NDVA Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, October 7, 2003
| Á | 1105 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.)) |
|
Col L.J. Colwell (Director General, Compensation and Benefits, Department of National Defence) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance) |
| Á | 1110 |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
LCol Claude Rochette (Project Director, Canadian Forces Pension Modernization Project, Department of National Defence) |
| Á | 1115 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
LCol Claude Rochette |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
| Á | 1120 |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1150 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
| Á | 1155 |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.) |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
Mr. Robert Bertrand |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
Mr. Robert Bertrand |
|
The Chair |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John) |
|
The Chair |
| Â | 1200 |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
The Chair |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
| Â | 1205 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
The Chair |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
The Chair |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
The Chair |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
The Chair |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
The Chair |
|
Col L.J. Colwell |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
| Â | 1210 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jay Hill |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
| Â | 1215 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, October 7, 2003
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Á 
(1105)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.)): I'd like to call this meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to order.
As members know, we have a vote in approximately half an hour. I would like to hear from the officials and get some questions in within the next twenty minutes or so. Then perhaps if there are no further questions of the departmental officials we can come back and deal with the clause-by-clause immediately after that.
Let me first welcome our two departmental officials, Colonel L.J. Colwell, director general of compensation and benefits; and Lieutenant-Colonel Claude Rochette, project director of the Canadian Forces pension modernization project. Welcome to both of you.
If you have an opening statement, perhaps we can hear it and then get right into questions.
[Translation]
Col L.J. Colwell (Director General, Compensation and Benefits, Department of National Defence): Good day, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.
I'm pleased to have this opportunity to comment briefly on Bill C-37, an Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
[English]
As a backdrop for your study of the proposed amendments, I would like to mention our criteria and objectives for Canadian Forces compensation and benefits. In broad terms, we aim for compensation policies that support the role and operational requirements of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. These policies must also recognize the unique conditions and circumstances of services of Canadian Forces members, and the value of that service. Hallmarks of a desirable compensation strategy also include affordable and flexible benefits that provide fair and equitable treatment and are comparable to those provided by other good Canadian employers.
[Translation]
Bill C-37 was drafted to meet these criteria and achieve these aims. The proposed changes would give military personnel access to a superannuation plan and in turn, they would have more choice and more control over their career and the financial planning process.
Furthermore, the proposed superannuation plan provisions would be more in line with the minimum standards for private superannuation plans set out in Canadian laws.
Summing up, the bill proposes a competitive superannuation plan while recognizing the unique nature of military service.
[English]
In more specific terms, the following are the major thrusts of the amendments in Bill C-37. First is to provide the foundation and authority for a comprehensive set of rules that would give pension coverage to all members of the reserve force. Second is to incorporate the shorter vesting period allowed for in the 1999 pension reform legislation. Third is to revamp current benefits for both the range of benefits offered and the eligibility criteria.
The key changes of this last category include having the benefits payable depend on the length of a member's period of pensionable service; providing an immediate full pension after 25 years of Canadian Forces service; and allowing for the transfer of the value of earned pension credits to an external retirement savings vehicle.
[Translation]
These are the main reasons for the initiative to modernize the Canadian Forces superannuation plan.
However, Bill C-37 also modernizes the current legislation in a number of other ways.
The bill proposes to bring greater flexibility to certain specialized areas that require in-depth knowledge of the plan's technical details. For example, all of the conditions that apply to periods of services that qualify for a pension as elective service would be covered by regulations. These regulations would of course be consistent with the authority set out in the legislation.
[English]
There are also amendments that would make the administration of the plan more efficient, including compulsory cash-out of very small pensions. Amendments are proposed to recognize the importance attached to individuals' pension entitlements. These changes include power to rectify administrative error or erroneous advice, as well as the authority to remit overpayments in specified circumstances.
There is provision made for a person who is dissatisfied with a decision affecting their entitlement under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to make a formal request to the minister to reconsider that decision. The minister would be obliged to provide them in writing with the reasons for a confirmation of the decision, or variance of the original decision.
[Translation]
Bill C-37 also proposes a restructuring of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. Among other things, the proposed legislation would consolidate most of the provisions having to do with regulation-making authority and would consolidate in Part IV of the act those provisions associated with benefits payable.
[English]
Finally, Bill C-37 contains a number of transitional and consequential amendments, including authority for the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to be adapted to reflect the modernization changes.
I thank you for this opportunity to provide an overview of the amendments. Both Lieutenant Colonel Rochette and I will be very pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Colonel Colwell. We appreciate your presentation.
