Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 10 - Evidence - Meeting of June 9, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other acts, met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this is a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
[Translation]
On May 28, 2009, the Senate referred to this committee Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other Acts, for consideration.
[English]
This morning, we will begin the study of Bill C-18. We will hear from government officials in the first half of the meeting. We will hear from the Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association in the second half of our meeting.
In this first session, representing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, I am pleased to welcome Michael Cape, Director, Pension Services, and Shelley Rossignol, Senior Analyst, Pension Policy. They are accompanied by Marc S.P. Wyczynski, Counsel with the Department of Justice.
[Translation]
Welcome, everyone. Mr. Cape, you have the floor.
[English]
Michael Cape, Director, Pension Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: I appreciate the opportunity to be here before you to participate in the examination of Bill C-18. Bill C-18 would make a number of technical amendments to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. These changes are needed to expand the existing opportunities to elect for prior service and to introduce formal pension transfer agreements with other employers.
The act was originally amended for these purposes in 1999. The changes formed a small part of a bill that established the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, made several amendments to the RCMP Superannuation Act including the creation of the RCMP pension fund and amended seven other federal acts. When the RCMP began drafting the supporting regulations in 2005, it was determined that the 1999 changes did not provide all of the detailed technical authorities required to bring the pension portability provisions into operation.
For background, I should explain that an election for prior service is a legally binding contract to purchase a period of past service to increase a plan member's pensionable service. The plan member is responsible for funding the cost of the election. A pension transfer agreement is a formal agreement between two employers. It allows for the transfer of the actuarial value of accrued pension benefits from a former pension plan to a new plan.
A pension plan member may decide to leave a pension credit with a former plan. However, it may be more beneficial for the individual to consolidate pension credits under a single plan. Doing so may increase the value of future pension benefits for the member and his or her survivors. It may also allow an eligible member to take advantage of early requirement provisions.
Under current rules, a member of the RCMP pension plan may only elect prior service with the public service, Canadian Forces, Senate, House of Commons and a provincial or municipal police force that has been absorbed by the RCMP.
Federal public sector pension plans are consistent in as many areas as possible. In this regard, the RCMP pension plan is substantially similar to the Public Service Pension Plan. In the same way that the RCMP pension plan is governed by its own superannuation act, so too is the public service pension plan through the Public Service Superannuation Act. That act currently allows for recognition of prior service with other levels of government and many private sector employers.
If approved, Bill C-18 will allow the RCMP to implement regulations that will bring the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act into line with the Public Service Superannuation Act as well as many other Canadian pension plans. It would also provide civilian members and police officers of the RCMP with pension choices similar to those available to their public service colleagues.
The 24,000 civilian members and police officers who currently contribute to the RCMP pension plan are not entitled to the same pension options as the 6,300 public service employees of the force who contribute to the public service pension plan.
Today, a public service employee of the RCMP may be working side-by-side with a civilian member performing similar duties. For example, if both have prior service with a provincial pension plan, the public service employee may be eligible to transfer that previous pension credit to increase his or her pensionable service under the public service pension plan. The civilian member of the force does not have that same choice. Bill C-18 would allow regulations to be developed to address this inequity.
A pension plan with flexible choices in line with those offered by other Canadian plans is especially important considering the RCMP's current recruiting efforts. Last year, the RCMP began its most aggressive recruiting campaign ever. A record number of recruits are required to meet increasing operational requirements and to replace the approximately 700 members retiring from the force each year.
As competition within the labour market intensifies, the ability to transfer pension credits from a former employer to the RCMP pension plan would assist in the promotion of the RCMP as an employer of choice for both police officers and civilian staff.
It is expected that pension portability would also have positive impacts on the RCMP Lateral Entry Program. Under this program, police officers from other forces join the RCMP more quickly and at a reduced training cost than other applicants. A new recruit attends the RCMP Training Academy in Regina for 24 weeks at a cost of approximately $38,000. In comparison, a lateral entrant from another force requires only five weeks of training at a cost of $12,000.
The lateral entry program was highlighted in a November 2005 report by the Auditor General of Canada as an option that should be considered more fully by the RCMP in its efforts to address personnel shortages. The report further pointed out that the program is not attractive to potential lateral entrants because pension credits with former employers are not transferable to the RCMP pension plan. Bill C-18 would address this issue.
The RCMP has a number of challenges that it is working hard to overcome. In 2007, the government established the Brown task force to look at issues of governance, leadership and capacity. Recommendations highlighted in the subsequent report of the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP resulted in a renewed commitment to effective human resource management. A modern, fair and flexible pension plan supports this commitment.
I thank you for inviting us to appear before you today and would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cape. A number of senators have indicated an interest in clarifying some of the issues before us. Before we go to that list, could you explain your comments on page 5 of your presentation where you give costs at the RCMP Training Academy, sometimes referred to as depot. You indicate costs of $38,000 for a new recruit.
Mr. Cape: That is someone off the street.
The Chair: I wanted to say, "out of high school,'' but many have had other experiences before they come. However, this is not someone who has been in a pension plan in any event.
Mr. Cape: It could be. In the lateral entry program, we are talking about a person fresh out of high school versus a person who is potentially a member of a police force or something similar. The trained police officer joins the RCMP and goes to depot for a period of five weeks. The person fresh out of high school would go to depot for 24 weeks.
The Chair: Why are you giving us these figures of $38,000 and $12,000? Is that pension costs?
Mr. Cape: That is actual organizational cost, including training and all the associated costs with having that individual at depot for 24 weeks versus five weeks.
The Chair: Does that have anything to do with pension costs?
Mr. Cape: No, not really. The Office of the Auditor General identified this as an issue. The link to the pension issue would be in the case where you may be with the Toronto municipal police force and you want to join the RCMP. Your pensionable time would not move with you.
Therefore, we want to provide the opportunity to move your pension credits to make it more attractive to join the RCMP. If you were in the Toronto police force for 10 years and moved to the RCMP, you will want to bring that credit. Otherwise, you would start over fresh and have to serve 24 years plus a day.
The Chair: Why were you giving us the $38,000 and $12,000 figures when we are talking about pension aspects?
Mr. Cape: It is part of the recruiting initiative. Those numbers impact the pension question because if we make pension portability a reality, it makes it more attractive for us to get those people to join the force. It is more cost- effective for the government to have us bring in lateral entrants.
The Chair: There might be further questions along those lines but, before we proceed, I point out to honourable senators and our viewers that a delegation from the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China are travelling in Canada to learn about different aspects of law-making. They were interested in attending part of our meeting to better understand the Canadian law-making process.
On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, I welcome Mr. Chang and members of the delegation.
Senator Callbeck: I think this legislation is needed and that it will assist you greatly in the recruitment of new members to the RCMP. I have a couple of points for clarification. In 1994, RCMP cadets were considered employees during the training period, were they not?
Mr. Cape: That is correct.
Senator Callbeck: Today, they are not considered employees, but they receive an allowance for the duration of the six-months' training.
Mr. Cape: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: When they had employee status, the six months became part of their pension time.
Mr. Cape: That is correct.
Senator Callbeck: The allowance that today's recruits receive cannot be part of their pension time.
Mr. Cape: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: Why was that changed?
Mr. Cape: The organization made choices that allowed them to address operational issues at the time. Part of the issue was to do with cadets who failed. If they are employees, it is more difficult to deal with cadets not qualified to be police officers but deemed employees. It was more practical to classify them as students and not employees of the RCMP until they graduate.
