Debates of Nov. 3rd, 1997

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition concerning a matter of great importance.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act spells out in black and white what benefits the members are entitled to receive. The benefits pertinent to the act and thus affected by this amendment relate to the injury or death of an RCMP member. Bill C-12 addresses the issue of whether a member of the RCMP was on duty if he or she is injured or killed while serving outside of Canada's international boundaries in a peacekeeping role.

Section 32.1 of subsection 2(a) identifies how and where a foreign location becomes designated as a special duty area. “The Governor in Council may, by order, designate as a special duty area any geographic area outside Canada where members of the force serve as part of a peacekeeping mission and may be exposed to hazardous conditions not normally associated with service in peacetime”.

I appreciate that the act is not the place for minute internal RCMP policy which will be written implementing this amendment. I would like to have the solicitor general and the government assure the House that the following points will be covered as this policy is written:

First, the RCMP division staff relations representative, DSRR, is part of the team writing the policy. Second, that a member of a member's estate be entitled to select as his or her representative in any claim the counsel provided by the pension commission or a lawyer of his or her choice. If a lawyer of his or her choice is selected, that the RCMP or the federal government pay the legal fees in question.

I make note of this because a former member of the RCMP and the current member of the House, the MP for Selkirk—Interlake, was represented by a pension commission counsel in Winnipeg regarding a disability suffered on duty. The commission's counsel, who is supposed to work for the member, was less than adequate to say the least. His inadequate representation resulted in the member being denied benefits. The point is that government supplied counsel is not always of the same calibre that can sometimes be obtained privately.

A member serving in a special duty area who is injured or killed has to have counsel of his or her choosing or choosing by the executor. The member of his or her estate may not be able to pay for the private counsel to defend the interests from a government body adjudicating these pension cases which is always acting on behalf of government interests, not necessarily those of the member.

Third, the question of “may be exposed to hazardous conditions not normally associated with service in peacetime” is one that requires spelling out. I will use the example of exposure to AIDS and other diseases that are easily transmitted via bodily fluids.

Members of the RCMP are exposed to many of these diseases in their on-duty normal workday in Canada. While serving in a special duty area it is imperative that the member have 100% coverage for any disease contracted, and for the government to not try to avoid paying benefits by relying on the fact that exposure to diseases in the special duty area is at the same risk level as exposure normally associated with service in peacetime. Conditions in some of these war zones are quite awful at times and who knows to what a member can be exposed as he does his best to try to mitigate difficult circumstances. It is only fair that the government recognize that.

Fourth, the policy must also spell out what happens if an RCMP officer is given a 48-hour rest period, for example in Haiti, and he is injured while engaged in leisure activities. I would ask the minister to clarify whether the RCMP's superannuation act would pay benefits under these circumstances. I certainly hope it would.

The members of the RCMP who go on these peacekeeping missions are volunteers. They are dedicated individuals who care deeply about the people in other lands less fortunate than most Canadians. As volunteers, it is very important that they be treated fairly and generously by the pension act, the RCMP and the government.

I am advised by the member for Selkirk—Interlake, the deputy critic responsible for the RCMP, that he supports the legislation as does the Reform Party. Until now, 24 hours on duty coverage has only been at the good graces of the solicitor general. It is good to get this protection for the RCMP in writing and in this bill.

I will take a few minutes to review the situation of the RCMP as an organization which has been asked to perform duties above and beyond its normal function. The pension act will play an important role in the future as the government asks the forces to take on new assignments.

I understand that there is a possibility the RCMP may be asked to send police officers to several other areas of conflict in the world. The future is unknown but it would appear that there will be other requests. As more missions are taken on, the chances of RCMP officers being killed or injured increases dramatically.

These peacekeeping duties normally entail monitoring, observing and training roles. Any member from any province can volunteer. Unless they are in the middle of an intricate investigation that cannot be handed over to another member or for some other personal reasons, most are allowed to go on the mission.

The problem for the RCMP is they are always under establishment strength so sending these members make the vacancies at home even more difficult. There is no backfilling of positions vacated for peacekeeping duties. In many cases, investigations either sit dormant or proceed at a much slower pace, as they are assigned to the investigators left on the detachment or to the plain clothes unit.

While we all endorse the role of the Canadian RCMP in helping in these troubled areas around the world, they do have a responsibility and a job to do back home. The government should ensure that if they continue to take members of the RCMP for this important role abroad, it fills in the gaps at home to ensure that justice is properly served.

Finding members to play a monitoring or training role for the aboriginal police departments is increasingly difficult, as more and more First Nations take over policing their reserves. If the government expects the RCMP to participate in these peacekeeping missions, more budget money will have to be given the RCMP so more police officers can be hired.

I appreciate that Canada has an international responsibility but the government has an internal responsibility to keep our streets safe. The multimillions of dollars being wasted on gun control through the Firearms Act could be given to the RCMP where Canadians know it would do some good by solving RCMP staffing problems.

It is interesting to note that in Haiti, where RCMP officers are serving at the moment, the average citizen does not have a rifle or a shotgun, only the government troops have one. I wonder how abusive the Haitian government would be towards its people if they had guns and ammunition?

