Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue No. 4, Evidence - Meeting of June 6, 2016
OTTAWA, Monday, June 6, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, to which was referred Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures, met this day at 10 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Daniel Lang (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. Before we begin, I would like to introduce the people around the table. My name is Dan Lang, senator for Yukon. On my immediate left is the clerk of the committee, Adam Thompson. I would like to invite each senator to introduce themselves and state the region they represent, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Jaffer: My name is Mobina Jaffer, and I come from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Good morning. My name is Jean-Guy Dagenais and I am from the province of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ngo: Senator Ngo from Ottawa, Ontario.
Senator Campbell: Good morning. Senator Larry Campbell, Galiano Island, British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Good morning. Claude Carignan, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak, northwestern Ontario.
Senator White: Vern White, Ontario. Welcome.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Today, we will be meeting for six hours as we consider Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures. Bill C-7 is a response to the decision taken last year by the Supreme Court of Canada endorsing the need for a meaningful collective bargaining process between the 21,000 members of the RCMP and 2,500 civilians and the Government of Canada.
Joining us today on panel one to discuss the bill are the Honourable Scott Brison, President of the Treasury Board of Canada, and the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. With them are officials from their departments.
Ministers, welcome to the committee, specifically Minister Scott Brison. This is the first time you are appearing before the committee, so please allow us to extend a special warm welcome. As the lead minister on this bill, I understand you have an opening statement. Please begin. You will be followed by Mr. Goodale. We have allocated one hour for this panel.
Hon. Scott Brison, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to be here with you this morning. I'm pleased to be joined by my colleague, Ralph Goodale, as well as his officials and my officials from Treasury Board. Joining us from Treasury Board are Manon Brassard and Dennis Duggan.
It's good to be here today to have the opportunity to discuss with you Bill C-7, which marks a historic milestone for the RCMP and Canadian labour relations. With the passage of this bill, RCMP members and reservists would, for the first time, have the same right to collective bargaining as other Canadians.
[Translation]
The bill would give them the right to choose an employee organization to represent them in labour negotiations.
[English]
I want to address a couple of issues that have been raised already by committee members. Some members spoke about the process of certification and whether to allow for a choice between a vote and a card check. I'd like to respectfully point out that this bill is entirely and intentionally silent on this issue for the reason that there's really no reason for the RCMP to be treated separately in this regard. We believe there needs to be a consistent approach for all employee associations. Debate is happening in the house on this issue through Bill C-4, and it's my belief that those discussions are better suited during that debate on that legislation.
It's important to note that Bill C-4, by repealing Bill C-525, does not deny the RCMP the possibility of having a secret ballot; we're simply returning the choice to the employment board, allowing them to decide which is more appropriate, depending on the circumstances — a vote or a card check. The Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board will have, with the passage of this legislation, at least two members of that board with knowledge of police organizations.
I'd also like to address some of the concerns that have been expressed by emails, letters and here in the Senate. This bill does restrict certain matters from being included in a collective agreement. I know that Senator Campbell and others have expressed a desire for everything to be on the table. It's not the case that collective bargaining usually starts with everything on the table; certain issues, such as staffing and pensions, have actually been excluded from collective bargaining for public servants for over 40 years. There are other exclusions in this bill relating to matters such as the deployment of RCMP members, conduct and discipline, law enforcement techniques and RCMP uniforms.
Other collective agreements often refer to management rights being restricted from collective bargaining. In the case of the RCMP, these matters relate to the effective management of the police force. They also acknowledge the broader accountability of the RCMP for the safety of Canadians.
I want to be clear that just because these items are excluded from collective bargaining doesn't mean RCMP members' voices will not be heard. There are other avenues where RCMP members can voice their concerns about some of these workplace issues. If a member, for instance, has concerns about the safety of their uniform, they can raise it in the Occupational Health and Safety Committee. That committee, with union representation, can study the issue and determine through evidence the best possible solution.
If a member has a concern about the processes around workplace conduct, they can raise their concerns, with union representation, in the Labour Management Consultation Committee. Through that committee, they can work with management to strengthen the responsiveness of the process.
Mr. Chair, with these other avenues, RCMP members and the union do have a voice, and they can work collaboratively with management to make their workplace better.
In the same vein, on Thursday, I heard concerns expressed that this bill would only leave pay and benefits to be collectively bargained. In fact, there are many issues in addition to pay and benefits that can be collectively bargained, and we've provided a list to the committee. I'll give just a couple of examples: Conditions of work, such as hours of work, scheduling, call-back and reporting conditions can be collectively bargained; leave provisions, such as designated paid holidays, vacation leave, sick leave and parental leave can be collectively bargained; and labour relations matters, such as the use of employer facilities, membership fees and procedures around workforce adjustment can be collectively bargained.
The decision to discharge an employee, for example, is part of the staffing process, which is not subject to negotiation. However, mitigating measures, such as compensation or the processes related to a discharge, can be negotiated.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate that your committee is moving quickly to study and analyze this bill. By doing so, the committee can help us minimize the disruption and potentially problematic situation the RCMP will be in without the passage of Bill C-7. With the Supreme Court deadline passing on May 16, there is currently an overlap between the RCMP Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act. Leaving this unaddressed could result in conflicting interpretation. Second, without Bill C-7, members could be represented by multiple bargaining agents. This would go against members' wishes and make it difficult for the RCMP to maintain a coherent national approach to labour relations. Third, there would be increased uncertainty among RCMP members regarding their collective bargaining rights.
In closing, I look forward to our discussion here this morning and to your considered examination of this legislation. At this point, I will turn it over to my colleague, the Honourable Ralph Goodale.
The Chair: Before we begin with Mr. Goodale, Mr. Brison, have you passed out or distributed the list you referred to earlier with respect to the areas that are going to be made available for the purpose of bargaining? I don't believe we received that.
Mr. Brison: I was informed that it had been distributed.
The Chair: We'll check and see. We just received a stack of material.
Mr. Brison: If it has not been, we'll rectify that. But I'd been informed that it had been distributed.
The Chair: Okay. I'll double-check. Meanwhile, let's get on with business. I'll go with Minister Goodale.
Hon. Ralph Goodale, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's nice to be back. Good day, once again, to all of the members of this committee.
I'm very pleased to appear today on Bill C-7 with my colleague Scott Brison. I'm also joined at the table, from my Department of Public Safety, by the Assistant Deputy Minister for Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch, Kathy Thompson; and also, from the RCMP, Dan Dubeau, the Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources, and Craig MacMillan, who is the Professional Responsibility Officer.
Mr. Chair, Bill C-7 represents a situation that we inherited last November when we became the government. When I say "inherited,'' I mean in two significant ways. The first is that this bill is the consequence of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada from January of 2015, almost 18 months ago. Second, it is shaped by the reality that, in 2012, the government entered into long-term policing contracts with a number of provinces, territories and municipalities and other partners, which, of course, the force is obliged to honour.
On the first point, that is, the Supreme Court ruling, in January of 2015, the court quite rightly ruled, I believe, that Mounties, like all other Canadians, have a right to collective bargaining if they choose to exercise that right, and they have the right to select their own independent collective bargaining representatives. That judgment was rendered in January of last year, and the Supreme Court gave Parliament one year to recognize those long-denied constitutional rights.
Obviously, 2015 turned out to be a complicated political year, with the longest election campaign in Canadian history, and the process of addressing the Supreme Court's judgment from January really didn't gain any traction under the previous administration before we got into that very long election campaign. Then, when the new government was elected and came to office in November, if you think of the deadline that was given by the Supreme Court, there were just basically two months left before the deadline arrived in the middle of January. We applied to the court for an extension of time, and the court provided that extension until the middle of May. Of course, we're now into June, so that deadline has come and gone. In the meantime, working as rapidly as we could with the time that we had available, we produced Bill C-7 to address the substance of what the court had to say and the constitutional requirements.
Fortunately, despite the intervening election, the Treasury Board undertook a significant amount of consultation with RCMP members about the nature of the labour representation that they would prefer, and they did that consultation starting in the summer of last year. Through surveys, town hall meetings, video and teleconferences, more than 9,000 members of the force participated. The consultations also reached out to provinces and territories and municipalities that have RCMP police service agreements in place.
Significantly, the regular members of the force indicated that they support a unionized RCMP, and they strongly prefer using binding arbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism without the right to strike. They recognize, obviously, their own critical role in public safety and how essential it is for Canadians to know that the RCMP is there for them to maintain peace and order in their communities to enforce the law and to prevent crime.
Members also showed clear support for independence from RCMP management and representation by a single national bargaining agent whose primary mandate would be the representation of RCMP members.
If Bill C-7 is enacted, it will do the following: It will give RCMP members and reservists the freedom to choose whether to be represented by a bargaining agent and, if so, which one. It will make independent binding arbitration the dispute resolution process for bargaining impasses, with no right to strike. It will allow for a single, national-in-scope bargaining unit for RCMP members and reservists. It will require that the RCMP bargaining agent have, as its primary mandate, the representation of RCMP members, and it will exclude RCMP management from representation, similar to how executives are excluded in the public service.
So, in those respects, the content of Bill C-7 is a strong effort to reflect the views that were expressed by the members when they were surveyed on this set of issues last summer. This legislation endeavours to ensure the rights of RCMP members, while simultaneously ensuring the safety and protection of Canadians.
In the other place, as you know, this bill was subject to extensive examination and debate. We listened carefully and agreed to an amendment in the other place related to the proposed changes to the Government Employees Compensation Act, otherwise known as GECA. During debate and at committee hearings in the other place, there was concern raised about previous sections 40 and 42 in the original Bill C-7. Under these provisions, the RCMP's occupational health care benefits for workplace injuries or illnesses would have been administered by provincial Workers' Compensation Boards, and RCMP coverage would have resembled that of officers working for other police departments. But, given the doubts that were expressed in the proceedings in the other place, a consensus developed to defer consideration of this GECA issue to a later date so that it could be more thoroughly examined. As a result, previous sections 40 and 42, the two parts of the original bill that dealt with GECA, were removed in the course of proceedings in the other place.
I think that's a good example of how we are trying to follow through on our promise to Canadians to make the parliamentary process and parliamentary committees more effective. The government's response to the representations that were received, I think, is an illustration of that.
As I close, I would just like to take a couple of minutes to address the issue of harassment within the RCMP, which has been much discussed generally in the public but also in relation to this specific bill. Harassment is obviously a critical issue, but it's a separate one that is being addressed in a number of other ways.
My mandate letter from the Prime Minister gives me this instruction:
Take action to ensure that the RCMP and all other parts of your portfolio are workplaces free from harassment and sexual violence.
I take that responsibility seriously. It was among the first things that I discussed last November in my first meeting with the commissioner following the selection of the cabinet. He agrees that investigations need to be prompt, comprehensive and transparent, that discipline needs to reflect the seriousness of harassment misbehaviour and that the victims need to be properly supported.
The RCMP code of conduct explicitly prohibits harassing behaviour in the workplace. It is a very strong statement of principle. The RCMP Act and regulations establish recourse procedures to help members to deal with violations.
There are a large number of harassment lawsuits, as you know, that were launched against the force from many years ago. With the assistance of very senior expertise, work is underway to see if those cases can be settled to the satisfaction of the complainants. Progress has been made. We will see how that process continues to unfold.
With respect to the 2013 harassment recommendations of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, I have asked the CRCC to revisit their previous advice to give me a comprehensive assessment of the adequacy, appropriateness, sufficiency and clarity of RCMP policies, procedures and guidelines to prevent misbehaviour and to address allegations.
With respect to the recent and rather shocking incident at the police college, a special review is nearing completion, and I expect a report shortly, with the added verification of Mr. Paul Kennedy, the former Chair of the CRCC, who was asked explicitly by the commissioner to monitor that process.
Finally, in the next short while, I expect to announce the selection of a distinguished Canadian to provide me with an independent opinion on certain specific matters pertaining to harassment allegations.
Senators, I simply want to make the point to you and to all Canadians that I expect exemplary conduct from the RCMP, befitting their reputation as an iconic representation of Canada and one of the finest police forces in the world.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. Before we proceed, I would ask all members to be concise in their preambles to their questions because our time is short.
Secondly, we will start with the critic of the bill and then we will go to the deputy chair. Towards the end of the time available, we will go to the sponsor of the bill. Senator Campbell, welcome to our committee. I just wanted to see what the procedure is.
We will start with Senator Carignan, then Senator Jafferm and I will name members after that.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Thank you. I will get right to the point Minister Goodale just made; he says he expects a police force that is exemplary, iconic, and wants RCMP officers to be proud of their organization.
The RCMP Pay Council did a study in 2015 and produced a report. To the question: "Would you recommend joining the RCMP to a member of your family?'', 53 per cent of RCMP officers replied no.
Moreover, to the question: "Do you think you will leave the RCMP?'' 9 per cent replied that they thought about this constantly, and 29 per cent replied that they often thought about leaving the RCMP.
The RCMP Pay Council did a study on overall remuneration and found, in a comparison with over 50 other police forces, that RCMP remuneration was almost 10 per cent lower than the average for police forces with 50 members or more. One of the conclusions of this pay council, on page 58, was that:
From the above discussions, it is quite clear that the compensation gap between the RCMP and its comparator forces is inconsistent with TBS policy for fair and equitable compensation, and is not in line with the TBS principles for compensation management.
After this introduction, I will now put my question concerning this bill, which excludes — aside from salary matters and a few elements regarding holidays which you mentioned — dismissal, transfers, evaluations, discipline, demotion, job requirements, and the uniform. Do you think that this bill, and putting in place a modern negotiation system, will mean that RCMP officers will want to continue to work for the RMCP, or will it cause them to want to leave the RCMP to go and work for another police force?
My question is addressed to Mr. Brison in particular, since the issue of remuneration falls under Treasury Board.
Mr. Brison: First, our bill will give them the opportunity for the first time to be represented by a union and have the right to collective bargaining. That is the objective of this bill.
[English]
Ralph can speak to some of the exclusions that exist; I spoke to some of them earlier. We're changing the Public Sector Labour Relations Act with this, and the board will have at least two members with police experience in order to understand and deal with issues that are specific to policing.
The pay and compensation issues will be subjected to collective bargaining, assuming the passage of legislation that provides that right. That will be something that will be subject to collective bargaining from now on, and if there are issues to be dealt with in terms of a delta between RCMP pay and other police forces, those will be subject to collective bargaining with the passage of this legislation.
Mr. Goodale: Could I just add this, Senator Carignan: I certainly accept your point that there are issues to be resolved. I think all of us need to pay very close attention to those issues to maintain the high calibre and reputation of the RCMP.
There are a number of processes under way now that create some uncertainty for a period of time but hopefully will lead to a more certain and more successful situation as they run their course. One is the establishment of this legislation. That will be followed by the selection, by the RCMP members themselves, of a bargaining agent. It will be very interesting and, I think, instructive for the government to hear and understand the nature of the issues that that new bargaining agent will want to bring forward. I suspect the issue of compensation will be very high on the list of things that they would want to argue for.
There is also, at the present time, as was referenced in the budget a couple of months ago, a program integrity review underway in which the RCMP is participating. You may recall the comments by the commissioner some months ago about the reallocation of personnel and resources within the force in response to national security issues. He made the observation — it might have been in this committee — that some 500 or 600 officers had to be reassigned from certain responsibilities to national security. I think he was drawing attention to some of the stresses and strains within the RCMP on RCMP resources. The program integrity review is examining those kinds of issues.
We have a whole series of steps underway, as I mentioned, with respect to the issue of harassment. I think all of these efforts are aimed at getting to the underlying problems and making sure that, within a reasonable period of time, we can change those statistics that you referred to in your question — statistics that indicated a significant level of anxiety and dissatisfaction. Those numbers are of concern to me, as I'm sure they are to you. I think we all have to seriously address the factors that can turn those numbers around.
The Chair: Senator Carignan, please be short with your preamble.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My next question is for Minister Goodale.
I have a fair grasp of the various police collective agreements; I am fairly familiar with the labour relations field. I have never seen a collective agreement exclude lay-offs, demotion, dismissal, conduct and the uniform.
Here I have a list of different police forces: Calgary, Edmonton, Fredericton, Gatineau, Montreal, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Sûreté du Québec, Longueuil, Quebec. All of their collective agreements contain the elements you wish to exclude.
What specific and rational argument applies to the RCMP which would justify that a person who was dismissed has no access to arbitration by virtue of this exclusion? I have never seen anything like it. I do not see the logic in the fact that someone who was fired will not have access to an independent and impartial arbitration process. That is the opposite of the practice that exists in all other police forces in Canada.
The Ontario Provincial Police and the Sûreté du Québec serve huge territories. Transfers and secondments are common in both those police forces. Northern Quebec and northern Ontario are territories that are difficult to cover. The Sûreté du Québec and the Ontario Provincial Police also include these things. Why does the RCMP want to exclude these elements?
[English]
Mr. Goodale: Senator, the commissioner holds the strong view that his authority in the RCMP Act is essential in this regard. Maybe I could invite Dan or Craig to comment on how this fits in with the other powers and authorities that the commissioner exercises.
[Translation]
Daniel Dubeau, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Human Resources Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: You are correct, that is the case in the other police forces.
[English]
We have management rights. You talked about the OPP, so I will read something to you that the association signed with the OPP that talks about the management rights that are exclusive to management and assists.
. . . it is the exclusive function of the employer to manage, which function, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes the right to determine employment, appointment, complement, organization, work methods and procedures, kinds and location of equipment, discipline and termination of employment, assignment, classification, job evaluation system, merit system, training and development, appraisal and the principles and standards governing promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off and reappointment . . .
When you say that it's in there, they have a strict management right in Ontario, as well as in every other police force, that makes it management's exclusive right. What you're seeing in this bill reflects that. What is put under collective agreement are statements that would allow them to maybe have a discussion about how we get to the process. As we have said before, we have 40 years of working with our staff relations program, developing our policies that do deal with that. They're enshrined in policies and, under law, we would still have to continue that under the union.
I will turn it over now to my colleague to talk specifically about the question of termination.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I would like an answer to my question. May I specify that it is the legislator's intent that interests me here, and not the commissioner's intention to maintain his management rights. Someone may want to challenge the constitutionality of this section and may want to know the legislator's reasoning with regard to these limitations. What is the real and urgent objective that makes you want to withdraw this provision from collective bargaining negotiations?
[English]
Mr. Dubeau: I think I've answered that. It is a management right across other forces, too. It's the same thing as other police forces. The police industry is framed that way. We can read it, but I will ask my colleague, if I may, Mr. Chair, to talk about the termination side of it.
The Chair: Okay, and then Senator White will have a supplementary after Mr. MacMillan speaks.
Craig MacMillan, Assistant Commissioner, Professional Responsibility Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you, Mr. Chair. To contextually put this in as the Supreme Court put this, in applying a purposive approach, the domain of labour relations under section 2 guarantees
. . . a right to collective bargaining. However, that right is one that guarantees a process rather than an outcome or access to a particular model of labour relations.
That's at paragraph 67.
At paragraph 93, the court puts this into a more specific context. What does "substantial interference'' mean with collective bargaining? It states:
. . . What is required in turn to permit meaningful collective bargaining varies with the industry culture and workplace in question. As with all s 2(d) inquiries, the required analysis is contextual.
They also specifically said in 140 that Parliament has "much leeway in devising a scheme of collective bargaining that satisfies the special demands . . . "
The first part of the question is we don't accept that we're treating our members differently than anybody. We say we're right on par with the industry standard. In that part, I'll take you right to Alberta. First of all, there are statutory exclusions similar to what is being proposed. There are also collective agreements that talk about what is restricted or not to be dealt with. In Alberta, under sections 21 and 26(1) of the Police Officers Collective Bargaining Act, it states that a matter which is the subject to the Police Act or regulation is not subject to collective bargaining and the resolution process for labour matters.
That section is expressly talking about discipline. It's also talking about the chief's authority to terminate employees. Under the Police Act, police officers are dismissed for disciplinary reasons in Alberta based on the process that's set out in the regulations. If a police officer feels aggrieved based on the findings or action of the chief, then they can appeal to the Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board.
In section 60 of that Police Act, it says that none of the matters referred to in section 16, which is the powers of the board, section 20, hearings and appeals, section 31, the commission's responsibility, section 37(1), dismissal by the chief for disciplinary reasons, section 41, duties of the chief, discipline and performance, issuing orders or making directives for the bringing of complaints shall be the subject of a collective agreement referred to in the Police Officer's Collective Bargaining Act.
When you turn to the Calgary Police Service Collective Agreement, for example, at article 17.01, it says:
Misconduct of a Police Officer is defined in Alberta Police Act and Police Service Regulation. The Calgary Police Service shall deal with misconduct of a Member in accordance with this Act and Regulation.
Similarly, the Edmonton Police Service states that "appeals arising from discipline procedure shall be dealt with in accordance with the Police Services Regulation and Police Officers' Collective Bargaining Act.''
In a nutshell, that is excluding, statutorily, matters of discipline, discharge and dismissal.
My colleague Deputy Dubeau has spoken about the management rights clause that's now the subject of a letter of understanding that was signed by the OPPA, the Ontario Provincial Police Association, and the Ontario Treasury Board Secretariat. That was preceded up until 2013 by the same clause in the collective bargaining act for the Ontario Provincial Police.
The Chair: Could you answer the question? We are running out of time here and you do have another hour after, and I know Senator White wants to follow up with a question.
Senator Carignan: Partly because they are talking about ethics, not disciplinary power on the labour system.
The Chair: Are you finished, sir?
Mr. MacMillan: No, I could provide multiple examples.
The Chair: I can see that.
Mr. MacMillan: The point, Mr. Chair, is that we have to make it clear on the record that there are examples of exclusion of discipline from collective bargaining in multiple jurisdictions across Canada. It's not novel or new.
The Chair: Excuse me. Colleagues, we do have the ministers here. The purpose is to be asking the ministers questions. We do have the officials for an hour afterwards. I would go with Senator White. Please, everybody, try to keep your preamble short and please keep the responses short, like a "yes'' or a "no.''
Senator White: First, a bit of a reminder: This legislation is being brought forward by the government, not by the RCMP, Mr. MacMillan. I appreciate that.
Deputy Dubeau, actually, you just quoted Ontario. I guess one of the challenges we have is Ontario has adequacy standards; right? We don't have national adequacy standards. Some of the things you talk about are actually legislated in the Province of Ontario. We're not going to have that to fall back on in Canada if we don't see the things occur that our expectation is.
How do you square the circle around a lack of adequacy standards meeting what you're talking about around management rights? Bbecause management rights are limited in Ontario. They have to follow legislation. They have to have a criminal intelligence capacity. It goes on and on, clearly identifying the techniques of policing in Ontario.
I know; I've lived it — not always happily, but sometimes you're forced to do the right thing as a result. I guess I'm challenged by the management rights piece that you're quoting because it's in the context of adequacy standards in the Province of Ontario, which we do not have federally.
Mr. Dubeau: That's a good question. Thank you for the question. The standards are set by the commissioner, as you are well aware. The commissioner has to set the standards nationally. He has set the standards.
Regarding "adequacy standards,'' I think the discussion would be health and safety. There is a whole oversight external to the RCMP that could look at that if there was an issue from any union or bargaining agent. They could say it's not adequate. They do have to write the code of ESDC and they have in the past. There are different techniques.
We continue working with our employees. There seems to be this idea that we're not working with our employees to set standards. We have done so for 140 years. We're going to continue doing that, whether you put it in legislation or not. The intent of our organization is to work with our employees because they are our resources. They are our employees and we care as much about our employees as any bargaining agent. The standards themselves are set. They're set in the provincial context, which my minister spoke of. It talks about the standards being set by the commissioner. It's reinforced there, Senator White.
Senator White: I appreciate that response. However, at the same time, you're stating that you work with your employees, the RCMP members in particular. The staff relations program was taken away from the membership prior to the decision on whether or not the membership unionized. It's important to understand that you now have in place a representative program that reports directly to police officers, not one that's elected by the membership. What happens if they don't actually vote to unionize? You've already taken away their representation.
The Chair: I think that's a question to Minister Goodale. Perhaps he would like to reply.
Mr. Goodale: If members of the RCMP, once they have the legal right to unionize, for some reason decide not to do that — I think that's unlikely — then obviously, Senator White, just maintaining the status quo would not be good enough. That clearly would leave a real vacuum unfair to the members of the RCMP, and the government would have to address that question.
Every indication would seem to suggest that members of the force will quite vigorously take up their right to have union representation. Once they make their choice about who that's going to be, as a matter of public policy, I would be very interested to meet with them and hear what their views are about the things that they would like to see further debated and discussed.
Senator White: Thank you, Mr. Minister.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Ministers. This topic this morning is of great interest to me. You undoubtedly know that I had 28 years of union experience at the Sûreté du Québec. I was president of the union for seven years. I will not give you all of the history, but this past weekend we celebrated the 50 years of existence of the Quebec Police Association and Quebec Provincial Police Association. According to its director general, the Sûreté du Québec would not be what it is today had it not been for the unconditional contribution of its union. I hope to hear the same thing from you, but this morning I get the sense that I am going back 40 years. First of all, as the former president of that union, I will not use the word union, because we were not unionized as such. It was an association, and we did not have the right to strike. Later, we negotiated issues involving dismissal, discipline, equipment, staffing and training. We had an employee assistance program. Everything was on the table and was done on a joint basis.
However, when I hear it said this morning that this is about the commissioner's management powers, I have a lot of trouble with that. Thank God when I was president, I had a good relationship with the director general of the Sûreté du Québec, and everything was done jointly. But if you talk to me about management rights —
[English]
The Chair: Senator, could you get to the question, please?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is quite simple. I do not know where this is all going, but either you were poorly informed or you are limiting yourselves to a bill that refuses the unionization of RCMP officers. If it were only a matter of compensation, we could just set that aside. You have examples where you refer to the OPPA. So, talk to me also about the Canadian Police Association. Senator Carignan explained that very well.