It is our perspective that it is a management issue, not a pension issue per se. We would not become involved in the dialogue on that question because we are the pension group. It is essentially out of the scope of what the bill proposes. That is my understanding of the background on that.
Senator Callbeck: In some cases, it is a little unfair to the RCMP cadet. I understand that in some police forces, training time is part of their pension time and for other forces it is not. If a police officer who has pension time from training moves on to the RCMP, he carries that pension time with him and, therefore, has an advantage over the person who begins with the RCMP and not another force.
Mr. Cape: My only response is that it is a matter of choice. First, when an individual joins the RCMP, this situation is indicated to the individual that training time is not pensionable. Second, how does it compare to what is happening across the country? Some organizations, such as the Sûreté du Québec and the Montreal Police Service, charge people while they are training and do not provide an allowance. They are not employees. We have information that we could provide to the committee on our analysis of police forces across the country, the majority of whom are taking action in line with what we are doing. It is an organizational choice.
Senator Callbeck: The book that came with the bill said that in situations where an individual comes to work for the RCMP from a previous employer, he or she may buy back the pension from the previous employer and transfers it to the RCMP. However, it states that it is not an option for everyone who comes to the RCMP. Who will not have this option?
Mr. Cape: Ms. Rossignol will address those particular circumstances.
Shelley Rossignol, Senior Analyst, Pension Policy, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: A number of eligibility requirements apply. As an example, one has its roots in a tax rule that says that in order to recognize pre-1992 service under the current plan, there must be a direct transfer from the previous plan. If a person has service before 1992 and has already taken the money out of that plan, we are unable to recognize it under our plan. For all registered pension plans, in order to add the additional service, the members must have sufficient Registered Retirement Savings Plan, RRSP, room so as not to exceed the amounts under the rules of the Canada Revenue Agency. They would be given the opportunity to deregister, but that is another rule.
Under our pension plan, we anticipate that with these new regulations, the member must pass a medical in order to bring in the service. If they do not pass the medical, we are unable to recognize the service.
Senator Callbeck: They all have to pass medicals, do they not?
Ms. Rossignol: It is anticipated under these new regulations for prior service elections that if the member makes an election within a year of joining the force, a medical is not required. If they make that election more than one year after joining the force, then it would be required.
Senator Ringuette: At page 5, you indicate that a lateral entrant requires five weeks of training. During those five weeks of training do they receive a paycheque or an allowance?
Mr. Cape: I would have to confirm that because I am not sure of the answer.
Senator Ringuette: It is extremely important that we know whether a lateral entrant on five weeks' training receives an allowance just as a cadet does. I do not understand why the cadets should be treated differently from the lateral entrants in terms of eligibility to contribute to pension time for those weeks of training.
I am surprised to hear you state your entire case on lateral entrants when you do not know whether they receive or a paycheque as a formal employee during their five-weeks' training or an allowance similar to the cadets.
Mr. Cape: The whole case is not based on that situation. This bill will allow us to deal with a variety of issues in terms of administrative practices. We identified that event from our perspective as being real, so we will try to obtain that answer for you within the half hour.
The Chair: You might have the answer if you know whether these lateral entrants become employees of the RCMP as soon as they join, before the completion of the five weeks' training.
Mr. Cape: Yes, that is the issue, and I do not know the answer. We have asked someone to make a phone call to find out.
The Chair: You will have that answer for us fairly quickly.
Mr. Cape: That is correct.
Senator Ringuette: You indicated to us a few minutes ago that most police forces are moving to payment of an allowance when recruits are on training. Do you know whether it is pensionable time under their employer during that period of training?
Mr. Cape: The same basic rules apply. If you are an employee of the organization receiving a salary, it is pensionable. If they are with an organization where they are receiving an allowance, then they are not employees. Therefore, their time spent would not be pensionable.
Senator Ringuette: Let us take the example of the Ontario Provincial Police, OPP. I do not know what amount of time they would need. They would be under training allowance under the Ontario police force.
Mr. Cape: It is 18 weeks.
Senator Ringuette: During those 18 weeks, are they receiving an allowance when training?
Mr. Cape: They receive an allowance of $5 per diem, plus a salary.
Senator Ringuette: They have a salary.
Mr. Cape: They are employees.
Senator Ringuette: If you have a lateral entrant who comes from the Ontario Provincial Police, then his or her training time becomes pensionable.
Mr. Cape: That is correct.
Senator Ringuette: You are saying to us that you are setting up a two-tier or maybe three-tier system of pension, depending on where a person comes in. I find this issue of allowances and salaries and so forth highly unfair because there is no national standard to police force training, whether it is municipal, provincial or federal. Therefore, what you are proposing here needs to be amended so that at least, in one way, with respect to pension, we have a national standard with no discrimination whether someone is a lateral entrant from the Ontario police force, the Quebec police force, a cadet under 24 weeks of allowance as a new entrant or a lateral entrant who has five weeks' training — and we do not know yet whether he or she receives an allowance or a salary.
It is a question of basic fairness and a basic standard, and as a national police force, the RCMP should be the provider of that, especially if the force is looking at recruiting 700 members a year to replace the people who are retiring.
If you are looking for an incentive, the first incentive should be to standardize and have no discrimination with respect to pension buy-back.
Mr. Cape: First, to receive a pension benefit, you must contribute to a pension plan, and if you are not an employee, you are not contributing to the plan. There are some rules from a pension perspective on how to give credit to someone not contributing to a plan.
We must also consider costs when we look at that. If we were to do that retroactively, the costs could be in the area of $44 million. That is one impact.
The core issue is that what we propose in the legislation before the committee now is pension legislation, which does not address this employment issue. The organizational employment question, namely, the status of an employee and so forth is not a pension issue per se.
Finally, the issue of the approach to that question and the national standard is tied to tax legislation as well, not just our legislation.
Senator Ringuette: You indicated $45 million as a cost. What is the cost of the current legislation? It should be zero.
Mr. Cape: It is zero, right.
Senator Ringuette: Why would it not be zero to give cadets the opportunity to buy back those 24 weeks, just like any other new entrant? You could easily say that they will have to pay into the system what the employer and the employee costs would be. I do not see why you could not have that option, and it would not be $45 million. It would be still zero.
Mr. Cape: I disagree. You are talking about giving benefit to someone who did not contribute, so there is a cost. If you are getting a benefit from a pension plan to which you cannot contribute, there is a cost to the pension plan. If the employer is contributing to a plan to which you did not contribute, there is a cost to the employer.
Senator Ringuette: I was not clear. If the legislation said that an employee has the option to contribute, for instance, for those 24 weeks of cadet work — both the employee and the employer — then the employer is at zero dollars. That is what I am saying. There is no cost.
Ms. Rossignol: The way it will work with a lateral entrant, for example, or for a person coming from another pension plan under a pension transfer agreement or an election for this type of service, is that the cost will be determined on an actuarial basis. The employee will pay both the full actuarial value of that benefit, and the RCMP or the government is not required to pay a matching contribution.
Senator Ringuette: That is no different from the cadet situation.
Ms. Rossignol: Right now, under the pension plan, we do allow former RCMP employees who have left and come back to purchase their prior service. In that case, it is not an actuarial election. The member pays the contributions he or she would have paid on a current service basis during the employment. In that case, the government pays a matching share.
We looked for a costing. If all the members since 1994 elected to purchase the 24 weeks of service at depot, their total contribution is approximately $25 million, and the government would have to match that at $44 million. That is the difference.
