Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 5 - Evidence of Proceedings - June 4, 2013
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 4, 2013
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:32 a.m. for the consideration of the case of privilege concerning a witness.
Senator David P. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: We certainly have quorum, and I think we should get rolling. We want to deal with this issue and time is quickly passing by before the summer recess.
I might say at the outset that quite apart from the witnesses, we did advise Senator Cowan, who was the person who raised this issue in the Senate, as to whether or not there was a question of privilege and, of course, the Speaker ruled that this was a prima facie case and referred it to us here. I gave Senator Cowan the opportunity to give a précis of it, but he chose not to do so. I think pretty well all of us were there for his speech and are familiar with those facts. Unless someone wishes to raise something, we can proceed.
You are familiar with the fact that we have five witnesses this morning. I think you have the revised version of the agenda, although it has not changed. We will start with Roland Beaulieu, who is here as an individual witness, and then we have four witnesses from the RCMP.
We will give witnesses the opportunity to present under oath if they wish to.
Mr. Robert, you might explain the procedure here and the protection that might be helpful to them in deciding whether or not they wish to present under oath.
Charles Robert, Clerk of the Committee: The testimony given before a parliamentary committee is protected by parliamentary privilege. You cannot be held to account for it any place outside of Parliament. If, however, you decide to take an oath, you become susceptible to the charge of perjury under the Criminal Code. For that you can suffer some consequences if an accusation of perjury should ever be made against you. If convicted, you can suffer the penalties under the Criminal Code.
In either case, your testimony is protected, whether you take the oath or not, because a committee hearing is a proceeding in Parliament. The testimony is fully protected by parliamentary privilege.
The Chair: The reason I raised this was that I was familiar with the fact, Mr. Beaulieu, that you on a previous occasion said you wished to present under oath. We leave it up to you. Do you wish to give your evidence under oath?
Roland Beaulieu, National Executive, B.C. "E" Division, as an individual: I will go with parliamentary privilege.
The Chair: Okay. Please take your place at the table.
I think you are familiar with why we are dealing with this. This is not quite the same as yesterday; this has to do with the question of privilege. Please proceed and tell us what you think we should hear.
Mr. Beaulieu: Thank you, honourable senators and members of the committee.
Yesterday I was listening to the news, and Commissioner Paulson felt that he should tell the committee on harassment about a letter that I sent to him. With regard to that, I would like to respond. I have the actual letter, and what he stated is a bit different than what the letter says. I would like to read it into the record briefly, if I may.
The Chair: Then you can give us some background as to why you are here and other things. If you wish to proceed with that initially, go ahead.
Mr. Beaulieu: The letter was dated May 22:
Dear Commissioner Paulson:
I would like to request that you read the below noted in its entirety, before making any decisions on this request.
Further, I am requesting a response by June 5th 2013. A non-response by your office will be interpreted by me, that you do not agree to my retirement terms and you do not wish to discuss this matter further.
That was not an "or else" statement, just so you are aware.
In my letter, I called it the "Negotiated Retirement of Cpl. Rolly Beaulieu." In this I state facts, evidence and the damage to my career and integrity on the complaints that I filed to the force where they did not follow through on the complaints.
Of course, it does mention a sum of money, which he stated, but that was not the entire amount or the final settlement that I was looking for. The whole idea was to open the door, but apparently that is not the picture that was painted by the media, unfortunately. I just wanted to set the record straight on that.
The Chair: Okay.
It would be helpful if you would go back to how all this started because we cannot assume that everyone in the room has read every document. There are more pages coming out every day. To the extent that you can give us some background on how this got here, what triggered it and some of the complaints that you have had, that would be helpful.
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes.
Senator Braley: He just made a statement about some letter. What happened last night? I was travelling here. Did something occur last night that I am not aware of and that is not in the details in front of us?
The Chair: It relates to the evidence given by Commissioner Paulson before another committee yesterday, and presumably there was a letter exchanged.
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, there was a letter that I sent to Commissioner Paulson with regard to negotiating my retirement. He brought that out at a committee with regard to harassment in the RCMP —
Senator Braley: Okay.
Mr. Beaulieu: — where I was targeted in his speech.
Senator Braley: Okay. I have a bit of a gist of something.
The Chair: We do have the blues of what was said at that committee.
Senator Braley: I am sorry to interrupt. I have heard enough.
The Chair: That is okay, but if you wish to review it, it is there.
