Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 5 - Evidence of Proceedings - June 5, 2013 - evening
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 5, 2013
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 6:45 p.m. for the consideration of the case of privilege concerning a witness.
Senator David P. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Let me go over the list I have for those who wanted to be down for questions. We are leading off with Senator McCoy, and then Senator Fraser. I believe Senator Furey was on the list also, but he is not here yet. Are there any others who want to be put down for questions?
Senator Braley: Yes. My neighbour was ahead of me.
The Chair: I know this has been kind of a hectic day, so thank you for all for cooperating. We have to make this place work and do it right, so I turn the floor over to Senator McCoy, who has some questions.
Senator McCoy: Hello again. We are pleased that you could still be with us. When we were so rudely interrupted by the fire alarm yesterday, I had just asked you about, and we had agreed that you had provided us with, all the email records. I wanted to continue with a couple more generic questions of that ilk, to be followed by a few specifics.
In the records that you have provided us, there is also a record of two phone calls. I wondered if that was the complete list of phone calls that had occurred between you and your colleagues or Corporal Beaulieu, and do we have a complete list of those?
Staff Sergeant George Reid, Protective Services Section, "E" Division, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Yes.
Senator McCoy: There is no record of any conversations between you, but I wondered if we had a record of those as well, or if you had notes of a conversation between yourselves.
Mr. Reid: All of the conversations that I had relative to Corporal Beaulieu have been disclosed. I made notes at the time, copied them and you have a copy of all of those.
Senator McCoy: Thank you.
I would like to turn to the emails themselves, but I will use your document that you called "Timeline." Although we have copies of the actual emails and conversations, as well as your telephone calls, I will use the timeline to refer to it.
We all know it started on April 27 of this year when Corporal Beaulieu emailed Staff Sergeant Reid, advising that he had been asked to attend the Senate on May 6 to give evidence on Bill C-42. The next email is from you, Staff Sergeant Reid, to Chief Superintendent deBruyckere. That would be appropriate because he had been your supervisor, I think, and you would automatically forward this information to him. Therefore, two days after you received the email from the corporal you forwarded it to your superior.
Mr. Reid: That is correct.
Senator McCoy: I notice that the third email you provided says two minutes later. Chief Superintendent sent an email to Darbyshire and Karr:
As per the attached, do you have any suggestions?
Could you tell us who Darbyshire and Karr are?
Chief Superintendent Kevin deBruyckere, Deputy Criminal Operations, Federal Policing, "E" Division, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Paul Darbyshire, Superintendent, is the employee management relations officer for "E" Division and health services reports up through to Superintendent Darbyshire. Lois Karr was formerly in charge of health services and she is now the assistant to the commanding officer.
Senator McCoy: If you would follow through, the next email I draw your attention to is the same day, April 29 at 12:30, and again chief superintendent, you have emailed Superintendent Darbyshire. This time you say:
Paul . . .
Will you be following up with NHQ —
I take it that is National Headquarters?
Mr. deBruyckere: Yes.
Senator McCoy: It continues:
— on the request from a "non-recognized" labour group to attend this?
Mr. deBruyckere: Yes, as I mentioned yesterday, I had made inquiries with respect to the appearance by the representatives of the MPPA before the Senate committee, just to ensure there were no problems with that. I think I said yesterday either way it was just more for an opinion or a view or a confirmation that could occur. In fact, that was the case.
Senator McCoy: The next email that I noted of interest was same day, April 29, at 15:46. It is an email from Darbyshire to O'Rielly. Who would O'Rielly be? It is number 13 on your list.
Mr. deBruyckere: Superintendent Mike O'Rielly. I am not sure of his title.
Assistant Commissioner Gilles Moreau, Director General, HR Transformation, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: He is director of the legislative reform initiative looking after Bill C-42.
Senator McCoy: The message in Superintendent Darbyshire's email is:
Mike, what is our position on a member going before the senate committee as a member of MPPAC?
The next email of interest, to me at least, was number 15 on your list at 16:53 and it is from Superintendent O'Rielly to Darbyshire. Mike says to Paul:
We don't have one.
Meaning a position.
They have appeared before the Parliamentary Committee already and were basically ignored as they raise issues already addressed in relation to Charter issues. There's nothing preventing them showing up on behalf of their association. To step in and try to prevent it could serve to support their case before the SCC —
Which I presume is the Supreme Court of Canada. Is that correct?
Mr. deBruyckere: Yes.
Senator McCoy: It continues:
— so we aren't taking any stance. Hope that helps. Mike
The next email on this subject is on May 1, number 20 on your list, from Superintendent O'Rielly to Superintendent Darbyshire:
Hi Paul. Has he submitted a secondary activity request and had it approved? Since he is representing MPPAC—
I presume the "he" here is Corporal Beaulieu.
— we need to stress that he needs to stress that he does not speak for anyone in the RCMP. There is nothing to prevent him from attending as a member of MPPAC, but he should still be reminded that as a member of the Force he needs to be aware of his comments and s. 41 of the Regulations, and to be guided by that requirement under the Code of Conduct.
As part of MPPAC, he is in effect going as a private citizen. Like I said, however, he should be reminded he is also a member of the Force and with that comes certain obligations.
Hope that helps. Mike
What does section 41 of the regulations say?
Mr. Moreau: I do not have them in front of me, but it probably outlines of duties of a member of the RCMP.
Senator McCoy: What relevance would it have? Do you know?
Mr. Moreau: You are always a member, and you have to comport yourself accordingly whenever you are speaking in public, interacting with people or living your daily life. You have to have proper conduct. I do not have the section in front of me.
Senator McCoy: Could you provide the clerk with a copy of that section? He can circulate it to the members of the committee.
Mr. Moreau: I am sure that could be pulled from the regulations. The clerk has access to that.
Senator McCoy: My other question is with regard to specifics just to clarify. This is mostly in a series of emails generated by Staff Sergeant Reid and/or a telephone call. The first one is a telephone call and it is April 29. It is from Corporal Beaulieu to Staff Sergeant Reid. Your notes say — I will just read a part of it:
Not subpoena from Senate unless one is required. To cost Senate picks up the tab for travel. Not representing RCMP but MPPAC. The new Comm. Policy —
I presume that is — I am not sure. It is "Comm" and it is number six on your list.
Mr. Reid: I believe that was Corporal Beaulieu saying it was the new commissioner's policy.
Senator McCoy: It continues:
— on speaking to MP's does not apply as he is not management. I —
"I" meaning yourself, Staff Sergeant Reid.
— advised that I need to run this up the chain of command as I know nothing about this process. Understood and if declined he would need something in writing.
Mr. Reid: Yes.
Senator McCoy: To pause for a moment, we have had some help from our ever resourceful clerk.
Senator Comeau: How long are we sitting tonight? If we are going into these rather long lines of questioning, I am wondering based on the numbers around the table to what time we are going.
Senator McCoy: I have been waiting for 18 hours now, a point of order —
The Chair: We have not really decided, but —
Senator Comeau: Is it kind of unlimited?
The Chair: Sort of, but —
Senator Comeau: Chair, we may, in the future, need to revisit this whole aspect of how we manage the time.
The Chair: I am sure Senator McCoy will try and zero in on her priorities.
Senator McCoy: I am just confirming what these emails mean and to get it on the record.
Senator Comeau: I gather that is what you are doing, yes.
Senator McCoy: Yes, and I have almost completed. I am so glad you are eager to ask questions of your own, senator.
The point I was going to make is that our ever resourceful clerk has found a copy of section 41 of the RCMP Police Regulations 1988, and it states:
A member shall not publicly criticize, ridicule, petition or complain about the administration, operation, objectives or policies of the Force, unless authorized by law.
Thank you, Mr. Robert.
To my knowledge, after that note of your conversation with the corporal — at least on the records that you have provided us — you never raised that point with Corporal Beaulieu again as to his attendance as a member of MPPAC at the committee; nor do I see throughout this record, as we have just gone through it, any communication to you from any one of your colleagues as to the nature of their inquiries and the nature of any policy that does or does not apply. Is that your recollection?
Mr. Reid: Yes. I am being totally unfamiliar with this process of a member testifying — what would be involved in a member attending on behalf of the MPPAC. I raised that up the chain of command and I heard nothing back, and it was not what I was concerned with. Similar to that, I am not very familiar with the contents of Bill C-42, and it was basically irrelevant to my decision process.
Senator McCoy: Those are all my questions. I wanted to ensure we had that on the record. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Fraser: I have several questions, chair.
Let me begin with one I am sure for you is very easy. What is NARMS?
Mr. Moreau: It is a computer system to track administration files.
Senator Fraser: National —
Mr. Moreau: — Administration Records Management System.
