:
I call the meeting to order, colleagues. I see a quorum.
We are today considering , which is a bill dealing with the mechanics of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. We have witnesses from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Department of Justice, and a group known as the Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association, or the Association des membres de la police montée du Québec.
We will now proceed to hear from witnesses on the subject of Bill C-18. It was our hope that we could complete disposition of this bill today. Your cooperation in that regard would be appreciated.
I'll ask the witnesses, first Mr. Michael Cape, director of pension services of the RCMP, and Shelley Rossignol, a senior analyst in the same branch, will you be making a presentation here on the bill?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to assist with the committee's examination of Bill . With me today is Ms. Shelley Rossignol. She's the senior analyst with the RCMP pension services group and has invested a great deal of time and effort in the bill over the past year. Also here is Mr. Marc Wyczynski, who is the counsel from the DOJ who has provided legal counsel throughout the development of Bill C-18.
Bill C-18 proposes several technical amendments to the RCMP Superannuation Act. It would improve pension portability and ultimately bring the act in line with the federal public service pension plan, as well as other public and private sector plans across Canada.
The bill would deliver three primary benefits. First, it would allow for the expansion of existing provisions regarding election for prior service. That means regular civilian members of the force could purchase pension credits from other public and private sector pension plans across Canada. Second, it would allow the RCMP to enter into pension transfer agreements with other pension plans. This would permit the transfer of pension credits into and out of the RCMP pension plan. Third, it would clarify and improve some administrative and eligibility aspects of the existing act; two examples are those related to part-time employment and the cost of elections for prior service with a police force that was taken over by the RCMP.
In a nutshell, Bill C-18 is about fairness and flexibility. It will put each member of the RCMP on equal footing in terms of pension portability. That is not the case under the current rules.
[Translation]
Today, the almost 24,000 members of the RCMP whose pensions are governed by the RCMP Superannuation Act don't have the same pension choices as 6,300 of their colleagues, whose pensions fall under the Public Service Superannuation Act. Yet they all serve the public.
For example, someone who goes to work for the RCMP as a public servant under the Public Service Superannuation Act can bring their pension with them from other federal departments and levels of government—even from some private-sector employers. And they may be able to leave with their pensions if they explore other federal or public-sector opportunities.
[English]
Regular and civilian member employees do not enjoy the same level of pension portability. Bill C-18 proposes to address this discrepancy by providing those RCMP employees with the same pension options currently available to federal public servants, as well as to members of many provincial and municipal police forces.
Expanded pension portability may, in some cases, increase the value of future pension benefits for regular and civilian members. It might also help them qualify for survivor benefits for their spouses or partners and improve the value of that benefit--again, in some cases.
The proposed amendments will also help eligible members qualify for retirement at an earlier age, if they so choose, after a career of helping to protect the safety and security of Canadians.
Another positive aspect to the amendments proposed by Bill C-18 is that the enhanced portability provisions may help to strengthen the RCMP's current recruiting efforts. This issue is top of mind for the force at this time, as it strives for a net increase of 1,000 regular and civilian members by 2013.
Enhanced pension portability has the potential to make the RCMP a more attractive career choice for Canadians working in other fields or even for members of other police forces. In this way, enhanced pension portability supports many of the existing initiatives already under way to help the RCMP recruit more officers.
Mr. Chairman, in the time I have remaining, allow me to address a few of the concerns that arose during second reading of the bill in the House.
A few of the members expressed concern that the six-month training period for the RCMP officers is not recognized as pensionable. This was viewed as a possible anomaly because recruit training in some other police forces is pensionable and would be recognized under the RCMP pension plan in the case of a transfer.
The difference with the RCMP is that cadets at the RCMP training academy in Regina are not hired as employees until they graduate from the training program. Registered pension plans like the RCMP pension plan are subject to strict requirements of the Income Tax Act. The tax provisions make eligibility for coverage under a registered pension plan dependent upon employment. So since cadets are not employees, they cannot qualify for pension entitlement under the RCMP pension plan.
