JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 9, 1997

• 1106

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Order, please. Today we're dealing with Bill C-12, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

Before we introduce the witnesses, it's now about 11.07 a.m. and we're waiting any moment for a vote. So I want to let members know that.

Witnesses, if we all jump up and leave you while you're talking, you'll know we're going to vote on something in the House.

From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Assistant Commissioner David Cleveland, who is the director of human resources; Pierrette Boyer, who is in charge of the benefits policy unit at the National Compensation Policy Centre; and Brent Murkley and Hélène Gosselin—you're going to have to tell me who you are; perhaps Mr. Cleveland will.

Assistant Commissioner David Cleveland (Director, Human Resources, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): The latter two, madame, are both with the benefits policy section in the compensation area, who work with me—pardon me, Madame Gosselin is with RCMP legal services.

The Chair: Thank you. We know you have a presentation, and then we'll have some questions.

A/Commr David Cleveland: Indeed, I do.

Thank you, madame, first of all, for allowing me the opportunity to appear here on behalf of Commissioner Murray and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

[Translation]

Good morning, everyone.

[English]

I promise to be relatively brief, I hope. It is my pleasure to appear before you today to explain Bill C-12, which, as you probably know, is an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

[Translation]

Let me begin by emphasizing the importance of this bill for the RCMP. Since our first assignment to Namibia in 1989, the RCMP has continued to actively participate in peacekeeping missions abroad. In fact, to this point in time, some 600 members of the Force have served on such missions and we currently have 91 posted abroad in that capacity.

Throughout this period, RCMP members have not been afforded the same health and death benefits as their Canadian Forces counterparts who work alongside our police officers as peacekeepers in zones designated as special duty areas.

[English]

Bill C-12 will correct that inequity. It will include means of defining special duty areas as either those areas already designated by the governor in council pursuant to the special duty area pension order that applies to the Canadian Forces, or those created by separate order.

It will also allow the designation of special duty areas outside of Canada for peacekeeping missions applicable only to the Royal Canadian Mounted Place. Such geographic areas outside of Canada are recognized as areas where Canadian peacekeepers would be exposed to hazardous conditions not normally associated with service in peacetime. Current examples of these geographic areas include Guatemala, Haiti, Croatia and the Western Sahara.

[Translation]

Let me be more specific. At the present time, members of the RCMP and Canadian Forces personnel serving as peacekeepers in these special duty areas are treated differently. Health and death benefits for members of the Canadian Forces are covered from the moment they leave Canadian soil until they return from their mission. RCMP personnel, on the other hand, are covered for such benefits only during their scheduled hours of duty. The effect is that the Canadian Forces member is considered on duty 24 hours a day while RCMP members serving next to and in the same special duty area are only considered on duty during their work shift.

• 1110

RCMP members therefore bear the burden of proof that the injury, illness or death was sustained while on duty and was attributable to service. Our Canadian Forces counterparts have no such burden of proof.

[English]

There is no rational basis for treating these two classes of peacekeepers differently. With the passage of Bill C-12, we as members of the RCMP would be covered 24 hours a day for illness, disability, or death, not unlike the present coverage afforded our Canadian forces counterparts.

This bill recognizes the reality that while serving in certain dangerous areas outside Canada, our RCMP peacekeepers can never truly go off duty and be away from danger, even though a scheduled work shift might end. It is not reasonable to expect RCMP personnel or their dependants to bear the burden of proof that injuries or deaths occurred as a result of employment while the individual was on duty.

[Translation]

It is important to note that members of the RCMP have volunteered to serve on these ongoing peacekeeping missions and, in doing so, uphold a proud tradition for which Canadians have a deserved international reputation.

The RCMP is making a solid contribution to international peace and security. Our involvement in such peacekeeping missions has provided what many countries need most to sustain peace: a respect for the fair enforcement of the law.

With RCMP involvement, a troubled country is provided with the opportunity to build on both the traditions as well as the expertise displayed by Canadian police officers.

This participation works toward creating a new respect for law enforcement and the law itself.

[English]

In closing, I would like to mention that with an anticipated increased involvement in United Nations peacekeeping missions, our expectations are nothing more than being in parity with our Canadian Forces counterparts by being provided with the same health and safety provisions they presently have in place. This does nothing more than level the playing field.

I should point out as well that such an initiative will not require any new moneys and will be funded from within current RCMP appropriations.

[Translation]

The RCMP continues to be a highly visible symbol of national unity recognized and respected in every part of Canada and worldwide. Thus I would ask for your support on this initiative.

[English]

My colleagues and I would be delighted, Madam Chairman, to respond to any questions that any of you may have. Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hilstrom, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): I certainly support this bill and this initiative to have the RCMP covered. We're well aware of the service these members are providing offshore.