I think it's safe to say we've come a long way since the Militia Pension Act of 1901, in terms of how we treat benefits at this point.
In reading over the material, one thing that struck me was that the forces were trying, to the greatest extent possible, to emphasize the principle of “max flex” in how they approached pension arrangements, not just for members of the forces, but for the reserves.
Mr. Hill, do you have some questions?
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.
I'd also like to extend a welcome on behalf of the official opposition for your appearance here today to enlighten us further about Bill C-37.
I want to say at the outset that all of the parties, as far as I know, are supportive of the legislation. We have some questions, but not in the purely negative sense that the concerns are so great about the legislation that we're opposed to it.
We do have some concerns. One is that while we fully support the initiative of the legislation to extend benefits to the reserve forces--I think it's long overdue--there is a concern about the costs involved in doing that.
Do you have any idea of the number of reservists who would be opting in? I'm assuming it would be an opt-in type of thing. Would it be compulsory that they be in the pension plan when they sign up in the reserves? Would it be an optional thing that they could choose? Do you have any idea of what numbers we're talking about, and what the cost would be to the public purse of including the reserves in the pension plan?
Á (1110)
Col L.J. Colwell: The question of opting in or opting out is dependent on the threshold of earnings. After the set threshold of earnings was met, the person would be in the plan. That would also deal with the threshold of earnings and the continuation of the earnings.
On the cost to the reserves, in Bill C-78, in 1999, we got the opportunity to make regulations for the cost of reserves. The funding is in the fiscal framework for that. So it has already been earmarked, with respect to costs to the public.
We have 897 full-time reservists who would be affected by this legislation. That's 879 who would be considered full-time and would be in this full-time plan. The other reservists are considered to be part-time, in that they work varying periods, and would be in the part-time plan under the regulations.
The Chair: I think Mr. Hill was interested in some numbers on the amount of money involved.
Mr. Jay Hill: You used two conflicting numbers there--897 and 879, for the full-time reservists. I guess I heard you say that under previous legislation the cost has already been built into the budget. Is that correct? In other words, there would be no increase in the cost to the Canadian taxpayers for including these roughly 900 people in the full-time pension plan.
Col L.J. Colwell: There would be the cost of those 900 people, but provisions have already been made for that within our processes and the fiscal framework.
Mr. Jay Hill: Okay, so do you have any idea what that would cost? My understanding is that it would be a standard pension plan, where the individual would contribute and the government would contribute.
Col L.J. Colwell: As for any other pension contribution, the government contributes roughly 14% of the payroll, and the individual pays between 4% and 7%, depending on where their YMPE, their yearly maximum pensionable earnings, are.
So within the context of the reserves in full-time service, these are people who are already counted within our ceilings with respect to the Canadian Forces regular force total, under the total force concept.
Mr. Jay Hill: Okay, and you've already stated that there's going to be a different plan for part-time versus full-time reservists. Can you explain a little bit further how they will differ?
Col L.J. Colwell: I'm going to let Lieutenant Colonel Rochette take that question, because he's the man who has developed the two plans.
LCol Claude Rochette (Project Director, Canadian Forces Pension Modernization Project, Department of National Defence): Thank you, sir.
Basically, when we started, after SCONDVA recommendation 6, to have a real pension plan for reserve force members, one of the first questions we asked ourselves was why have we never put in a pension plan before? So we started looking with pension experts to find out exactly what type of pension plan would be the best for our reserve force members.
At that time, the conclusion of the report was that, really, the problems we were having were because of the different needs of our population, the reserve force members. One pension plan would not meet all their needs. So we needed to have two types of pension plans. One would be for the people who are working similar to their regular force counterparts, on a full-time basis. These people would need to have a defined-benefit pension plan that would be similar to what regular force members have.
For the other members, those who work on a part-time basis, those who have other employment somewhere else but who work on the weekends and do some training during the summer, these people, based on the findings of our pension plan expert, were better served under a different type of defined-benefit plan, called an updated career-average plan, which is similar, really, to the Canada Pension Plan. It's based on earnings.
That type of pension plan is also used in hospitals, where they have nurses working on a part-time basis, or sometimes full-time and they take a break and work on a part-time basis. So they had some proof that this was really a good plan, a defined-benefit plan for that type of category.
Therefore, when we started, we proposed to our minister at the time that we have one initiative framework with two pension arrangements. In the first one, we would not talk about regular force members or reserve force members any more. We wanted to have a total force concept, because more and more now in operations, we take our reservists with us and they are part of the Canadian Forces.