Another question asked during second reading was whether Bill C-18 would assist in the recruitment of aboriginal people or members of Indian band police. Bill C-18 would allow pensionable service under another Canadian pension plan registered under the Income Tax Act to be recognized under the RCMP plan, so as long as the potential recruit was a member of a registered pension plan, employment with the RCMP could become more attractive once pension portability is in place.
Finally, a concern was raised over potential costs associated with Bill C-18. The estimated program costs for this initiative are $1.1 million. Elections for prior service with the public service, the Canadian Forces, and the House of Commons or the Senate already exist. Consequently, many administrative tools are already in place for the expanded elective service provisions.
The costs associated with the changes would be covered by existing RCMP reference levels and the RCMP pension plan. No additional financial resources are required. And, under the future regulatory amendments, the actuarial cost of purchasing prior service is borne entirely by the plan member. In the case of a pension plan transfer agreement, pension funds are transferred directly from the former pension plan to the new plan.
I thank you for having invited me to appear before you. We would be pleased to take your questions.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
I am currently a staff sergeant with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I also hold the position of divisional staff relations representative, commonly known as the SRR. For the last 33 years, I've been re-elected as the SRR in Montreal, representing C Division. Right now, I am also the president of the Association des membres de la police montée du Québec.
I am here on behalf of the three associations, as you can see from our correspondence that is being circulated. We have three different independent associations in the RCMP right now. As you know, a decision was rendered on April 6 that rendered the present system, SRR, unconstitutional, although that situation was waived for an 18-month period by the judge in place.
Having said that, and having the opportunity to be here, let me touch on the points we would like to issue first.
Although we applaud the position taken by Mr. Cape regarding the actual body of all police officers coming into the RCMP who will be entitled to buy back time, let me put you in touch with a situation where we think this is very inconsistent with good practice towards our members.
[Translation]
Having seen the situation in Ontario and Winnipeg, I can tell you that police officers who enter those services as cadets are automatically employed in this police service. Under this bill, the time that these people have spent in their respective police services as cadets—and that period corresponds to six months—will be recognized, but as just mentioned, the period of service before they earn the rank of constable in the RCMP will not be recognized in the case of our own cadets.
We consider this reasoning inconsistent. The other members who are behind me and who are active have all been at the Depot and have all been able to calculate their time as members of the RCMP. As our document indicates, it was only as a result of an administrative decision in 1993-1994 that all other cadets ceased to be able to be appointed employees. This is illogical in our view. Among the people from other parts of Canada,
[English]
particularly in the western provinces, the majority of our members right now.... We have over 10,000 members who graduated from depot since that new rule, so that means those 10,000 members will not be allowed to recognize those six months as having been served. As we said in our presentation, it's going to be a no-cost move, and all we're asking you to do is to include these people. As it said in the government paper, they're willing to make all those changes in about two or three years. So we are saying that will be ample time to prepare all the documentation to make them available. It doesn't mean it has to be done today, but at least a positive way for this government, this body here, will be on behalf of our 10,000 members and more, who need that to be recognized.
They are regular members of the RCMP. They have served Canada in their function, and therefore we are submitting on their behalf that it's going to be a discriminatory practice against them if we allow those same other members from the other police departments that count their time as cadets.
I said at the outset I have checked with Ontario, I have checked with Winnipeg. I have not checked with all the other major police departments where the people are. I understand some cadets in Montreal are also paid while they are a cadet, but not all of them. But I would suspect there are other large police departments—for example, Calgary, Edmonton or Vancouver—that have cadet training that will be able to buy that back. I am saying, yes, it's fair for those people to do it, and yes, it's fair to recognize our own cadets. Right now, 10,000 of them are giving their services to Canadians, and to recognize that has to be a positive move. I'm saying if it's only an issue regarding the Income Tax Act, that can be done within the next two or three years. You have the ability right now to include them as such, and I say on their behalf that should be a fair representation to do so.
The other issue is for our civilian population. Civilian members right now are not being recognized with the same type of pension entitlement that regular members of the RCMP are entitled to. As we have stipulated in our presentation, these people are under the same code of conduct. They're under the same work schedule. They can be rotational and they could be ordered transferred in their own functions. So we are speaking on their behalf, saying these people have to be recognized.