I would like to cover a couple of points, though, more in regard to the benefits that the members are getting. Could we just have a little background on how many claims have arisen to date from the 600 members and the 91 currently serving? Are you aware of this?

A/Commr David Cleveland: Mr. Hilstrom, my colleagues may very well correct me here, but we have had extremely good fortune with the 600-some members we have sent abroad on these missions since, I believe, 1989, when we began in Namibia. That is to say that while we have had minor illnesses and minor injuries, I'm not aware of any claims that have been processed to this point in time.

Our concern of course, sir, would be for the future and for those members who could very well be subjected to that kind of misfortune in the future.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: What I'm concerned with too is the effect it will have on the pension plan and on the members who are still here. Are their premiums paid towards the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, towards the benefits arising out of this act for the members?

• 1115

A/Commr David Cleveland: Again, my colleagues may stand to correct me, but these would be moneys that would be paid out of our own appropriations. As I understand it, this would not involve moneys coming out of the superannuation account itself per se. So it would have absolutely no effect on the benefits or pensions, if you will, down the road for other members.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's certainly my concern, because Canada is involving itself by agreement with the UN forces in different places. I'd just like to bring to the attention of the committee that we don't want to see the members who are left in Canada and members generally suffering financially in any way. It should be the Government of Canada covering the full cost of these missions, whether or not it affects premiums or benefits.

That really is the extent of the inquiries I had at this time. I will share my time with Paul Forseth if he had anything he was concerned about.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Forseth, there are about four minutes left.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): You made the statement that this brings us to a level playing field. Can you really reassure us that this is indeed so?

A/Commr David Cleveland: Please stop me if I'm not responding as you might wish.

As I mentioned in my remarks, the difference between us and the military might be best explained in an example. The military, when they leave Canadian soil, are deemed to be covered under the Pension Act whether they're on duty or not, regardless of where they are. With the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a member of the force might be on duty for an eight-hour period, go off and retire to sleep for the evening, and have the misfortune of their barrack house being bombed or attacked during the evening and suffer injury as a result. That member would have the onus of proving that he had been on duty at that particular point in time, whereas with the military individual it would be taken as a given.

That is where our concern lies when we suggest we would like to level that playing field, sir.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'd like to ask another question. The term of service that the members have, say in Haiti, runs for six months at a time?

A/Commr David Cleveland: Yes, it does, usually.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Do they have any time off while they're over there?

A/Commr David Cleveland: They do, sir.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I don't mean working an eight-hour shift and then sleeping for sixteen hours, for instance. Do they get a week off for recreation or that sort of thing?

A/Commr David Cleveland: Yes. They have time off down there that might in some cases even enable them to leave that area. It's our intention that this particular bill would not cover them when they left that particular area; it would only cover them while they're in that special duty area as it is defined by order in council. As is the case with the military, whether they are actively employed on a shift or on a single day off doing some shopping or laundry or whatever, they are deemed to be on duty under that legislation. That's what we're striving for.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: It was suggested during the parliamentary debate that somebody out parasailing might fall off a parasail or whatever and be injured and that if that were covered it would be unfair to the Government of Canada.

A/Commr David Cleveland: Again I repeat, sir, that while they are in what is defined as the special duty area, these provisions would apply to them. At any point in time during time off that they left that duty area, the coverage would not apply.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: So it will be a black and white geographical description of the special duty area then.

A/Commr David Cleveland: Yes. Most of the special duty areas are defined under legislation, and that's administered by Veterans Affairs. They are defined under the special duty area pension order. I have a copy of that with me. They define what those areas are and the period of time under which they are covered.

Mr. Paul Forseth: So then what you're saying is you're not getting us to a level playing field. Is it not true that a military person, when they're on their weekend leave and they go parasailing or surfboarding, would still be covered, but the RCMP members would not?

• 1120

A/Commr David Cleveland: I may have been overly vague in response to Mr. Hilstrom's question. My reply should have been that if the area in which that individual is parasailing falls within what is defined as a special duty area, the legislation, as it stands now, would cover the military people for such an injury, and our intention is that it would cover the RCMP member as well.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bellehumeur, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Cleveland, we all basically agree with what you have said. Moreover, if you have heard our speeches, you know that the Bloc supports this bill. However, one brief sentence at the end of your presentation did surprise me and that is where you say that the RCMP is the symbol of Canadian unity. Allow not to share your opinion on this, because I remember too many things, among others the 1970s in Quebec. But as far as the rest is concerned, I think our views are similar.

I would like you to confirm certain facts, such as, for example, the fact that certain municipal police officers participate in missions similar to those we have just discussed.

