Bill C-18 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other Acts

This enactment amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to add the provisions necessary for the implementation of amendments made to that Act by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act that relate to elective service and pension transfer agreements. It also brings into force certain provisions enacted by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act. Finally, the enactment validates certain calculations and amends other Acts.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his support of the bill. I would like to talk about some of the issues raised by one of the other questioners from his party.

When we are talking about morale, does the member not think that the hiring of over 1,600 additional police officers for the RCMP is good for morale? Would he not say that attracting members to the force and having their morale start in a positive way, and paying recruits who were not paid before for their six months at depot, is good for their morale? Would he not agree with me that expanding the training facilities at depot is good for the morale of the RCMP?

If I were to tell the member that at committee, Deputy Commissioner Sweeney from the RCMP said that the recruitment process in the RCMP was meeting its goal, in other words, it was almost at the maximum ability of depot to train officers, would that not be good for morale?

While the wage increase is not where it should be, does the member not agree that some Canadians are taking advantage of some of the improvements to employment insurance by taking part, with some employers, in work-shares, so employment insurance is assisting people to stay at work? People are accepting no wage increases. At General Motors, the employees are accepting a wage decrease in order to keep their jobs. Would he not say that a 1.5% increase in employment is good for morale?

If morale were that bad, we would not see people wanting to become members of the RCMP. Again, I refer to the member for Toronto Centre. When he was the premier of Ontario, not only did he not give the police forces in Ontario a raise, in particular the police force of which I was a member, the Ontario Provincial Police force, he actually reduced their pay.

I wonder if the hon. member could respond to that.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have never been a police officer but it seems to me that it is one of those jobs where people put their lives on the line each and every day. When they walk into an apartment building they have no idea what will happen or how it will come down. When they drive down the streets of Toronto, Vancouver or any other large city, they have no idea what will happen next. They, in effect, live life on the edge. We see way too many police officers either being injured or killed in the course of their line of duty.

It gets kind of elemental. It seems to me that if my employer is expecting me to put my life on the line each and every day, in each and every way, the least I could expect of my employer is to honour my wage agreements. That is as base and as elemental as it gets. Just simply honouring the collective agreement that they already entered into will do more for morale than pretty well everything that the hon. member mentioned previously.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, some significant problems of morale are attached to what is happening at the executive level within the RCMP. Does my friend and colleague not think that it is time for the government to engage the executive and broaden the grassroots of the RCMP so they would have the ability to influence what is taking place within their organization and unionize without striking, which would give rank and file members the ability to advocate for their considerable needs on the ground?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is obviously far more familiar with these kinds of issues than I am. He does raise a rather significant issue with respect to the senior officers of the RCMP. I think that it is way beyond the scope of this particular bill. However, it does afford opportunities for the committee to review various issues of morale and clarify the lines of authority so that the men and women who put their lives at risk every day will be honoured in every way.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is concerned about how members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who have reached retirement age are treated. Many of them have had to make major sacrifices in the name of freedom and justice. Many of them have put their own lives and safety on the line. The Bloc is also aware that the RCMP is having some recruitment problems, and we believe that recognizing years of service with provincial or municipal police services could be part of the solution.

To ensure that all members of the RCMP receive just and fair treatment, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill at second reading so that it can go to committee. That way, we will hear what various witnesses have to say and we will be able to take a thorough look at parts of this bill that raise issues. Studying the bill in committee will give us a chance to call witnesses from various groups so that they can all have their say about Bill C-18.

During this time of economic crisis, and given the fragile state of public finances, the Bloc Québécois is also concerned about sound management of public funds. That is why we are committed to a thorough examination of the viability of the RCMP pension fund and all possible financial repercussions of this bill.

On March 9, the Minister of Public Safety introduced Bill C-18 at first reading. Bill C-18 amends the pension plan created under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. Principal changes to the act provide the necessary powers to broaden past service provisions and to implement pension transfer agreements. Past service means buying back years of service for entitlement to a full pension. Bill C-18 sets the cost of buying back service according to actuarial rules. According to information from the Library of Parliament, the member is responsible for the cost of buying back past years of service. Buy-back can be financed through the member's former pension plan.

This bill contains a number of very technical provisions. I share the view that promoting lateral entries from one police force to another is a good thing. In general, I share the concerns of the members who have already spoken that people who have been in a job for a certain length of time and who are no longer happy do not perform at their best. When they stay in a job just because they want to keep their pension benefits, they do not perform at their best. If they are allowed to change jobs and transfer their pensions, they will start their new jobs with new enthusiasm, contribute fully and be much more effective. The various technical provisions will be studied in committee.