Minister, I am sure you are of good will and acting in good faith, nor do I want to question what the leaders of the RCMP were saying, nor disrespect them. However, when I was at the Canadian Association — you undoubtedly know Mr. Delisle, among others — we even advanced some funds —
[English]
The Chair: Senator, I know you're very passionate. Could you get to the question?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: This morning I get the sense that we have reached an impasse. So I would like to hear your opinion.
[English]
Mr. Goodale: Senator, you would have been a very effective head of the union. Was it 40 years ago or 50 years ago? Certainly, congratulations to the Sûreté du Québec for that distinguished record that you referred to.
Senator, one of the things we all need to recognize is that we're in a period with the force of very significant change. This is the beginning of a process.
You have quite rightly celebrated the accomplishments of the Sûreté du Québec after 40 or 50 years of experience with a labour regime. We're just beginning this process.
Why it took this long at the federal level, I don't know. This decision should have been taken some time ago to give members of the RCMP the right to be represented collectively in a bargaining process, but we're beginning to correct that error. This legislation will start that process, and I hope, at the federal level, we'll have a successful experience and — going back to Senator Carignan's point — a rising level of satisfaction among members about their careers as part of the RCMP.
Mr. Brison: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to confirm that, indeed, members have received the list of matters that can be included in a collective agreement.
The Chair: Yes, we have.
Mr. Brison: Good. It does go beyond simply pay.
The Chair: My understanding is that the package has been distributed to all members. Thank you, Minister Brison.
Senator Day: Subject matters of examples that may be included in collective agreements?
Mr. Brison: Yes. They're not excluded.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you to both ministers for being here. Because of time issues, my questions are going to be short. I have a lot of questions, but different questions to both of you.
Minister Brison, you finished by talking about members' wishes. I want to put it on record that we've heard from a lot of members who are not happy with this process. Obviously, it gives us concern.
One of the things that I was disturbed by when I read the record of what you said at the house committee was that when you were asked if you looked at the key elements of the labour relations framework in existence at the time of the RCMP, you said it infringed the Charter because those elements substantially interfered with members' rights to freedom of association. Could you elaborate on that, please?
Mr. Brison: The Supreme Court decision was quite clear on that, that there was no substantive reason or legal reason why the RCMP ought to be denied the right to collective bargaining. As a government, and as Minister Goodale said earlier, we inherited a situation with some sense of urgency based on the Supreme Court decision to address that part of it. We sought and received an extension, but that doesn't obviate the need for us to respond to it. We're now beyond the extended deadline, so there is a sense of urgency around that.
The Supreme Court was very clear in its decision that there was no legal reason to prevent RCMP members from having the right to collective bargaining, and this does provide it.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, minister.
Minister Goodale, I want to quote to you what Ron Louis, a retired staff sergeant, said. He wrote to me and spoke about a pre-emptive strike against any would-be union, because it also sets aside a whole range of issues that should be subject to collective bargaining.
Minister, can you give some thoughts on why you have set aside promotions, appraisals, discharges, demotions and probation issues? For me, the most important issue is about sexual harassment. I'd like your opinion on that.
Mr. Goodale: Senator, as Mr. Dubeau and Mr. MacMillan have indicated — and I know you will go into greater detail on this today — the exemptions that are listed in Bill C-7 are, in many ways, similar to exemptions that exist in respect of other police forces.
Specifically on the issue of harassment, I take that problem very seriously. Obviously, the Prime Minister takes it seriously, because he made the effort to single that out in my mandate letter as something that he wanted to see addressed.
A number of steps have been taken. More steps are contemplated as we go forward.
Specifically, the RCMP Code of Conduct has the most robust statement that you'll find perhaps anywhere in the public service about this issue. It declares harassment as prohibited, and there is a very distinct procedure for how those who feel they are affected can seek recourse and redress.
In addition to that, we have asked the CRCC, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, to revisit the recommendations they made in 2013 and to verify for me that they have, in fact, been implemented and are working as intended.
We have a special process around the complaints that arose earlier this year at the police college, which I think shocked all of us in terms of the behaviour there. The commissioner invited Paul Kennedy to monitor that review process to make sure that it was done properly.
There are separate negotiations under way with previous complainants who have started lawsuits against the RCMP to see if those legal matters can be resolved to the satisfaction of the complainants. We'll see where that process goes, but so far it has yielded some encouraging steps forward.
As I indicated earlier as well, there are other steps that we intend to take, including the engagement of a very distinguished, prominent Canadian to provide me with some independent advice.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
The Chair: Ministers, could we ask for a few more minutes of your time past the deadline? We do have a number of other questions, if you don't mind. Would that be okay? We're due to suspend at 11, and there are a few other senators. Would a couple minutes past that be okay?
Mr. Goodale: I think so, senator. I have a whip on house duty who is being quite challenging, but as long as I don't make the whip unhappy, I'm okay.
The Chair: With that latitude, I'm going to go with Senator Dagenais and then Senator White, but be very brief because I want to leave some time for Senator Campbell.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I thank the two ministers once again. Mr. Brison, my question is addressed to you. In light of the creation of the RCMP union, do you have additional budgets so that the RCMP will not have to dip into its current budgets? We need more of these budgets to fight against terrorism and ensure our citizens' safety. Have you provided any additional funds?
Mr. Brison: Treasury Board is currently working with the RCMP to review the integrity of the program. That is an important consideration for us. We are going to work with the Department of Public Safety and the RCMP in order to ensure that we have the necessary resources to implement the changes, and for the organization. This is mentioned in our review and it is an important feature.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Minister.
[English]
The Chair: Now to Senator Campbell, as he is the sponsor of the bill.
Senator Campbell: Thank you, chair, and I want to thank you for allowing me to be here today with the committee.
My question is to Minister Goodale. As I stated in the Senate, my difficulties are with the exemptions. I listened to the deputy and assistant commissioner, and I have to tell you, you're wrong. The commissioner is wrong. The idea that he can rule people's lives from Ottawa is wrong and has been for at least the last 40 years.
My question to the minister is: With these exemptions in this act not being on the table, how is the government going to ensure that management is not being unfair or overreaching to the members who we've heard so much about and from so many?
Mr. Goodale: Well, to start with, senator, for the first time ever — it's been a long time coming and it's far too late, but at least it's now happening — RCMP members will have the right to be represented by a collective bargaining agent. While government obviously has, through Treasury Board, management responsibilities to exercise in the public interest, we also need to pay careful attention to the representations that are made by those who are democratically selected by the members of the RCMP to represent them.
As I said earlier, I will be very interested to hear from those representatives, once they have an opportunity to get it into place, about their views, their concerns, where they think they may be treated unfairly, the issues that they would want to see addressed, and I would hope that our government would be willing to give them a fair hearing. If they have points to raise where they think the system is not properly structured, I would like to hear their views.
Senator Campbell: I don't think that's quite enough, minister. I'm looking for some kind of assurance or some kind of way that we can address these exemptions.
I stated that I would like to see them removed. I don't know whether that's going to happen or not. I support this bill and I'm not going to let the bill die because of it, but the mounted police, the members, need some kind of reassurance that these exemptions will be dealt with.
If you want to hear the pettiness, the commissioner, as soon as this comes in, gets rid of the div reps, gets rid of the only way that the members can speak to management — gone. A directive was put out that they cannot use in-house mail to discuss with other members what's going on with this bill — gone. They're sent to Fort Mac with no protection or very little protection — gone. They're still dealing with the members who went to Slave Lake, and I can read you a letter from a member who went to Slave Lake where there was no protection or protection that was given was inadequate.
I need some reassurance that the commissioner deals with these issues, and I need some reassurance that these exemptions will be dealt with in some way, shape or form to come to a satisfactory agreement for the members. As far as I can see right now, this table is tilted towards the commissioner, and that simply is not acceptable.
So again I ask: What can we do here? How can we find a way to ensure that that's dealt with? I'm not saying that the commissioner shouldn't have powers. I'm saying they should be under some kind of a review. The world will not end. It has never ended in any other police force when these were given up. So please give me something — some way to deal with this.
Mr. Goodale: Mr. Chair, could I just ask a purely procedural question?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Goodale: What's your timing for your further deliberation in the committee about this bill?
The Chair: The timeline has tentatively been set that we have our hearings today, and there may be some time set aside on Wednesday as well. At that stage, then, it would be my hope that we would be able to proceed with the bill as is or with a bill with proposed amendments back into the Senate.
Mr. Goodale: I ask that question simply because —
The Chair: This is all tentative.
Mr. Goodale: Thank you, and I perfectly understand that.
Senator Campbell has made an interesting point. Within your timelines, so that I don't delay the process, I would like the opportunity to reflect a bit on how we can arrive at a satisfactory arrangement here.
I take it, senator, you're making the point about fairness in the process, and that's something that I want to achieve too. I think you'll find within the force some other views about some of the issues that you have raised, and I think Mr. Dubeau and Mr. MacMillan will take the opportunity later on to respond to those concerns.
But on the general question about the exemptions and why they are necessary in the structure and whether there can be some assessment of that necessity, I would like to give that some thought. I'll get back to this committee promptly with perhaps some ideas about how we can provide to Senator Campbell, as the sponsor of this bill, the kind of reassurance he's looking for. I don't have in mind here a long delay and I certainly wouldn't hold up the proceedings of this committee. I do want some time just to think through some kind of mechanism that will give Senator Campbell the reassurance that he needs.
Senator Campbell: I thank the minister for that. I look forward to hearing back from him. I appreciate it.
Senator White: Thank you as well, minister, for those comments. As you're doing that, considering some of the things that are identified as exemptions in this legislation, the reason I referred to adequacy standards earlier is often in provinces there is a safety net around adequacy standards that deals with some of the issues and forces the hand of organizations that sometimes would not do the right thing, I'm afraid.
Exemptions concern me around law enforcement techniques, particularly when we talk about tactical units. There are also mandatory minimum complements, for example. We're talking about probation and direct entry amalgamations and the fact that some of those things are negotiated. When you do amalgamate, for example, when they took over Moncton, there were three years of arguments between the RCMP and the Canadian Police Association about the fact there was no process by which we could have that. As for discharge and demotions, most of those are an adequate standard with police service acts in the provinces. We don't necessarily have the same level of consistency within the RCMP Act.
Recruiting of officers, for example, I think needs to be negotiated. We've seen the RCMP take away an entrance exam requirement for two different types of applicants — the only police service in Canada, I would argue, or certainly the only one in the top 25, that has no entrance exam and no physical testing for people who join the police service.
I do think a union would actually look out for the organization and for Canadians as well if those things could be negotiated. If would you also consider some of those things as you're walking through the next 48 hours of consideration, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Goodale: Thank you, Senator White. I will certainly take those factors into consideration as well.
What we all want here is a strong, effective, national police force that has the skill and the capacity to carry out the critical functions that it is called upon to do on behalf of Canadians nationally, provincially, municipally and internationally. I don't think there is a police organization in the world that is asked to do the diversity of tough jobs that the RCMP is asked to do. We need to make sure they've got the tools and resources to do that, and that part of that should be, hopefully, a good, constructive working relationship between the management of the RCMP and the newly unionized membership of the RCMP. I will be looking for the ways to ensure that that happens to the best extent possible. Further to my undertaking to Senator Campbell, I will get a message back to this committee with a proposal for how we might do that.
Senator White: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I think we all share the common objective. The question is how do we get there and what tools will be provided to our national police force.
I think we're all very concerned when we hear the various real numbers being touted out with respect to how you pay a member of the RCMP versus a member of the city police. I'm told, for example, that your numbers could be as broad as the RCMPs in the neighbourhood of about $84,000 on average per year versus someone in a city police at just over $100,000. Those are substantial numbers in trying to equate the financial obligations we have as a country to our police force to ensure that we get those individuals we want into the police force, along with the benefits and various other things.
I just want to make this point, and this is a direct question to you, Mr. Goodale. I take it you will send something in writing to me as the chair and something to Senator Campbell that we can distribute to all members. Is that correct?
Mr. Goodale: I think that's the appropriate way to communicate, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: The minister spoke about the Ontario Provincial Police collective agreement during his testimony. I would like the committee to have a copy of this document. I see that it is posted on the Internet now.
[English]
Senator Day: I thought with the minister here we could see if this issue has been resolved. When we had Mr. McPhail of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP before us not that long ago, he talked about the earlier harassment study that he did. You, Mr. Minister, indicated that you're having an update of that. Mr. McPhail was concerned that he couldn't speak to any of the members without the member first informing the commissioner that he or she was speaking to Mr. McPhail. He felt the study was compromised because he couldn't ensure confidentiality. Have you had a chance to resolve that outstanding problem?
Mr. Goodale: Senator, I will check on the status of that. My view is simply this: I have asked Mr. McPhail to undertake a very important examination of issues on behalf of me and the Government of Canada and all Canadians, and no one will interfere in that process.
The Chair: Senator Beyak has one more question, and then we will come to an end here.
Senator Beyak: This is a follow-up to the discussion we've just been havingin reference to a Senate report we had in 2013, chaired by Senator Lang and Senator Dallaire. It was about the RCMP culture. In it, we asked for an ombudsman. One of the recommendations adopted by the Senate unanimously was that members would have an ombudsman that they could go to in order to address concerns. I wonder if you've considered that.
Mr. Goodale: Senator, that position does not exist as of yet. In the context of all the other changes I've described affecting the force these days, it is an open question. I think that's one of the issues that I would like to hear about from the new labour representatives for the force to see how they would feel about that particular idea. I understand the Senate made that recommendation in good faith as a way to improve relationships and provide members with recourse.
There are, of course, two avenues of recourse now that are available under existing rules, regulations and structures, but that's a topic that I could well discuss with the new union representatives in due course.
Senator Beyak: I wanted to mention that I appreciate what you said on sexual harassment. I hope you'll remember the many thousands of wonderful RCMP officers, the world-renowned reputation that our Mounties have and that the actions of a few shouldn't besmirch a whole organization.
Mr. Goodale: Absolutely, senator. That really is the whole point. Where there are problems, they need to be addressed in a clear, transparent and decisive way so that they do not in any way diminish the reputation of what I consider to be a very distinguished police force.
Senator Beyak: Thank you.
The Chair: Minister Brison and Minister Goodale, thank you for joining us today to take our questions. We appreciate your staying over time. Thank you.
Colleagues, joining us in this next panel are officials from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Manon Brassard, Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector; and Dennis Duggan, Senior Labour Relations Consultant, Compensation and Labour Relations.
Also, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Daniel Dubeau, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Human Resources Officer; and Craig MacMillan, Assistant Commissioner, Professional Responsibility Officer.
From Public Safety Canada, we have Kathy Thompson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Safety and Countering Crime Branch.
As we have already heard from the ministers in the previous panel, does anyone have an opening statement or want to present an opening statement?
Daniel Dubeau, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Human Resources Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: No, I do not; however, I'd like to introduce a new witness. With me is Assistant Commissioner Steve White, Assistant Chief Human Resources Officer, who has been doing a lot of background work on the bill.
The Chair: Thank you for that. As you know, we have had a fair debate in the last hour, and you have all been in attendance. We will go right to questions.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I am particularly interested in the adjudicator's fields of competence regarding the settlement of disputes. Section 238.24 of Bill C-7 proposes the following, and I quote:
Limited right to grieve
238.24 Subject to subsections 208(2) to (7), an employee who is an RCMP member is entitled to present an individual grievance only if he or she feels aggrieved by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of a provision of a collective agreement or arbitral award.
The equivalent in the Public Service Labour Relations Act is section 208 which reads as follows, and I quote:
208(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (7), an employee is entitled to present an individual grievance if he or she feels aggrieved
(a) by the interpretation or application, in respect of the employee, of
(i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or
(ii)a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award; or
(b) as a result of any occurrence or matter affecting his or her terms and conditions of employment.
I would like to know why you must restrict the right to submit a grievance in a collective agreement, and not include the power of examining acts, guidelines or regulations when they have an impact on working conditions. That is a fundamental aspect. An adjudicator makes his decisions based on the law, all of the law. All of the labour codes I know contain provisions like that, and according to the jurisprudence, the adjudicator may interpret the act when it is applicable. Here it seems to me that the adjudicator would not even be able to interpret the law. It is a particularly important aspect if we take into account the Canadian Human Rights Act, which could have an impact on working conditions and many other acts. In short, why must you exclude the interpretation of laws from the adjudicator's powers?
Manon Brassard, Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Here you have a bifurcated system. What I mean is that this section involves the collective agreement provisions that affect working conditions. Other aspects such as the employer's regulations and directives are for the most part issued under the RCMP Act, under the authority of the commissioner and according to the prescriptions in that act. That is what explains the difference.
Senator Carignan: What about the mixed issues that involve both the act and the collective agreement? What will the adjudicator do?
Ms. Brassard: He or she will have to hear arguments on this. If it clearly involves a collective agreement, it will be a matter for his jurisdiction.
Senator Carignan: He will have to build a wall for himself and not look at the law?
Ms. Brassard: Arguments will be submitted to the adjudicator as to what should apply or not.
Senator Carignan: And you do not think that we should solve the problem right now so as to avoid it in future?
Ms. Brassard: We will see what suggestions will be made in this regard.
Senator Carignan: According to the accreditation process, when a union has signed up 40 per cent of the members, the commissioner or the board may order that a vote be held. What happens when there are three unions that each have 25 per cent of the members?
[English]
Dennis Duggan, Senior Labour Relations Consultant, Compensation and Labour Relations, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: In that case, under the current rules of the PSLRA, the board, before it can certify an employee or organization as a bargaining agent, has to satisfy itself that a majority of the members in the bargaining unit being proposed wish to have their particular association certified. It's up to the board, then, to determine who actually has the majority, by whichever means they choose, of course, if the law were to be changed in accordance with Bill C-4.
Currently, the 40 per cent is the threshold that they have to show before they can even get to be heard and get a vote. If they don't get the 40 per cent, they don't actually get to pass that point.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: If three unions each have 25 per cent of the members, you say that the board can order a vote? Is that what you are saying? Could you cite the section that contains that provision?
[English]
Mr. Duggan: I hesitate to substitute my opinion for the board's because that would be a decision for the board, but, frankly, if they are not at the 40 per cent, I suspect the board would probably not hear either of them.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Can we be certain, in order for the system to work, that there will be a vote? If we take into account the fact that three unions each have 25 per cent of the members, this means that 75 per cent of the members have signed a membership card. There would at least have to be a vote. However, it is far from clear when we examine the current provisions.
[English]
Mr. Duggan: Those are the current rules, senator.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Could you let us know which clause you mean?
[English]
Mr. Duggan: Sorry?
Senator Carignan: You will be able to identify exactly which section for this position so that we could find this power?
Mr. Duggan: The current section, I think, is section 64 of the PSLRA.
The Chair: Senator, we're going to move on and go to Senator —
Senator Carignan: Excuse me. I just want one more point. He's right; it is 64, but —
[Translation]
— is because he is referring to the notion of grouping unions to use that power.
I direct your attention to subclause 3 of clause 64 of the bill. I think there may be a typo, as they refer to the application of paragraph (1)(a). That paragraph (1)(a) does not exist.
[English]
Mr. Duggan: You're referring to 64(1), and it doesn't exist. That's right. But that's in the current section.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: That error needs to be corrected.
Senator Dagenais: My question is addressed to Ms. Brassard. Earlier, the minister was saying that when a collective agreement is being negotiated, if the government does not agree with the police officers of the RCMP there would be arbitration and the adjudicator's decision would be binding. For instance, supposing the dispute is about remuneration. RCMP officers are asking for a 4 per cent salary increase and the government refuses, saying that in the current economic context it cannot grant an increase of more than 2 per cent. The parties go to arbitration and the adjudicator sides with the RCMP officers. At that point the government will not be able to say that it is invoking the economic context despite the adjudicator's decision, nor will it be able to create a special law in order to not grant the increase. Did I understand correctly that the adjudicator's decision would be binding?
Ms. Brassard: You understood correctly. The adjudicator's decision is binding. The argument regarding the state's ability to pay is presented to the adjudicator when each side makes its representations. The union explains why the increase is fair, reasonable, equitable and comparable. As the employer, the government makes its representations, citing retention, recruitment and appropriate criteria, including ability to pay. It is then up to the adjudicator to decide what percentage he will agree to. At that point, the arbitral decision is binding, just as a collective agreement would be.
Senator Dagenais: Indeed. That means that the adjudicator's decision supersedes any complaints the government might have.
I have experienced a few arbitrations in my career. I understand that even if the adjudicator were to side with the RCMP association, it is the adjudicator's decision that is binding and overarching despite the government's testimony.
Ms. Brassard: That is the general rule, yes.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Madam. I think that is clear.
[English]
Senator Day: Could one of you tell me where I could go to find out who management is? Management is not entitled to be part of the bargaining unit. How do I find out who management is?
Mr. Dubeau: If I may, senator, all of the commissioned officer ranks in the organization, inspector and up, are considered management and would be excluded. That's an automatic exclusion under law. It would be all of our commissioned officers, which would be inspector all the way up to commissioner.
Senator Day: All of the officers?
Mr. Dubeau: All of the officers would be excluded, and then there are also managerial exclusions. We identify those positions across the force like we do with the public service where we'll identify a detached commander. We'll identify who cannot be part of that unit, and they would be excluded. But that would be through a process with colleagues at the Treasury Board, as well as talking to the union, as to who that would be. We would identify all of those positions also. When you are sitting in those positions, you would not be part of it.
Senator Day: You're anticipating where I was going with this, and that's having in mind the particular structure of the RCMP in a lot of units across the country, especially in more remote areas, where a staff sergeant would be management in the normal sense. So this will be a matter of negotiation between the new union and management, or how will that be determined?
Mr. Dubeau: If I may, I'll speak for the organization. We are currently in the process of identifying those positions. Then we would go over to our colleagues at Treasury Board and provide it to our colleagues at Treasury Board, and I would have to ask my colleagues to explain the process of how we get to an exclusion.
Ms. Brassard: There are exclusions that are automatic. The officers as management is clear cut. There can be examples where somebody works for a manager and is very closely related and sees everything that has to do with management and HR issues, someone who would see documents of that nature. In that case, those would be submitted to be excluded as well. That's the same thing that happens in the public service.
Senator Day: Submitted to whom? How is this determined?
Ms. Brassard: We look at it at Treasury Board, in the group that works in my sector, and there's a discussion between us, as representing the employer, and the bargaining agent, when there is one. We see if we agree. There are a number of times where we actually agree, and, therefore, that position is excluded. When we don't, we go to the board.
Senator Day: So you haven't done anything yet because there's no bargaining agent?
Ms. Brassard: There's no bargaining agent.
Senator Day: But the RCMP know who they think should be listed as management?
Mr. Dubeau: Yes, sir. What we have done in anticipation, because there will be, at one point, a bargaining agent, is that we have started that process already so that we're able, at that point, when a bargaining agent does arrive and they start collective bargaining, to go quickly on this to be able to be ahead of the game and be proactive.
Senator Beyak: Mr. Dubeau, I wonder if you could you tell me, with your expertise on the numbers and the challenges: When you receive complaints from members of the force regarding transfers, discharge, probation, appraisals or demotions, what percentage of them believe that they're being punished by their superiors, and is there a mechanism to investigate that?
Mr. Dubeau: There is always a harassment side of it, the abuse of authority. I'll have my colleague Craig MacMillan speak on the abuse of authority. Through our harassment process, they could always do that.
You've touched on several of them. On promotions, in fact, they will have grievance rights. They grieve to our internal system. It goes through an internal system of adjudication. Management puts their case forward, the member puts their case forward, and then the adjudicator does rule on that. That is binding on us. It is the commissioner's authority, and it is binding. If somebody says, on the promotion side — and we get many of those — that there is an error of fact or an error of process, if an adjudicator says, "There's been an error here,'' we correct it. We have done that in the past. That's the same for all of them, except there are some that are referable to our External Review Committee. I'd have to ask Mr. MacMillan to actually talk about those.
Mr. MacMillan: It depends if you're talking about the proposed new process under Bill C-7 or the current process. Under the current process, yes, certain matters can go to the External Review Committee. They can make findings and recommendations that go to the commissioner.
In terms of numbers, I was just reflecting on that. We did a review, and I was trying to figure out under the new process. I think transfers were a very small percentage of grievances that we actually had. In terms of whether abuse was proposed as one of the issues, what we've tried to do, under the new process, is that, if it's clearly a harassment matter, it gets funnelled into that process, and that's where it can be handled and managed. Because, under the grievance process, to really have an adjudicator try to make a decision on submissions by the parties, sometimes absent an investigation, it becomes very difficult, and I have the role of an adjudicator in that situation. I tried to have the parties go into a more formalized process to resolve it if they could.
Your question kind of goes across a couple of the three processes. But the numbers that we have aren't high on abuse of authority. It's mostly interpersonal conflict that happens. I don't know if that's helpful or not.
Senator Beyak: Thank you. Very helpful.
Senator Campbell: My first question is: How is the RCMP management involved in this bill? I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting that you should not be involved with the bill, the same as there were public venues for members. But how exactly was management involved in this bill?
Mr. Dubeau: It was through working with our colleagues at Treasury Board, as well as Public Safety, inputting on what we feel would be necessary to organize this force and ensure that the commissioner has the authorities he needs to operate the force.
Senator Campbell: Did you get everything you asked for?
Mr. Dubeau: No.
Senator Campbell: That's life.
The second question I have is for Mr. Duggan. It seems to me that we're taking the RCMP, which will be a separate bargaining unit, and we're trying to lift them out of virtually nothing that they have now and move them over and slot them into the public service by way of this bill. My question is: First of all, do you think that the RCMP, by the virtue of their job, are properly in the right place underneath the public service?
Mr. Duggan: Well, by definition, in the current PSLRA, the RCMP is an organization listed in Schedule IV of the Financial Administration Act, and that, by definition, in accordance with the PSLRA, is part of the public service. That's just sort of the simple answer to it.