So we would not look at rank, not look at the type of employment, reserve or regular; we would look at full-time employment and part-time employment. As we start to develop that, we are making some modifications to the current plan we have for regular force members, but it will be available for all regular force members and also reserve force members who meet a specific threshold, which is 55 months out of 60. That was based on previous statistics we looked at.
Most of the members who are on a full-time basis, really staying with the employer, are people who, after five years, are working full-time for the department. That's the threshold we use. So any members who meet that threshold will be on a full-time basis. All the remaining people, who are on a part-time basis, will be covered under the part-time plan, which is an updated career-average plan.
Á (1115)
The Chair: Do you have any further questions?
Mr. Jay Hill: I don't know whether I'm out of time or not, but I have quite a number of questions.
The Chair: Mr. Tonks, do you have any questions at this point?
Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): I think we could wait, if we're going to go to the vote, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: I'll tell you what: if you have another couple of questions, Mr. Hill, we can get those in. Then we'll come back, and if our witnesses, the departmental officials, would stick around, I'm sure there will be more after the vote.
Mr. Hill.
Mr. Jay Hill: For the part-time reservists, there's a threshold. Once they reach that threshold, do the premiums start coming off their cheques and it's compulsory?
Is my understanding correct, then? There's no option; they can't say, well, you know, I have a good pension plan at my place of employment, and I'd just as soon have the extra few dollars in my pocket, rather than contribute to the plan. There's no opt-out for them.
Col L.J. Colwell: No, sir, there's no opt-out once you reach the threshold of earnings.
Mr. Jay Hill: Okay, and what is the threshold of earnings for part-time? For full-time, if I understood you, it's 55 months out of 60, but for part-time, what would it be?
Col L.J. Colwell: It's 10% of the YMPE--
LCol Claude Rochette: The yearly maximum pensionable earnings.
Col L.J. Colwell: Sorry. We use so many acronyms.
Mr. Jay Hill: You can imagine our difficulty in understanding them, if you don't even understand them.
Okay, so once they reach this 10% of their yearly maximum pensionable earnings, they are automatically in the part-time plan, the premiums would come off their cheques, and they wouldn't have any option. Is that correct, just so we understand what's happening?
Col L.J. Colwell: That's correct, as long as they continue to serve.
Mr. Jay Hill: Have you heard any concerns expressed by our part-time reservists about that? Are they aware of it, and if so, are they comfortable with that?
Col L.J. Colwell: We have consulted extensively with a number of reserve groups right across the country. Overwhelmingly, people are in favour of this pension plan and say they can't wait until it gets in place.
Mr. Jay Hill: Okay. Well, that's good.
Á (1120)
The Chair: Actually, members, I think we're going to have to suspend the meeting at this point. I'm told that the vote could take place in about five minutes' time.
When we reconvene, we'll be able to ask some further questions, and again, I would hope that our witnesses would stick around with other departmental officials that they may have here for any technical questions that come up.
We'll leave everything here and reconvene after the vote.
Á (1150)
The Chair: I'd like to reconvene the meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. I call the meeting to order once again.
We were in the process of having questions from Mr. Hill when the committee had to adjourn. I understand Mr. Hill has some additional questions, so perhaps, Mr. Hill, you'd like to take the floor.
Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll try to pick up where we left off before we were so rudely interrupted by the vote.
You had made reference in your presentation to compulsory cash-outs for very small pensions. Can you tell us what that amount is and how that's figured?
Col L.J. Colwell: Mr. Chair, the compulsory cash-outs are related to the pension benefits. These are pensions that would be vested after the two years but would be so small that in the long run it would be more expensive to continue with the pension than it would be to cash out immediately and give the individuals the opportunity to reinvest their funding. For example, if someone left the force immediately after vesting, then they would be able to cash out their pension.
Mr. Jay Hill: I'm assuming there must be some sort of threshold for that.
Col L.J. Colwell: The PBSA, the Pension Benefits Standards Act, entitles you to receive the benefit entitlement in cash if the commuted value does not exceed 20% of the year's maximum pensionable earnings. We call that the YMPE. Under the Canada Pension Plan for the year of termination, 20% of the YMPE equals $7,980 in 2003 and $7,820 in 2002.
In the case of a defined benefit plan, the benefit also entitles you to receive your benefit entitlement in cash if the monthly pension payable to you at a normal retirement would be less than one-half of 10%. I realize this is very complicated, but it's roughly $332.50 per month in 2003. That would be what your pension would be based on.
