BILL C-12: AN ACT TO AMEND THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACT (LS-301E)

Prepared by:
Mary C. Hurley
Law and Government Division
27 October 1997
Revised 6 October 1998

HOUSE OF COMMONS		SENATE
Bill Stage	Date	Bill Stage	Date
First Reading:	23 October 1997	First Reading:	28 April 1998
Second Reading:	3 November 1997	Second Reading:	30 April 1998
Committee Report:	10 December 1997	Committee Report:	4 June 1998
Report Stage:	2 April 1998	Report Stage:
Third Reading:	2 April 1998	Third Reading:	8 June 1998

Royal Assent: 11 June 1998 Statutes of Canada 1998, c.11 N.B. Any substantive changes in this Legislative Summary which have been made since the preceding issue are indicated in bold print.

BILL C-12: AN ACT TO AMEND THE ROYAL CANADIAN
MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACT*

Bill C-12, introduced in the House of Commons on 23 October 1997, would implement measures making RCMP members eligible for benefits in accordance with the Pension Act in the event of illness, injury or death incurred or occurring during peacekeeping missions. The bill was given second reading on 3 November, was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and, following consideration by the Committee on 9 December 1997, was reported back to the House of Commons on 10 December without amendments. Bill C-12 had an uneventful passage through the Senate, where it was introduced on 28 April 1998 and given third reading, unamended, on 8 June following consideration by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.

The following paragraphs outline existing provisions by virtue of which Pension Act(1) benefits are available under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act(2) (RCMPSA), and describe the context that occasioned Bill C-12’s proposed amendments to that Act.

The Pension Act provides for compensation for disability and death related to service in the Canadian Forces. Since its introduction in 1919 in the wake of World War I, eligibility for Pension Act benefits has differed according to whether the pension claim arises in relation to wartime or peacetime military service(3). The current Act maintains that fundamental distinction. Under section 21(1), where a member of the Canadian Forces has suffered disability or died as a result of an injury or disease attributable to or incurred during military service rendered during World War I or World War II, a pension "shall" be awarded, upon application, according to rates set out in the applicable Schedule to the Act. This around-the-clock coverage in the context of service during either of the world wars, as defined by the Act, represents the "insurance principle" of the Pension Act. Section 21(2) provides that in respect of peacetime service, the same pension benefits will be payable only if disability or death results from injury or disease that "arose out of or was directly connected with" military service; that is, it must be established that the injury or death was sustained on duty and was attributable to service(4)

The above-cited provisions of the Pension Act do not, however, represent the sole avenue to service-related entitlement for Canadian Forces members. For over 30 years the Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964 has authorized the Governor in Council.(5)

Over two dozen such designations have been issued to date under the Special Duty Area Pension Order.(6) Each special duty area is one where Canadian Forces have been exposed to active hostilities - such as during the Korean and Persian Gulf conflicts - or to serious civil insurrection or other hazardous conditions not normally associated with peacetime service, typically, but not exclusively, as part of a United Nations peacekeeping force. At present, designated special duty areas include several states of the Middle East, Central America and Southeast Asia, the Republics of the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and, as of 5 October 1994, the Republic of Haiti.(7)

The effect of designation as a special duty area is essentially that, unlike peacetime service in non-designated areas, duty in these areas will be treated in the same manner as service rendered during World War II for the purpose of determining disability or death benefit entitlement under the Pension Act, notwithstanding that the disability or death may not have been directly associated with the performance of duty per se. In other words, the insurance principle of section 21(1) of the Pension Act applies to cover Canadian Forces members serving in special duty areas against all risks, 24 hours a day. Entitlement to a pension arising from service in an area designated under the Special Duty Area Pension Order also gives affected members access to health care benefits and veterans independence programs as "special duty area pensioners" under the Veterans Health Care Regulations.(8)

Turning to statutory provisions governing entitlement of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act was amended in 1948 to provide for the awarding of pensions in accordance with Pension Act rates to or in respect of eligible persons - members or special constables of the Force - whose disability or death resulted from injury or disease arising out of or directly connected with service in the Force.(9) This scheme became part of the inaugural Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act in 1959,(10) and remains essentially unchanged at section 32(1) of Part II of the current RCMPSA dealing with "Benefits in respect of injury or death on service." Pension Act entitlement for RCMP members is thus analogous to that applicable in respect of peacetime service in the Canadian Forces: it has been and continues to be exclusively duty-related, rather than service-related under the insurance principle described above.

RCMP members are at present ineligible, by definition, for benefits via the Special Duty Area Pension Order. In recent years, however, RCMP members have participated in missions to "hot spots" designated as special duty areas for members of the Canadian Forces on more than one occasion. These assignments have included United Nations mandates in Namibia, Yugoslavia and Haiti, where Force members are currently stationed. As a result, RCMP members cannot access benefits that are available to the Canadian Forces members beside whom they serve, despite exposure to hazards that resulted in the special duty area designation.

Bill C-12 is intended to address this anomalous situation, not only for RCMP members now in Haiti, but also to provide for the probable future involvement of RCMP members in similar operations in light of the federal government’s ongoing commitment to Canada’s peacekeeping role.

Clause 1 of Bill C-12 would replace section 32(1) of the French version of the RCMPSA, Part II, which establishes the entitlement of RCMP members to duty-related awards in accordance with the Pension Act. Proposed minor editorial changes would simply update the language of the French provision by substituting "à tout moment" for "en tout temps" in section 32(1)(a) and (b), and "a servi" for "a accompli du service" in the latter provision.

The clause would also repeal section 32(2) of the RCMPSA, under which Part II pension claims are dealt with in the same way as claims under the Pension Act, and all provisions of that Act not inconsistent with the terms of Part II of the RCMPSA apply to them. The proposed "repeal" is, however, essentially a drafting device, in that clause 2 would reintroduce an identical provision, as described below.