Please proceed, Mr. Beaulieu.
Do you have any further questions on this issue, Senator Braley?
Senator Braley: No. They have just given me the information on this.
Senator Fraser: Mr. Chair, could we ask for the letter to be provided to the clerk and circulated to all the members, since it has been read in?
The Chair: Yes, if that agreeable.
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, of course.
The Chair: I think that would be helpful for us to have on the record.
Mr. Beaulieu, please proceed with the background, how we are here and what you think we should hear.
Mr. Beaulieu: I was invited to speak before the Senate subcommittee on Bill C-42 for, I believe, May 6, as part of the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, on behalf of our members, and I was to discuss harassment and violence in the workplace with that committee. I notified my supervisor that I was invited to the committee, as I have always notified him when I was off duty sick where I was going, and there was no issue before about me attending or going on holidays or whatever.
Senator Furey: Excuse me, chair.
I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Beaulieu, but could you provide names when you say you reported to your supervisor, please?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes. I should probably go right back to where this started.
On April 27, at around twelve o'clock in the afternoon, I advised my supervisor, Staff Sergeant George Reid via email that I was invited to appear before Senate on May 6 to give evidence on Bill C-42, and again all my other times I went on holidays prior to that I requested leave or notified him with no problems. There are copies of those emails that should be circulating.
On April 29, at 10:36 a.m., I received an email reply from my supervisor that if he had a few questions — my supervisor again was George Reid — about my travel, to give him a call. I called him on that day and I cannot recall; I put down here that I actually spoke to him but I may not; I may have left a message or did not call back.
On the next point, on April 29, it was at 2:48 p.m., I received another email from Staff Sergeant George Reid, who advised that the HSO — which is the health services officer, Dr. Isabelle Fieschi — had declined my trip to Senate. He wanted me to call him as he was sure that we could work something out.
On this day, I called Dr. Isabelle Fieschi's office and left a message for a call back because I wanted to know why she had denied my trip to the Senate.
On April 30, at 7:10 a.m., I received another email from my supervisor, asking how I was making out. He also reminded me that my travel day is approaching fast, and he required a medical certificate every 30 days, as stated by admin policy. If you are off duty sick, every 30 days you are required by policy to see your doctor to give your reasons why you are off sick or you cannot work. I had been doing that.
Just to get into why I have not been keeping up on that, the force fired my therapist, so I have not seen a therapist. I am kind of left in limbo on that, unfortunately.
Again, on the same day, at 8:48 a.m., I advised my supervisor that Dr. Fieschi had not returned my call. I further advised him that I had a doctor's appointment tomorrow and I would forward him the certificate as he requested. At 8:55 a.m. he confirmed that he received my email. At 1:30 p.m. I had not heard back from Dr. Fieschi, so I wrote her an email requesting that she respond to me in a writing why she denied my travel to Senate.
At 5:33 p.m. that same day I received an email from Dr. Fieschi that outlined her reason for not allowing me to appear before Senate.
I would like you to note that I never met Fieschi or spoke to her in person at any time. The only communication I had with her was with emails.
On May 3, I received an email from my supervisor. I did not respond to her on that; I was pretty upset at the time. I was not responding to anyone. I was upset that they were stopping me from coming to the Senate.
On May 3, at 12:04 p.m., I received an email from my supervisor that he did not receive an update from the health services officer regarding my travel to appear before the Senate. He was wondering what I was thinking. As such, he could not approve my travel from Ottawa as per admin policy. He also requested that I contact him as soon as possible if my dialogue with health services causes a change in their opinion.
By "their opinion," I am not sure if he meant health services officer or managers within the RCMP. He goes on to remind me that my travel date is quickly approaching, because he has not heard back from me.
At 1:38 p.m. I requested a copy of the policy from my supervisor, George Reid. At 2:45 I received a copy of that policy.
At 2:48 p.m. I received an email from Dr. Fieschi that was addressed to myself, to my supervisor and to another person, Superintendent Deanne Burleigh, who is a manager in the RCMP. I was shocked and horrified that Dr. Fieschi felt it necessary to copy Deanne Burleigh.
I should note that Deanne Burleigh is an officer who has been sending out letters to members who have been off duty sick. The letters are letters of intent of dismissal from the RCMP. When I saw that she cc'd a copy to Dr. Fieschi, I figured I was next to receive one of these letters. I have not received one at any other time. I was very stressed out at that, just by seeing that.