A/Commr David Cleveland: I will answer in English.

[English]

There are others from other municipal police forces, particularly in the province of Quebec, who work with our members and have worked with them, most recently in Haiti. If your question was whether these provisions would be envisioned as applying to them, that was not our intention. The reason is that they are not federal government employees, as the RCMP is, and it would be incumbent on them to seek out and develop that sort of coverage themselves under their respective plans.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: But you do agree that these police officers come from Quebec. However, they could also come from Ontario or other provinces. They are subject to the same dangers as RCMP personnel. They are under the same control and do the same work as RCMP members, don't they?

A/Commr David Cleveland: Yes.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Therefore, you are seeking parity and through the bill that is being tabled, you are asking that all those who do the same work abroad be treated in an equal manner.

With this bill, the men and women of the RCMP will be placed on an equal footing with the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, but the others, namely municipal and volunteer police officers who are not members of the RCMP will not be entitled to the same benefits.

A/Commr David Cleveland: That's right.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: So, in your opinion, the federal government and the provinces have to negotiate to obtain something similar. You're also saying that you would give your symbolic support so that these police officers can obtain the same benefits.

[English]

A/Commr David Cleveland: Perhaps I could respond to that. What you're saying is certainly true, but to reiterate, these are not federal government employees and as such they don't fall under, as we in the military do, legislation such as the Pension Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. They simply are not covered by it. They are covered by legislation applicable to themselves in the area they come from. Again, our position is that it would be incumbent upon them to ensure there was some sort of coverage in the event of that sort of mishap when they left Canadian soil, as is the case with the medical, dental and other sorts of coverage they have to arrange when they leave Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Fine. I have no other questions.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. MacKay, seven minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Assistant commissioner, I want to thank you for taking the time to be here with us. I think it's important for us to have these face-to-face exchanges at the committee level. I want to thank all of you for coming. We appreciate it very much.

A/Commr David Cleveland: Thank you.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I want to start off by saying that in principle we have supported this as well. I think it's an important initiative. I think you've stated quite clearly that parity in health and safety provisions is something all parliamentarians should be quick to embrace on behalf of the police. Perhaps the point made by Mr. Bellehumeur is something we will have to delve into at some point as well.

• 1125

My first question is with respect to ex-RCMP officers and whether they would be included in this coverage as established under previous legislation such as chapter 34, schedule B, vote 58a of the 1964 Appropriation Act. Will that have that application for former RCMP officers?

A/Commr David Cleveland: My colleagues tell me that this is not designed to be retroactive, so the answer would be no, there would be no coverage for those people.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So it's not intended to be retroactive.

A/Commr David Cleveland: No.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay. Would this current legislation be applied to all levels of RCMP personnel on the same basis?

A/Commr David Cleveland: Indeed it would. I believe, Madam Chair, that if you do a clause-by-clause examination of it you'll find that we're recommending that some portions of it be removed that suggest there is an entitlement based on rank—which I presume there was at one time, but there has not been for some time. So to answer your question, all ranks would be entitled to the same benefits, yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay, yes.

That's all I have. Thank you.

A/Commr David Cleveland: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Maloney and then Mr. Discepola, seven minutes.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Since 1989 we've had over 600 RCMP officers deployed in various regions and there haven't been any incidents yet. Is there really any necessity or urgency for this legislation?

A/Commr David Cleveland: We believe there is. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, from a fairness perspective we have taken somewhat of a band-aid solution to this by way of an administrative arrangement with Veterans Affairs. To this point in time we've had the good fortune of there never having been any of these incidents or mishaps, as you point out.

But it is a bill that is about equity. It's about equity between ourselves and our military colleagues, and I would suggest to you that it is patently unfair or has been unfair that our members and their dependants, their survivors, would be required to go through this business of proving the person had been on duty in order to receive a benefit, whereas their colleague who was working beside them and was a member of the Canadian Armed Forces would not have such an obligation.

So in that sense we believe there is some urgency to it on the basis of fairness.

Mr. John Maloney: I have a broader question. Why are we sending the RCMP to these special duty areas in any event? Do you feel you have a function there, or should it be handled by the military?

A/Commr David Cleveland: I believe we do, because we are performing an important part of a broader government initiative, and that is the Canadian government's very active involvement in recent years in international peacekeeping initiatives. As I mentioned and as I believe you confirmed, we've been doing this since 1989. I suspect it was something that at that time we never dreamed we would get into to the extent we have. We've served in a half dozen or more countries and we've had more than 600 people serve in that capacity. In fact, as we speak we have 91 who are serving abroad right now.