The RCMP divisional representatives in Quebec have some concerns. For example, until a legislative change was made, the time spent in training by cadets, as recruits are known, was included in their pensionable service. According to the RCMP divisional representatives in Quebec, though, the definitions in Bill C-18 still do not recognize the years RCMP cadets spent in training. According to the RCMP, this is an anomaly, because under Bill C-18, recruit training in provincial and municipal police forces would be recognized when officers join the RCMP, at least, for all the officers coming from police forces in Ontario and Manitoba.

The Bloc Québécois will look at all of this in committee and will benefit from the testimony of the stakeholders. Many members of the RCMP will soon be receiving their pensions. The figure of 1,600 was mentioned. These police officers will have to be replaced. It is important that potential members continue to know that they are exposed to certain risks, but that those risks are offset by attractive salaries and pensions.

Therefore, we want this bill to go to committee so that we can hear all the stakeholders.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges RCMP officers have across the country came as a consequence of the slaughter of RCMP officers a few years ago in the Prairies. RCMP officers must now travel by twos to calls that could be dangerous. This is more than understandable. The problem is the huge manpower deficit on the force.

The Government of Canada has said that it has put in some monies, but I would suggest that has been quite late in coming because it promised to do this years ago, and the needs of the RCMP are actually much greater. Also the monies are not there to pay for the RCMP officers on the ground to do their work. The RCMP budget does not cover the hours required to do the coverage. For example, in Sooke there is only 70% of a full complement. That 70% has to work more than 100% of what is required. Therefore, the officers accrue overtime, which is normal, fair and due to them, but it destroys the budget of the RCMP and therefore, the coverage declines.

Does the member not think that the government should forthwith put forward the resources to provide the RCMP officers the operating budget they need to do their work while they have a significant deficit in manpower?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. colleague about the RCMP not having adequate resources at this time. Not only does it lack resources, but it is constantly being given new duties. But that is not the issue here. I also completely agree with the previous speakers who denounced the way the RCMP was treated at the time of the last wage increase. RCMP members were told they would receive a certain wage increase, and that amount was later reduced. It seems to me that when a promise is made, it must be kept. True, in private companies, where some people were especially well paid, employees agreed to reductions, but again, those wage reductions were negotiated. We have not yet reached the point where wage reductions are necessary in the public service. When a promise is made, people have every right to expect that that promise will be kept.

Now the RCMP faces other problems. In my opinion, some duties should be given to independent agencies. For instance, forensic laboratories come to mind. We would see increased credibility if those labs did not report to the police forces, given that they are called upon to testify in courts of law where they must appear completely independent and unbiased towards either the prosecution or defence. Furthermore, they have so many duties that turnaround times are getting longer and longer.

I learned this week that the RCMP's budget is being reduced this year. I had the figures yesterday—I do not remember the exact number—but it is several tens of thousands of dollars anyway. I do not understand such decisions. However, that is not the problem at issue in the bill before us. For this bill, we hope to reach a consensus to bring forward the necessary changes.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, RCMP officers also face a human resources challenge.

The human resources complaints are not dealt with properly or effectively. One solution I have proposed really comes from my experience working as a physician in the emergency room of a hospital. I have had the privilege of working with RCMP officers. As my colleague mentioned, they do an extraordinarily difficult job, often under dangerous circumstances. All of us need to remember that.

What would make it easier for RCMP officers to have their human resources challenges and other concerns dealt with is if they were able to unionize, not to strike, but to have their concerns dealt with through binding final offer arbitration if other forms of arbitration did not work.

Would my colleague support my private member's initiative to allow the RCMP to unionize as an essential service, but not to strike? In that way, the members of the RCMP could have their needs addressed in a responsible, fair and transparent way, which I think would improve the morale.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not prepared to talk about this issue this morning, but I can say that I agree that members of the RCMP should have the right to freedom of association, a right that has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. There is an officer whose name I have forgotten, but I remember the case well because I have read it several times and talked about it often. I could not find it in my computer's memory this morning, but it is there somewhere.

In the past, the Bloc Québécois has introduced private members' bills to enable people to exercise their right to free association. The officer whose name I have forgotten lost his case, but he lost it on the grounds that the union would have been part of the general public service union. The Supreme Court's decision rested on the fact that if there is to be a police union, it must be separate from public service unions because its members may, in the course of their duties, find themselves in certain positions. However, the Supreme Court ruling did not say that they do not have the right to form a union.

Therefore, I agree completely. It has occurred to me that, should I have the opportunity to introduce a bill, this subject would be my second choice, my first being the protection of journalistic sources. We will support a bill if it is well written and complies with the framework the Supreme Court has set out. Frankly, I think that your party is one of the reasons for this delay because this case was before the Supreme Court before 2006, even before 2004. I think it happened in the last millennium.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the other challenges is that the RCMP and other police officers across the country are finding that organized crime gangs have the upper hand in many cases. Our legislation has not kept up with the advances in the technological abilities of those involved in organized crime. The real parasites in our society are profiteering off the status quo, driven primarily by drug money.

