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.

Government Operations and Estimates

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. In accordance with its order of reference of Friday, April 3, your committee has considered Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other Acts, and agreed on Thursday, May 7 to report it without amendment.

[Shelley Rossignol]

It's not within the scope of Bill C-18. The reason is that we would have to have a brand new clause to allow members to elect for cadet time to count as pensionable service and service in the force.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I was simply going to ask our technical experts. In order to achieve what Mr. Ménard very capably laid out, what change could be possible within the context of Bill C-18 to enable this, to have the period of time as a cadet be considered and added to your pension benefits?

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

I'm breaking out in a cold sweat, so I don't know who I want to thank here.

Let's look to our witnesses. Colleagues, we'll now embark on clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18. We actually began on the record with clause-by-clause, but we didn't get too far at our last meeting, so we'll continue from where we left off.

First, the witnesses here today are, with one exception, the same. They are Ms. Rossignol and Mr. Wyczynski. We also have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Mr. Dave MacKenzie, member of Parliament, and he is here as a resource representing the government in the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

If you will prepare your documents, colleagues, we'll now go right to clause-by-clause. Sometimes these things can move very quickly, so I will call clause 1.

(On clause 1)

Mr. McTeague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

However, the substance of the motion, as I pointed out, is going to come up in discussions that I hope will follow our current business on clause-by-clause of Bill C-18. All is not lost.

Go ahead, Ms. Hall Findlay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Seeing a quorum, I call the meeting to order.

Colleagues, we're continuing our consideration of Bill C-18. Today we're scheduled to do clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

Ms. Hall Findlay has a point of order.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the first time I have considered Bill C-18. On the one hand, I have never heard about it previously. On the other, at this stage, I'm lacking a lot of information on how the RCMP's organizational structure works. I would also have liked to be able to consult the information that Mr. Delisle brought us. I read the documents, but I didn't expect it to be so complicated at this stage. Our research attaché has done a very good job and there aren't any questions. We see that we're lacking an enormous amount of knowledge at the outset to be able to conduct an in-depth study of the matter before us today.

I have a weird feeling about what you're explaining to us. The situation is a bit particular. Since I've been sitting on this committee and even before that, members have always been seeking justice. Mr. Cape, it's as though we were hanging onto all our power and too bad for our neighbour. That irritates me. As a member of the committee, that's not what I'm looking for and I get the impression the same is true for my colleagues.

If I understood correctly, the cadets of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police aren't paid because they aren't considered employees. The cadets you select aren't necessarily hired. However, in all other police services in the country, from the moment cadets have gone through the administrative workings and have met requirements respecting qualifications, they start being paid. This embarrasses me. How is it that the RCMP has made that decision? It's historical, I agree, but I would have liked to know why. What do the cadets do in the RCMP? Do they carry out operations similar to those conducted in other police services?

Today, it's all well and good to tell me that these are just technicalities, that this is just to transfer pension funds; the fact remains that 10,000 people say they are stuck at a stop light. Something's not working. If you had said there were 100 or 200 persons, I would have thought they were rebels, but 10,000 people, these are no longer rebels.

Mr. Cape, do you understand that I'm not ready to take what you're telling me at face value, despite the fact that I don't question your knowledge or that of Ms. Rossignol? I would like this committee to be able to give us more information so that we can make a decision that is informed and fair for everyone. Ten thousand people—that's bizarre.

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

What clause should we correct in Bill C-18 to acknowledge the point you've just raised?

[Michael Cape]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to assist with the committee's examination of Bill C-18. With me today is Ms. Shelley Rossignol. She's the senior analyst with the RCMP pension services group and has invested a great deal of time and effort in the bill over the past year. Also here is Mr. Marc Wyczynski, who is the counsel from the DOJ who has provided legal counsel throughout the development of Bill C-18.

Bill C-18 proposes several technical amendments to the RCMP Superannuation Act. It would improve pension portability and ultimately bring the act in line with the federal public service pension plan, as well as other public and private sector plans across Canada.