So it's grown beyond what we thought it would, and to come back to your question, I believe it clearly supports the direction the Canadian government wants to go in terms of involvement in international peacekeeping.

You asked whether the military could or should be doing it. Arguably they could, except for the fact that we are assisting these people to establish a democratic and modern accountable system of policing in their respective countries, and I would suggest the military wouldn't have the experience or the expertise to do that.

Mr. John Maloney: A designated area or special duty area—in the case of Haiti, would that be the entire country or is it just the main hot spots within the country?

A/Commr David Cleveland: Having referred to that particular document that I held up a moment ago, I believe that in most cases it is the entire country. For example, there are some three pages that outline the ones that have been designated, have expired, and continue to be designated as we speak. By way of example, the entire former Republic of Yugoslavia was and continues to be designated. The entire country of Haiti was and continues to be designated.

• 1130

So in specific answer to your question, sir, I would suggest that in most, if not all, instances it would be the entire country.

Mr. John Maloney: If an officer left that country, say, in the case of Haiti again, to go to the Bahamas for a week of recreation away from the area, he would not be covered.

A/Commr David Cleveland: No, he would not. He would have left the special duty area.

Mr. John Maloney: Is that wise? He could be injured there as well.

A/Commr David Cleveland: Well, sir, again it's based on a case of need. If he's left that country, he has also left the area of duty. The designation by order in council of these particular areas is done based on the fact that inherently greater danger exists for the people serving there, and hence they require a greater protection such as this. If he or she leaves to go on holidays to the Bahamas, he or she is no longer in that kind of danger and would be covered by our own health and insurance plans within the RCMP.

Mr. John Maloney: My final question is on the retroactivity aspect of it. You haven't had any incidents of loss of life or severe physical damage, injuries, etc. What about the psychological aspect of it? I imagine your officers have seen some pretty gruesome situations from time to time since 1989. Is there no possibility of having psychological problems as a result of exposure to these areas?

A/Commr David Cleveland: That's an interesting question, sir, and it probably has some application, because indeed our members do see some very traumatic incidents over there. We take very special efforts on their return to provide for them psychological counselling for those very reasons, for those who are deemed to be in need of it or feel they're in need of it. I suppose there is no reason that in the future someone might not make such a claim.

To clarify what I said before, there is certainly retroactivity that would apply under the Pension Act as it existed. The retroactivity that I referred to would be in Bill C-12, which we're recommending be passed. So yes, the short answer is that indeed there could very well be such a claim of that nature.

Mr. John Maloney: Which would be denied.

A/Commr David Cleveland: No. It would not if it satisfied the provisions of the Pension Act as it then existed.

The amendment we're suggesting, Madam Chair and sir, is really a streamlining of the process to have access to that legislation, to put it as simply as it can be put.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you.

Did I leave any time for my colleagues?

The Chair: Yes, a little bit. Thanks, Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Discepola, go ahead.

Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): I have two clarifications more than anything else.

When we talk about levelling the playing field, we've tried to determine through the questioning what exceptions are made. Let me ask you the question in reverse. Once Bill C-12 is approved, will there be any instances where the armed forces personnel will be treated differently from RCMP officers? Or will the playing field be totally, fully levelled, with the same benefits for the same types of functions?

A/Commr David Cleveland: I'm going to invite my colleagues to correct me here again if I'm wrong, sir, but my understanding certainly is that there would be a total levelling of the playing field as would apply to benefits or entitlements under the Pension Act itself. The military may very well have other benefits under their own Canadian Forces Superannuation Act or some other piece of legislation.

Mr. Nick Discepola: But not as a result of doing the same function as the RCMP officer will be called upon to do.

What I want is a clear answer. If we're levelling the playing field, we're levelling it in all instances, not just for particular cases.

A/Commr David Cleveland: Yes, indeed we are.

Mr. Nick Discepola: You also mentioned the question of financing and said it wouldn't cost anything. Obviously there are costs associated with it. If we have one claim, there's a cost associated. So where will the funding for that come from?

A/Commr David Cleveland: The funding would be from an appropriation we already have, Royal Canadian Mounted Police moneys, our own budget. As I mentioned before, it would not be from the superannuation account.

I stress again that it is not new money or additional money; it's money that at the end of the day we would have or expend in any event. So there would certainly not be any additional expenditures other than what there might be.... By sheer good fortune we have had none to this point in time.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Discepola.

Mr. Hilstrom, we're going to try to keep it to about two minutes.

• 1135

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I have a couple of short ones here.

In Haiti, the Canadian military is leaving. I would imagine that the RCMP and other police forces received medical treatment in Haiti from the Canadian military. Where do they get their medical treatment down there now? If someone was injured, shot or whatever, where would they get treatment?