In British Columbia there have been over 40 shootings. There have been 19 deaths and 20 people have been injured. They are people who have been caught in the crossfire of drug battles, or people who have been part of the crime gang drug battles. Essentially, these battles are turf wars driven financially through drug money.

The government ought to be listening to the RCMP and other police forces in Quebec and across the rest of Canada. It should adopt the solutions the RCMP is asking for. The police should be able to share information, to extract information, to tap into the IT tools, such as BlackBerries, and use that information against those involved in organized crime.

One of the most difficult challenges is to ensure that the speed with which the judicial process occurs will quicken. Right now the judicial process is too slow. It needs to be more efficient. We need to support initiatives to improve those areas within our judicial system.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely broad topic. Personally, I completely disagree with this government's policies and the way it deals with crime. This government knows only one solution for everything: tougher sentences, and they definitely do not work. The United States has proven this, since their crime rate is much higher than that of Canada. Their homicide rate is three and half times higher than Canada's, and five times higher than Quebec's, I might add.

I would remind the hon. member that in the past, I introduced a new method for dealing with organized gangs, and that was the integrated teams. When I was the Quebec minister of public safety, together with the chiefs of the Montreal police and the Quebec provincial police, I founded the famous Carcajou squad, which finally managed to break the back of the Hells Angels. I never asked for tougher sentences. The crimes committed by these people were serious enough that the Criminal Code allowed for extremely tough sentences, which they were given.

As for warrants to tap into devices other than telephones, it seems to me that we have already seen a bill on that. I am for it. I think we must find ways to tap into these new technologies. I could go on at length about this. The current government, with its tendency to follow the worst example of our neighbour to the south, is overlooking intelligent approaches that have been taken in other provinces. Once again, this demonstrates that we are indeed two very distinct nations. If we were one people—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. The time provided for questions and comments has expired.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity speak today at second reading of Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other Acts, which is a long title.

I will first tell the House what this bill is not about. It is not about the RCMP, in general, as an organization. I think as all Canadians know, and for the benefit of those watching, it is important to understand that this debate is not about the issues that our party and other Canadians have with some of the actions of the RCMP, in particular, RCMP management failing to take appropriate measures to protect Canadians in terms of the policies regarding tasers and the ongoing debate about that.

We are concerned of course about the failure to have policies that meet the test of Canadian values. We are very concerned about the failure of the government to provide proper civilian oversight of the RCMP, which was called for by Justice O'Connor and was implicit in Mr. Justice Iacobucci's recommendations. The Auditor General has pointed out some of the problems. We are also concerned about the government's failure to apologize for RCMP actions that contributed to the international torture of Canadians in Syria and Egypt.

Those are all things we have concerns about but this bill is not about those things. This bill is about the pay and benefits and the proper treatment of individuals who serve in our Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have a great respect for the work they do in protecting our communities. They serve, as members know, in many provinces as the provincial police force. They do in British Columbia and in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with the exception of St. John's, Cornerbrook and Labrador City which are under the jurisdiction of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. They are a very important part of rural Canada. They are the means of support for our communities, not only in terms of providing great policing and risking their lives in providing safety to our communities, but they also play an important role in community activities as volunteers, as leaders of sports activities, being role models for individuals and those who wish to serve their country. We do have a lot of respect for what the RCMP do in our communities across the country.

On the issue of pay and benefits, we are concerned that the government, after agreeing with the RCMP, through its special service representatives, on a pay increase that was to take effect this year, putting it in its manuals and in its HR provisions, unilaterally withdrew that and reduced the pay increase, effectively reducing their pay. We are very supportive of the RCMP members in their campaign to reverse that decision. We are not happy with some of the things that the government has done.

We do, however, support this legislation which is designed to provide a level playing field for Mounties when it comes to their pensions, particularly with respect to the portability of service.

In the federal public service, there are 75 transfer agreements with other agencies to allow the transfer of pensionable service from one employment to another. It is true for members of this House and it is true for most public servants under the public service pensions benefits act. It is also true in other parts of the country.

This legislation is long overdue. Legislation was passed in 1999 that was supposed to allow for portability of pensions. However, when the government finally, five or six years later, got around to drafting the regulations to make it possible, it was determined the legislation itself was inadequate to do what needed to be done.

Therefore, here we are again, 10 years later, passing legislation to enable this to happen. I am certainly disappointed in that because I know the RCMP members have been looking for this kind of pension portability since the mid-1990s.

This is long overdue but we do need to study it. We support the principle of it because it is very important. Many individuals serving in municipal police forces across the country providing yeomen service to their communities may want to transfer into the RCMP and they should be able to take their pension service and pension credits with them. This bill would allow them to do that.

