or paid differently than I am by virtue of the fact that we were unable to get this pension right at the outset, as far as the time in which they were in depot.

I'm asking a very specific question to you, Madam Rossignol, and others. Is it possible at this stage, at this juncture, as suggested by Mr. Delisle--I know you responded to Mr. Warkentin on this--to buy back or provide a provision, or at least an estimate of the cost, to allow RCMP officers to buy back that six months of their pension?

[Michael Cape]

I'll ask Marc and Shelley to comment on this, but as a basic starting point, you can't buy back pensionable time if you weren't an employee.

[Shelley Rossignol]

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.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Is there a possibility that regulation could be amended to accommodate that?

[Shelley Rossignol]

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 own employer.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

But the basic premise of fairness in labour relations trumps all of that. I'm wondering why these things were not taken into consideration between departments before this bill was rushed through. I appreciate that you could not have done it at the time, but I am concerned about the prospect of the inequality of two-tiered policing within the RCMP.

This stands out like a sore thumb. This is not a question to you, but I'm wondering what steps all of us here need to take to make sure this thing is righted.

Mr. Cape, I don't believe for a moment we're going to be looking at this any time soon, once this bill is passed.

Perhaps I'll go to the specific question of eligibility for pensions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

We've hit the five-minute mark.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I appreciate your diligence. Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Madame Bourgeois is next, for five minutes.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the first time I have considered Bill C-18. On the one hand, I have never heard about it previously. On the other, at this stage, I'm lacking a lot of information on how the RCMP's organizational structure works. I would also have liked to be able to consult the information that Mr. Delisle brought us. I read the documents, but I didn't expect it to be so complicated at this stage. Our research attaché has done a very good job and there aren't any questions. We see that we're lacking an enormous amount of knowledge at the outset to be able to conduct an in-depth study of the matter before us today.

I have a weird feeling about what you're explaining to us. The situation is a bit particular. Since I've been sitting on this committee and even before that, members have always been seeking justice. Mr. Cape, it's as though we were hanging onto all our power and too bad for our neighbour. That irritates me. As a member of the committee, that's not what I'm looking for and I get the impression the same is true for my colleagues.

If I understood correctly, the cadets of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police aren't paid because they aren't considered employees. The cadets you select aren't necessarily hired. However, in all other police services in the country, from the moment cadets have gone through the administrative workings and have met requirements respecting qualifications, they start being paid. This embarrasses me. How is it that the RCMP has made that decision? It's historical, I agree, but I would have liked to know why. What do the cadets do in the RCMP? Do they carry out operations similar to those conducted in other police services?

Today, it's all well and good to tell me that these are just technicalities, that this is just to transfer pension funds; the fact remains that 10,000 people say they are stuck at a stop light. Something's not working. If you had said there were 100 or 200 persons, I would have thought they were rebels, but 10,000 people, these are no longer rebels.

Mr. Cape, do you understand that I'm not ready to take what you're telling me at face value, despite the fact that I don't question your knowledge or that of Ms. Rossignol? I would like this committee to be able to give us more information so that we can make a decision that is informed and fair for everyone. Ten thousand people—that's bizarre.

[Michael Cape]

I have a quick response.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

That was a very wonderful question with lots of parts to it, so a lot of it you won't be able to answer, but go ahead and see if you can provide an answer.

[Michael Cape]

I really can't comment on the actual numbers of how many are involved. The only thing I can comment on is that when it comes to the portability issue, I know members have been impacted in the past by this legislation not being in place, and the meter's running on them today in terms of it not being in place. So it's a concern that we address the 18,000-plus members we have today.

In terms of the concern you have, which is understandable, I appreciate what you're saying about the possible 10,000 members who are impacted by our not addressing this issue today. But if we address it in an incomplete fashion, or without doing the proper research, or without involving and engaging our members and former members in this, it could be a negative situation. We want to make sure that we look at this down the road.

Again, our mandate was to look at the portability question today, what we could do in terms of moving this forward and addressing the immediate concerns of our members. We have SRRs we've worked with who have provided really meaningful input, and Monsieur Delisle is one of those. They provide input to our organization, and we try to move the pension agenda forward.

Have we addressed all the issues related to pension and portability? No, we haven't, but we're moving forward. The only thing I could say is that your concerns are noted. Again, as we move forward, hopefully we can address those other questions.