Government Operations Committee on May 5th, 2009

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

That was just a statement.

I think we have been satisfied that the RCMP and the Department of Justice officials have put together a bill covering the issues that needed to addressed in this legislation. I think now we're investigating things that fall outside the scope of the legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

You've raised an interesting prospect. Could the committee's report address issues that are indirectly related to the bill but not part of it, and report to the House on the matter? I can't say yes or no, because I haven't thought it through.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are not directly part of this committee's mandate. The public safety committee would be the correct committee, as I understand it. But we can always try to be creative in our work, within the rules of Parliament. So perhaps that option is there for us.

Monsieur Ménard.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps there is one simple matter that we could resolve, if we can't resolve the others, and that's the question of the representation of men on the committee that will manage the pension fund. Here we have a specific proposal that would naturally fall between clauses 6 and 7 of the bill. The idea would be to amend paragraph 25.1(2)(b) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. The provision would read as follows:

(b) three persons appointed from among persons required to contribute to the Superannuation Account [...] who are nominated by the Canadian Mounted Police Members Association.

Things move forward slowly at the RCMP. I won't tell you about the jokes we defence lawyers made about the RCMP, who were on horses while others were in cars. Whatever the case may be, everything takes a long time at the RCMP, including this.

Ten years ago—so this goes back to the last millennium—the Supreme Court recognized that RCMP officers were entitled to their own professional organization and to choose it. Given their organization's particular role, however, police officers must not belong to an organization of public service employees. They've just received a trial judgment from the Superior Court of Ontario. The case has not yet been appealed, and the appeal deadline expires today. So the provisions should apply tomorrow. The Canadian Mounted Police Members Association, which corresponds to what the Supreme Court decided at the end of the last millennium, will therefore be present. I think everyone will agree that the employee representatives must sit on the committee that manages the retirement fund of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We could at least agree on that. As for the other provisions, that will take some time. If this decision is not appealed, I wonder whether you'll have an objection, Mr. Cape, to us adding this amendment to paragraph 25.1(2)(b) of the act next Thursday.

I'm going to take this opportunity to ask Mr. Delisle a question.

I thought that cadets weren't paid while training, for six months. Then my colleague and I understood that you were saying the contrary, that is to say that they were paid. Are they or are they not paid? I'm not an expert in labour law, even though I work in an office that worked in that field. I was a criminal lawyer. It seems to me you get a pension when you've contributed to a pension fund. Otherwise, you don't get one. That's why I understood that, if the cadets weren't paid, they weren't contributing to the fund. Could you clarify that point?

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

The cadets have had various options since 1993. They've received an allowance for at least two years. We're talking about a living allowance, but we're playing with words. In any case, we try to attract the largest possible number of people to Regina. I think it's a kind of salary, and I'm going to explain to you why.

The money paid to cadets as an allowance was proposed by the government in 2006 so that the RCMP would staff 625 new federal positions in Canada. However, those 625 new positions are still not filled. That money winds up in the pockets of our cadets through the RCMP.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Merci, Monsieur Delisle.

I'll go to Mr. Harris, for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to clarify something, Mr. Delisle. The portability provisions in this legislation apply equally to people who are not in the RCMP now, but perhaps would be in the future, even the near future. If the transfer agreements are put into place, which I assume was part of the process, it would also apply to RCMP members who might like to join the Vancouver police force or some other force. So the portability cuts both ways, both for your current members and for your potential future members.

I know you've been focused on the difficulties that you see in the legislation, but I'm not wrong in assuming that you are in favour of portability, in general, and that you would support the principles of this act, that we should have greater portability.

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

We have said publicly that we are wholeheartedly for it, but at the same time, look at the portability on both sides. You've just touched on another issue. Our members won't be able to bring those six months over.

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

So in front of our committee you're focusing on two or three problems that you would like to see fixed.

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

That's correct.

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

The issue of representation is not resolved at this point, and if you want to rule me out of order you can, but I think it's important.

The SRRs have been involved in this process, and whatever ruling was made, whether or not it is appealed, is suspended for 18 months. So the SRRs are still the official group. If that should change, because the legislation doesn't put your organization in charge either, and there is another organization, whether it's yours or some other that represents the RCMP members, it's probably that organization that would play a role in an advisory capacity. It may come back before legislation anyway and in a while.

I guess this is a question our committee will have to grapple with, but I am interested in your opinion. There seem to be some serious technical problems with what we're dealing with here. Mr. Cape hasn't been able to answer them because he doesn't have the facts and they don't have the research done. I'm not saying whether they should or they shouldn't have; perhaps they should have.