I have heard that it will take approximately 150 RCMP officers just to implement the regulations concerning the Firearms Act which does not include those who will be investigating non-criminal Canadians for violation of these regulations. Therefore the number will be even more than that.

I am certainly pleased that the RCMP Superannuation Act is being amended to fully protect the men and women who serve the country in foreign lands. Canada has been lucky that there have been only minor injuries to date on the missions to Namibia, Bosnia and Haiti. I would strongly urge the government and the RCMP to conduct an in depth study on the effect that these missions are having on the RCMP members, the straining of resources and what is needed to ensure that the RCMP can continue to meet its responsibilities at home and abroad.

As someone who has travelled abroad, I would like to add that the reputation of Canada and the RCMP is second to none. We are definitely filling a very major role both in peacekeeping and in training police officers to ensure that the peace, which we hopefully can create, will be to some degree a lasting peace between the forces which are fighting each other.

There are a couple of issues in the bill which gave me a little bit of concern. While the government has stated that RCMP officers who are killed or injured on duty will have their pension benefits protected, there does not seem to have been too much imagination put into the writing of the bill.

I think for example of the Vietnam war. We now find that many people who served in the Vietnam war suffered seriously because of a chemical called agent orange. It took many years before the government recognized its responsibilities regarding the damage caused by agent orange. We must remember that in this particular case it was the American government that dropped agent orange on its own people. Therefore it had a double liability of protecting these people and providing indemnification to these people, but it took many years before it would even recognize there was a problem.

I would not want to think we would have the same problem here, if an RCMP officer or a member of our armed forces suffered health consequences, that down the road the government would fight all the way to not compensate that person accordingly, rather than respect his dignity and his contribution to helping society.

I refer again to agent orange. Unfortunately the offspring of those service people are also suffering. There is nothing in this bill which would recognize that type of liability. With the modern chemicals that we have, who can tell when problems will show up? One would have thought that in a two-page bill amending the pension act the government could have allowed for that kind of eventuality. It does not take too much thinking to do that.

I also think of the problem known as the gulf war syndrome. Soldiers who came back after having fought that war are saying there is a serious problem which is being denied by their governments in the United States and in Britain.

The point I want to make is that the government should not fight these people all the way. They have put their life on the line for freedom and for democracy. They have willingly gone to protect the rights and values which we appreciate so much in this country. When they returned home, having suffered the consequences of that volunteerism and that commitment to fight for democracy and freedom, they found that the very government which swore to uphold those rights was denying them the recognition of their claims.

I would hope that these types of things would not happen here in Canada. However, unfortunately, I am not so sure.

Disability shows up in many ways. I think of one RCMP officer in my riding who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. These are difficult things to diagnose, but I would certainly hope that when the regulations are written regarding this bill that these types of problems are recognized as befitting for compensation for those who are prepared to put their lives on the line to uphold those things we consider near and dear to our values.

Changing the subject but still on the concept of pensions for the RCMP, I would like to bring to light an issue regarding RCMP pensions which I find is rather unfortunate. It happened a little over a year ago.

Several retired RCMP officers received a letter in the mail from the pension department saying that a mistake had been made in calculating their pensions. These RCMP officers had retired between 1970 and 1974. Twenty years later they received a letter in the mail saying “We made a mistake in calculating your pension. Please find enclosed a cheque to make up the difference. We have short changed you all these years”.

It amounted to approximately $10,000 each. That is a considerable windfall for someone who has been retired for 20 years or more, to receive a cheque from the government, less taxes of course, for $10,000. And it was with not so much as an apology but an admission that their pension cheques had been short changed all these years and that they would make the necessary adjustments from here on in and their pension cheques would be increased accordingly.

Imagine their dismay when a year or so later—and we are talking about last September, just a couple of months ago—when these same people received another letter from the government saying “Guess what? Our first letter was a mistake. Please send the money back. We are going to reduce your pension cheque back to what it was before”.

This type of incompetence is something I really do not particularly like. As the chairman of the public accounts committee, I think the government should take note of the people who have done this, who thought they were on to something, did not check their work properly and wrote cheques in excess of a million dollars from taxpayers' money, sent them off to retired RCMP officers, giving them the idea that they had received some kind of windfall then asking for the money back. They even went so far as to track down the beneficiaries of deceased members to pay the cheques out to them. Now we find there was absolutely no legal basis for doing so.

Basically what had happened was that prior to 1975 when someone retired or took early retirement from the RCMP, they were entitled to a pension based on their number of complete years of service. Partial years did not count. Starting in 1975 a partial year counted as a full year for pensionable service. Therefore the deduction for that particular year was no longer considered. It made a difference of 5% because the deduction was 5% per year.

In the words of the director general of the department, a zealous employee had gone back and discovered—and if I may say discovered in quotations—this error and decided that these retired RCMP officers had been short changed all these years.

I asked the director general in charge of the department why the change of heart. The change of heart and the re-checking of the figures was because one particular retired RCMP officer said that if he had been short changed all these years was he not owed a little bit of interest along the way. When he asked for his interest they decided that perhaps he had a point but that they had better re-check the figures first. When they went back and re-checked the figures they found that because the legislation had changed in 1975 the way they calculated pensions had changed in 1975 and that the previous calculation was perfectly correct.

