FINA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES FINANCES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 22, 1997

• 1537

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order.

The order of the day: in accordance with the order of reference of the House of Commons of Tuesday, April 20, 1999, the committee today commenced the study of Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 16, 1999.

This afternoon we have the pleasure to have with us representatives from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: the chair of the national association and chair of members of the Association of the RCMP, Quebec, Mr. Gaétan Delisle; and the president, Mr. Mike Niebudek, from the Mounted Police Association of Ontario.

Welcome. As you know, you have approximately five to ten minutes. You have been kind enough to provide us with the brief, which we certainly appreciate. You have five to ten minutes to make your presentation, and thereafter we will engage in a question and answer session. Welcome. You may begin.

[Translation]

Mr. Gaétan Delisle (Chair, RCMP National Association and Chair, members of the Association of the RCMP, Quebec): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate being invited by the Committee to present our views on Bill C-71.

I must clarify one thing. Although I am a staff-sergeant in Montreal and my colleague is a sergeant, we are not here as active members of the RCMP, but rather as citizens belonging to an association of RCMP members. So we are not testifying as official representatives of the RCMP. I would be remiss not to mention it, because a superintendent is here, in this room, and I want to make sure we don't break our code of professional conduct by not making this distinction.

[English]

The Chairman: I have a point of clarification. The way I introduced you, as chair of the national association and chair of members of the Association of the RCMP, Quebec, is correct, right?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: That's correct.

The Chairman: Okay, great.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: Also I'd like to qualify that in addition, because we worked overtime on our own time to produce the paper, we also represent a group that is known as ex-RCMP, which now works with CSIS, and that group is being called ex-MP. It's not members of Parliament; it's ex-Mounted Police.

The Chairman: You can always ask the members if it is okay with them to use the MP nomenclature. I'm not going to argue with you. Go ahead.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: Thank you. And I was also under the impression that you weren't going to mention the name PM. We're not going to get into this one.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Preston Manning.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: That's correct. Thank you.

The Chairman: That's the first person who comes to mind.

Go ahead.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: I will glide through a little bit of our brief, because there are some issues in there that are quite important to us. Those deal directly with our present pension plan in the RCMP.

• 1540

As you know, Bill C-71 addressed the budget in all. At first, when we first glanced through Bill C-71, we were amazed to find that there was a portion of it that related to changes to the pension plan, a different pension plan from that of the public service and all the other ones. The first question we had in mind also was, well, what about the other pension plans in Canada? It seems they're absent from it.

Then to our own amazement, we went further into requesting information and then finally we got the answer in Bill C-78. Apparently it's been tabled in Parliament and now it's been debated in second reading, and accordingly, it will change or affect every pension plan there is—or I do believe some of them. Some of them are missing, but very few.

So then the next question comes to mind: why also include the two of them in two separate pieces of legislation? I guess eventually we'll find out the reason. But the one that touched the RCMP Superannuation Act is the fact that now it's going to be reduced from six years' earnings to five years' earnings, and we would like to make a recommendation on this one.

Treasury Board has long recognized that the RCMP should be compared on total compensation—that means every benefit that we have—with eight major police departments in Canada, and in those major police departments the average is four. So we were amazed, since those changes come almost from Treasury Board, and why did they put forward what they have acknowledged through our annual report at the year-end from other police departments?

That's the reason we're making the reference to it and recommending that this panel adopt the change so it will reflect that. Eventually, if you need the report, we have copies available to show that the RCMP should be equated to the average of those police departments in the matter of pension, and therefore that's what should be addressed.

Also, it was quite interesting that, because you are here on finance...why would you look for issues that relate to pension, which will give you an awful lot of work? To us, they would have to be prepared to show why five, why six, why three. We don't have access to the amount of money that should be required, and I would presume this present committee would request that information in order to make a sound judgment on what we are requesting, that it be changed.

[Translation]

Within the RCMP, many civilian members, whose duties are practically similar to those of police men and women, don't have the status of police officer or peace officer and cannot take advantage of the same pension fund as their colleagues. Their fund is more like the public service employees' fund and it's much less generous than ours. However, it's important to note that their contributions are paid into the RCMP pension fund.

There is another persistent problem which is becoming quite serious within the RCMP. Many civilians continue to be hired on a temporary basis, which means that they can't accumulate any seniority and that their work is not recognized as it should, in terms of compensation. For instance, some people have held the same position for more than ten years, but they still work on contract and cannot contribute to any pension fund. The RCMP would be in a position to give you statistics in this regard.

• 1545

[English]

Another fact that to us is very...not annoying, but we spent more time looking into it than others, is that, as you know, senior officers of the RCMP are named and promoted and paid by Governor in Council. A little over 60 of them have access to senior bonus pay and merit pay. Therefore, that amount triggers in an extra amount in order to calculate the pension.