In her email, Dr. Fieschi goes on to tell me if I am fit enough to appear before the Senate, then I am fit enough to be at work. She goes on to tell me that if I appear before the Senate, I will be expected to be at work immediately upon my return from appearing before the Senate.
It should be noted that Dr. Fieschi is very aware that I have undergone three surgeries while off-duty sick. The last one was May 8, which she was very aware of. I was prepared to give evidence to the Senate on May 6 and undergo surgery for a work-related injury on May 8. How could she have ordered me back to work on my return from Ottawa, as she was aware that I was undergoing surgery May 8? It makes no sense to me.
On May 31, at 12:50 p.m., I sent my supervisor an email advising him that I had been invited to appear before the Senate on June 4. On June 1, at 8:46 a.m., I received an email from my supervisor that my travel to the Senate was granted, and here we are.
The Chair: It might be helpful if you could give us a general background as to how long you have been with the Mounties and what triggered the requirement for sick leave. You referred to several surgeries. It would be helpful if you could indicate what they were about, and also your pattern of regularly seeing your doctor and how you are doing.
Mr. Beaulieu: I will have 27 years in the RCMP come February, and 5 years military experience prior to that. I became sick in the RCMP around 2010 as a result of complaints that I filed against the supervisor I had at the time. I went through the system that the force has in dealing with that, and unfortunately it did not work out for me as I was set up for failure. I found out later, when I requested email exchanges between managers, that there is an email from one office to another suggesting that my SR, my representative, not attend a meeting, so I had no representation at that meeting. I did not know I was set up for this, but I found this out later. I did drop my complaints prior to that but I found out later, as a result of other complaints that I had dealt with.
I worked national security. I worked overtime; they refused to pay me overtime. I put in for promotional opportunity; they changed the right for the opportunity after I applied for it so that I could not apply. I grieved that.
They wrote up my assessment that I was not promoted all of a sudden and would not enter in any positive information that I had given them. I could go on and on and it will take a long time for me to get in all the details.
During that process, I left INSET and went to protective services where I felt I was going to be able to fight these grievances that I had filed and work at the same time. I did not want to go off sick at the time, so I worked.
During my four years there I worked on these grievances. The process of the grievance system again failed me, and I went off work as a result of something that happened to protective services. Again, I stood up for my men and I was deemed not management material by my bosses. I walked out of the office and went and saw my therapist. I was diagnosed not with PTSD — I always get this mixed up — it is a disorder, anyway, but it does not get better in time; it gets worse. That is where I am today.
The Chair: In simple terms, when you went on sick leave, and you have referred to surgeries you have had, would you characterize the triggering of your sick leave as stress related or these physical issues that require surgery or both?
Mr. Beaulieu: I think they were combined. The first surgery I went for was a nasal surgery for snoring. I was not sleeping well. I had very minor sleep apnea so they did surgery for that. I had my gall bladder removed as well, which I believe was stress related, and then I just had surgery on my left foot because of a bone spur that was brought on working tactical and wearing heavy boots and the wrong shoes.
Senator Furey: Corporal Beaulieu, thank you for coming today. You indicated that at no time did you meet with or speak to Dr. Fieschi; is that correct?
Mr. Beaulieu: That is correct.
Senator Furey: We have a medical certificate here dated May 1, 2013, and I see a stamp of Dr. Chris Sedergreen. Would he be your attending physician?
Mr. Beaulieu: He was, yes. He still is.
Senator Furey: I see he is a surgeon, not a general practitioner.
Mr. Beaulieu: That is correct.
Senator Furey: Do you have other physicians attending to you besides a surgeon?
Mr. Beaulieu: No, I do not at this time. I did have Dr. Webster, who is a police therapist, but he was fired.
Senator Furey: What physician made the diagnosis that you just spoke of that was not PTSD but something similar to it?
Mr. Beaulieu: It is called — I am having a bit of a blank —
Senator Furey: That is fine. Who was the physician that diagnosed that?
Mr. Beaulieu: That was Dr. Webster that diagnosed that.
Senator Furey: When you say you had no contact with Dr. Fieschi, I am assuming that that is other than the emails or texts or the non-verbal and non-physical meetings.
Mr. Beaulieu: That is correct.
Senator Furey: I have a couple of other questions for you. Was your supervisor, Staff Sergeant Reid, aware of your diagnosis?