We have a situation where they have now gone back to 119 retired RCMP officers and their beneficiaries and said “Please send the money back”. Imagine this type of situation taking place. It is time the government recognized that competency goes along with accountability, that efficiency is not the only important thing, that they have a responsibility to do their jobs properly.

Imagine the dismay of these retired RCMP officers who each now have to come up with a cheque for $10,000 on their pensions. Their pensions are going to be reduced back to what they were before, a 5% reduction now that they have become accustomed to a little bit higher standard of living. With one stroke of a pen it all disappears down the drain.

If they have gone out and purchased a new car or something else with the $10,000, what are we to do, write the money off? Perhaps. But then I ask, what about the civil servant who authorized this? Do members think that his career should continue on as if nothing had happened, that the taxpayers are out a million dollars, so what?

A million dollars is a major situation. In the private sector if someone says to their employer “Oops, I just cost you a million dollars by mistake”, should he continue on in his job? What confidence do we have that he is going to perform his duties competently and effectively. Will we now have to look over his shoulder to find out whether other decisions he has made are much less than adequate and have cost the taxpayers many tens of thousands or even millions of dollars?

I wanted to raise that point, but at the same time I do not want to finish on a down note. I want to finish on an up note for the RCMP. I want to congratulate them as a force. I want to congratulate them as a Canadian icon around the world. Their reputation enhances the reputation of Canada anywhere I have been.

Members of the RCMP are wonderful. They have a reputation of having performed under difficult circumstances for more than 100 years. We know that as they continue to do their duty both here and abroad, in war zones as peacekeepers, that they will continue to enhance the reputation of Canada and Canadians. We are proud of them.

It is only right that we should support this legislation. It will ensure that as they stand up for democracy and for what we believe to be right, that should they be injured or killed in the performance of those duties we will stand behind them and their families and ensure they are protected.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, deficit reduction.

The member for Berthier—Montcalm.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise to speak to this bill, which, I see, is of particular interest to the government opposite. I would like to commend the member for Huron—Bruce, who seems to have put considerable weight on the government's shoulders this afternoon in the debate of an essentially simple bill, it is true, but one that warrants some comment in order to set out the position of the Bloc Quebecois.

I realize I have 40 minutes, Madam Speaker, but I can tell you right now that I will not use all my time, because we have just found a consensus in the House in support of this bill, which is an excellent bill, because it remedies something that is unfair to the members of the RCMP who took part in peacekeeping missions around the world.

In certain countries, for example Haiti, Bosnia and Uganda, the RCMP were actively involved in peacekeeping missions. This role was all the more important because in some of these countries the RCMP helped local governments set up police forces similar to those found in democratic countries such as Canada or Quebec.

Yes, there must be encouragement for this kind of mission. Yes, there must be support for RCMP members who volunteered their services, who agreed to travel to foreign countries and share their experience by giving courses and training to the inhabitants of these countries so that they could have a good police force. They must be encouraged in various ways.

It is all very fine and well to rise in the House from time to time and make ministerial statements in support of these people as they set out for other countries, but I think it would also be good if RCMP members who are leaving Canada for a short period but an important one nonetheless also felt supported economically. Bill C-12 addresses this.

It was realized that there was a certain difference between members of the RCMP who went on a peacekeeping mission and members of the armed forces who went as peacekeepers or as part of other international organizations on similar missions.

It was realized that the men and women of the RCMP were at a disadvantage on their return with respect to their pensions. This bill is very straightforward in that it corrects this particular inequality between the two groups. The bill amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act by finally giving peacekeeping missions by RCMP officers the same recognition as that given those by members of the Canadian armed forces.

I would like to take this opportunity to echo the sentiments expressed by all members who have already spoken and thank RCMP members for the excellent work they are doing and for their representation of our system outside Canada and Quebec. I think they should be paid tribute and be encouraged to continue.

One way to encourage them open to us is Bill C-12, which we are studying today and which shows without a doubt the esteem in which they are held by the House of Commons.

However, as an opposition party, we are going to do our work properly. I still have a few questions on this bill. These people deserve special consideration. They should be put in the same situation as members of the RCMP who did not leave the country, but we must not, conversely, penalize those who do not leave.

As I read this bill at the moment, I do not see this. Has anyone checked? Did anyone do the calculations required to find out whether we penalize those who stay in the country when we give this advantage to those who leave Canada to work outside the country for a time? Do those who remain have to pay more for those who leave? Is the government investing more? Where exactly are they going to get the budget surplus to meet the requirements of this bill?

The answer is not obvious from reading Bill C-12. We need a clear answer. Will those members of the RCMP who, for personal or family reasons, choose not to participate in peacekeeping missions end up losing? We do indeed have to provide some advantage to those who leave, but we must also think of those who stay behind. I will be looking for answers to this question, for my own reassurance and to reassure those involved in the situation.

I have another question as well. Will officers who remain in Canada have to pay twice for officers on peacekeeping missions who are injured while abroad, because this does happen? We need to know how premiums are affected, as well as what happens in the event of injuries, so that we can determine whether, in the end, they receive the same treatment.