[Translation]
There are also those who are directly related to our presentation. However, I prefer to allow you time to ask questions. I am at your disposal. I hope you will take care of our cadets. Don't forget there are 10,000 of them if all.
Thank you.
I think you've described very well some issues related, arguably, to the unique nature of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Canada, and I certainly recognize those anomalies. You've articulated them well. However, today we're dealing with a very precise focus on a pension bill.
Also, colleagues, each of you will have received correspondence from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police staff relations representatives dated May 4, 2009. I have the letter here. It simply clarifies the position of that group. It's signed by Brian Roach and Bob Meredith. It clarifies the position of that official SRR grouping.
Would someone move that this letter be made part of the record of the hearings?
Yes, I received this letter of May 4 from the SRR, and I'm pleased to point out that they've demonstrated that there has been a challenge to the SRR divisional representation system under the MacDonnell decision a month ago that their association is in fact unconstitutional. But of course that will make its way through the courts.
I want to ask a question of our colleagues who have come forward. I've just received, Mr. Cape, your speaking notes. I'm sorry I wasn't able to follow every word you said. I'm sure it was harder on translation to go through this.
Mr. Cape, and perhaps this is to Ms. Rossignol as well, in helping the government to prepare for this legislation, what options did the RCMP consider to make the cadets' time in depot pensionable? Were any amendments to the Income Tax Act thought of prior to this, given this very glaring omission in which you're possibly and potentially having people coming into the RCMP absorbed through local service or local outlets who may in fact have much better pensions than those existing in the RCMP? I guess we're concerned about the spectre of unfairness, and perhaps we have a different take, Mr. Cape, on your position of this being able to help recruiting efforts. I can't see this as being anything more than unfair. So from an income tax point of view, were any amendments considered prior to the tabling of the legislation?
:
You asked two questions. First of all, regarding the civilian and regular members, civilian pensions are roughly equivalent to those for the public service. My understanding is that although they are still contributors under the RCMP SA, their entitlements are similar to those of public service employees. That's the reason I made the point at the outset. To us, it's not proper. It's not correct. These people, although they're in a different category of employees under the RCMP, are still members of the RCMP, currently under the same code of conduct, currently under the same administration manual, guidance, or anything we have to do as regular members.
They are subject to shift schedules. They are subject to ordered transfer. Therefore, to us, that population, which represents approximately 2,000 people--and I'm saying approximately, because it fluctuates--those civilian members are and should be recognized as being the same for the purposes of pension benefits under the RCMP SA, particularly because they are contributors to it. Why have a different way of calculating their benefits when in all fairness they're subject to the same RCMP Act?
[Translation]
The other aspect you spoke about, and which is very important to me, is how we must behave in representing our members. The speakers who preceded me suggested that the act doesn't permit that. However, if you carefully read the documents that were distributed to all committee members, you'll see that a number of practices, which were previously used by the RCMP, had not been consented to either. However, to be fair and equitable toward members, we proceeded with some calculations and buy-backs all the same. I accept that from the outset. That's a very good initiative on the RCMP's part.
However, while it was possible, in some cases, to do those calculations, which were not entirely consistent with the procedure, I humbly submit to you that you have the opportunity to do it in the same kind of environment, not only for a few, but for more than 10,000 cadets who are currently employed by the RCMP. They were all trained without pay or without allowances. They have therefore suffered twofold, if you compare them with the 8,000 current cadets, of whom I am one and whose division or representatives are here, who were paid during training.
To make it fair and equitable for those people, they must be recognized, even if it means subsequently making changes to accommodate them. Today you're going to make changes to adjust to actions that were not entirely regular, but that were valid for certain members. Those pension calculations were done with good intentions.
I claim that you can do the same thing for at least 10,000 of those people who are serving Canadians from day to day. That's my position.
:
It's the same thing. One of the points of enormous concern to us concerns the right of RCMP senior officers to receive performance bonuses. As they are developed, these bonuses are considered in calculating pension, which is totally unacceptable to us.
I'll give you an example. As soon as Mr. Marcotte was informed that I would be appearing before the committee, I received a call from an RCMP superintendent, Mr. Moreau, who works for Mr. Cape. That superintendent asked me the points I wanted to discuss. He even admitted to me that he is occupying an acting position and expects to receive an 8% bonus, which will be considered in calculating his pension. He has only five years left to work before retiring.