Senator Fraser: You told us yesterday — Staff Sergeant Reid in particular told us yesterday — that normally he was the one who would make, on his own, decisions about travel for people who were off duty sick; and indeed you had done so, Staff Sergeant Reid, with previous travel for Corporal Beaulieu, including travel to Victoria and Ottawa, capitals where he would be presumably engaging in some sort of discussion with political people, or at the very least administrative people.
But this case, suddenly there is this wild flurry of emails. Just on a quick skim through, I counted emails to Burleigh, Darbyshire, O'Rielly, Karr, Hartl, Baxter, Pound, Robinson, deBruyckere, Fieschi — lots and lots, particularly on April 29. I could understand perhaps a little more easily later when there started to be discussion in the press — but there might be higher ups leaning in. However, I was quite puzzled about why this case prompted all these emails. Why was everybody involved?
Mr. deBruyckere: Maybe I could answer that. I received the email from Staff Sergeant Reid, and having not been familiar at that time with these types of requests, specifically to appear — I think the words were "invited to." It was a short email.
Senator Fraser: "Asked to attend."
Mr. deBruyckere: "Asked to attend." You know, what does that mean? Are there any restrictions, organizationally, for someone from the MPPAC from attending? So I asked those questions just as a matter of course for my own awareness.
Personally, I am not concerned with respect to section 41 as it relates to Corporal Beaulieu; I was confident that he would not discredit the organization pursuant to section 41, so I was not worried about that at all. I did not follow up in that record or assure there was follow-up with respect to that.
Also, as I said yesterday, I also had another member who was heavily involved with the MPPAC as well. So, for my own awareness, I needed to know whether or not there was anything that I was not aware of that would have restricted that, and as it turned out there is not.
Senator Fraser: At 10:04 a.m. on the 29th, you sent an email to Staff Sergeant Reid saying — you were asking about medical certificates — and you go on to say — this is No. 2 on the list:
We will also require additional information regarding his testimony before the Committee, for example does he have a subpoena?
Why would you think it appropriate to ask what someone was going to be saying to a Senate committee, and in particular whether they had been subpoenaed or not? That would suggest you were not prepared to let him travel if he did not have a subpoena.
Mr. deBruyckere: It was just that one-liner, so we requested additional information with respect to whether or not he was compelled or —
I just did not know at that time what it was that would cause him to appear — what type of process. Those are questions I had in my mind.
Senator Fraser: You thought you had the right to require of a member of the force what he was going to say to a committee of the Senate of Canada?
Mr. deBruyckere: I do not really recall having that awareness in terms of inquiring what he had to say — just more information around the requirement to come. At no time did I formulate a concern about what he was going to say.
Senator Fraser: If I received this email, I would think that, but thank you for that clarification.
Later on, number 20: The email from — I forget his title — Mr. O'Rielly to Superintendent Darbyshire:
. . . he should be reminded he is also a member of the Force and with that comes certain obligations.
"He should be reminded." Again, I am trying to understand where the RCMP is coming from, but I want you to try to understand where a senator is coming from when we see indications — or at least when I see indications — that people are even potentially, or even by implication, attempting to direct or limit testimony before a committee of the Senate. This creates alarm bells to us.
"He should be reminded he is also a member of the Force." What would be intended by that? I know the email is not from you, but it is part of the "Timeline," and I assume you have been part of the preparation of this whole thing.
Mr. deBruyckere: Actually, this email went from Superintendent O'Rielly to Superintendent Darbyshire. I do not remember seeing this particular email. I do not recall speaking to Staff Sergeant Reid or Corporal Beaulieu with respect to reminding him of anything with respect to his appearance before —
Senator Fraser: Did you, Staff Sergeant Reid?
Mr. Reid: No.
Senator Fraser: No?
Mr. Reid: No.
Senator Fraser: Good. Thank you.
Senator McCoy asked whether you had phone conversations with Corporal Beaulieu. What about conversations among the rest of you? Did you have telephone conversations or in-person conversations about this case other than things that appear here?
Mr. deBruyckere: I do not remember.
Mr. Reid: I do not —
Senator Fraser: I understand you have made a note of all of your conversations. Now I am asking about the rest of you.
Mr. deBruyckere: I do not recall any conversations with Staff Sergeant Reid.
Senator Fraser: Or anyone else? How about Dr. Fieschi?
Mr. deBruyckere: No.
Dr. Isabelle Fieschi, Chief, Health Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: No.
Senator Fraser: How about Messrs. O'Rielly and Darbyshire, and Ms. Karr?
No?
Mr. deBruyckere: There were conversations with respect to retrieving the emails that were part of this —
Senator Fraser: No, I meant during.
Mr. deBruyckere: Yes, but those were the only discussions I had.
Senator Fraser: Why would you be copying Ms. Burleigh? Why would anyone be copying Ms. Burleigh on these messages?
Dr. Fieschi: I would like to answer, if I may. Since this point came up in Corporal Beaulieu's testimony yesterday —
Senator Fraser: Yes, that is why I am asking.
Dr. Fieschi: — he mentioned that he felt intimidated by the fact that I cc'd then-Inspector, now-Superintendent Burleigh.
The reason I cc'd her was that she was at that time my direct superior. She was in charge of health services on top of being in charge of the return to work/medical discharge side of the house. After the first email that I sent Corporal Beaulieu, when it seemed that things were perhaps getting contentious, as I would with any other matter that seemed to be getting contentious, I cc'd my supervisor. It was not an attempt in any way to intimidate. Her role in this was that she was the head of health services at the time.
Senator Fraser: Is she, as he said, the person who initiates correspondence basically saying, "You are going to be relieved of duties and sent off the force"?
Dr. Fieschi: Her title at that point that she was the officer in charge of what is now called — we just changed the name, so forgive me.
Senator Fraser: Just a description.
Dr. Fieschi: Essentially in charge of both health services and the return to work/medical discharge. That part of her portfolio would include, yes, sending letters with respect to return to work and medical discharge.
Mr. deBruyckere: Maybe I can clarify the letter that has been referenced here. I have not seen it. However, it is part of the process where a letter is sent from health, or it is called the integrated resource management team or program, to an employee, a member who has been off duty sick for a period of time, inviting the member to contact a return-to- work facilitator or a medical retirement facilitator, same terms. You have heard the name Rick Cousins. It is inviting the member to meet with Mr. Cousins to discuss return to work, looking at limitations and restrictions and finding a position that would meet those limitations and restrictions. That is the first step in that process to get them back to work or, alternatively, work with them towards a medical discharge.
Senator Fraser: As this process was going on, Dr. Fieschi, were you having in mind that the force might get to the point of a medical discharge?
Dr. Fieschi: Give the length of time that Corporal Beaulieu has been off work, I would say that it is a possibility. The statistics for someone successfully returning to work in any capacity after two years of absence are actually very low. I cannot tell you that it never crossed my mind, but that was certainly not the purpose for which I cc'd Inspector Burleigh on my correspondence with him.
Senator Fraser: I think this will be my last question on this round, chair.
Dr. Fieschi, you explained to us yesterday that at this point when you wrote your letter to Corporal Beaulieu, you believed that you were dealing only with the foot basically and that that was a finite process.
Dr. Fieschi: That is correct.
Senator Fraser: As I understand it, the only medical certificate you had on file at that time, and that was the one from was it October — anyway, the one that had come in a few months earlier, which said that he was not fit for work and that the condition was ongoing. Then another such report came in I think on May 5, which said again that the condition was ongoing. That form includes the possibility of noting a date when the condition is expected to have resolved itself, which for a bone spur you would think it would be possible to indicate, at least roughly. When you saw that repeated notification of "ongoing," did that trigger any questions or concerns in your mind?
Dr. Fieschi: No, not particularly, and I will explain why. We see this notation all the time, "ongoing" or "indeterminate," and there is basically no date given. The medical certificates are deemed good for 30 day days, so the only validity of it is 30 days from the time it was written.
I would also like to note that the last medical certificate was dated May 1 and therefore came after all of this.
Senator Fraser: I appreciate that. That is why I tried to phrase the question in such a way.
Dr. Fieschi: Fair enough.
I was also in possession of two other pieces of information that were medical and that were actually a little bit more specific than a medical certificate, which because it goes to the supervisor does not actually contain any medical information. If I can briefly refer back to them so that we are clear on why —
Senator Fraser: I think you did make that quite clear yesterday. We have the transcripts, and the chair is going to cut me off.
Dr. Fieschi: Okay. Well, I would not want that.
Senator Furey: Staff Sergeant, before the request to come to Ottawa by Corporal Beaulieu, there were a couple of requests for other travel that were granted. Did you involve Dr. Fieschi in any of those requests?