Another question must be answered. How much does the Government of Canada pay when it must send these people to other countries? As you know, when people such as RCMP members travel abroad on duty, they are paid by the UN. Does the UN contribute proportionately to this pension fund? This is another thing we do not know. That will have to be looked into when the bill goes to committee.

At the beginning of my first term of office, in the 35th Parliament, I was the critic for the solicitor general and I had many opportunities to work with members of the RCMP. I know that those officers—I am not talking about senior officers—who do such things as going to Haïti or other countries to give training and assistance are very professional people and believe strongly in what they are doing. They are also very proud of their position.

I think that Bill C-12 meets many of these requirements and that is why, knowing these people as I do, I am pleased to say that we support Bill C-12 and will vote in favour.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of this bill, and we are going to try, when it is referred to committee, to verify certain things with RCMP officials, as well as with the Department of National Revenue or other government departments, so as to be sure that the money invested will go to the right place, and that all RCMP members, whether they travel to other countries or stay in Canada, are treated fairly.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I do not believe we have a quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We do not have a quorum. Call in the members.

After the ringing of the bells:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The Chair notes that there is a quorum. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has the floor.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of my party in support of Bill C-12, an act to amend the RCMP superannuation act. I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.

It is our position that this legislation, which gives members of the RCMP serving abroad as peacekeepers the same benefits as their counterparts in the armed forces in the event of illness, injury and death, has been far too long in coming.

While we welcome the introduction of this bill and we urge its speedy passage, we hope that in future, when we ask our young men and women to place their lives on the line for their country, they will not have to worry about their benefits and about our commitment to them.

We must recognize that when our peacekeepers are serving abroad in war zones or areas of civil strife or natural disaster, they do not work eight hour shifts. On the contrary, they are on duty around the clock, putting their lives at risk for their country 24 hours a day. Bill C-12 recognizes the unique nature of this job and takes the necessary steps to remedy the unfairness of the current situation.

Canada is respected around the world for its commitment to peace and as a leader in peacekeeping nations. We, as representatives of the people, must ensure that every measure is taken to give full support to our peacekeepers and their families both at home and abroad.

This legislation that is intended to provide RCMP members who serve as peacekeepers the same health benefits as their counterparts in the armed forces is a step in the right direction and it is only fair. More must be done to recognize the service of our peacekeepers and the sacrifices they and their families make in the name of peace on behalf of all Canadians.

The issue of equity for all of those who serve Canada must be addressed both at home and abroad, particularly with respect to the RCMP who currently do not have the same collective bargaining rights as their brothers and sisters in other law enforcement agencies across the country.

They do not have the same opportunity to advocate on their own behalf through free collective bargaining. I hope we get an opportunity to address that issue in this House before long.

We hear stories of members of the Canadian armed forces and their families having to use food banks to sustain themselves. Why is it that men and women who put their lives on the line for their country and for peace around the world are forced to live in near poverty conditions when they return home to Canada?

There is something fundamentally wrong when long expected pay increases for service men and women have been put on hold for five, six and going on seven years when just last month the Treasury Board approved huge bonuses for an executive group of the public service, bonuses of $4,500, even reaching $12,000 per individual.

Believe me, the significance of this was not lost on the hard working public service employees. It is hard not to be jaded when they witness such a clear government bias in favour of the executive ranks while denying longstanding legally required pay settlements to the lowest paid workers.

RCMP members of the Canadian peacekeeping forces deserve equal pay for work of equal value, but so do all public sector employees.

We can only hope that this spirit of generosity and this new found sense of fairness on the part of the solicitor general can be extended to the Treasury Board. Public sector workers have been waiting for a decade for the federal government to make good on its obligation to pay equity and they are still waiting. They are waiting for fairness, they are waiting for equal pay for work of equal value regardless of their gender. They are a patient and long suffering group and they have come to realize that when you are waiting for a fair shake from this government you had better pack a lunch.

It is timely to address these issues, particularly as this week is veterans week, a time when all Canadians are encouraged to reflect on the great sacrifices made by all our members of the armed forces on behalf of Canada and on behalf of peace around the world.

We support the government's introduction of Bill C-12 and we hope that this is the beginning of a renewed commitment to our peacekeepers and indeed to all Canadians, for this government has a very long way to go to restore equity and fairness to Canadians. We in the New Democratic Party on behalf of working people everywhere will continue to ensure that it does.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Winnipeg in supporting Bill C-12, an act to amend the RCMP superannuation act.

Bill C-12 will amend the RCMP superannuation act to ensure that the RCMP members serving in special duty areas are automatically considered to be on duty 24 hours a day and therefore get complete benefit coverage. At present the act provides for coverage only during periods of scheduled shifts, which my colleague from Winnipeg referred to.

As all Canadians would appreciate, when a soldier or an RCMP officer serves outside Canada on peacekeeping missions they face all sorts of dangers not just during their duty period but when they are off duty as well. We have seen many horrific examples of that around the world over the last couple of decades, in particular in conflict zones or special duty zones as they are called.