This in itself we feel is a disadvantage for our pension fund, because if you look at the large amount of money that is being distributed, those moneys are never accounted for in advance when you do an actuarial study. Therefore, what we are recommending, and I hope people will take a close look at it, is that whenever people gain a new status in the RCMP, which is officer and above—in other words, they are named and promoted under the auspices of the Governor in Council—their portion, the portability of their portion, should be put into their separate plan. Then they could administer it or they could come under the guidance of it, because for us it does not make sense that we have to pay the burden of that extra money that is not accounted for. It should be paid by them and not by the rank and file, because the rank and file never has access to that kind of money. Yet we will have to pay for that access.

Without going into detail, if you have an example to the effect that the commissioner goes with a pension of $120,000, and his last bonus might be equivalent to 10%, just as an equation, somebody down the line has to pay for that amount, which was never accounted for under the auspices of $120,000 plus $10,000, so the percentage is way higher than the one below for our constable, who only makes $54,000 a year. Therefore, there's an inequity in that specific issue.

The greatest inequity that we believe should be addressed is that those bonuses are given among themselves. It's not the government that decides who's going to get it, it's the office of the commissioner. So I just want to spell out that to us it does not make sense that we have to, on an actuarial basis, account for that.

I went through Bill C-78 really fast, and I've asked questions to Superintendent Fortin, who is in the chair over there, but I fail to see.... For years and years now, we've had members who have had to perform work on an acting basis. We don't have money to transfer people and everything, so we sometimes have people who do acting pay for long periods of time—two, three, four years at a time. Why should they not be able to count that as pensionable earnings? They have worked for it. They have done the work. They have done everything, except that they were not promoted within the rank and file system, not under their own requirement.... It's an administrative system not to promote them. So why should they not be entitled to it?

I understand that Bill C-71 doesn't touch it, and Bill C-78 doesn't touch it either. So I say to you that it should be included in it.

Similarly, for a long time now in the police field, specifically la Sûreté du Québec, we have what they call rotational work at the end of the year. For people knowledgeable on rotational work, on shift work, all kinds of studies are available to show that in the nursing area, in the doctors' area, and in the police field, you stand to shorten your life span equivalent to one month per year of age.

I do believe that should apply to MPs also—not to PM, to MPs—technically. That has been recognized in the field of the police work in la Sûreté du Québec. All we're asking is that it be recognized also...because we have men and women who have no choice now; there's no possibility of transfer. They have to stay in those areas where they have to do that shift work. They don't have the ability to be transferred because of the new transfer policy; it costs an awful lot of money, they're downsizing and all that. So it's a burden on that also. So it would alleviate at least that in recognition of the work they are performing.

• 1550

Last but not least, I know you have heard and you have correspondence regarding the surplus to our pension plan. Of course it's annoying for us to find out that the people who are taking care of our pension plan, the trustees, did not see fit to even advise us of the changes in their way of taking away that surplus.

[Translation]

It's clearly spelled out that the Treasury Board is responsible, as trustee, for administering this fund and that it must, in this capacity, establish policies as well as the extent of its participation in consultations with members. I brought a copy of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act which defines clearly the responsibilities of this trustee.

I have been contributing to this fund for 30 years and, although it would be important to ask me what I want to do with my share, it never happened. Quite the contrary, monies have been freely taken out of this fund without this decision being discussed at all. On top of that, we are being told after the fact, loud and clear. It's because of that kind of actions that we circulate cards to our members so that they can sign them and send them to Minister Massé. It is absolutely unthinkable for a trustee to act like this. A number of insurance companies, such as Standard Life and the Great-West Life, have told us that, under no circumstances, a fund trustee has the right to act unitalerally.

Although Bill C-78 is not included in your review, we believe it is essential to mention it. We think a committee should be given the responsibility to administer our pension fund. There is one right now, but it doesn't even have the authority to approve recommendations and it must keep its deliberations confidential. Therefore, we don't know what's happening. We only know what the numbers are when they are disclosed at the end of the year.

[English]

We have the pretension that because the large portion of this fund is done by the state, therefore we should keep that under close surveillance and the state should have the last word on it.

I brought with me, for your information, a private sector fund, because we're talking about private funding when we talk about our RCMP pension fund. This one—and I'll leave it with le greffier; eventually I could get more copies, but it's only in French—is the annual report de l'ABR, l'Association de bienfaisance et de retraite des policiers et policières de la Communauté urbaine de Montréal, and in it you will see that you have twelve administrators of their fund, seven from the union and five from the city. The city pays double the contribution of the employee, which is almost the equal of ours, and that board act as a fiduciaire, as a trustee for their fund.

• 1555

That fund accumulated a surplus exactly like any other pension fund did during the last five years—exactly =409=] like ours, exactly like that of the public service. Theirs is worth $4 billion and there are only 4,000 contributors. It's not that bad. But they return to their membership. They return to their retirees. They return to the city. They even gave the city a buyback of two years, worth $238 million, of their share out of the surplus, and they can still survive. In addition, they gave a better pension plan and they gave better money to their retirees.