A/Commr David Cleveland: We were indeed receiving our medical services from the Canadian military. I'm not sure I can provide you with an accurate answer to the question as to where we would receive it right now, sir. I would suggest perhaps the Red Cross.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: In past missions there has always been the military together with the RCMP. It seems now that there's a bit of a split going on at times due to more of a training mode. I'm going to be inquiring from other sources as to what that training mode entails, whether it's actively going out on missions or whatever. Thank you for that answer.

A/Commr David Cleveland: If it provides you any greater assurance, Madam Chair, we are very concerned about the health provisions for our members. I can tell you that it was only within the last two or three weeks that we sent a physician from my particular policy centre down to that area to examine the provision and the availability of health services for our members. We are very much concerned with it and I can assure you that such facilities are made available.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I will be brief. Pursuant to sub- section 7(1)(d) of the RCMP Act, the RCMP Commissioner has the power to designate persons, temporary employees, and may even, pursuant to section 10(2), appoint peace officers as well as civilian staff. With such legislation in place, what prevents the Commissioner of the RCMP from appointing Mr. X, a Hull police officer, for instance, working on a peacekeeping mission next to RCMP members, as a member of the RCMP to enable him to enjoy the benefits of Bill C-12?

[English]

A/Commr David Cleveland: My colleagues are infinitely wiser than I, sir. I would suggest that it would do us no good to do that. You're quite right; under some circumstances the commissioner can designate some other police officer, but it would still not make them by definition a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for coverage under our Superannuation Act, which in fact is the gateway to the Pension Act. That definition, I would suggest to you, would not satisfy other definitions that would still exist.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That's your interpretation.

A/Commr David Cleveland: Yes.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: But the RCMP Commissioner can confirm that under the RCMP Act, he could decide that Mr. X, who's a municipal police officer, becomes a peace officer. However, the application and interpretation of Bill C-12 could be different.

Ms. Boyer seems to have the answer.

[English]

Ms Pierrette Boyer (I/C Benefits Policy Unit, National Compensation Policy Centre, Royal Canadian Mounted Police): I don't deny that; you're absolutely right. However, the enabling legislation to the Pension Act is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. By virtue of that, we have to look under the definition of “member” under that act. The definition of “member” is what triggers the benefits under the superannuation act, not the RCMP act.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: All right, but this involves the power the Commissioner has to appoint them. If there's any amendment to be made, it should be done to include civilian personnel and more specifically, municipal police officers who participate in this type of peacekeeping mission. For them, there should be an amendment to broaden the definition of the word "member", which would allow us to include Mr. X or Mr. Y who, following a decision by the RCMP Commissioner, has been appointed a peace officer.

• 1140

Ms. Pierrette Boyer: The definition of a member contained in the RCMP Act was designed for the purposes of that legislation, whereas for the purposes of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, there's another definition of the word "member" that has to be considered. It may be a somewhat different definition.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: But once the Commissioner of the RCMP, who has the power to do so, designates someone as being a member, what happens? Unless there are two classes of members of the RCMP, which I doubt. Therefore, this is a member of the RCMP. What bothers me is your interpretation of that from that point onwards.

[English]

A/Commr David Cleveland: When the commissioner designates someone as a police officer, he is not designating that person as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That would be my interpretation.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: He is appointed a peace officer, a law enforcement officer.

[English]

A/Commr David Cleveland: That's right—as a police officer, but not, sir, as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Okay. That's an interpretation. We've always done that. If you look at the history of this, has the commissioner designated such persons in the past?

A/Commr David Cleveland: Yes, of course.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Were these people paid like any other RCMP police officer? Did they have the same benefits as an RCMP officer?

A/Commr David Cleveland: I think so.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: In that case, why shouldn't a person who's been appointed by the Commissioner as a member be treated in an equal manner, as in the previous examples? Is it because that person is a foreigner, in Haiti or elsewhere?

[English]

A/Commr David Cleveland: I believe, sir, as we suggested, there would continue to be other impediments, one of them being that under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act you are required to be not only a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police but also a contributor under that piece of legislation. These individuals from other police forces are neither and would be neither.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I have one last question. Does anything prevent a person from paying premiums while he or she is designated a peace officer by the RCMP commissioner? That person would then be covered if an accident or anything else happened.

[English]

A/Commr David Cleveland: The fact remains, sir, that he or she would not be a member of the force, as required under the superannuation act. They are designated as police officers, but not as members of the force.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Are you saying there are two categories of police officers in the RCMP?

A/Commr David Cleveland: Yes, it's true, but both are members.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Isn't that against the Charter?

