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

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

moved 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.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-18.

As hon. members may know, I spent 30 years as a member of the police department of Woodstock, Ontario. I entered as a constable and retired from the force as chief of police. The well-being of Canada's police officers is a subject near and dear to my own heart.

What we have before us is a matter of unfinished business.

This bill proposes certain technical amendments to the RCMP Superannuation Act which would improve pension portability; in other words, transferring the value of benefits earned under a former plan to a new one.

The act was first amended in 1999, with the same intent. However, when work began on drafting the enabling regulations, it was learned the legislative changes did not go far enough. This bill would close those gaps. Once implemented through regulation, these amendments would modernize the RCMP Superannuation Act and bring it in line with the federal public service pension plan and other plans.

Specifically, Bill C-18 would do three things.

First, it would support Parliament's 1999 intention to expand existing provisions for election of prior service. Currently, members of the RCMP pension plan can transfer credits for prior service with a police force that was absorbed by the RCMP, with the Canadian Forces, with the Public Service of Canada, with the Senate, or with the House of Commons. Under new provisions, eligible members could elect to purchase credits from other Canadian pension plans; a municipal or provincial police force, for instance.

Second, is the matter of pension transfer arrangements that the amended superannuation act would support. As we know, a pension transfer agreement is typically a formal arrangement between two employers. It would allow a plan member to increase pensionable service by directly transferring the actuarial value of benefits earned under a previous plan to a new one.

Last, the bill contains other related amendments that would clarify and improve some administrative and eligibility aspects of the act. For example, it would validate certain historical calculations related to part-time employment and the cost of elections for prior service with a police force that was taken over by the RCMP. It would also better protect pension eligibility for those transferring benefits from the public service, the Canadian Forces, or for retired senators and members of Parliament who continue their career with the RCMP.

Greater fairness and flexibility in RCMP superannuation are important considerations. They are important benefits that this bill would deliver.

Like pretty much all employers in the country, the RCMP faces an aging workforce and stiff competition from other employers seeking to attract the best and brightest to their ranks. Somewhere around 700 members are retiring each year from the RCMP.

To replace retiring members and meet operational requirements in the future, the RCMP must attract and train a record number of recruits for the next few years. This is another area where improved pension portability may be important, especially when it comes to the recruitment of lateral troops. These are officers with at least two years' service, typically with a municipal or provincial force, who have decided to continue their careers with the RCMP. As such, their training is much shorter than that of regular cadets, at just five weeks.

The idea is to leverage the experience of lateral entrants to quickly develop fully trained police officers who are ready to take up their duties upon arrival in detachment. Once they are there, they require far less supervision by experienced officers, known as field coaches, than brand new constables. That frees up more resources for policing our communities.

Lateral entrants represent just a fraction of the cadets who graduate from the RCMP's training facility each year, roughly 3% or 4%, so we are not talking large numbers. However, at a time of attrition and an increasingly complex and challenging security environment, the RCMP needs all the personnel it can get. Pension portability can help attract experienced officers through the door.

In fact, I hold in my hand excerpts from the 2005 report of the Auditor General of Canada. In it, the Auditor General notes that the cost of training a regular cadet is about $30,000, compared to $2,000 for a lateral entry. Of the lateral entry program, the report states: “--this program is not attractive to potential employees as they cannot transfer their pension contributions to the RCMP pension plan”. All of that would change under the proposed amendments before the House today.

The RCMP Depot is currently capable of training up to 90 lateral entrants a year divided into three troops of 30, but up to now a typical lateral troop contains only about 16 entrants. We believe pension portability has a lot to do with that as, again, it is available right now only to former military police who are covered by the federal Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.

I would also like to note that pension portability as it pertains to transfer agreements is a two-way street. RCMP members may occasionally seek employment with other agencies and organizations, for example, when a family relocates to a new community. If a transfer agreement is in place between the two organizations, then members can take their prior service with them as credit toward pension benefits.

Mobility and flexibility within Canada's security community is a good thing. It benefits the safety of all Canadians and today's generation of employees want options, opportunities and recognition for their good work. This kind of flexibility is already reflected in the pension plans of other federal workers, so I think it only fair that the RCMP members enjoy the same treatment.

It is important to take every reasonable opportunity to support recruitment to our national police force and the well-being and morale of its members. The House saw fit once already in the past to make the legislative adjustments it believed would facilitate greater pension portability to RCMP superannuation, but we have since learned those changes fell short of what was required to put enabling regulations in place to make it all happen.

Let us do it now and not a moment too soon. I call on all hon. members to support the RCMP by supporting Bill C-18.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly the Liberal Party will be supporting the passage of this bill.

I thank the hon. member for his speech. It was a useful speech to frame the debate. This is essentially a transfer agreement among various pension plans so that the RCMP is treated in the same fashion as are other people in the civil service.

There was a question, it seems to me, that arose a few years ago about when an RCMP officer went to a place like Haiti or Afghanistan, and worked there for a period of time and whether he or she would receive pension credits while serving outside of the country. I wonder if the hon. member could clarify that and whether it has in fact been addressed in the bill.

I understand the inter-transferability between the Canadian Forces and the RCMP. What would be other examples where this proposal would benefit the RCMP from, say, other non-police forces? The hon. member is a former police officer. If he ceased to be a member of the House of Commons, would his pension credits generated here be receivable in an RCMP pension plan in the event that he went back to the RCMP?

These are the kinds of questions that will come up in committee but, nevertheless, are good for people to reflect on at this point.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the questions from the member opposite are far too technical for me to answer today. I simply do not have the answers, but I am more than happy to find out for him.

The biggest single advantage to this amendment is that it will now allow the RCMP and other police agencies to be on level playing fields to have lateral movement. In the organization I came from, people left to go to the RCMP and vice versa. There were always difficulties for those members in trying to match up the pension benefits because the legislation was not there.