That's a trustee. That's what a fiduciaire does. They sit together and they come to a conclusion whereby the money should be effective, because people have put their faith in them as trustees. Those are the ones.

I'll leave this with Monsieur Dupuis.

In closing, we know that we only represent 2,500 members. We are not the official voice for the RCMP members at large. We only have three organizations, which represent members in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. This is not to say that for the membership their pension is not the most important thing after their pay. It is. That's the reason we are here and that's the reason we did request to come here. I hope our management will come here and say the same thing, because they've been stressing the same thing on behalf of the members, that they will seek a better improvement in the pension plan.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'll now have a five-minute question and answer session, beginning with Mr. Abbott, followed by Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you. Hopefully this will be the last political statement I'll make about our guests' amazement that the Liberals would have done this unilaterally, with no consultation. Believe me, that's normal fashion, but we'll leave that for last.

The Chairman: That will be last comment you'll make.

Mr. Loubier.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): That was an unilateral decision, by the way.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay.

If I may, I'd like to broaden this a little bit under Bill C-71. I have in front of me some correspondence, which shouldn't be in my hands, from Chief Superintendent Terry Smith in Surrey to Chief Superintendent Don Belke in Vancouver. This was intended to be private correspondence. It happened to end up in my hands.

Terry Smith is expressing something to Don about a fleet management review and transportation strategy. It's a long memo. I'll quote a couple of lines.

I received...this pile of tripe on Friday.

—this gives you an idea of where he's coming from—

Upon first reviewing the recommendations I was convinced that this report was an elaborate hoax.

Later on he says:

At a time when my staff are seriously short-changed for additional members, under severe financial constraint, and are tasked with addressing an endless list of so-called “priorities”, this report is really the last straw. Isn't it just about time we...stated the obvious:

—and he puts it in capital letters—

WE ARE BANKRUPT. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE EXPECTED OF US.

Near the end he says:

We owe it to ourselves and our personnel to halt this insanity. Please will someone listen?????

This was an internal document between two very high-ranking officers. I can tell you that in my capacity as the Solicitor General critic for the Reform Party, I have nothing but absolute admiration for the RCMP, from Commissioner Murray to the starting constable, and their professional attitude in the face of ever more constraining resources.

I wonder if I could ask you to comment on the issue of ever more constrained resources that you, as the providers of our national police service, are faced with.

Mr. Mike Niebudek (President, Mounted Police Association of Ontario): Thank you, Mr. Abbott, for your question. I think it's a very timely question in these days when the RCMP has seen its mandates and areas of responsibility augmented while our dollars have stayed the same or have even been reduced in some areas. There are a lot of explanations for these situations.

• 1600

The fact remains that Canada is a complex country. It's a large country. Organized crime is taking more and more space in this country. It is becoming extremely costly to prosecute criminals, because of the different laws and case laws that require us to provide disclosure to the accused.

Our major criminal investigations are getting so complex in that area. I know what message you're talking about, and I think the gentleman is right. Instead of the government, Treasury Board especially, addressing these things every year and making sure this national police force has all the money it needs to conduct its business, the opposite is happening.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: You have to realize that the RCMP is non-unionized. Being non-unionized, you don't have any checks and balances. Decisions are being made at the top that are not being known, or not being publicly debated—or whatever situation it is. In another type of environment, those decisions usually.... Because you're talking about manpower, that means there's a contract and a job description for the type of work to be done. That's what is being paid for.

It's a very complex environment that RCMP members now have to deal with. Unfortunately, it's not being dealt with. They're trying hard, but it's not.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Another document I shouldn't have, from division A, details in the protection operations:

...we anticipate reducing the following areas:

(a) Countersurveillance

Reduce the equivalent of one Team (8 positions)

(b) VIP Security Section

Reduce each VIP Team by one position

Then there's the ERT.

In another section, it says:

In Criminal Operations, we anticipate reducing in the following areas:

(a) Federal Enforcement Section

Reduce by five positions

(b) Drug Section

Reduce by ten positions

(c) Special “O”

Reduce two positions

I wonder if you'd like to comment on the next paragraph. This is from the superintendent on these reductions. It says:

These changes will also serve as an opportunity to better address our fight against organized crime...

Is that Orwellian or is that a fact?

Mr. Mike Niebudek: I can speak for the cuts you're talking about because I work in that sector here, and it's in the Ottawa area. These draconian stances from the management of the force indicate to you how the RCMP is always looking for the short-term solution or the band-aid solution, when instead we should be trying to find out why we are in a situation like this, what caused it and what we need to do to rectify it, instead of trying to cut it all over the place.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Is it a simple matter of more funds, or is it more complex than that?

Mr. Mike Niebudek: That's a question the force would be in a better position to answer. I think Gaétan hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that we do not have any collective bargaining in the RCMP, or at least the members don't have the option of having collective bargaining, so there has to be compensation there somewhere. That means the RCMP and the government, the employer, have to supply us with equal or better systems in place to protect our members.