A special duty area is a designation given to certain geographic areas where Canadian forces members would be exposed to hazardous conditions not normally associated with service in peacetime. Examples of special duty areas for the RCMP would be Haiti and Bosnia where RCMP members are currently serving on peacekeeping missions.

This legislation will make RCMP members who serve as peacekeepers eligible for the same health benefits as military personnel. The NDP believes it is the only fair thing to do to include RCMP who are serving in the same areas as armed forces personnel so that they are eligible for the same benefit coverage.

Madam Speaker, I represent a district called Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, which you are aware of. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police training centre is in the constituency, the depot as we call it in Regina. We have a number of recruits coming to be trained. We also have a number of families working at the academy, at the depot, who have served on peacekeeping missions from time to time. Many police families reside in my constituency as well. I know many of them personally and many of them are my neighbours.

I might add that the neighbourhood I live in is probably one of the safest neighbourhoods and safest constituencies in all of Canada because we have such a large force, not just RCMP members but Regina police association members as well, residing in the district. We are very confident because we feel the neighbourhood is very safe.

These RCMP officers who serve our country overseas do not just serve their country but their community with a great deal of strength, consistency and loyalty. Bill C-12 recognizes this type of service and sacrifice by members of the RCMP.

I have worked on a number of issues in House of Commons over the past four years that are important to the RCMP and to the Regina Police Association. As a result of my efforts on issues like gun control, the Young Offenders Act and dealing with young offenders stealing a lot of autos in Regina, we have been able to make some strides with respect to making our community much safer overall in the city of Regina and the province of Saskatchewan. I have also been very supportive over the years of the collective bargaining process which the RCMP has sometimes been quite restricted in.

The bill reminds me of an old saying. It addresses one of the issues of an old saying I heard a while back that generals who neglect their soldiers in the battlefield will find it very difficult to find recruits when the next battle is fought. Bill C-12 is a very small step toward looking after RCMP members who serve our country in special duty areas or, as some people refer to them on occasion, in peacekeeping battlefields. It recognizes that they should be included and have the same benefits as those in the military.

I am very pleased to join with my colleagues in the NDP to support the bill. However I want to raise one issue which saw the light of day as recently as last week with respect to some of the pension issues, in particular the RCMP pension issue. The Solicitor General of Canada indicated that any additional cost which might be incurred by the change in Bill C-12 would be assumed within existing RCMP budgets.

The federal government used another $2.6 billion from its employee pension fund this year to help lower the deficit despite a storm of controversy over the legality of the manoeuvre. Last year the government took $2.4 billion, sparking outrage from not just unions but also pensioners who have banded together to take the government to court to stop the practice. The RCMP is involved with that court action.

I am very concerned about this latest action by the government. It is basically taking a pension fund and using it not for the purpose for which it was established, to provide pensions, whether disability pensions or retirement pensions, to those who contribute over their years of service whether they are in the Public Service of Canada or in specific forces like the RCMP. I think Canadians are quite outraged and unhappy with this latest government move.

My sense is if the court challenge fails—and I hope it does not; I hope they are successful—a number of politicians in the House of Commons will take the issue to the floor of the House time after time until the government deals with the deficit in a manageable, fair way.

Taking pension money from people who have not yet retired and those who are retired is an unacceptable practice in any country although in some banana republics this is the course of action. Canada has a pretty good reputation around the world but it worries me that it is becoming one of a banana republic because of some of the actions of the Liberal government opposite that were supported previously by the Mulroney government.

We have to address the issue. If the solicitor general is serious about supporting Bill C-12, maybe he could talk to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, and tell him to keep his damn fingers out of the pension till. It is about time that happened.

I want to go on record as saying that we support Bill C-12. We do not support the type of practices the Liberal government has instituted with respect to taking pension funds out of the public service pension superannuation for its own crass political purposes.

I assure the House that in the future we will be watching this issue very closely and taking it to the finance committee. We will be raising it with the Minister of Finance in the future to make sure he does not make those pensions unaffordable or jeopardize the plan. People who have contributed to these pension plans deserve them in their retirement.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question that has to do with the last point he touched on, the raiding of a pension plan that is healthy. It seems like it is too healthy for the government and it has to do something with it. It has certainly screwed up the Canada pension plan. It is in a terrible mess. Now it is raiding a pension that is in good shape. It has too much money in it.

In a case such as this one, would the hon. member recommend to the government that when a pension has an overabundance of funds those who contributed to it should benefit from it either by a reduction in future contributions or a direct payback? Would the member comment on that?

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for Crowfoot.

The Liberals cannot stand the success of other organizations or programs they are not directly involved with. It is a very dangerous precedent.

The Liberal government is interfering with a pension system established through the collective bargaining process, I might add, to provide a pension for those who work in the public service, the RCMP or other federal government agencies. It is a very bad precedent and a very bad omen that the Liberals are taking the surplus out of this pension plan.

When the actuaries established the plan through the collective bargaining process they said that x number of dollars would be deducted from the employees' salaries, matched by the federal government, and invested so that they have a secure plan. Actuaries can only predict; they cannot tell precisely what the future will hold.

