Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity speak today at second reading of Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other Acts, which is a long title.
I will first tell the House what this bill is not about. It is not about the RCMP, in general, as an organization. I think as all Canadians know, and for the benefit of those watching, it is important to understand that this debate is not about the issues that our party and other Canadians have with some of the actions of the RCMP, in particular, RCMP management failing to take appropriate measures to protect Canadians in terms of the policies regarding tasers and the ongoing debate about that.
We are concerned of course about the failure to have policies that meet the test of Canadian values. We are very concerned about the failure of the government to provide proper civilian oversight of the RCMP, which was called for by Justice O'Connor and was implicit in Mr. Justice Iacobucci's recommendations. The Auditor General has pointed out some of the problems. We are also concerned about the government's failure to apologize for RCMP actions that contributed to the international torture of Canadians in Syria and Egypt.
Those are all things we have concerns about but this bill is not about those things. This bill is about the pay and benefits and the proper treatment of individuals who serve in our Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have a great respect for the work they do in protecting our communities. They serve, as members know, in many provinces as the provincial police force. They do in British Columbia and in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with the exception of St. John's, Cornerbrook and Labrador City which are under the jurisdiction of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. They are a very important part of rural Canada. They are the means of support for our communities, not only in terms of providing great policing and risking their lives in providing safety to our communities, but they also play an important role in community activities as volunteers, as leaders of sports activities, being role models for individuals and those who wish to serve their country. We do have a lot of respect for what the RCMP do in our communities across the country.
On the issue of pay and benefits, we are concerned that the government, after agreeing with the RCMP, through its special service representatives, on a pay increase that was to take effect this year, putting it in its manuals and in its HR provisions, unilaterally withdrew that and reduced the pay increase, effectively reducing their pay. We are very supportive of the RCMP members in their campaign to reverse that decision. We are not happy with some of the things that the government has done.
We do, however, support this legislation which is designed to provide a level playing field for Mounties when it comes to their pensions, particularly with respect to the portability of service.
In the federal public service, there are 75 transfer agreements with other agencies to allow the transfer of pensionable service from one employment to another. It is true for members of this House and it is true for most public servants under the public service pensions benefits act. It is also true in other parts of the country.
This legislation is long overdue. Legislation was passed in 1999 that was supposed to allow for portability of pensions. However, when the government finally, five or six years later, got around to drafting the regulations to make it possible, it was determined the legislation itself was inadequate to do what needed to be done.
Therefore, here we are again, 10 years later, passing legislation to enable this to happen. I am certainly disappointed in that because I know the RCMP members have been looking for this kind of pension portability since the mid-1990s.
This is long overdue but we do need to study it. We support the principle of it because it is very important. Many individuals serving in municipal police forces across the country providing yeomen service to their communities may want to transfer into the RCMP and they should be able to take their pension service and pension credits with them. This bill would allow them to do that.
It is important that we have that kind of portability. It should be available to Canadians generally, but in this particular case we are dealing with employees of the Government of Canada through the RCMP and we want to assure people that we support these changes.
The other important part of this bill is that it would allow agreements to be made with other agencies to transfer those pension credits and the money that goes with them, because, frankly, every time there is pensionable service, there has to be an amount of money set aside. It is usually defined by actuaries as to how much money it would take to actually pay out the pension that one has earned and that money would be transferred in.
This bill would also give members of the RCMP the opportunity to buy back previous service. Even though eligible service may not have been pensionable in the other work, it would now be pensionable through this bill. There are provisions for the member who is paying the actuarial value of that, essentially buying into the service that is deemed to be pensionable service for the purpose of this bill.
This bill has significant monetary implications for individual members but it is designed to create a system that provides fairness to RCMP members, whether they are coming into the RCMP from another service or with other pensionable service, such as Canadian Forces service, military police service and other kinds of service that are deemed appropriate to be included in pensionable service for police officers, or whether they are going out of the RCMP for another opportunity in a different police service.
We could have members of the RCMP who want to apply for jobs in other communities with another police service. This could be a significant advancement for that individual into a more senior position. We would not want them to be stuck in a job because of pension inflexibility when there are other opportunities for them.
We support the bill in principle. We have been advised that a couple of questions have been asked by RCMP officers, some of whom are part of the official group called the staff relations representatives, an internal RCMP group elected by the members in various provinces and who are on the RCMP payroll. It is not a union, which is another issue on which we are unhappy with the government. The government has been fighting unionization in the courts, despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has said that RCMP officers are entitled to the benefits of the freedom of association guaranteed to everyone in this country under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, they are still having to fight and another court case is going on now.
The RCMP staff relations representatives are pleased that this bill is coming forward after more than a dozen years of trying to get this forward. However, other organizations and associations are seeking unionization and they brought forth some concerns as well.
As others have said, we do need to recognize that this is a very technical bill. Pensions are very technical and require actuarial considerations where costing is concerned. Any time a change is made, a cost is associated with it but the question is whether the cost will be borne by the individual who is getting the benefit or by the government for other policy reasons.
I will not be proposing changes here on the floor of this House at second reading. The bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security where there will be opportunities to look at the kinds of changes that might need to be made. There may need to be some adjustments to fix anomalies.
One anomaly that has been suggested to me is the potential problem of discriminatory treatment between people who have perhaps had their training with another force. I do not know all of the facts but the suggestion is that the training component in other police forces, the work they do as recruits, as cadets, is paid for in pensionable service. I think the OPP was mentioned as an example. Someone transferring from the OPP into the RCMP pension fund will be able to take that pensionable service with them and get credit for it.
RCMP officers who are recruited today and go to their training as cadets, are now paid. The six months that they spend training, they are salaried employees and, presumably, covered by the pensionable service. However, existing RCMP officers who were trained years ago, whether it was 2 years ago, 10 years ago or 15 years ago, that period of training is not included in their pensionable service. That seems to me to be an anomaly and there may need to be some arrangements made to allow that to be pensionable service so there is a level playing field. Some provision may need to be made for either that to be placed in pensionable service or that the members may be able to buy back that service as part of their overall pension.
Those are technical things about which we would look forward to hearing from the RCMP members themselves, whether retired or active, whether they are involved with a staff relations representative or whether they are involved with those organizations that are seeking unionization.
Having said all that, I do want to say that we support the bill. It is an important advancement for the benefits of RCMP members. It is something we can support on a stand-alone basis while we criticize the government for its inaction on a lot of other points, whether they be the wage rates that were rolled back, the failure to support unionization or the failure on another level to make changes to the RCMP organization that we think are desirable.