A/Commr David Cleveland: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Doesn't the fact that all officers are not treated equally go against the Charter?

A/Commr David Cleveland: No. We have two categories of members in the RCMP.

[English]

They don't receive exactly the same benefits in all respects. Nonetheless, they are members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and are both contributors under the superannuation act, albeit slightly differently one from the other in terms of pension entitlements and that kind of thing. They are still contributors, and they are still members of the force. They have that in common.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Telegdi, you had a question. You have two minutes.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I certainly have no problem supporting the legislation itself. What I'm wondering about is, when an RCMP officer goes abroad, what kind of rate of pay he or she gets.

A/Commr David Cleveland: Again, sir, it may be necessary for me to defer to my colleagues here. My understanding is, and I'm reasonably certain of this, they receive their normal pay and a per diem allowance as is determined by the United Nations. The allowance varies, depending upon in which area they have gone to serve. In some areas this might be $100 per diem.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Would you have a rough idea of how it compares with the rate of pay for military personnel?

• 1145

A/Commr David Cleveland: Yes, I would suggest to you, sir, that the per diem would be the same. Obviously there are differences in the normal rate of pay. I couldn't tell you to what extent, but there would be differences.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: So the military could argue that for the sake of equity and fairness they should be getting the same pay as the RCMP?

A/Commr David Cleveland: Well, sir, I suppose they could argue that on Canadian soil as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi, for stirring that little pot.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I have just a brief question. It arises out of the question posed by Mr. Maloney.

Let's go back to a member who serves in an area such as Haiti, returns—and keep in mind that this hasn't happened, thankfully, and hopefully never will—retires from the force for whatever reason under whatever circumstance, and is diagnosed with an illness such as AIDS, which he contracted while in these areas. I'm wondering what, if any, coverage that person might expect after he's left the force.

A/Commr David Cleveland: Sir, it would be akin to any other injury that is duty related or can be shown to be duty related. The situation is no different from that of an individual who, two years after having gone to pension and never having left Canada, has a bad back, for example, that can be attributable to his service in the force. If a link between the ailment and the service can be shown, if there's an on-duty cause for the ailment, there would be a benefit under the pension act. Similarly, if a link can be established between the service and the contracting of AIDS, irrespective of the fact that the individual is gone to pension, as long as he or she can make that link, that establishment, there would continue to be an entitlement.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Did you say there was a time limitation?

A/Commr David Cleveland: No, there is not, none that I'm aware of. I would suggest that with the passage of time it might become more difficult to show that link.

The Chair: Would there be a process for proving it and for having a hearing?

A/Commr David Cleveland: Indeed there is.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. MacKay.

I'd just like to ask one question. Can you tell me if the management of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has conferred with rank and file on this and, if you did confer with rank and file prior to preparing this legislation, how that process came about?

A/Commr David Cleveland: Not specifically, Madam Chair, simply for the reason that this is seen in our mind as being totally a good news story. If any element of what we're putting before you was deemed or could be deemed to be a take-away, indeed we would have. We have a group of division staff relations representatives for our members across the organization, and we confer regularly with those individuals on things of significance, particularly when it is something that would be of concern to the membership generally.

On something like this, we felt and we feel duty-bound to seek this kind of improvement for the lot of our members.

The Chair: Thanks.

Thank you very much for your presentation, and thanks, colleagues, for moving this along smartly. I'm getting a reputation for being a little pushy around here, but I can live with that, if everyone else can. Thank you very much.

• 1150

Our next witnesses are Dale Kinnear from the Canadian Police Association, and Staff Sergeant Gaétan Delisle, the president of a group called the Association of Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I had a letter from Mr. Newark saying you had a total of 15 minutes that you wanted to spend with us. The problem we have is that we're expecting the bells to ring, so let's go.

Staff Sergeant Gaétan Delisle (President, Association of Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Here we go before it rings.

I'm a staff sergeant in the RCMP in Montreal. I must admit I'm also one of the divisional representatives, as Mr. Cleveland alluded to. I'm also, in my present capacity, here as president of our organization, which is a non-profit organization that represents members' welfare. I'm here on my own time, and I will address this panel as the representative of our association.

This is Dale Kinnear from the Canadian Police Association. He will take a few minutes at the end of my presentation.

At the outset let's be truthful. No member in his right mind would say that we will not accept Bill C-12 as is. It is a plus. It is a long time awaited, and no member we represent or who is currently in the RCMP would say openly this is bad. It would be ludicrous to think so. I would like to give some explanation, however, and address some of the issues of concern that do arise when our members are in that type of situation when working abroad.

There have been no claims so far regarding our members who are under those....