Mr. Beaulieu: I was not sure if he was aware of my diagnosis as a supervisor, but he should not have been because that is a medical record. I think the only one who should have been aware of that would have been the health services officer who has access to my medical file.
Senator Furey: That leads to my next question. Was the health services officer aware of your diagnosis?
Mr. Beaulieu: I am assuming so because she would have access to my medical file.
Senator Furey: Do you know if Dr. Fieschi ever consulted Dr. Webster or Dr. Sedergreen?
Mr. Beaulieu: I do know that she attempted to get some information from Dr. Sedergreen on a couple of occasions and that I think she was looking at getting me back to work, but because I was dealing with a psychological issue, Dr. Sedergreen felt I was not fit for duty until I saw someone that could deal with that.
Senator Furey: Just explain the process to us, if you would. If you are on sick leave, who in the chain of command is responsible for having knowledge of that and the circumstances surrounding it?
Mr. Beaulieu: My psychologist and my doctor. As far as the RCMP's knowledge, I do not think that the details of the circumstances are relevant to health services or management. I think what is relevant is my diagnosis.
Senator Furey: Someone has to grant the leave, though; correct?
Mr. Beaulieu: I suppose so.
Senator Furey: I am just wondering who in the chain of command would have been aware of your diagnosis and been able to make that decision.
Mr. Beaulieu: That would have been the health services officer that would make that decision as far as my employment goes. I am not sure if I understand the question.
Senator Furey: The health services officer would have notified your superiors that you were going on sick leave.
Mr. Beaulieu: I would notify my supervisor as well. I would receive the medical certificate from my doctor psychologist and I would email him a copy of that, where in the process he would notify health services. That is the process I have used.
Senator Furey: If you would not mind, this is a little different tack. Can you explain the complaint process within the RCMP?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, I would love to do that.
The complaint process in the RCMP is if I disagree or feel I have been aggrieved, I file a grievance. According to the policy, they have a certain time limit to get back to you and get the process going. There is what is called an "early resolution stage" where they want parties to get together and discuss the issues and come to an agreement. That is best case scenario. A lot of times it does not happen because of whatever reason.
The next process is I am the aggrieved and I can request relevant material. That is a long, drawn out process and can take sometimes years to get that information, which slows the process down because relevant material has to come from the Access to Information Act. It is from all over the place. It is very tedious.
By the time that information comes in, you receive it and you "file in" your information to level 1 because you cannot come to an agreement.
Level 1 looks at the information that you gave as evidence, and they make a determination on level 1 by an adjudicator on whether or not they deem that it is factual or not. If you disagree with their opinion, then you go to level 2.
Level 2 is the same process with more information that you may have to offer as the aggrieved, and you forward that off.
Level 2 looks at that, and they come back and they say, "No, we agree with level 1." The only other recourse, then, is to go to what I understand now is the External Review Committee.
The External Review Committee does its thing and makes a recommendation to the commissioner, who may or may not agree with the External Review Committee's decision.
The problem with the whole process is the buck stops at the commissioner's door. In my experience and in the experience of many, many members that I know, that is where it stops, and 99 per cent of the cases that I know of, the commissioner stays with the original ruling.
Senator Furey: It sounds kind of cumbersome. Are you happy with that process?
Mr. Beaulieu: No, I am not. It is very cumbersome. It does not work. It is damaging to members because they feel the system is not being fair because the decision is being made by a manager that you complained about.
I had a complaint that I put forward on a manager and a couple of supervisors. They sent my complaint to them, my actual written complaint, and they all went into a room together and discussed my complaint. No investigation was done, and they asked them to respond. They all got together; they discussed my complaint; they wrote their statements. They gave them to the guy that I complained about, the officer, and he sent it in as a package. That was their response, and as far as the commanding officer was concerned, that was the end of the issue.
Senator Furey: Do you know if the RCMP is looking at streamlining that process or changing it in any way?
Mr. Beaulieu: I have heard, yes. Again, I am a member with the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada. I represented a few members. There is a particular female member I have been helping. I just went in a week prior to coming here to help her get back to work and deal with her complaints. I spoke to a senior officer there — Brian Cantera is his name — and he said this is a new process they are coming out with. They found that all her complaints were considered workplace conflict, not harassment. This is one of the biggest things that has been happening. That is what they downgrade it, so they do not have to deal with the harassment issue.
She had five complaints. He gave her them and said, "On each one of these, it is considered workplace conflict. We expect you and the two constables that you complained about, these are the five processes that we would like you to consider." One of them is mediation. The mediation they suggested was not from an outside mediation source; it was an internal RCMP mediation source, which means it is still controlled by the RCMP, not an independent agency.