Mr. Reid: No. However, when Corporal Beaulieu first went on long-term medical leave, on his first request — and I cannot recall what the travel was for, if it was short-term, Victoria, but it was not the Ottawa trip — initially I contacted Dr. Roland Bowman who was in Dr. Fieschi's position at the time. I asked if this travel was appropriate, and he indicated at that time that it was and he could not discuss what it was. The subsequent conversation with Corporal Beaulieu was to do with some psychological ongoing harassment issues, this type of thing, nothing to do with a defined physical condition. So in that case, I did. Post every other request I got from Corporal Beaulieu, whenever we would talk, it was reinforced that it was these ongoing issues that were keeping him from work. In this case, it became different, and the conversation —
Senator Furey: Perhaps you can explain for us how it became different.
Mr. Reid: On the 29th, when I had that conversation with Corporal Beaulieu on the phone, it was about the left foot and exclusively about the left foot. There was no reference to any of the ongoing issues. As I have stated, this was good news for me, and I was hoping he was making progress and I could see a window of getting him back to work.
From the conversation on the 29th, there was more correspondence on the 30th. On the May 1 correspondence by email, there was a request for a medical certificate. Again, in none of these times did Corporal Beaulieu bring up any of the psychological issues. On May 3, the final communication I had with him again was regarding the fact that I would not support his leaving his duty district area, and I forwarded him a copy of that policy. Again, there was no discussion about the psychological issues. It was still about the left foot.
That was the end of the contact I had with Corporal Beaulieu. He had Saturday and Sunday. Now he had the copy of the policy. He had two days to clearly contact me or explain that there is more to this. I suggested he contact Dr. Fieschi again and we could work something out, and there was nothing.
On May 6, I saw the CBC interview, and I was quite shocked because this had nothing to do with the reason that I did not give him the permission to travel, and here we are.
Senator Furey: Did you discuss the involvement of Dr. Fieschi in this decision with anyone in the chain of command?
Mr. Reid: I would have to check the time line. If I did, it would be in the timeline. I am sure that —
Senator Furey: I am not trying to — I do not have it here in front of me. I am just wondering if you did. Can you recall?
Mr. Reid: I would like to refer to the emails.
Senator Furey: Sure. Absolutely. It would probably be a normal thing to do, would it not? You have taken this outside the realm of —
Mr. Reid: As unit commander, I believe it is my responsibility to make that decision. It is going to fall on my lap. I followed policy and declined to grant permission to leave the duty area.
Mr. deBruyckere: If I may jump in, in my email of the 29th, at 10:04, I make it clear to Staff Sergeant Reid at that time that, as per policy, it is his decision. I think that was where it was left, and I think Dr. Fieschi has some clarification around Dr. Bowman.
Senator Furey: I am not sitting here now about to pounce on you with a piece of information or anything. I am asking strictly to try to get an idea of what it is we are about here, which is whether or not there was interference with Corporal Beaulieu coming to a Senate committee.
Did you discuss with anyone in the chain of command anything about preventing Corporal Beaulieu from coming to the Senate committee?
Mr. Reid: Absolutely not.
Senator Furey: I go to Dr. Fieschi now for a minute. Corporal Beaulieu indicated, in response to Senator Fraser's questions yesterday, that there was an in-depth medical report from Veterans Affairs, I believe he said. Did you have access to that? Would that have been on his file?
Dr. Fieschi: No, those reports are never on a member's file. We simply receive an indication as to whether they are granted a pension or not. We actually pay for the assessments, but there is a very strange, in my opinion, memorandum of understanding between the RCMP and Veterans Affairs that we actually do not see the report.
Senator Furey: Firewalls. You did not have that one, and the only thing you were going on, on the file, would have been the report from Dr. Webster?
Dr. Fieschi: The report from Dr. Webster dated May 2012, yes.
Senator Furey: That was the one that addressed his psychological assessment at the time, was it?
Dr. Fieschi: It was his report not on the Veterans Affairs assessment but just on his ongoing assessment, yes.
Senator Furey: Explain for me again why you would have discarded that medical opinion and just gone on the letter that you wrote to Staff Sergeant Reid without — I know this is a little repetitive — talking to or meeting with the patient. I know he did not want to meet with you; that is immaterial.
Dr. Fieschi: The report by Dr. Webster, as I said, was quite dated. An adjustment disorder is something from which, most often, people do recover. The most recent information in the file from the family physician, as well as emails from Corporal Beaulieu, were quite definite that what was limiting his return to work, at this point in time, were physical issues.
You may think that I should have pursued this further. Clearly, you are of that opinion. I chose to take these reports at face value and to interpret them as being complete and truthful. The only other alternative would be to think that, either by design or by omission, Corporal Beaulieu did not want to give me that information, that he instructed his physician not to give me that information and that he also did not want to receive treatment or at least document treatment for this condition, which was severe enough to prevent him from attending work in any capacity. I do not think that that assumption is any better than the one that I made.
Senator Furey: I do not want to try to put myself in your place. You do your job as best you can within the circumstances that you find yourself, and I appreciate that. I appreciate your honesty about it.
Let me ask you this, then, Dr. Fieschi. Was there any discussion with anyone in the force regarding the request to appear before a Senate committee? Were you aware of the reasons for Corporal Beaulieu's request for travel, or were you just aware that he wanted to travel?
Dr. Fieschi: I was aware, from his email to Staff Sergeant Reid, that he wanted to travel because he was invited to discuss Bill C-42. Unfortunately, not living here, we are not quite as immersed in political affairs, so it really did not mean a whole lot to me.
Senator Furey: Were you aware of the essence of Bill C-42? Did you know what it generally was about?
Dr. Fieschi: I believe the terms bandied about are that it is about bullying and harassment in the RCMP.
Senator Furey: Did you have discussions with anyone in the chain of command regarding Corporal Beaulieu giving evidence on that issue?
Dr. Fieschi: No.
Senator Braley: Yesterday, we listened to Corporal Beaulieu and he said that he was required to produce a medical certificate every 30 days. He made that statement in his remarks. He said, "I have been doing that," but it turns out that that was not the case. Is that correct? You were not receiving a certificate every 30 days?
Dr. Fieschi: That is correct.
Senator Braley: He said, in the next group of statements he made, that he had not been keeping up with that because they fired his therapist. Did you fire the therapist? Was he an outside subcontractor?
Dr. Fieschi: Dr. Webster, the therapist in question, was not an employee of the RCMP. There was no contract. He was just like any doctor. He is self-employed, so he was not actually fired. The RCMP chose not to continue funding his services for members.
Senator Braley: Were there other therapists available? Usually a company has a list of therapists, but I assume —
Dr. Fieschi: We keep a list of people who know police issues and are familiar with members and their issues, but members are free to see pretty much any registered psychologist within their duty area. In the Lower Mainland area, where we live, there are dozens or hundreds of such people.
Senator Braley: Are they available to him?
Dr. Fieschi: Yes, they are.
Senator Braley: Who was he seeing?
Dr. Fieschi: After Dr. Webster?
Senator Braley: Oh, it was Dr. Webster.
Dr. Fieschi: It was Dr. Webster.
Senator Braley: Did he see anyone after that?
Dr. Fieschi: Not to my knowledge.
Senator Braley: He made a statement yesterday that he was serving security duty or something and was not paid overtime. Is there a standard overtime policy with regard to how you pay your employees? The question of being paid or not being paid overtime came up.
Mr. Reid: I do not recall the context of that, but if a member works additional hours, then they are able to be compensated in either time off or in pay.
Senator Braley: He made the statement that he worked for national security and worked overtime, and they refused to pay him overtime.
Mr. Reid: Unfortunately, he was not —
Senator Braley: You are not aware of anything of that nature at this point?
Mr. Reid: No.
Senator Braley: Then he says that he applied for a job opportunity, and they changed the regulations right away. Do you know anything about that one?
Mr. Reid: That is prior to my time. I have no knowledge of that.
Senator Braley: Thank you.
You said that the doctor he sees was a GP, and then it says GP and surgeon. Did the doctor who was the GP do the surgery? Who did what? That is confusing.
Dr. Fieschi: As far as I know, Dr. Sedergreen has been acting as Corporal Beaulieu's GP, and the surgery was done by a surgeon. Occasionally, our titles include "Doctor of Medicine and Master of Surgery."
Senator Braley: All you know, at this point, is that he is the GP.
Dr. Fieschi: Yes.
Senator Braley: You do not know who did the surgery.
Dr. Fieschi: I know who did the surgery.
Senator Braley: It is not Dr. —
Dr. Fieschi: It is not Dr. Sedergreen, no.
Senator Braley: Thank you.
Travel policy is confirmed. Since 2009, it has been the same?
Mr. Moreau: Yes.
Senator Braley: The question of privilege was raised by Senator Cowan based upon an inaccurate, then, CBC news story.
Mr. Moreau: Yes.