This is an opportunity for that whole area to be strengthened and to provide clarity. From my perspective, and I think from the community's perspective, one of the bad things that happens is that good young men and women want to do a great job in policing and for whatever reason decide they would like to continue their careers perhaps in other communities and the options are not available. When people are members of a municipal force they are located in that community, so they frequently look to move or, as I said in my earlier comments, it may be that their family is moving.

This will provide the opportunity to keep those good people within policing. It is what they have been trained for and what many of them have dedicated their lives to. It is a good opportunity.

I would like to thank my friend across the aisle for thinking that I might want to continue my career in policing. I think it is in the past as opposed to in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his remarks. I think he did a good job in encapsulating the importance of this bill to provide for mobility of transfer, mobility of pension credits, and also portability within the RCMP.

There are some technical aspects of this, and I do not want to burden the parliamentary secretary, but we have heard some concerns raised that senior RCMP officers did not get credit for the six month training period for which officers are now paid but were not years ago. There may be an anomaly with these individuals not getting credit for their training whereas someone transferring in from the OPP or somewhere else might.

Is the minister prepared to say the government would look favourably upon perhaps some technical changes in committee that may be needed to reduce anomalies and to make sure that there truly is a level playing field? Can he comment on that?

Our party is fully supporting this bill. It is unfortunate that previous legislation passed in 1999 was not really brought in with proper regulations and made workable. I want to commend the government on doing this now. We will be supporting it, but we would like to look at some of the possibilities that certain changes might need to be made. Would the parliamentary secretary be able to comment on that?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think some of the issues that are raised may be more in the realm of what they may be or may not be. Some of the issues may have been already resolved within the act itself. I think the proper place for us to examine those will be in committee.

The member who just asked the question is a valued member of that committee. I am certain he will have those questions and by the time this gets to committee, we will have those answers for him. I think they are appropriate, they are questions that may very well be out there from a lot of people. Within committee, will be the appropriate place to get those answers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like ask my hon. colleague, a former RCMP officer, a simple question.

Before Christmas the RCMP received a very nasty present. The government tore up its wage agreement, an agreement that would have simply given the RCMP wage parity with other police forces across this country. Right now we have a situation where we have a massive global deficit. RCMP officers are paid less than municipal and provincial police forces in Canada. They work extremely hard. They have the largest expanded coverage, not only within our country but they are deployed abroad under very dangerous circumstances.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague, as an RCMP officer, at his gut level, with his former brothers and sisters and comrades in the RCMP, does he not think it is an affront to every single RCMP officer in this country that his government tore that agreement up, and that it is in effect going to damage the ability of people to get into the RCMP and to retain the RCMP officers who do a remarkable job from coast to coast in our country and around the world? Will he commit to asking his government to change that deplorable decision and enable the RCMP officers to get the wage increase that they deserve?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this member took this opportunity to get quite a ways off base. If he had been here a few minutes earlier, he would have heard that I was not a member of the RCMP. In fact, I was a member of a municipal police force in Canada.

This bill is about assisting RCMP officers, those who join in lateral entry or those who leave and take lateral entry to another force for whatever reason. If the hon. member was to make inquires and to listen to the committee, he would find that the RCMP have been able to recruit large numbers of new recruits. This government has begun the process that was ended by the former government in paying recruits while they are at depot, which is something brand new in these last few months.

I appreciate his comments, but I think that he is in the wrong venue, given the tenor of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary raised some issues that are important, and that is the ability of police officers to go from one force to another for a myriad of reasons. They could be going from a smaller police force to a larger police force that affords them an opportunity to expand their horizons, whether it be training or some special investigative unit and so on. It also permits the transferability from larger police forces to smaller police forces to bring that kind of expertise. It could be from strictly a personal or family ability to follow one's wife or husband in another job.

The parliamentary secretary might want to educate the last questioner on what occurred when a member of his party was the premier of Ontario. Not only did he not give police officers raises, he cut back on their salaries by what was referred to as “something days”.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is also a former police officer with the Ontario Provincial Police.

The bill is about providing equalization to the RCMP and to those members who are currently serving and those who wish to join. I do know what my colleague is speaking about. We all suffered during a period of time when we were all forced to take time off even if we did not want to. I am not sure this is the proper place to debate those things today.

This is a good bill. We need to take the high road on it and get it through the House in a hurry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had the benefit of reading this bill last night. I can assure hon. members that if there is any need for insomnia cures, this would be a recommended bill to read. As the hon. parliamentary secretary said, it is a very technical bill. It will be debated in committee and will be supported by our party. The previous questions had to do with fairly technical issues about transferability and calculation of the pensions.

It is an important bill and it one which rectifies a number of inequities in our treatment of this very important institution and the men and women who constitute the RCMP and their role and contribution to our society. It builds upon the work that was done in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act in 2003, which modernized these pensions.

As I said, the Liberal Party will support the bill and it will be one that I hope receives a thorough review in the committee so these inequities can be addressed.

Pensions have been a subject of concern for Canadians for a while now. Going back to the previous government, the Chrétien and Martin years, pensions were addressed as an overall concept, particularly with respect to the Canada pension plan. Over much protest, particularly by the Conservative Party but by others as well, the Canada pension plan was made into a viable, fiscally sound pension plan. In fact, it is fiscally sound for 75 years, which is the last year I heard. Primarily it was done by the upping of contributions by way of payroll deductions, which was good. Now we are in a very serious economic situation and we can take some comfort in the fact that the Canada pension plan is a viable one and Canadians can rely on that.

I am quite pleased the government has appointed the parliamentary secretary to review federally regulated pension plans. There certainly are some controversies around pension plans at this stage, particularly with respect to the ratios, the amounts of money that need to be set aside to fund the pension obligations. Those ratios are under strain.