It is important that we have that kind of portability. It should be available to Canadians generally, but in this particular case we are dealing with employees of the Government of Canada through the RCMP and we want to assure people that we support these changes.

The other important part of this bill is that it would allow agreements to be made with other agencies to transfer those pension credits and the money that goes with them, because, frankly, every time there is pensionable service, there has to be an amount of money set aside. It is usually defined by actuaries as to how much money it would take to actually pay out the pension that one has earned and that money would be transferred in.

This bill would also give members of the RCMP the opportunity to buy back previous service. Even though eligible service may not have been pensionable in the other work, it would now be pensionable through this bill. There are provisions for the member who is paying the actuarial value of that, essentially buying into the service that is deemed to be pensionable service for the purpose of this bill.

This bill has significant monetary implications for individual members but it is designed to create a system that provides fairness to RCMP members, whether they are coming into the RCMP from another service or with other pensionable service, such as Canadian Forces service, military police service and other kinds of service that are deemed appropriate to be included in pensionable service for police officers, or whether they are going out of the RCMP for another opportunity in a different police service.

We could have members of the RCMP who want to apply for jobs in other communities with another police service. This could be a significant advancement for that individual into a more senior position. We would not want them to be stuck in a job because of pension inflexibility when there are other opportunities for them.

We support the bill in principle. We have been advised that a couple of questions have been asked by RCMP officers, some of whom are part of the official group called the staff relations representatives, an internal RCMP group elected by the members in various provinces and who are on the RCMP payroll. It is not a union, which is another issue on which we are unhappy with the government. The government has been fighting unionization in the courts, despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has said that RCMP officers are entitled to the benefits of the freedom of association guaranteed to everyone in this country under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, they are still having to fight and another court case is going on now.

The RCMP staff relations representatives are pleased that this bill is coming forward after more than a dozen years of trying to get this forward. However, other organizations and associations are seeking unionization and they brought forth some concerns as well.

As others have said, we do need to recognize that this is a very technical bill. Pensions are very technical and require actuarial considerations where costing is concerned. Any time a change is made, a cost is associated with it but the question is whether the cost will be borne by the individual who is getting the benefit or by the government for other policy reasons.

I will not be proposing changes here on the floor of this House at second reading. The bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security where there will be opportunities to look at the kinds of changes that might need to be made. There may need to be some adjustments to fix anomalies.

One anomaly that has been suggested to me is the potential problem of discriminatory treatment between people who have perhaps had their training with another force. I do not know all of the facts but the suggestion is that the training component in other police forces, the work they do as recruits, as cadets, is paid for in pensionable service. I think the OPP was mentioned as an example. Someone transferring from the OPP into the RCMP pension fund will be able to take that pensionable service with them and get credit for it.

RCMP officers who are recruited today and go to their training as cadets, are now paid. The six months that they spend training, they are salaried employees and, presumably, covered by the pensionable service. However, existing RCMP officers who were trained years ago, whether it was 2 years ago, 10 years ago or 15 years ago, that period of training is not included in their pensionable service. That seems to me to be an anomaly and there may need to be some arrangements made to allow that to be pensionable service so there is a level playing field. Some provision may need to be made for either that to be placed in pensionable service or that the members may be able to buy back that service as part of their overall pension.

Those are technical things about which we would look forward to hearing from the RCMP members themselves, whether retired or active, whether they are involved with a staff relations representative or whether they are involved with those organizations that are seeking unionization.

Having said all that, I do want to say that we support the bill. It is an important advancement for the benefits of RCMP members. It is something we can support on a stand-alone basis while we criticize the government for its inaction on a lot of other points, whether they be the wage rates that were rolled back, the failure to support unionization or the failure on another level to make changes to the RCMP organization that we think are desirable.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear that my friend from the NDP will be voting in favour of this legislation, subject, of course, to some of the issues that may come up in public safety committee, of which we are both members.

I listened intently to his preamble, which really had nothing to do with the bill, so I think it offers an opportunity for some questions that actually have to do with the bill.

One of the issues he talked about and the reason NDP members are supporting the bill is that it is good for the RCMP. I am glad to hear they will be supporting the bill but, of course, the vote in the House will be the determining factor as to whether they do. We have been disappointed by some of those votes, which relate directly to support of the RCMP. I refer to budgetary items such as the hiring of 1,600 members of the RCMP. When we work really hard, we need extra bodies to help, and he and his party voted against that.

He and members of his party also voted against money to expand Depot so they could train those new officers. He also voted against some of the other measures we took that will greatly enhance the RCMP's ability to do their job.

I wonder if he would like to comment on those additional things. Why did he vote against those measures?