We did look at whether we could, with this bill, introduce a provision to allow cadets to buy back that time as pensionable. We consulted closely with CRA, and we are not permitted to do so because of the tax legislation for registered pension plans that prohibits us to recognize prior service for which the person was not an employee. That is the difference. That is why it becomes an employment-management issue.
If in the future the RCMP ever decided to swear those members in as police officers from day one as they used to do, no amendments are required to the RCMP pension plan. If they are sworn in as members, all members working at least 12 hours a week are contributors to the plan. That is what they were in the past.
Senator Ringuette: I maintain my position that where there is a means, there is a way. I believe that what you are doing is creating a three-tier system. That an OPP police officer is a salaried employee from the first day of training, yet a Quebec police officer receives only allowance during the training time, the same as your cadets, and does not have the access to the same pension buy-back provision is very discriminatory. I cannot accept that.
The Chair: We have debated the point. We know the position. Unless you have something new to add, we will move on.
Mr. Cape: Lateral entrants are hired as employees. They are in depot five weeks; they are paid, and it is pensionable.
The Chair: The lateral entrants are treated as employees and have pensionable time. The recruits out of high school are not.
Mr. Cape: That is correct.
The Chair: You indicated that the law was first passed in 1999, and the RCMP got around to drafting the regulations in 2005. Usually when we pass a law, we anticipate that things will get happening, or you would not have put the proposed law to us at that time.
Why would five or six years pass before you get around to drafting the regulations and then find that the law was inadequate?
Mr. Cape: Bill C-78 dealt with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and seven other acts at the same time. The amendments to the RCMP pension plan were implemented through several regulatory changes. This represented a large volume of work completed on a priority basis over a number of years.
In 2003 and 2006, additional act amendments under two separate bills took precedence over the pension portability regulations. Work progressed on various issues linked to pensions, but this particular issue was not addressed until this time. Other issues were dealt with. It was a question of organizational priorities and resources.
I have been in this position for only about a year now.
The Chair: That is a bit of a defence.
Mr. Cape: It is here now.
The Chair: Can we have some assurance that if we actually pass this bill, you will get on with implementing it and passing the regulations?
Mr. Cape: In the past few months, we made a presentation to senior management requesting that we increase staff in our core organization dealing with regulatory legislative issues as well as to create a special project team dealing solely with pension portability. That was approved.
The Chair: The previous law that was found to be inadequate. Are you amending the previous legislation with this act?
Mr. Cape: We are amending it.
The Chair: Bill C-18 is amending the inadequate 1999 legislation.
Mr. Cape: That is correct.
Senator Gerstein: Mr. Cape, many companies have a pension advisory group in the private sector. Does such a group exist in the RCMP?
Mr. Cape: Yes, a pension advisory committee reports to the minister and provides advice on pension issues and direction.
Senator Gerstein: Would that represent various constituencies within the RCMP?
Mr. Cape: We have terms of reference for the committee that identifies participants for the committee, including some representation from members of the organization.
Senator Gerstein: Do members of the organization endorse Bill C-18 and the plan being put forward?
Mr. Cape: The staff relations representatives are the current representation for the RCMP. They have solidly endorsed this proposal from day one. They have been one of the main drivers for us in putting it on the front burner to make change happen.
Senator Mitchell: What percentage of the recruits annually are lateral entrant recruits?
Mr. Cape: I believe there are about 100 lateral entrants per year.
Senator Mitchell: Out of how many?
Mr. Cape: There were 50 in the last group out of approximately 1,500 recruits.
Senator Mitchell: It is not a large percentage by any means.
Mr. Cape: No.
Senator Mitchell: Ms. Rossignol, if lateral entrants come from a poorer pension plan, they are required to come up with the money determined on an actuarial basis to pay the difference.
Ms. Rossignol: Yes.
Senator Mitchell: If you come from a richer pension fund, there would be a reimbursement. Was that your reference to an RRSP?
Ms. Rossignol: No, that is a little different.
On the first part of your question, if the pension plan is not as generous, the employee will have the opportunity to make up the difference or be credited with whatever it purchases under the RCMP pension plan. For example, we may credit 15 years and not the full 20 years.
Where there is a more generous pension plan and more money is available than our demand, then it is up to that pension plan to determine how they deal with any residual amount.
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Cape, you mentioned in your opening comments that it costs about $12,000 for a lateral entrant. Does that include the government's share of pension contributions?
Mr. Cape: That is excluding pension costs.
Senator Mitchell: While there is a difference of about $26,000 between a lateral entrant and a raw recruit, I would expect that the actual pension cost is not $26,000 for several weeks.
Mr. Cape: No.
Senator Mitchell: Do you know what that would be?
Mr. Cape: It would depend.
Ms. Rossignol: It is determined on an actuarial basis. Therefore, it is impossible to estimate how much it would be. It would depend on years of service, age of the member and possibility of survivors.
Senator Mitchell: It adds to the $12,000.
Ms. Rossignol: The $12,000 is the cost of training that lateral entrant. It is unrelated to pension.
Senator Mitchell: You also indicated that new recruits out of school, who are not lateral entrants, are paid an allowance and not treated as employees because they may fail. What percentage of lateral entrant transfers, who are treated as employees, immediately fail?
Mr. Cape: I could not give you the specific number, but it is significantly less. I am not aware of any that have failed in the past year or two.
Senator Mitchell: Other police forces treat people as employees from the outset. There must be a way to handle recruits who fail that were started as employees originally.
Ms. Rossignol: Not all police forces treat recruits as employees.
With respect to your concern over discharging a cadet who fails, the difference with the RCMP is that when recruits are sworn in as members, they are subject to the terms of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, another piece of federal legislation. Discharge under that act is very difficult. I am not an expert on the act, but when we did our research to learn the reasons behind the 1994 decision, that was one of the reasons brought forward.
Senator Mitchell: Therefore, we change that act.
Ms. Rossignol: No legislative changes would be required. It is an RCMP decision and an employment issue. If the force decides to hire cadets and swear them in as members from day one, they are members of the force and covered under the pension plan.
Mr. Cape: Cadets at depot did not even receive an allowance until a year ago. There has been movement from the organization.
The Chair: Did I understand that clearly? A policy decision made by the RCMP to call recruits employees and swear them in when they first arrive would require no legislative change to bring the recruits into line with lateral entrant transfers.
Mr. Cape: They are employees.
The Chair: It only takes a policy decision from the RCMP to say that.
Mr. Cape: Yes. It is not a pension issue. It is an organizational issue.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Mitchell, for clarifying that.
Senator Ringuette: Many employees are on a probation period now.
Senator Di Nino: This started as a rather simple bill to make some simple changes. It has given rise to some difficult questions, including the treatment of cadets — recruits being one of them — and that a civilian employee is treated differently than RCMP officers.
To ensure that I understand, recruits are a group of young men and women invited to participate in an educational and training program to see if they could be hired by the RCMP should they have the qualities and skills required. Is that what we are talking about?
Mr. Cape: That is correct. They are looking for the right fit with the right person for this role, position and organization and whether or not it adds contentment to that individual joining the force.
Senator Di Nino: It is more like going to school, in effect, in preparation for it.
Mr. Cape: When you look at various organizations across the country, some of them essentially say that you must have training from a community college in police work to join. Many individuals obtain that education before coming to the force.
Senator Di Nino: I am simply trying to understand why the RCMP made the decision to treat recruits other than as employees. It is more like continuing an educational program.