For the other people she complained about, two NCOs and two officers, mediation was not included in that package. We questioned why, and he could not answer us on that.
Senator Furey: Just before we pass, could you explain what that organization is that you said you were a member of?
Mr. Beaulieu: It is the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada, MPPAC, which I am an executive of as well. I find that helping these people with their problems is very therapeutic to me because I can help people that are going through the same thing.
Senator Furey: Is that a volunteer organization?
Mr. Beaulieu: It is a volunteer organization. I do not get paid for this. I do this on my own time.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you, Corporal Beaulieu.
In the letter from the doctor that denied you the permission to attend, the point was made there would be great stress in the flight going through airports and in the hour-long meeting. However, you had been given permission to fly great distances before, and that was not too stressful?
Mr. Beaulieu: Oh, no. I actually found it relaxing to be going away, just to get out.
Senator Mitchell: What you are left with after a flight that you had been allowed to do before would be an hour-long meeting with a Senate committee. Is it all that stressful now?
Mr. Beaulieu: Oh, no. No.
Senator Mitchell: That raises the question of why it was okay to travel before but not okay now. Do you have some sense of why there would be a reluctance to allow you to appear before a defence committee looking into harassment in the RCMP?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, I do believe that they did not want me to speak to harassment or to violence in the workplace. I also believe that this was an intimidation tactic to force me back to work, basically telling me that if I can travel, we expect you back to work. It was very intimidating.
Senator Mitchell: If you could give me some insight into the chain of command, clearly you know about the chain of command. Would this be an initiative that came from Staff Sergeant Reid directly or from the doctor? Would they have been perhaps consulted — and we can ask them later. Would they have been asked to do a ruling like this by people up the chain of command? How high would that go?
Mr. Beaulieu: That is a good question. Normally what happens in the chain of command, I would notify my supervisor, and he would approve or deny at that point. Why it would go any higher than that is speculation, but I believe that they control and wanted control and just did not want me to go, did not want me to testify, and I believe that came from the highest. I do not have any proof of that, but that is my belief.
Senator Mitchell: Clearly, Commissioner Paulson is aware of you because he spent a good deal of time in the committee yesterday directing some criticism of you in a very public forum.
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, that does upset me very much. I was shocked and surprised, actually thankful that he brought that letter forward. The reason being is the RCMP, for many years, has had a negotiation practice with members who have been off duty sick with negotiating a retirement clause or a leave-the-force clause, where a retirement payout amount, whatever it may be, is negotiated. That has been going on for many years, at a cost of millions of dollars to taxpayers, of which they are not aware. Of course, you have to sign a disclosure form with the RCMP that you will not speak about these things. If I had made a deal, I would have to sign that form and I could not talk about this at that time.
My intent in sending that letter was to retire from the RCMP because the RCMP would not deal with my issues. I had no choice; my back was in the corner. They were going to fire me. What choice did I have for something I did not do?
The Chair: Let us keep moving along.
Senator Joyal: I want to come back to the issue of the health evaluation signed by Dr. Fieschi. Did you ever meet with Dr. Fieschi before?
Mr. Beaulieu: No.
Senator Joyal: You do not know Dr. Fieschi?
Mr. Beaulieu: No.
Senator Joyal: She never examined you before?
Mr. Beaulieu: No.
Senator Joyal: Before she signed the letter, did she contact you?
Mr. Beaulieu: No. I actually contacted her, but she never returned my call.
Senator Joyal: I see. Why did you contact her?
Mr. Beaulieu: I wanted to find out why she had refused my travel. Because she had not called me back, I sent her an email requesting in writing that she give me her reason why, and she did respond in writing.
Senator Joyal: She responded in writing after?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, after I left her a message; that is correct.
Senator Joyal: Do you have a copy of that letter?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, I do. It is not a letter; it is an email.
Senator Joyal: Is it normal practice in the force for a doctor to sign off on or confirm a health condition of a member of the force without seeing that member, to your knowledge?
Mr. Beaulieu: I cannot answer that because I have not spoken to her, but to my knowledge, she has tried speaking to me on going to work prior, but I had all these surgeries set up and I did not have the chance to go see her. No, I never spoke to her. Yes, it is a practice that has happened in the past.
Senator Joyal: It is a practice that has happened in the past in the force?
