Debates of April 3rd, 2009

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically, Bill C-18 would do three things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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