The act basically just provides a process by which any employee or organization can be certified as a bargaining agent and, therefore, bargain collectively, and Bill C-7 essentially just creates situations. That's why it would create a separate part in the bill, Part 2.1, that deals specifically with those aspects of the RCMP as a police organization so that it's not simply a cookie cutter application of the act to the RCMP. There are differences that you have to accommodate, not the least of which is the no right to strike, binding arbitration and some of the other aspects that have already been talked about.
There's nothing really in the PSLRA, as long as you take into account those particular aspects, that would not make it a proper place to allow the members to exercise their legitimate rights to be represented and bargain collectively. In the end, it's the bargaining part where a lot of the issues can be resolved, and we've had a lot of experience in the public service, since 1967, in fact, in doing that. There's no reason to assume that this scheme wouldn't. It is principally the same as the one that already exists where you do have some restrictions that exist in bargaining to accommodate the fact that the public interest has to be accommodated in this kind of environment. Certainly, in the case of the RCMP, that would be the case.
Senator Campbell: Certainly I have no fight with no right to strike, and I have really no fight with exclusions because in former lives I've dealt with that. I don't have any difficulty with that.
A question to the officers: Where does service court fit into all of this?
Mr. MacMillan: Under Bill C-24, which came into effect in November of 2014, there have been quite a few changes. Officers were previously treated differently under the conduct or discipline process or service court, as you talked about. That's no longer the case. They're subject to the same measures, the same process, so there isn't a distinction.
Senator Campbell: Welcome.
Mr. MacMillan: Yes, absolutely. I was a strong proponent of that because I've defended and prosecuted, internally and externally, police officers and RCMP members in practice and saw the equity of it being important that there's similar treatment.
So as to service court, in the more formalized process, we've really tried to move, in a lot of ways, toward what the B.C. model is — less formalistic, legalistic and adversarial and more timely. The vast majority of our conduct matters, around 95 per cent, are now dealt with in a meeting. That's between a manager or the supervisor and the employee. They can have somebody attend the meeting with them if they'd like. That's where we think the vast majority should be resolved, and, for the first year, very early, that seems to be happening.
What we did have happen, though, is an increase in the number of dismissal cases. So what's heard now only by a board is a dismissal case. It's no longer three officers. It can be any person appointed by the commissioner. It can be a civilian member or public servant, and we've tried to make it less adversarial, give the board more authority than one person to kind of resolve issues. The parties are encouraged to resolve issues before they get to the hearing. Really, we shouldn't be having these long, drawn-out hearings that go on. That seems to be the case. But, frankly speaking, we got caught off-guard because we had like a 300 per cent increase in dismissal cases.
We took nine to ten years of our data, and it showed we had about 287 discipline matters in a year. I'd have to get the numbers here, but a small percentage were actually dismissal cases, and we can't really figure out why, after ten years, your total number of discipline cases — we anticipated some increase, but — went up significantly on dismissal. And it's not like, well, where was that hiding? I don't have a good answer for you on that, but the reality is we've had to play catch up to get more bodies into that formal process.
Senator Campbell: And where are you now in the process? Are you caught up or close to caught up?
Mr. MacMillan: We're getting close to being caught up. There was a dismissal case a week arriving, which was not anticipated. We had about 12 a year before. So we're getting caught up with that now. The timelines have increased a little bit, but the boards are being more proactive in handling these matters.
So it's not the service court as you would have understood it in the old days. You have a lawyer. We provide lawyers to these things now, and it's a much different process.
The Chair: Could I just maybe follow up on that on the question of the dismissals and the fact that there's been such an obviously substantial increase. Does that have to do with the legislation that was passed two years ago because it clarified the process and the fact that certain steps could be taken?
Mr. MacMillan: I think part of the explanation is that we've made it very clear that we have driven down to the lowest appropriate level matters that ought to be handled in meetings, and the more serious matters are now being identified for dismissal because, before, the artificial cut-off was 10 days. If it was going to be 10 days, it was dismissal, but if it was more than one day, it had to go to a board. So there was a whole bunch of stuff you couldn't deal with at a lower level. We are dealing with that now at a lower level, but, in terms of the process, I can't tell you that we're dismissing more. We have still about 1.7 per cent of our total population of regular members that's involved in discipline. We're going to do research this year to see how that compares to other agencies, but it's not considered to be dramatic. It's dramatic, in a sense, if you're talking 52 or 53 cases a year when you had 12 to 13, but, first year in, we don't have enough to know whether that's going to continue. Into our second year, we're still getting about one a week. I don't know if that answers your question.
The Chair: I think it does. Could I just ask one question? It has to do with finances here. What has come across during these hearings, as well as other hearings we've had, is that the force has been put in a position where other issues have come to the fore, mainly the terrorism/public security issue, which obviously caused a transfer of as high as 600 officers, in one manner or another, onto that file, away from other responsibilities that they had.
We've also been told that the benefits and the pay that are available for members of the force are somewhat less, if not substantially less, than those within the city or municipal forces across the country.
My question would be this: In order to be able to meet everything that's being asked of the force to do with respect to being able to be competitive with other members within the same type of responsibilities across the country, have there been any estimates presented to the government, going forward, to be able to bring the force up to the standard that you would like them to be? If you have a number, can you give that number?
Mr. Dubeau: Mr. Chair, I do not have a number with me. What I can tell you is you've heard our minister speak of the program integrity review that's currently ongoing, sponsored by, I believe, Treasury Board and our minister, which would inform the government, then, of what those numbers would be. So we're currently engaged with the government on providing details and having people come in and take a look at our books and our finances to be able to inform that decision and inform a number for the government. That's where we are, sir.
The Chair: When do you expect that to be done?
Mr. Dubeau: I believe it's really on the fast track into the fall. I can get you the exact dates.
The Chair: If you would let the chair know, we'll let all members know.
Mr. Dubeau: I shall do that.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I want to be sure that I understand the system correctly. Regarding all of the elements excluded from the collective agreement, such as dismissals, lay-offs, transfers, conduct and harassment, whatever the internal mediation, conciliation, or investigation with review, the person who makes the final decision is the commissioner.
Mr. MacMillan: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Carignan: Could you explain this to me from a technical point of view? In clause 238.22, paragraph 1(c), refers to the arbitration of disputes. Section 238.19 concerns the negotiation of collective agreements, and section 238.22 concerns the part that falls under arbitration. The two are almost identical, with the exception of paragraph 238.22(1)(c). What I understand of subparagraph (c) is that certain points that are negotiable in the collective agreement would not become the subject of arbitration.
Ms. Brassard: Correct.
Senator Carignan: Why?
Ms. Brassard: We want to encourage the negotiation of certain things, but we do not want to place a premium on not agreeing and postponing arbitration. In certain files, it is legitimate to negotiate, but ultimately if the parties do not agree, we will not force an arbitration.
Senator Carignan: In paragraph (c), which discusses the assignment of duties in positions and the employed persons, the assignment of duties, or rather the classification of positions — since promotions cannot be negotiated — is the only element that could be negotiated and that is excluded from arbitration?
Ms. Brassard: There is also subparagraph (d)(ix).
Senator Carignan: Subparagraph (d)(ix), which refers to standards, procedures and methods governing issues in subparagraphs (i) to (viii). I see. That paragraph is even more specific, but certain passages are the same as in other sections.
Ms. Brassard: Yes.
Senator Carignan: Paragraph (c) has the biggest difference.
Ms. Brassard: It is the longest, yes.
Senator Dagenais: I would like to get back to the negotiation of the retirement plan. When I was president of the Quebec Police Association, I was also chair of the retirement committee where there were management representatives, Treasury Board representatives, the Department of Finance, actuaries, and the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.
If I understood correctly, aside from the unionization of RCMP officers, Bill C-7 will forbid negotiations on the retirement plan at the same time as the collective agreement. If you take all of this together, the work contract is part of the retirement plan, part of the overall remuneration where, occasionally, if the work contract is going well, greater emphasis will be put on the retirement plan. If that is not part of Bill C-7, how will the retirement plan be negotiated?
I understand that this bill applies to the public service, but police officers are not public servants. They are often part of an independent pension plan. Could you clarify that for me?
Mr. Dubeau: You are quite right. The RCMP pension plan is independent from the public service. That said, the advisory committee negotiates with the union in order to provide advice to our minister, because he is the one responsible for our pension plan. That is how it will happen.
[English]
So we have a pension advisory committee, and on that pension advisory committee you would have representation from the unions. It's in our act for the pension that that's the representation, and that's how we consult with our minister on what's in our pension. That's currently what we're doing. Formerly, we had the staff relations program. We still have members that are appointed by the minister from the employee side, as well as from the veterans side, to talk about pensions and pension reform, anything that comes out of that, to inform our minister of any changes to our pension plan.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Are those discussions actually under way at the moment?
Mr. Dubeau: Yes, members of the RCMP and retired members are sitting down at the bargaining table. We consult them so that we can then advise our minister.
Senator Dagenais: Great. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, I would like to put another question to the secretariat, and it has to do with the tribunal in respect to the hearing of grievances and dealing with grievances.
I understand the bill adds two full-time positions. In fact, you're now bringing on another almost 25,000 employees over and above what you already have.
Can you tell us how long it takes to hear an average case and how long it takes to render a decision? We have received correspondence that it takes years to deal with these issues. Is that correct?
Mr. Duggan: I don't actually have the data with us here on that. That information can be obtained from the PSLREB itself. It depends on the cases in question, of course; they vary. Disciplinary matters tend to take longer, obviously, and they tend to be more complicated. It also depends on the volume.
The Chair: According to this legislation, you won't be dealing with disciplinary issues.
Mr. Duggan: Sure, but in terms of the history of where the PSLREB is now and the information they've had generally. We don't actually have the data here, but it can be obtained from the board.
The Chair: I don't think I'm getting an answer here, obviously. You must have an idea of some sense, because you're in charge, indirectly or directly, in respect to how this whole system works. We have received information that it takes a very long time, and there's some question as to whether or not the numbers of further positions that are going to be made available will be able to cope with perhaps what you're going to be facing. Is that correct?
Ms. Brassard: We can come back with more specific data from the board. What you have to understand is that the board has recently been merged. It was two tribunals. They had to review their rules and get re-organized, and then they had to go through the adaptation with the ATSSC, the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada. The two of them together, combined, probably explains some of the delays that they might have faced up to now.
ATSSC has been in place for about a year now, and the merger a little while longer. So they're likely being able to cope now with their caseload, and having two more people who can do that.
Remember that the caseload that they would be getting from this piece of legislation is the one that derives from the collective bargaining. It will only happen once there is a collective agreement in place, so they have time to put measures in place so that they can meet their obligations in a timely way.
If you're interested in specific numbers, we can ask the board and come back to the clerk with the information.
The Chair: It would be very interesting to see that.
Mr. Duggan, do you have a comment?
Mr. Duggan: Just one additional bit of information: Aside from the permanent members of the board, the board also has part-time members, and the Governor-in-Council can appoint unlimited numbers of those. They are not capped at a number.
The Chair: Perhaps, Mr. Dubeau, you could comment on this. Does this cause you concern? I would say from a morale point of view, when you do have these types of grievances, you want them dealt with and dealt with quickly. Perhaps you have a comment. Is that a concern to you?
Mr. Dubeau: I leave it to my colleagues at Treasury Board to take a look at the numbers.
From an HR perspective in the RCMP, of course, we would hope any grievance that would come in would be resolved quickly so that we can get a decision on the grievance in terms of related conditions, and the sooner the better for us. But I will leave it to my colleagues here to provide the numbers and the assurances that they have staffed up to 200 people and that they're looking at the board to ensure they can take on the workload.
Senator Campbell: How do you replace a troop and a half of dismissals every year? How is your establishment right now? What's your establishment at?
Mr. Dubeau: I'll turn to my colleague to look at that. I think the vacancy pattern is across the floor, so I will ask Assistant Commissioner White to talk to that.
Stephen White, Assistant Commissioner, Human Resources Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Establishment right now, I think, is just over 19,000 regular members. Any dismissals that would evolve during the year are part of our attrition numbers, and we plan our recruiting processes taking those numbers into account.
Senator Campbell: Is 19,000 the number of members that you should have?
Mr. White: Approximately. I don't have the exact number.
Senator Campbell: And how many do you actually have?
Mr. White: That is what we actually have.
Senator Campbell: What is your establishment? What are you allowed to have?
Mr. Dubeau: The vacancy right now is about 3 to 4 per cent across the force. Those would be hard vacancies, when you have somebody who's left the organization or for whatever reason the position is not staffed. We're about 3 to 4 per cent.
How do we establish the next count? Every quarter, we do ask what the growth is and how much attrition. We do reach out to areas to try to get a number on that, keeping in mind that — you are correct — it's a troop and a half. Every time we lose members, we have to try to replace them.
Right now we're going at about a 34 troop count at training. We're at 34, with the intent of hopefully capping out at 40 troops. We are in a full recruiting drive. When you heard Senator White speak of our recruiting challenges and our changes, that is part of the reason why we did do the changes. We believe having university graduates, college graduates, write an entrance exam to show that they are able to write exams and have certain skills to be able to pass depot was working for us, because they were passing depot very well. Really, that's what that test was for, to see that they had the right education and that when they went into depot, they could actually pass the tests that are given to them at depot. That's why we've made those changes, sir.
Mr. White: Our attrition rate annually averages probably somewhere around the 700 mark. It varies. Last year it was high 600s; this year it was 830. There is a slight variance year to year. On an average year, overall attrition in the organization is close to about 700.
Senator Campbell: Basically half of the troops going through, if you get to the 40 number, will be taken care of by attrition, and the other half will be to bring your ranks up to the establishment?
Mr. Dubeau: That would be for the establishment or any new growth that comes in for any of the contracts, any provinces, as well as federal. That's what the intent would be, to go to a 40-troop level for a period of time, to get ourselves there.
Senator Campbell: How do you think this bill will affect your recruiting?
Mr. Dubeau: I think this bill, as the minister said, is long overdue. Our members will then be represented by an organization.
I have to put something on the table. The SR program did a great job for us, and they were very open to talking to us and negotiating through a lot of hard times, and they did a very good job. I have to put that marker down. The Supreme Court ruled that they were unconstitutional, hence why we made the decision to stop the SR program. But it was very effective, and I need to put that to all the employees that put their heart and soul into that program. They were very effective, and I think they deserve a thank you from this organization for what they did for the last 40 years.
However, now a unionized environment will allow the members to have that independent voice. They will be able to discuss, especially when it comes to pay and benefits, and they will have access to arbitration, which is something that they did not have access to in the past. They will be the masters of their own destiny at the table for pay and benefits. They will have, like any other police force, arbitration, should there be an impasse, which they do not have right now. I think that's going to help us on the recruiting side. It's going to give them the independence they need and the reassurance that they will have that.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: As I looked at the RCMP's annual report, I noticed that three-quarters of your members are assigned to contracts with provinces, territories and municipalities. So they carry out their duties at municipal and provincial levels.
All comparable provincial or municipal police forces have collective bargaining agreements that contain provisions about more or less all the points that you exclude.
The Supreme Court was clear when it said:
Just as a ban on employee association impairs freedom of association, so does a labour relations process that substantially interferes with the possibility of having meaningful collective negotiations on workplace matters.
I would like to go back to the matter of the exclusion of three-quarters of the RCMP officers who are doing comparable work to their colleagues at municipal and provincial levels.
How does the RCMP justify excluding all the things we have talked about from the list? They include law enforcement techniques, transfers from one position to another, appointments, appraisals, probation, discharges and demotions, conduct, harassment, basic job skills, order of dress, uniforms and equipment. How does the RCMP justify members not being able to negotiate a person's discharge conditions or safety in terms of equipment? Why would that be different for provincial or municipal police forces?
[English]
Mr. MacMillan: I'll take the first part of that question and then I'll turn it over to my colleague.
It's still the view that we're not differentially treating our members in terms of the items identified in the exclusion. I won't bore you with reading a series of agreements that I have here from Ontario, Nova Scotia and others that generally say that discharged, direct, classified, transfer, promote, demote, suspend or otherwise discipline any member are management rights and they're not dealt with in that fashion in terms of being "bargainable.'' That's also to say that it's clear there can be negotiation and discussion around those items, but it might not be formalized into a bargaining matter for that association.
The other point I would make is that section 8 of the PSLRA has made it clear that there will be a consultation committee within the RCMP that will deal with the association and workplace issues, and it will specifically have to deal with workplace harassment. It's consultative — not binding or negotiated — but I make that distinction.
I have no doubt negotiation goes on between associations and the employer or the police agency about things that would be technically said not to be negotiable because that's what they're doing; they're setting measures. I've done it myself; that is, negotiated with chiefs of police, and others, to come to a resolution on specific matters. However, the processes that exist around conduct, discharge and other matters in many respects are in the legislation so they can't be touched.
I've said before that that's because it's in the public interest, but I don't think conduct matters should be left entirely to the two parties — not because they're not competent or wouldn't act in good faith, but because Parliament has a role to set out what, in relation to police in a democratic society, should be the regime they want to govern in relation to conduct. I think that's a general understanding and why police jurisdictions across Canada have mostly said that complaints involving misconduct by police, whether a public complaint or misconduct itself — there are many different regimes — by and large are defined by a legislative enactment.
The consultation committee comes into that. I think that's important because it currently exists. There won't be a lot of change in terms of the new organization being able to discuss with the deputy head; a committee will be created for that.
Looked at objectively, I don't think members should see themselves as being treated different from other police officers and other agencies. There are always minor exceptions and differences, and I agree with that.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Clearly, we will never agree. So let's take out the example of discharge and discipline. By the way, as a lawyer, I do not negotiate my code of conduct, but that does not mean that I cannot have discipline conditions in a collective agreement. If we look at transfers, this is an important matter in the RCMP. It is in all collective agreements covering large territories. Why exclude transfers from collective bargaining?
[English]
Mr. White: If you look at a lot of collective agreements, transfers are included under management rights. That's how it's listed in the collective agreement, that it is a right of management, and quite a of number of collective agreements have that.
For ourselves, that's the foundation of our organization. As you mentioned, we're municipal, provincial, national and international police services, at points right across this country and locations internationally. The cornerstone of our organization has to be, from a management perspective, the ability to transfer individuals.
There are always discussions about transfers in our organization. We do not force transfers. It is very rare, if ever. There are a lot of discussions. The way we have it now, we're able to accommodate a lot of people. A lot of people who do want to transfer in our organization choose to do so. As an example, there are a lot of members in Western Canada who would like to come back to either Central or Eastern Canada. With our practices today, we're able to accommodate that in a lot of cases. We're not unlike a lot of municipal and provincial police services in terms of how we address transfers and who has the responsibility over transfers.
Mr. Dubeau: One unique condition the RCMP has versus all the other forces — they're all great police forces, by the way — is that when we sign on, we sign on for anywhere in Canada. We do not sign on to a position. That's why we have that and that's why we included that here. That's not collective bargaining. We still talk to employees. We have done so for the last 40 years through our staff relations program and created a lot of process with their input. It hasn't been lost on us that we want employees involved in the discussion. You have to remember the terms of condition of employment. They key ones for the organization, which we still ask our recruits, anybody applying, is you have to be able to serve anywhere in Canada and you have to say "yes'' to that. That's something we're still asking for. That's unique to us. No other organization has that. No other police force has that. Ontario does have that and Quebec.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: You can still negotiate the conditions, making the decision to transfer is one thing but establishing and negotiating the conditions of the sale of a person's property and the allowances that may go with that is another thing.
Ms. Brassard: That is already covered in the National Joint Council standards. The guideline applies to everyone, including people in the RCMP. It is covered, and according to an assessment that we had done by an external firm, it is very comparable to what exists in the market.
Senator Carignan: Is arbitration done by an independent and impartial arbitrator?
Ms. Brassard: There is a grievance system.
Senator Carignan: But is it done by an independent and impartial arbitrator?
Ms. Brassard: Ultimately, but this is an internal appeal that goes to the National Joint Council; that is a joint committee.
[English]
Senator Day: I'm thinking, deputy, of the lawsuit that has commenced in New Brunswick claiming that part of the reason for the death of those three members was that there wasn't proper equipment provided to them.
It's my understanding that the RCMP is like the Armed Forces in that members are expected and required to put themselves in harm's way. There is, however, a group of employees within the RCMP that are subject to the Public Service Labour Relations Act and they do have the right to refuse to be put in harm's way, in effect. They have the right to refuse — I think the terminology is — "any dangerous situations.'' However, RCMP members do not have that right or privilege. Is that correct? Do I have that right?
Mr. Dubeau: That's incorrect, senator. Under the Canada Labour Code, our members are covered under Part II.
Senator Day: All members?
Mr. Dubeau: Yes, so that would still continue to —.
Senator Day: Under Part II, I understand that only applied by virtue of the definition of "employee.'' So under Part II, RCMP come under the Canada —
Mr. Dubeau: Yes, they do have the right to refusal.
Senator Day: — Public Service Labour Relations and then the Canada Labour Code —
Mr. Dubeau: The Canada Labour Code does cover our membership.
Senator Day: — which is brought in under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, is that correct?
Mr. Dubeau: No, it's under the Canada Labour Code.
Senator Day: Do I have I the legalese flowing correctly?
Mr. Duggan: If I may, the reference in the PSLRA is Part 3, to which you are referring. That substitutes the PSLREB as the board who would determine issues that come to it with respect to those persons employed in the public service broadly speaking in those matters rather than the Canada Industrial Relations Board in the case of everybody else, because the Canada Labour Code applies to a much broader section, obviously to the private sector and the federal sector.
That change was made back in the 1980s. RCMP members were covered by Part II of the code, as was mentioned. However, the board is the board rather than the CIRB for members of the public service, including the RCMP.
Senator Day: Under this legislation, Bill C-7, is there going to be a change in relation to that situation of the commissioner and management being able to direct members to, from time to time, put themselves in harm's way to perform their policing activity?
Mr. Dubeau: That's a good question, senator. In our organization, we have an inherent risk in our job. It's just the simple fact of the job we do. We'll never take away the right to refuse. They have the right to refuse today. However, there is an expectation thatwith the training, the equipment and everything else, that you still do have to put yourself in harm's way because that is an expectation of the job. That still does happen.
Members do have access to ESDC. They have access to external oversight on that piece, and they use it. When you mentioned Moncton, the ESDC laid charges against it. Members still have that right.
The Canada Labour Code mandates that you will have a consultative committee on occupational health and safety. It's in the law, so we have it on the union side and we have it for our members. We will continue to have those discussions. If you're not able to resolve there, they could go outside to ESDC and ask for interventions.
Senator Day: That would not be part of the bargaining process? It would be something else, then?
Mr. Dubeau: It would be a separate process. They have external oversight that could impose conditions on the organization if they feel what we're doing is not appropriate.
Senator Day: If I may just make a comment that confirms the deputy's comment. I have heard from many retired RCMP officers who have indicated to me in writing that the work done by staff relations — SR, as you've referred to it — has been very effective and very much appreciated over the past 40 years.
The Chair: Just before we conclude — I know we're going a bit over time — I'm rather surprised that during the course of this hearing you haven't discussed at length the process put in place for the purposes of conduct in Bill C-42,I believe it was, if I've got my numbers correct. I thought it clearly gave an appeals procedure and made sure there was legal counsel.
In other words, from the point of view of conduct in the running of the organization, putting in the various steps as you proceed through the process, everyone's rights were taken into consideration. Before we close this, do you want to just expand on that a little bit? It certainly has gotten lost in this discussion, I believe.
Mr. MacMillan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, Bill C-42 did provide an extensive regime to deal with conduct and harassment matters, and it has been in place for a year and a half now. It is a comprehensive regime to deal with conduct in terms of appeals processes, rights, obligations and responsibilities.
We currently do provide legal counsel internally for members on the serious matters, such as dismissal. They have access to employee reps and formerly the SRRs on the less serious matters, because we were trying to make it less formalistic, adversarial and legalistic. That was the human cry that came from all stakeholders leading up to the changes in Bill C-42, whether it was employees, representatives, managers or external critics — that it was too formal and taking too long. The vast majority of your discipline conduct matters are remedial or corrective in nature; they weren't serious where you needed to be looking at dismissal.
I also want to note that the new process has been in effect for a year and a half. We were responding to Conduct Unbecoming, a report by the Senate here. Also, with respect to the CPC report, the Canadian police commission, we've implemented the vast majority of recommendations from that. One is whether we should have an external body that deals with issues in a binding way, maybe subject to discussion.
We amended our code of conduct to deal with harassment. We made it a schedule in the new regulation so it can be easily accessed by all members. We followed up with what the Senate committee recommended.
We have a workplace reporting system now that provides confidential reporting. It has been in place for almost two years, so employees can access reporting internally that is confidential.
With that, if it's a serious complaint, at some point they know it may have to be formalized because we have to protect our employees. We do send criminal misconduct to other police jurisdictions. We're subject to Part VII.1 of the RCMP Act, where if somebody is seriously injured or killed by the RCMP, there are external, independent, civilian bodies that may investigate that. We also have an observer program where another police agency investigates.
A lot of change has happened. We've really tried to go to the lowest appropriate level on conduct. We created a separate process for harassment, and that's one of the reasons it's specifically mentioned, because it is a conduct matter at the end of the day. If somebody is harassing somebody else, it is misconduct and it has to be dealt with.
Following up on the preceding history, we created a specific system to address complaints that were made about not sharing reports, that we didn't keep complainants updated and that they didn't have the ability to appeal. Now we let them see the investigative report at the draft stage and they get to comment on it. That was filling in gaps that had been identified, so we put that process in place. It's responding to that time frame, but it is ultimately a misconduct matter.
Identifying harassment and conduct in the same phrase is simply to make it clear to arbitrators and others who would be looking at this in the future if the bill is passed that harassment can't be seen as something separate; it is a conduct matter.
The Chair: My final question to you on this subject, Mr. Dubeau: Is the system working? We're going to have other witnesses later today and I'm sure this will come up. In your judgment, is the new system working?
Mr. Dubeau: Is that with respect to Bill C-42?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Dubeau: I will have to defer to my colleague who's currently doing a review of the whole system.