Senator Braley: The reference was in there that the policy had been changed as of May or whatever the date was. I try to put all these things in order, and it is not the easiest thing to do. However, it appears to be the case that what Senator Cowan said in the Senate was based upon an inaccurate story in the CBC. You clarified that quickly after?
Mr. Moreau: Yes, I did.
Senator Braley: Medical Services Plan of B.C. seems to be a big problem for the corporal. Most companies integrate with the provincial plan, so whatever the province pays for is paid for by the province, and then the other things are covered by what you call group insurance or major medical or some combination of something over top of that. He indicates that he cannot deal with the provincial plan, or at least he has difficulty dealing with the provincial plan. Are you aware of that? That is a statement that was made yesterday.
Mr. Moreau: Basically, the Canada Health Act was amended in 2012 by this Parliament. As a result, every member of the RCMP had to apply for basic health care cards across Canada as of April 1, 2013. Corporal Beaulieu was in the same situation. That may explain the fact. It is new for all members of the RCMP to deal with provincial health care cards because before it was covered by the RCMP.
Senator Braley: That also covers a reference for stress or other types of illness; the doctors can reference it there in the medical plan.
Mr. Moreau: If it is basic health care, day-to-day stuff, it is covered by basic, by the province. If it is work related, so if it is deemed to be an occupational health illness or injury, then it is covered by the RCMP.
Dr. Fieschi: Could I add to that?
Senator Braley: I am getting a little confused.
Dr. Fieschi: The B.C. medical services plan, the basic health care coverage in B.C., does not cover psychological services, so any psychological services from a registered psychologist would have to come from either supplemental or occupational benefits paid directly by the RCMP.
Senator Braley: The point I am getting to is he has a GP. If the GP felt that it was necessary to seek psychological services, would he have been taken off of that list and been paid for by the RCMP?
Dr. Fieschi: Could you repeat the last part of your question?
Senator Braley: He has the B.C. medical plan, which is a GP.
Dr. Fieschi: Yes.
Senator Braley: The GP makes a recommendation now that he needs psychological services, say a year ago or two years ago, or when he stopped the previous one. If that GP felt he continued to need psychological services, would that be covered by the —
Dr. Fieschi: It would be covered by the RCMP, yes.
Senator Braley: I wanted to be clear that I was understanding the various pieces of the puzzle.
Is the president of the association an RCMP member also?
Mr. deBruyckere: Yes, he is.
Senator Braley: He attended —
Mr. deBruyckere: On May 6, I believe.
Senator Braley: I do not know what the dates are, but on Bill C-42 — I think Corporal Beaulieu wanted him to be present with him, and he attended. Did he get permission to go?
Mr. deBruyckere: He was granted annual leave, so he is working and he applied for and was granted annual leave to attend, by his supervisor.
Senator Braley: The organization, the association, whatever you want to call it, was represented?
Mr. deBruyckere: Yes.
Senator Enverga: I have a few quick questions. I read on the note that it was stated that RCMP management was made aware that, while on sick leave, Corporal Beaulieu was attending meetings with human resources and unit managers. Is that right? You knew about the instances?
Mr. deBruyckere: I am aware of a couple of instances where he did attend with other members to meet with managers, representing these other members that were having difficulties. I am aware but not aware of the details.
Senator Enverga: Was that in the confines of the RCMP, or were they talking to RCMP employees, too, at the same time?
Mr. deBruyckere: When a member is having difficulty with a manager, they are entitled to be assisted by another member, so he assumed that role to assist, presumably, these others members.
Senator Enverga: He has been assisting other people, too.
Mr. deBruyckere: Yes.
Senator Enverga: My reason for asking is if he can go to an RCMP location and talk to RCMP people, is that grounds why you thought he should be able to work, doctor?
Dr. Fieschi: That is certainly something that I asked his physician in my initial request for information, saying that I was aware that this was happening and so I wanted to know what the ongoing barriers to a return to work were, yes.
Mr. deBruyckere: In fact, in September, I had a discussion with Corporal Beaulieu in the capacity of my previous job. He disclosed to me at that time he had these issues with grievances. In fact, I invited him and told him I had an office across from my office where I would allow him to do nothing but work on his grievances until they were done. I made that offer to him. The following week, he called in sick with a cold. The challenge organizationally we have with making these offers to members that been off duty sick for a period of time is trying to get them back into the workplace, just to start getting them back and start reintegrating them into the workplace. I did have that discussion with Corporal Beaulieu some time ago in the fall, September, I believe.
Senator Enverga: You offered him a certain particular job to work with other members?
Mr. deBruyckere: I offered him a space to work on seeking resolution or advancing his own issues of harassment, grievances, whatever they were, so he would have access to computer systems and policies to assist him with overcoming that hurdle, and then we could work together to find him suitable work within the RCMP within B.C.
Senator Enverga: That is good, because I was just thinking 27 months off is quite long. I was thinking — yes?
Dr. Fieschi: If I could just add to this, and this is true for all of our members, I have been involved in hundreds of return-to-work plans. Because we are such a big organization, we have the ability to offer very flexible return-to-work accommodations, starting from a couple of hours, a couple of times a week in purely administrative duties, no contact with the public, no exposure to any material that would be deemed traumatic, all the way from there to full hours and full duties. It is a very gradual process. Especially for our members with psychological issues, it is very valuable to be reintroduced to the workplace like that, so we do have that flexibility, and managers are quite accommodating in that regard.
Senator Enverga: That is great.
From your point of view, anyone's point of view, was there anything that you think Corporal Beaulieu, when he comes to the Senate to discuss with us — have you ever thought of something he might say that might be contrary to your opinions or the opinion of the RCMP? Was there anything at all that you can think of, or anyone in the organization?
Mr. Moreau: We do not know what members will say when they come and testify. That is quite evident from some of the testimony that different committees have heard. We do not know. Such is life. We let it go on. We do not have to control that. We do not want to control that.
Senator Enverga: There is really no reason for you to say no.
Mr. Moreau: Absolutely not.
Mr. Reid: As the decision maker on this incident, as I previously stated, the MPPAC, if it has a value, I do not know. Bill C-42 — again, I am not familiar with the contents of it and it does not matter. All we want to do is get Corporal Beaulieu back to work.
Senator Enverga: Has there been any instance like this before where you do not want an employee who is sick to travel because otherwise he is good enough to work? Are there any instances like this before, or is this a special case for you?
Dr. Fieschi: I think I mentioned yesterday there have been instances where I have raised concerns about a person's ability to travel for whatever purpose they were travelling, because it did not seem congruent with the medical information I had. Every single time when I raised those issues, the member provided me with enough medical documentation that I actually felt it was appropriate and indicated that to their supervisor.
Mr. deBruyckere: You asked if we had an idea what he would speak to. Certainly the MPPAC is about collective bargaining rights and unionization of the RCMP. Certainly I had an awareness that that was what he was going to speak to, but from my personal perspective, I am somewhat ambivalent with respect to whether or not there is a collective agreement, unionization or the current system, which is what is legislated now, which is the SRR program. So for a position either way, I really do not have one as a manager in the organization.
Senator Enverga: Thank you.
Senator Martin: I am happy to have this additional time to listen to my colleague's question. The more I listen, the more I feel I am seeing a better picture of what potentially may have happened.
I have some questions, as well. Reading the emails again — and it is through our lens; I am only speaking for myself — it is clear when I look at number 7 of your email package, Staff Sergeant Reid, that you clearly stated and you explained to Corporal Beaulieu that you were unfamiliar with that type of request and therefore you would be checking. What you did from there on is what you have stated, and then that seems clear.
First of all, in trying to determine how we got from there to what you write in number 30, where you say it appears that the information provided in the interview is very different from what you understood and the communication you had been having.
Here it is, post-interview with the CBC, and some of the concerns raised by Corporal Beaulieu as to what happened in preventing him from coming to the Senate. My questions are to help me sort out more information.
Staff Sergeant Reid, are you like a case manager? Would you be the person that Corporal Beaulieu would be contacting — interfacing with — on a variety of matters and ultimately help him get back to work? I am trying to understand your role and relationship, because even earlier today, just before we began, you said, "Did you want some coffee?" Your exchange seemed friendly, and when I read your emails, I can see your intention in trying to communicate with Corporal Beaulieu, so would you again help me understand your very specific role in working with Corporal Beaulieu?
Mr. Reid: I am his unit commander. I keep in somewhat regular contact with him, and I always try to encourage him to come back to work — ensure he is getting the treatment he requires, to ensure he is seeking his treatment or getting the help he needs.
Ultimately, my aim is to get him back to work. I rely heavily on the health service officer and other support to do that. As long as Corporal Beaulieu is off duty — he is attached to my unit and therefore is my responsibility, to a certain extent.
Senator Martin: In all these emails, there is no mention of his psychological challenges or state. You were primarily focusing on whether he was able to travel because of the injury — the operations, et cetera?