We honestly submit to you that, as taxpayers, this plan is not very viable. We're talking about bonuses of $10,000 a year, but we know they can be in the order of $20,000.
If these people pay only a small portion of their contributions, you'll understand that this method greatly affects us, particularly in view of the current economic situation.
We suggest that you delete the provision of the act on pensions providing for the inclusion of bonuses in the calculation of pensions. It's possible to do that. Mr. Lewis, one of our former colleagues, published a book in which he admits that, despite the fact that senior officers have acted in a somewhat unworthy manner, they were entitled to bonuses. However, those bonuses increase pensions, and that has to stop. You'll remember the discussion that arose in the Government Operations Committee when Mr. Zaccardelli and Ms. George testified.
:
Given the nature of that question, it would be more appropriate for Mr. Cape to answer it.
It's not necessarily up to me to judge the questions raised, but I can say that the main objective of this bill concerns pension portability, the transfer of pensions from one organization to another.
The questions concerning cadets come under the heading of employment. The bill concerns pension portability. If we look at the cadet issue, we have to rely... It's a statutory matter. The act, as drafted, applies solely to RCMP members. A cadet is therefore not concerned by it. There may be other practical ways of resolving the issue. In my opinion, this bill does not concern the question whether we can apply or extend the application of the act to cadets. I could talk about other matters in detail, but I note that, in the context of the bill and the studies that we have done, we are simply required to transfer pensions. The questions raised are good, but they are—
:
I appreciate that. Thank you very much; that's helpful.
Today we're here to discuss a specific piece of legislation. I know you've identified four concerns. Thus far I'm failing to understand exactly how each of those four pertain to the legislation we have before us today. I think you have some valid concerns, some concerns that relate to numbers of people you represent, and maybe people you don't represent as well, but I've failed thus far to see how the concerns you have identified pertain specifically to the legislation we're investigating. We're really limited in our capacity as a committee to involve ourselves in some of these other issues, because they don't pertain.... I'm failing to see the connection between this legislation we have before us and the issues you've brought to our attention.
Specifically, under each of the four points, what amendments do you think would be necessary for the legislation to address your specific concerns? That's all we can address today. We don't have the capacity to go beyond the parameters of this legislation. We can't rewrite the legislation to address concerns that are outside of the legislative scope we've been presented with.
I hear that you have concerns, and I think all of us around the table can have some sympathy for your concerns, but we're very limited in terms of what we are able to do within the scope of this particular legislative bill we've been given.
:
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?
:
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.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
This is the first time I have considered Bill . On the one hand, I have never heard about it previously. On the other, at this stage, I'm lacking a lot of information on how the RCMP's organizational structure works. I would also have liked to be able to consult the information that Mr. Delisle brought us. I read the documents, but I didn't expect it to be so complicated at this stage. Our research attaché has done a very good job and there aren't any questions. We see that we're lacking an enormous amount of knowledge at the outset to be able to conduct an in-depth study of the matter before us today.
I have a weird feeling about what you're explaining to us. The situation is a bit particular. Since I've been sitting on this committee and even before that, members have always been seeking justice. Mr. Cape, it's as though we were hanging onto all our power and too bad for our neighbour. That irritates me. As a member of the committee, that's not what I'm looking for and I get the impression the same is true for my colleagues.
If I understood correctly, the cadets of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police aren't paid because they aren't considered employees. The cadets you select aren't necessarily hired. However, in all other police services in the country, from the moment cadets have gone through the administrative workings and have met requirements respecting qualifications, they start being paid. This embarrasses me. How is it that the RCMP has made that decision? It's historical, I agree, but I would have liked to know why. What do the cadets do in the RCMP? Do they carry out operations similar to those conducted in other police services?
Today, it's all well and good to tell me that these are just technicalities, that this is just to transfer pension funds; the fact remains that 10,000 people say they are stuck at a stop light. Something's not working. If you had said there were 100 or 200 persons, I would have thought they were rebels, but 10,000 people, these are no longer rebels.