Mr. Cape: It is ensuring we get the right people in the right spot to serve the Canadian public better.
Senator Di Nino: What is the rationale behind treating civilian employees differently for pension plan purposes? There may be other areas as well, I do not know.
Mr. Cape: The difference between a civilian member versus a regular member is that the regular member is a front line police officer. A civilian member performs a variety of tasks, from administrative work to radio operator. It is a case of our policing activities being more in line with that of other organizations. Our 24-plus-days' time frame seems to line up better in terms of pension benefits for police officers. The civilian component lines up better with the administrative public service component. Do you want to add anything, Ms. Rossignol?
Ms. Rossignol: When you speak of different treatment, I assume that you are talking about early retirement provisions for a police officer.
Senator Di Nino: Exactly.
Ms. Rossignol: In that regard, we are complying with the tax provisions for registered pension plans. We are permitted to allow only early retirement benefits for persons employed in a public safety occupation, such as a police officer. A civilian member does not receive early retirement benefits because they are not employed in the public safety category.
Senator Di Nino: I believe that was in recognition of the risks that police officers take on a daily basis to protect the citizens of Canada.
Ms. Rossignol: The Income Tax Act clearly lists which occupations qualify as public safety, and police officer is on the list.
Senator Di Nino: The bill was designed in such a way that these changes are beyond the scope of the bill. Is that correct?
Mr. Cape: That is correct. The bill provides for administrative action to correct some of our inadequacies.
Senator Di Nino: If I understand correctly, these changes would require additional funding, which would require a Royal Recommendation. Is that also true?
Mr. Cape: Are you asking about the bill as it stands?
Senator Di Nino: If the changes were made, it would be beyond the scope of the bill because there would be additional costs.
Mr. Cape: This bill essentially entails zero cost. However, if you were to make those changes, incurred costs would have to be identified more clearly to allow the government to make an informed decision or recommendation as to how we should deal with it.
The Chair: Senator Di Nino, I am not sure that I understand. Mr. Cape and Ms. Rossignol said earlier that it would not require an amendment of the RCMP Act because it would be an administrative decision by the RCMP to treat recruits as employees when sworn in at the outset. What do you mean when you say, "beyond the scope of the act?'' There is no legislative requirement to do that because it would be an administrative decision.
Senator Di Nino: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was referring to the additional costs that would be incurred by making those changes, which would be beyond the scope of this bill, I believe. I do not know whether it has a Royal Recommendation associated with it because no cost was associated with the original drafting of the bill.
The Chair: That is the point, Senator Di Nino. There is no need for anything in legislation. You would not put something in the legislation that would create a cost if it is not needed. That is the point they have made for us.
Senator Di Nino: That is what I am saying.
The Chair: There is no need for legislative change to be able to treat recruits as employees. Therefore, it is not necessary to be in Bill C-18. Is that what you have told us?
Mr. Cape: That is right.
Senator Di Nino: I am confused.
Mr. Cape: I will clarify. If you are asking about the costs to what we have proposed, they are nil. If you are asking about the costs for other things, there would be costs to be identified. As the bill stands, there is no cost.
The Chair: Is everyone clear on this point? It will be an administrative cost only as opposed to a legislative direction.
Senator Di Nino: It would be a cost to the treasury.
The Chair: Yes. It would be an administrative cost, and you do not need a Royal Recommendation for an administrative cost. You simply need it in the budget.
Senator Callbeck: We talked about RCMP recruits no longer being considered employees. You mentioned that one reason for that change was to deal more easily with those who do not pass training. You also said that the RCMP Act would have to be changed. Why did we not change the act?
Mr. Cape: It is my perspective that the organization made the decision that in order to serve the interests of the Canadian taxpayer, it was better to not swear in any recruits until they had completed the requisite training and met all the existing standards. It was an organizational decision. Could they change it back? Perhaps they could, but, it is my opinion that the organization simply decided to provide an allowance to the individuals while they are in training. It is an organizational decision whether recruits are considered as employees when they signed up for training or when they pass the training.
Senator Callbeck: That seems to place new entrants at an unfair advantage, in particular compared to someone coming from another police force where their training is considered pensionable time.
Mr. Cape: However, if they have come from another police force to join the RCMP, they have a history and track record of success as a police officer. They have already met our core standard. Again, this is outside the pension area, so I offer only my opinion on the issue.
Senator Callbeck: When individuals join the Armed Forces, are they employees when on training, or are they provided with an allowance?
Ms. Rossignol: We would have to consult with National Defence to know the answer to that question.
Senator Callbeck: You have to make agreements with other pension plans for pension portability. Do you proceed with that now, or do you wait until a specific case arrives?
Mr. Cape: We would identify where the greatest value is in terms of sequencing of pension transfer agreements for our effort. For example, we would target certain police forces or certain jurisdictions or organizations and consult with our membership. We would consult with central agencies as well to know their views.
Senator Callbeck: Have you any idea how many plans you might choose to consult on?
Ms. Rossignol: During our initial research, we consulted with eight police forces to which the RCMP compares itself to see where it fits in terms of compensation. The majority expressed an interest in entering into agreements with the RCMP. On occasion, we participate in various pension forums with provincial plans, where we have heard there would be an interest in pension transfer agreements.
Senator Callbeck: The bill says that you can have such discussions with any organization that has a registered pension plan for a minimum of 10 people.
Ms. Rossignol: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: You might end up with many agreements.
Senator Mitchell: An entrant without police experience but with other employment experience would be considered a full recruit and would be required to go through the six months' training. That is the third category of recruit.
Mr. Cape: That is correct.
Senator Mitchell: What percentage allocation does an officer receive for each year of employment? Is it 1.5 per cent or 2 per cent?
Ms. Rossignol: It is 2 per cent.
Senator Mitchell: Is that consistent with the general public sector?
Mr. Cape: Yes, it is.
Senator Mitchell: What is the basis upon which you determine the salary for calculation of the pension? Is it the best five years or the last five years?
Ms. Rossignol: It is best five years.
Senator Mitchell: How many years or points do members need before they have an unreduced pension?
Ms. Rossignol: For regular members, such as police officers, it is 25 years. After they complete 24 years plus one day, it is an unreduced pension because the reduction is based on full years of service under 25 years. It is after 25 years, but the reduction is nil if they have at least 24 years plus a day.
For civilian members, it is an unreduced pension after 35 years or at age 55 with 30 years of service.
Senator Mitchell: If you are a recruit for 24 weeks, almost half a year, you are losing a per cent where you worked six months longer to get that per cent. I do not know what a constable's average is, but if it is $100,000, it is worth $30,000 a year. If you live 30 years, it starts to be significant money. That index is starting to be even more significant money.
Ms. Rossignol: Again, under the tax provisions, if we were to allow that service to be recognized for pension purposes, I understand we put ourselves at risk for revocation of the registered pension plan by the CRA just because that is a primary rule. In the tax legislation, it is set out as the primary purpose of a pension plan. It is to provide periodic payments to individuals after retirement and until death in respect of their service as employees. That is where it becomes unrelated to the pension bill.
Senator Mitchell: It would not be you who would have to change things. We are driving at the fact that it would be relatively easy for someone else to change those things, and, certainly, you can make an argument for fairness.
Ms. Rossignol: It might be helpful for you to learn also that the staff relations representatives have committed to raising that as a concern with management, looking again at the employment status of cadets.