Mr. Beaulieu: I cannot give you specifics on that. I belong to a support group of members where we discuss similar issues that have been happening with them as well, so we kind of help each other out. There are other members within that group — there are approximately 50 of us in B.C. — that have gone through similar issues.
Senator Joyal: As you will understand, for someone who does not know the routine within the force, it is a bit strange that a doctor would confirm the health condition of a person without examining the person first or having direct contact with the person. Unless the person cannot speak because they are in a coma or someone is unable to communicate, then of course the doctor would only read the file.
I speak to you as a layman, as someone on the outside. That aspect puzzles me to a point because professionally, it seems to me when the "patient" is available and is in a position to communicate, the professional norm should be for that doctor to be in touch or to review the case with the person before saying, "No, they cannot travel" or "If they travel, I conclude that that person can go back to work," which is not, in my opinion, similar. A person may be able to travel but not be able to work. There are various elements there. There are nuances, in my opinion, in that context.
That is why I am interested to know from you the context in which it works in the force to try to understand the intervention of Dr. Fieschi in a file where she is not your regular doctor. Who is your regular doctor?
Mr. Beaulieu: My doctor is Dr. Chris Sedergreen, and I see him on a regular basis.
Senator Joyal: Do you know if that doctor was in touch with Dr. Fieschi to inform her of your condition?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, he has informed her on various occasions that I was off duty sick, and that is all he would tell her at that time. They knew I was off as a result of psychological issues, but as far as physical issues, he was dealing with her in terms of my physical issues. He also understood that I was looking for other therapists to see.
Senator Joyal: You just touched on what I wanted to outline. You might be in a physical condition to travel but not in a psychological condition. As I mentioned, those are two different distinctions.
That is why I am trying to understand from you the relationship between your practising doctor and Dr. Fieschi, who does not seem to be your regular physician, regular doctor or psychological adviser, which could also be a relationship you might have had with a professional in that context.
What are the professional consequences for you to appear here today?
Mr. Beaulieu: Professionally, my career is over. It is over. Actually, my career was over, I think, when I first got the invite long ago.
Today, yes, it is over. I cannot go back to the RCMP, no way. I cannot do it. I just cannot do it. I cannot walk back in there and know that that these officers would be looking at me as a troublemaker.
Senator Joyal: A renegade.
Mr. Beaulieu: A renegade. Yes, it would be very unhealthy to put me back in a position within the RCMP, I think, for my own mental health.
Senator Fraser: Mr. Beaulieu, are you aware of any other cases in which permission to travel has been denied in the same way that your permission to travel was denied; that is, on the grounds if you are fit to travel, you are fit to go back to work?
Mr. Beaulieu: No, I have never heard of one.
Senator Fraser: Your previous requests to travel were approved by Staff Sergeant Reid himself?
Mr. Beaulieu: Correct.
Senator Fraser: In your letter to Commissioner Paulson, you say that you were diagnosed with PTSD, which is the stress disorder you have been talking about, by Veterans Affairs Canada. They were the ones that did the examination?
Mr. Beaulieu: What happened was they asked for an in-depth report from my doctor, Dr. Webster.
Senator Fraser: Veterans Affairs did?
Mr. Beaulieu: Veterans Affairs did because I applied to them for the disability. He sent in his report and I sent in my evidence of my grievances and how they were dealt with. Based on that, they determined that my disability was granted based on the way I was treated by the force. I do have a copy of the letter, if you wish. I do not have it with me today.
Senator Fraser: If you could provide it for the committee, that would be helpful.
Mr. Beaulieu: Absolutely.
Senator Fraser: While you are doing that, provide us with the name of the disorder in question.
Mr. Beaulieu: It will come to me.
Senator Fraser: It is not important for you to have it this minute, but for our records.
I do not understand why you would go to Veterans Affairs rather than the RCMP.
Mr. Beaulieu: That is a good question. I did not know about Veterans Affairs until well after I was off and we met in these groups. I found out from someone in the group that if you apply to Veterans Affairs they can deem you disabled or at least see what they can do to help us, because we did not have any access to help other than our psychologist or physicians. Then through the group and some research I did, I found out about an OSI clinic.
Senator Fraser: You initiated this?
Mr. Beaulieu: That is correct. I initiated my own through that process.
Senator Fraser: You say in the letter that Dr. Webster was fired from the RCMP as a result of having certified you ODS. Have you any evidence that that is why he was fired?
