Evidence of meeting #20 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 dates.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
We've had the motion read. I'll ask the clerk to walk us through the vote.
First, I'll just call for a show of hands. All those in favour of the motion, please indicate by raising their hands.
The vote is five to five. It's a tie vote. We don't need a polled vote. Let me just check with the clerk.
In exercising the casting vote here at committee, both the Speaker of the House and chairs of committees attempt to follow a kind of protocol or convention. One of those conventions, which I intend to subscribe to at this point, would allow the chair to maintain what is called the status quo. There being a motion out there and this motion having encountered a tie vote, the status quo would be to not support the motion and to allow the status quo to prevail.
I hope members will understand my logic. I will therefore cast a vote in the negative.
(Motion negatived)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
However, the substance of the motion, as I pointed out, is going to come up in discussions that I hope will follow our current business on clause-by-clause of Bill C-18. All is not lost.
Go ahead, Ms. Hall Findlay.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
May I just express my appreciation to you and my colleagues for allowing us to address this at the beginning of this meeting due to time constraints? Thank you, and thank you, everybody.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
I'm breaking out in a cold sweat, so I don't know who I want to thank here.
Let's look to our witnesses. Colleagues, we'll now embark on clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18. We actually began on the record with clause-by-clause, but we didn't get too far at our last meeting, so we'll continue from where we left off.
First, the witnesses here today are, with one exception, the same. They are Ms. Rossignol and Mr. Wyczynski. We also have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Mr. Dave MacKenzie, member of Parliament, and he is here as a resource representing the government in the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.
If you will prepare your documents, colleagues, we'll now go right to clause-by-clause. Sometimes these things can move very quickly, so I will call clause 1.
(On clause 1)
Mr. McTeague.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Chair, there are some speaking notes here from the parliamentary secretary. I had one question to put to him.
Liberal
Dave MacKenzie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
I think time is of the essence. We need to get moving on this, and I don't think you need--
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Thank you, Mr. MacKenzie.
(Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to on division)
The Chair:
May I move the carriage of several clauses at once? I'm sorry, I'm advised there is an amendment coming.
Shall clause 8 carry?
(Clause 8 agreed to on division)
(On clause 9)
I have a notice of an amendment on clause 9. This amendment is proposed by Monsieur Ménard.
Monsieur Ménard, would you introduce your amendment, please?
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Yes. This was suggested to us by Mr. Delisle who appeared before the committee yesterday. I'd like to summarize my take on these lengthy discussions.
RCMP members can surely empathize with Mr. Delisle. Right away, he noted that until quite recently, collective agreements contained a number of orphan clauses. In other words, in order to secure certain advantages, union members—and we saw this with police unions as well—accepted agreements where new members would not have the same advantages as older ones. This practice was widely criticized and ultimately abandoned.
Mr. Delisle views the current situation as an offshoot of this practice. Back when he was an RCMP cadet, he and his fellow cadets were paid and contributed to the superannuation plan. Upon retirement, the months in training were taken into account in the calculation of the number of years of service. At some point, all that changed. He said he understood the concern for fairness. Obviously, there were far more cadets than actual graduates from the academy. Therefore, it was unfair to make those who didn't graduate contribute to the superannuation plan, even though they would not benefit from it. To rectify this situation, it was suggested that rather than pay the cadets, they be provided with a weekly honorarium of $500. Consequently, when the time came to calculate the pensions of new officers, they were not given credit for the six months of training, unlike the officers who had graduated before them.
This is what I mean when I say it resembles an orphan clause. The time has come to correct this injustice whereby the six months of training undergone by new RCMP cadets are not credited toward pensionable service, whereas they are credited in the case of members of other police forces who join the RCMP. New RCMP cadets will not be credited for these six months, whereas officers from other forces who join the RCMP will be credited for their time in basic training.
It's time to correct this anomaly. It is truly not fair that RCMP officers are deemed to have six months less seniority than officers from other police forces who join the RCMP later on in their career.
I'd like to call to mind the suggestion made by Mr. Delisle. He proposed that clause 9 of the bill be amended by the addition at the end of section 31.1 of the Act of the following: “[must] apply also to RCMP members in respect of service spent as cadets at the RCMP Academy in Deport Division for the purpose of becoming a constable“.
Of course, this amendment would not recognize cadets as having participated in the superannuation plan if they have not contributed to it. The purpose of the Act is to give cadets an opportunity to buy back, at an opportune moment, the contributions that may not have been deducted, given that during their six months of training, they were paid an honorarium, not a salary.
This is exactly in keeping with the spirit of the act. It would mean that the pensions of all eligible RCMP members would be calculated in exactly the same way. This method would also be used to calculate the pensions of new officers recruited from other police forces.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Derek Lee
Thank you.
We may want to hear from our witnesses on this, but I'm happy to recognize Mr. Warkentin.
Mr. Warkentin.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Exactly, Mr. Chair. I was wondering if we could have our witnesses comment with regard to what this would in fact change. My understanding, from the testimony in our last meeting, is that a change such as this would not be accepted by CRA, and that is where the root of this problem or this change would come from.
Perhaps you could elaborate on what in fact the change would do. And would this act be all that would need to be changed in order for what has been identified by Mr. Ménard to be a reality, in his mind and I think a lot of people's minds, to be satisfied?
Marc Wyczynski Counsel, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Department of Justice
I think it would be difficult to proceed with the amendment as suggested.
Proposed section 31.1 falls under part 2 of the act. Part 2 of the act does not deal with service-related benefits. It deals exclusively with, as the part is entitled, “Benefits in Respect of Injury or Death on Service”. That part incorporates the Pension Act, which provides for duty-related benefits in case of injury, death, disability, or disease. It has nothing to do with service. Service is covered under part 1. So the objective wouldn't be attained.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Mr. Wyczynski, are you suggesting that despite the proposal to amendment here, it would be ultra vires the act? You're saying that we have not opened up section 1 of this act. Is that your interpretation?
Counsel, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Department of Justice
I'm saying that clause 9 falls under part 2 of the act. And the amendment to the section would fall under part 2 of the act, which does not deal with service-related benefits.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
Let me put something to you.
The amendment is carried. It is passed in Parliament. What occurs after it is gazetted and brought into force? It seems to me that whatever act this committee or Parliament passes takes precedence over any regulation. Is that correct, Mr. Wyczynski?
Counsel, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Department of Justice
It's an act of Parliament. Absolutely. It's paramount.
Shelley Rossignol Senior Analyst, Pension Policy, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Could I add some clarification?
Senior Analyst, Pension Policy, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
The problem is that this amendment under clause 9 of the bill is amending section 31.1 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, and it's saying which definitions apply of service in the force for purposes of part 2. So the definitions are provided on page 2 of the bill. It extends the definition of the term “service in the Force” to periods of prior service. Ongoing RCMP service is already covered, so we have to say which types of prior service count as service in the force for these disability payments.
And if you refer to the definition of service in the force, on page 2, the cadet time is not there. So it's not recognized as service in the force in the first place in order for part 2 benefits to apply to it. It wouldn't function.
Liberal
Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON
It's a bit of a wobbly duck. However, if it is passed, how would you implement it?
Senior Analyst, Pension Policy, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It wouldn't function. It wouldn't work within the legislation because it doesn't form part of the definition of service in the force in the first place.