One issue that will come up, particularly with respect to pension plans that will be unable to meet the criteria, is the issue of whether we would move the age of eligibility upward, which is a breach of good faith with those who have counted on 65 being the age of eligibility. That would have to be a question. I hope the parliamentary secretary and the government will address that. They will also have to address the huge meltdown in assets that has taken place.

Caisse de depot, for instance, has lost something in the order of 25% of its value over the last year, about $40 billion, some of it just by virtue of the market cycle, but some by virtue of very poor investments in asset-backed commercial paper.

In this morning's news, the teachers' pension plan was reorganizing its portfolio away from direct investments in Canadian corporations and into less direct investments in a broader array of companies, particularly in derivative products. That is a decision, the consequences of which is the teachers' pension plan will have less influence in the boardrooms of the nation, which some might argue is not a good thing.

The entire pension field is operating in a real state of flux as the economics and the viability of pension plans come under question. We have for instance, the GM Chrysler pension plans and all of us have significant pressure for this bailout. The irony is that Canadian taxpayers, 70% of whom do not have pensions, are being asked to “bail out” the pension plans of Chrysler workers, GM workers and possibly even Air Canada workers.

I have been contacted, as I am sure other members have been contacted, about the inequity and unfairness of people without pensions being asked to bail out people who have pensions. This will strain the government's resources and it is a moral issue as to how parliamentarians react to those claims. These are questions will have to be asked.

I commend the government for appointing the parliamentary secretary to at least stimulate the conversation and engage the debate. I wish the government had moved on this issue a bit earlier, as these questions will take a great deal of time to resolve and a great number of financial resources. We are in a situation where we have declining financial capacity, yet we are forced to address these questions.

On the narrow and specific issue of the Liberal Party's support for Bill C-18, we will vote in favour of having the issues raised here and others raised in committee. The Liberal Party supports the bill in principle.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. members for speaking in favour of this bill. It is a very important one and it is a long time in coming. Our party is certainly going to support it.

Private pensions are not portable, and we have a lot of miners, teachers, tradesmen, welders, machinists who go from job to job. Would his party be in favour of supporting portable pensions for private businesses?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an interesting question to which I do not have an opinion. Notwithstanding what my wife's views are, that I have opinions on everything, on this matter I do not.

The issue of transferability of private pension plans from business to business is an interesting one, but a very problematic one as well. We operate in a context where the majority of Canadians do not have pension plans outside of the Canada pension plan. An issue may also be raised with respect to RRSPs.

I regret being unable to respond in a direct fashion. I certainly would not purport to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party on that issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for all his hard work on this issue. We support the bill, as he mentioned.

I want to get back to an issue I spoke about before. The bill will only be good if the RCMP force is inspired and the morale is good. Right now the morale in the RCMP is very poor. The officers across the country work extremely hard and they work overtime. In my community in Sooke on the West Shore of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, RCMP officers are well overstretched in the jobs they do.

One thing that has demoralized them is the broken promise that took place in December when the RCMP's wage agreement was torn up by the government, even though the Prime Minister had announced publicly that his government would honour it. We know this will negatively affect our ability to attract and retain RCMP officers, contrary to what the parliamentary secretary said.

Does my hon. colleague not think the government should do the right thing, go back and honour the wage agreement that the Prime Minister promised the RCMP last year? In doing so, that would help us retain members in our force and attract new members to what is clearly one of the best police forces in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is an element of trust beyond the normal employer-employee relationship when we are dealing with Canada's main police force and the government. It is a special relationship where the RCMP is cast into a whole variety of roles, many of which are almost morally ambiguous roles, and it finds itself on the front lines of some of the most difficult situations that can be imagined.

I accept as truth the hon. member's assertion that the morale of the force is in some decline and that it is in a difficult situation. It is, therefore, somewhat anomalous that the government should, on the one hand, redress certain inconsistencies in pension legislation and yet simultaneously, in the later part of last year, effectively rip up the wage agreement.

I do not think that is a great way to encourage morale. We ask those people to do some pretty difficult things for us and the government should honour that trust. It should not only proceed with Bill C-18 but it should review its decision with respect to the wage anomalies.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, does the member really think Canadians are that stupid that they do not understand that nobody votes separately on a budget item in this House, such as whether we should increase the number of police officers? We support the increasing of support for the RCMP, and we have supported that publicly. We know it helps to make communities safer. We need to act to prevent crime, not just treat criminals with the kind of harsh measures that the government seems to have as the only solution.

Members opposite do this every day. They think that Canadians are really stupid and they do not understand that when we vote for a budget, it is the entire budget, all the bad things. The budget, for example, contains the rollback of RCMP wages. All the negative things are also in the budget. A budget is a statement of confidence in the government and we do not have it, which is why we voted against the budget.

It is not a question of voting against individual measures. Obviously there are many positive things in any budget. If what the member said were true, no budget would ever be defeated and no one would ever really bother to have budget votes. The government would just say that this is its budget and everyone will support it because otherwise they will be voting against something positive.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for St. John's East for his fine speech and for his indication that the NDP will be supporting the bill at second reading.

I want to ask him something specifically about the importance of this legislation. In the province of British Columbia and in Newfoundland as well RCMP officers in many of our communities are the only police force. In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan the RCMP is the only police force there. I also understand that in many of our communities, and again this is the case in my community, we often have difficulty in filling the vacancies for RCMP officers. The bill currently before us may help in some of that recruitment and retention.