Gaétan mentioned it earlier when he talked about temporary employees. One lady works in an area in our place, and she has been with the RCMP for ten years—all the time. Her contract has never been broken, yet she has no pension fund or benefits. This is where we're in trouble.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: In the majority of those positions, you will find they are ladies. It's too bad to say that, but it affects a certain type of population. That normally doesn't affect the pay equity.

• 1605

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have one more quick question. If you had a union, how would you handle the issues of contract breakdown and strikes?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: First of all, if you look at the history, you'll see that we've never advocated a right to strike.

Mr. Jim Abbott: No, I know that.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: We always went for binding arbitration, as for any other police department with which we have been compared. That's a last issue. I'm not going to say that it never happens. I would presume that as an MP, you yourself are sometimes so frustrated that you don't show up for work, or something to that effect.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Not me, never.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: Okay, not you. I will presume that it's in the air somehow.

But you have to realize that what is happening in the RCMP is also happening everywhere else, but it's being looked at by way of a discussion throughout. You don't see the types of letters you have in other police departments. Why? Because there is an environment to deal with that. Right now, there's none. We're hopeful, as I said in the first paragraph, that the Supreme Court of Canada will render its decision soon, but until that time there is no such environment, and therefore it's a free-for-all.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I would presume that those persons are very high people. I take it they're chief superintendents. Is that what you said?

Mr. Jim Abbott: That's correct.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: They're subject to that merit pay. I'm wondering how much merit pay they're going to get this year from the commissioner after that thing has been leaked. But that's another issue.

Mr. Mike Niebudek: Just to add to the answer to that last question about collective bargaining, of course we're not looking for the right to strike. The alternative lever, if you want, is binding arbitration, as the other seven police forces in the police universe enjoy. At the same time, I think the example my colleague mentioned of the MUC police benevolent fund is a perfect one. On our side you have the government deciding unilaterally to put forward changes without consultation to even the pseudo-actuaries or trustees we have, and here you have the complete opposite.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: If you want us to go on and on, here we are, we have a leak of the budget...not a leak, but less budget—no, there wasn't any leak this year—a reduction of our budget, but yet the commissioner saw fit to introduce the payment of annual leave for officers. There are 600 officers now that have access to the payment of their annual leave that are named by the Governor in Council.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Abbott.

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Delisle, I want to congratulate you for fighting as you do for your cause. I hope, like you, that you win your case in front of the Supreme Court, because we already see the damage that's being done. Mr. Abbott talked about that earlier and as far as I am concerned, I see what's happening in my riding and in the greater region I come from. We hear persistent rumours about the restructuring or even the closing of some police stations. About a month and a half ago, even officers were saying that those were only rumours. It's not fair to keep people guessing like this, not to give you, as you mentioned, the opportunity to know exactly what's going on, to deny you the right to know what's going on.

I still fail to understand—and that's why we are going to meet Minister Massé next week—why in the area around Granby, Drummondville, Saint-Hyacinthe and Sorel, where there are gangs of bikers who are criminals, the closing of one of these police stations, or even the three of them, is considered. This doesn't make sense at all. How will we be in a position to fight organized crime by opening a station in Longueuil or Montreal when it's all concentrated in that triangle, in that area? You can count on our full and continued support in this regard, particularly when citizens are asking to be better protected against criminalized biker gangs. We are among those who fight these gangs and we hope that one day, they'll be outlawed. We already tried to do it and we'll try again. It's still one of our objectives.

• 1610

On page 5 of your brief, you write that some employees of the RCMP, who are not peace officers and who contribute to the same pension fund as you, don't enjoy the same privileges as regular members when they retire. What kind of system is there in place which allows them to contribute to the same pension fund without having the rules which apply to peace officers apply to them? How can it be that such an improper system is in place?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: Are you talking about the status of civilians within the RCMP?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: We wanted to show you how improper the system is. For the most part, these civilian members are women whose duties are almost similar to those of police men or women, but who earn only 83, 87, 88 or 90% of their colleagues' salary. On top of that, they are not considered as peace officers.

If you look at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, you'll see that a commissioner, a commanding officer or any other person who has the authority to do so can give the title of temporary special constable to any civilian who is asked to testify in court or given evidence for safe keeping, but without any extra duty pay.

Regarding their pension, civilian members have no choice: they have to work for 35 years or until they reach the age of 60. In our shop, we call this group the lock-in. Regular members of the RCMP are eligible for retirement after 20 years of service, even if there is a penalty. Those who work for 24 to 35 years can retire without any penalty.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Okay, I understand better.