[Translation]

As police officers in foreign countries, we are often in particularly difficult situations. Our duties are not always simple and members of the RCMP are held directly accountable for many different outcomes. When we have claims, this doesn't involve only the Canada Pension Plan but also our RCMP Superannuation Plan. There's also our life insurance system which is funded solely by member contributions.

[English]

The RCMP life insurance plan is solely paid for by members' contributions. I see Mr. Hilstrom over there. He remembers that the employer does not contribute to it. So there is a direct link between whatever can happen abroad in those difficult areas and some of the members' benefits at large. I'll give you an example.

A member who is an invalid comes back from abroad. He will claim the pension, but if he has above 10 years of service, he can automatically claim under the superannuation act. We, as members, contribute under that act, and yes, the federal government also contributes. Therefore, in one way that is being counted as a benefit some members are providing to other members.

Other benefits are also very linked to it. If you have a claim under the life insurance policy that covers us—which is solely ours—then it's directly involved with that type of work elsewhere in Canada, under terrible conditions, and may affect the portion we will have to pay in the future. Therefore, it comes to our input into our benefits. That is of concern to our members, because in no way, shape, or form do we believe we should have to pay a certain portion that benefits the whole Canadian people. In no way should it be given.

• 1155

I gave two examples and I'll give you another: the long-term disability. We have members who will claim, although right now none do—and I know there are some on the way because of activities that were being done in those areas. LTD is also paid for by whom? A portion is paid by the employees, and a portion is paid by the employer. That's another benefit being looked at and is not part of this presentation.

We have members who, when they return from those duties, post-trauma, whatever situation they lived through, never return to work. They are on special medical leave. That is also part of our benefits. The pills and/or whatever is required are also paid for out of our benefits. In the long term members are indirectly being asked to pay for this. That's what we are compared with...when we are compared with other police departments.

I was glad to hear there was some unused portion of the money. I know now that I'll have a pay raise in January, so if there is some extra money in there, at least we can expect our 7.8% pay raise—

The Chair: He's smiling, so he's okay.

S/Sgt Delisle: I know he is.

Every member will be looked after properly in the next pay raise. Right now they're suffering tremendously because of the six years they had to suffer.

There's another issue that is very, very important to us. Bill C-12 addresses a portion. Any member of the RCMP who is presently under the guidance of the Blue Berets or whatever automatically falls within that category. We applaud having the benefits that go with it.

Does that also include our senior officers who go to see the troops and come back? Does it? Does it cover those people who wear those uniforms for a short period of time for a specific reason? We don't know. If it does touch our pension, we would like to know. We contribute to it, so if there's some liability associated with their visiting an area.... At the end of the run there might be some claims on my pension, so I respectfully submit this is of concern to us.

We also have pilots who go in there with our planes. They are not under the guidance of the Blue Berets or whatever. Are those people under that?

[Translation]

I sincerely hope that these members will also be included because they will be in the critical zone. We also have investigators. We have police officers who must investigate in given regions, and I hope they are also subject to this, although I haven't seen that they are.

For example, we've had war crime investigators who travelled throughout the world. Our investigators in Somalia, for example, went to many different places. Were they subject to this? I don't think so, because there is no reference to personnel who have specific duties similar to those of the Armed Forces. I'm therefore asking you to try to include them because they work under exactly the same conditions.

• 1200

Earlier, you mentioned psychological effects. There are indeed psychological effects on some of us when we calculate our benefits.

There's one last issue that I think would be useful to mention. On the surface, it is possible that you will decide that this may not affect the points that are benefits for the RCMP, but if you examine this more closely, you will see that for other members, this directly affects the financial aspects that could have an impact on their welfare.

It is therefore absolutely essential that there be a labour relations system between the employers and the employees in order to facilitate things.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Delisle.

Mr. Kinnear, just before you begin, we're just checking. We're calling to make sure that it's the vote. The bells have gone off. We're just going to check to see what our obligations are here.

Mr. Dale Kinnear (Labour Analyst, Canadian Police Association): My comments are very brief, but I'm in your hands.

The Chair: Go ahead, then.

Mr. Dale Kinnear: Madam Chair, committee members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I apologize for the short notice for our request, and thank you for responding so quickly.

The matter before you today is one of considerable importance to RCMP members involved in the United Nations peacekeeping services. I'm not sure that most are probably aware of the legislative change required to ensure that they and their dependants are properly compensated if a member is injured, permanently disabled, or killed while in the service of the force—and moreover, this country—when engaged in UN duties. I was somewhat concerned to find out as early as this morning what kind of effect it has had on the non-RCMP members who are involved in this activity.

I agree that your legislative amendments will address the funding questions involved in this issue and compensation will come from the appropriate source. The benefits provided will be under the same terms as those of the Canadian Forces members.