Mr. Jay Hill: So it's $332 per month?
Col L.J. Colwell: Per year.
Mr. Jay Hill: Per year. If it was less than that, there would be a compulsory cash-out.
Col L.J. Colwell: Yes.
Mr. Jay Hill: It's because all this stuff you said before just confused me, the 20% and the half of 10%.
I have a final round of questions, Mr. Chairman, and it deals with the amendments I'm going to bring forward. The biggest concern I have is with the future power of the minister to change the regulations and how this would affect pensioners, people who have contributed and are collecting pensions. I was wondering if you can show me somewhere in the bill--I might have overlooked it--where there's some guarantee provided in the amendments or in existing legislation that would ensure members are given adequate notice of any impending changes.
My concern here is that they be consulted before the changes are made and that they have adequate notice of the coming changes. If the changes just appear in the Canada Gazette and they happen to miss them, the next thing they notice is that their pension has been reduced, changed, or altered in some form or their premiums have gone up. There may be any number of changes the minister may or may not make in the future without proper notice going to the people who are contributing to the pension plan or collecting from it. That's basically where my concern lies.
Col L.J. Colwell: I'm glad that question was asked, because we do have an advisory committee, the requirement for which is embedded in the law itself. This advisory committee in the Canadian Forces is called the Canadian Forces Pension Advisory Committee, a committee constituted under the law itself. We have members who are representatives on that committee. We also have retired pensioners represented on that committee, with a cross-section of both officers and non-commissioned members. Members can speak through that voice. All changes are briefed to that committee. That committee then does the reviews and analysis that are necessary and reports back to the minister before the minister begins making changes.
Á (1155)
Mr. Jay Hill: But there is no requirement set down in the legislation or the amendments that would require.... Obviously, the assumption is, as you say, that the advisory committee basically performs the role of liaison between the pensioners and people contributing to the pension plan--people with a vested interest, obviously, in the functioning of the pension plan--and the minister and his department so there's a two-way conduit of information flowing back and forth. But there's no requirement as such. Is it just sort of understood that's one of the roles the advisory committee plays?
Col L.J. Colwell: Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
This committee is mandated within the act to review all matters respecting administration, design, and funding of benefits provided under the act and to make recommendations to the minister about those matters. And they review any pension matters that the minister may ask them to. So all matters that relate to any aspect of the pension are reviewed by this committee, and the committee is mandated in accordance with the act to do the reviews. Part of their review is consultation, not just with the representatives, but the representatives also consult with the people they represent.
Mr. Jay Hill: Well, perhaps I'm not making myself clear. It says that part of the review is to consult, and we've been down this road before, where we have some definite concerns with the level of consultation that takes place sometimes when ministers make decisions. I don't see anything there that would box the minister in to the extent that notification of any impending changes has to be communicated in writing to pensioners or contributors to the pension plan. I haven't seen anything like that in the amendments or in the bill that specifically states that this communication has to take place, and that's my concern.
Col L.J. Colwell: I don't believe that specifically communicating in writing is there. What we do have is the mandate of that committee that if it's fulfilling its mandate in accordance with the law, it would be doing that.
Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.
The Chair: Are there any questions on the government side?
Yes, Monsieur Bertrand.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): On this Canadian Forces Pension Advisory Committee, who sits on that board?
Col L.J. Colwell: At present, the Canadian Forces Pension Advisory Committee is co-chaired by the assistant deputy minister for human resources, military, General Couture, and by the chief financial officer of the Canadian Forces, Major-General Hearn. We have a representative from the pensioners. We also have representatives of the three environmental chiefs of staff. We have the chief of the reserves and cadets sitting as a member, and then there are technical members who represent multi-disciplinary activities, including the legal advice. We have a representative from the non-commissioned members and another representative, of course, from the compensation and benefits aspect of the pension.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: So it's all former military and military? There are no civilians involved at all?
Col L.J. Colwell: No, there are not. This is the Canadian Forces Pension Advisory Committee.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Okay.
The Chair: This advisory committee that you're speaking of is set up under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act?
Col L.J. Colwell: Yes, it's under section 49.1.
The Chair: Yes, okay.
I don't know whether members have that in front of them, but it provides a full explanation of the composition, mandate, membership, term, recommendation of candidates, and chairperson.
Are there any further questions?
Mrs. Wayne, no questions?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): No, I have no questions.
The Chair: All right.
Mr. Hill, you have nothing further, then?