Senator Mitchell: It becomes particularly relevant, too, if someone is injured or killed before it actually vests, for example, within six months of its vesting. If they started from day one, their pension determination would be very different than if they had not. Six months is not an insignificant period of time. You could be a constable in the same car with a constable who started in the police force and got pensionable service at the age of 22, but you started at the age of 22 and are sitting beside someone who has to work six months less to have the same pension for which you would have to work six months more.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Mr. Cape, during your opening statement, and in response to a senator's question, you mentioned that the majority of your members support pension portability. How do you go about consulting members regarding proposals such as this one? How did you carry out consultations? What would the objections to pension portability be? Why would certain members disagree with this?
[English]
Mr. Cape: In terms of consultations with the members, the staff relations representatives, SRRs, who are elected or identified by the regular members and civilian members of the RCMP consult with their members on a regular basis in terms of what the issues are. They come forward.
We have a representative who deals with pension issues and will canvass his colleagues, identify what the issues are from their perspective and present them to us. They also sit on the pension advisory committee because they are the official representatives of the RCMP members.
On how we determine whether that is something that they wanted, it was a concern for many people who came over to the RCMP from other organizations on the understanding that this would happen one day. As was pointed out by the chair, it has been a long time coming to have this issue dealt with. The SRRs have identified it as an issue of their regular members. We put it on our agenda to resolve it as quickly as we could. Again, my tenure as director of pension services has been a year and a bit, and we have responded to that. We have created an organization to bring the legislation forward. We have created a group to begin working on the regulations, and we will be moving forward on that.
As to whether I believe that they view it as being very important, from my sessions with the staff relations representatives, I can assure you that they have communicated to me very effectively that it is very important. One representative from the SRR is here today and can confirm that.
With respect to the negative issues, I have not heard anything negative from the members on the pension portability aspect. My colleagues might want to share whether they are aware of anything, but I am not aware of any issue identified by the regular members.
Senator Chaput: If I understand correctly, maybe not many but some members did not agree with this or did not favour this recommendation.
Mr. Cape: I am not aware of that. I will go back to some of the comments made by other senators around the table. There are issues around, perhaps, the completeness of how we deal with pension questions to members and potential members. However, that is not tied to pension portability. It is the big question about engagement of pensions and bonuses.
Senator Ringuette: My question is to Mr. Wyczynski. The first item in Bill C-18 reads as follows:
Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled "An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other Acts''.
If this bill entails, as was mentioned earlier, zero dollars from the Government of Canada, why do we have this recommendation from the start of the bill?
The Chair: It is known as a Royal Recommendation, as we discussed earlier.
Ms. Rossignol: It is administrative costs. When we said that they are essentially nil, I was ready to say, as noted in the briefing binder that was provided, that the administrative costs are $1.1 million, and that is associated with putting in place the mechanisms to negotiate pension transfer agreements and to handle the additional elections once it has opened up to other registered pension plans.
Senator Ringuette: It is $1 million dollars to do that?
Ms. Rossignol: That was our estimated cost. We looked at all of the work involved, and that is what the costing was.
Senator Ringuette: I find that a little heavy, when you go from zero for an hour's worth of testimony to $48 million if there is no discrimination in the system, to $1 million just to administer the discussions.
Are your civilian employees a part of the Public Service Superannuation Act or are they a part of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act?
Mr. Cape: They are a part of the RCMP Superannuation Act.
Senator Ringuette: What is the probation period for your civilian employees when you hire them?
Mr. Cape: I could not say.
Senator Ringuette: Is it the same as the public service; is it three months?
Mr. Cape: I could not answer that question. Again, that is a status of employment issue.
Senator Ringuette: Therefore, you do not know what the probation period is for your civilian employees.
The Chair: Could you provide that information?
Mr. Cape: We could provide that, yes.
Senator Ringuette: Could you tell us if the probation period is pensionable time for your civil employees?
Mr. Cape: They are hired as employees, so it would all be pensionable. They are employees when they join us.
Senator Ringuette: I have a final clarification. You have indicated to the chair that you do not need legislation to change your cadets from being allowance employees to hired employees on probation. Have you given serious consideration to that fact, especially due to the fact that you are in dire need of new recruits?
Mr. Cape: Again, I point back to the comment made by Ms. Rossignol, which was that the SRRs have raised this issue of whether we should be looking at cadets in depot in a different manner and is presenting that to senior management. It is before senior management; they are exploring options, identifying impacts and so on, I believe.
However, again, being the pension individual, I am not part of those discussions; I cannot tell you where it is at. However, I can tell you that the staff relations representatives have identified it as an issue that should be looked at.
Senator Ringuette: I understand that you are in the pension administration unit of the RCMP. However, Mr. Chair, perhaps we could invite the high-ranking officials of the RCMP who know about all the hiring — the casual, the training, the lateral entrant and so forth — because I would venture to say that 95 per cent of cadets are university graduates. I have met many cadets; some have two degrees. Therefore, I do not think that RCMP cadets should be taken lightly in regard to the discrimination pension plan buy-back that you are providing in Bill C-18.
The Chair: Let us stay focused on what we are dealing with, which is Bill C-18 and transferability of pensions and enabling certain individuals to buy back time. We have talked at length about policy issues that are beyond what this particular piece of legislation is intended to achieve.
There may well be some other items, such as recruits being employees as they used to be before 1994 and the reason for the change, but that is not why the witnesses are here, and that is not what is in Bill C-18.
Senator Di Nino: I agree with you. The question I wanted to ask is really not our witness' responsibility; it is a management issue, which is obviously being dealt with and that is fine.
With the efficiency of technology, I have received a response to one of my questions; if I may put it on the record. Apparently, the response I received is that the cadet period is not pensionable under the Income Tax Act, and if it was to be, it would require a change to the Income Tax Act.
The Chair: That is if the cadets were not hired as employees. If they were hired as employees, no change is necessary. It is an administrative decision to determine whether to call them employees or not.
Senator Di Nino: Exactly.
The Chair: I think we are all starting to understand this now.
Senator Di Nino: I think so.
The Chair: We have a representative of the members' association next, but first I would like to thank Mr. Cape, Ms. Rossignol and Mr. Wyczynski for having been here to help us with the pension aspect of this and to understand, as Senator Di Nino said, the scope of this particular piece of legislation and what it is intended to cover and what it is not.
[Translation]
I would now like to introduce Gaétan Delisle, President of the Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association. Mr. Delisle, thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before this committee as it endeavours to clarify Bill C-18. The floor is yours.
Gaétan Delisle, President, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association: Mr. Chair, honourable senators, thank you for this opportunity to appear before your committee.
To begin, I am a member of the RCMP, and I serve in the rank of staff/sergeant. I have been with the RCMP for approximately 40 years. You heard Mr. Cape talk about the division representative system. I am also the longest- serving division representative who has been elected consecutively for the past 33 years to represent Quebec members.
I am also the president of the Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association, an entirely independent association at arm's length from the system, and which members join voluntarily.
I have submitted a presentation to the committee clerk. You may consult it at your leisure. Currently, there are three independent associations in Canada: one in Quebec, one in Ontario and one in British Columbia.
Up until April, our associations had only the total or partial right to operate honourably, that is, beyond the constraints of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. However, the court of Ontario recently struck down regulation 96 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, declaring it unconstitutional. This regulation provided for the division representative system and the SRR Program. This only means that changes to staff relations and labour relations are coming. It is within this context that we are proposing various types of representation, which we hope to send you in writing.