Mr. Mike Niebudek: Mr. Loubier, if I may, I'd like to underline that according to members of our association, some civilian members, especially here, in Ottawa, perform duties which go far beyond the functions of members of other police departments. We are not talking about people who do administrative work, but rather of employees who directly support the work of police officers and investigators. We are talking about scientists, laboratory analysts or people who have to collect incriminating evidence in major criminal cases, analyze it, keep it safe and testify in court. These employees perform duties similar to those of peace officers and, as far as we are concerned, deserve to have access to a better pension plan.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You mention Bill C-78, which I am now reviewing for second reading. I find this bill really improper. It's totally unacceptable that, to administer a pension fund, there would be a committee without any representative of the workers or the people who contribute. I have never heard of such a thing and I fail to understand how such a scenario could be proposed, particularly since it's specified that the government could take any unforeseen surplus, any extraordinary surplus, without having to discuss it with any contributor whatsoever.

You got in touch with Standard Life and the Great-West Life, and I'd like you to tell me what they do when there are surpluses. I understand that some surpluses can be projected and that a certain amount is put in a reserve fund, but how are those extraordinary surpluses distributed to the various people who contribute and how does the system work?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: I gave a copy of this report to the clerk so that you could have it and be informed of the way the pension fund of the City of Montreal police, where there is a surplus, is administered and will be managed for the next 20 years.

• 1615

You should know that the employer received a contribution credit in the amount of 236 millions dollars. For the next three years, the City of Montreal will not have to invest a cent in the pension fund of its police men and women. The administrators, the trustees, together with the rank and file representatives, discussed the way this amount of money would be managed.

As shown on the table we gave you, the chair of the board in charge of administering this fund is a constable elected by his colleagues. It must not be such a bad formula. There are experts in all sectors, they are not all at the Treasury Board. At least, I hope not. All of us have come to gain some experience and we became experts.

The main point I wanted to make was that the Montreal police came to an agreement and decided to give a part of the surplus to widows, another part to their children, etc. Instead of giving retirees a pension increase, which would have also increased their taxes, it was decided to pay them a lump sum during the year. With that type of system, trustees can decide how to manage their own money the way they like and are free to distribute any surplus to the contributors.

We hope that you'll ask us to participate in your review of Bill C-78, where, among other things, amendments to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act are proposed.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: It's dealt with in Bill C-78?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: Yes, yes.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Well, we are going to fight even more.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: Have you already called witnesses? We just got a copy of this bill. Yesterday, it was still impossible to have access to it on the Internet.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you for informing us. We only got a copy of this bill this morning.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: I have to say that I did this research on my own time, Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We'll still have to pay him.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: No, no. I was a parliamentarian at some point and I got enough bonuses, thank you.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

[English]

Next is Mr. Epp, followed by Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Thank you. I really appreciate your coming and giving us your presentation today.

I have a number of questions. First of all, you spoke about being represented by an association and wanting to have wage settlements and working conditions negotiated, and you mentioned binding arbitration. Would you also consider final-offer arbitration, in other words, where the arbitrator takes one position or the other of the last positions put forward by the parties?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: If the reality of the legislation is such, then you have no choice. You have to do that. All I'm saying to you is that it seems to me to be a little bit backward if you have that kind of situation, for the simple reason that you don't have a last say. It seems to me that missing the last say gives you all kinds of other frustrating events or whatever, and that's the reason we want to avoid that. We've always advocated to avoid that and to go to binding arbitration.

That goes for both sides. Binding arbitration means that you might lose something. We know that, because a lot of police associations in Ontario are doomed by binding arbitration if they don't come to a ruling. I've seen some of them lately, especially in 1998 and 1999, whereby the arbitrator's purse clearly was not too open to the association. Therefore, you have to take all that into the sphere of activities. But our feeling is that it would be best for all parties if we had a binding arbitration system in there.

• 1620

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. Of course, one of the advantages of the final offer is that it forces the parties to come together. If this is a reasonable solution and one of them is here and the other one is out here, then these guys are just going to lose it. So you won't throw it away, and it's more likely that you can actually get a negotiated settlement.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: With all due respect, our employer is Treasury Board. To me, they didn't act fairly on our surplus fund, and if you say they did as a fiduciaire, without coming forward with their employees and taking the stance they did, I have strong feelings towards that.

So as a person who has already been under that constraint, I would presume that the first step would be to establish a place where both of them have to go for the same rules. That's the reason I say unilaterally that should be our position to start off with.

I've seen newspapers; I've seen everything from Mr. Massé, the President of Treasury Board. I do believe he means well in saying there's no money, or there isn't anything on it, but to me, Bill C-71 says Treasury Board has money for our pension plan. Automatically it's a reduction of the best way to calculate your pension, so therefore it's going to cost more. To me, that's what it says. So there is money, otherwise they wouldn't have put a better settlement in it.

All I'm asking is to be privy to how much money there is, and then, therefore, I will be able to make a good, sound judgment on it.

Mr. Ken Epp: One of the things I think we should consider is that instead of having publicly administered pension funds, which are open to all kinds of abuse....

You have political considerations in it. The boards are appointed usually by political people. I know you mentioned the one in Montreal where there were more union reps than employer reps. But even there, I don't know what your experience has been, but my experience with unions is that the politics within unions is dirtier than any politics I've ever seen. So what I'm saying is you get the same kinds of pressures.