I wonder if the member could comment first of all on some of the challenges he sees with recruitment and retention of RCMP officers, but also how the implications in Bill C-10, which roll back that agreement, will contribute to some challenges for the RCMP in recruiting the members that many of our communities rely on. Rural and remote communities are often not the first community of choice. If we cannot make sure that RCMP officers are treated fairly with their wages and pensions, we are going to have increasing difficulties. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to RCMP officers, first and foremost they are people with careers with families, who want to understand that they have financial security and that they are treated fairly. The bill is an aspect of that. They are going to have more security in their jobs and are more likely to stay in those jobs, and undertake the responsibilities of working in small communities, doing their duty in places where others may not wish to go because they will know they are being treated well by their pension system. That is an enhancement of that.

The taking away of pay increases is a bit of a breach of faith and does go the other way and increases the insecurity that RCMP members feel. We are very disappointed with that and why we strongly opposed it. It does affect recruitment and also affects perhaps even more retention, the people who might want to stay for an extra two years knowing they are going to get an increase, and that their pension will be increased and their security after work is going to be increased. They might say, “I might as well get out now because I am not being treated fairly while I am in”, so that is important as well.

First and foremost they are workers, they have families and careers, and they deserve fairness.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-18 which is an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other acts.

From some briefings that were provided in terms of the content of the bill, I want to highlight a couple of the aspects of the bill. I also want to thank the member for St. John's East for highlighting some of the challenges that will be brought forward in committee. The NDP is firmly in support of the bill and the member for St. John's East has identified a few problems that could be resolved at committee, and hopefully the government and other members of the House will take a look at some of the shortfalls in the bill.

The bill aims to make RCMP pensions more portable by allowing for the expansion of existing election for prior service provisions and permitting the introduction of pension transfer agreements.

The pension portability schemes are generally enacted to improve recruitment options especially for lateral applicants. Without pension portability provisions, such as those allowed by Bill C-18, pension credits with former employers, for example, with a municipal police force, would not be transferrable to the RCMP pension plan, making a lateral transfer to the RCMP less attractive.

The introduction of pension transfer arrangements will allow the RCMP to enter into formal arrangements with other Canadian pension plans to permit the transfer of pension credits into and out of the RCMP pension plan. Once implemented the pension transfer agreement sections will bring the RCMP pension plan into line with the federal public service pension plan which has approximately 770 pension transfer agreements.

We can see from that very brief outline that this is a very technical bill, but we can see that these kinds of pension agreements are already in place within the public service. It seems reasonable that the RCMP, who play such a critical role in many of our communities, should be able to have access to the same kinds of arrangements.

The member for St. John's East touched upon this, but I want to remind the House that these proposed changes have actually been in the works since 1995. Once again, what we have is long delays in dealing with some legislative amendments that could have been dealt with more than 10 to 15 years ago. It happened in 1995, in 1999, and it happened again in 2005.

Both the Conservatives and the Liberals simply could not get their act together in terms of addressing this anomaly.

I am pleased that it has now come before the House, but I want to touch on a couple of other points that I know the member for St. John's East raised. I want to touch on them just so that people understand that the bill is still not perfect.

There have been some questions raised about the anomalies in the fact that although current recruits are being paid during training, previous recruits were not being paid. There are some concerns that they will not get the pension credit for that six months of unpaid training. That has changed, but there are current RCMP officers who are serving, who do not have that pension credit or the possibility of that pension credit. Therefore, I am sure that will be raised in committee.

There are other concerns that have been raised around the fact that civilian employees for the RCMP are treated differently. Again, I am sure that will be raised in committee with an opportunity for potential amendments.

I just want to talk about the importance of this for a moment. In the briefing that was provided it talked about recruitment and retention. In my community of Nanaimo—Cowichan, the RCMP are a vital part of the community. The RCMP is our police force. In the province of British Columbia, many of our communities are in that position. I know in Newfoundland that is also the case.

Therefore, this bill is an important one in terms of both recruitment of officers and ongoing retention. I know that in my own community of North Cowichan, as a previous municipal councillor I was part of the protective services committee. One of our roles was examining the agreement that we had between the RCMP, the province and then of course the municipalities. We were consistently short of officers.

I live in a very beautiful part of the country. It was not an issue around RCMP officers wanting to work in my community. It was the fact that recruitment was often an issue. Retention was an issue. There were some challenges with leave provisions. For example, when an officer went on maternity leave at that time, there were no provisions to replace that officer.

Bill C-18 is a very important factor when we talk about recruitment and retention. In many remote communities, it is very difficult to find officers to serve there. We need to make sure we are providing a compensation package, which includes pensions, that is very attractive so that we can recruit and retain.

There is another issue that has come up and has been mentioned a number of times in the House. When Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill, was put forward, it negated the agreement that had been put in place with RCMP officers around wage improvements. I know members throughout the House have been receiving letters, phone calls and emails about the unfairness of this.

I have an email from an officer who wanted to make sure that members understood the potential impact of the negating of that agreement in Bill C-10. The email states:

For the last 135 years, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been at the heart of our communities, serving Canadians and keeping us safe.

From stopping liquor trafficking and gaining the respect and confidence of Aboriginal peoples to fighting child sexual exploitation and clamping down on gang and gun crime; Canada's national police force has always counted on men and women of sound constitution and good character to serve and protect. And for more than a century, that's exactly what thousands have done.

On December 11, 2008, Treasury Board modified a previously signed wage agreement that ensured the RCMP could compete for the best and brightest new talent and offer an incentive for seasoned members to stay with the force. The original agreement was supported by the Commissioner, the Minister of Public Safety and approved by Treasury Board as recently as June 2008.

Changes to this previously-enshrined agreement will inflict irreparable damage to ongoing efforts to retain current members and will have serious consequences for recruiting new cadets--a stated priority for this government--who do not qualify for incentives afforded to members with more than five years experience.