 (1200)
Mr. Jay Hill: No.
The Chair: Is there anything that you would like to add, Colonel, in terms of further explanation on any aspects of the bill that you think perhaps you may have overlooked, or are you satisfied with the information you've provided the committee thus far?
Col L.J. Colwell: I believe we've provided the best information that we can at this point, sir.
The Chair: Okay. We'll perhaps get underway with clause-by-clause consideration, then.
Does everyone have their briefing books handy?
We have a number of clauses, obviously, that may carry right away, so we'll try to do them in bulk.
The amendments that Mr. Hill has submitted deal with clause 2, clause 23, and clause 36.
Let's start with clause 1.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chair: Mr. Hill, did you want to provide us with any further explanation of your amendments?
Mr. Jay Hill: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'll speak to all three, because all three are the same, but I will move them independently when we get to the appropriate clause, just for clarity.
The first one is that Bill C-37 in clause 2 be amended by adding after line 26 on page 1 the following:
| (1.1) Regulations under this section respecting any benefit, entitlement or right of a contributor may be made only on the recommendation of the Minister after the Minister has consulted with the contributors and taken their views into consideration. |
In light of the answers from the witnesses, Mr. Chairman, it would perhaps appear at first blush that all three of these amendments might be a bit redundant; but I would submit this is an important enough issue that we should provide certainty and clarity, that the minister must consult with contributors, which is the purpose of putting forward these three virtually identical amendments dealing in three separate clauses with the making of regulations by order in council.
The Chair: On debate, Mr. LeBlanc.
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The witnesses have described in considerable detail the substantive provisions in the act now, which, as Mr. Hill said, to a large extent accomplish what he's trying to achieve with his proposed amendments. So I would urge colleagues to see this as a bit redundant, in the sense that the witnesses have described what is a rather direct response to Mr. Hill's concern, I would submit. But also, Mr. Chairman—and those of you who have been around these tables longer than I have more experience at this than I do—the whole regulatory process itself has a whole series of built-in notice provisions.
So apart from the specific section 49 of the act, which sets up this advisory committee, I think the Statutory Instruments Act has built-in requirements for notice. The regulatory process, pre-publication.... I appreciate that Mr. Hill is trying to avoid surprises or unknown things that suddenly get sprung on people who have a certain concept of a pension plan, but I would argue that this is addressed in the regulatory process itself through a number of other acts and practices, and by the very specific provisions of the act, as Colonel Colwell outlined.
The Chair: Thank you.
Are there any further comments?
Mr. Hill.
Mr. Jay Hill: Let me reply to that. As I look at it, I understand that section 49 deals exactly with the mandate of the advisory committee or with what the committee does. What my amendments do is to put an onus on the minister to communicate directly with the contributors to the plan. It might be a nuance to some, but I think there is quite a difference there, compared to something that the advisory committee may or may not overlook. But the onus would be on the minister to communicate directly with contributors.
But in the interests of this, I don't want to hold up or unnecessarily delay our work here, Mr. Chairman. So I would maybe ask the two esteemed witnesses to comment specifically on the amendments put forward and to offer their suggestions whether they're comfortable with the existing—
 (1205)
The Chair: If I could piggyback a question onto Mr. Hill's question, are you aware of any other pension plan within the government that would contain this type of requirement of the minister?
Mr. Jay Hill: That's a fair question.
Col L.J. Colwell: I'll start with the first issue of the amendment itself.
From a personal and a professional perspective, I think the CFPAC, the Canadian Forces Pension Advisory Committee, fulfills the requirement. However, we would have no objection if the honourable members believed that we should continue to completely nail down the protection of the members. I don't know of any clauses under federal pension plans, but I'm only speaking for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police plan and the public service plan.
The Chair: Are you aware of any liability that might be created for the government in connection with this type of an amendment or requirement?
Col L.J. Colwell: I'm not aware of a liability. The only issue would be that we would be mandating communication, and I don't think communication could ever be a bad thing.
The Chair: I do have some concerns about the liability issue, because the amendment does talk about “has consulted with the contributors and taken their views into consideration”. If someone feels they haven't been consulted and their views haven't been taken into consideration, that could perhaps provide for an action against the government.
Col L.J. Colwell: Those words could create false expectations, and perhaps expectations that in the future would be difficult to manage.
The Chair: I think maybe what we can do under the circumstances, and I'd leave this up to committee members if they have any comments on this.... Did you want to add any further comments?