Mr. Reid: Yes, to the foot.
Senator Martin: To the foot, right.
Yesterday when I asked Corporal Beaulieu about his ability to go back into an administrative capacity, he said it was not so much his injury but because of the sense of intimidation and some of the mental challenges he would have faced going back to work. In your exchanges with Corporal Beaulieu, you did not speak about those specific challenges. Was it primarily focused on his physical injury and trying to get him back, reintegrated into work?
Mr. Reid: That is correct. A lot of that material yesterday was the first time I have heard it.
Senator Martin: Right away there is a clear communication gap. Whatever efforts you were making, whatever positions you may have been trying to create for him to help him re-enter that psychological piece, would have been — if you were not in communication and fully aware of that, then there would have been a lot of gaps in communication as a result.
Dr. Fieschi, would you tell me how large your territory is?
Dr. Fieschi: I cover all of our members on Vancouver Island, in our north district, and because of some shortages in our staff, some of the units in the Lower Mainland — so approximately 2,400 members.
Senator Martin: There is also an email exchange between you and Corporal Beaulieu where you say, "I missed your call. Call me again." Was that correct? I thought I read that somewhere. Corporal Beaulieu yesterday was saying that he had tried to contact you, but would you explain what happened in preventing that exchange? I think that could have also led to potential misunderstanding, but I am trying to understand your load and what happened in your communication.
Dr. Fieschi: I am not exactly sure of the date that Corporal Beaulieu left a message. I know that I did not actually receive the message until the Monday, which I think was April 30. Is that correct? Or the 29th. April 29 is the Monday. Okay.
Senator Martin: Actually, I think when I said, "Call me again," it was from Staff Sergeant Reid to Corporal Beaulieu, so it was not to you. However, I am trying to understand why it would have been difficult, or why you were not able to —
Dr. Fieschi: I did not return his call the same day. The following day, he emailed me around the middle of the day. Then a few hours later — four or five hours later — I emailed him back.
It is not always possible for me to return phone calls right away. As I said, I deal with a lot of members. On top of case management, because of my role and my longevity, I am also asked to consult on a number of things, and things do come up. We get phone calls: "I have Joe in my office. I think he is going off the deep end. Should I take his gun? What should I do?" Those things have to be dealt with, obviously, on an urgent basis.
Not to say Corporal Beaulieu's request was not important —
Senator Martin: It is one of many.
Dr. Fieschi: — I am just stating that I think getting back to him a day later was not particularly egregious.
Senator Martin: I wanted to understand the load that you are carrying, because I know even with phone calls, if I am trying to contact someone and we have been missing one another and I give him times, he forgets to call. Things do happen. I am trying to understand what happened in your communication with Corporal Beaulieu.
Thank you very much.
Senator Batters: I am quite a new senator, and prior to that time frame I practised law in Saskatchewan. Discussions with Dr. Fieschi about these different issues call to my mind cases in dealing with insurance claims.
Dr. Fieschi, it reminds me of your need to rely on the accuracy of the medical reports that you are being provided with and that you are supposed to be provided with on an ongoing basis. You have to rely on the accuracy of those medical reports, because you need those to make an accurate finding as to when someone is able to return to work, whether they are able to travel or those types of things; is that correct?
Dr. Fieschi: Yes, that is correct. In essence, we are the disability insurer for our members. There are no outside insurers, so that is what we do; exactly.
Senator Batters: If a particular doctor is listing the different conditions that someone is suffering with, you would expect those conditions to include all of the conditions currently preventing them from returning to work, correct?
Dr. Fieschi: Yes, absolutely; it is expected that it would be complete.
Senator Batters: You were telling my colleague Senator Martin that your territory encompasses about 2,400 members. At this point, what is your estimate of your current caseload? How many of those members are you currently dealing with, in one version or another?
Dr. Fieschi: That is a difficult question to answer. Right now, our statistics are that 245 members are completely off duty within the division, sick more than 30 days. We have 163 members listed as doing a graduated return to work. I would have approximately one third of that.
That being said, my caseload is not just those people who are already sick, or on GRTW, but those people who might be experiencing other difficulties and who need to be looked at before they reach that point.
As well, I consult on other matters. To give you an example, people come to me with all kinds of things. If they are trying to hire a new food handler and they find out that person might have TB or is HIV positive, it does not fall within my portfolio, but I get asked these questions too. It could be a number of things.
Senator Batters: You used the acronym GRTW.
Dr. Fieschi: Graduated return to work.
Senator Wallace: We have heard each of you respond to the individual exchanges, emails, conversations, your opinions and so on, on each of the individual pieces that developed over the last couple of months. I want to go back to where all of this starts and make sure I am clear on what you are saying, what your conclusion is to the matter that brings us here today.
The question of privilege is summarized in Senator Cowan's letter to the Clerk of the Senate, Gary O'Brien, back on May 7, 2013, where Senator Cowan said he intended:
. . . to raise a Question of Privilege today concerning the pressure being exerted on individuals not to testify before the Senate Standing Committee on National Defence and Security on its study of Bill C-42, as reported in the media yesterday evening.
That is the allegation: pressure being exerted on individuals, in particular Corporal Beaulieu. I would like to have each of you respond personally as to whether or not you exerted pressure on Corporal Beaulieu not to testify before the Senate hearing or whether you are aware of anyone else in the RCMP who exerted pressure on him not to testify before the committee.
Mr. Moreau: I have not and I am not aware of anybody in the RCMP doing that.
Mr. Reid: I definitely have not, and I have no knowledge of anybody doing such.
Mr. deBruyckere: Same response. I have not and I am not aware of anyone either.
Dr. Fieschi: No, I have not and I am not aware of anybody else doing that.
Senator Wallace: Good, thank you. I think it is important to get that on the record.
The Chair: I have one question for the doctor. Maybe this information is somewhere in here, but if you are asked to characterize what percentage of those who you deal with have purely physical problems and then the ones who were — how do I describe this — stress related or mental or psychological, what percentage are those two camps? Would there be a percentage where it would be both? Would you have any idea?
Dr. Fieschi: This is rough, obviously, but I would say that approximately 50 to 60 per cent of the people I deal with have purely physical injuries. Another 20 have purely psychological injuries, and the remainder would have a combination of both. However, I would have to go through every file and figure that out, obviously.
The Chair: Thank you. It gives me a feel for it.
Senator Furey: Dr. Fieschi, you indicated in your letter that Corporal Beaulieu, if he felt that he was physically and cognitively able to participate in hearings and to travel to Ottawa, you would consider him basically fit for administrative work, correct?
Dr. Fieschi: That is correct.
Senator Furey: All of you answered clearly to my colleagues' questions, and I accept your answers, but here is what I find puzzling, and I do not know who can help me unravel this: The doctor has not said that Corporal Beaulieu is not fit to travel; quite the opposite. If you were not interested in stopping him from coming to Ottawa, why did you refuse his travel? Not you, doctor, but anyone. The doctor has not said he is not fit to travel. She said if he is fit to travel, he is fit to come to work. This is what I find puzzling. Why would you then say, "You cannot go to Ottawa"?
Mr. Reid: The other side of the question, I guess, is this: "If you are able to go to Ottawa, why can you not come back to work?"
Senator Furey: Either way, you would not stop someone on active duty or on ODS from coming to the committee, correct? That is what each of you just basically said in response to Senator Wallace, so let us say he went back to work. The doctor is saying he is capable of doing one or the other, so why would you stop him from coming to Ottawa?
Mr. Reid: My intention was to have Corporal Beaulieu come back to work. In one of my emails I stated to him, "Call Dr. Fieschi." You can work something out, we will work something out, meaning I was hoping that he would contact — we would get a graduated return to work process going.
Senator Furey: Do you understand why I am puzzled, staff sergeant? You have a member who was asking to come to a Senate committee. A doctor looks into it and does not say he is unfit for travel; she says the opposite. Whether he comes to work or not, you are still dealing with this request to come to Ottawa to appear before a Senate committee, so why would you refuse that? That is what I find puzzling.
Mr. Reid: As I stated, the reason for the travel was not paramount in my mind at all. The destination was not significant. If he is unable to come to work, then how can I allow him to travel? Why could he not come to work?
Senator Furey: You permitted travel in the past, occasionally with reference to the doctor. Now the doctor is involved, and she clearly does not say at any time that he is unfit to travel. You were aware that he had been requested to come to Ottawa to appear before a Senate committee. I believe you when you say that it was not in your mind what that was about, that is not really important. The fact is that he was asked to come before a Senate committee, and I am puzzled. A member, whether he is ODS or active, who is asked to come to Ottawa and there is no medical reason to prevent him from coming it Ottawa, why would you say no? That is what I find puzzling.