This Treasury Board decision poses long-term challenges for bolstering public safety in Canada. Without significant changes, the legacy of this decision will be a series of negative and enduring repercussions for RCMP capacity building; particularly when it comes to recruiting new cadets.

Further on, the email goes on to state:

I write to ask that you act to protect the integrity of Canadian public safety; frontline RCMP officers ask only that the existing, signed agreement be allowed to stand. In full-recognition of the serious economic challenges we face as a country, the men and women of the RCMP are committed to abide by the letter and the spirit of that agreement for the next two years.

It goes on to talk about the fact that the RCMP, of course, played a significant role in this country's development and expansion, and that it will continue to play a very important role in public safety in our communities.

Again, I come back to my own community of Nanaimo-Cowichan. I know RCMP officers there are absolutely dedicated women and men who often contribute a lot of their own personal time to be involved with youth, first nations and a variety of community organizations. They often sit on committees contributing in a very positive way to the overall health and well-being of our communities.

I would argue that we should ensure once again to not only look at pension changes that will significantly contribute to recruitment and retention but that we also look at negotiated signed agreements. I know the member for St. John's East raised the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld the ability of the RCMP to form a union and the current government continues to fight that.

The RCMP has a staff association in place to represent its interests. My understanding is that RCMP members have stated that they would agree not to strike, but there is no reason why, in a democratic country, our police force could not have the mechanism to organize and represent itself in terms of labour management issues.

One of the reasons that this discussion around pensions is so critical is because in today's current economic climate there are some serious challenges with pensions. One of the elements that was raised in a current pension issues and trends paper talks about bankruptcy protection and pension insurance. Fortunately, at this point, the RCMP's pension fund is not in this kind of situation and would not likely ever be.

Many Canadians are very concerned about what is happening to their pensions in the current economic climate. One of the things that has been identified is this bankruptcy protection and pension insurance. It states:

The laws concerning bankruptcy protection and pension insurance are closely related to the rules governing pension funding. If pensions are fully funded when employers enter bankruptcy protection, then bankruptcy laws do not matter much to the fate of the pension plan. On the other hand, if pension plans are underfunded when the employer becomes bankrupt, then the question of the nature of the claim that the pension fund has on the bankrupt company is critical, as is the question of whether the pension deficiency is insured.

This is just one aspect of some very serious problems going on with pensions right now. The member from Hamilton will be going out to the public to talk about the kinds of reforms that are needed to pension plans.

Bill C-18 talks about portability. Many members will be surprised that I am quoting from a C.D. Howe Institute commentary on pensions, but the portability of pensions is an absolutely critical aspect. Again, for RCMP officers we are recognize that portability of their pensions is extremely important. Members of municipal police forces should have the ability to move from the municipal police force to the RCMP and not lose their pension credits. It is a very important aspect.

The C.D. Howe Institute is talking about pension portability from job to job across Canada. It is not talking specifically about RCMP officers; it is talking about all Canadians. I would argue that as we set the standard for RCMP officers to have that portability, we should make sure that other Canadians have that pension portability as well.

In this particular case, the C.D. Howe Institute makes another recommendation. To put it into context, it says, “Canadians must understand that they all do not need to become experts in life-cycle finance and investments to achieve this goal”. It is talking about maintaining standards of living in retirement. The member for Sault Ste. Marie has been a tireless advocate on poverty generally but certainly on poverty as it relates to seniors. One of the aspects that significantly impacts on seniors is changes that were made to the Canada pension plan.

In the context of the Canada pension plan, I am getting a number of emails from people who are concerned about what is happening with the investments in the Canada pension plan. People want us to raise that here in the House. They are concerned about how the Canada pension plan is currently managed. However, that is outside the scope of Bill C-18.

The C.D. Howe Institute indicates that Canadians should be insisting that their elected representatives and employers play informed and constructive roles in inserting the major missing piece in Canada's current pension system that would deal with the inadequate coverage in retirement savings facing millions of Canadians.

Part of the issue is that, first of all, many Canadians simply do not have a pension plan. We are talking about portability in the context of Bill C-18, that pension plans in Canada largely are not portable and we cannot take them from job to job, and because we are talking about this with Bill C-18, I would argue that at some point we need to introduce legislation that talks about portability across this country.

I touched on the bankruptcy provisions. Many pension plans in this country are underfunded. If a company goes into bankruptcy protection, workers are at risk. In my riding we see forestry company after forestry company laying off people. There are some concerns as these companies go into bankruptcy protection with their underfunded pensions that workers who have worked 30 and 40 years, rather than going into retirement, have to go back to work. It is critical that we, as a House, perhaps using Bill C-18 as a kickoff point, look at conducting a broader pension review. I know the government has been talking about examining what is happening with pensions, but we need to move on this very quickly.

Women have been very concerned about what is happening with pensions because many women do not have either a private or a public pension. We are very concerned that we will see an increase in seniors living in poverty.

Many women have been in part-time, seasonal, contractual employment. This means that when they retire at the age of 60 or 65, they will only have access to the Canada pension plan, and because they have been in that kind of part-time, seasonal, contract employment, they will not have the full Canada pension plan.

The group WE*ACT has put together a number of very good proposals for overall reforms to the pension system. Unless we act quickly, we are going to see a spike in seniors poverty once again. I would encourage the House to use Bill C-18 as a catalyst to move quickly.

Again with Bill C-18, we have seen a bill that was looking at amendments back in 1995. We simply cannot wait that long for the kind of pension reform that is necessary. There is a wave of baby boomers, the first edge of which is turning 65 as we speak, that is going to change the face of retirement in this country. All too often we ear very sad stories about people who, after working for over 40 years, come up to retirement and find that they have to work at a McJob to survive in retirement.