The bill would deliver three primary benefits. First, it would allow for the expansion of existing provisions regarding election for prior service. That means regular civilian members of the force could purchase pension credits from other public and private sector pension plans across Canada. Second, it would allow the RCMP to enter into pension transfer agreements with other pension plans. This would permit the transfer of pension credits into and out of the RCMP pension plan. Third, it would clarify and improve some administrative and eligibility aspects of the existing act; two examples are those related to part-time employment and the cost of elections for prior service with a police force that was taken over by the RCMP.

In a nutshell, Bill C-18 is about fairness and flexibility. It will put each member of the RCMP on equal footing in terms of pension portability. That is not the case under the current rules.

Today, the almost 24,000 members of the RCMP whose pensions are governed by the RCMP Superannuation Act don't have the same pension choices as 6,300 of their colleagues, whose pensions fall under the Public Service Superannuation Act. Yet they all serve the public.

For example, someone who goes to work for the RCMP as a public servant under the Public Service Superannuation Act can bring their pension with them from other federal departments and levels of government—even from some private-sector employers. And they may be able to leave with their pensions if they explore other federal or public-sector opportunities.

Regular and civilian member employees do not enjoy the same level of pension portability. Bill C-18 proposes to address this discrepancy by providing those RCMP employees with the same pension options currently available to federal public servants, as well as to members of many provincial and municipal police forces.

Expanded pension portability may, in some cases, increase the value of future pension benefits for regular and civilian members. It might also help them qualify for survivor benefits for their spouses or partners and improve the value of that benefit--again, in some cases.

The proposed amendments will also help eligible members qualify for retirement at an earlier age, if they so choose, after a career of helping to protect the safety and security of Canadians.

Another positive aspect to the amendments proposed by Bill C-18 is that the enhanced portability provisions may help to strengthen the RCMP's current recruiting efforts. This issue is top of mind for the force at this time, as it strives for a net increase of 1,000 regular and civilian members by 2013.

Enhanced pension portability has the potential to make the RCMP a more attractive career choice for Canadians working in other fields or even for members of other police forces. In this way, enhanced pension portability supports many of the existing initiatives already under way to help the RCMP recruit more officers.

Mr. Chairman, in the time I have remaining, allow me to address a few of the concerns that arose during second reading of the bill in the House.

A few of the members expressed concern that the six-month training period for the RCMP officers is not recognized as pensionable. This was viewed as a possible anomaly because recruit training in some other police forces is pensionable and would be recognized under the RCMP pension plan in the case of a transfer.

The difference with the RCMP is that cadets at the RCMP training academy in Regina are not hired as employees until they graduate from the training program. Registered pension plans like the RCMP pension plan are subject to strict requirements of the Income Tax Act. The tax provisions make eligibility for coverage under a registered pension plan dependent upon employment. So since cadets are not employees, they cannot qualify for pension entitlement under the RCMP pension plan.

Another question asked during second reading was whether Bill C-18 would assist in the recruitment of aboriginal people or members of Indian band police. Bill C-18 would allow pensionable service under another Canadian pension plan registered under the Income Tax Act to be recognized under the RCMP plan, so as long as the potential recruit was a member of a registered pension plan, employment with the RCMP could become more attractive once pension portability is in place.

Finally, a concern was raised over potential costs associated with Bill C-18. The estimated program costs for this initiative are $1.1 million. Elections for prior service with the public service, the Canadian Forces, and the House of Commons or the Senate already exist. Consequently, many administrative tools are already in place for the expanded elective service provisions.

The costs associated with the changes would be covered by existing RCMP reference levels and the RCMP pension plan. No additional financial resources are required. And, under the future regulatory amendments, the actuarial cost of purchasing prior service is borne entirely by the plan member. In the case of a pension plan transfer agreement, pension funds are transferred directly from the former pension plan to the new plan.