Would you have any openness at all to changing it so that instead of having a pension plan like this, there would be an individual account set up for each person, like an RRSP? You'd get a comparable salary increase, with an amount equal to what you and your employer were contributing to it, and that way you could go into the marketplace and actually achieve the kinds of return that you're talking about, without being hamstrung by somebody else doing it for you. Is there any openness at all to that?

The Chairman: Before you answer that question. Can we keep to the subject matter that we're studying?

Mr. Ken Epp: It is, isn't it? We're talking about the pension.

Mr. Tony Valeri: The only thing Bill C-71 deals with is essentially moving from an average of six to an average of five. But it does deal with the pension, if you want to involve that question.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, it's dealing with pensions, and I thought I was on topic.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: With all due respect, it does more than that. There are two more parts in clause 16 that touch the RCMP. The other is the portion from the RRQ, as we know it in our province, which has an awful lot more to say, because my contribution is going to go higher. So it touches that too. Therefore, I'd be more than happy to answer.

If you see the format of the MUC, you will see that those people who administer it are police persons. They are elected there. Their job is on the line. They are full-time there. As a trustee of another organization, their job is not on the line. I'm sorry. So I will not put my faith in those people. I will put my faith in a well-organized group that are is that is named there, that has to be accounted for. They are accounted for because the management is also represented, the commissioner has the same pension plan, and they don't have any bonuses that are calculated on their pension. They know ahead of time. They know what their money is going to be at. Therefore that's a reason you have such a good return into it.

• 1625

You're talking about a pension fund, which is public, that has been in existence for almost 100 years. So there are all kinds of those examples that exist. We're not talking about....

Mr. Ken Epp: One of the things you mentioned about this pension plan and its administration is the mix of officers versus the higher-ranking officers, and the fact that this skews the accounting of the pension fund. It looks as if people are getting a bigger pension than they really are, because a few of them are getting a whopping pension and then there are many who are getting a much smaller pension.

How would you fix that? What would you like to see in this bill that would actually fix that?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: Well, we put a solution in there that's a quick and easy solution. Right now I do believe, with le partage du patrimoine, whenever there is one, the amount of money that the employer has put into it, and then the employee, by Bill C-55 when it was enacted...now people have access to both shares—the share of the employer and the share of the employee. That can be accounted for very easily. So those numbers can be changed from one pension plan to another, just like it is now. If I move, as an RCMP member of the public service fund, to another department, can I transfer it? The answer is yes. So it's exactly the same. Do it, though.

But if you have to put into effect an accounting system that you cannot project on the long term because still you don't know if Treasury Board is going to say yes, you're entitled to $300,000 this year for bonus.... So therefore, I'm sorry, but I cannot answer in reality because we don't know the future in this aspect.

But to use the example of the Montreal, they know. They negotiate on their...and they negotiate within that sector.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes.

The last thing I wanted to ask about was with respect to the life expectancy. You have a recommendation in here based on the fact that people under the kind of stress that you work under have a life expectancy that is roughly one-twelfth less than the general population. So you're saying that to compensate for that every 11 months should count as 12 months of pensionable benefits. That's how I understand it. And that additional money is coming entirely from the employer.

There are many, many people who work in the public service who have stress. I'm thinking of those people right now who are serving our country over in Kosovo. There are firemen across the country. There are many people who have this. And I'm in no way minimizing the stress that you and the people you represent have. I value it highly, and it's very significant in our society and we thank you for it. But if we do that for one group, then the costs of doing it for everyone may be fairly substantial.

What would be your answer if you were asked that question, to justify that? How would you answer that?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: The simple answer? Let me get my pension surplus and I'll manage it. Is that fair enough?

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: There's $1.5 billion that was gone. Now, how much money will I need to do that? I don't think I'd need that much money to do that. So that's the easiest way I can tell you. Let me participate. That's what we're asking.

Mr. Ken Epp: Do it through elected representatives?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: Well, isn't that fair?

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, that sounds reasonable.

Madam Chair, I'm finished at this round.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)): Thank you.

Mr. Charbonneau.

• 1630

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Madam Chair, first, I'd like to say, through you, to our colleague, Ken Epp, whose professional experience is based upon years and even decades spent in the education sector, that my own experience of the exercise of democracy within unions is quite different from his. I heard him say earlier that the politics within unions are dirtier than any politics he has seen.

[English]

Mr. Ken Epp: Probably it's due to particular unions.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Yes. Having run a teachers' union in Quebec for 14 years, and having been involved in four or five common fronts of the public employees, and having been involved through my union in many coalitions of the largest unions in Quebec and over Canada, I have to say that from my experience with respect to democracy and transparency, the unions have nothing to teach to the real politics.

Mr. Ken Epp: They have nothing to teach?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: We have nothing—

Mr. Ken Epp: Probably they have much to teach is what you mean.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: We have nothing to learn.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, okay.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: That's where I see that these—

The Chairman: It wasn't a comment directed at you. He feels like that generally about unions.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Yes, it was an exchange of experience, just a counterpart.