Col L.J. Colwell: I only wanted to add that as far as communicating in a timely manner on an issue like a pension issue, it is very difficult to communicate directly on this type of issue with our people who are serving on missions abroad. Perhaps they might not be really thinking about those sorts of things while they're serving abroad.
The Chair: Yes.
As an adjunct to that question, is there a requirement by the Canadian Forces Pension Advisory Committee to report on an annual basis to the minister? I would expect it would be to the minister; it wouldn't be to Parliament.
Col L.J. Colwell: Yes, we report directly to the minister following each meeting, with respect to the activities and the findings, and if there is a particular issue that we have sent away to look at in a smaller committee, we report back on that issue as well. I believe there will be an annual report to the minister on the activities of this year.
The Chair: Presumably that would be a public report as well.
Col L.J. Colwell: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. So it's probably safe to say that there are a number of safeguards in the system as it currently exists to deal with the sort of issue Mr. Hill has raised, but I leave it up to committee members to make their own decision on that.
Mr. Hill, do you have any further comments?
Mr. Jay Hill: I have one final comment on this issue, Mr. Chairman, if I may. If the committee would like to review this section, under subsection 49.1 of the act, it states:
| (1.1) The mandate of the committee is to(a) review matters respecting the administration, design and funding of the benefits provided under this Act and make recommendations to the Minister about those matters; and(b) review any other pension-related matters that the Minister may refer to it. |
My understanding is that that's a pretty narrow mandate. It's basically to review matters concerning it. Unless I'm mistaken, nowhere does it say there's any obligation or responsibility on the advisory committee or the minister to communicate any impending changes to contributors, unless I am missing something here.
 (1210)
The Chair: In fairness, Mr. Hill, I'm not a lawyer, but I think that's covered in the issue of administration, design, and funding of the benefits.
Mr. Jay Hill: As I say, I'll let the amendments stand. I think there's a need there for clarity, to ensure that the minister does communicate with members of the plan.
The Chair: Mr. LeBlanc.
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, there's been a good discussion on this issue. You raised the issue of a potential liability or a cause of action, Mr. Chairman. I would urge committee members to accept that the regulatory process itself, which has been well litigated and has been well debated in Parliament, has in and of itself enough built-in safeguards in addition to the provisions of the act. The words you read, Mr. Chairman, make it clear that unless the witnesses have information to the contrary, these are the exact types of issues I assume the Pension Advisory Committee would be dealing with, and the regulatory process has a whole series of rather adequate notice provisions. To set up a separate cause of action potential may in fact end up complicating or delaying a process that seems to have enough built-in safeguards.
The Chair: I wonder, Mr. LeBlanc, whether or not it might be useful for you, as parliamentary secretary, to perhaps work with the department in terms of providing us with a report on this issue.
Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: On the role of the actual committee and on its.... I would be happy to provide very detailed information on how that committee works and what its mandate precisely is and what sorts of issues it has looked at. I will gladly do that.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clauses 2 to 22 inclusive agreed to)
The Chair: On clause 23, the same issue applies.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chair, there's no sense being redundant about it, but I will let the motion stand for the same vote on the same arguments.
The Chair: Same vote then. Mr. Hill moves the same amendment as he moved for clause 2 on clause 23.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clauses 23 to 35 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 36)
The Chair: On clause 36, we have an amendment moved by Mr. Hill, the same amendment he moved for clauses 2 and 23.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clauses 36 to 71 inclusive agreed to)
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill? We don't need a reprint, right.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the chair report the bill to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much to our witnesses. We appreciate your being here today. I think we've had a good discussion surrounding an issue that Mr. Hill has raised. And, as indicated, Mr. LeBlanc has undertaken to provide us with a report on that.
Mr. Hill, if you're not satisfied with that report, of course, and you want to raise this issue with the committee in the future, you have a number of vehicles at your disposal to do that, one of which would obviously be a private member's bill, which you may want to consider.
On the issue of committee business, we have on today's agenda a motion to allow the committee to travel. Has this been circulated to all members?
The Clerk of the Committee: No.
 (1215)
The Chair: We'll just get this motion to committee members. It doesn't contain the amount.... I'm sorry, yes, it does, on the very last page.
We talked about this before, in terms of both the steering committee and the main committee. Do we have a motion? It is moved by Mr. LeBlanc.
(Motion agreed to )
The Chair: Are there any other items of business that members want to raise? We have bells ringing again.
I'd like to once again thank our witnesses and members for this speedy consideration of Bill C-37.
The meeting is adjourned.