I thank you for having invited me to appear before you. We would be pleased to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

I call the meeting to order, colleagues. I see a quorum.

We are today considering Bill C-18, which is a bill dealing with the mechanics of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. We have witnesses from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Department of Justice, and a group known as the Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association, or the Association des membres de la police montée du Québec.

We will now proceed to hear from witnesses on the subject of Bill C-18. It was our hope that we could complete disposition of this bill today. Your cooperation in that regard would be appreciated.

I'll ask the witnesses, first Mr. Michael Cape, director of pension services of the RCMP, and Shelley Rossignol, a senior analyst in the same branch, will you be making a presentation here on the bill?

[Yves Dufour, Director General, Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale]

I would like to start by thanking you for inviting us to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I would like to introduce the people with me today—Frédérick Laberge, Director of Biology at the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale and Administrative Director, as well as Diane Séguin, the Deputy Director of Biology at the laboratory in Montreal.

We will read you the brief we prepared for about 10 minutes, and then we will take your questions.

In 1914, the Quebec government created the first forensic laboratory in North America, located in Montreal. Today, the laboratory is under the responsibility of Quebec's Ministry of Public Safety, and is an impressive example of a modern forensic laboratory.

Our disciplines include toxicology, biology and DNA; counterfeiting and forensic document analysis; chemistry; fires and explosions; ballistics; electrical and computer engineering; forensic pathology; and gaming equipment certification.

The laboratory's mission is to provide objective expertise in forensic science to support and further the administration of justice and police and legal investigations.

I will now describe our role. Ontario and Quebec are the only provinces in Canada with forensic laboratory facilities that perform their own DNA analysis. The other provinces and territories send their DNA work to the Forensic Laboratory Services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The laboratory is responsible for analyzing biological samples collected by the police from crime scenes on Quebec soil. The resulting DNA profiles are unloaded to the National DNA Data Bank (NDDB) Crime Scene Index for comparison with the Convicted Offenders Index and other DNA samples in the Crime Scene Index.

The laboratory is the only organization authorized to supplement the Crime Scene Index with DNA samples collected from crime scenes in Quebec. DNA orders for offenders convicted by Quebec courts of law are executed by the Quebec police. The samples are then sent directly to the National DNA Data Bank for biological analysis and to be added to the Convicted Offenders Index. The Laboratory is not involved in updating the Convicted Offenders Index.

As regards our contribution to the National DNA Data Bank, the laboratory spends $5.7 million a year, including fixed costs, and has 50 FTEs at its disposal to meet its DNA analysis mandate. Despite its extremely limited resources, as of March 30, 2009, the laboratory had provided more than 15,674 DNA profiles to the Crime Scene Index, which represents more than 32.6% of the total number of profiles (48,227). As of the same date, Ontario had contributed more than 18,898 DNA profiles, which represents 39.1% of the total, while the RCMP laboratories contributed 14,655 profiles, accounting for 28.3% of the total.

I come now to the issue of federal funding for the Laboratory's contribution to the NDDB's mandate. As a result of negotiations on the creation of the NDDB and the role Quebec would play in this national program, it was agreed that the federal government would help offset the additional costs generated by the new NDDB-related activities. Since August 1999, Quebec has signed two Biology Casework Analysis Agreements to contribute to the NDDB's Crime Scene Index.

The first agreement, signed on August 12, 1999, was for three years—from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2002. It provided for automatic renewal with the same conditions for a one-year term or until a new agreement could be reached, in accordance with the renewal clause.

The expiry of this first agreement was extended to March 3, 2003. The terms of this agreement stipulated that the federal government would reimburse Quebec 20% of the average cost of DNA profiles completed by the laboratory. In September of 1999, an accounting firm established that the average cost of a DNA profile was $2,645. Therefore, the federal government's contribution would be $529 per profile (20% of $2,645).

