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

This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in December 2009.

Sponsor

Peter Van Loan  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation ActGovernment Orders

April 3rd, 2009 / 10:05 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation ActGovernment Orders

April 3rd, 2009 / 10:05 a.m.
See context

Oxford Ontario

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie ConservativeParliamentary 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.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation ActGovernment Orders

April 3rd, 2009 / 10:10 a.m.
See context

Liberal

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.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation ActGovernment Orders

April 3rd, 2009 / 10:10 a.m.
See context

Conservative

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.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation ActGovernment Orders

April 3rd, 2009 / 10:15 a.m.
See context

NDP

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?

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation ActGovernment Orders

April 3rd, 2009 / 10:15 a.m.
See context

Conservative

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.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation ActGovernment Orders

April 3rd, 2009 / 10:15 a.m.
See context

Liberal

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?

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation ActGovernment Orders

April 3rd, 2009 / 10:20 a.m.
See context

Conservative

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.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation ActGovernment Orders

April 3rd, 2009 / 10:20 a.m.
See context

Conservative

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”.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation ActGovernment Orders

April 3rd, 2009 / 10:20 a.m.
See context

Conservative

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.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation ActGovernment Orders

April 3rd, 2009 / 10:20 a.m.
See context

Liberal

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.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation ActGovernment Orders

April 3rd, 2009 / 10:30 a.m.
See context

NDP

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?

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation ActGovernment Orders

April 3rd, 2009 / 10:30 a.m.
See context

Liberal

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.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation ActGovernment Orders

April 3rd, 2009 / 10:30 a.m.
See context

Liberal

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.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation ActGovernment Orders

April 3rd, 2009 / 10:30 a.m.
See context

Liberal

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.