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.
Liberal
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Delisle, in your experience, this issue is not new. It has been around for some time, certainly since 1993. Do you know of any committee of Parliament that has looked at the question of portability in the context of fairness among rank-and-file members?
President, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association
I don't believe so. I was amazed to see that there were changes made to those pensions. I don't know how many years ago this occurred, maybe four or five. I'm amazed now to find out that there were some changes and that those issues were there then. Those issues would have been able to accommodate the person who is retiring next year.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Madame Rossignol, your contention is that you've met with CRA, and they say you cannot proceed to accommodate this transfer of pension or buyback without changes to the regulations or the act.
Senior Analyst, Pension Policy, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It's an income tax regulation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Seeing no further deliberations on this, we can move to clause-by-clause. We're prepared to do so. The orders of the day do that.
Would committee members like our researcher to package the issues that have been raised today? The idea would be to adopt a report—if it is in order to report to the House—on the questions of employment standards and employment benefits raised by Monsieur Delisle. If members agree, we could ask the researcher to do this. We could consider reporting the matter to the House, perhaps under our standing order mandate. In any case, we'll try to figure out a way to do it.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a request.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
First, can we get an answer to what I asked? Do we want to ask our researcher—and I think she'd be quite capable in doing it—to bundle it? I hate to use the word “bundling” in this committee. Let's say she could collate and outline the issues that have been raised here today.
Okay? That's a yes.
Now, Madame Bourgeois, you have a point.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like our researchers to gather this information, but I also see that the bill will have an enormous impact in other respects. I believe lawyers could guide the decisions that we will have to make. As I said earlier, the situation of those 10,000 persons makes me uncomfortable. I would really like us to be fair. It would be good for us to get some opinions, perhaps legal opinions, on the impact of the bill.
Another matter leaves me feeling uncomfortable. I would like to know, in the event we pass the bill as it stands, whether the groups that Mr. Delisle represents will be able to be heard elsewhere or at another time, so that certain aspects are amended, such as those that have an impact on the RCMP Act. In my opinion, we don't have any answers to that. From that perspective, I would very much appreciate us waiting to have more information before we proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
I think the most prudent course here is to go to clause-by-clause consideration. I did want to articulate on behalf of members the sensitivity of a number of members to these internal RCMP issues. I think we can probably creatively find a way to flag them, articulate them, and place them somewhere where they can be properly dealt with for future legislation or regulatory change. It's tough sitting in this committee to move it out beyond that.
We have a bill from the House. I think we should proceed to that. I'm going to move to that and ask members to now prepare for clause-by-clause.
Mr. McTeague.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Chair, I agree with Madame Bourgeois. I have to tell you this committee was assigned the responsibility and delegated the authority to study this bill and possibly make consequential amendments therein. I appreciate the concern you have about the rush to get this through, the importance, and the awkwardness of this committee dealing with this.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Thank you for that clarification.
I am extremely concerned that an important and significant omission may have been cemented into place for some time to come. I certainly don't want a situation where two wrongs make a right. I'm hoping we can spend a little more time with the income tax with CRA, look at the information they have, possibly allow our researchers to come up with a simple solution, if such can be had, and recommend it to Parliament.
Chair, I think you'll appreciate in your many years here, and mine almost as many, a lot of good intentions are lost on this day. Unfortunately, it will create an inequality that will be long-lasting and probably won't be repaired any time soon.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Thank you.
I'm now going to move to clause-by-clause.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
I've already embarked on it. You may make a motion to amend clause 1.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Chairman, may I introduce a motion? I would simply like us to wait until the next committee meeting to do the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. I move that right now.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but Ms. Bourgeois had her hand raised for a number of minutes when you said you wanted to begin the clause-by-clause consideration. She wanted to introduce a motion.