In 2004, a second agreement was signed for a three-year period (April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2006), including an automatic renewal for the 2006-2007 year. Under this agreement, Canada agreed to reimburse Quebec $771.76 for each DNA profile completed by the laboratory for a designated offence (under section 487.04 of the Criminal Code), up to a maximum of 11,311 profiles. This amount ($771.76) represents 23.3% of the average eligible cost to process a DNA profile.

On March 31, 2007, the laboratory had fulfilled all its obligations with regard to the second agreement. Since that date, the Quebec government has been trying to negotiate adequate long-term funding to continue its vital contribution to the NDDB.

The federal government and the Quebec government signed an interim cost-sharing agreement in July 2008 to extend the funding for biology casework analysis until a new long-term agreement was reached. The federal government agreed to contribute $2.3 million in both the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 fiscal years.

The negotiations for the long-term agreement are particularly difficult, because the federal government has so far refused to honour the financial commitment it made in the previous agreement. At the same time, the laboratory's workload increased with the passing of new federal laws (C-13 and C-18) on January 1, 2008. Quebec is expecting to see an increase of more than 1,500 DNA profiles per year, without any additional funding. A new building, new equipment and more resources are necessary to meet the demand this new legislation creates. The issue has been brought to the attention of the federal government again and again.

I come now to the federal-provincial-territorial working group on DNA.

In April 2008, the federal government revived the federal-provincial-territorial working group on DNA to develop a work plan to renew the biology casework analysis agreements with the provinces and territories. A work plan proposal was presented to the deputy ministers of Justice and Public Safety at the federal-provincial-territorial levels in June 2008.

The proposed work plan included the following steps: a short-term work plan (6-12 months) aiming to establish the real cost of DNA analysis as well as the current capacity of the laboratories and to evaluate the increased workload as a result of Bills C-13 and C-18; a long-term work plan (18-24 months) aiming to examine the way international partners use DNA profiles, maximize the efficiency of this technology in the judicial system and its related costs, and evaluate the various cost-sharing and service delivery models.

Quebec objected on the grounds that it had accepted the 2007-2009 interim agreement on the condition that serious negotiations take place in 2008-2009 and that it could not afford to wait a further two years at the same level of funding. Quebec also pointed out the national scope of the program and Ontario and Quebec's essential contributions to the NDDB, that is to say a contribution representing more than 72% of the DNA profiles uploaded to the NDDB Crime Scene Index.

In August 2008, the federal government commissioned Services Conseils Canada to undertake a study of the costs and capacities of the three Canadian laboratories: the Laboratoire de sciences judiciaires et de médecine légale, the Centre of Forensic Sciences and the RCMP's Forensic Laboratory Services. This study was supposed to have served as a basis for negotiating a new funding agreement for biological casework analysis. The report was scheduled to be tabled at the end of December 2008.

Despite the fact that Services Conseils Canada finished its work in late January, the laboratory has yet to receive its final report and recommendations. At this time, no other negotiations are underway to reach an agreement on biology casework analysis funding. The federal government entered into biology casework analysis agreements with the other provinces and territories that use the RCMP's Forensic Laboratory Services.

Since the NDDB was established, more than 11,500 matches have been made, thereby helping police solve crimes. The success of the NDDB program completely depends on supplementing and updating the Convicted Offenders Index and the Crime Scene Index.

Quebec, through the laboratory, actively contributes to developing the NDDB. To date, 32% of the DNA profiles unloaded to the Crime Scene Index have come from the laboratory. This contribution could be even more significant if the federal government were to provide funding for the analysis of all DNA profiles requested by the Quebec police in the course of their criminal investigations.

Because of inadequate funding, the laboratory is currently unable to process DNA analyses for the offences set out in Bills C-13 and C-18. As a result, the NDDB's usefulness is seriously hampered.

In order to resolve this situation and optimize the performance of the NDDB, the federal government must assume a greater responsibility for funding this national program by granting the funds necessary to process all forensic DNA profiles for designated offences, taking into account the increased demand created by Bills C-13 and C-18 and the current backlog of DNA profiles in Canadian laboratories.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.