Legal · Findings

One federal pension rule punishes misconduct. It reaches constables, and nobody else.

Found 3 September 2026 · confirmed in writing by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat on 23 September 2026 · published 24 September 2026 · Danilo Dzyuban, Ottawa · statutes captured in full from the Justice Laws Website on 24 September 2026, checksums published

Three federal statutes pay the pensions of the RCMP, the public service and the Canadian Forces. One of them lets a board chaired by the President of the Treasury Board withhold the employer-funded share of a pension from a member dismissed for misconduct. The other two contain no such rule. The body that applies the rule to constables now says in writing that it holds no such power over anyone else, and sends the question of why to a different minister.

The rule in force today

Dismissal for misconduct

11 (4) A contributor who is compulsorily retired from the Force by reason of misconduct is entitled to (a) a return of contributions; or (b) in the discretion of the Treasury Board, the whole or any part specified by the Treasury Board of any benefit to which he or she would have been entitled under this section if (i) in the case of a contributor who at the time of his or her retirement had reached retirement age, he or she had ceased to be a member of the Force for any reason other than disability or misconduct, or (ii) in the case of a contributor who at the time of his or her retirement had not reached retirement age, he or she had been compulsorily retired from the Force to promote economy or efficiency due to a reduction in the total number of members of the Force, except that in no case shall the capitalized value of the benefit be less than the amount of the return of contributions referred to in paragraph (a).

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-11, s. 11 (4)

The member dismissed for misconduct keeps what the member paid in. The employer's share is released only if the Treasury Board says so. Subsection 11 (10) applies the same rule, “with the consent of the Treasury Board”, to members of the Force who hold no rank. The Act's own history line for section 11 records an amendment by 1999, c. 34, s. 178. The rule survived it.

The rule that was removed

Minister means the President of the Treasury Board; (ministre)

misconduct [Repealed, 1999, c. 34, s. 53]

Public Service Superannuation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-36, s. 3 (1)

The word appears in the Act exactly once, as a note that it was removed. The removal came in Bill C-78 of the 36th Parliament, the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, S.C. 1999, c. 34. LEGISinfo records its sponsor: the Hon. Marcel Massé, President of the Treasury Board. It received royal assent on 14 September 1999. Its long title says it amends the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. One bill touched all three statutes. It took the rule out of the public service statute and left it in the RCMP statute.

The rule that never existed

The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-17, does not contain the word misconduct. Checked against the full consolidated text on 24 September 2026: zero occurrences.

What the Secretariat wrote on 23 September 2026

A letter of 2 September 2026 to the President of the Treasury Board put three questions: the basis for the difference between a constable and a deputy minister; which of two routes the President supports, extending the rule to the public service or repealing it for the RCMP; and a decision on the fee for access request A-2026-00378, which asks for the records behind the 1999 repeal. The answer came twenty-one days later from Pension Policy and Programs, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, over no name.

Although subsection 11(4) of the RCMPSA assigns a specific discretion to the Treasury Board, any amendment or repeal of that provision would require an amendment to the RCMPSA. The Minister of Public Safety is the minister responsible for the RCMP pension plan.

The Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA) no longer contains an equivalent provision. Accordingly, neither the Treasury Board nor the President of the Treasury Board has authority under the PSSA to reduce or withhold a public servant's pension benefit because the person was dismissed for misconduct. Authority to reduce or withhold such benefits cannot be inferred where the legislation does not provide it.

Pension Policy and Programs, Employee Relations and Total Compensation Sector, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 23 September 2026 — the letter in full, as received

On the first question, the basis for the difference, the letter gives none. On the second, the President's position, it states none. On the third it says the Secretariat's access office “has responded to you separately on that matter”.

The office that says it is not responsible is the office that holds the power

5 (1) There is hereby established a committee of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada called the Treasury Board over which the President of the Treasury Board appointed by Commission under the Great Seal shall preside.

Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, s. 5 (1)

The discretion in subsection 11 (4) belongs to the Treasury Board, a committee over which the President presides. The Public Service Superannuation Act names the President as its Minister. The bill that removed the rule from that Act was sponsored by the President. The letter that says the President holds no power over a deputy minister's pension comes from the President's own Secretariat, and it names the Minister of Public Safety for the constable's. The RCMP statute does define its Minister as the Minister of Public Safety; the discretion in it still belongs to the board the President chairs.

The Secretariat's rule, read against the Secretariat

“Authority to reduce or withhold such benefits cannot be inferred where the legislation does not provide it.” That is the Secretariat's rule of interpretation, and it is correct. On 2 September 2026 the Secretariat's access office wrote this about request A-2026-00378, the request for the records behind the 1999 repeal:

Please note that we will put your request in abeyance until we receive additional information from you. If we have not received your reply within 30 days of this communication, we will consider the request abandoned and close our file accordingly.

Access to Information and Privacy, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2 September 2026, file A-2026-00378

And on 9 September:

Please be advised that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) has reviewed the circumstances of your request and has determined that we respectfully require that the $5 application fee be paid in order to continue processing your request. […] Further to our recent correspondence, your request will remain on hold pending receipt of the application fee.

Intake Unit, Access to Information and Privacy, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 9 September 2026, file A-2026-00378

The Access to Information Act contains no power to hold a request in abeyance, no power to keep it on hold for a fee, and no power to close it as abandoned. It contains one power on fees: to waive them, in subsection 11 (2). A waiver was asked for in the request itself on 2 September. By 23 September the Secretariat had used three powers the Act does not provide and had not used the one it does. The pension office's letter of that day says the access office “has responded to you separately on that matter”. The file holds the two letters above. Neither contains the word waiver, a decision, a reason, or the name of the officer who holds the delegated power.

What follows

A Senate public bill is drafted. It copies subsection 11 (4) into the Public Service Superannuation Act word for word and keeps the Treasury Board as the decision-maker. Parliament has two ways to remove the difference: extend the rule to the public service, or repeal it for the RCMP. The bill takes the first, and a Parliament that prefers the second can say so. The third outcome, leaving the difference where it is, is the one in force today, and the record now shows that no office will put its name to it.

The record

Verification

The four statutes were captured in full from the Justice Laws Website on 24 September 2026, and every quotation above is taken from those captures. Their SHA-256 checksums, with the quoted passages, are published at /sources/statutes-as-captured-2026-09-24.md. The sponsor, title and dates of Bill C-78 are taken from the LEGISinfo record for the bill (36th Parliament, 1st Session), captured the same day. The Secretariat's letter of 23 September 2026 is reproduced in full, as received, with its date and subject line.

Citation: Danilo Dzyuban, “One federal pension rule punishes misconduct. It reaches constables, and nobody else.” (24 September 2026).