Since I am talking to you about these changes, the ruling handed down by the Honourable Justice McLachlan of the Superior Court of Ontario, is now being appealed by the Department of Justice. This case will continue to unfold, and we expect it to come before the Supreme Court in one to one-and-a-half years for a ruling on whether the system is constitutional.
In the meantime, as president of the association, I can tell you that we are not allowed to work within the SRR program. Therefore, it is inconsistent with the current system. Earlier, I was listening to questions about whether or not we had tried to solicit the opinions of our members, be they cadets or not. I can assure you that in Quebec, we carried out consultations. I can also tell you categorically that when our cadets, members who have been in training since 1994, learn of the proposed amendments in Bill C-18, it causes quite a commotion because certain members of other police forces who are currently working for the RCMP may be entitled to the six months during which they served as cadets.
I would like to give you a few figures so that you can fully appreciate the scale of the situation: since 1994, the RCMP has had approximately 11,000 cadets. These cadets are unaware of the changes that will affect officers who calculate their time. However, the vast majority of members endorse the main thrust of Bill C-18, namely, the pension buy-back provision. They support that. That is clear.
The problem is understanding how some of their peers and colleagues are able to buy back six additional months, an option that they are exempt from.
Other issues concern the number of members from other police forces who have joined the RCMP since being assigned. I will list off a few statistics: in 2001, there were 31; in 2002, there were 25; in 2003, there were 29, in 2004, there were 53; in 2005, there were 28; in 2006, there were 33; in 2007, there were 31; in 2008, there were 48; and in 2009, there were 43. To date, there have been 16. If you do the tally, it is far from 100 per year.
[English]
We are talking about 347 members under those premises. Of those, surely some members do not qualify for the six months. As was mentioned, in Quebec and some other areas, they do not count it as pensionable time, although the majority of them across Canada do count it.
For clarification, it was mentioned that it costs approximately $10,000 to $12,000 for five weeks of recruit training for a full patch member of the RCMP. However, the salary is not included in that figure and is about $12,000, bringing the total to $22,000 to $24,000.
Addressing some of the myths, it is not difficult to get rid of people who do not perform, although it is not the will of the supervisor to do that. That is another issue. Currently, when our members finish cadet training and qualify, they are still under a two-year probation; caveat under the RCMP Act. These members are not offered the same discipline or administrative discharge system to which full-fledged members are entitled. There is discrimination.
Dealing with cadets in training is also different. Throughout my tenure as division representative, I have helped numerous members. After all, I am one of 8,000 who became full-fledged members when we joined; we were not cadets. There is discrimination in that people do not count cadets as members.
Although we might have different views on Bill C-18, it provides an opportunity to make amendments so that cadets can be treated fairly. There are proposed changes to the definition of the RCMP Superannuation Act. It is our honest opinion that those changes can be made, if there is a will to do it.
When I heard that no costs would be incurred, I heard also that if we allow those who used to be members to come back, they will be able to buy back pension time. However, there will be costs because the employer will have to contribute the requisite share of that amount. It is not a zero growth.
A good question was asked about National Defence, DND. We have members in our area who left DND, went through unpaid training and that time does not count for pensionable service. However, it does count if they have leave without pay and they can buy it back. There again, we submit to you that that is another class of people compared to all the members who are doing a great job for Canadian citizens. We have over 11,000 members working day-to-day in every community in Canada who will not be able to count that time. To us, that it is a tragedy. I cannot stand still and simply say, "Sorry about that; we will address it in another two years.'' We asked that it be addressed a long time ago. As you mentioned, it is a policy decision. Obviously, some people do not want to deal with it, but it is unfair for those 11,000 people.
I would like to talk about another unfair issue that affects civilian members in the RCMP, although it is not the same as a police officer. The pay equation for the great majority of civilian members is to the task being performed by a regular member, which is a police officer. For some, their pay is equal to 83 per cent of their salary because 83 per cent of their work is equal to it. Our civilian members are subject to transfers, to the code of conduct and to all the other administrative issues. They are full-fledged members subject to the same things as a regular member after they have finished their two-year probation.
I will submit another anomaly: The RCMP now has the potential to hire temporary civilian employees, TCEs, having no bearing technically under any act. They are not subject to discipline, grievance or anything. However, when they become civilian members or become regular members because they have gone into training, they will be able to count their time as TCEs. It is another issue that must be addressed.
I now come to one of the recommendations that we have made, and I know this might not be the place, but at least people are hearing about it. As the division representative system — div rep system — is no longer constitutional, although it has 18 months to change the issue, and as there is an advisory committee for the pension portability, we submit to you that they should be elected by independent groups and not be subject to these issues.
As I said, honourable senators, thank you for inviting me here. As we go along, I will be able to provide more information.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Delisle.
Senator Rivard: Mr. Delisle, I can tell you from the outset that I support your request. However, you draw a comparison between a cadet's salary and that of cadets from the other provincial police services, which I believe is taxable. Therefore, should questions of tax fairness be raised?
If RCMP cadets receive a weekly allowance of $500 for a certain period of time, I presume that the allowance is not taxable, and so it is unfair from a tax standpoint. Do you share this opinion?
Mr. Delisle: No. The opinion I do share, however, is that we must always try to find solutions to problems.
Senator Rivard: If we could break down a part of the salary and a part of the disbursement, be they living expenses or something else, perhaps we would not be at this point. Perhaps the problem would be resolved. Members of other police services pay taxes on each dollar earned when they are in training.
Mr. Delisle: I was told that beginning a week ago — it is very recent — cadets have been entitled to receive employment insurance. I would like to double-check the details, but last Saturday, I was informed that cadets had been issued authorization forms for the purpose of employment insurance.
Senator Rivard: To pay employment insurance premiums, one must earn taxable wages. One cannot receive employment insurance benefits on an amount that is not taxable because it is an allowance. Even if it is $500 per week, if the amount is not taxable, I wonder how one could pay an employment insurance premium.
Mr. Delisle: I have just raised another issue. If we want results, we have to define what we want. Right now, cadets receive an allowance of $500; do you know where that money comes from? This allocation is drawn from funds that the government gives the RCMP to hire new officers. Therefore, there is a surplus being used to pay for salaries, yet it is being remitted as an allowance. By my definition, that is a salary; just because the person receiving it is not an employee does not mean that it is not a salary.
That is another issue.
Perhaps I am to new to all of this, but in my opinion, amendments cannot be made only to provisions that are being reviewed by a parliamentary committee. From what I understand, from what I am reading, you can get by with the amendments that are there, because there are some in the definition. There are also amendments on service provided within that. For me, this is feasible.
If you are telling me that this bill must be passed quickly, I understand the political system, and I understand that you are perhaps in a stranglehold, but that does not mean that I agree. I am not here to tell you if I agree or not, I am here to tell you that you are in a position to help the 11,000 members of the police services who provide continued service across Canada. That is the reason why I am still a member of the RCMP, and why I still believe in it as an institution.
Senator Rivard: I gather from your comments and those of the previous witnesses that you believe that there are not enough RCMP officers to fight the scourge of drugs. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not believe that fighting this scourge is solely the responsibility of the RCMP; the Sûreté du Québec and the Ontario Provincial Police are also involved in this issue, are they not?
Mr. Delisle: Do you want my humble opinion? I will tell you what members working on the ground are feeling, because they are dispatched throughout Quebec. Every police officer has the mandate of enforcing the Criminal Code; the RCMP has an additional mandate with respect to organized crime and 143 different federal laws, including the Narcotic Control Act. That is part and parcel of our mandate. Should we neglect that mandate to advance others?
