Veterans Affairs Committee on Nov. 17th, 2009

[Lynne McKenna-Fleming]

I would say similarly, just because of the way the two plans are designed. If you get an immediate pension after 25 years in the Canadian Forces and that makes you 43 or 48, you certainly have time for a second career. The CPP is calculated over 40 years, so it gets paid into over 40 years and the benefit is calculated that way.

So if you are working in the forces and you are paying into the CPP in that 25 years, and then you continue to pay into CPP, you would certainly see the benefit in your benefits.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the witnesses for answering the questions so effectively.

We are going to move to clause-by-clause now, so we will allow you to carry on, and then we will carry on with the business of Bill C-201.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Let's move to clause 1.

Do you want a recorded vote, Mr. Stoffer?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

No, raised hands are fine.

(Clause 1 negatived)

(Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We move to the Bloc Québécois amendment 2, proposed new clause 11.

Monsieur André.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I move an amendment to clause 11. Did you get a copy in both official languages?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Have you moved that now, Monsieur André?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I will not go into detail regarding the terms of these amendments, but it was the testimony we heard from the correctional officers last week that prompted me to move them.

I think their testimony showed that the work those officers do entails a certain degree of danger that is equivalent to that of RCMP members. We saw that their work is demanding and that officers cannot necessarily perform their duties for 35 years, as with other occupations. We heard about the psychological impact of their work, as with RCMP members and veterans, and about post-traumatic stress syndrome, which is related to the violence that officers deal with in detention centres. I think they showed that very clearly.

My point in proposing these amendments is simply for us to show respect to those who practice this occupation, people who must deal with extremely dangerous situations, as well as difficult consequences. Under such conditions, these individuals cannot necessarily work as long as those in other fields.

The goal is to include correctional officers in Bill C-201, alongside veterans and members of the RCMP.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Monsieur André, this has been considered. I want to read a ruling to you.

Bill C-201 amends the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act by eliminating the deduction of Canada Pension Plan benefits from the annuity payable under each of these Acts. The amendment attempts to modify the Public Service Superannuation Act to include the Employees of the Correctional Service of Canada.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

Consequently, Monsieur André, I'll need to rule this amendment out of order.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Chair, I respectfully appeal your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Monsieur André, it's the procedure of the House.

Just let me refer to the clerk. I don't know if you can challenge something that is procedural.

I'm advised by our staff here that you can certainly challenge any decision by the chair, but of course when the bill goes to the House, the procedure will be applied by the Speaker and it will be ruled inadmissible at that time. If you would like to exercise that challenge, then we'll go to a vote as far as that decision is concerned.

Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion to support the ruling of the chair on this issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We'll have to go to a vote regarding this challenge then.

All those in favour of the challenge to the chair, in other words defeating my ruling, please raise your hands.

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

The challenge is defeated and the ruling stands.

Monsieur André, do you want to move another amendment, or would you like that one to pass?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

No, my efforts included all three amendments, so it is fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay. Since every clause has been defeated, the bill will be referred back to the House as....

I apologize, ladies and gentlemen. We still have to ask whether the title shall carry.

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Shall the bill as amended carry?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Can I ask a question on procedure? Since we have effectively defeated the bill, is it actually reported to the House? What is the procedure for reporting to the House what has happened?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

The actions of the committee need to be reported back to the House.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

The chair reports to the House that the bill has been defeated at the committee level.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

That's correct, and I believe everybody is in favour of that.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

We do not agree that a report on this bill be tabled in the House. We vote against that.

Mr. Chair, it has to be voted.