There are a whole number of other issues that are facing seniors as they retire, such as the lack of availability of long-term care, home care support, access to prescription drugs, access to hospitals, and access to all kinds of other support programs for seniors. That is outside the scope of Bill C-18, but I would hope that we would put together a proactive package that looks at that whole range of issues.

We often hear in this House of the social determinants of health. I would argue that we also need to look at the social determinants of aging, and at such things as housing and income security. Because there is this wave of baby boomers coming up to retirement, this would be an opportunity for us to be proactive and we could put together a package that would have some meaningful impact on people as they retire.

In conclusion, Bill C-18 is a very important move toward protecting our ability to make sure that our communities are kept safe. It is important that we put together a package that will encourage young men and women to see the RCMP as a viable career opportunity, and make sure that the pensions help in our ability to retain police officers.

I am very pleased to say that New Democrats will be supporting this bill. I look forward to hearing from the member for St. John's East about testimony that will come forward at committee. Perhaps some amendments will be made to deal with some of the deficiencies that are currently in the bill before the House. Hopefully it will help us to ensure that our communities stay safe and well protected.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my colleague.

My colleague is someone who knows very well the issues of our aboriginal and first nations people. We all want to see more recruitment and retention of aboriginal and first nations people in the service. Does she see this as an opportunity to invite more aboriginal and first nations people into the service? If the pensions were portable, people right now who might be fully trained and are wanting to go into the service could take their pension, which perhaps is with the public service, and go into the RCMP.

The other question I have is in regard to the need of our rural areas to have more representation in the RCMP of people who are from the rural areas. Does she see this bill as helping in any way to recruit people from the rural areas, as well as aboriginal and first nations people?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. Anybody who has ever worked in human resources management knows that an essential part of recruiting people to a particular career or profession is to ensure that attractive packages are in place. One of the aspects of Bill C-18 is the portability of pensions when officers have served with other police forces. In many parts of this country there are tripartite agreements in place where the police force is band operated. I would hope the bill would include that.

Tripartite agreements are a whole separate issue. In many communities, we have had a great deal of difficulty because either the provincial government or the federal government is dragging its feet when it comes to signing those tripartite agreements so that first nations officers serve their own communities. However, that is another issue. The portability of pensions is extremely important around an attractive incentive program to recruit and retain officers.

Rural officers are the other aspect of this. Many of this country's communities are either fly-in communities or they are not easily accessible by rail or road. It is absolutely essential to recruit rural officers who have a good understanding of what it is like to live in a rural community. Again, the portability of pensions is an important aspect. Officers from large urban centres may want to go to remote and rural communities. However, they will not be able to transfer their pensions from a municipal police force to the RCMP force if we do not pass this bill.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her statement and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre standing up and making sure that we are able to ask questions. I want to highlight a couple of things about Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

Last month in my riding, I had the opportunity to attend the Tri-Force Regimental Charity Ball. It is an event that is put on by our local police forces: the RCMP, the OPP and the greater Sudbury regional police. This is just another example of the great work done by our law enforcement officers across our great land. They raise money for local charities. Specifically, this one was for Crime Stoppers. It was during that event that several RCMP officers approached me to talk about a few things that were happening here on the Hill. They talked about their concern for the rollback of their wages. Another discussion was about the portability of their pensions. Many of the officers approaching retirement age want to ensure that they have a secure retirement that they can enjoy.

It is important for us as parliamentarians to outline what we think are the important pieces of this bill that will benefit RCMP officers. I would like the hon. member to do that for us.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member was speaking, I was reminded that about a month ago there was an RCMP appreciation night in the city of Nanaimo. The funds raised went toward supporting the local mid-island crisis and relief centres. Thousands of dollars were raised that night. It was a way of honouring the RCMP officers, but it was also a way of working with the RCMP to raise funds for a very important initiative. The RCMP officers generously gave of their time to attend that event and support the crisis centres. They also work very closely with the crisis centres. We know that those crisis centres have saved lives.

As members have pointed out, this is a very technical bill, but the portability of pensions is absolutely critical. We have been talking about the fact that the non-portability has been a barrier.

Also, RCMP officers have not been paid as well as other police officers in this country. That is the sad part of Bill C-10, the budget implementation act. It rolls back a negotiated wage increase that would have made some steps toward the RCMP being paid the same rate as other police forces.

Right now, the non-portability of pensions is a deterrent to attracting officers. If officers want to move from a municipal force to the RCMP, it is a deterrent for them to do it because they will not get credit for their time served with the other police forces. This bill will remedy that. That is an important step toward recruitment and retention. Again, I believe that all members in the House will be supporting the bill.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member from British Columbia, in Northern Ontario, in the Nickel Belt and in Sudbury we do not have RCMP officers. We have the Greater Sudbury Police Service, which is second to none, and I want to make that quite clear.

If we had RCMP officers in Northern Ontario, what would they bring to those communities?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. What we would not want to see is the RCMP poaching from some of the very good police forces that are in place. That is not the objective of this.

The RCMP has extensive experience in rural and remote communities throughout the country. In many parts of the country the RCMP is the only police force. What It would bring to places like Northern Ontario is an understanding of what it is like to serve in rural and remote communities.

I think most of us, if we have not been lucky enough to visit some of these communities, have no understanding of what it is like to live in them, where fly-in is the only access. Some communities are accessible by ice roads, but with climate change, access times are diminished.

First, the officers bring training and experience that helps them work in these communities. For example, they are often on call 24/7. We know that has been a problem in some of the communities because they have been unable to retain or recruit officers. Also, they are very visible. In the rural and remote communities the officers are on the streets every day. They are very visible and the community is small enough so everybody recognizes them. They also play an important part, and I addressed this earlier, in the overall health and well-being of the community. They would bring a very broad perspective to some of the northern communities in Ontario.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to put a few thoughts on the record today about the bill and about why this caucus intends to support it. However, we also think it is important we have a debate around it.

