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.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Excuse me.
Mr. Harris, these are very interesting factual issues, but they don't have a great deal to do with the bill that's before us. This one time, I'm going to let Mr. Delisle answer your question, but I want to keep focused on the bill here.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
That's a very good ruling, perhaps, but we've heard from Mr. Warkentin about how many members they had and who he was representing and who they were and all of that, and this seems to be totally in line with that. We have an individual here who has talked about who he represents and about the SRC system having been ruled unconstitutional. I think it's important that we hear at least what the status is, because he's made some suggestions. Whether we can actually take all the suggestions is a question for the committee, but certainly the status of his organization and what we're talking about is relevant to our proceedings.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Okay, I see.
He's answered those questions, and if you have further questions in relation to the people he represents here today, they would be quite legitimate.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Following normal rules of relevance, we don't cross-examine on a matter that is collateral to the main issue just because he answers a question. The first question is okay, but going out on a tangent beyond that I would find to be not relevant.
However, you've obviously congratulated me for the first part of my ruling on this, so I'm going to let Mr. Delisle answer the question, and we'll proceed from there.
11:50 a.m.
President, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association
My understanding is that today might be the last date for the appeal period. As to whether or not it's being done, maybe the justice department can answer.
11:50 a.m.
President, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association
No, I'm not able to answer it. I'm not aware.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
As it stands, then, the court ruling indicated.... I don't know whether what you suggested was exactly correct; I think they said that the regulation that gave exclusive right to representation to the SSRs was unconstitutional, but that the government was given 18 months to change it. I think this may reflect on your proposal to change the representation side of it.
There is a technical question as to whether, in the process here, while we're examining this amendment, the committee can actually amend other sections of the act. I think we would have to leave that to the technical side. If we have a bill before us, I don't think we have free rein to propose amendments to other sections of the act, but maybe our technical people can help us on that. I understand the point that if representation on an advisory committee has been given to a group that has been declared by the Ontario court, at least, to be non-representative in a constitutional way, we may have to take that up, but I don't know that we can take it up here.
Can I ask the question—I've heard some answer to it in terms of the cadets—whether it is your concern, Mr. Delisle, that there may be an anomaly between current members and future members concerning cadet training? That seemed to me to be one aspect of it. Is there a possibility of a problem—and perhaps others can help us—that individuals who now may work or previously have worked for a municipal police force or a provincial police force face anomalies involving their training components, as to whether their training is considered as pensionable service? Is that a problem as well, or a possible problem?
11:55 a.m.
President, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association
That is for us one of the major issues we bring forward, that for having spent time in other police functions, you could very well count the six months passed in cadet training and those functions as pensionable. As of now, our cadets themselves are prevented from doing that.
Another issue that I think could be addressed also comes from the understanding of the changes. There are changes in Bill C-18 right now regarding the definitions and interpretation. To me, the definition and interpretation clause gives you the authority to change anything among the definitions and the interpretation.
11:55 a.m.
President, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association
Because the definitions and interpretation are being looked at by this committee, my understanding is that the whole aspect of definition and interpretation can therefore be subject to certain discussion.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it would be helpful, I think, for all committee members to get clarification on that particular point, because my understanding is that we as a committee have not been given that authority. I think we're going down a rabbit trail, and if we don't get clarification on it at this point, we may have a difficult time as we proceed.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Thank you.
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think what Monsieur Delisle is describing is his view of the committee's mandate to make amendments that are within the scope of the bill.
It's a matter of decision-making by the committee--and as the Speaker recently pointed out, sometimes by the Speaker--as to whether or not a particular matter is within the scope of the bill. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder at this point. I'll just leave that. There are no questions put at this point that need a decision.
Mr. Harris.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make it abundantly clear that in regard to the direction of the committee, the committee is free as a part of Parliament. We don't take directions from Parliament; we are parliamentarians.
I know you appreciate that, Mr. Warkentin, but I also believe that a good amount of this superannuation act has been opened up, and as a result we are doing our due diligence. I'm just hopeful that we're not--
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
All right. Mr. McTeague, you're prejudging what will happen here a little bit, but that's fine. Your comments are fair enough.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you.
Mr. Cape, would you care to deal with that particular point? Is there any provision for that, or has any study been done to see whether the other pension plans that would be contemplated as part of the possibility of having agreements with.... Has it been contemplated that some of these other plans might include significant periods of training that would be excluded because of the nature of RCMP training?
11:55 a.m.
Director, Pension Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I'll let Ms. Rossignol answer that.
May 5th, 2009 / 11:55 a.m.
Senior Analyst, Pension Policy, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
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 eligible. If it's like our program, where they're not hired as employees, they're not eligible.
We have done some research with our eight comparator forces, the police forces the RCMP compares itself against in terms of total compensation. The Vancouver Police Department, and Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, and the OPP, we have discovered, do provide a salary to recruits. The others do not.
To go a little bit further, when you were asking if there is a provision in this bill that could deal with our own cadets, on page 2 of the bill we are amending the definition of “service in the Force” just for housekeeping and to refer to this “act” instead of this “part”, because of a change that was made to the definition.
I can point out that all members of the force are covered under the pension plan as long as they're working a minimum of 12 hours. This is where it goes back to being an employment issue. If those cadets, as in the past prior to 1994, were hired as members of the force, they were employees, and they're automatically in under the pension plan. It's not something we deal with in this bill. It's an employment issue. So if they're hired as members, they're in.
Can we have them buy their own RCMP cadet time as pensionable? No. We've consulted with CRA. There's a very strict requirement that as a registered pension plan we have to meet.
Noon
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
You do see the anomaly, though. If you're employed by the Vancouver police force and you do six or ten months of training, because you're salaried you're then an employee. Is that the case?
Noon
Senior Analyst, Pension Policy, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
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.