[Translation]

I have a few questions for you, gentlemen. First, you mention some medical research which is supposed to show that shift work reduces life expectancy. Would it be possible to have a more precise reference? Could you give us a copy of this study or tell us where to find it?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: I shall send you a copy.

For your information, I'd like to say that for the last five years, the Quebec government has given all members of the Sûreté du Québec who work under such conditions part of the pension fund surplus in the form of an annual contribution to a collective RRSP, in the name of each employee concerned and on the basis of the number of hours worked. This amount of money is the equivalent of 1.8% of their salary.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It's the medical information I am interested in.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: I shall provide it to you.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Very well.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: This research has been conducted in the States.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: On page 4 of your brief, you write about the formula used to calculate pensions and you refer to the fact that five years instead of six are going to be taken into consideration, before recommending that this period of time be further reduced. Are you talking about what is called reference years, the average of which is used to calculate the pension amount?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: We do propose that paragraph 16(1) of Bill C-71 be amended so that the maximum average of pensionable earnings be based on the last four, even the last three years in the labour force.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: In other words, it's the basic amount which is used to calculate the pension, multiplied by the number of years of service.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: The five best years are taken into consideration.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Then, what do the last three lines of the third paragraph mean? It says:

Nevertheless these same police men and women are the only ones, compared to the others, that are subject to rules of transfer and relocation throughout the Canadian territory and abroad.

What does that have to do with the calculation based upon reference years?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: Members of the RCMP, as well as civilian members, can be transferred anywhere in Canada, not only within a particular area. We compared our situation with that of other police officers working in only one city or in a particular region, with the situation of members of the Sûreté du Québec and the Ontario Provincial Police who work only at the provincial level. Our own members are often sent to work abroad, in foreign countries where the culture is totally different.

• 1635

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: And you think that has an impact on their salary? You raise this issue in the paragraph where you deal with the basis for the calculation of pensions. What's the connection between the two?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: As you know, the cost of living fluctuates a lot between, say, Rivière-du-Loup and Burnaby, in British Columbia, and transferred families now find it quite difficult to maintain the same standard of living and to survive. We recommend that this factor be taken into account when the pension amount is calculated, so that our members can enjoy a standard of living almost equivalent after they retire, even if we are aware of the fact that they won't have children to support any more. Because transfers are so different from one another, right now, it's difficult to ensure that our members are treated fairly.

Why does the City of Montreal police department take the last three years into account? It is indeed to ensure that when they retire, their members can maintain a normal standard of living.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Thank you. Your second recommendation is about civilian members of the RCMP. Do you represent these people as well, in the context of the case being reviewed at this time by the Supreme Court?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: Civilians are included in the National Association of RCMP members and therefore, they were involved in all our discussions and all our debates. However, there is a dividing line at the level equivalent to the rank of officer. In its job descriptions for civilian positions, the RCMP always indicates a rank equivalent. I must say that the case being reviewed by the Supreme Court does not involve some civilian members since it concerns only people who have the rank equivalent to that of staff-sergeant, which is just under that of officer.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: So this is why you make recommendations in your brief on behalf of these people.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: Yes, and I'd like to add, if I may, that these people are really disadvantaged.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: You also make a recommendation regarding merit pay for senior officers, some aspects of which you already touched upon with my colleague, Mr. Epp. We are aware of some pension plans which are acceptable. Let's take for example the Quebec Teachers Pension Plan, the one called the old plan, to which still contribute tens of thousands of people, teachers, school principals, executive directors of school boards and managers. All participants to this plan, whatever their level in the hierarchy, contribute to the same fund. It's possible to make some actuarial calculations based on people's level of remuneration. Someone who earns more, I imagine, contributes more to the pension fund. Bonuses and merit pay received by officers must be taken into account to calculate their contribution to the pension fund. Why do you think that the only solution is to establish a separate plan? Why is it not possible to keep everything together, as it's done by other organizations?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: We didn't look at other formulas because we are all subject to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, where it says that contributions are to be the same for everybody. If it's possible to amend the act, all the better. We came to the conclusion that at this time, now that this bill amending the act in force up until now is being reviewed, it was the most appropriate and the quickest way to deal with this issue.

• 1640

Once again, let me say that we don't have access to the data and that we have been deprived of a very large amount of our fund surplus. As trustee, the Treasury Board should sit with its employees, who are also members of the this trust, and negotiate a formula similar to the one you propose. I'm quite aware of what happened in Quebec and within other police departments. No doubt, people have been able to sit down and discuss their pension plan, they have been made aware of what was happening, the rank and file has been involved and has participated in the process. This is what we are denied.

