Government Operations Committee on May 5th, 2009

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

If you include our demands, naturally.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

That's correct.

What are the other two points that you would like to see included?

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

First of all, there is what directly relates to the decision by Justice McDonnell, who held that the current system, under which the only official representatives of RCMP members are the divisional operations representatives, is unconstitutional. You'll note section 25.1 of the RCMP Superannuation Act, which Mr. Cape spoke about earlier, states that there is an advisory committee. Under paragraph 25.1(2)(b), three divisional representatives sit on that committee. We're saying that these points should have been discussed at length, and I go back to the question that Mr. McTeague asked Mr. Cape: how can they be accommodated and how will we proceed to do that?

If I correctly understood his explanation, that hasn't been done. One of our recommendations, since we belong to the only three independent associations representing members across Canada, is that you officially amend this portion to ensure that these points surface in the advisory committee. In future at least, we won't be coming here to demand things because we haven't had access to certain documents.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

What clause should we correct in Bill C-18 to acknowledge the point you've just raised?

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

Clauses that are mandatory with respect to everything, the dispute, the point, the changes that have been submitted. They could be amended to make the act easier.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Is it clause 4, 5 our 17, or should we add a new clause?

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

I have to admit I haven't taken a close look at that, but I will and I will be able to tell you where it should be placed. In our view, it will be part of the clause that concerns the administration.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

All right.

What's the fourth point?

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

It's the same thing. One of the points of enormous concern to us concerns the right of RCMP senior officers to receive performance bonuses. As they are developed, these bonuses are considered in calculating pension, which is totally unacceptable to us.

I'll give you an example. As soon as Mr. Marcotte was informed that I would be appearing before the committee, I received a call from an RCMP superintendent, Mr. Moreau, who works for Mr. Cape. That superintendent asked me the points I wanted to discuss. He even admitted to me that he is occupying an acting position and expects to receive an 8% bonus, which will be considered in calculating his pension. He has only five years left to work before retiring.

We honestly submit to you that, as taxpayers, this plan is not very viable. We're talking about bonuses of $10,000 a year, but we know they can be in the order of $20,000.

If these people pay only a small portion of their contributions, you'll understand that this method greatly affects us, particularly in view of the current economic situation.

We suggest that you delete the provision of the act on pensions providing for the inclusion of bonuses in the calculation of pensions. It's possible to do that. Mr. Lewis, one of our former colleagues, published a book in which he admits that, despite the fact that senior officers have acted in a somewhat unworthy manner, they were entitled to bonuses. However, those bonuses increase pensions, and that has to stop. You'll remember the discussion that arose in the Government Operations Committee when Mr. Zaccardelli and Ms. George testified.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

The legal advisor can answer my question more clearly.

Are the bonuses that officers receive taken into consideration to increase their pensions? If that is the case, are they asked to make a contribution proportionate to the bonuses they receive?

[Marc Wyczynski]

Given the nature of that question, it would be more appropriate for Mr. Cape to answer it.

It's not necessarily up to me to judge the questions raised, but I can say that the main objective of this bill concerns pension portability, the transfer of pensions from one organization to another.

The questions concerning cadets come under the heading of employment. The bill concerns pension portability. If we look at the cadet issue, we have to rely... It's a statutory matter. The act, as drafted, applies solely to RCMP members. A cadet is therefore not concerned by it. There may be other practical ways of resolving the issue. In my opinion, this bill does not concern the question whether we can apply or extend the application of the act to cadets. I could talk about other matters in detail, but I note that, in the context of the bill and the studies that we have done, we are simply required to transfer pensions. The questions raised are good, but they are—

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I understand. You don't have to repeat it to me three times.

Can you answer my question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

Mr. Warkentin, you have eight minutes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the time.

Thanks to each one of you for coming this morning. We appreciate your testimony to us on this important bill.

Mr. Delisle, I wanted to start out with you. I understand that you represent a large number of RCMP members from the province of Quebec. Is that correct?

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

That's part of my portion, yes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

You're here in that official capacity, as representative for what number of...?

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

Well, as I stated, I also represent the other two associations, which are in Ontario and B.C.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Could you just help me understand exactly who you're representing today? I understand that you speak on issues that pertain to a number of RCMP members. Specifically, who has sent you here today to represent their interests? I know there are staff relation representatives who have the obligation or the responsibility to speak on behalf of RCMP members and who, even today, notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, have the responsibility to speak on behalf of members.

I'm wondering who specifically you're speaking on behalf of this morning.

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

Just for the record, I think I'll restate what I said at the outset. I'm also a staff relations representative. I'm an elected member. I've been the most senior elected SRR, and as such right now, I'm the--

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

For the province?

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

For the province of Quebec, for C Division.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Okay, so you're representing every member of C Division today.

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

I am also representing members of our association.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Okay. I'm just not familiar with your association. Could you give me a little bit of insight, please?

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

The association is a non-profit organization that was formed in order to have the right to negotiate collectively with the employer.