The Chair: All I want to know is if it's working. Has it done what it said it was going to do?
Mr. MacMillan: Yes, in most respects it has. There have been some challenges identified. We're still learning about the harassment process. By and large, yes, it is working. There are still some things that have to be learned and changes that can be made. It's not perfect.
The Chair: I appreciate that. I felt we should have this discussion so we understand there is a process in place, as it seems to have been forgotten.
It's quarter past two. I'm going to excuse the witnesses and ask senators to stay and go in camera for a brief moment.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Welcome back to the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence as we consider Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures.
Joining us in panel 3 to discuss this bill are Mr. Paul Champ, Lawyer, Champ and Associates; Mr. Paul Dupuis, President; and Mr. James R. K. Duggan, Legal Advisor, to the Quebec Mounted Police Members Association; and also joining the panel is Mr. Alain Jolicoeur, a consultant who conducted the RCMP survey of members.
Welcome. I understand that Mr. Champ and Mr. Dupuis have an opening statement. Mr. Champ, may I ask you to begin, followed by Mr. Dupuis. We have one hour for this panel. Please proceed.
Paul Champ, Lawyer, Champ and Associates, as an individual: Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you and speak about this important bill to introduce the right to unionize for RCMP officers.
I'm a labour lawyer in private practice here in Ottawa, and it has been my great privilege to represent RCMP members from across Canada for several years in a wide variety of workplace issues and matters, which includes discipline, promotion matters, harassment cases, whistle-blower cases, occupational injuries, duty to accommodate and racial and sexual discrimination cases.
I have had quite a broad experience in dealing with the RCMP, and I've also appeared a number of times before the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board, so I have some experience on the Public Service Labour Relations Act. I have a pretty good sense of this act and what these amendments are trying to do for members, and I would just like to set out some of the concerns that I have right now.
Primarily, I would like to talk about the exclusions from collective bargaining — as you know, there are a number of issues that are excluded from collective bargaining — as well as the complex recourse mechanism system that we now have, or what would be implemented with this bill. There are three different places where RCMP members would go. With some grievances, you'd go to the Public Service Labour Relations Board, some issues would go to a conduct board under the RCMP, and then other issues would be grievances that would go up internally through grievance advisory board members who are appointed by the commission and ultimately the commissioner. That is really what the House of Commons is proposing with this bill, and I want to explain to you why I think that's a problem.
Just to start, I think it is important to note that this really is an historic moment. Men and women who have served in the RCMP for over 50 years have sought unionization and the right to unionize, so this is a really important moment for many members.
If you look into the history, it's interesting that the right to unionize was denied to RCMP members for years because there was a fear during the Cold War that somehow police associations would be infiltrated by communists. I don't think we have to worry about that anymore. In recent years,I can tell you from my own experience I have no doubt that this right was denied because RCMP management really had zero interest in any type of change and in addressing the imbalance that we see between RCMP members and management. As you know, the RCMP as of now is the only police force in Canada that is not unionized.
The RCMP is also a unique workforce, as I'm sure you'll hear. Aside from being police officers, which creates its own specialized type of labour relations environment, the RCMP are different from other police forces because they are posted across the country, coast to coast to coast, and in many cases they're in very small, isolated postings, far from head office, and they are particularly vulnerable. There are also a number of RCMP officers at any time who are posted around the world.
There's really no police force like this in Canada, and I would argue almost no workforce like this in Canada. This makes it extremely difficult to organize these members, however. And I know that for whatever association wins the right to certify these members, it will be very challenging to represent them and organize them. When members are in so many isolated communities, decent representation can be difficult.
I would like to emphasize that these realities makes RCMP members, in my experience and in my view, particularly vulnerable to abuse and unfair treatment by local managers, as well as senior managers and management generally.
In my experience, the RCMP is still an inherently autocratic institution. The old traditions of a paramilitary force still are strong within the RCMP, in my own experience. Those RCMP constables or corporals or sergeants who speak up are often ostracized and even targeted by management. That's my experience.
The RCMP is also rife with favouritism, grudges and vindictiveness, and the types of arbitrary and unfettered power that is given to the RCMP commissioner and senior managers will remain unchecked with this bill. Really, that was part of the issue that the MPAO is trying to address to allow unionization, have the right to collectively bargain and have the right to independent adjudication.
The exclusion issues are particularly important. Staffing levels are excluded. This all has to do with occupational health and safety. This is obviously a vital issue for RCMP members, and it should not be excluded from discussion and negotiation with senior management.
Some park wardens in Canada right now carry sidearms because of a case I won over 10 years ago. This was a matter that Parks Canada said was a management issue. We said no, it can be adjudicated and ultimately they won on an occupational health and safety issue.
The shooting in Moncton two years ago was tragic. What we know now, though, is that there's a prosecution being brought against the RCMP for violations of health and safety under the Canada Labour Code. No one can say what might have been different, but I can say that some of the concerns that RCMP members had at the time about the lack of adequate equipment and lack of adequate training were an issue there, and they could have been subject to negotiation and adjudication. In my view, that's an important issue to members and should not be excluded from this bill.
Promotions and postings are also an extremely serious issue. The Brown report in 2007, entitled Rebuilding the trust, said that most members find the promotion system universally as being ineffective, unfair and opaque. A more recent report in 2012, the RCMP's own gender-based assessment report, said the lack of fairness and transparency in the promotional processes is one of the key issues for RCMP members.
I can tell you from what I've seen that promotions are often given as rewards to those who are loyal, those who are part of a club, and it is not often for merit. Transgressions or perceived transgressions from 20 or even 30 years ago are used as excuses to not promote stellar officers with stellar records who have spoken out against the force, whereas at the same time, RCMP members with ugly histories of discipline and rank sexual harassment are climbing the ladder in the RCMP. This is what RCMP members see across the country and that's why they feel it's deeply unfair. To exclude this from collective bargaining, to exclude this from adjudication, in my submission, would be unfair.
I had a couple of other issues about harassment, but I know I'm short on time. I'll make this one point on harassment, however. Early in his tenure, RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson spoke about the problems of harassment in the RCMP. He spoke of himself having been placed in the penalty box. What RCMP Commissioner Paulson meant about that is he was assigned a pointless or demeaning job to demean and punish him, to ensure he learned the culture and values of the force, which is you follow what the boss says no matter what. In my experience, the RCMP commissioner has learned those lessons because he has continued to perpetuate that kind of cultures in the RCMP. There is a culture of harassment in the RCMP, and unless it is addressed openly, through open adjudication and open collective bargaining, I don't think it will be fixed.
Thank you.
James R. K. Duggan, Legal Advisor, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association: One thing I must say at the outset is I find this committee to be very well informed and very well prepared, compared to the committee at the other place.
That being said, what I see in the legislation is a misapprehension of what the MPAO case stood for. The MPAO case, at its core, was to provide a process of collective bargaining, not a result. When you allow one side, here the employer, to take out of the process fundamental issues, basically they're determining the result. It is the MPAO case sort of on its head.
[Translation]
Restrictions were also dealt with in the legislation. If I am not mistaken, the examples provided were restrictions in the collective agreements, meaning that those restrictions, in large part, were negotiated.
[English]
It is important to make a distinction between exclusions that are the fruit of a collective bargaining process and exclusions that are imposed by legislation. That's fundamental.
In labour law, as Senator Carignan and others here would know, dismissal is capital punishment. If that doesn't end up before an independent tribunal, you have left the ultimate power in the hands of the employer.
I have sent in a brief. I have outlined these things succinctly, I hope, but the two glaring omissions or errors in this legislation that I would submit must be addressed are the exclusions and the need for an independent tribunal at the end of the day.
The Chair: Mr. Dupuis, do you have some comments?
[Translation]
Paul Dupuis, President, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association: Honourable senators, thank you for inviting us to appear before you. We would like to have been consulted before Bill C-7 was drafted, but that was not the case. The members of the RCMP and their associations therefore turn to you, senators, in your role of custodians of the law.
We recognize that the upper chamber exists to bring reason and right to the government's affairs. We are pleased to be here to help you in your role. We fear that, with Bill C-7, the government has used its role as a legislator to anticipate, to facilitate and to derive benefit from its role as an employer. We are asking you to correct the situation.
You have heard from James Duggan how Bill C-7 complies with neither the Mounted Police Association of Ontario decision nor the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am going to focus my comments on the problems that will persist if the restrictions in clauses 238.19 and 238.22 remain.
When you studied Bill C-42, in May 2013, you expressed concern about the future of our civilian members, if a conversion should occur. Their future is still uncertain and Bill C-7 prevents them from being represented by their current associations, which also represent regular members.
Harassment has been a problem in the RCMP for a long time and remains so even more. It also includes the tools with which that harassment is committed: transfers, promotions, appraisals, probation, discharge, demotion and conduct.
On almost every occasion when the commissioner has come to testify before this committee, he has told you that he has a plan, that you must trust him, and that he is going to stop harassment in the RCMP. Yet he continues to denigrate members who dare to complain about harassment, to deny that their complaints have any basis and to stretch out the timelines for investigating the complaints and the grievance process, which is supposed to provide us with our recourse. That approach does not work.
Bill C-7 will do nothing to get rid of the problem. Only by dealing with the matter at the bargaining table are we going to begin to be able to solve the problem of harassment, including the grievances based on harassment. More than 5,000 grievances are sitting in filing cabinets at RCMP headquarters; some of them have been there for more than 10 years. There is a shortage of grievance managers to move the process along. The respondents — the parties against whom we are filing the grievances — use every imaginable tactic to put off the day when they will have to answer for their actions. The arbitrators are not impartial. Only the claimants have deadlines imposed on them. The final level of appeal is the commissioner.
Our grievance system is so chronically biased that courts in all jurisdictions in the country are agreeing to hear labour disputes from the RCMP. No union would accept that the person setting the rules and being a party to a dispute is also the person who makes the final decision.
As Bill C-7 is drafted today, a number of aspects of health and safety in the workplace are restricted, such as law enforcement techniques, the application of legislation, basic skills, uniform, order of dress, and equipment. These aspects must all be part of collective bargaining. Left to their own devices, RCMP managers have, on many occasions, failed in their duty towards the members by not providing a safe workplace. It is time for that to change.
In conclusion, we are asking you to require our employer to grant us nothing more nor less than other police forces in the country have: full collective bargaining. We must change what the Supreme Court has described as a long- standing attitude of hostility towards unionization in the RCMP, on the part of both RCMP management and of successive governments.
In its wisdom, the Supreme Court reassured the legislator that, in fact, evidence suggests that freedom of association can even ensure, not compromise, good labour relations, thereby enhancing stability.
I am ready to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Jolicoeur, do you have an opening statement?
Alain Jolicoeur, Consultant, as an individual: My contribution is much narrower than the one of my colleagues here. The reason for my presence is that I authored a report on the result of the consultation process that occurred last year.
My relation with the RCMP has generally been on the other side of the table. I have chaired for more than four years their external audit committee. I have also chaired the Pay Council, or Le Conseil de la solde.
[Translation]
I signed the report that Senator Carignan referred to earlier this morning. My work ended last fall, when I submitted my report on the consultation process. I am ready to answer any questions you may have about it.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. We'll start with Senator Carignan and then go to Senator Dagenais.
Senator Kenny: You've had the same people now three or four times. It doesn't mean you can come three or four times and have other members of the committee not get an opportunity to ask questions.
The Chair: Senator Kenny, you will get your opportunity. Senator Carignan is the critic of the bill.
Senator Kenny: So what?
The Chair: Senator Carignan, please proceed.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Mr. Jolicoeur, would it be possible for you to send us a copy of your report? I have it in electronic format only. I would like to be able to send the clerk a paper copy, so that it is properly submitted and so that we can then take it into consideration.
Mr. Jolicoeur: Certainly. I will ask the Treasury Board Secretariat to send it to you.
Senator Carignan: I agree with what was said about the process, but I also have the impression that they want to delay the collective bargaining negotiations for as long as possible. Actually, that seems quite clear to me.
I wonder if a certain rigour in the accreditation process has not slipped away; it has not been undertaken for a long time in Canada. I want to make sure that the elements are in place. The bill is a modern one in terms of negotiating a collective agreement.
Earlier, I asked whether the commission could ask for a vote when there are three unions, each with 25 per cent of the members. First, I am not an expert in federal legislation on collective agreements in the public service. Can you confirm for me whether it is possible to hold a vote with three unions, each with 25 per cent of the representatives? The provisions are not very clearly drafted. I am not grasping all the information we have been given.
Then, can you explain to us the danger, the consequences of the fact that, in terms of grievances, the only mention is of applying and interpreting the collective agreement, with no reference to the possibility of examining other legislation that could have an impact on working conditions? In my opinion, that limits the scope of the arbitrator a great deal.
Did I understand the situation correctly? Are you more optimistic, because you believe there is a way to find a solution?
[English]
The Chair: Who is that directed to, Senator Carignan? Mr. Duggan?
[Translation]
Mr. Duggan: I am going to try to answer Senator Carignan.
If you look at the definitions more closely, it talks about a group of labour organizations. In my opinion, that would be the best way of allowing existing associations to form a group. Then they could submit a request for accreditation.
Senator Carignan: It is important to correct the situation before we end up with a major problem.
Mr. Duggan: Yes. As for it being possible for an arbitrator to interpret other legislation, both the case law and the Supreme Court are consistent. To settle a dispute by arbitration, arbitrators must have all the resources they need. You very rightly raised that point this morning. Arbitrators will be powerless when the time comes to settle the dispute. I know of no other arbitration tribunal in labour law, either federally or provincially, where the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is skimmed off in that way.
Senator Carignan: Two of our witnesses are lawyers. I would like to hear their points of view.
[English]
Mr. Champ: Just very quickly, Senator Carignan, on the vote issue, under the Public Service Labour Relations Act as it stands now, it does not have specific provisions that allow the Public Service Relations Board in conjunction with the unions to try to come up with a process that they think works best for them. A vote in this situation would probably be difficult, but not impossible. People are being posted in so many different locations. I don't have the number at my fingertips, but it would not surprise me if you have 350 work locations for RCMP members, seriously. If there was a vote, that's what would have to happen, but it could be done and the parties would work it out, and that's why they don't have specific provisions under the PSLRA.
On the other issue, I agree with what Mr. Duggan said, although there is some dispute at times about whether the RCMP internal grievance system adjudicators have the power to apply external statutes. For example, if a member grieved about human rights under the Canadian Human Rights Act and asked for damages, there are issues there about whether RCMP grievance members can order damages under the act.
I had one case very recently that went to the Federal Court where it is not even about whether they can apply statutes. These internal grievance decision makers are commissioned officers, but they're below the commissioner, and aside from the bias inherent in that, they cannot make decisions that the commissioner does not like.
I had one case where an individual won the grievance, and the grievance board said he should be put back on the promotional list, but the deputy commissioner and the commissioner didn't like the decision so they ignored it. I went up to Federal Court over that, and the RCMP argued, "Well, he should have just grieved that decision.'' And the court said, "Well, this is perverse.'' Literally, they said, "This is perverse.'' He won the grievance. The commissioner ignored it, and now they're saying he should go back and grieve the commissioner ignoring a grievance that he won.
There are issues with that internal grievance system in terms of what statutes they can apply, but it underlines the lack of independent adjudication problem that Mr. Duggan and I and the others have raised.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My first question goes to Mr. Jolicoeur. Can you tell us exactly how the consultation process will be undertaken?
Mr. Jolicoeur: Actually, the report was submitted last autumn. The report deals with a number of aspects, including an online survey, with a series of questions on certain aspects of the new plan for labour relations. The survey was intended to identify preferences for certain areas.
At the same time, that survey led to a series of town hall meetings all across the country. I do not recall the exact number. We met in every RCMP region with the exception of the Far North. We dealt with the same questions, but in a more open and general manner. We also had teleconferences and video conferences.
In total, we got opinions from about 9,000 people, or half the members of the RCMP. Some people brought up points and asked questions online and those were subsequently channeled to those responsible for the process.
Each meeting began with a presentation, about an hour in length, dealing with the various labour relations schemes in the public service or in police forces across Canada. It was important to fully understand the content of the legislation and the collective agreements. Then discussions were held, presentations were made and information was distributed. The survey data were also analyzed, which resulted in a report that I produced myself.
The major issues raised. . . Especially since the survey had an open question at the very end. . . What surprised me the most was the intensity of feeling in the comments expressed. One group felt that unionization was very bad for the organization, whereas another group took the position that it was absolutely necessary to have it now. There were about 2.5 members in favour of unionization for every one against.
The comments were expressed with a lot of intensity on both sides. The major concerns raised in the debate were born out of fear, or from the idea that it is very bad for the organization to be put in a situation where it would be treated like the rest of the public service. The preference of the members is to have something very specific for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Another big preference that emerged right across the country was having a single bargaining unit. Members would have preferred to have their own labour relations act, specific to the organization. They would have also preferred to have an RCMP-specific board, but that may have been based less on a detailed analysis of the situation. The general feeling, however, was this: the greater the separation between members and the public service, the better. Members also wanted to have their own bargaining unit and open up a dialogue with the management team because they did not feel the current dialogue was sufficient.
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Dupuis, we are hearing a lot about the exclusions. As far as the joint committee is concerned, we are talking about equipment and placement. For the time being, however, Bill C-7 doesn't include that.
Now I'd like to come back to the pension plan. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around something. During a more technical meeting, we were told that, in terms of the bargaining process, the pension plan was not the same as that of the public service but, rather, that it was similar. Is there a special committee that negotiates the pension plans, and are RCMP members currently represented on that committee? I don't mean people from management; I mean rank-and-file members because they are the beneficiaries of the plan. I'd like you to comment on the pension plan and the makeup of the committee. I'd also like you to tell us whether it's a joint committee.
Mr. Dupuis: We do, in fact, have a national pension plan advisory committee. The membership is not equal, but it is a joint committee in the sense that it encompasses employees, retired members and management. It has actually been led by Treasury Board since the RCMP pension plan scandal that occurred in the mid-2000s, between 2005 and 2007, leading to the Brown commission and the Brown report.
Since the SRR program's elimination, I am wondering who on the committee currently represents employees. The advisory committee used to have two representatives. But the committee had no control over how the funds were managed. As you probably know, an outside firm, PSP Investments, is responsible for managing the RCMP pension plan.
Senator Dagenais: What does "PSP'' stand for?
Mr. Dupuis: PSP Investments is also the fund manager for all federal public service pension plans.
Senator Dagenais: Police pension plans are usually separate from those of their public service counterparts and separately negotiated. I know Bill C-7 doesn't include that component, but I think it would eventually have to be part of the responsibilities of a future union in a unionized RCMP workforce.
Mr. Dupuis: You're right, Senator Dagenais, except for the fact that, as things stand, we have only an advisory role. The last big change undertaken by the committee had to do with pension portability. We do indeed have our own pension fund separate from that of the public service, and the last big change that was made involved pension portability. Someone who works on another police force can keep their years of service under that force's pension plan and transfer them over to the RCMP plan; whereas before, only federal government pensions were portable.
[English]
Senator Kenny: Welcome to the committee, gentlemen. I think I see a consensus forming amongst committee members. Their concern, I think, is that they have a belief that the legislation before us could be a vehicle to rebalance the power structure within the RCMP. I think there's concern that the government has given us a bill that is drafted to fit in more with a government than with other police organizations. I think there's a concern that there aren't appropriate checks on power within the system, particularly at the very top; and absent that, you won't see any significant changes.
The areas that seem to come forward most frequently are health and safety, promotion, staffing levels and equipment. I think it would be very helpful to the committee if you gentlemen could give some thought to what sort of changes in a specific way we should be making to those things. Really what I'm asking you to do is help us with some draft amendments so that we can actually take a look at what you hear talked about in passing but we haven't talked about in a specific way about how we might change the legislation.
Mr. Dupuis: Thank you very much for your question. You're right; there seems to be a resistance to having change within our work relation system. If you go back, let's say, almost 20 years, to the Duxbury report, the Brown report, all the reports that were done provided a recommendation that we needed to change our culture. Since 2000, all we've been hearing is that we have to change our culture. This is an opportunity to change our culture, but there still is resistance. The day we do provide free collective bargaining will be the day we can start changing our culture. As Dr. Duxbury recommended, it will take a generation to do that, once we start. But right now we haven't started doing this culture change that's been recommended across the years.
Senator Kenny: We have a very limited amount of time. We're talking about producing a response within a week, chair?
The Chair: Within a week at the most.
Senator Kenny: So we have a vehicle, and I'm asking if you can provide assistance in terms of specific changes to the vehicle. You don't necessarily have to do it right now, but tomorrow morning at nine would be nice.
Mr. Dupuis: I am doing it right now. I stated in my introductory statement that removing all of the restrictions that are found at the present 238.19 and 238.22 would be a good start to start changing the culture of the RCMP.
Senator Kenny: Questions like moderating the commissioner's power?
Mr. Dupuis: By removing these restrictions, you permit the representatives of the employees, the associations, to engage with the commissioner on these subjects. This is the only way we can change anything, even our chronic problems like harassment and the fact that we might be poorly equipped to do our work safely.
Mr. Champ: If I may, Senator Kenny, here's one recommendation. The Brown report and other reports before have commented how the RCMP is the only police force in this country that is not governed in some way by a civilian oversight body, and I don't mean the external review committee. I mean either a police board that oversees it or the grievance system where every police force in the country goes up to a provincial overview body. In Ontario, for example, it's the Ontario Civilian Police Commission. Alberta is the Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board. There is the Saskatchewan police review board and the Nova Scotia Police Review Board, and those are where the grievances that were previously decided exclusively by the chiefs would go up to, and in some cases they would overturn. They have that oversight.
Right now, the RCMP commissioner in terms of operational matters doesn't report to a civilian board. He reports to the minister who, as we know, has all kinds of things on his plate as the Minister of Public Safety. When the RCMP commissioner is the final decision maker in a grievance, that's it. He doesn't have to be worried or concerned that his final decision will then go on to a civilian police commission that's going to review it. There is the RCMP External Review Committee, but that's below him and only makes recommendations.
Those are some really key issues that relate to the lack of independent adjudication and the oversight issues that I believe you're raising, Senator Kenny.
Senator Kenny: Have you given any thought to a more specific proposal for an oversight board?
Mr. Champ: If we're dealing with this sort of framework that we already have before us, on the one hand, I'm concerned about how complex the process is. You go to the conduct board for this, to the PSLRB for this. You go internally for this. One thing I would recommend is that the RCMP External Review Committee could be modified slightly to look more like the Ontario Civilian Police Commission or the Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board, where any type of decisions and grievance decisions by the commissioner actually go to them for final decision making, and you have eminent people appointed to that body, as we have with the Ontario commission. If the RCMP commissioner knows that his or her decision is not the final stop, I think that will not only lead to better decisions by the commissioner, but, ultimately, when he's wrong, it will be overturned. I think some kind of changes along those lines would not be that difficult.
Senator Kenny: Very helpful. Thank you.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I'll be quite brief. I'm not a lawyer, and I would like to bring things down to more of a people level. In my consideration, based on your testimony, I don't get the feeling that you believe this legislation is fair or offers a fairness to the RCMP in comparison to the rest of the police services throughout this country. Am I correct in that? Perhaps, Mr. Dupuis, you could respond.
Mr. Dupuis: Absolutely, you are correct. By having the restrictions imposed on us on collective bargaining, you're essentially condemning us to reusing the same system that's been proven not to work.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you.
My other question is, of course, about health and safety. Being from New Brunswick and close to the Moncton tragedy, I'm appalled that the recommendations from the report on the actual incident have not been acceded to. They have still not received their equipment. Only yesterday, there were reports that a good many of the officers have transferred out of the Codiak division. I think that's a shame. I think that we're not supporting our people. I don't want to see something like that happen again. I think, if you would agree, that this is a devastating blow to officers who put their lives on the line and do not receive the equipment that they need and that has been recommended. I'm very concerned that this legislation will do nothing to rectify that.
Mr. Dupuis: Senator, if I may, I don't want you to fall off your chair, but, in Mayerthorpe, when we lost four members, the same equipment was supposed to be provided within a few months after the Mayerthorpe shootings. I'm talking about the long range carbines, the bulletproof vests that can stop — hard body armour — and communication systems. All three of these pieces of equipment were declared essential in 2005 following the Mayerthorpe shooting.
In Moncton, they had a problem with the communications because different detachments didn't have the same system of communication with the central emergency communications centre. They would have liked to have long range rifles and hard body armour. Had they had those things, we would have had a lot fewer deaths and a lot fewer people wounded.
Senator White: I apologize for being late. I was across the hall at another meeting.
Mr. Champ, I'm going to ask a supplementary of you, only because you referred to Ontario. In the provincial jurisdictions and municipal jurisdictions, that wouldn't have occurred post-Mayerthorpe because the union would have taken on the general manager, the governments, and forced the issue, whereas, today, if we pass this legislation, we'll find ourselves in the exact same position of the commissioner dealing with the union instead of the government dealing with the union because the commissioner will maintain authority.
Mr. Champ: Yes, Senator White. I think you're probably aware now that I represent the Ottawa Police Association, so I'm quite familiar with the Police Services Act and the kinds of recourse that police officers here in Ottawa have, as well as those across the province. You're quite correct; there are all kinds of mechanisms there where the member officers would be able to grieve ahead of time. That's the key. It's tragic. Now there's a prosecution involving the RCMP, and I guess that can effect some change, but would it not be better if the members could raise these issues beforehand and try to address them beforehand to prevent a tragedy? You don't want to sensationalize that, but it really comes down to that, as you know full well from your background, Senator White.
As you know also, these people are the experts usually. It's the sergeants and the staff sergeants who know this stuff. When the RCMP wants an expert, they go to their sergeants and staff sergeants. They're the tactical experts usually, and they will know and say, "We need the long range carbines'' or whatnot. When management doesn't respond, they really have no recourse.
Senator White: The negotiation is between representative labour and those who hold the purse strings, not representative labour and somebody who has very limited control over those very purse strings.