If members have read the briefing notes that were prepared for the legislation, they will know we are cleaning up work that should have been done more effectively and properly under the Liberals back in the 1990s, when they passed an act on pensions for RCMP officers.

Over the last few years we have changed the rules for doing business in the interest of expediting the will of the governing party to the detriment of a good political process of oversight, which includes getting it right the first time, dotting all the is and crossing all the ts. Instead of doing that, we are back here today cleaning up work that should have been done right the first time.

In the few minutes I have, I want to talk about that because it is important. The bill, as presented, is a bit of a no brainer in terms of people supporting it. We thank the government for bringing it forward and we all need to get behind it. However, we need to ensure we do the right thing, which is to committee. Then we can invite all those who will be affected by it, or who may want to speak to it because of other concerns, or may want to bring other ideas to the table before the committee. We want to ensure they get a chance to do that.

Because of the way the House has been operating, particularly surprisingly under a minority government, legislation gets pushed through rather rapidly. Many people are concerned that we do not understand the full and complete impact of legislation on the lives of those who are directly affected by it and those who may be indirectly affected by it at the end of the day. Therefore, we need to look at that.

The other thing I want to speak about for a few minutes is something close to my heart. As I have done my work on trying to eradicate poverty in our country, I have been looking at this for quite some time. I have been at it now for almost 18 and a half years, both at the provincial legislature in Toronto and the federal level.

This comes from my work in the community where I ran a soup kitchen and worked with families that were under stress, trying to ensure their children would get a good start in life. They wanted to ensure they were supported and were aware of and knowledgeable about the services provided by governments and other organizations so they could live in dignity, as children, as families and as seniors.

It is important for all us to consider what we do for those who are perhaps in more privileged positions, and say that with some caution. They might not always be as privileged as some might think. However, for those who have pension plans, we need to ensure we make it as fulsome, supportive and as lucrative as possible for them. They have worked and have paid into it and they deserve it because of that effort.

The great majority of Canadians do not have pensions, never mind the portability of pensions. The government needs to think about that as well, as we move the bill through the House. A lot of seniors across the country are struggling to make ends meet. Even on the very good program under Canada pension, because of inflation, the cost of living and other factors, seniors are struggling to pay their bills, their rent, their mortgages and their ever-increasing fuel costs. They have worked hard to build our country. They have participated in the industry of our country. Now they are in their twilight years and they find themselves struggling.

We are talking about enhancing pensions for a particular group in our society, which is the right thing to do, to ensure those pensions are portable. What they have earned by way of pension in other sectors, they get to take it with them to new sectors. It is important that we consider others who would love to be in a position of having a pension, other than Canada pension, to live on in their future years.

I want to talk a bit about that. We are living in difficult economic times. Many people struggled and pinched pennies to put away a little something above and beyond the Canada pension so they would have something to allow them to stay in their homes, or to look after family members, or to educate their kids or for their grandchildren who end up at their doors, who they have to look after. This bit of extra money set aside in their working years has now almost completely disappeared. We did not put in place those rules and regulations, which we now say we should look at for the RCMP, to protect and guaranteed that their money would be there for them when they retired.

I would like to go back to the whole issue of the process and why we are here today. It is 10 years after the Liberal government of the day passed a bill that affected the pensions of RCMP. The Liberal government did not finish job. Somehow things fell off the table or were pushed under the carpet.

We do not pay enough attention to the importance of the processes that we put in place. Earlier in our history people may perhaps say we were not as sophisticated or connected communication-wise to ensure what we did was here the right thing. We need to ensure that when we do something, we do it completely and we understand the full ramifications of how it affects people.

Having served in the provincial legislature, as the member knows only too well because he worked there, the rules of that place were changed three times under three different political parties. The first time was when the provincial Liberals became the majority government in the late 1980s and they tried to rush their agenda through the legislature, without due process or considering the input of so many who had something to say or had some concerns about some of the legislation.

I remember some of the Liberal members were totally opposed and angry about what was going on. They explained what the impact would be, but nobody would listen because the government of the day was in a big hurry. It wanted to make changes and put in place the things it thought were in the best interests of the broader public, which at the end of the day sometimes turned out not to be. With the new rule changes, members were not given the chance to consider what could have been done to make it better.

I remember my party, when it became government in 1990, did the same thing. We were not sure we would be there very long, and that turned out to be the case. We wanted to get stuff done. We had pent up expectations when we finally came to power in 1990. We did not want these old-fashioned, long-term, difficult processes or hurdles, such as going to committee, going out on the road, listening to people, listening to more people and considering their input. We were in a hurry. We wanted to get it done.

To be frank and honest, we did some things as government, at that time, that had we thought longer about, had we opened up to more public input, listened to more people and been more considerate about, we might not have done. It might not have been so damaging to us politically at the end of the day. We got thumped big time in 1995 because of some of the things we did, not all of the things.

We did some pretty good things, I have to say, between 1990 and 1995, some of them in the area of social policy where we changed rules and regulations in the workplace, for example, and we tried to improve the lot of seniors and our first nations in the jurisdiction of Ontario.

However, we did some things that we might have thought longer about, that we might have been more willing to expose to the processes of the legislature at that particular point in time, which would have been helpful to us and ultimately to the broader public of Ontario. We did not do so and we paid a political price later.

I say that to the government members in this place at this time, and I say it to the Liberals because they are propping up the government in its rush, in its haste to move forward on some things. I believe we would all be better served if we took a little bit longer and if we were more open to constructive criticism from others, not only inside the House but others out there who may want to speak to the issues, who have more to offer, who may have more understanding or may have studied or researched longer some of the things we address here as, for the most part, generalists. We need to respect the role of committees. We need to allow committees to do the work that committees are thought able to do, or at one time in our history, did, when they travelled across the country.