Obviously there is a surplus because of what happened in the economy, with investments, with the longevity of plan members and all other inputs necessary to establish the amount of money required to pay out the pensions. The point of all of this is that similarly it could provide for a shortfall in the long run because it cannot predict how the economy will operate.

I believe very strongly as a person who has spent a lot of time studying pensions in the country that we have to look at the surplus of a pension as being the property of those who contributed to the plan. If there is a long term surplus there should be some consideration. Some decisions should be made in a collective way between employees and employers as to what the surplus should be used for, whether it should be used for a reduction of contributions or improvement of benefits. I believe that is a very important point to be considered.

The Liberal government has made the decision, not through collective bargaining, to take out the surplus. It arbitrarily did it and did not report to the population of the country until it had already done it. By then it was too late. It is like closing the barn door after the cows have left. That is a very bad omen for the country.

I see the Liberal whip is very supportive of my presentation. I hope he will take this matter to the Minister of Finance, as I am sure he is quite supportive of what I am saying, and tell him that these surpluses should not be taken out of the pension funds because they rightfully belong to the employees.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Regina—Lumsden said that if there is a surplus in a pension fund it should be distributed back to the contributors either in the form of reduced contributions or increased benefits.

In looking at the Canada pension plan it is just the opposite. There have not been enough contributions. There is no money. In that case the Liberal government decided to put the burden of that on to the children of the country who do not have a choice in the decision.

I am wondering what the member thinks about that.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member misunderstood what I said. I said that the surplus of the public service pension plan is the property of the membership and that the surplus should be negotiated in terms of what its use and purpose will be. I did not say that they should just pay out. I said that some of the options are to reduce the contributions or to increase the benefits of the pension holders.

With respect to the Canada pension plan we have seen a different sort of pension plan. We have basically two types of pension plans. One is a defined contribution plan, which is a percentage type plan whereby employees over a period of time get a percentage of their salary as a pension. The other form is a defined contribution plan where the employee and the employer make contributions to a plan. It is like the purchase of an RRSP. Whatever is earned, the principal and so on, is used to purchase an annuity, either a single annuity or a joint spousal annuity.

[Bill Matthews, Progressive Conservative, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support Bill C-12. My colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus and I support the legislation because it expands the scope of pension benefits for many courageous Canadians who presently serve or who have served as peacekeepers throughout the world.

Specifically Bill C-12 would provide peacekeepers who are members of the RCMP with the same pension entitlement in the event of illness, injury or death as peacekeepers in the Canadian Armed Forces.

If Bill C-12 is adopted, provisions of the RCMP superannuation act would correspond with the provisions of the Pension Act regarding coverage and benefits for injuries, illnesses or deaths incurred while on peacekeeping missions. RCMP peacekeepers would therefore be on a level playing field with their Canadian forces counterparts.

Our position in the global community is unique, since for the past 40 years Canada has built a proud tradition as peacekeepers throughout the world. There are many countries in which Canadian men and women have put their lives on the line to help preserve peace.

Indeed, Canada has been at the forefront of developing and implementing modern peacekeeping operations in the world. This is due in no small part to the active involvement of thousands of members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Following the first 30 years of participating in peacekeeping operations throughout the world, the nature of Canada's peacekeepers has changed. In 1989, RCMP officers were deployed to Namibia in the former southwest Africa as it made its transition from a South African protectorate to an independent democratic nation. No longer would peacekeeping remain the sole domain of the Canadian forces. These brave men and women would henceforth have support from their civilian colleagues in the RCMP.

Since 1989 more than 600 members of the RCMP have participated in United Nations missions to the former Yugoslavia, Haiti and Rwanda.

The RCMP has successfully complemented the Canadian Armed Forces involvement in peacekeeping. By expanding upon the earlier success of the Canadian forces in many of the world's trouble spots, RCMP members have met a demand for peacebuilders in developing countries.

What does peacebuilding mean? It is more than just a buzzword. Peacebuilding means providing developing countries with the tools to support a stable democratic government, namely an effective security force which is respectful of law and human rights.

RCMP members avail themselves to provide skill training in areas such as investigation, first aid and case management. They also provide mentoring for individual officers and monitor their development as civilian police officers.

Finally peacebuilding includes maintaining a safe and secure environment in which the developing police force can operate without fear of reprisal.

That last element of peacebuilding is probably the most dangerous for our RCMP personnel. Like their Canadian forces colleagues in traditional peacekeeping settings, RCMP peacebuilders often face violent opposition to their presence.

While the United Nations and this bill define peacekeeping locations as special duty areas, the everyday reality is much more precise. These are deeply troubled areas in which Canadians are putting themselves at grave risk of injury, illness or death for the cause of peace.

For these reasons the intent of the legislation to put Canadian forces and RCMP personnel on equal footing with respect to Pension Act benefits is a positive one which I feel should receive priority attention by the House and Senate.

I should note this imbalance between Canadian forces peacekeeping benefits and RCMP peacekeeping benefits was neither planned nor deliberate. It occurred under the evolution of Canada's international military and security role during this century.