Mr. Reid: In hindsight, I should have investigated the purpose of his trip more thoroughly. I did not know in what capacity he was coming here. I still am not clear on that. Was he giving evidence or was he supporting the president? Was he here as an observer? I should have drilled down on that.
Senator Furey: I accept that that was not in your thought process. I do not have any problem with that. I still find it a bit puzzling, that is all. Thank you.
The Chair: As a supplementary before we go to Senator Fraser, can you understand from our perspective or any committee of the House of Commons or the Senate, if they feel someone has information that might be helpful to the issue they are dealing with, and they are asked to come and possibly even subpoenaed, why does any of that stuff even matter? If they have information that a committee should hear, I do not think any of that stuff matters. Where there is a will, there is a way.
Mr. Reid: Again, in hindsight, why could we not have figured an alternative, if he could not travel? Why could we not figure out another media to get him here, like teleconference or what have you?
The Chair: We could be like a court if we wanted and subpoena people. We rarely do that, but it could come to that if we felt we needed to.
Senator McCoy: I have a supplementary on the same issue. Your stated purpose is to get people back to work. If you had said yes, the corporal had travelled here, could you not then have reached your stated goal, i.e. getting him back to work faster?
Mr. Reid: My last communication with Corporal Beaulieu was call Dr. Fieschi and we can work something out. That was it. I was really hoping that he would, and he would be here and I would be granting him permission to travel.
Senator McCoy: I will save my comments for our discussion.
Senator Batters: Staff Sergeant Reid, your focus here is trying to get Corporal Beaulieu back to work. Your focus is not running a Senate committee.
Mr. Reid: Yes.
Senator Batters: Your focus is getting him back to work, correct? That was what you were concerned about in this respect, correct?
Mr. Reid: That is correct.
Mr. deBruyckere: With respect to communication, all we had was the one line. It was not clear in my mind — I am not speaking for Staff Sergeant Reid, but it was not clear in terms of the context around what was bringing him here. Was there a letter — you are right, it is irrelevant, but in terms of the discussion that was just had, there was no letter. It was a one-line email, so that would have prompted all those other emails.
The Chair: Okay, the last questioner — Senator Fraser and then Senator Enverga.
Senator Fraser: That is why we are here, chair.
I have a couple of questions for Staff Sergeant Reid and one for Dr. Fieschi.
Staff Sergeant Reid, item number 6 in our list of documents is one of two very helpful extracts from your typed notes. As I am reading them, I realize that there are a couple that I do not understand.
This is the first question. Do you have number 6 in front of you?
Mr. Reid: Yes.
Senator Fraser: Great. Can you please tell me what the 1415 item refers to when it says:
K.D., I.D. Burleigh Paul D - up to HSO to deny travel - Will reply to R.B. I-keep 30 day med report. Up to date encourage to GRTW @GT?
I guess that is "gradual return to work" @ something or other.
Mr. Reid: Yes, that was a conversation I had with Chief Superintendent Kevin deBruyckere, Inspector D.M. Burleigh and Superintendent Paul Darbyshire.
Senator Fraser: The "I" is "Inspector" or is that you? That refers to you?
Mr. Reid: Yes. I made a note that it was up to the HSO to deny, which is not exactly true; it was my decision. I will reply to Rolly Beaulieu. I will keep the 30-day medical reports up to date and encourage graduated return to work at Green Timbers. That refers to the "E" Division headquarters where there is a lot of potential to have Rolly return to work — Corporal Beaulieu return to work.
Senator Fraser: Thank you. That was the first half of my first question.
The second half, if you go down another couple of entries to 2013, May 3, Friday, what does "RTO" mean?
Mr. Reid: That is regular time off for me.
Senator Fraser: Regular time off for you. Okay.
You had a conversation with Corporal Beaulieu at 11:20, or you wrote your notes at 11:20, anyway, on Monday the 29th.
Mr. Reid: Yes.
Senator Fraser: Is that the conversation where you say he became emotional or was that a subsequent conversation? Somewhere in the timeline provided to us by the RCMP there is a reference to his having become very emotional. I guess it would not be that day; it would be a later day.
Mr. Reid: No. The 11:20 conversation was the initial one and that is where we discussed the bone spur issue.
Senator Fraser: There was another conversation where you say he became very emotional.
Mr. Reid: 14:50, right after that.
Senator Fraser: There we are. Was it possible in your mind that he was becoming emotional because he felt he was being forced to return to the workplace that he believed had made him sick in the first place?
Mr. Reid: In my opinion, no, because although he is always invited to come back to our office, if he does not want to come back to my unit we would find him work elsewhere.
I do not know if I answered your question properly.
Senator Fraser: Well, I was asking for what you thought, so I think you just told me what you thought.
Mr. Reid: Okay.
Senator Fraser: Dr. Fieschi, this is about Dr. Webster.
Dr. Fieschi: Yes.
Senator Fraser: I understand that Dr. Webster has been, over the years, critical of the RCMP; for example, its conduct in the Dziekanski affair. In August of last year he was informed by letter that the RCMP would no longer be paying for his services. The letter said, according to the news report that I have, but it is a direct quote:
. . . your lack of objectivity in both your clinical work and public commentary towards the RCMP have weakened your effectiveness in treating your RCMP client base.
I am not making a judgment here about the quality of his work. Clearly there are quite a number of people who believe he has done wonderful work for and with them, but if that was the official RCMP position about the value of his work, did that affect your assessment of his diagnosis of Corporal Beaulieu?
Dr. Fieschi: That is a good question. I am hopeful that whatever flaws he may have, he knows how to diagnose people. He is a registered psychologist and is a member in good standing with his college, I believe, so I think I would still hold his — most likely his diagnosis to probably be correct. Some of the issues that, among the clinical staff, we had with Dr. Webster were more about his treatment plans. That was our issue with that.
Senator Fraser: A little different from what the letter says, but that is your —
Dr. Fieschi: I did not write that letter.
Senator Fraser: No, I understand that. This is the official correspondence from the RCMP, the institution, not from you personally. I understand that.
Dr. Fieschi: I do not think the letter refers specifically to his ability to arrive at a correct diagnosis.
Senator Fraser: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Enverga: There are a lot of times when we have committee meetings that one or a couple of our witnesses are unable to come to Ottawa to meet face to face with us. Had it been suggested that Corporal Beaulieu be a witness by video conference, would you have stopped him from being a witness?
Mr. Reid: Absolutely not. No, I would do my best to facilitate that.
Mr. deBruyckere: We have multiple facilities, a number of locations to have facilitated that.
Senator Enverga: So you would not have stopped him?
Mr. deBruyckere: No.
Senator Enverga: It is more just the travelling?
Mr. Reid: Yes.
The Chair: Honourable senators, that completes our questions of the RCMP panel.
We are still in public. If you want to hang around, you are welcome to.
As you know, we had an earlier session today and we did reconvene so Mr. Beaulieu could be here.
Do any Senate members have questions of him?
Senator Fraser: Yes.
The Chair: Okay, Senator Fraser. Any other members?
Senator Braley: It will depend on what he says.
The Chair: I will put down Senator Fraser and Senator Braley, and there may be more.
Members of the RCMP, you are welcome to stay if you can find a chair or stand or kneel or whatever. I think there are seats over here.
Take your place at the front.
When we complete questions of this witness, we will be going in camera. We could take a brief pause. I believe staffers can stay. It will be five minutes after we have completed our last witness.
Do you want an opening statement or do you just want to just proceed with questions?
Senator Fraser, go ahead.
Senator Fraser: I do not think this will take long, Corporal Beaulieu. Thank you for being here again.
For this trip to Ottawa, did you seek permission to come?
Rolly Beaulieu, National Executive, B.C. "E" Division, as an individual: Yes, I did.
Senator Fraser: Did you have to get permission from Dr. Fieschi? How did that work this time?
Mr. Beaulieu: I usually advised my supervisor that I was requested to appear and waited for a response. The response was from my supervisor, George, that I was refused travel by Dr. Fieschi.
Senator Fraser: For this trip? For today?
Mr. Beaulieu: I am sorry, no. For this trip, no, there was no problem. For the prior trip, I was refused. For this trip, no problems, no, not at all.
Senator Fraser: You requested permission and received permission.
Mr. Beaulieu: It was granted, that is correct.
Senator Fraser: From Staff Sergeant Reid?
Mr. Beaulieu: From Staff Sergeant Reid, yes.
Senator Fraser: We heard quite a bit, both yesterday and today, from him in particular, and also a little bit from Dr. Fieschi, that in the case of Staff Sergeant Reid in particular, in his conversation with you, he understood that the only outstanding problem was your bone spur and your impending surgery on that. Is that your recollection of the conversation?
Mr. Beaulieu: No.
Senator Fraser: What is your recollection?