Mr. Champ: In some cases. It's complicated because, with the Ottawa Police, there's the police board, which then has the control of the purse strings.
Senator White: But that's where negotiations lie, between the association and —
Mr. Champ: That's right.
Senator Campbell: Mr. Champ, I have to give you some information. By my count, I'm at 715 detachments, double the 350. I'm not sure I included all the headquarters staff.
I'm not going to go into my views again on the exemptions, but I do want to comment and ask a question. Somebody said that we should force the two parties together. I'm not sure who it was. Somebody said that. We're not here to force anybody to do anything. This is about collective bargaining. There's no doubt in my mind that, at the end of the, day these exemptions will be dealt with in collective bargaining. What I'm waiting for now — and I don't know whether you heard — was that Minister Goodale is going to come back with a letter to the chair. He has some ideas of how we can work with this, but this really is about collective bargaining.
The question I have is: Which part do you find of this bill that you think we will have difficulty with constitutionally, the Supreme Court? Mr. Duggan, I know that you have dealt with this.
Mr. Duggan: Yes. I think that, if you read the MPAO decision — and I have a feeling that some members here, some senators, know that I argued this case and that I argued the preceding Delisle case — the exclusions basically are unconstitutional. They're so broad. They encompass so much that the whole concept in MPAO, that there was to be a process that would allow for all issues to be discussed, basically, that's stifled; it's reduced right down to, essentially, pay and benefits. It's unfortunate.
We've seen the same thing in other constitutional issues over freedom of association, where the employees or the associations are obliged to go to the Supreme Court and get sort of one judgment and then, when the legislation comes out, take another constitutional challenge. It just delays everything.
One thing that hasn't been addressed here yet today is that there's frustration, at a certain point, from the members. They think they won something, and, if it's a hollow victory, that doesn't bode well for the relationship going forward.
Senator Beyak: Thank you, gentlemen. I think you've answered most of my questions around occupational health and safety, but I wondered: Is there any other force that you know of anywhere in Canada or North America that doesn't include that, and what were the members' feelings about the exclusion? Do you know what I'm asking?
Mr. Duggan: No, not really.
Senator Beyak: I'll read it, then. I thought I had it properly.
This is the question that was put to me from officers: Is there a police force in Canada or North America that excludes occupational safety and harassment from bargaining, and do you see these specific exclusions as being constitutional?
Mr. Dupuis: Well, I would say first-hand, and I'm not a lawyer, but most police forces are covered either by provincial jurisdiction or workforce labour law within their provinces. Even within the federal public service or other federal police forces, like the CN police or the CP police, they're covered by Part II of the Canada Labour Code, which provides an extensive investigation process.
Senator Beyak: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I want to pick up on the exclusions. Looking at the list of items that can supposedly be included in the collective agreement, pursuant to the bill, I was reminded of a bargaining element we would use when negotiating collective agreements with the municipal police force of the city I was mayor of: solo patrols.
It's a crucial issue in collective bargaining because, depending on the time of day, location or place where the patrol is assigned, a backup officer must be designated to ensure the effectiveness of the work being done, as well as officer safety.
I see that law enforcement techniques are listed in the exclusions. But I don't see patrols in the list of items that could be included. My understanding is that the possibility of assigning a backup officer after certain hours, during certain work schedules, is non-negotiable and completely excluded from the bargaining process. Is your interpretation the same as mine?
This is especially crucial when you consider the extensive area that the RCMP covers, including the North. The backup officer could be 100 kilometres away. In cases like that, solo patrols should not be an option. Do I understand that correctly?
Mr. Dupuis: As Mr. Duggan mentioned earlier, the exclusions are so broad that RCMP managers could argue that it was covered by the exclusions.
As for solo patrols, the issue can be considered in one of two ways. We also have contracts with cities. In municipalities, the backup officer could be quite close, in the next neighbourhood over, say; but up North, the backup officer could be, as you pointed out, 100 kilometres away, or an hour-and-a-half plane ride away. It's an entirely different set of circumstances.
In Quebec, when Senator Dagenais was head of his union, decisions on solo patrols were made in three specific cases, or three specific regions. A labour arbitrator set out some basic conditions. First, it was determined that, for a solo patrol, contact had to be maintained at all times with the central station. Second, the officer's calls had to be responded to within five to eight minutes. I can't quite recall the specifics of the third requirement, but it was related to that.
The Sûreté du Québec allowed solo patrols in very rural areas, with smaller populations, but someone was always available to assist, if need be.
In our case, some detachments ran on just two people: the off-duty officer and the backup officer, and vice versa. That doesn't leave much time for sleep in between.
Senator Carignan: My second question is for Mr. Jolicoeur. Your report indicates the number of police officers per capita. In taking a closer look, I gathered that the number was lower in areas covered by the RCMP than in other jurisdictions. Do you have an explanation for that?
Not only are there fewer police officers, but the crime severity index is also higher. Did I understand that correctly? Would you care to comment on that?
Mr. Jolicoeur: I would imagine that, historically speaking, it was a matter of resources. Obviously, that's the nature of the areas covered by the RCMP and the challenges it has to deal with. The northern parts of provinces are home to many remote detachments, in remote areas with smaller populations.
This analysis was carried out to justify our proposals, our views on the overall relative compensation of RCMP officers versus eight police forces. Thus, in addition to comparing overall compensation — overall remuneration — we made sure that, at least, in terms of work-related challenges, it was equivalent. That's one of the Treasury Board's criteria used to define remuneration, from the perspective of the employer, so that, at least their challenges are similarly substantial.
We also compared the different situations that are found in small, remote municipalities that are located near each other and that face the same kinds of challenges. We compared the resources allocated by the Sûreté du Québec and the Ontario Provincial Police, for example, to those allocated to the RCMP in small municipalities close to each other.
In many cases, there were significant differences. However, our goal was not to pass judgment in that regard; it was to justify our reasoning when we compare the overall remuneration of the RCMP to that of other police forces. We noticed a gap that became more and more pronounced over the years that added up — according to the indicators used — to a difference of about 10 per cent less for the RCMP.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, we're coming to the end of our time. We have three more questioners. I would ask that you be more concise in your preambles and get to your questions quicker. To the witnesses, please be concise as well.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Senator Carignan mentioned solo patrols, and the third element that you no longer remembered was the issue of whether to assign a police officer on standby at home. Given the distances involved, a police officer remained on standby at home, and was paid. The officer was not on duty, but had to be ready to respond.
I would like to go back to the exclusions, because, when we are talking about solo patrols, we are talking about occupational health and safety. In Quebec, the employer is responsible for occupational health and safety. When you have a union, you work in tandem with the employer on health and safety in the workplace, and therefore there are often union representatives —
[English]
The Chair: Senator Dagenais, excuse me. Could you ask your question? We're running out of time.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Mr. Duggan made it quite clear that the exclusions are vague, but when we are talking about unionizing RCMP officers, do you agree that the focus should really be on occupational health and safety, at least when it comes to equipment, training and especially solo patrols, which is a major issue for the RCMP, given the territory it covers?
Mr. Dupuis: I couldn't agree with you more, senator. I would add that minimum service levels also pose a big problem today, because we are understaffed everywhere.
In addition, as was mentioned this morning, there's a reason for integrity studies. They even try to buy time. We are pushed to our limits and beyond, so there's burnout in the ranks.
[English]
Senator Day: Mr. Jolicoeur, first of all, your survey indicated that those surveyed — and there were quite a few of them; you got a very good response — indicated they wanted a regime that recognized the difference between the normal public servant and the RCMP. Do you feel that we have achieved that in this particular legislation?
Mr. Jolicoeur: Well, there are some differences, but, interestingly enough, some of the differences have to do with elements that some of you are not comfortable with. The regime treats both sides slightly differently because there are provisions in the bill that are specific to the RCMP.
To what extent would the members — because I don't have a view — be comfortable with that? Are they far enough from the rest of the public service? I'm not sure. You could be more clearly separate and different by using specific legislation for the RCMP. You could achieve that, but I don't see any reason why it could not be achieved within the PSLRA by being specific enough for the RCMP.
The concern that they might have — and this was raised this morning — is the availability of arbitrators or mediators that are specifically knowledgeable about the police environment as opposed to the generalists that we have right now. To what extent the results would be sufficient, I don't know, but theoretically, it can be achieved within the existing legislation. To what extent this bill has achieved it, well, it's for people —
The Chair: Senator Day, can you be short? We are running out of time and Senator Kenny is on the list.
Senator Day: My question can be short. We didn't get this done by May 16, which was the Supreme Court extended deadline. What is the impact of that? Is the Public Service Labour Relations Act in force now and are they where they don't want to be?
Mr. Champ: In my opinion, it is a grey zone. There's no specific provision. I would say that the provisions are struck down. Hypothetically, I suppose, RCMP members could try to apply for certification under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. That would be one avenue.
One thing I can tell you, senator, is that RCMP commissioner has rolled back the representation. I'm not sure if this committee is aware, but the staff representation program has been cut. Now, ironically — perversely, I would say — members are in a worse situation than they were before the judgment. It looks like it is going to prevail until an association gets certified, which might be a couple years down the road. That's a serious issue and concern that violates the spirit of the act, in my opinion.
Senator Kenny: Mr. Jolicoeur, I have here — I assume it is your work — a comparison between Wabowden and Pickle Lake. It compares the OPP detachment in Pickle Lake to the RCMP attachment at Wabowden, two communities ofroughly the same size but a dramatic difference in that for 420 residents, the OPP had 12 officers assigned; and for 550 residents, the RCMP had three regular members assigned.
When we received our technical briefing, we talked about under-staffing. The message we got was that the communities they're policing couldn't afford to have more officers.
What sort of reaction did you get when you put forward these comparisons on it? What is the solution where you have a community that needs more officers if it's going to provide backup, but the community is impoverished? What's the solution that one should try and arrive at?
Mr. Jolicoeur: Our purpose was not to resolve that problem. Our purpose was to measure it and use it in making a case for proper compensation for members.
Obviously, the solution to the deployment of resources within the RCMP requires quite a few other pieces of input. For instance, there are different kinds of arrangements with different provinces, municipalities and even First Nation reserves. The deployment of resources in each case is based upon third-party agreements, provinces being the big one. Those things are negotiated. At the end of the day, if the government wanted to spend more or change the model, they could. No matter what, however, it will require a lot of money and resources.
Senator Kenny: A subsidy?
Mr. Jolicoeur: It is a resource question.
Senator Kenny: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, we're just a bit past time here. I have one question about the Senate report that was passed about two years ago and which recommended an ombudsman to be put in place for the rank and file within the RCMP. Mr. Dupuis, do you want to give a quick comment on that?
Mr. Dupuis: I don't believe an ombudsman would be able to do anything with regard to harassment. We need to sit down and be equal partners with management to get to the bottom of the problem and then resolve it.
The Chair: Thank you very much for coming.
Joining us in our fourth panel are Mr. Rae Banwarie, President, Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada; Mr. Peter Engelmann, Partner, Goldblatt Partners; and also joining us is Mr. Brian Sauvé, Co-Chair, National Police Federation.
I will invite Mr. Banwarie to make a statement.
Rae Banwarie, President, Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada: Thank you, everyone. Good afternoon, honourable members of this committee. My name is Rae Banwarie, and I'm President of the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to address this committee regarding Bill C-7.
Our association, MPPAC, is a national, non-profit police association which represents regular members of the RCMP in every region of the country. Our executive is not compromised of the any of the individuals who are part of the employer-run and manipulative program known as the SRP, or SRR later on.
MPPAC is seeking to become the certified bargaining agent for all non-commissioned members of the RCMP. We've been involved in the RCMP association movement since 1994 in our first inception as the EDMA, which is the E Division Members Association, later rebranded as the BCMPPA, now as the national body, MPPAC.
We've advocated for members in grievances, codes of conduct cases and compassionate transfers in the workplace. We've advocated on behalf of our members at the commanding officer level, the commissioner of the RCMP level and public safety minister level, in some of the situations we have had to deal with. In all of these situations, we have sought accountability and redress for our members. We have been successful, unlike the failures found in the management- controlled SRP program. I'm also a board member of the Canadian Police Association and have met a few of you already in previous RCMP labour matters.
I will highlight some of the amendments we would like to see in Bill C-7, and it's not restricted. Ideally we would like to see all the amendments removed from the legislation. I will touch on some of the key ones we want to highlight, starting on page 2 of our brief, with staffing levels and equipment.
Members of the RCMP are being killed on the job. We've had Mayerthorpe, Spiritwood, Moncton, St. Albert and now the tragedy in Fort McMurray, in which many of our members were placed in harm's way. In all of these incidents, inadequate resourcing, inadequate training and inadequate equipment have all caused death and/or serious injury to our members. The RCMP is being charged with four violations, as everyone knows, under the Canada Labour Code, and this supports our position that the RCMP cannot be trusted to protect its own members' health and safety on its own.
When are we going to end this and give the ability to protect and provide the mandatory safety, equipment and resourcing standards that are already enshrined in many other police collective agreements nationwide?
I ask this of you: What if it was your daughter or son or family in the RCMP? Would you allow them to be put at unnecessary risk? We all know the answer to that is no.
We know that police work is inherently dangerous, but we must put processes in place to reduce these risks. Without us being able to negotiate these things in our collective bargaining agreement, our CBA, our government is putting our members' safety and our members' lives at risk and jeopardizing public safety.
Page 2 of our brief speaks to the minimum staffing levels, and there we've noted that article 22 of the Toronto Police Service CBA deals with this matter. It is addressed in other collective bargaining agreements in other police agencies like Niagara, Sudbury and Windsor. This must be included in our first collective bargaining agreement.
Another point I will briefly touch on is harassment. This issue must be included in our collective bargaining agreement. The management of the RCMP has had the old RCMP Act and now the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, and they have failed to reduce this issue to the level it should be. We're not going to get rid of it altogether, but we need to put processes in place that will allow us to minimize it. There are class action lawsuits being filed by hundreds of members, and we believe this will continue until we put mechanisms in place to reduce it.
The old SRP program failed to deal with harassment, and the new program that the commissioner has created, called the Member Workplace Services Program, is a new SRR with a new, different name on it. It's the same process. It will also fail, mainly because it is controlled by management, it is not independent and it is not impartial. The issue of harassment and discipline must be brought under the collective agreement so that it can be dealt with in an open and transparent manner.
Some police agencies, like Niagara Regional Police Department and Winnipeg Police Department, have mechanisms that address harassment in their collective bargaining agreements. Without harassment being included in the collective agreement, we're helping to further this issue to allow it to reproduce and flourish in the RCMP. That's why we must address it.
In the legislation, paragraph 238.19(c) of the legislation, we must delete the reference there. Our recommendations are found on page 3 of the brief.
I'm here with Peter Engelmann of Goldblatt Partners, who can speak to the other restrictions set out in our brief and our concerns about the question of affiliation, which is a big piece as well.
Peter Engelmann, Partner, Goldblatt Partners: I'm here to answer questions.
The Chair: Do you have a prepared statement?
Mr. Engelmann: A brief one, if there's time.
The Chair: You just follow up on Mr. Banwarie, then.
Mr. Engelmann: Let's not forget why we're here, honourable senators. We're here because of a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada last January, a very insightful decision that talks at great length about the importance of meaningful collective bargaining. I'm not going to read to you from it, but have a look at paragraphs 58, 68, 70, 71 and 99. It could not be clearer about what the Supreme Court of Canada is telling us about not restricting collective bargaining in an unnecessary way. Otherwise, it is not meaningful, and otherwise it is a breach of section 2(d), freedom of association, of the Charter.
We know that successive governments did not deal with this anomaly — the anomaly being that the RCMP was the only major police force in this country that was not allowed to unionize. Let's not pass a bill that again treats the RCMP as an anomaly, with more restrictions on collective bargaining than any other police legislation in this country.
I'll leave you with that. I'm here to answer your questions on some of the restrictions and on affiliation, if you have any. Thank you.
Brian Sauvé, Co-Chair, National Police Federation: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, committee members and guests. My name is Brian Sauvé. I'm a regular member of the RCMP. I'm also the Co-chair of the National Police Federation. It is my honour to serve Canadians on a daily basis as a member of the RCMP.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the over 2,000 regular members and reservists of the RCMP who are members of the National Police Federation and serve across Canada and internationally. My associate Peter Merrifield was scheduled to attend with me, but due to a last-minute operational requirement — apparently the Governor General is in Kingston today — he was unable to. Mr. Merrifield made a request to have Mr. Edward Aust attend as an adviser for the MPAO, and he is here with me.
As you will note from the brief we submitted last week, the NPF has many concerns with Bill C-7, namely the exclusions from collective bargaining and the lack of a requirement for the chair of an arbitration committee to have some police-specific arbitration experience. I know the labour relations employment board will be tasked under this legislation to hire two more who have police-specific experience, but nowhere does it speak to the chair of an arbitration board having that experience.
Both of these issues are directly linked to the need to make a clear distinction — this has been a long-running battle within the RCMP — between the role and function of members in the RCMP and the broader public service.
We had that opportunity within this legislation, and in a nutshell, members of the RCMP are provided with abilities, rights and privileges as part of their sworn duty that few other public servants enjoy, some of those being the ability to take a life or suspend someone's liberty. In executing these duties, the Canadian public expects that members of the RCMP will be able to do so without any actual or perceived interference. Bill C-7, as presently written, enshrines that interference in law.
In addition, there seems to be some great interest and debate about the notion of a secret ballot, which we also have an opinion on, should you have a question about that later.
Your work here is very important to our membership. and we welcome any questions the committee may have. I will now turn it over to Mr. Aust for his opening remarks.
A. Edward Aust, Lawyer, Mounted Police Association of Ontario: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly about what I consider to be most serious legislation dealing with the police, not only in Canada but in Canada as a whole.
The RCMP, in my humble view, has taken an approach to this legislation that is, I would say, the first nail in the coffin of harmonious relationships with police members in the RCMP. If this legislation is to be passed as is, I would suggest to you it will set back relationships with the RCMP to before there was a div rep program.
The police are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system. They have powers that the courts do not have. A judge cannot take a life. A judge cannot arrest. A judge cannot lead a prosecution. In sum, there's been confusion not only in the RCMP about this legislation but there's been confusion across the country about the role that the RCMP officer has as a subordinate employee subject to the commands and the role that an RCMP officer has as a public officer.
I will distribute my remarks to the members because in five minutes I can't relay this. The famous case is the case of Roncarelli v. Duplessis. In that case, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that a member of the civil service who holds an office, such as granting a liquor licence, cannot follow the orders of the premier. Mr. Duplessis removed a person with a liquor licence who happened to be a Jehovah Witness. That case in the Supreme Court was pleaded by my late professor F.R. Scott, who was the founding father of the CCF, which led to the NDP.
You will see I mentioned the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Campbell, also referred to as Stinchcombe. In that decision, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that a police officer is not a functionary like any other civil servant, and the reason is, as a public office-holder, when he arrests, investigates and prosecutes, he is not subordinate to the orders of anyone. This is a principle to protect the Canadian public against politicians using the police for their own purposes.
Now, we have had two recent commissioners whose behaviour was over the line. Theoretically, in law, I as a subordinate officer have the right to arrest him. Find out what happened to the whistle-blowers who reported on the scandal with the pensions and the people who reported about the behaviour in the corridors of a certain commissioner.
What I am suggesting to you here is none of this legislation — none of this legislation — deals with the two separate roles of police; they have two different functions. For example, if I'm a police officer, I can arrest the commissioner who crosses the line. Do you think, with the paramilitary structure that exists in the RCMP, that that's a reality or a possibility?
A senator this morning mentioned a certain situation.
[Translation]
Why isn't there redress for dismissal? It should be emphasized that someone who has the courage, as a peace officer, to make an arrest must be protected. Imagine if the commissioner, who has all the power, was the one who was arrested. We mustn't get things confused.
Police officers across the country must not be viewed as mere public servants. They must be viewed as independent, public office-holders. Upon reading the Campbell decision, we see that, when someone acts as an officer and office- holder, no one and nothing — other than that person's conscience — can control that person. It's their decision.
At the time of the APEC scandal, when Mr. Chrétien ordered a police officer to do certain things, the report indicated that there were some limits, and I included the relevant paragraphs.
Second, there is the issue of who the employers are. In the legislation now before you, it states that there is one employer, namely, the Treasury Board. However — on the contrary — there are, in fact, two employers: the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Treasury Board. One is responsible for certain work conditions, and the other, Treasury Board, is responsible for salaries.
The Supreme Court decision, in Ontario Attorney General, states the following.
[English]
The right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining is therefore a necessary element to the right to collectively pursue workplace goals . . .
[Translation]
It is not limited to salary. Passing a bill such as the one before you would be the equivalent of going against a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
In the second decision, in the matter involving the Mounted Police Association of Ontario, I would refer you to paragraph 72, and I quote:
[English]
The balance necessary to ensure the meaningful pursuit of workplace goals can be disrupted in many ways. Laws and regulations may restrict the subjects that can be discussed, or impose arbitrary outcomes. They may ban recourse to collective action by employees without adequate countervailing protections, thus undermining their bargaining power. They may make the employees' workplace goals impossible to achieve.
That's the Supreme Court of Canada. It seems this legislation has been proposed without taking into consideration what the Supreme Court has said. We're talking about Mr. Justice Louis LeBel, perhaps one of the greatest jurists in Quebec. We're talking about the Chief Justice, who must be one of the most respected judges in the land. This is what they wrote, and this legislation hasn't taken it into consideration.
The Chair: Our time is short, sir. If you wanted to come to a conclusion, that would be great.
Mr. Aust: You've been very generous.
Finally, I'd just like to say that the Supreme Court has decided that, in the case of judges, salaries have to be independently decided because they hold office. I am not suggesting that the RCMP have to have independent salaries determined, but I would invite this committee to take note of what I've written on pages 46 and 47 with respect to safeguards to make sure that office-holders do not become tools of the government.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We'll start with questioners.
Senator White: Thanks to all of you for being here. Mr. Aust, thanks for your passion.
I was reading a report by Professor Kent Roach in relation to police independence, and listening to you here and having heard you previously, I know the consideration you've given police independence.
When I look at the legislation, I ask myself the question whether or not the commissioner, who is a police officer, has the independence needed from the government based on this legislation, which would give him powers — because there are a number of items that are not excluded and not within the purview of government to labour negotiation but instead directly among the police officer, the commissioner and the government. Wouldn't you suggest that he is now under the direction of the government, which is contrary to policing in Canada?
Mr. Aust: You're raising a question that I can't answer in two minutes, so to please the chair, because I understand I'm subordinate, I would say simply this: You are raising serious questions, and that's why I would invite this committee to seek independent legal counsel on the propositions that I've submitted, because I believe to not do so would be irresponsible.
Senator White: In fact, in Canada we talk about the police being responsible to the law, not the lawmaker. We're very clear on that.
Mr. Aust: That's correct.
Senator White: My second question is also to you, if I may, Mr. Aust. I've read your CV and seen your work previously. I know you did work for the RCMP in 2012. Could you walk us through what was expected of you and what you produced?
Mr. Aust: I was invited in 2012 by the commissioner and by the representatives of the people at the time to revisit the report that I did in 1997 which created the pay council. That document — unfortunately, I can't explain how — was never translated into French and didn't seem to receive much attention, but in it I dealt with the issues I'm raising here because I felt that it was impossible, given the state of relationships within the RCMP, to create the kind of harmony and good faith by only discussing salary. It is too narrow a subject, and anybody who has negotiated — in my previous life, I was senior adviser to the commissioner and I was a sworn civilian member of the RCMP. I also negotiated for 40 years as head of the employment law section at Stikeman Elliott in Montreal. I just recently retired as a practising lawyer.
I can tell you, if you read this report, you will see that the problems that are preventing progress in the culture with respect to the women, with respect to safety and all of these things will not be solved by discussing one item before an adjudicator and one item before the External Review Committee, and now you're going to create another document, a collective agreement. I suggest to you that it's going to be very difficult for any member to understand their rights and obligations. It's too complicated.
I listened to Senator Dagenais and to Senator Carignan, and I have to tell you that in Quebec, we've made a lot of progress with our laws. To not have a provision for an officer acting in his role as a statutory office, not subordinate to anybody, if he gets fired for doing what is to protect the Canadian people against unlawful arrest, he is going to file a grievance or go to adjudication with somebody named by the commissioner? This doesn't hold up in any sense to the principles of the Charter, nor to the principles of the rule of law. It is undemocratic.
Senator White: Mr. Chair, if I may, I have a copy of the document he's referring to. It's only in English. I'm not sure if the committee would be willing to accept it in one language only. It was never translated by the RCMP, obviously. It was deemed not to be released in 2012, but I think it's an important document.
The Chair: Can we just deem it as information?
Senator White: Yes, please, if you don't mind.
Senator Ngo: My question is for Mr. Banwarie or Mr. Aust. How important is it for RCMP members to be able to negotiate on issues like harassment? Why is the current system not working for members?
Mr. Banwarie: Thank you for the question, senator. The issue of harassment is directly tied to many parts of the legislation that should be addressed by our collective agreement. If you break it down, there are many components. That's just one issue.
If you look at something like minimum resourcing, taking that as an example, lack of proper minimum resourcing leads to officer safety, or lack thereof; stress for the managers trying to make sure the work is done; stress on the employee, the men and women out in the field trying to do the job, not having proper backup, enough people there to help them, which leads to spinoff and the managers getting frustrated, which leads to harassment, intimidation and all kinds of other issues that come out of just that one piece.
So what members are seeing is just one part of it. The other part where it's happening in the workplace — bullying, people being told what to do and they don't agree with it or they don't feel they're up to the job or they don't have the proper training, knowledge or equipment to do it — that's another component, another sidebar that harassment spins off from. There are many different pieces to it.
We assist and represent a lot of the members who come to us to talk about it, but there is no process that is independent in this new act or the previous act that has dealt with harassment independently. If you are the member who files a harassment complaint against your superior, guess what? Now you're the leper; nobody wants to come close to you because you've stood up and called that person to be accountable for their actions. It's a no-win situation. Your career is damaged. Your reputation becomes damaged, even though you're doing the right thing and even though that's what you're required to do as a police officer.