At the beginning of the 20th century there was no such thing as peacekeeping. Soldiers were soldiers and peace was enforced merely by the absence of full-scale war. Such a war became a reality with the first world war in which Canada paid dearly with a generation of its young. In the wake of the the first world war's carnage, the government of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden introduced the Pension Act, which provided compensation for disability and death related to service in the Canadian forces. The Pension Act maintained a fundamental distinction in the eligibility for benefits between wartime or peacetime military service. That distinction remains almost 80 years later.

Put simply, if an injury, illness or death was attributable to or incurred during the first or second world war, a pension shall be awarded under section 21(1). This is around the clock coverage. Peacetime service would result in the same benefits as wartime service only if it is established that the injury, illness or death was sustained on duty and was attributable to service. The difference was clear. If there existed a state of war, 24-hour coverage was provided. Anything less and the restrictions were much tighter.

After the second world war Canada continued to be involved in international military operations during peacetime, such as in Korea and the Persian Gulf. Canada also introduced and executed the innovative notion of peacekeeping, which nonetheless placed Canadian forces personnel in hazardous conditions not normally associated with peacekeeping service.

In response to this evolution, the federal government introduced the Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964. This bill allowed cabinet through order in council to designate special duty areas outside Canada in which members of the Canadian forces would be eligible for the same pension benefits as under section 21(1) of the Pension Act; in other words, 24-hour coverage for Canadian forces personnel in special duty areas whether they be military operations such as in Korea or the Persian Gulf or peacekeeping activities such as the Middle East or the former Yugoslavia.

Various governments have issued more than two dozen such designations. Our Canadian forces personnel have therefore been eligible for pension benefits in the event of illness, injury or death incurred in these special duty areas.

The RCMP has been eligible for the same pension benefits as those listed under section 21(2) of the Pension Act. In other words, the illness, injury or death provision occurred through peacetime military service was deemed to be equivalent to illness, injury or death entitlements for members of the RCMP. The principle was confirmed under the RCMP Act in 1948 and confirmed in the first RCMP Superannuation Act in 1959. This was a logical provision for domestic RCMP service. In an area such as Canada where peace is the rule, it makes perfectly good sense to link this type of pension eligibility to duty rather than to service.

In special duty areas peace is the exception, not the rule. That is why the federal government changed the pension eligibility rules 30 years for our Canadian forces personnel. That is why the federal government must now change the pension eligibility rules for RCMP personnel who are now an integral part of Canada's international commitment to peacekeeping. That is the purpose of Bill C-12 and that is why I support the legislation.

As has been referenced by earlier speakers, this legislation was introduced in the previous Parliament in June 1996 as Bill C-52. First reading occurred and then nothing happened. Nothing happened in the fall of 1996 session and nothing in the spring of the 1997 session. It died on the Order Paper.

It is nearly a year and a half since the bill was first introduced and it has gone nowhere, thanks to the neglect of the government. This bill would affect the entitlements of hundreds of men and women who have put their lives on the line in representing Canada abroad. The Liberal government of the day did not have the respect for those brave Canadians to pass this legislation.

One must ask why the current government placed such a low priority on Bill C-52. Hopefully the solicitor general, as minister responsible for the men and women in the RCMP, has the answer to that very important question. There is, after all, a first time for everything. Perhaps the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who quietly allowed the Prime Minister to assign Canadians to Rwanda based on a newscast whim, would like to explain the inexcusable delay in extending those benefits to the RCMP.

What has caused the reason for delay? By dragging its heals for a year and half did the government save huge amount of money? Why did the government delay this rather straightforward legislation? I hope someone from the government stands up and answers these questions.

The RCMP personnel who are presently putting their lives on the line in such areas as Bosnia and Haiti deserve an answer. I would like to commend those who spoke before.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have covered this bill very well. I have a couple of points I would like to make which are outside the gamut of what the members have so far touched on.

The legislation will amend the RCMP Superannuation Act to ensure that RCMP members serving in special duty areas while on peacekeeping missions are automatically considered to be on duty 24 hours a day and therefore get complete benefit coverage. At present that is not the case.

As parliamentarians we should take a very close look at the requests to send RCMP personnel into these kinds of situations, not only because of the danger involved, but also when we take a contingent of RCMP from Canada and send them into another country we do not replace them at home. Then we have a shortage of manpower.

If we have sent 200 members to Bosnia, or whatever the number may be, it means there are 200 less RCMP members here to do the work. The RCMP are understaffed in many areas. Some of its special squads are understaffed. A high ranking ex-officer told me that the RCMP does not have enough manpower to look at fraud cases below $200,000 in value. That is a very serious situation. In some of the western detachments a corporal is running a staff sergeant's detachment.

When the government decides to strip the RCMP of that kind of manpower to serve in an honourable way in other countries, it better take a good look at what is being done at home. The old adage is that charity begins at home. Are we going to sacrifice the role and the service which is provided by our national police force when we send RCMP members into various countries for undetermined lengths of time?

The budget of the RCMP, as well, is being chipped away. Our party is very much against that. We feel that if there is an area that should receive additional spending, it should be in the areas of law enforcement and justice. This will strengthen the justice system and provide the kind of safe streets and communities which the government likes to talk about, but is not producing very much, certainly since I have been in this House.