Mr. Beaulieu: My recollection is that I thought he understood that I had some issues — psychological issues — but he did understand that I had surgery. I am not sure, but I think that the doctor's note that I received from my physician that stated that I had surgery is what he had as far as a certificate goes.
Senator Fraser: In your conversation with him, he did not ask you, "Do you still have adjustment disorder, or do you still have stress-related problems?"
Mr. Beaulieu: No, I was never asked that question.
Senator Fraser: Was there any reason why it did not occur to you to say, "By the way, I still have these difficulties in addition to the bone spur?"
Mr. Beaulieu: No, I assumed that they still knew, even though I was not seeing Dr. Webster. I did not want to see another doctor at that time because I did not want to go through all that again. I just assumed that they knew.
Senator Braley: When Dr. Webster was no longer available to you, can you state again why you would not go and get help for what you say is a crisis at this particular point in time? I cannot make a judgment call because I am not even close to being medically competent in any area whatsoever, but, if I am a sick person, I try to get help.
Mr. Beaulieu: Like I said, we have a support group, and in that support group we discuss all kinds of issues that are going on and how members deal with how the force is dealing with them. During that process, we found that the RCMP was breaching privacy issues with medical information in "E" Division. Actually, there is a —
Senator Braley: Do you have proof of that?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, actually we do. I do not have it with me, but I can get that for you. There is a manager in "E" Division who forwarded private medical information on six individuals from our group to the College of Psychologists. Lawyers are now working on complaining about that.
Senator Braley: That is not you?
Mr. Beaulieu: That is not me, but because that was done, my trust in any medical information going from my doctor to the RCMP is not there. I do not trust them to look after my best interests because I think they are looking after their own best interests, quite frankly.
Senator Braley: I know for a fact that there are very competent psychiatrists and psychological people because we are dealing with symptoms from the wars in Europe and what have you. In Hamilton, in particular, they are shipping them from Winnipeg and various places, and the information is entirely confidential until a decision is made by the doctor as to how to deal with the individual.
You had a problem, but you did not continue to get treatment for that problem.
Mr. Beaulieu: Well, I did search for help. Unfortunately, for one of the doctors that I saw in the force, prior to seeing Dr. Webster, Georgia Nemetz — I saw her while I was still working for my supervisor, George — her biggest thing was me getting back to work. That was what her bottom line was. It was not getting me any help or discussing my issues. It was getting me back to work. I explained to her that I could not go back into that work atmosphere, so I stopped seeing her. I went to Dr. Webster, who diagnosed me in 2011 with this disorder. It was as a direct result of the way I was treated. It is a trust issue with me. It just is. That is one of the by-products of what I have, I suppose.
Senator Braley: You are saying that no matter what happens, you cannot be fixed to go to work for the RCMP?
Mr. Beaulieu: That is not what I am saying at all. I have done my research. I have an appointment on June 13 with the OSI clinic at Veterans Affairs, which is a completely separate entity from the RCMP. They are not doctors who are, I guess, authorized by the RCMP. They are Veterans Affairs' doctors that I believe will look after my best interests.
Senator Braley: Are you working with Veterans Affairs with regard to a prior injury?
Mr. Beaulieu: I am working with Veterans Affairs on my injury with the RCMP, what has happened to me through the RCMP, not on anything prior.
Senator Braley: I did not know that was possible.
Mr. Beaulieu: I did not, either. I learned that through the group. I had no idea. The RCMP was quite aware of that, but I was never informed of that information. I had to do my own homework on this, and it was very hard to do. Of course, I am upset about that. I went through a lot, as did my wife. They knew about the possibility of us getting this help, but they never offered it. They wanted us to see their psychologists. I guess that is my answer.
Senator Furey: Corporal Beaulieu, you have heard Staff Sergeant Reid's testimony. He, from what I understand, is responsible for a very busy command in Vancouver. He tells us — and I accept his testimony — that what goes on in Senate committees is a long way outside of his orbit or his normal daily routine.
I am wondering what efforts by anyone in the chain of command were made to get you back to work. One of the things that Staff Sergeant Reid told us was that his primary responsibility was to try to find a way to bring you back into the workforce. What efforts were made that you know of?
Mr. Beaulieu: I think George — I will call him George — is well meaning, but we did not have continuous contact on me going back to work. The only contact I really had with him was with regard to me sending him these certificates, which went on for months and months. That is about all I can say on that point.
Senator Furey: Did you have discussions with anyone in the chain of command that pertained to the substance of why you were asked to come to a Senate committee? By "the substance," I mean the actual content of Bill C-42.
Mr. Beaulieu: No, other than the emails that I sent to —
Senator Furey: Which did not get into any detail about C-42. They just mentioned a bill by number.
Mr. Beaulieu: That is correct, yes.
Senator Furey: What was the actual reason given to you — just refresh our memories — in writing or verbally, for not being permitted to attend?
Mr. Beaulieu: The reason I received in writing, from my supervisor, was that the HSO refused it, based on a policy where there was no further information, after the fact, that he could authorize my leave. It was denied as a result of that policy and Dr. Fieschi's email.
Senator Furey: I have one last question, corporal. How did you feel both physically and mentally? Did you feel up to the task of coming to Ottawa and giving evidence on Bill C-42 at a Senate committee?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, I did. I was looking forward to it.
Senator Comeau: This is a follow-up. I am looking at the April 30 email to you from the doctor, which says, in effect, "My opinion is that, if you are able to engage in the physical and mental tasks described . . ." et cetera. The line that I want to zero in on is:
Should you feel that you are physically and cognitively able to participate in these hearings and travel there, I would consider you fit for administrative duties at your unit immediately, pending your procedure . . . .
It informed Staff Sergeant Reid that he should expect you to work right away.
The very next day, you forward the medical certificate that basically says "unfit for duty."
You are able to travel to Ottawa, like the doctor said, get on flights and appear before a committee but not able to go into your unit headquarters, or whatever you might call it, and do a little bit of administrative work. You were able to do the travel, and so on, in spite of the fact that your foot problems were not cleared by this point, yet still the very next day "unfit for duty." You are saying you are able to do all these other things yet not be able to do some administrative work for even a limited amount of time.
Mr. Beaulieu: Sure, no problem, I can answer that for you.
Yes, I mean, I can do lots of things, but unfortunately I cannot do it in the RCMP. My trust issues are so, I guess, skewed as a result of the way I have been treated over the years.
With that said, I just want to add, I have a copy of that letter from Deanne Burleigh that was sent around. If you want a copy of that, by all means.
My trust issues go back a long way. I cannot go back into an atmosphere where I believe in my past history and past experience that I am going to be attacked.
Senator Comeau: At that time, when the exchange of emails between you and the doctor over April 30 and May 1, that decision had already been made at that point? You could not return to the RCMP?
Mr. Beaulieu: Well, when that email came out from Dr. Fieschi, that was the final nail in the coffin, so to speak, because this letter was what, to me, was the end of my career. When you read the letter, which hopefully you do, it basically gets into the dismissal aspect, if you do not go back to work and how they will go about dismissing you if you do not follow the guidelines they have set up. What it does not say is that they are going to deal with the issue at hand, that being —
Senator Fraser: Chair, could the letter be copied and circulated?
Senator Comeau: We have to be careful on these letters. Is this a brand new letter?
Mr. Beaulieu: No, this was the original letter that was sent to one of the members on dismissal. I received a copy. This is an actual letter, a copy of.
Senator Comeau: It was sent to a member?
Mr. Beaulieu: This is a member they are trying to dismiss, yes.
Senator Comeau: Look, chair, I think we are straying. If the RCMP sent a letter to a member, that is an entirely different issue. I think we have got —
Mr. Beaulieu: Okay, I will tell you his name.
The Chair: If there is evidence of a policy —
Senator Comeau: Then let me go one point further. If we are going to start handing out documents at Senate committees, I let it pass by last night and I did not make a fuss of it at that time, but the Senate has made itself subject to the Official Languages Act. I let it go last night; I did not raise a fuss about it, but I will start fairly soon raising a fuss, not only because we seem to be introducing letters sent to someone else —
The Chair: That is a valid point.
Senator Comeau: That is a second valid point. Look, we could go on with this for months and months, if we wish.
The Chair: I do not think we will but —
Senator Comeau: Anyway, I stand by my — if you want to give us the gist of what is in the letter, fine. This issue of the Official Languages Act, we have to start being careful here.
Senator Fraser: On a point of order on this issue, Senator Comeau knows, I hope he remembers, how strongly I feel about respect for the Official Languages Act, for the constitutional requirements for language. The constitutional requirement is for Parliament and Parliament's documents to function in both languages, but the Constitution also says, as I recall — certainly the Official Languages Act does — that any citizen may address the Parliament of Canada in the language of his or her choice, and that would include providing supporting documents, in my view.