As a matter of fact, I speak to people who served in both the House of Commons and legislatures across this country in days gone by, who would not only travel across Canada to hear from people on things like the piece of legislation before us today and other very important public policy matters, but would travel across the world to get input, to see what other people were doing, to hear from other people as to whether what they tried worked, how it is working now, how long they had been at it, and what else should be considered as we look at the same challenge that perhaps they have dealt with, maybe in a different way. Perhaps we could add to it and we would contribute our intelligence to that discussion as well.

We seem to be, in this place these days, in one heck of a hurry to get through things, to get stuff out the door and to change the way we interact with each other, do public business and put in place public policy.

I believe, in the end, that will not only hurt the government party that is in power, as it bears the responsibility and the brunt of mistakes that often get made in that kind of environment, but it affects all of us who have been sent here to give leadership, to be responsible, to take responsibility and to act on behalf of our constituents, those communities that are so fragile, particularly in the difficult economy that we face right now. It is important that we do the right thing.

We are inviting other members of the House of Commons to get up and speak to the bill and so many other pieces of legislation that work their way through the House these days, on which we seem to be the only ones speaking.

Every now and again we hear from a member of the Bloc Québécois, who are certainly engaged in an interesting and important way in the development of social policy, in my experience, for Quebec and for this country.

However, mostly in this place these days, every afternoon, day after day, it is New Democrats standing up, raising issues, putting on the table concerns we have, introducing the research we have done on behalf of a certain piece of public policy or an approach that the government wants to take, challenging it and pointing out the deficiencies, suggesting changes that would make it better, suggesting that the work we do here that is so important find its way to committees so that we can bring in other people and have their input. Then we can listen to them, and at the end of the day, once we have heard from those people, we can actually make amendments to the bill that would reflect the fact that we heard and listened. We do not think we have all the answers. Somebody else might bring something else to the table. So we need to do that.

We are saying it again in this instance, as we have week after week, month after month, over the last four and a half years that I have been here, as subsequent governments, first Liberal then Conservative, have tried to ram stuff through in a hurry, in a way that presents opportunity for mistakes to be made.

Back in the late 1990s when there was a bill presented to the House to be helpful to RCMP officers and their recruitment, in giving them the comfort they need to go out there and do their job well because they know they are going to be looked after in their retirement years, we dropped the ball. We made a mistake. This place made a mistake. Somehow this fell through the cracks.

I would hope and expect that it did get before committee, although there is even the odd time in this place when a piece of work that is going to affect so many finds it way through first, second and third reading without even getting to committee. We need to think long and hard about that. Often that kind of haste is a mistake, and if that is what has happened in this instance with this bill, here we are now, trying to correct it, and hopefully we will correct it.

Hopefully we will deal with the bill in a way that will reflect the spirit of the bill, what is intended, and that it will be sent to committee and we will invite witnesses, and if need be, we will travel a bit to hear from people who perhaps cannot come and speak to us about what impact they think this will have, so that we can do the very best for our very important officers of the law, the RCMP. They have been given the back of the hand, frankly, by the government through what it has done with the budget that we just rushed through this place in a matter of a couple of weeks, only a short time ago, to reduce a commitment that was made through proper labour negotiations with the RCMP, for them to now find that in fact that is not going to be honoured.

Here we are again, speaking to our RCMP officers through the work we do here, saying to them by way of getting the bill through the House and dealt with properly that we appreciate and understand the difficulty of their work, the fact that so many of their colleagues in the last few years have been killed on the job, have given the ultimate sacrifice in the protection of the public and our communities. We apologize for that action that has reduced their income as they go out and do that work, and for the message that sends in terms of confidence, and we will do the right thing by them in this instance.

We will get the bill to committee where we can fix any holes that might be in it, bring forward some amendments perhaps and hear from some people as to what else we should do. In doing that, we would consider the need to make sure that all Canadians, no matter what job they are doing and no matter how they are contributing to the overall good of our communities and our country, would also have a pension. They would not only have the Canada pension, which is a vehicle that is very important in this country, but they would also have access to those other small pots of pension money that become so important at the end of the day for so many of the things that we all want to contribute to in our community, to our families and in looking after ourselves.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member of Parliament for Sault Ste. Marie he is my neighbour, and he too knows the vastness of northern Ontario.

Greater Sudbury is home to the Sudbury RCMP detachment, with 17 officers and two public service employees. This detachment provides excellent federal policing services to the city of greater Sudbury, the districts of Manitoulin, Cochrane, Timiskaming, Nipissing and Parry Sound. These great public servants provide service in an area that is bigger than some European countries. The important thing for the House to understand is that these individuals put their lives at risk every day and provide services to this huge area of our great country.

I wonder if the member could speak about the importance of having federal policing services in northern Ontario.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member for Sudbury very publicly how much I appreciate the contribution he makes in this place in his role as a member of Parliament and how good it is to have him as a colleague in northern Ontario, working on behalf all those really wonderful people who call our wonderful part of that province home.

Absolutely, the contribution that the members of the RCMP make in so many unique ways because of the areas they work in, the areas they specialize in, makes a big difference in our communities.

In my own community we have a detachment that, because of the proximity of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, plays a lot of different roles in terms of the traffic that goes back and forth between our two countries and the unlawful activity that might take place. That in fact is dangerous work, because one does not know who is coming across the border, what they are bringing with them and how they might be armed, in order to protect oneself in doing that work.

Therefore, absolutely we need to be doing everything we can in this House, given the very dismal track record of the government, particularly recently in taking away that increase in pay they were expecting to get, to at least protect their pensions and make it possible for those who moved to the RCMP from other policing jurisdictions to actually bring their pensions with them.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Motion agreed to. Accordingly the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek the consent of the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.