Mr. Cape, do you understand that I'm not ready to take what you're telling me at face value, despite the fact that I don't question your knowledge or that of Ms. Rossignol? I would like this committee to be able to give us more information so that we can make a decision that is informed and fair for everyone. Ten thousand people—that's bizarre.
:
I really can't comment on the actual numbers of how many are involved. The only thing I can comment on is that when it comes to the portability issue, I know members have been impacted in the past by this legislation not being in place, and the meter's running on them today in terms of it not being in place. So it's a concern that we address the 18,000-plus members we have today.
In terms of the concern you have, which is understandable, I appreciate what you're saying about the possible 10,000 members who are impacted by our not addressing this issue today. But if we address it in an incomplete fashion, or without doing the proper research, or without involving and engaging our members and former members in this, it could be a negative situation. We want to make sure that we look at this down the road.
Again, our mandate was to look at the portability question today, what we could do in terms of moving this forward and addressing the immediate concerns of our members. We have SRRs we've worked with who have provided really meaningful input, and Monsieur Delisle is one of those. They provide input to our organization, and we try to move the pension agenda forward.
Have we addressed all the issues related to pension and portability? No, we haven't, but we're moving forward. The only thing I could say is that your concerns are noted. Again, as we move forward, hopefully we can address those other questions.
My son is a police officer, and I talk to lots of RCMP. What they tell me they want from Bill C-18 is pension portability. We're looking for more RCMP officers. We want to be able to retain police officers, but we also want to attract experienced police officers from other police forces. There's a real stopgap when pensions can't be transferred over.
I'll give you an example. Clearly, if you came from another profession and you wanted to change to another type of work in the same profession, if any other community.... I think this bill is very fair, because it acknowledges the expertise of police officers who have been brave enough to apply for the RCMP. The RCMP put their lives on the line every single day. They're in the forefront every single day.
That being said, they're looking to this committee to pass Bill C-18 very quickly so we can get more police officers on the streets, and they won't be penalized because they've entered the RCMP. It's plain and simple. The RCMP frustration is when they look at the Hansard and look at the remarks, they wonder, “Isn't this pretty straightforward? We just want to be able to get our pensions going so we can enter the RCMP and continue our careers.”
Does someone want to comment on what I'm saying about that? I'm interested in hearing from Mr. Cape. You said you work with the SRRs.
Can someone maybe comment on the safety of our communities, particularly in our remote areas? When they go to northern Canada and are stationed at some of those northern postings, there's a big sacrifice made by the RCMP. Often their families are up there; they're cut off from different kinds of advantages they might have in other communities.
I hear from a lot of RCMP officers in the north that they went into the RCMP because they believed it was a flagship of Canada and that they could be of service to our country. They protect very well the communities that other people wouldn't even go into.
So can you comment on the safety of all Canadians when we don't have enough RCMP or police officers wanting to go into the RCMP? I say this because they do look at their families, and they do look at their future, and the pension portability is a big part of that.
:
In the same vein as you, if you realize that we have over 10,000 members right now who have gone through new cadet training, you will realize that all 10,000 are in the position you're talking about. That's what we're talking about; we want to represent them.
Also, regarding the example of one member retiring next year who would like to have pension portability, that person has twenty years of service. Twenty years ago there was no talk about pension portability whatsoever. They are not the people we're looking at right now. What we're looking at is taking care of the people who are taking care of Canadians everywhere.
Every year we have 1,200 of them who go through training. So next year there will have been 11,000 who have gone through new cadet training, and there will be 12,000 the year after that. If you look at the numbers from 1993, when they were first hired, you will see that they'll be able to retire in five years, or four and a half years. A person who is working beside us will be able to count on getting six months more of a pension than ours. That's what we're talking about: unfairness.
:
I believe that one point has not yet been developed. Most police officers and other police services who join the ranks of the RCMP don't go to the academy.
[English]
They don't have to go back to Regina for six months. They don't. They're taken at par. They don't go back and retrain in the police academy as being non-cadets.
That's not what we're talking about here. These people are the ones who are being right now compared in Bill C-18. Our membership has to go directly through training for those six months.