Senator Comeau: May we have Mr. Robert give us a —
Charles Robert, Clerk of the Committee: Certainly the witnesses are entitled to bring documents in the language of their choice. It is the question really of subsequent distribution and the convenience of the work of the committee, but that is really by choice of the committee.
The Chair: Yes. Well, we can discuss that when we go into our in camera session.
Senator Comeau: We will be coming back to this. I believe, Senator Fraser, you are wrong, but we can discuss it at a future point.
If someone was bantering around a document in the French language and I was a unilingual anglophone, I might take exception to what Senator Fraser said.
Senator McCoy: I presume this is a point of order?
The Chair: Do you wish to speak to it?
Senator McCoy: I do. I wish to say that bringing that document is relevant to this man's testimony because what he is doing is advising us of his apprehension, his understanding of the situation in which he found himself. It is entirely relevant.
The Chair: From a legal perspective, my view would be that if this is evidence of a modus operandi within the RCMP as to how they deal with situations like this, it is relevant.
Senator Comeau: Chair, I stand by my comments on the Official Languages Act, and if the witness wishes to — pardon? What did you say?
Senator McCoy: I do not agree with him.
Senator Comeau: We may want to get into a discussion on the Official Languages Act, Senator McCoy.
The Chair: I think he is saying they need to be translated. That does not mean they are not admissible. You are not saying that, are you?
Senator McCoy: No, but you said we all agree with him on his point of view. Certainly, I do not believe Senator Fraser agreed.
Senator Comeau: It is your position that witnesses can bring in a document in one of the two official languages, French or English, and those who cannot read the second language have to suffer through not having the document. Okay, that is your point of view. I do not agree with you. We can discuss this with lawyers at a certain point. I think we should get back now to the —
The Chair: Yes. Senator Braley, and then what I want to do is take a three-minute break and go in camera.
Could I have input from members of the committee if they are comfortable with support staff being able to attend —
Senator Fraser: Our own staff.
The Chair: We usually do not do that unless we clear it.
Senator Furey: What do you mean by support staff?
The Chair: I have an assistant. Do you?
Senator Furey: No, actually, I do not.
The Chair: Does anyone have a problem with support staff remaining? I know you have one here, Senator Braley.
Senator Comeau: No problem.
The Chair: Okay. When we resume, support staff can remain, but it will be in camera.
Senator McCoy: Did we give the witness an opportunity to finish before this? I do not know that he did finish.
The Chair: Mr. Beaulieu, is there anything further you wish to say?
Mr. Beaulieu: Actually, yes, there is. I would like to clarify a few points, if I could.
The Chair: Okay. Go ahead.
Senator Furey: Just before you go ahead, corporal, what are we going to do about this letter? Are we going to get a copy of it or —
The Chair: We have it here.
Senator Comeau: I am waiting for a ruling from the chair. If the chair rules that it is completely correct to distribute the document, by all means, it is his ruling, we will see what happens then.
Senator Fraser: Could I ask the chair to have the letter translated expeditiously?
The Chair: Yes. I will also invite input from Mark and Charles. We want to deal with this correctly.
Senator Furey: Is everyone satisfied, then, that Corporal Beaulieu speak to the letter before he finishes his testimony?
Senator Braley: I want to ask a question first.
The Chair: Okay. Go ahead.
Senator Braley: I do not know what it is about except that I have heard from the corporal here that it has to do with some other member receiving a letter from the RCMP, and it may potentially involve his medical problem.
Have you got a letter or some sort of signature indicating that he is allowing this letter, the person it was addressed to in the first place, and can actually appear? I have it in writing. It has to be in writing.
The Chair: Do you have consent?
Mr. Beaulieu: If I can, the name is blacked out on it, so there is no name on it. It is the letter without the name on it so, really, there is no problem with who gave me the letter. It is the original letter without the member's name on it. It is blacked out, so there are no privacy issues or any such thing.
Senator Comeau: What about if we were to hear the gist of what is in the letter, since it does not identify an individual? If there is something very relevant about it, it may be important that we hear it now.
The Chair: Why does he not give us a brief summary of it?
Senator Comeau: Absolutely.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr. Beaulieu: Sorry, I did not bring it in transcribed; I just did not have the time to do that.
Basically what the letter states is that it is a back-to-work letter from Deanne Burleigh; she is the back-to-work coordinator. I guess maybe through the frustration, dealing with members who were off, they came up with this concept that they were going to send letters out to members. What the letter states is if you do not contact Rick Cousins within 30 days, we will proceed with your dismissal from the RCMP, either based on a medical or psychological discharge or an administrative discharge. That is basically what the letter states, and that is the beginning of the dismissal process within the RCMP, according to that letter.
The Chair: I have it here, and that appears to be in it. I am not distributing it; I am holding it. We will be going in camera.
Mr. Beaulieu: It is basic, what the letter states, 30 days to respond or else.
Senator Martin: I wanted to ask one question. Thank you for explaining the gist of the letter, but I am trying to understand how this letter is directly applicable to the situation we are studying right now, the question of privilege. It is not a letter to you, correct?
Mr. Beaulieu: It is not a letter to me, no.
Senator Martin: It is a letter to another member, and so it is your interpretation of what this other member has received. I am trying to think, because we could continue to bring in other documents, so Mr. Beaulieu —
Mr. Beaulieu: I think the best way to explain it is Superintendent Deanne Burleigh is in charge of the person signing these letters. Because Dr. Fieschi cc'd her on a copy of her refusal of my travel, my fear was that I was going to receive one of these letters from her. She is notifying her that I am basically in her bad books and that you should put Rolly on your list to get a letter. That is my interpretation of why she cc'd it.
Senator Martin: I think it would be very important to find out from Dr. Fieschi, who is right here, if that was her intention. She did talk about it, which is that she cc'd for — I am trying to remember the reason, sorry.
Mr. Beaulieu: That is the main reason I did not come to committee, my decision.
Senator Martin: That was your interpretation. Thank you.
Senator Wallace: Chair, we have to go back to why we are here. What is the purpose of this hearing? We are dealing with a question of privilege. To think that we would start getting into other circumstances and other officers and other health issues and blanked-out letters and somehow trying to draw conclusions that relate to all of this, that cannot make sense. Not to become overly legalistic, there is no way that process makes any sense at all, nor can we make any use of that information, I would suggest, for the purpose of this hearing.
The Chair: Let me give you my response to that question, because the only thing we have to determine is if conduct occurred that impeded him from appearing as a witness. To me, it is that simple: a witness before a parliamentary committee that wanted to hear from him. The other stuff is not that relevant to me.
Senator Wallace: That is an issue.
The Chair: Did conduct occur that impeded —
Senator Wallace: That is an issue between Corporal Beaulieu and those in the RCMP that he dealt with. We have had each of them give evidence and we have had Corporal Beaulieu give his evidence. If there are other members of the force, present or past, who have other allegations and other letters, then those are other issues. I think we are way off the mark to try and draw connections with a letter.
The Chair: I am not trying to force feed anything.
Senator McCoy: I think this is a discussion for us around committee.
Let me put myself on record that I disagree with Senator Wallace as to his interpretation, but I do not think it is an issue we have to argue and keep all these witnesses here.
The Chair: Senator Furey, and after that we will have our break and go in camera.
Senator Furey: I cannot say I am in total disagreement with Senator Wallace, as much as I hate to say that.
The Chair: I did not say I was.
Senator Furey: It must be the Atlantic air.
Senator Comeau: It must be his reputation.
Senator Furey: Before you leave, corporal, could you perhaps address that issue and just tell us again what the relevance of that particular letter is to the issue at hand, i.e. your ability to come before the Senate committee?
Mr. Beaulieu: Sure. Again, that letter is my fear that I was next. In our support group we discuss lots of things. Two members received that letter that I am aware of. I do not know if there are any other members who received those letters. Those members who did receive those letters were fearful for their jobs. Seeing that email sent to Dr. Fieschi confirmed to me that I was about to receive a letter.
Senator Furey: But you were not mentioned in that letter anywhere, were you? We have not had the opportunity to see that letter yet.
Mr. Beaulieu: That is correct; I was not mentioned in that letter at all.
Senator Furey: We can have that debate, I guess.
Senator Braley: Did I hear you right that that was the reason you did not come?
Mr. Beaulieu: That was one of the main reasons I did not come, because I believed they would fire me if I did.
I wanted to add that Dr. Sedergreen is a surgeon as well, not just a GP. Just so you know, I confirmed that today.
The Chair: Have you completed whatever you wanted us to hear?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes.
The Chair: We will now have a three-minute break, and when we resume we will be in camera with support staff only.
I would like to thank all the witnesses. I know this is stressful for you all. I understand. It is kind of stressful for us. I think we are basically dealing with good people here, who are trying to do the right thing, and we have to make a decision. We will bare our souls and then have a primal scream.
(The committee continued in camera.)