If this legislation has to be reviewed potentially within a year or two anyway, and as Mr. Cape says, it's an ongoing process, would it be wrong for this committee to accept the legislation and ask that there be further work done on this aspect and maybe it could be changed in a year or two?

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

I think you have the opportunity to do both, frankly, the reason being that you have the ability to amend the portion of the pension, the RCMPSA, because it's before you here. All we are requesting is that you do that under the RCMPSA, which means that the service in the force.... As you can see, Bill C-18 makes reference to the RCMP, that service in the force, service dans la gendarmerie. All the commissioner has to say, in his own mind, in the definition of “member of the Force”, under the RCMP Act, is that those people include also the six months....

All I'm saying to you is, don't lose the opportunity to include it now. And if they are serious, as Mr. Cape is saying, they will do it within a matter of time. Therefore, your work will have been done already. That's not an issue to me. What we are saying is that you will be able to fix at least something in the RCMP pension, a cap, which, according to my reading, will never be put into effect for two or three years. So a person who is retiring will not see that day. We're not complaining about these people, but at least you'll have the 10,000 people who will think about the service you've done, about starting the process. That's what we're asking you for, to start the process regarding the RCMP Superannuation Act, because it won't change the RCMP Act. By having the definition of those cadets in there, that will start the process of having the RCMP do what Mr. Cape is trying to say. They move ahead and do it.

Again, I submit to you that service in the force, which is under the RCMP Act, will come under that heading.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you, Mr. Delisle.

Mr. McTeague, for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Delisle, do you think this bill now makes it possible to make these changes, or do you intend to conduct the study for two or three years?

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

We humbly submit to you that we believe you have the power to do that right now. This bill is directly related to a very specific act, which states: “service in the Force”. So the act can give you this opportunity to do it. So for us it's feasible.

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

Based on Ms. Rossignol's comments, we understand that it's just for matters concerning persons with disabilities or insurance. I think she said, in English:

“disability pension”. Proposed section 31.1, the section you're looking to amend, only deals with matters of disability.

Perhaps, Ms. Rossignol, you could clarify that again. I thought I heard you say that earlier.

[Shelley Rossignol]

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 of “service in the Force” beyond our regular members hired under the RCMP Act. It's saying that it includes periods of prior service. It works in conjunction with the definition directly above it, with “member of the Force”. That's why cadets are not covered under the pension plan, because the employment policy under the RCMP Act is that they're not hired as members of the force. If that policy were ever changed in the future, if the RCMP decided to hire the cadets as members of the force, there is no change to the pension plan; it's in there.

When you were mentioning adding it to the definition of “service in the Force”, that's where I mentioned that we consulted with CCRA. These are extending it beyond current service. It's the periods of election, and under the tax provisions we can't, when they're not employees.

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

Perhaps it might be wise for us to bring in CCRA to talk about that as well. We have an open book here. I don't want to use the term tabula rasa, but there are opportunities for us to include some of the concerns Mr. Delisle has raised, though perhaps not in that section.

Mr. Delisle, are you aware of this, the point raised by Madam Rossignol?

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

My point, though, would be in the form of a question. Where is the authority for other police departments that have their cadets' service recognized under that act? Under what specific area is that done?

[Shelley Rossignol]

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 had employee status. So under those other pension plans, if they were employees, that's how they're in. And it had to also have been pensionable over there. They had to have paid pension contributions.

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

My question was aimed more at in what portion of Bill C-18 do you accept the portability of these organizations?

[Shelley Rossignol]

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 it's registered pension plan service coming in under an election, it's the reference in (c) of “service in the Force” to item 6(b)(ii)(L) of the RCMPSA.

And if it's under a pension transfer agreement, it's the reference that you see in proposed paragraph (b) of the definition of “service in the Force”, which is under subsection 24.1(9) of the Act.

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

The superannuation act or the Income Tax Act. Yes, thank you.

[Shelley Rossignol]

The RCMP Superannuation Act.

[S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle]

My point would be that you could include it in there as a definition.

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

I think the issue for us right now is that in the rush to respond to the issue of pension portability, we may be unwittingly creating another inequality. That's something the committee is going to have to look at, whether it likes it or not, certainly from my perspective. This bill could or should be a slam dunk, if not.

I'll come back in the next round for further questions if I'm given that opportunity. I think I'm out of time.