To me, I do believe, with all due respect, Monsieur Lee, that when we're talking about not an amendment to the RCMP Act, if you look at the definition of membre de la Gendarmerie , which is in Bill C-18, that's what we're addressing here.
Anyway, it's just so that you comprehend that if you have police from another police force who already have some police service, then those people are taken at par.
:
I haven't seen the letter that was circulated. I wish I could look at it.
You have to realize that because I'm a member who goes along with the thinking that we should have collective bargaining, I've been chastised by the division representative. Technically I'm not part of their caucus. I'm still allowed to be a division representative in C Division, but I'm no longer to participate in their caucus. So whatever they do, unfortunately I'm not privy to that.
I know that they have stressed for years the pension portability, but at the same time, we have stressed for years the time that should be recognized for our cadets. Technically, it doesn't make sense--I know I'm repeating myself here--that almost 8,000 members went through training and were paid during training. Then, all of a sudden, you get 10,000 more members, and 11,000 the next year, who are not subject to the same situation.
:
I asked the question, Mr. Delisle, because I don't see that concern raised in what is obviously a letter in reference to you and the great work you're doing. But either they believe it's not an issue or you believe it's an important issue.
I happen to side with you on this, but I have to side only because I tend to believe there's a glaring omission here. With this legislation, if it's to be open, we have to find a way to make sure that we cover that problem.
In order to do that, though, you're suggesting four recommendations. Could you live with just one, or perhaps two--the issue of parity on civilians and the issue of ensuring that there is consistency between RCMP, even if it has to be retroactive?
:
Looking at the legislation that we have before us, I'm still uncertain as to how we might be able to address the concerns without expanding the scope of the legislation that we have before us.
I'm wondering, Mr. Cape, if you have any suggestions as to how we might as a committee, at this point in time, after it has been passed by the House....
I recognize that we have the ability to make changes. We certainly have the ability as a committee to report, and to investigate all types of things. But in terms of the legislation we have before us, we're limited to the scope of what we were presented with.
I know that there was the portability issue that this legislation was seeking to address, and I now see---
:
The only comment I would offer is that it goes back to the issue in terms of the scope. Again, you're getting into the RCMP Act and away from the RCMPSA. If you want to recommend that they're considered as employees, well, this act isn't going to allow you to do that. That's a different act. So I can't address that question.
If you're asking whether we should be looking at the issue in terms of impact on members, and looking down the road at perhaps a more collective view of the organization, then yes, we could do that. But the point that I would also make is that the SRRs have identified a variety of issues that go beyond what we have here. This is a burning issue that's been dragging on for a number of years. We're trying to move forward on it. But there are other issues that aren't identified here and that we have to address in the future.
I assure you that the SRRs, or the individual members, will be tracking what we do and how we perform, and will consistently remind us of things that still have to be done and that we'll have to look at in the future.
Again, the core issue is that it's the RCMP Act. So in terms of a lot of these questions, if they were employees, they would get the pension.
:
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?
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.
:
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?
:
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.
:
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.
:
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.
:
It's clear that I'm not going to be able to drive this bus today for whatever reasons are out there.
In the absence of concerted focus and leadership on this particular issue, we're going to adjourn our meeting. That may please some of you, but it may not please others. I don't propose to do anything that's going to waste members' time, but we're going to have to come back on this again. I'm sure all of you have your reasons, but I'm not going sit here in the middle of a pissing match over an adjournment. I need some clarity.
I'm willing to hear from the opposition. I'm willing to hear from the government. We only have two or three minutes left. The best procedure is simply to adjourn. Our next meeting will be on clause-by-clause of this particular bill.
If there isn't a point of order, I'm happy to adjourn.
:
If there aren't any other important points here that have to be made, we will adjourn.
Mr. Clerk, is that viable, that the next meeting be on clause-by-clause? Who are we pre-empting at the next meeting?
We would be pre-empting the integrity commissioner and her estimates, but I don't think we have a choice at this point. So if that's all right with members, we'll come back to this matter on Thursday morning. We'll do clause-by-clause and any other related issues, and we'll postpone the integrity commissioner.
Ms. Hall Findlay has a motion she wants to put.