That example is happening across the country. That bit needs to be captured. The only way to reduce that harm is with a collective agreement, where the person who lays the complaint is represented by an independent body that takes that on, and it's no longer the member; it's now the association that deals with that on their behalf. That's where we have to go.
Senator Ngo: Mr. Sauvé, do you want to say something?
Mr. Sauvé: If I may, senator, I'll add to Mr. Banwarie's comments, and there are a couple of clarifications from this morning that I wanted to bring to the attention of the committee.
With respect to grievances, there was some talk this morning about adjudicators and the External Review Committee and the fact that members can file grievances that are decided on by an adjudicator, who is an officer, an employee of the RCMP, and who answers to the commissioner.
A grievance is not necessarily something you can take externally. Even if you go to the External Review Committee with a grievance or with a specific harassment complaint, as you well know, the External Review Committee only makes a recommendation to the commissioner, who is, again, the ultimate deciding authority on harassment as well as grievances.
The only way, in our perspective, in our view, to solve the harassment issue within the RCMP is to shine a light on it. The only way to shine a light on it is to take it outside the force. We need to have a way to have a binding decision placed upon the commissioner by an external body. If that is the PSLREB, then that is the PSLREB.
Senator Ngo: If that is the case, then, do you consider the absence of an independent review process within the grievance system in the RCMP to be constitutional?
Mr. Sauvé: It is what it is today. Ideally, once you look at Bill C-7 going the way it is, the grievances with respect to a collective agreement will be dealt with outside the force. Today, we're in a state of flux.
Mr. Engelmann: To answer your question, if I may, sir, on constitutionality, it's not the absence of a particular provision. There are all sorts of reasons why "harassment'' should be in a collective agreement. One has to look no further than the fact that over 400 officers have filed a civil action. Clearly, they don't believe in the internal systems in place right now and they want something that's more independent.
You have to look at the combination of restrictions here. You have a discipline process that's not nearly as independent as other regulatory regimes in other provinces because it's the commissioner who is appointing the people who decide. Then you're looking at other issues — you've heard some of them already today — and Mr. Banwarie talked about the harassment issue and he talked about staffing. There are transfers. There are probationary employees. There is the issue of pensions. There are the issues of uniforms and clothing. These are all issues that can be negotiated in other provincial regimes.
It's that combined effect of the restrictions on collective bargaining that make this piece of legislation troubling and that make it fall short of meaningful collective bargaining. Look at those words from the MPAO decision. It's only a year old. They're very important.
Mr. Aust: To answer your question about harassment, in 1995, I invited the commissioner of the day to come to a motel. I surrounded him with 12 female RCMP members. He asked me who he was going to see, and I said, "Your members.'' I said, "I'm not going to have the agenda. There's no agenda. We're just going to meet them.'' His daughter was a member of the RCMP. He came out of that room, and I would suggest to you that 25 years later, I don't think the situation has changed that much. The reason it hasn't changed is because of the paramilitary promotion system. You have to move up through the grades. If you go against the grain, you can be eliminated. So you have a conflictual situation between a person who is an office-holder, who is independent, but the organization is organized in a paramilitary fashion. These are contradictory roles. They're both necessary, but the only way to have a balance is to have an independent person decide. If we don't go that route, we're not going to solve the problems.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have two questions for Mr. Banwarie. You and your colleagues alluded to the culture within the RCMP. When I was a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Police Association, we had to intervene in a matter in which we learned that, when RCMP officers died in the line of duty, they would hold a civil funeral and the bill would be sent to the family. I don't know if it's been resolved today, whether the RCMP pays the bill. We found that shameful. Can you tell us if this has been resolved? It illustrates the culture that reigns within the organization.
My second question is the following: you represent two associations in two big provinces. Did RCMP management previously consult you on certain aspects relating to police officers? Or, on the contrary, given that you are a member of an association representing RCMP officers — I say "association;'' there isn't one, but there's still some kind of association that takes care of its members — have you ever been harassed for having participated in union activities?
[English]
Mr. Banwarie: Thank you for your question, senator. I will answer the first part. Whether or not they deal with us, when they have to deal with us, it's because the members have tried everything internally and it has failed. When it comes to us, basically, we have no recourse but to lay the hammer down and to say it and to tell it as it is. Sometimes it's at the extreme end.
I can give you a case in point, a rural Prairie detachment where a husband and wife team works. This does tie into harassment. She's expecting her first child. It's the happiest time. I have two children. My daughter just turned six. It's the happiest time of your life, or it should be. There are complications in the pregnancy. It's a rural detachment, though. She comes to the staff sergeant and says: "I've been advised by my doctor I cannot work here anymore because I could potentially jeopardize my pregnancy if I get involved in any altercation or something happens.'' She then hands in the medical certificate as we're all required to do when you have to leave the workplace and leaves.
That wasn't good enough. She's asked, "What is wrong? Why can't you come to work? We need more information.'' She replies, "No, no, no. You've gotten what you required. That's it.'' The staff sergeant says, "No. We need to know exactly why you're not coming and what are the problems?'' She replies, "No. You're not entitled to that. You're entitled to the 2135,'' which is the form. "Here you are. It identifies from the physician why I can't be here.'' The staff sergeant tells her, "We want more information. If you don't give us information, we're going to cut off your pay.'' I'm like: Excuse me?
It gets better. It goes up the next step. The husband works in the same office, finds out this is happening and basically says, "If you jeopardize our first child, you guys are going to pay.'' They turn around and serve a code of conduct on the member for standing up for his family and for his wife. From there, it goes up. He has to leave the workplace because now it's become a poisonous environment. He cannot work there because he is going to be targeted. He's already a target now because he's standing up for his family and his unborn child. They both leave.
What do we do when we go look for people, our clients? We bang on the door and see if we can talk with them. If not, we leave cards. That's what management does to this couple. Both are members; no problems before. This is the one incident that happened.
It gets to the next point where they've left. They can't work on the work site. It goes up to the superintendent rank, who writes them a letter basically saying if you don't return to work and you don't provide the information, we are going to be cutting off your medical benefits and your pay.
That's when we get involved. We say, "This is not going to happen.'' I get involved. I write to the commanding officer and say, "Look, you may be unaware of these different things. There are certain rules and regulations within the act that you're required to complied with. These are people. They have rights. You cannot do this. If you don't deal with it, you're going to have to deal with it publicly because if this family decides to go public on this, it will look bad.''
We're trying to mitigate situations like this happening — not only in rural areas but in major municipalities as well. For those sorts of things, yes, in terms of my situation with harassment, it's a similar thing, because of what I'm doing. I was the wingman for a lot of people in the different units I've worked in. I've worked in federal for a long time. The best work I did was in patrol, because you had another person, guy or gal there, to back you up and be there when you needed them. Federal policing is a whole different concept, more political within the ranks. But these same things happened to me. I was the person when I was working in the unit. I wasn't vocal; I wasn't in your face. I dealt with people professionally, but at the same time I said, "You're not going to do that. You can't do that. You cannot be speaking to this member like this. That's inappropriate and unprofessional. You cannot.'' What do you think happens in a paramilitary organization we belong to? Basically, you're setting yourself up not to go further — not because you're doing something wrong but because you're setting the standards. Somebody much more famous than me once said the standard we walk by is the standard we accept. It comes down to every one of us, even here at this committee, to make sure that we write and that we create the laws and pass the proper legislation that is going to protect our people.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Do they still bill the families for funerals? That was one of the Canadian Police Association's requests. Any self-respecting police force pays for civil funerals. Do they currently pay, or do they continue to send the bill to the families while saying they take care of it in order to look good in the media?
[English]
Mr. Banwarie: I think in some cases they do cover the costs. I know for Moncton, for our brothers that died there, being as small as we were, we did the right thing. We sent some funds to the family members because it was the right thing to do to help them during that time.
The Chair: Mr. Sauvé, do you have any comments on the question?
Mr. Sauvé: I can speak to the funerals. Thanks to that intervention in 1994-ish, yes, the RCMP does pay for line-of- duty deaths to the family. There is a set amount and there are parameters about that.
As far as the workplace conflict, which can escalate into harassment, as Mr. Banwarie was speaking to, I think I'll allude to what was spoken of this morning by Deputy Commissioner Dubeau, Assistant Commissioner MacMillan and Assistant Commissioner White with regard to resourcing and the lack of resourcing. In fact, this particular committee or Senator Kenny did the report in 2012, I think, where it stated we were anywhere between 5,000 and 7,000 members understaffed. That was in 2012. We're in 2016. It was mentioned this morning it was 19,000 as far as regular strength. They wouldn't give our established number — perhaps they don't know it — but that includes commissioned officers. The latest data I have is that we are at about 18,000 regular members across the country. But that's a pretty good number.
What you have to think about is that presently we have anywhere between 400 and 600 funded, unstaffed positions. That means they're vacant across the country. Every day, there are approximately 1,000 members of the RCMP that are on some form of paternal leave, some form of family-related leave, which is a fantastic benefit for our membership. Also what you have to think about is that those who take family-related leave are usually the more junior ones, in their child-bearing years. In our organization, just because we have more men, it's the men that are taking the family-related leave in larger proportion. That same demographic, obviously, is usually operating in a uniform capacity because they're fresh out of depot at their first or second post. Those positions are not backfilled. That's another thousand vacancies on any given day throughout the year. We're up to about 1,400 or 1,500 now.
In addition to that, we have our members who are trying to go through a disability case management process and return to work because there is some form of illness. That number, on any given day, is around 800. We're up to almost 2,200 or 2,300 members that are not showing up to work any given day out of those 18,000. This leads to your five-man post operating at two men, your 40-man watch operating at probably 18, because we haven't even spoken about those taking annual leave, those who have the 24-hour flu or those on mandatory training on any given day. General duty supervisor was the best job I had in the force, and I know that any given day, if you have a 20-man watch, you're lucky to operate at 12.
That brings in the questions of post-traumatic stress and operational stress injuries due to burnout. In the Lower Mainland, where both Rae and I work, Surrey cannot get people to volunteer for overtime to fill positions that are vacant anymore. They have burnt out their members.
We have a different demographic today in the force. A little over 60 per cent of our membership has under 10 years of service, and the ages are between 25 and 35 of that demographic. They value their quality of life and they value their time away from work.
As for the collective agreement, as Manon spoke about this morning, talking about pay, a lot of things are included in pay. They gave you a list of things that can be negotiated. All of those things are pay: designated paid holidays, overtime, call-outs and operational availability. All of that is directly related to pay. If a bargaining agent cannot even talk to the employer at a bargaining session about optimal resource levels, we will never get there. We will never have that within a collective agreement, and we will continue to advance the RCMP's culture of burnout within the eyes of Canadians and on the backs of our members.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Basically, from what I understand, in terms of negotiations on conduct, discipline, et cetera, what you are looking for is to have someone who is independent and impartial who would be able to resolve conflicts between parties. If that's not part of the negotiations, you won't be able to get it, because, under the act, the commissioner is the most powerful man in Canada, I believe. I have rarely seen a case in which an individual has the power to fire 21,000 people without cause and in which that same individual is given final appeal. Thus, you don't have that mechanism, and that's the only way to get it.
How is it that this has never been challenged before, the commissioner's power as a sort of court of final appeal? I understand that there are a lot of cases that end up in Federal Court. The number of cases sent to the Federal Court must be enormous, because this is neither independent, nor impartial. The superior court must show no deference in ruling on the conduct of someone with that much power, which has never been challenged. Is the only way to do this to put it in the negotiation of collective agreements?
I would like to emphasize one thing. In appeal court I won an arbitration against the medical committee of the Association de bienfaisance des policiers, in which one of the parties had an unfair advantage in the choice of adjudicator. Solely for this reason, I was able to have the decision set aside. Here, we are far from having a similar case. What we have here is worse, and it has never been challenged. Am I to understand that the only means of doing this is to put it in the collective agreement in order to get an adjudicator?
Mr. Sauvé: I would really like to respond in French, but since I haven't spoken French regularly in about fifteen years, I'll use Frenglish.
Senator Carignan: Don't worry about it. It is a constitutional right to express oneself in the language of one's choice.
[English]
Mr. Sauvé: Federal Court has always been our endgame as members. We hope to change that. Federal Court is a long ways away under the current regime. It takes five, probably six years. Under the new act, Bill C-42, it has yet to be tested on that route. When you have the option of going to Federal Court, you're going to Federal Court as a civilian because there's no longer a stay provision on a hearings decision. If you're ordered dismissed, you're appealing through Federal Court or internally as a civilian, whereas it used to be you could stay a member.
Speaking to your question about whether it should be enshrined in a collective agreement, the fact that it's excluded in the legislation would mean that, should Senator Campbell be the employer and I be the employee, we can't even really discuss how we're going to address questions about staffing, conduct, grievances or harassment, because that's not on the table for negotiation.
As much as I still have faith and trust in the leadership of the RCMP to a degree — some would say I shouldn't — I do not believe what Assistant Commissioner MacMillan said this morning, that we will have a joint management consultation committee. If you were going to have a joint management consultation committee, leave it open for negotiation at the table and let's word it into a collective agreement. That will force you to have a joint management consultation committee and you can detail what it's going to look like to employees, to management — however it's going to be. One paragraph to deal with staffing levels, one paragraph to deal with conduct, if that's the way you want to go, but at least the collective agreement is there, you've discussed it, you've had some meaningful consultation and you're moving forward. But just to leave it out and not even open it for discussion is, to me, asinine.
Mr. Engelmann: I'm wondering if I could respond to Senator Carignan's question. I believe I understood everything you said. The biggest concern, obviously, is you don't want to adjudicate discipline in the Federal Court. In the Federal Court, you're on a judicial review, and that's a very limited appeal, as you know. You want these things dealt with by independent tribunals.
I've had the pleasure of going all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that the Human Rights Tribunal was sufficiently independent from the Human Rights Commission. Questions of institutional independence and impartiality are dear to my heart.
What I am concerned about here is that staffing is one issue, and that should be negotiated. That should not be restricted. In the police circle, many police processes are dealt with by regulation, not through the normal collective agreement discipline processes, and that can work. But that process has to be truly independent. It's not a process where the commissioner decides who is doing what because this process is not institutionally independent, the present process, and that is what the bill now calls for to be continued.
So you either allow for collective bargaining over discipline, and we go the normal route as we do in normal labour relations — the parties pick a third party, and that party decides — or you have regimes like we have in Ontario and many of the provinces where the police discipline process that is set out by statute is at arm's-length from the commissioner or the police chief because, if it's not, the process isn't fair and the process cannot be impartial. That doesn't advance anyone's interests.
The Chair: Mr. Aust, if you could be brief.
Mr. Aust: Very briefly, the question was asked: How could this omnipresent power of the commissioner go unchallenged all of these years, and the answer is that no written law has ever been stronger than the culture of an organization. That's the whole issue. This legislation is going to be a pillar on which the future of the relationships will be built, and, if it is faulty, the pillar will not hold the weight. I think that's the concern here today, that so much is unwritten. It's the way the system internally works that has to be fixed.
Senator Jaffer: May I quite quickly ask you, Mr. Sauvé, about secret ballot.
Mr. Sauvé: You can quickly ask me. Will the answer be quick? I can be quick.
Senator Jaffer: We just have limited time.
Mr. Sauvé: I have watched a lot of the debate, and I have talked to members of Parliament from both sides and have gotten their perspectives on this.
As to secret ballot, the way I see it, the debate that they're bringing up is a bit of a red herring. They're trying to draw attention away from the actual contentious issues of the bill, which to us are exclusions and police-qualified arbitration, chair of an arbitration committee.
The way the PSLRA or the newly worded PSLRA within Bill C-7 is, should an employee organization apply for certification, the PSLREB will demand a vote. Presumably, the PSLREB will hold a secret ballot. The employee information and the cards, if you will, whether they be electronic or paper, are not provided to the employer. They are provided to the PSLREB outside of the force. That vote that they hold is completely up to their discretion. The law, as it is today, is a mandatory vote.
Should C-4 pass, and when C-4 passes, then they have the discretion of under 50 per cent support for an employee organization. They can demand a vote. Over 50 per cent support for an employee organization, they can option for a vote, or they can say, "We're satisfied with what's been presented.''
The secret ballot, I think, is a little bit confusing to the membership. They see it as, "Are we going to have the ballot to unionize or not unionize?'' In reality, it's going to be, "Are we going to be voting for this specific employee organization that has applied or not, depending on the law of the day?'' which is today or post Bill C-4.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Banwarie, I have a question for you. It's a difficult question, but it's about paramilitary. I come from the Lower Mainland. I love and have great respect for the RCMP. I have worked with them in the past. You're an organization: Do same, be same, think same. For a woman, you do not think that way. You might be from an ethnic minority. We've talked about harassment, but then harassment becomes very different when you are a little different. That's another challenge, isn't it?
Mr. Banwarie: Yes, and speaking as a visible minority, I've had my fair share of it within the organization in terms of my career being held back because I don't roll the way they expect you to because I'm one of these people for whom right is right, wrong is wrong. You don't bend it or say, "There's a shade of grey here.'' When you're doing the right thing, you're doing the right thing.
A lot of the people we're helping, a lot of the ladies that call for me for help and assistance, are all over the country, and it's directly tied to workplace conflict, which, in a lot of situations, is harassment. It's there, and it will continue to be there until we address it.
Senator Jaffer: I was privately talking to the chair, saying, "We have focused on sexual harassment in the workplace, but that's just part of it.''
Mr. Banwarie: Correct.
Senator Jaffer: Maybe our next thing is to look at harassment just generally.
Mr. Banwarie: There is a lot of harassment that goes on with male members, but it's not the cool thing to stand up and talk about it because it's not expected in the RCMP. But there are a lot of male members who are exposed to this, and it's taking its toll on them, too. It's not just females and it's not just sexual harassment.
Mr. Sauvé: Just quickly on that: The commissioner was here in front of you three weeks ago or so, and he did mention that 55 per cent of our harassment complainants are men. He kind of skewed it for you, if I may. Sorry, Bob, if you're watching. Fifty-five per cent being men and 45 per cent of complainants being women. But you have to remember that we're about 80/20 men to women as far as our demographics go. So when you have 45 per cent of your complaints coming from 20 per cent of your demographic, that is a problem, versus 55 per cent coming from 80 per cent your demographic.
The Chair: It sounds to me like there are a fair number of problems no matter how you cut it.
Senator Beyak: My concerns have always been exclusions too, and I hope I made that clear when Senator Campbell spoke this morning. Everyone who calls me — the officers, my constituents — wonders why we're the only jurisdiction, it seems, in the world that is putting these exclusions in. The minister said we don't need to worry about it because they're all included elsewhere, but that seems so convoluted. Do you have thoughts on why the government is digging in their heels on this one? Because I can't understand it.
Mr. Sauvé: To me, it's extremely simple. They want to. As Ms. Brassard said today and said at the committee in the clause by clause, the RCMP are employees of the Treasury Board. Therefore, we should be treated like public servants. As you'll see in the first half of my brief that we sent in. it shows you and definitively proves that, for members of the RCMP, there are clear differences between what we do and what the public service does. We need to enshrine that distinction in law. We have that opportunity with Bill C-7.
Yes, there are Canada Labour Code complaints. Yes, there are investigations that result in charges. However, what I'll put to you here is the Canada Labour Code investigations and the Canada Labour Code complaints are always after the fact, after someone has been hurt, after someone has been exposed. We need to be in a position to have preventative measures, whether it be better equipment, better uniform or better safety protocols so that those complaints don't happen.
Mr. Engelmann: I think the proponents of the current bill want to have it both ways. They want to treat RCMP members, who are peace officers, as regular civil servants. They are not employees under the Public Service Employment Act, and, therefore, they shouldn't be treated like employees under the Public Service Employment Act. They should be treated like police officers are treated throughout this country. That was the problem before when they weren't allowed to unionize. It's the problem today when they're not being allowed to bargain and argue issues before interest arbitrations, as other forces are in this country.
I have a chart I prepared — I wasn't sure I was going to be here — just setting out some of the comparisons on restrictions. It's only in English. I will try to get it translated and pass it to the clerk, if I may, because I think it's important. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors here, and the government is suggesting that, really, the officers will have a great deal of bargaining available to them, but, as several of you have noted, it's pay issues only. There are many important issues that officers are able to negotiate throughout this country, and RCMP officers should be able to.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, Mr. Engelmann. You can provide that as information. We can get it translated here if you wish, and we'll do that.
Time has passed us on. It's 10 past 3, so I would like to thank all panel members for appearing.
Joining us on our fifth panel today are Mr. Roy Hill, Assistant Secretary and Treasurer of the Mounted Police Members Legal Fund; Mr. Mike Webster, a psychologist appearing as a private citizen; and by video conference we welcome Mr. Tom Stamatakis, President of the Canadian Police Association.
Gentlemen, welcome. I understand that you each have an opening statement. Mr. Stamatakis, as you are the farthest away, I will ask you to begin, followed Mr. Hill and by Mr. Webster. We have one hour for this panel. Sir, please proceed.
Tom Stamatakis, President, Canadian Police Association: Thank you. Good afternoon, honourable senators. It is a privilege for me to be able to appear this afternoon as you continue your consideration of Bill C-7 — legislation that will, if passed, finally give members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the same rights enjoyed by every other police officer in Canada: the right to decide their own labour relations future.
As the president of an association that represents over 60,000 unionized civilian and sworn police personnel, I wish I were appearing here to praise the legislation, a bill for which the CPA has been advocating for quite some time — in fact, for as long as I have been involved with our national organization.
I should note that our association has been in support of RCMP members who have challenged the longstanding exclusions that have prevented them from pursuing meaningful collective bargaining, including appearing as intervenors in the Supreme Court of Canada case that ultimately pushed the government to introduce this legislation.
While I would like to praise this legislation — and, certainly, this is a step in the right direction — the fact is that Bill C-7 is a highly flawed bill that I believe fails to respect the spirit of the Supreme Court judgment that was given in 2015.
As you are no doubt aware, the court struck down the previous labour relations regime, which was centred around the Staff Relations Representative Program. Under the previous system, elected SRRs, who were not independent from the RCMP chain of command, did have some ability to represent members with respect to workplace issues, but they did not have access to collective bargaining for the purpose of wages and benefits, or the independent adjudication of other matters.
Under the proposed new structure that would be brought into place if Bill C-7 were to be passed unamended, a new labour relations organization would be able to collectively bargain wages and benefits, but due to the specified exclusions written into this legislation, it would largely be prohibited from representing members on any other workplace issues.
I'd like to quote the Supreme Court judgment itself here to help explain our opposition to the exclusions:
We conclude that the s. 2 (d) guarantee of freedom of association protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and pursue their collective interests. The current RCMP labour relations regime denies RCMP members that choice, and imposes on them a scheme that does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management's influence.
Under the proposed legislation you're considering today, should the exclusions be kept in place, I firmly believe that the government is simply inviting more litigation and forcing RCMP members to spend more time and money challenging a system that would still prevent them from, as the court said, identifying and advancing "workplace concerns free from management's influence.''
I'd like to give a bit of background to explain how I've come to this opinion. I've been the president of my local association, the Vancouver Police Union, since 1998 — almost 18 years now. I've also been involved in the police associations at the provincial, national and even the international level as the current chair of the International Council of Police Representative Associations.
In that role, and with my home association, we have all manner of joint committees that work collaboratively with management on almost all aspects of a modern police service, from staffing and deployment to health and safety issues, equipment and uniform issues, and even promotions within the service. It is absolutely fair to say that there isn't much that happens within a police service in Canada where the local association isn't at least consulted or has a significant role to play in implementation.
That was why much of the debate on the legislation on the House of Commons side was quite frustrating. It's impossible for me to overemphasize how absolutely unique the specified inclusions within Bill C-7 are in the policing environment.
Much has been made about the unique nature of the RCMP, although I would challenge that particular assumption. Both Quebec and Ontario have provincial police services that are quite similar in structure if not scale to the RCMP. Both engage in broad provincial policing, as well as contracted municipal policing, much like the RCMP. Both serve large geographic areas with diverse populations, much like the RCMP. The only difference is that both the Sûreté du Québec members as well as members of the Ontario Provincial Police are represented by elected associations that have the same abilities as other municipal associations to work with management on the same issues I handle as President of the Vancouver Police Union.
There are times when conflict arises between associations and management; however, I believe you would be hard- pressed to find a police chief or commissioner in this country who doesn't understand and appreciate the role their local association can play as an advocate for the front-line men and women they lead. It's important to note that the policing sector is 100 per cent unique in the sense that every chief executive began their career in the same manner — walking or driving the beat as a newly sworn police constable. They recognize the value that a strong association brings to their local police services, and I have long appreciated my own relationships with those executives, even when conflict arises.
I want to leave time for questions, but I will conclude with this: Bill C-7 is a positive step in the sense that RCMP members will finally be given the right to decide for themselves how to best proceed with respect to their own labour relations. However, I'd like to ask each of you to consider the Supreme Court judgment that brought us to this point, respect the spirit of their decision and amend this bill by removing the exclusions listed. In the end, it will save another series of expensive and time-consuming litigation and ensure RCMP members perform their duties in the kind of workplace they deserve. It will also create a measure of accountability both for the RCMP management and employees when it comes to labour relations.
Thank you for your consideration.
The Chair: Thank you. I will go with Mr. Hill next.
Roy Hill, Assistant Secretary and Treasurer, Mounted Police Members Legal Fund: Good afternoon, honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today.
I joined the RCMP in 1968, so I come from different era in the RCMP. I think even Mr. Campbell is a little bit behind me, so I'm the senior man in the room today — and the oldest man in the room. I served for over 40 years in various provinces, including New Brunswick, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would like to provide you some background on the Mounted Police Members Legal Fund.
I was a member elected from Newfoundland and Labrador to represent the RCMP members in Newfoundland and Labrador under the staff relations program. I was elected and re-elected for over 13 years. I also had an interest prior to that in that I was an elected sub-rep for another 13 years. So for 26 years, I've had a vested interest with regard to members' welfare and dignity.