There is no question that the pension benefits should be amended to provide for the kind of coverage that is indicated in this bill. We will be examining the clauses of the bill carefully when it is before the committee. We would like to know if a member is off duty, perhaps surf boarding and he injures himself, what happens. Is he covered? The bill is not that specific in those areas. Therefore, we will be looking for confirmation in all of those areas to determine whether the bill is sound as it stands or whether it requires amendments.

I would like to again sum up by emphasizing that when we send members of the RCMP into these situations, we had better take a careful look at the hole that we are leaving at home.

The RCMP are in a very delicate situation. Can the commissioner of the RCMP or any senior officer stand up publicly and say “We are risking service to the public in this area”. Some areas are very serious. We have organized crime and the bikers whom we all know about. We have areas that we should not be taking strength from but adding to.

I have spoken to members in charge of the special units in my area, in particular, in western Canada. They tell me that without question they are short-staffed and understaffed. When we send our troops abroad we are weakening our own forces here which means that we are not enhancing the possibility of greater safety in our streets and in our communities but we are doing exactly the opposite. We ought not be doing that. We should be looking at this.

I hope that the members who have an opportunity to examine the witnesses appearing before the committee on this bill will put those kinds of questions squarely before the witnesses, including, I hope, the minister who attends and perhaps the commissioner of the RCMP.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you sought the consent of the House to see the clock as being 6.30 p.m. then possibly suspended to the call of the Chair to allow the member or members who might be participating in the late show, I am sure all parties will try to facilitate that as quickly as possible. I would seek consent to see the clock as being 6.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the hon. chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as being 6.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House stands in recess to the call of the Chair.

On a point of order, the chief government whip.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is now in the House and prepared to speak. I believe that we can continue with the business of the House at this point.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this motion to adjourn, because I asked a question of the Minister of Finance on October 21. What he was asked, in connection with the $12 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund, was how far he would go before he stopped reducing his deficit on the backs of workers and employers and the unemployed.

The minister replied, speaking about contributions “we will—lower them every year, but one has to look at all of the government's financial statements”. In recent years, employment insurance rates have been set in November. It is expected that, around mid-November, we will know whether the Minister of Finance is following up on the representations made by various stakeholders.

In this House, every possible point of view is heard. The Conservatives want a drastic reduction in employment insurance contributions, but without compensating seasonal workers or young people entering the labour market, preferring to let them fend for themselves under unacceptable conditions. The NDP does not want to lower contributions, but to improve working conditions. As for the Bloc Quebecois, whose position is somewhere in between, it believes that with a $12 billion surplus by December 31, 1997, and possibly a $15 billion surplus by March 31, 1998, the government could carry over a yearly surplus, so as to have a cushion of $5 billion, $6 billion or $7 billion for bad economic years, while splitting in two the balance in the employment insurance fund surplus, that is by significantly lowering contributions to put money back in the pockets of those contributing to the program—employers and employees—while also improving conditions for those affected by the employment insurance reform.

The minister told us he would consider the issue. The important thing however is to not go for a very minor lowering of contributions, as the government did the last time, since it does not change things significantly for employees and employers, or for job creation. Contributions must be reduced to the point where people will receive a sizeable amount of money that they can reinvest in the economy, thus helping it in a meaningful way.

So far, the minister seems to have been deaf to these requests, and I would like to know why exactly, at a time when a zero deficit—possibly a surplus—is in sight, the federal government does not see fit to give back to those who have contributed the most to the deficit reduction effort, that is to say, to employees and employers, a substantial part of this money, mainly through the employment insurance fund. In just two years, we have gone from a $6 billion deficit to a $12 billion surplus, which will soon grow to $13 billion. This means that more than $19 billion has been pumped into the EI fund.

Obviously, this is a wonderful money collecting tool for the federal government, but since those who are paying into this fund are individuals earning $39,000 or less, why is the government not announcing right now, or at least by November 15, a significant cut in EI premiums, combined with improved terms and conditions?

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that EI premium rates must come down and they will. They will be coming down over time. There is no question about that.

We have already made considerable progress in reducing EI premium revenues. Let me remind members that EI premium rates have declined every year since 1994, down from $3.07 in 1994 to $2.90 this year. Weekly maximum insurable earnings, MIEs, were rolled back to $750 and frozen rather than increased.

There is the new hires program. Many times people forget about the new hires program. Up to 900,000 eligible employers will pay virtually no premiums for new jobs created this year. This program has been set up to enhance employing more people.

Together these measures represent a cumulative reduction in EI revenues of some $4 billion from 1995 to 1997; $500 million in 1995, $1.8 billion in 1996 and $1.7 billion in 1997.

The EI premium rate for 1998 will be set later this fall by the Minister of Human Resources Development.

EI premium revenues are part of the consolidated revenues of the government. Please understand that they have been that way since 1986 at the insistence of the Auditor General of Canada. It is certainly true that they are important to achieving our fiscal objectives. A substantial reduction in EI premium revenues now would require either significant increases in other taxes, further large reductions in government programs, or an increase in the deficit.

As much as we would want to get EI premium rates down, we cannot do so prematurely. This is an important issue and must be considered together with other key priorities of the government.