Our leaders made decisions. We were doing a very good job in the province. Now, we are no longer on the scene and no longer able to do a good job. The same is happening in Ontario. They have moved around our human resources. As a police officer, if you are not there, the job does not get done. But that is an entirely separate issue from pensions.
Senator Rivard: That is beyond the mandate.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you, Mr. Delisle, for coming before us this morning. Is the $500 allowance that cadets receive a monthly or weekly allowance?
Mr. Delisle: It is a weekly allowance.
Senator Ringuette: It is an amount per week. In your experience, what comparison can you make between this allowance and the 1994 salary level?
Mr. Delisle: It was not offered in 1994. It is recent.
Senator Ringuette: Before cadets received this allowance, what was their weekly salary?
Mr. Delisle: From memory, it was approximately $30,000 per year. Divide that by 52, and it comes to roughly the same amount. That is gross. In addition, if I recall correctly, an amount was deducted for living expenses.
Senator Ringuette: I thought the $500 weekly allowance was taxable.
Mr. Delisle: I cannot answer that question because I am unfamiliar with its application. Bill C-18 aims to treat everyone the same, but I respectfully submit that this is not the case. Despite the fact that the bill is viable, that it is a good step, it overlooks 11,000 of our members. That is unacceptable to us.
Senator Ringuette: I am asking you the question to establish that even if those 11,000 cadets are in training and receive an allowance that is equivalent to a scholarship, scholarships are taxable. One of the major benefits that is lacking during this training period is the pension benefit.
A representative from the Canada Revenue Agency will certainly appear before us to clarify the issue. Without naming any names — for the sake of privacy — could you describe the situation of a cadet who would be eligible for employment insurance? Does it concern maternity leave or sick leave?
Mr. Delisle: Because of the recession, changes have been made to the employment insurance system and now more people are able to draw benefits. One change is the option to return to school in order to find another job.
Senator Ringuette: That is the second career program.
Mr. Delisle: It is a very recent program. We give officers working on the ground the power to accept candidates who want to return to school. I will find out more about this new program.
Senator Ringuette: Based on the testimony of department officials, one must be unemployed to be eligible for this program. One cannot be unemployed and a cadet at the same time.
Mr. Delisle: That is the type of dilemma that we find unacceptable. We have recruits in Regina who are also mothers and fathers. Those recruits are based there, while their families are back in their hometowns, whether in Quebec, Alberta or elsewhere. These people do not even know if they will have a job because anything can happen. A person can break an arm or a leg during training or become injured and consequently unfit to work and end up jobless before finishing the training.
There are more than 1,200 recruits each year. In 2004, there were 53 people from other police services who joined our ranks. This year, there are 16, and not all of them will be able to have the time included in their pay.
When a person is hired by the OPP as a recruit, they are hired as an employee. They will spend X amount of time in school, come back and work under the wing of a supervisor, who will provide training. They go back to school, come back and continue working on the ground. Six months later, they become a police officer and can perform their duties.
However, they are not full-time police officers during that entire time, they are recruits. The same applies to our members who are recruits and who then become police officers once they are actually hired. Six years later, if they want to embark on another career, they join the RCMP and calculate their recruit time, when they were not a police officer, to do so. To our minds, that is another anomaly.
Senator Ringuette: If we take the example of provincial police officers who join the RCMP, taking into account all of their training to be recognized as employees from day one, how does that compare to the situation of Sûreté du Québec police officers?
Mr. Delisle: At the Sûreté du Québec, there are two types of employment. There are those who graduate from CEGEP and go directly to Nicolet. There are also employees who undergo accelerated training. I am told that the City of Montreal hires police officers at full salaries if they have undergone accelerated training. That is the case for some police officers. In Quebec, the majority of recruits are not paid while they are at Nicolet.
Senator Ringuette: If they are not paid, they are in the same situation as cadets now. They cannot ask for that training period to count as pensionable time. So from the start, there is discrimination in terms of the pension plan against new candidates from the OPP and the Sûreté du Québec.
Mr. Delisle: We represent all of the people who are asking us why they cannot buy back their six months. Once again, the reason is very valid. Before 1994, a police officer had to quit their job and undergo six months of training. They were categorized as a cadet.
Today, we have changed the way that time is recognized, and it is taken at par. The vast majority of our cadets do not have access to all the information regarding how this will benefit certain other people. We are talking about the OPP, but I know that it is exactly the same thing in both Winnipeg and Vancouver. I am told that they are hired on the spot. I did not check the situation in Alberta, which is our yardstick, but I am told that it is similar.
[English]
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Delisle, you mentioned that if a recruit comes from the military, the recruit would not be accorded lateral entrant status and would be trained as a raw recruit for the 24-week period, et cetera.
Mr. Delisle: I spoke with one such person the day before yesterday. That is what happened to him.
Senator Mitchell: I wonder how they are treated if they come from the military police.
Mr. Delisle: I am sorry; I cannot answer you, but I would presume they would be the same — at par. They have the same training, but I am presuming.
Senator Mitchell: I wondered, anyway.
In your first recommendation, where you recommend that a constable hired after 1994 be allowed to buy back, you say that it would cost the government no money and that the entire cost would be the constable's responsibility. Why would that be; why would it not be fair that the government should pay its share of the 24 weeks?
Mr. Delisle: I am saying that something should at least be put in there to afford the opportunity for the members to do that. For example, if — and I have seen it in other police departments that we took over, such as in Moncton as well as other city police departments — there is an actuarial study made of the private pension plans of those officers and it compares with ours, then it is possible for the members to buy the difference of the amount that it would cost. The cost share of the employer is the responsibility of the employer. However, that is in an overtaking of a city police or other police jurisdiction. That is provided by law, and it is fair.
However, what I understand of that is that those members can elect to pay so much per month to remedy that. Why can we not do that with our own? We should be able to say that if the time for the employer costs double and a half, your share — as we do on leave without pay because that is what it does; if you are given the time to spend on leave without pay, then you pay your share of double and a half — is the double and a half, and then you stretch that over a period of time, or pay it all at once if you have the means; you can repay it.
I do not believe anything stops it from happening.
Senator Mitchell: It has been very reasonable. It overcomes the argument that this will cost the government $44 million because it does not have to.
To be clear, I think earlier testimony, which you may have answered in French, was that it is very difficult to fire a recruit who has been hired as a full-fledged employee. Other police forces do it, and we do it with lateral entrant transfers. You are shaking your head suggesting that it is not that difficult to do.
Mr. Delisle: It is not that difficult, when there is a will. Some people used what happened during a period of time as an example not to pay them anymore. That is another issue. I faced that issue from that commissioner of that time. They wanted to save money out of their own budget so that they could use it in other ways. I will not tell you where it went.
However, you have seen that some of these people had to go before a parliamentary committee on a few occasions. It is terrible when that happens. However, when you make decisions such as that, it comes back to haunt you. That is what we are seeing now. Unfortunately, there is a way to deal with that.
Senator Di Nino: Welcome, Mr. Delisle. The RCMP operates in all provinces, right?
Mr. Delisle: Yes.
Senator Di Nino: Why are there three independent associations?
Mr. Delisle: The reason is that they do not share exactly the same view as the div reps share.
Senator Di Nino: Are you saying that the associations have different positions on different issues, to some degree?
Mr. Delisle: That is correct.