I still bleed "royal red,'' as most of us do, so there is nothing with regard to me personally against the organization. However, my objective always was to improve. When the members are treated fairly and equitably, and taken care of, they can deliver service to Canadians, and everybody benefits from that.
Back in 1995-96, we recognized dthat there was a need to have the ability to be able to research and do things on behalf of members. That was missing — a big gap. We created a corporation called the Mounted Police Members Legal Fund, and it was separate and apart from the RCMP. It wasn't controlled by them. There was no input from them. It was duly elected directors who controlled the whole thing with an executive, with annual audits by Deloitte Touche, and so it functioned for all these years until March 31 of this year.
At the time, Commissioner Phil Murray gave his blessing with regard to pay deductions because it was the easiest thing we could do in regard to being able to fund what the members wanted. So they voluntary signed. Nobody forced them. So 16,500 members signed and said, "Please deduct 4 bucks from my pay.'' Commissioner Murray had no problem with this, and successive commissioners had no problem. As late as 2008, Commissioner Elliott confirmed. That was up until this past March.
Now, the legal fund is a non-profit corporation that promotes the improvement of member conditions of employment or work and, throughout its history, since 1998, the legal fund has provided financial and other support to RCMP members so that they can advance their interests concerning issues that affect their welfare and dignity through legal proceedings and other avenues. As I said, approximately 16,500 members are signed.
If the legal fund had not been in existence, and not in existence today, members had no recourse or ability to do things on their behalf. So we met those challenges — we the legal fund — on behalf of those members. A lot of these members would face financial ruin and/or destruction of their character and career if not for the legal fund, which has the ability to take on issues for them.
Now, in my comments today on behalf of the members' legal fund, I want to describe the extremely concerning and deteriorating situation that RCMP members currently face in respect of their basic working conditions. I'll characterize it as behaviour. I listened to some of the information here today from the various people, and obviously when Senator Campbell and I joined it was very much more paramilitary than what it is today. My introduction to the RCMP of respecting the office of and the officers, et cetera, all the way up through the ranks, was the norm. That was probably more the situation in the RCMP than other police departments. I still respect those positions; however, that doesn't give people authority to do certain things to other employees that they shouldn't be doing. So there's a pattern of behaviour that really irritates me and I'll give you a couple of examples.
The RCMP commissioner, without any consultation with the executive of the legal fund, unilaterally cut off the process of automatic payroll deductions for membership dues that fund the work of the legal fund on behalf of members, effective March 31, 2016. This notification came approximately three hours before RCMP management sent out a bulletin to all RCMP members advising them of this significant change. That's a large thing, affecting 16,500 members.
Immediately, we tried to establish a dialogue with the commissioner, including possible remedies and to find out exactly what the problem, if any, or problems were. We immediately dispatched correspondence to him on that date, in writing, on February 18, 2016. The legal fund did not even receive a response from him. Ultimately, a memo from one of his assistant commissioners was received on March 31 — the very day that everything is terminated — saying he refused to entertain anything in relation to this matter. And one of those assistant commissioners was here this morning.
In the short term, the end of the voluntary payroll detections threatens the very existence of the legal fund. RCMP management knows that, one, the legal fund depended exclusively on this payroll deduction system to fund its work on behalf of RCMP members and, two, as a result, arbitrarily stopping the deductions would have a dramatic, adverse effect on the legal fund and its ability to assist members on their issues.
That is the first thing that happened. Then the second was that the RCMP replaced the staff relations program and put in that system of workplace advisers. Those members will not have any access to a form of collective representation in respect of workplace matters or other issues that may affect their welfare and dignity. In doing so, the program will prevent RCMP members from obtaining any form of meaningful representation concerning these issues. Furthermore, it will do so until a bargaining agent is certified under the legislative framework. Who knows when that's going to take place? It could be years. But in the meantime, the void is there.
I'm saying that the commissioner knew the one means whereby we could do something on behalf of members was the Mounted Police Members Legal Fund. To cut that off and to remove the staff relations program meant this void takes place, and it was absolutely unjust and it's a very serious issue. We believe that it's entirely at odds with the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in MPAIO.
Rather than improving RCMP members' ability to exercise their freedom of association, RCMP's management current course of action is totally eliminating collective representation of the RCMP. We, the legal fund, would appeal to you, senators, to see what, if anything, you can do to assist us to have reinstatement of those dues, because that is simply wrong, plain and simple. It's mean-spirited.
So we come to Bill C-7 and we have all these exclusions, and I've got to jump through some of the things here that I'm saying.
Members and their families are very angry. I've never seen this before to this degree, and I know what it's like back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which gave rise to the staff relations program. I know what that's like. In the room today, some of these people who spoke this morning have no idea what that was about. I know they're from another era. Well, we're from an era whereby we know what it was like back then, and I'm saying to you honourable people that the situation you have today, with this Bill C-7 and the exclusion of these things that says you cannot collectively bargain, is putting us back prior to 1968 when I joined.
We have people today who have entirely different expectations. They come from an entirely different era altogether, and to impose this on them is just another means whereby it's the thumb and it's "as I say'' and it's "as I do.''
In 2016, coming on bended knee and looking for crumbs from the table should not be part of the way we operate this fine organization. It is being destroyed. I've never seen morale as bad as this, ever, and I talk to a lot of people because I'm assistant secretary treasurer of the legal fund. I talk to people across Canada. They call me now asking for assistance. "What's going to happen?'' they're asking me. "Can you please tell me what recourse I have?''
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hill.
Mr. Webster.
Mike Webster, Psychologist, as an individual: If Mr. Hill needs another moment, he can have a moment of mine.
Mr. Hill: Can I ask quickly, Mr. Chair? I heard references this morning to the Canada Labour Code. The Canada Labour Code, even that, when François Carrière died in Nova Scotia in a diving accident, the RCMP took the position that the Canada Labour Code wasn't applicable to the members. The RCMP was charged, and they took that all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada saying that the members weren't under the Canada Labour Code. That's the type of attitude and behaviour. Finally it says we are under Part II of the Canada Labour Code. But why the heck would you have to go through that process to prove it? I would respectfully submit that the same attitude is prevalent today in the organization.
Mr. Webster: First, I have a confession to make. I was introduced as an ordinary citizen. I am actually here undercover. I'm a practising police psychologist and had a long history with the RCMP that I no longer have.
The Chair: You want to keep it hidden.
Mr. Webster: They certainly do. I was actually an RCMP member myself for a very brief time after I had been a fee- for-service provider for them, and I left in short order once I found out how disorganized they were.
I'm a clinical psychologist. I have a side to my practice where I deal with people who have clinical and emotional issues, and I also have another side to my practice where I'm an emergency response consultant. I'm trained by the FBI and I've been around the world to numerous high profile incidents, including Waco, Texas; Jordan, Montana; Gustafsen Lake and on and on. I won't bore you with the list. I have a long experience, over 40 years, as a police psychologist.
Today I'm not going to rehash all this ground that we hear over and over again. I agree with them. I have four points here that I can steamroll through quite quickly, but I forgot my French introduction.
[Translation]
Thank you for your invitation. I am very honoured to be here with you.
[English]
I will mention to senators: Do you remember Senator Kenny's question about specifics? He's gone now. If one of you wants to ask that question, I have specifics for you.
Senator Campbell: Consider it asked.
Mr. Webster: Okay. There has been much discussion around the table about obvious weaknesses. I'm not going to go through that again.
I'll simply say to you that Bill C-7 fails to respect and protect the rights of RCMP workers and covers old ground versus maximizing the use of your precious time by addressing central issues. I will address central issues, I believe.
Now, what I say to you is not subjective opinion. What I say to you is based on mounds of data that has been collected since 2001. If you want to know the people who collected it, ask me later and I'll tell you. Some of them have been divorced from the RCMP just like I have.
The organization is horribly broken, nowhere near as change-receptive or as change-ready as has been assumed during the debate in that other place. I cannot believe how naive and Pollyannaish these people are when they talk about this national icon that is fast becoming a national disgrace. Using Bill C-7 to address the ills of the RCMP is akin to approaching a broken nuclear battleship with a monkey wrench.
Point number one: existing empiricism. Several key conclusions can be drawn from this existing data that I mentioned. The RCMP is better at developing strategies than implementing them. They are not a change-ready organization. Members have been overpromised and underdelivered. Failed efforts in the past have resulted in increased work, increased burnout and less resources. They are not attracting the brightest and the best. They have dropped their standards. It's quite well known throughout the industry: If you can't make it on with a good municipal police service like Chief White's, apply to the RCMP and you'll get in.
Complicated cultural change: They don't know what cultural change is. They avoid cultural change. Cultural change means addressing core values and the core culture of the organization. In a moment or two, I'll tell you what that involves, from my perspective.
They are the victim of what is known as a success spiral. They believe that what worked yesterday will work today and will work well into the future. Absolutely false. They are a paramilitary culture. It's an anachronism. The organization needs flattening. It's time to turn around and march east. Forget about the March West.
Members are change-weary, skeptical and cynical regarding the motives of senior management. Data has been accumulated since 2001 concluding that change management and leadership behaviour are the critical factors with respect to positive change. These points are as valid today as we sit here as the day the data was collected.
Tinkering and monkeying around with existing systems and structures will not get us anywhere. What we're looking for is transformational change — actually, re-creational change, which tackles core values and culture. If you want me to define those two, I'll do so during the question period.
You had an example this morning in those uniforms that came into this room of what happens when you push for transformational change: You get the most resistance from the top. Why? Because they have the most to lose. And increased political behaviour.
Second point: RCMP uniqueness. The RCMP is tripping over its uniqueness. It now denies its members the rights available to all workers. Labour rights are human rights. What worked back in the day is not necessarily good for today or tomorrow.
Third point: harassment. I'll take a moment on this, because unfortunately, the RCMP is short-sighted on this as is that place and I think this place.
It is a much larger issue than perceived by most people. Harassment is a human rights issue. Harassment can be used as technology. That is, sexual harassment and harassment in general can be used as a tool. There are multiple motives behind harassing or sexually harassing someone in the workplace that people don't seem to recognize. The motive can be rank, religion, race, nationality, appearance, sexual orientation, achievement or class.
In today's society, to masculinize males and feminize females just doesn't fly. There are a lot more variations — and I couldn't tell you what they all are. However, they need to be respected. There are a lot more variations than we think there are.
The final point I want to make, this naive assumption. I forget who the honourable MP was, a young fellow with an Italian name, who said the Liberals:
. . . start with the assumption that employees and the RCMP membership will work collaboratively with their supervisors and upper management to achieve collective workplace goals.
What fantasyland does this individual live in? This is fantasy. The RCMP is far better at developing than implementing strategies. Don't forget, this is a culture out of step with the times. I bet you I'll hit some buttons around this table when I say that problems can arise in any system — marital, familial or organizational — when the system stagnates. The RCMP system, the RCMP culture, has stagnated now for how many years? One hundred and forty- three? It's sick. It needs changing from the bottom to the top.
Thank you very much.
Senator White: Thanks to the witnesses, in particular to Tom out in Vancouver.
Tom, I'm going to ask you a question specific to the exemptions. Do you know of any other police agency in this country — 198 of them — that find themselves in a similar position of having all of those areas or even most of those areas exempted from negotiations?
Mr. Stamatakis: No.
Senator White: The second piece is going to refer to your leadership in policing in Vancouver. Would it even make sense for a police leader today to want to have those exemptions? The police leader wants to focus on things like operational policing, not on those areas that are typically outside of his purview and certainly outside of his control financially. Most police leaders would want to see those areas negotiated between an association/union and those who control the purse strings in management so the tough decisions around money actually become someone else's decision and so the police chief could actually do their job. Wouldn't that make more sense?
Mr. Stamatakis: Yes. What you're describing definitely allows the Chief of Police to focus on the operational side of policing much more if issues related to financial concerns, particularly around collective bargaining, can be dealt with in another process.
But I have to say — and I know there was testimony earlier around this whole management rights piece — I don't think anyone quarrels with the notion that employers or managers should have certain rights. The key difference, though, is those clauses and provisions are generally contained within a collective agreement so that if there is an issue, if an employer or manager is acting capriciously or arbitrarily or in a punitive way, the independent association can then say, "Wait a minute. The members we represent take issue with that. Let's have a conversation about it and try to find a better way.''
I think the notion that these exclusions need to exist because they somehow will affect the successful and efficient operation of a police force are not borne out in fact. As I alluded to in my comments, every other police force in this country, whether provincial or municipal, and many internationally, operate in a similar environment to that which I've described and function quite well.
The other thing to remember is at the end of the day we're all police officers and I haven't met a police officer who isn't completely invested in their police force and concerned about the service we provide to the public.
Senator White: Thanks for that, Tom.
Mr. Hill, by the way, was my first corporal when I joined the RCMP in 1982 in Stephenville, Newfoundland. I have a question for you, Roy, if I may.
You talked about the fact that the SRR Program has been taken away now after decades of building it up. For the most part, I argue — and not everybody would agree — that it represented the membership very well. In fact, I felt it provided a very good member rep program. With that being taken away for the next two, three or four years — who knows how long this might take — what impact will that have on the 25,000 civilian and sworn members, in particular, who are left behind with limited, if any, representation?
Mr. Hill: It's devastating, because the membership right now has no one to advocate on their behalf. Thank you for the kind comments. The rep program obviously had some failings and tweaking that needed to be done. I served on all of those committees, whether it was dealing with transfers, relocation, internal affairs dwealing the RCMP — and I served on that for 13 years myself.
So for every part of that, when management talked about making some changes or just mused about it, it was fed to the committee. Since I retired, obviously, certain conversations were taking place and it was muted and no one was allowed to know. Not membership, no one. For the members, who now are facing a blank, this legal fund was the one thing that was left standing whereby we could do something to represent them on their behalf. With that having been removed, now we have to try to find another vehicle and another means of rejoining the members to get them up and going. They have nothing.
That's why I talked about behaviour and those two things I showed you specifically. Then it falls in line with what's contained in Bill C-7, and is just a continuation. Does anybody at the commissioner and senior management level really care? What you people and the government hear are the messages from the commissioner and the senior team. I listened to some of that stuff today and I could have stood up and said something because of how I felt. Obviously I wouldn't do that, but the people are in unbridled positions. There's nobody in check.
The message that you get is from them, and they have the most to lose, but the people with the boots on the ground across the country, 24/7, are serving in locations where no other agency would even dare to set up an office without the RCMP members being present. You're the chief of police and you're the constable; Senator White knows exactly what I'm talking about. He was the fireman, the policeman, the doctor and nurse at the time, and the priest.
Senator White: A good-looking nurse.
Mr. Hill: That's the long way around to say there's a large void here, ladies and gentlemen, that should never have happened. It is criminal what has taken place here, and nobody seems to care because the people on the ground don't have any power to do anything and they've been neutered.
The Chair: Before I go to Senator Carignan, can you answer this question: Have you corresponded with Minister Goodale to ask for reinstatement of that fund?
Mr. Hill: We reached out to his office and officials in his office, and we got zero.
The Chair: How long ago?
Mr. Hill: March.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Mr. Hill, would you be able to provide us with a sampling of the main cases, disputes or issues that the assistance fund was dealing with in terms of the members' working conditions, situations in which the fund had to intervene to support the members?
[English]
Mr. Hill: Yes. If you take a look at our website, you will see that our newsletter is produced every year — except this past year — and in it there's a sampling of all of those cases.
The very first case I recall involved two members out in British Columbia. They were charged criminally and convicted of assault causing bodily harm. Both of those members were sentenced to jail. Once they were sentenced to jail, there was no more provision for legal fees at public expense; they were on their own. They reached out to the fund, but we were newly-started. We had to go out and borrow money so they could pay for their defence. In the end, the whole thing was fabricated. What the accused said took place never did take place and the members were exonerated. As a matter of fact, one person is still serving today. I think he's an inspector and probably still in British Columbia.
Going from that to serious harassment — it's like the rainbow: everything that's under the sun since 1998, we've dealt with in some manner. One thing that people forget is that not every accusation made against a member is truthful or actual fact. You want to talk to the member in Alberta accused of sexual assault. They were never in that person's apartment, never in the person's house, and were investigated by the RCMP's major crime division. That was one of the few times in the history of the Province of Alberta where an official apology was issued to a member because of the prosecution that took place. He was acquitted, obviously, but his career is in tatters. I think he maybe served a couple of years after that and just went by the wayside. How do you recover after that? Those things take place.
In one case that was close to my home and that I was involved in, the accused was acquitted, but there was no funding right from the get-go. When members are falsely accused, what do you do? You've got to defend yourself on your own dime, sometimes, if it's duty related, but there's a provision here that says "meeting the reasonable expectations of the force.'' The fact is that somebody said, "He did it,'' or "She did it,'' and the member says it never happened, so what do you do? You aren't meeting the reasonable expectations of the force.
There's got to be something there to take on those members. We've taken them on, and there's been no ceiling on the limit of what we've put out to the members with regard to assisting them. I notice some other organizations or associations say there's a cap of $10,000 or $50,000 or something, but you go and see what you could do for $100,000. You cannot do very much. You can't even get to discovery, and you certainly have that experience with regard to some of that stuff.
There have been big dollars put out on behalf of the 16,500 members; not all of them require assistance, but the insurance is in place. Now that the void is gone and the reps have gone, who represents the members now? Who advocates on their behalf? Who takes up their cause?
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I understand, therefore, that a number of elements in the fund were used to help individuals who were affected by certain issues that are excluded, and who had been subject to inappropriate or contentious decisions with respect to transfers, dismissals, conduct or harassment. Thus, the fund helped individuals deal with a number of elements currently excluded from collective bargaining by Bill C-7.
[English]
Mr. Hill: Exactly, because of the organization, the uniqueness of it and the transfers, et cetera.
Quickly, one comes to mind of a female member in British Columbia transferred from this place to that place. En route, her moving truck overturned and her furniture was all beat up. She says: "Okay, now who is paying me for the damage? I didn't do anything. You're hired to relocate me.'' And then the battle started. Senator White would know exactly what I'm talking about. The member says, "What do I do here now? I don't have any furniture. I've arrived at a new place.'' The mover says, "Go take up the issue with the RCMP.'' The RCMP says, "Take up the issue with the mover.''
There has to be someone who jumps in and brings common sense to the table. She came to the legal fund and asked what to do. The Mounties won't listen; the movers won't listen, so we have to go to you, legal counsel, and serve a notice on your behalf. This is totally wrong. In the meantime, you have to be put up in a hotel. You're lucky if you're in someplace where you have a hotel. In some places you don't have that. That's the type of stuff that's aggravating and irritating. The members aren't at fault for some of these things.
Some of the stuff with regard to harassment has not been addressed and the higher the rank, the worse it is. The members say, where do we turn? They turn to the legal fund.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for Mr. Webster. We've often heard talk of the problem of depression among members of the armed forces. We've also heard talk of suicide. I understand that your role involves providing assistance to members. What are the main irritants of the police officers who consulted you that you noted in your professional capacity, regarding the RCMP, of course?
[English]
Mr. Webster: To answer your question in a broad fashion initially, the main irritant to a member of the RCMP, whether that individual is suffering from an anxiety disorder, depression or post-traumatic stress issues, is the organization.
Senator Carignan: The organization is out of respect?
Mr. Webster: No. It's the biggest part, the worst part.
What usually happens now — and it was described here earlier by President Banwarie — the member will come forward with some sort of health-related issue and look at the organization at the detachment level, having consulted a physician. The physician has suggested some time off and so on. Now the RCMP will take it in their own hands to ensure that this individual returns to work. They will do so by harassing. The harassment now becomes a bigger issue than the depression; and the depression was caused by — somebody else addressed this earlier — not enough members on the shift to deal with it, no time off, pay issues, holiday issues, and on and on and on.
In the end, the biggest irritant to the health of the RCMP members is the organization itself. If the organization cleaned up its act, if the organization was transformationally changed, you would see the levels of emotional disorders in the RCMP drop drastically, because contrary to other things you've heard around the table, policing is not really a dangerous occupation. It's stressful, but it's not really dangerous. Depending upon what list you're looking at, it doesn't make it into the top 20 or 25 most dangerous jobs. If you want to see dangerous jobs, you come to where I live and talk to some of the loggers, miners, fishermen, who are in danger every day. Really, what is the greatest irritant to a police person, in the case that you and I are discussing, an RCMP member, is the RCMP itself. It creates the most stress in that individual's life, which then results in aggravated depressions, aggravated anxiety disorders, aggravated post-traumatic stress disorders and so on.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Webster. Last weekend, I heard the RCMP superintendent in New Brunswick say that he was on the verge of retiring. He was commenting on the incidents in Moncton in which three of his men were slain. He was saying that, in the aftermath of the incidents, training sessions were given and firearm equipment was modified. Personally, I would add that they should perhaps have also reviewed the use of solo patrols, in other words, having only one officer in a patrol car at night.
Among other things, he said, that in the aftermath of the incidents, he suffered from post-traumatic shock and had to consult a therapist regularly. He blamed himself for not having provided his officers with the best possible training and equipment sooner, telling himself that the tragedy might not have unfolded as it did. He wonders what might have been.
In your opinion, if an association or joint committee had looked into the issue of police officers' equipment, training and solo patrols, don't you think the situation would have turned out differently?
When I was president of the provincial police association, we had difficulties with solo patrols and created a joint committee with the employer to study the issue.
Do you not think the superintendent would not be second-guessing himself as much today? I think he would not be suffering as much post-traumatic shock today if there had been an association with the employer to assist him in the decision-making process.
I am not saying that none of this would have happened, but I think that precautions need to be taken. Up to now, the culture within the RCMP has been to react after the fact. What do you think?
Mr. Webster: Thank you for your question, senator.
[English]
The simple answer is yes, I think so. If we had a union in place, then the union would be able to represent the member.
I have several patients — I shouldn't be admitting this here because the RCMP has divorced itself from me. They even brought a charge against me in the College of Psychologists, which was overturned. As a secondary effort, they said, "Well, sure, okay. You can still visit Dr. Webster, but we're not paying. You're going to have to pay out of your own pocket.'' So I still see RCMP members. However, I'll see them for a dozen eggs or a loaf of bread, whatever they've got; I don't care.
With these members that are dealing with post-traumatic issues, I'll sit down, senator, and I'll speak to them in a therapy session. Rarely does the incident that they were exposed to ever come up. Largely, we're talking about the way the organization is handling the member who is now on sick leave. Very rarely do we talk about the horrific events that he or she may have been exposed to. Largely, we're talking about what this supervisor has done, what this detachment commander is doing, what headquarters is demanding of them now, and on and on and on.
The answer to your question is, yes, I think so. If there was a union in place, then the union would be able to protect the member from these irritants that come from the organization. The events that they are exposed to are far less traumatic than their dealings with the organization.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Following incidents that result in post-traumatic shock, the police officer must sometimes consult a specialist and even take sick leave. Often, the employer will require the officer to return to work and will send. . . . I wanted to know whether you had ever witnessed a situation in which the employer used the services of an expert physician, while the union found its own physician and paid them for a second expert opinion. I guarantee you it can change the diagnosis. Would you not agree?
[English]
Mr. Webster: Yes, I agree, and I'll go farther. The RCMP, as you likely know, has its own health services department, where the member goes in order to receive psychological care or medical care. The health services department has a list of preferred psychologists. In my experience — and I apologize to my colleagues — most of them are in the pockets of the RCMP.
So the member now gets referred to a psychologist who doesn't want to upset his or her relationship with the RCMP because that relationship can be quite lucrative. If I was one of those, I wouldn't want to write the things that I just told you about the organization — that the organization is the greatest irritant to this member's mental health.
I've had patients that I see now for the loaf of bread who tell me they've gone to see one of these mental health care providers on the list, and the health care provider says, "Okay, so what's the problem?'' The member says, "My supervisor is doing this to me and the organization is demanding this.'' The mental health care provider will now say, "Oh, that's not my business. I can't get into that kind of business. Let's just talk about your depression. Let's just talk about your anxiety disorder.''
Now, from my perspective — and I'm getting a little long in the tooth; the perspective may be a bit worn — that is part of the perspective. The organization is a very big part of the perspective. Patients need to be considered in context. They are impinged upon by many contexts: the family context, the work context, the friend context, the community context. In this case, the work context, the employment context, is having a great effect on their mental health.
The Chair: Mr. Webster, we have two more questioners, Senator Jaffer and then Senator Campbell.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Stamatakis, this morning we were told by the minister that Commissioner Paulson — and he has not come, so we have not been able to ask him questions. I'm not saying he said no; he just hasn't been here.
The Chair: He was invited.
Senator Jaffer: Oh, he was invited. Okay. So that's a big issue. He was invited.
He said he needed the exemptions. Are there any exemptions you think he needs? Because he's not here, that's why I'm asking for your point of view on why he thinks he needs those exemptions.
Mr. Stamatakis: Let me just say a couple of things. While I agree generally with Dr. Webster's comments, I do take exception to the notion that policing is not a dangerous occupation. I think we've mitigated the risk because of the work that has been done and the advocacy that's been engaged in by police associations and unions around all of the exemptions that are being proposed that have provided officers with better equipment, better tactics.
Senator Jaffer: Okay, but please answer my question.
Mr. Stamatakis: To your point, madam senator, I think he's looking for the exclusions because it makes it easy for him to ignore a lot of difficult questions around whether it's deployment, whether it's uniform and equipment issues, whether it's staffing issues, whether it's transfer issues, whether its promotion issues. In my experience, certainly in Vancouver where I sit on a number of joint committees around all of those issues, ultimately, if you have interest-based engagement you get the better outcomes.
Back to Dr. Webster's point, I think the RCMP, while they say it's appropriate for the RCMP to now have an independent association, they say that, but their actions, by proposing to have these exclusions in the legislation, I think demonstrate something different, and I don't believe it's correct.