Mr. Mike Niebudek: When employees have no leeway and no access, it becomes difficult to find a way around that. In a democracy, we should be able to sit down, face to face, and to negotiate.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: One last quick question, Madam Chair. I see that our witnesses represent what they call the Mounted Police Association. I thought that several years ago, the Mounted Police had become the RCMP. In the past, in Quebec, there was the Provincial Police and the Police Association; today, it's the Sûreté du Québec. Why has your association not changed its name, just like your employer?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: I'd be pleased to answer that question, Mr. Charbonneau. The use of the acronym RCMP is regulated by—I was going to say Walt Disney, but I won't go that far—the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act which requires that the minister approve such use. We have asked to be permitted to do so a long time ago, but we still don't have such an authorization. As you know, we created an association with the objective to have the equivalent of union rights within the RCMP, which the act does not authorize us to do. This is why we are anxious to know the Supreme Court decision. We picked a name that Quebeckers know, short of calling ourselves the “big hats”, a name I am sure you are familiar with. Some people still prefer to refer to us as the Mounted Police.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] This gentleman is telling us that he is a Mounted Police officer, which is also the name of your association. It takes two to play that little game.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: Do you recommend that we lodge a complaint against Walt Disney?

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell): Mr. Harris, you had a question.

Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Thank you. I have just a couple of questions, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Delisle, you mentioned earlier a transfer from one location to another, particularly Burnaby. I know this problem is really quite burdensome for a lot of members who transfer, say, out to the lower mainland, the Burnaby and New Westminster area. Have they brought in relocation adjustment yet?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: As you know, in our group we have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Association, the Mounted Police Professional Association out of British Columbia, and we have canvassed their knowledge of that. We are told by them that has been introduced and cheques have been starting to come in. I'm not sure exactly how much money that represents and everything. You have to remember that you have to be in a very specific area and you have to get some kind of release. I'm not too familiar with it, so I cannot go into detail. Yes, apparently some release has been coming to certain members who qualify, and I say it with a large qualification.

• 1645

Our problem, which we did address at one point, is does everybody need that? One of the problems we see is that if you're spending so much money on it and yet you have people who don't need but still receive it, at that time do you go on a need-to-need basis or do you only go to the people who are exempted from it? And we did bring up the same problem about the recruiting in depot. As you know, there's no longer pay and they have to subsidize themselves to go there. So is it all types of people from all kinds of roots who have access to depot? We don't believe so. But on the other hand, I guess a formula had to be struck, and that's how it came about.

Mr. Mike Niebudek: Madam Chair, on that, if I may add, also our members are very concerned that any allowance given to them is not allowed to be calculated on their pension. So it means that if you have a person who works in that area with a high cost of living and wants to retire there, his pension will be the same thing as the one who lives in Flin Flon, Manitoba, for example. So it's not superannuable, which we believe it should be.

Mr. Richard Harris: So the salary adjustment of moving to a higher cost-of-living area is not calculated in the pension?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: No.

Mr. Richard Harris: I live in Prince George, B.C., and have many friends in the RCMP. I make a point to talk to the members, as well as staff relation officers, both in my riding and south—

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: Which one? Tim Kennedy?

Mr. Richard Harris: Tim Kennedy, of course, yes.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: He's leaving, I'm told.

Mr. Richard Harris: Yes.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: Too bad.

Mr. Richard Harris: Yes. And I watch the budget cuts and the closure of CPAC offices, which have been very successful, and the increasing hardships of the rank and file members. When I ask the members what they think of all this—I hope I don't put you on the spot with this question—most replies I get are that it's almost like the government wants to get rid of us and turn the policing to the provinces. Through these cuts and through the additional burdens, the pressures, the stress put on officers having to operate with fewer and fewer resources, they believe that it's almost like the government wants to get rid of the RCMP, offloading the policing totally to the provinces or to the municipalities or cities.

How do you respond to that?

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: I'll respond with personal knowledge of what's going on in Quebec. If you're talking about DSRR, I'm happy to tell you that I am a DSRR. I've been a DSRR for 22 years. And because I was advocating union activities, I was even dismissed as a DSRR—or they tried to dismiss me. So that's how far those divreps you are talking about are so exceptionally gifted in representing their own members.

Nevertheless, in Quebec we are going through almost the same formula. Mr. Loubier alluded to it. We have seven detachments right now that are under the gun. Mr. Fortin, who is behind you, was in charge of a subdivision not too long ago in Quebec City, where right now the move—and I do believe it was started under his...maybe not his guidance, but he was there. Therefore, we're facing that from one place to another. That's no secret. But the other end of it is that if it's the case, other police departments go through the same problem. Are their representatives involved in the discussions and everything? They should be, because they're under contract to do so.

Since you've talked with the divreps, were they involved?

Mr. Richard Harris: I get your point.

Mr. Gaétan Delisle: Thank you. We call it a company union, les pantins du commissaire. Unfortunately, I'm one of them. I'm one of them, except that we expressed it.

Mr. Richard Harris: Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell): From what little I know of the bill, I don't think that topic's really covered in it. So I'll ask if there are any more questions related to the bill.

If there aren't any further questions, I'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee today, and I'll adjourn the meeting.