Senator Di Nino: When the recruits are brought in, they are given $500 as a weekly allowance, as well as all costs of shelter and food, right? That is all covered. It is not just $500, and they have to rent their own apartments; they stay at the college, they are fed and it is all there, correct?
Mr. Delisle: That is correct.
Senator Di Nino: When they join, are they well aware of the rules and conditions of joining? I just want to ensure that they understand what they are doing.
Mr. Delisle: Yes, of course. Everyone does. It is the same as the other police department when they join the RCMP. They understood then that the issue was only under discussion, that they could buy back their pension. When it comes though, that is the reason we make some changes.
Senator Di Nino: It is not a surprise to them, then, when they accept the conditions, and they accept it on that basis.
Mr. Delisle: The surprise comes when they hear about the other ones that can buy their six months and they cannot.
Senator Di Nino: I have a couple of questions about your statement to ensure I understand correctly. I am reading from the English one. In the fourth recommendation, you are making a very strong comment that you consider it an illegal act by senior RCMP officers when they give themselves merit pay. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Delisle: We are saying that you have a system in place to promote efficiency, which is a promotion system. When you give bonuses and performance bonuses to officers for other things that they should be promoted on, those numbers are being calculated for pension purposes. That is what we are saying.
Senator Di Nino: I am really picking on the word "illegal.'' We are talking about the senior police force in the country, and you are accusing them of conducting certain actions illegally.
Mr. Delisle: It is harsh, but that is the reality. When you give yourselves bonuses, that is what you expect to be done. Therefore, sometimes it is at the detriment of all the other members.
Senator Di Nino: Thank you. In your conclusion, you also seem to make a very strong statement. I will put it on the record:
I hope that I have made it clear that our associations are not easily fooled and that such actions do not help in reforming the integrity of high-ranking officers of the RCMP.
Is that a correct statement?
Mr. Delisle: It is directly in line with the Brown report and everything that came back before the parliamentary committee on the expenses and expenditures of the pension and everything. That is true. That is what came out of it.
Actually, my recollection of it was that one senior officer was chastised by the government itself. I did not invent this. It is stuff that did happened. That is the reason why we are saying that you better make — can I say it in French?
Senator Di Nino: Yes, of course.
[Translation]
We understand that these actions have put the RCMP in an awkward position. The problem was created by these systems, the bonuses, and so on and so forth. Essentially, all of the people are working together, and they are all doing a good job. Despite the fact that they have salary increases and a promotion system, they are given even more, and ultimately, the government was forced to ask them to testify before the public accounts committee in order to explain their actions. A report was then submitted. What does this government report say? They were punished. And that is all. They enhanced what was there before and asked that a portion of what contributed to the situation we went through be deducted. Because it is just a matter of bonuses. Bonuses depend on who you know and how you do things. That is unfortunate, but that is the way it was. I hope that I answered your question, and I apologize for replying in French, but that is my language.
[English]
Senator Di Nino: That is fine. You are welcome to speak in any language. We are perfectly fine with that.
I believe you were here when the discussion with our other witnesses took place earlier, and you have heard that the recommendations you have informed us that you would like to see changed in this bill are beyond the scope of the bill; it is not something that this bill was intended to deal with.
I understand you to say that you would like us — I am not sure we have the authority — to make these changes because you do not believe that the administration, the senior officers, have an interest or really care about making these changes. Is that what I hear you saying?
Mr. Delisle: What you hear me saying is also a decision that was rendered by a Superior Court judge that says that the present system is unconstitutional because it does not fairly represent the members. It represents, at the same time, senior management, and that cannot be done. That is what I am saying.
Technically, in my opinion, and I am not a law maker, but I do believe that with the changes brought in with Bill C- 18, there is a window that can address not all four issues, but at least one issue, which is the issue dealing with our cadets. If you ever prioritize anything there, we have 11,000 members growing every year by 1,200. They will each be subject to different ways of calculating their pensions. I am sorry, but I cannot stand still and say that is okay. I cannot. I am not made that way.
Senator Di Nino: We are not criticizing you. I just want to ensure that I understand what you are saying. This is really the prerogative of the administration of the force. For us to play that role may be a little more difficult, but I think you properly answered the question. Thank you kindly.
The Chair: As a point of clarification, I wonder, Mr. Delisle, if you could help us. In 1994, when this policy was changed, was there any expression that you recall at that time having been made as to why it was being changed, or was it solely a budgetary matter?
Mr. Delisle: In my understanding, it was budgetary. At the time you are recruited, it used to be that the CEO of the "Depot'' Division was the authorizing officer of disciplinary matters and for administrative discharge. I think he was using his time fully to do that because the act was written that way. However, if the act was written that way, there was a reason for it. I do believe there was pressure to remove the clause completely so that if there is a change to the category of employee of the cadets, they get away with it. That is what happened.
The Chair: You also mentioned the Brown report. Perhaps you can tell all honourable senators what the Brown report was and what, if anything, the Brown report had to say about this recruit-employee issue.
Mr. Delisle: I am told that they are still studying those issues. Because I wear two hats, one being with the association, although I am elected as an SRR, I am prevented from participating in the SRR caucus.
They have passed a regulation throughout the years — not a regulation according to the RCMP act. The division representative caucus says that if you are a member and conduct yourself in not-exemplary manner, the committee can take action. My not-exemplary manner was to write directly to the Ministry Of Public Security and tell them what we thought about an important issue when we deferred opinion from the division representative who said it but never canvassed us on that issue.
Having said that, the issue we are dealing with right now is our prime concern.
[Translation]
The Chair: The Brown report contained 48 or 49 recommendations; did any of those recommendations pertain to these recruits and the issue of their employment?
Mr. Delisle: I believe that that was part of the study, but, as you know, there were two Brown reports; at the very beginning, there was the Brown report of the task force, and then another committee was established to look into implementing the report's recommendations on the issue. At present, I cannot provide you with more information on the subject for the simple reason that I was not privy to the report. But that is a very good question, and I am sure that if someone were to try, you would be able to obtain an answer. I do believe that they have just extended the mandate of the task force that was established for another year. This is recent. It happened only a month or two ago, so they have not yet had enough time to do it.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Senator Ringuette would like to ask you a quick question.
Senator Ringuette: A quick question.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: When your cadets are training in Regina, some of the training is quite gruesome. It is. It is a tough world, and they ensure that all recruits are able to withstand it.
If a recruit has an injury while training in Regina, does he have access to workers' compensation? How does that work?
Mr. Delisle: At present, with respect to access, you can claim for disability under Veterans Affairs Canada. If you purchase LTD, which is Great West Life long-term disability, you can be subject to it. In that event, you must really meet the criteria. We know of many people who are sent home and that is it.
Senator Ringuette: People who are injured are sent home without any compensation whatsoever?
Mr. Delisle: Yes. You have to qualify in all cases.
The Chair: Thank you for raising that point. Honourable senators, that concludes the time we had allocated for this session. I will propose that we think about the evidence we have received here today. If we might want to have certain observations noted in relation to this legislation, it can be discussed at our next scheduled meeting, which is tomorrow evening. The first question I will be asking is whether you wish to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration. Assuming we do, we may want to talk about any observations we have. Also assuming there will be some time available, we will proceed with looking at the draft report on Main Estimates, hopefully.
[Translation]
Mr. Delisle, thank you very much for coming here, and thank you for clarifying several policy issues.
Mr. Delisle: Thank you.
(The committee is adjourned.)