Clause 2 would add section 32.1 to Part II of the RCMPSA. It is this provision that would, in certain circumstances, establish parity between RCMP members and Canadian Forces members in terms of their entitlement to Pension Act benefits. First, new section 32.1(1) would require that an award in accordance with the Pension Act be granted in respect of an RCMP member whose disability or death resulted from injury or disease incurred while he or she was serving on a peacekeeping mission in a special duty area, "as though the service were military service rendered during World War I or World War II in a theatre of actual war." That is, RCMP members to whom proposed section 32.1(1) was applicable, like members of the Canadian Forces serving in a special duty area, would benefit from the insurance principle at section 21(1) of the Pension Act.

The phrase "peacekeeping mission," whereby eligibility for this benefit would be acquired, would not be defined. Arguably, this could enable some flexibility in applying proposed section 32.1(1) in the context of service other than on United Nations "peacekeeping" forces per se. Broadly interpreted, the proposed subsection might, for example, cover RCMP members participating in assignments such as the U.N.-mandated monitoring of independent elections in the designated special duty area of Namibia in 1989. The provision’s twofold requirement that service be on a "peacekeeping mission in a special duty area" would, however, preclude coverage for RCMP members assigned to other forms of special duty or exchange programs.

Proposed section 32.1(2) would authorize the Governor in Council (1) to order the designation as a special duty area of any geographic area outside Canada where RCMP members serve as part of a peacekeeping mission and risk exposure to hazards not associated with peacetime service, and (2) to specify the period during which such service would qualify them for an award under proposed section 32.1(1). This provision, while broadly analogous to that cited above in the Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964, would reiterate that the nature of service capable of triggering the issuance of a Special Duty Area Order is limited to service as "part of a peacekeeping mission." The appropriation statute’s authority contains no such explicit limitation to the nature of military service outside Canada in respect of which a Special Duty Area Order may be made. The stipulation in proposed section 32.1(2) would serve to confirm the view that only "peacekeeping" was intended to be covered by proposed section 32.1 and highlights the potential significance of that term’s interpretation.

Clause 2 of Bill C-12 would further provide, at proposed subsection 32.1(3), that the term "special duty area" means a designated area in an order made under the authority of either Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964 or proposed subsection 32.1(2). That is, a designation under the Special Duty Area Pension Order(11) in respect of members of the Canadian Forces would also cover RCMP members serving in that area on a peacekeeping mission. It is worth noting that, as is the case for Canadian Forces members, pension eligibility arising under the Special Duty Area Pension Order would qualify RCMP members for health care benefits and veterans independence programs under the definition of "special duty area pensioners" in the Veterans Health Care Regulations.(12) Should pensionability result from an Order made under the authority of proposed section 32.1(2), however, that definition in those Regulations would have to be amended in order to make those benefits available to these "special duty area pensioners" as well.

Finally, clause 2 would reintroduce the substance of section 32(2), the provision "repealed" by clause 1, as proposed section 32.2. This relocation is consequent upon the addition of proposed section 32.1 to Part II of the RCMPSA, that is, of a new provision to which the terms of section 32.2 would be applicable.

Bill C-12 would repeal section 33(2) of the RCMPSA under which, in applying the schedules of the Pension Act for purposes of Part II of the RCMPSA, specified ranks in the Force are deemed to correspond to specified ranks in the Canadian Forces. Since pension scales for disability and death set out at Schedules I and II of the Pension Act are identical, irrespective of rank - being based on range of disability and number of dependants in the case of Schedule I, and number and status of survivors in the case of Schedule II - the proposed repeal would simply eliminate a superfluous provision.

Clause 4 would replace section 34(1) of the RCMPSA, which currently provides that the Government Employees Compensation Act(13) is applicable to every member of the RCMP, as defined in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act(14) except persons described in existing section 32(1) of that Act, that is, who are already entitled to compensation in accordance with the Pension Act as described above. In terms of substance, this provision would be left essentially unchanged by the replacement. Proposed section 34(1) would simply extend the prohibition of double compensation to include RCMP members described in proposed section 32.1, and would further specify section 2(1) as the provision of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act defining RCMP "members" to whom the Government Employees Compensation Act applies.(15)

Owing to its largely uncontroversial subject matter, Bill C-12 - like its identical predecessor Bill C-52 – has not prompted significant public comment.

Before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, RCMP officials said that the bill would redress an existing inequity between the health and safety measures available to members of the Canadian Forces and those open to RCMP members. Achieving this form of parity was said to be important, despite the absence of triggering incidents to date, owing to the continuing and expanding involvement of RCMP members in peacekeeping activities. RCMP officials further testified that any benefits under the bill’s provisions would be paid for from within current RCMP appropriations, not from the RCMP superannuation account, and would have no effect on the normal benefits or pensions of RCMP members.

The testimony of the President of the Association of Members of the RCMP expressed the Association’s support for the bill, while cautioning that claims under it could or would be linked to RCMP members’ costs for various benefit plans. It was the position of the Association that in light of the nature of the public service involved, any increases in costs should be borne by the Canadian public at large, not RCMP members. Concern was also expressed that Bill C-12 might both inappropriately extend pension coverage to some, for example, senior RCMP officers on brief inspection tours, and inappropriately withhold coverage from RCMP members engaged in hazardous assignments not technically provided for in the bill.

A Canadian Police Association representative before the House Committee highlighted the issue of whether municipal or other police officers participating in peacekeeping missions abroad should be granted similar access to federal benefits. In his view, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act is capable of accommodating such an initiative to remedy an ongoing inequity.