Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Pension Policy
Four demands: the ground of the difference between the pension Acts, or “no record”; the President’s position.
The letter ·
Re: RE: The Treasury Board decides whether a police officer keeps a pension, and holds no such power over a deputy minister
Hello,
This answers the message of 23 September 2026 from Pension Policy and Programs. My letter of 2 September was addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. The answer came from a mailbox with no name on it, and it answers 1 of my 3 questions by sending me to another minister.
WHAT THE SECRETARIAT HAS NOW PUT IN WRITING.
"Neither the Treasury Board nor the President of the Treasury Board has authority under the PSSA to reduce or withhold a public servant's pension benefit because the person was dismissed for misconduct." That sentence is the finding of my bill, written by the Secretariat and dated 23 September 2026. It goes into the bill and into the public register in those words.
THE OFFICE THAT SAYS IT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE IS THE OFFICE THAT DID IT.
Your message sends the question on subsection 11(4) to the Minister of Public Safety. Three texts say otherwise.
Financial Administration Act, subsection 5(1): the Treasury Board is a committee "over which the President of the Treasury Board … shall preside." The discretion in subsection 11(4) belongs to the Treasury Board. The President chairs the body that decides whether a constable keeps the employer's share.
Public Service Superannuation Act, subsection 3(1): "Minister means the President of the Treasury Board." The statute that lost its misconduct rule in 1999 is the President's own statute.
Bill C-78 of 1999, which repealed the definition, was a Government bill. LEGISinfo records its sponsor: the President of the Treasury Board.
So the President chairs the body that punishes the constable, is the Minister for the statute that no longer punishes the deputy minister, and holds the office that sponsored the bill which made it so. Your message says that office has no position. It is a statement that nobody in the Secretariat will own the difference.
THE WAIVER SENTENCE IS FALSE.
Your message: the ATIP Office "has responded to you separately on that matter." File A-2026-00378 holds 2 messages from the ATIP Office, of 2 September and 9 September. Both demand 5 dollars. Neither contains the word waiver, a decision under subsection 11(2), a reason, or the name of the officer who holds the delegated power under subsection 95(1). My letter of 9 September set 16 September for that decision. The Secretariat let the date pass. On 23 September it told me a decision exists. "We understand" is not a record. Produce the decision, or withdraw the sentence.
YOUR OWN RULE, APPLIED TO YOU.
"Authority to reduce or withhold such benefits cannot be inferred where the legislation does not provide it." Correct. Now read the Access to Information Act by the same rule. It provides no power to place a request "in abeyance", no power to hold it "pending receipt of the application fee", and no power to close it as "abandoned". Those 3 phrases are the Secretariat's, from 2 and 9 September, and none of them is in the Act. The Act provides 1 power on fees, in subsection 11(2): to waive. The Secretariat has used 3 powers it does not have and left unused the 1 it has.
WHAT I REQUIRE BY 7 OCTOBER 2026.
1. The basis for the difference between a constable and a deputy minister, or a written statement that the Secretariat holds no record of one. The records are item 2 of file A-2026-00378, and the Secretariat is holding them for 5 dollars.
2. The President's own answer, over the President's name: extend subsection 11(4) to the public service statute, repeal it for the RCMP, or decline to choose. Silence is recorded as the fourth answer.
3. The decision under subsection 11(2) on file A-2026-00378, with reasons, and the name and title of the officer who made it.
4. The name and title of the official who wrote the message of 23 September.
WHAT HAPPENS TODAY.
The complaint under paragraphs 30(1)(b) and 30(1)(f) goes to the Information Commissioner today, as my letter of 9 September said it would. The question on subsection 11(4) goes to the Minister of Public Safety today, in the words your message chose. The National Police Federation, which represents the only federal employees the rule reaches, receives the Secretariat's sentence today. On 7 October the record of what the President chose not to answer goes with the bill to the Senate, and to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which oversees the Secretariat.
Respectfully,
Danilo Dzyuban
The answer ·
Good afternoon, Danilo Dzyuban,
Thank you for your correspondence of September 2, 2026, regarding the application of certain provisions of federal pension legislation and your access to information request (file A‑2026‑00378).
The RCMP pension plan is governed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (RCMPSA) and its regulations. Although subsection 11(4) of the RCMPSA assigns a specific discretion to the Treasury Board, any amendment or repeal of that provision would require an amendment to the RCMPSA. The Minister of Public Safety is the minister responsible for the RCMP pension plan.
The Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA) no longer contains an equivalent provision. Accordingly, neither the Treasury Board nor the President of the Treasury Board has authority under the PSSA to reduce or withhold a public servant’s pension benefit because the person was dismissed for misconduct. Authority to reduce or withhold such benefits cannot be inferred where the legislation does not provide it.
Regarding the request for a fee waiver, we understand that the TBS Access to Information and Privacy Office has responded to you separately on that matter.
Thank you,