Senator Campbell: I just want to acknowledge Tom. He was the president when I was mayor, and I appreciate his honesty and his integrity.
I'd like to ask Mr. Hill: Why would the commissioner shut down the legal fund and the SRA? Why?
Mr. Hill: I don't know the real reason, if there was somebody who felt that the SRRs would have carried on with regard to their role. They weren't going to strike up as a bargaining agent that I'm aware of. He was either scared of some interference, or I don't know.
With regard to the legal fund — this is my own personal feeling — my personal feeling is that he was irritated with the legal fund because we've gone to Federal Court on a number of issues, not the least of which was the ordering of reinstatement of a member that should never have been fired.
Senator Campbell: Somehow the word "petulance'' comes to mind with regard to this. Why would you want a void? Why would you want to create a void by shutting down the only way that members can actually speak to management and leave it open for, somebody suggested here, it could be two or three years. Because he was POed? That's what you're saying? I think I'm going to need Dr. Webster by the time I'm finished with this.
Mr. Hill: Senator Campbell, you would think that as the leader and commander-in-chief, you would want people representing and advocating on behalf of the members on all of those things that happen on a daily basis in carrying out policing in Canada, and indeed around the world. You would think that. To create this void is just beyond comprehension.
Senator Campbell: I come from an era where I was advised that I would be transferred someplace where they send me sunshine in a tin can. I thought they were joking and continued on with my career because that was the golden era. It's way beyond that now. These two issues, the legal fund and the SRA, are classic of what is going on within this organization. I am extremely disappointed that the commissioner did not have the guts to come to this committee and take our questions.
The Chair: I'm going to Senator Day, because time is moving on here and he hasn't had a chance.
Senator Day: Thank you. I wanted to make the point for the record that there was another organization that was created, and we haven't analyzed that. It may be that the commissioner felt, under the circumstances, that it would be more effective than the previous ones.
Mr. Hill: I don't think so.
Senator Day: I don't know.
Mr. Hill: I don't know either.
Senator Day: I want it on the record that there was another organization created when the SR —
Mr. Hill: Oh, yes.
Senator Day: When the SR was done away with, he created another organization.
Mr. Hill: He created an adviser group, and if some member contacted him and said "How do I do this?'' here's a 1- 800 number. Nobody could advocate on their behalf; nobody could do anything on behalf of them, other than give them a 1-800 number to call the policy centre in Ottawa. That's to make it as simplistic an explanation as I can. However, that's an entirely different role. It's like apples and oranges with regard to role of the staff relations program.
You would think until such time as this bargaining agent has stood up that life carries on normal. I tell you how mean-spirited they were, and this is from me, Roy. They would normally have a caucus. Staff relations come in I think in November. They shut that down. They said, "Well, maybe we'll make it in December.'' So they shut that down. And then, "Well, maybe we'll make it in January.'' That group never came in to meet collectively to talk about members' issues, albeit probably being the last time. It was never done. It was shut down by Mr. Dubeau. In my opinion, he never had authority to do that, because the members were still in place and legitimately in place. But when you think you have the authority to do things and you arbitrarily go and do it, there's the result. Those staff relations reps didn't come in to speak collectively on behalf of the members and their concerns.
The Chair: Colleagues, we've come to the end of our time here. I want to thank our witnesses. Are you waving at me, Mr. Webster, or are you asking to speak?
Mr. Webster: I am, sir. I find you very attractive.
The Chair: I'm happy to hear that. Please be very brief because we have another panel coming on.
Mr. Webster: I will be brief. I'm going to attempt to answer Senator Kenny's request for specifics. It won't be popular, and there will be other models. However, I gave you a hint when I said it's time for the march east. I'm sure you're all familiar with the March West, when the RCMP went west to quell the problems with our Aboriginal people. It's time to return east, which means the RCMP should be taken out of provincial and municipal policing. They should be centered in Ottawa, dealing only with federal statutes. They should be Canada's answer to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States.
The commissioner should be removed arm's-length from the government. He is, as it stands now, the Prime Minister's policeman. That should not be.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Webster. You definitely have a point of view, there's no question about that. Senator Kenny will be pleased to hear that.
It's 4:30. I want to thank our witnesses, especially the witness from Vancouver who joined us. I'm sure it took a bit of time and effort to get organized to do that. We appreciate your contribution.
Joining us in our final panel of the day as we consider Bill C-7 are Mr. Ian McPhail, Chair of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, and from the Department of National Defence, Mr. Gary Walborne, Canadian Forces Ombudsman, accompanied by Robyn Hynes, Director General, Operations.
Gentlemen, welcome, Mr. Walborne and Mr. McPhail, I understand that you each have an opening statement. Mr. Walborne, please begin, followed by Mr. McPhail.
Gary Walborne, Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I will talk about my office, what we do, and our areas of interest and investigation.
The office was created in 1998. Its sole reason to be is to ensure that all members of the defence community, both military and civilian, are treated with fairness during any process and procedure occurring inside the department.
I'm independent of both military and civilian chains of command, and I report directly to the Minister of National Defence.
Our mandate is to act as a source of information, referral and education for our individual members, both military and civilian. We act as a neutral, objective, sounding board, mediator, investigator and reporter. The biggest part of our mandate is to contribute to long-lasting change to the environment.
Our mandate does have some limitations, things we can investigate and things we cannot.. The things outside my area of authority are anything having to do with the military judge, court-martial or summary trial, the exercise of discretion and laying charges by the chain of command inside the Canadian Armed Forces, matters which are exclusively the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board as the employer, and military police being dealt with under part 4 of the act. We will not perform any duty similar to that of the military police. Those are our limitations.
This office was created in 1998. I have full authority to investigate any issue that I think warrants it. Anything before 1998, if I should wish to investigate, I would need ministerial authority to do so.
The core principles of ombudsmanry; independence, impartiality, confidentiality and very informal. I am independent of both chains of command. I am impartial. I have nothing to win or lose and no axe to grind. Confidentiality; all information shared with us by our constituents will not be shared with anyone without their written consent to do so. I think that's the cornerstone of ombudsmanry.
We are informal. We work at the lowest possible level through the department to fix issues on behalf of our members. You will see a stat a little later only. We handle 10,000 inbound phone calls a year. About 80 per cent are handled at first engagement, just making sure people have the information they need or can contact the people who are in a position to help them.
Our constituency base is quite large. We not only serve all current serving members, but also all former members and their families, the cadets, all members of nonpublic funds, anyone who has applied to or is a recruit in the recruitment process, families of all, and those who may be seconded or attached to the Canadian Forces.
We do stakeholder engagements across the country where we get out and actually meet the men and women in uniform to find out the issues and problems they're facing. It gives us the ground truth, so when we have conversations around policy and procedure, we can tell the centre what will happen in the region as a ripple effect of any decision made. It brings a lot of evidence back to the minister, and I hope helps inform policy decision.
We do intake. I talked about 10,000 inbound phone calls. We have complaint analysts. If cases are more complex, an analyst will determine if it requires an individual investigation or if it is turned back to the intake officer to deal with.
We do investigations on behalf of individuals. We do systemic recommendations based on the complaints we receive and the concerns raised by our constituency. We can interject ourselves in a process if there are compelling circumstances where we feel there may be harm to the member or others. We can interject ourselves very quickly.
We're an office of last resort, soo the members, both civilian and military, must use any mechanism that's in place currently prior to coming to the office.
We will not talk about the outcome of that process, but we will talk about how the person was treated during the process and whether they got fair and equal treatment.
We make recommendations. We've made 325 to the department since the office has been created. Seventy-five per cent of those have been accepted and implemented.
We publish everything we do. All correspondence between me and the department and any systemic review we do, we will publish for public consumption.
Types of complaints: The top military complaint categories are benefits, release, information requests, medical assessment, harassment and postings. These are the top categories of complaints we receive from the military. Sad to say, they've been the same for the last eight or ten years. They may move position on the list, but they are the same complaints.
From the civilians, we receive complaints regarding benefits, staffing procedures, harassment, civilian grievances and pay.
I talked about 10,000 inbound phone calls a year. Since the office was created, 26,000 individual cases have been resolved on behalf of our constituents, and we have made 325 recommendations, as I mentioned earlier, 75 per cent accepted and implemented.
I just also added a slide there that talks about our recent and ongoing work. It just gives the members of the committee a chance to see the scope of what we touch on on a daily basis, anything from priority hiring to releasing members to the 1974 Valcartier cadet accident, which we also did an investigation on. So we run the full gamut.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is the Canadian Forces Ombudsman, Reader's Digest version.
The Chair: You do it very well. Thank you very much.
Ian McPhail, Chair, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me here today. I recently appeared before your committee in relation to Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Canada Border Services Agency Act, which seeks to create an inspector general for the Canada Border Services Agency. It's a pleasure to be here before you again in relation to Bill C-7.
In 2014, amendments to the RCMP Act resulted in the creation of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. The commission's mandate was expanded beyond public complaints to include specified activity reviews of RCMP activities and programs to ensure they are carried out in accordance with legislation, regulations, ministerial direction or any policy, procedure or guideline.
While the commission's mandate is quite broad and includes the ability to review any program or activity of the RCMP, the management of the RCMP remains the responsibility of the commissioner. As such, issues or concerns relating to staffing, promotions, discharges and demotions and resources fall outside of the commission's mandate.
That said, ongoing debate in relation to Bill C-7, section 238.19, regarding the restriction on content of collective agreement, is quite relevant for the commission's investigation into RCMP workplace harassment. In this regard, I understand that the proposed restrictions, more specifically the exclusion of conduct and harassment, refer to issues that are covered by existing legislative, regulatory and policy frameworks.
In the case of conduct and harassment, the RCMP Act Regulations, the code of conduct, the commissioner's Standing Orders and RCMP policies outline the responsibilities and expectations of members, employees and management, and also include a process for appeals and grievances.
The commission's follow-up investigation into RCMP workplace harassment will evaluate existing RCMP policies and processes to determine whether they are adequate. This may well include reviewing whether the policies and processes currently in place have been established in consultation with bargaining agents, employee representatives and other appropriate stakeholders, and whether these groups are regularly consulted on the application of the policy.
If the commission's investigation finds gaps in existing policies and processes or areas that could be improved in this regard, I will make clear and definitive recommendations on how to address them.
I would also like to note that, whether or not Bill C-7 proceeds with the proposed restrictions, the commission's enabling legislation continues to apply, and we maintain the ability to review the adequacy and sufficiency of the RCMP's harassment policies, as well as the RCMP's compliance with the practical implementation and application of the policies and processes.
I thank you for giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts, and I would be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Colleagues, before we go to individual senators for questions, I would ask Mr. McPhail if he could update us with respect to the review that he has underway on harassment within the RCMP. If I recall correctly, the last time you were here, you had received no word from the commissioner with respect to whether or not you could interview members of the force confidentially. Perhaps you could update us on that.
Mr. McPhail: Yes, Mr. Chair. As a matter of fact, two days later, I did receive communication from the commissioner and, in that response, the commissioner pledged that, notwithstanding the wording of the directive to RCMP members, that that would not apply in the case of our review into harassment within the RCMP.
The commissioner also stated in that letter that he would ensure that an announcement from us as to the ongoing investigation was posted on the RCMP website. I then responded, thanking the commissioner for his offer of cooperation and enclosing a form of announcement for posting on the website. Subsequently, I'd be pleased to table that correspondence with the committee.
The Chair: If you could table that correspondence, we would appreciate that. You're satisfied with the response you received; is that correct?
Mr. McPhail: I'm very encouraged by it, yes.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. McPhail, you certainly aren't a newcomer to our hearings, and we certainly appreciate you always making yourself available for us.
Under the new proposed section 238.19 of the federal Public Service Labour Relations Act, there are restrictions on what can be in a collective agreement. This is no news to you. What I would like to hear from you is: As you know, these restrictions include any term or condition that relates to law enforcement techniques, transfers, appraisals, probation discharges, demotions and conduct, including harassment. Can you please expand — because of your review, you may not want to — on the section of harassmen,t to start off with?
Mr. McPhail: As I stated, senator, in my opening remarks —
Senator Jaffer: And I wanted you to elaborate further.
Mr. McPhail: Yes. Regardless of the provisions of Bill C-7, the mandate of the commission to investigate issues of harassment won't be affected. We will still retain that authority, and our ongoing investigation and review is part of that mandate.
Whether those restrictions should be included in the bill or not is really outside of the mandate of the commission and, I would suggest, the responsibility of this committee and other parliamentarians. I'll leave it at that.
Senator Jaffer: How will Bill C-7 affect your work? Will it improve it, will it be the same, or will there be some challenges?
Mr. McPhail: Bill C-7 could affect our work because one of the recommendations that we made in our harassment report three years ago was that there be a mechanism outside of the normal chain of command dealing with harassment allegations. We believed then, and still do very strongly, that that's necessary in order to ensure that members feel free to step forward without concerns of retaliation and that they see the process as being fair.
We didn't specify at that time what form that should take. I know that there's been, particularly recently, a lot of discussion as to how that could occur. That's one of the issues that we're going to be addressing in our present report.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Walborne, in your opening remarks, you spoke about Bill C-7 and how it would affect your work. Accommodating the creation of a union under the public service model, how would that affect you?
Mr. Walborne: I haven't made any comment in reference to Bill C-7. I've just put what our office does as an ombudsman.
I live in an organization inside of an environment where there are military members who are not represented and there are civilian employees who are covered by collective agreements. I'm living in a bit of both worlds. I can honestly say that I'm not sure whether it is an issue of having it in legislation or having the leadership and desire to change. They are two distinct things.
I believe there are certain authorities that should be held by management, and I do believe there are certain authorities that should be given to members. As Mr. McPhail has said, that's the responsibility of this committee and other parliamentarians to decide.
From our perspective, we work in this type of environment today where there are some people who are unionized and others who are not. I think our success rate of 325 recommendations, with 75 per cent accepted and implemented, is a pretty good track record. I think we've done a good job inside the environment we have, but it's been an evolution over 18 years to get us to where we are today.
Senator Day: My questions flow in part, Mr. McPhail, from the question asked of you about the study you did in 2013, and we discussed that the last time you were here. I recall that one of the points you made at that time was that you made a recommendation that there be an appeal or complaint mechanism outside the normal chain of command. Has there been any movement on that particular recommendation?
Mr. McPhail: One part of the mandate or the instruction letter from the minister was to explore the changes of policy and the implementation of those policies. I don't want to prejudge the results of our investigation; however, at the present time, I'm not aware that that recommendation has been implemented.
Senator Day: We're talking about harassment, complaints and issues here.
Mr. McPhail: Correct.
Senator Day: You made the point to the chairman that the commissioner had done a news release and published it on the Internet so that everybody, presumably, would become aware of it. Are you satisfied that that communication has become knowledge of the members of the RCMP and their families and friends?
Mr. McPhail: We've sent that announcement over to the commissioner in response to his invitation to have it posted. It has not yet been posted.
Senator Day: Our concern is one of intimidation. If somebody knows that the standing rule has been forever and ever that they must not be talking to any outside groups or agencies, including yourself, without first talking to the commissioner, it would take a rather major effort, I would think, to communicate this major policy change.
Mr. McPhail: Yes.
Senator Day: Do you agree with that?
Mr. McPhail: I do agree.
Senator Day: For the outside independent chain of command issue that you were talking about, or a group to deal with complaints or an appeal with respect to harassment, is an organization like Mr. Walborne's ombudsman — and you've heard his mandate with respect to National Defence and the families of members of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces — the kind of outside independence you would be looking for?
Mr. McPhail: Again, I don't want to prejudge the results of our review, but when we made that recommendation, it was our thinking that the body could either be external or could actually be internal to the RCMP but outside the normal chain of command, the key being that a member who thought that he or she was the victim of harassment could feel confident in bringing forward that complaint in confidence.
Senator Day: Mr. Walborne, could you clarify something for the record? You work closely with another ombudsman's office, being the ombudsman for Veterans Affairs and the families of veterans. I know there is a memorandum of understanding with respect to certain medical attention that RCMP officers receive from Veterans Affairs. Do you know the mandate of the ombudsman for Veterans Affairs? Do either of you have any authority to deal with any issues of the RCMP, retired officers or their families?
Mr. Walborne: Prior to coming into this position, I was the deputy ombudsman at Veterans Affairs for three years. As for RCMP veterans, the only authority held by the veterans' ombudsman was when there was a dispute or conflict between the services being received by a RCMP member through their memorandums of understanding with Veterans Affairs Canada. That's the only authority he holds.
Senator Day: And you have none?
Mr. Walborne: I have none.
The Chair: I would like to pursue a couple of questions.
First of all, I'd like to ask Mr. Walborne for the record, and I believe you outlined it the last time you were here, just exactly what you see would happen if there was a memorandum of understanding with the RCMP. What would you have to do within your organization in order to play the same role for the RCMP that you do for the Department of National Defence, if that was requested? I'm not going to hold you to it, but just a template..
Mr. Walborne: I thank you for that, senator.
I see a lot of similarities between the two organizations. The RCMP can be called a paramilitary or quasi-military organization. I see the issues we're talking about in relationship to the RCMP are exactly the life we've led inside the Department of Canadian Armed Forces — harassment, postings, benefits and those types of things. I see a lot of similarities.
If someone did tag me with this, it would be an establishment of a unit of some sort to do pretty much the same job we currently do for the Canadian Armed Forces' members and civilians.
We are independent of both chains of command. I have my own IT systems, legal and communications, so we're totally separate from the department. That does not stop us from working collaboratively with the department. Like I said, we're very informal, working at the lowest level up through. So, yes, there are synergies there. I think it's something that could be considered.
The Chair: I'd like to go to Mr. McPhail. I have a couple of questions.
First of all, I would like to go back to your review of harassment with the RCMP that's under way. My initial question I thought was answered, that you had had full authorization to proceed accordingly, but then, to the response to Senator Day, it had not been posted.
Mr. McPhail: That's correct.
The Chair: How long have you been waiting for it to be posted?
Mr. McPhail: My initial letter to Commissioner Paulson was dated April 20. His letter in response to me was dated May 18.
The Chair: That's a month.
Mr. McPhail: On June 1, we responded, accepting his invitation and enclosing a draft notice.
The Chair: So you're expecting this to be done in the next number of days, then?
Mr. McPhail: Yes.
The Chair: I will follow up on Senator Day, if I could. What further steps will be taken so that the rank and file understand that the policy that they operate under will be nullified for the purposes of this?
Mr. McPhail: In terms of the draft announcement that we prepared, we've outlined the nature of our work, the fact that it was important for us to get insight from RCMP members, that consultation was key, and that Commissioner Paulson has recently clarified to me that the internal framework on interaction with the CRCC will not apply to members and employees who contact the commission. And we bolded this: All information provided to the commission in this regard shall remain confidential. A summary of key themes derived from such information will be provided to the RCMP.
We've set up a specific website and 1-800 number for members. We're not going to just passively wait for calls, but we'll conduct — the exact process hasn't yet been determined, but we're considering focus groups and such to try to get a more objective insight into internal culture so as to help us get greater insight into this issue.
This will not necessarily be sent directly, but it will be accessible to all members of the RCMP.
The Chair: Just for the record, when do you expect this to be completed again? You told us last time, but I'd like it again for the record. What's your time frame?
Mr. McPhail: The time frame is obviously dependent on our ability to obtain the necessary files and cooperation from the RCMP. My target is the spring of 2017.
The Chair: Going into another area, I've got a question about the staff relations association that has been disbanded. You are aware that was disbanded some time ago.
Mr. McPhail: Yes.
The Chair: Then we heard today that contributions to the legal fund have been discontinued. From what was told here by witnesses, totally arbitrary decisions were taken.
With your mandate and your responsibility to be an agent, in part, for the RCMP and for the public, do you think with the removal of the staff relations association and no elected members for the rank and file to call upon — and the fact that the legal fund is not being replenished — will this affect your workload now? Obviously, if people have a complaint within the RCMP and nowhere else to go, where will they go?
Mr. McPhail: It could potentially have an impact on the commission's workload, because while the commission's complaint-taking mandate is with respect to members in the exercise of their duties, there's nothing that precludes an existing member of the RCMP from making a complaint.
The Chair: That's what I'm getting at. What we've heard today has been somewhat unsettling in some ways. What it comes to is the morale within the rank and file of our national police force. We've heard a lot of negativity today. Perhaps you could make an observation or comment from where you sit in respect of how you see the rank and file from the mandate under which we're asking them to do their job. What's your sense?
Mr. McPhail: In terms of morale, I don't think I'm in a position to make a comment just yet. But our objective, as we explore the issue of harassment and the broader picture of culture, which includes morale, is something that we're determined to get insights on. While I don't think I can answer that question today, when the time comes, I would be very pleased to return and share our findings with you.
The Chair: Colleagues, we're coming to a conclusion.
Senator Day: Before you do that, I have a question arises from that last question. The study that you're doing now on harassment is really just an update or a comparison with the 2013 study that you did, is it not?
Mr. McPhail: It's actually considerably broader, because we're looking at implementation of the recommendations that we made in 2013. We're looking at the implementation of the commissioner's action plan. As part of this, we're also studying attitudes within the force — with harassment, issues of morale and general attitudes that people might have — in order to determine the degree to which both our recommendations and the commissioner's action plan have been implemented, and to make any remedial recommendations that we can.
Senator Day: Mr. McPhail, that request for the new study that you indicated was a little bit behind time the last time you were here, tThat request came from the minister?
Mr. McPhail: Yes, it did, although I might also say that when I appeared before this committee some three years ago, I did say at the time that once the new code of conduct process was in place, we would be revisiting the issue.
Senator Campbell: Mr. McPhail, can you give me the timeline on this announcement that you wanted to have on the RCMP website? When did you request that it go on to the website?
Mr. McPhail: I'll table the letters and correspondence, in both French and English, on April 20. I'll quote here:
I request that you authorize and encourage all members and employees who wish to contact the commission directly be allowed to do so for the purpose of this investigation.
Furthermore, I request that you authorize members and employees to be contacted by the commission, as the commission may determine to be appropriate. Having access to members and employees who feel they can speak freely to the commission without fear of reprisal is critical to ensuring that the commission can report on this important issue. As such, I would like to extend confidentiality.
Then, a letter dated May 18 —
Senator Campbell: So there was nothing in the first letter about putting this on a website?
Mr. McPhail: No. I was looking for the commissioner's assurance that we could extend confidentiality and that members could speak to us without first advising their superiors.
Senator Campbell: May 18?
Mr. McPhail: April 20.
Senator Campbell: No, but on May 18 you wrote again?
Mr. McPhail: No, on May 18 I received a response from Commissioner Paulson, and he said:
Permit me to suggest an alternative, more collegial means of accomplishing your objective. I would be pleased to have information regarding your specified activity review, including the commissioner's contact information, posted on our internal website.
Senator Campbell: What does that mean?
Mr. McPhail: I take it that it means that he was inviting me to prepare a notice that would be posted on the RCMP's internal website for all members.
Senator Campbell: And then in June?
Mr. McPhail: On June 1, we responded, acknowledging receipt and confirming the internal framework subparagraph 3 stating personnel are not to initiate direct contact with the CRCC relative to a file or CRCC outreach activities without contacting their divisional PRU, which in turn will contact the NPCD, does not apply in cases such as this review. Then I attached an announcement for posting on the website.
Senator Campbell: One more question: A year seems like a long time. You've said it would not be until spring of 2017 that you would be rocking and rolling. Why a year? And how long have you been in your current position as the head of the commission?
Mr. McPhail: Full time, for about a year and a half.
In 2013, one of our recommendations was that the harassment files be centralized so that it would be possible to monitor them more closely. We've just been discussing this, and our people have been advised that simply tracking down these files could take a long time. In fact, just this morning, my advice to them — because it was suggested by our counterparts at the RCMP — was that if we wished, we could go out to the various divisions and review the files ourselves there. My opinion was that that would probably speed up the process a lot. Unfortunately, there's just no centralized filing system.
Senator Campbell: Gee, and I thought it was 2016. Doesn't it concern you just a bit that in this day and age, harassment files — and in fact, I suppose we could extend that to many other different types of issues — cannot be found in one spot?
Mr. McPhail: Yes, it's 2016, and in 2013 we thought that was a problem, which was why we recommended that the national headquarters have the ability to centrally monitor these complaints.
Senator Campbell: Just so I'm clear here: For three years they've been — I can't even say it because we're on public TV. For three years, you have not had anything from them saying, "Yeah, that's a good idea, and we're going to get right on that?''
Mr. McPhail: After we issued our report, Commissioner Paulson wrote me and expressed his agreement with our recommendations and the fact that he looked forward to working with us.
Senator Campbell: Just moving at warp speed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: I want to pursue this a little bit more, because I don't think it should go unsaid here. Could you update us with the recommendations that you put forward in 2013, and also, in writing, let us know which of those recommendations have been implemented?
I find it very difficult to understand that, in this day and age, when harassment has been such an issue with the RCMP — and it has not been good for the RCMP — we don't know and, more importantly, you don't know the number of harassment cases. And you're going to have to go out with a pen and paper to every detachment?
Mr. McPhail: Every division, not every detachment.
The Chair: But that's beyond comprehension. You would think that that would be sent to you.
Mr. McPhail: Yes.
The Chair: Where does your responsibility go? You made a recommendation. Do you have any authority at all?
Mr. McPhail: We can't compel the RCMP to implement our recommendations. However, the commissioner stated that he agreed with them and would. So I'd be quite pleased to table with the committee a copy of our recommendations from 2013 and the subsequent correspondence with the commissioner.
In terms of the degree of implementation of the recommendations, that's a major part of what we will be investigating.
Senator Day: On behalf of the minister.
Mr. McPhail: Yes.
The Chair: It will be interesting to see what you do find out.
Colleagues, it is 5:15. I'd like to thank the witnesses for spending their time with us. This has been very informative.
I would also like to mention that, right now, we're tentatively looking at reconvening between 11:00 and 12:00 on Wednesday to look at further recommendations on Bill C-7, just so you're aware of that. You will be notified.
(The committee adjourned.)