The amendments strive to address all the housekeeping needs of the force and the government. However, I feel they fall far short of the total needs of the membership, be they RCMP or otherwise. They do not address all those needs.

I draw your attention in particular to subsection 32(1), which is repealed by Bill C-12. You will note that it states:

in any case where the injury or disease or aggravation thereof resulting in the disability or death

You will note that “aggravation thereof” is not included in the amendment. This may seem inconsequential at this point; however, I can assure you that this is exactly the type of thing that will surface down the road in a claim for benefit. I believe Mr. MacKay touched on a point very similar to that, which speaks to that point.

As I already mentioned, Canadian Police Association members from Ontario municipal and provincial police services as well as Quebec municipal and provincial police officers participate in these UN assignments.

I was somewhat concerned about the response concerning non-RCMP members involved in these initiatives. These officers conduct the same duties and functions as RCMP officers in these areas.

Officer Cleveland mentioned that they are not federal employees. This is true. However, in this unique circumstance they are fulfilling federal duties. These are not provincial policing or municipal policing duties they're carrying out.

The Chair: But aren't they volunteering?

Mr. Dale Kinnear: I haven't. I don't speak French. That's why I didn't get to Haiti.

As Cleveland himself said, the service results from federal government policy. If that's the case, then these officers need to be accommodated by the federal government and considered as federal employees when carrying out these duties.

I believe that the ability, but perhaps not the will, exists in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act in subsection 7(1) and paragraph 7(1)(c) to accommodate this inequity. If not, if the revision that's ongoing here today can't accommodate it or make it so, then as far as I'm concerned, those members should not be there. I think that's something this committee needs to turn its attention to. If those members from the other agencies can't be accommodated, then I think the request should be withdrawn by the RCMP. It's my understanding that these requests to the other agencies go through the RCMP and the applications are accommodated by the RCMP. So that link already exists there and the ability exists within the RCMP Superannuation Act to accommodate this, and I believe the revisions you make today would cover off the shortfall in the pension legislation.

• 1205

The Chair: I would think, though, that those officers from other police forces are participating because they want to, not because they're needed by the RCMP to do so. That's just an editorial comment.

If there are no questions, we can proceed to clause-by-clause. If there are questions, we'll break and come back after the vote.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): How much time do we have left?

The Chair: We have about 12 minutes left right now.

The Clerk of the Committee: We have seven minutes.

The Chair: Oh, okay. We'll have to suspend. We'll come back after the vote.

• 1206

• 1251

The Chair: Let's go back on the record. Mr. Forseth has a comment; we don't need a quorum for that. We'll hope that our other people get here.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: To summarize your testimony, what you're saying is the actuaries set up premiums based on a Canadian experience. Now we are introducing additional benefits based on a whole new world of risk that was not contemplated by the plan. Therefore, obviously when the reality begins to affect what the actuaries had predicted, there's going to be an increase in premium. You're saying the difference should not be subsidized by the members. That's the essence of what you're saying.

S/Sgt Gaétan Delisle: Yes, but it is not only the premium regarding pension; a whole slew of other benefits are involved in it. That should be, in itself, calculated and paid for by the Canadian people, and not by the sole administration of the....

I'll give you an example. Our life insurance policy goes up to almost $300,000. It's a payment that goes. Rightfully so, it will not take precedence if you only have one out of millions and millions, but if you have a special event—for example, if you have 20 in an airplane crash—at least there should be a principle, when those changes are made, that clearly states that those moneys should be covered by the Canadian people.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I got your point.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth.

I want to ask a question. Mr. Delisle, how many members do you have in your association?

S/Sgt. Gaétan Delisle: Presently we're up to about 2,250 members.

The Chair: And how many RCMP officers are there?

S/Sgt. Gaétan Delisle: In that membership?

The Chair: In Canada.

S/Sgt. Gaétan Delisle: In Canada, 15,000.

The Chair: Mr. Kinnear, how many members of the RCMP does the Canadian Police Association represent?

Mr. Dale Kinnear: It would be that number Mr. Delisle mentioned, the 2,500 who are—

The Chair: Okay, so your membership comes from you recognizing their organization.

Mr. Dale Kinnear: Exactly.

The Chair: And your organization has 2,200 members. Okay, thanks.

Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate your coming on short notice and we thank you for your contribution.

We're going to proceed now to clause-by-clause. We have our quorum. I have no notice of any amendments. Am I correct in assuming there are no amendments at this stage from any party?

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's right.

The Chair: All right, then.

(Clauses 1 to 4 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 chair table the bill in the House, without amendment, as the fifth report of the committee?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you. We're out of here.