Mr. Beaulieu: He was never actually hired by the RCMP. He was one of the psychologists on a list approved by the force that we could go see as a psychologist, that they would pay for service. Dr. Webster, a very colourful individual but very knowledgeable, travels around the world and talks about negotiations, police psychology. He knows his stuff very well. He was very outspoken on matters dealing with the force and how the force was treating its members and not dealing with the issues at hand. The RCMP got fed up with that, filed a complaint on him with the college of psychologists and told everyone who was his patient, by letter, that we are not to utilize him anymore, the force would not pay for his services but we would have to pay out of pocket on our own. Those who did pay out of pocket, the force would not recognize his diagnoses.
Senator Fraser: Why did you write this letter to the commissioner? Would it not be normal to try to negotiate an early retirement at a lower level?
Mr. Beaulieu: That is a fair question. I have been, like I said, with a group of about 50 individuals who have been off duty sick for, some of them, eight years, trying to negotiate or deal with the issues at hand, which the force would not deal with. A lot of these individuals started negotiating with — they call it a back-to-work process, but there is an individual by the name of Rick Cousins, who is a retired member, who was the go-between on negotiations in B.C. with members off or who want to go back to work and how they can negotiate a settlement to deal with the issues at hand. Some members have hired lawyers at hundreds of thousands of dollars and are into debt and cannot afford to do this otherwise.
I contacted Rick Cousins, as others have. I did not want to go through the process of dealing with the B.C. superintendent who I know has been dealing with my issue from day one, who I do not trust and who lied to me. How can I negotiate with someone like that?
I knew that Commissioner Paulson was already aware of me and I thought I would just go straight to the man himself instead of going through the middle stuff.
Senator Comeau: I want to zone in on some issues raised in the media. I will refer to some newspaper comments by Annie Bergeron-Oliver dated May 30, 2013, in iPolitics. I will go through a few of the items raised.
Beaulieu "is disappointed the Senate has opted to hold their first meeting about his case without him and in secret ... the Senate decided to investigate the alleged muzzling but Beaulieu was not involved."
I think it was the reporter saying these things. This is a direct quotation:
"Why it would not be open to the public is a big concern of mine," he said by telephone.
. . . Beaulieu wants the members to be more transparent. He wants to know what happened.
Given insight into this closed door discussion — still referring to this committee — Beaulieu suggested it may have to be done for his protection.
I think you were assuming we were doing this for your protection.
Members were given copies of his medical records....
My question is, has anyone told you we were given copies of your medical records?
Mr. Beaulieu: No. I do know that I was contacted by a parliamentary lawyer that was looking into this and asked if I had any issue with my medical records being sent out to this committee. I said, "No, not at all." I had to sign a consent; they asked me to do a consent. I did it by email. It was not good enough, I guess, and they sent me a letter that I had to sign, consenting to this committee to have a look at those records
Senator Comeau: Contrary to what the reporter said was a concern of yours, you have no reason to believe that we were given your medical records?
Mr. Beaulieu: I approved that you could have them.
Senator Comeau: For the record, we did not get them.
Mr. Beaulieu: I see. I did not know that.
Senator Comeau: Relating to the fact that you were not invited to our planning session, it is normal for committees to plan who its witnesses will be and what the objective is. It is quite normal; all committees do this. Do you feel in any way that we were not being fair to you by not inviting you to our planning meeting, as suggested in the newspaper article?
Mr. Beaulieu: No.
Senator Comeau: The reporter, Ms. Bergeron-Oliver, was taking liberties.
Mr. Beaulieu: I think she misunderstood what we were talking about there. I was not upset about not being invited to that part. I understood it was probably closed because you were looking at my medical records and that is what I explained to her.
Senator Comeau: The whole article seems to imply that somehow this committee was doing things in secret; it was not transparent. She may have been putting words in your mouth at a certain point that this was all being done in secret.
Mr. Beaulieu: I questioned it until I thought about it. It made sense that you would have that in camera and not public on my medical record. That is what I explained to her.
Senator Comeau: At a certain part of this article as well, and I think I have seen it elsewhere, the RCMP created a new travel policy just days after you were informed by your superiors that you could not travel to Ottawa. Is this your belief, that this was done just a few days before?
Mr. Beaulieu: It is my belief, and I will tell you why. If you look at an RCMP policy and you look at documents sent out, sometimes they have dates that they are sent and dates that the policy is made as well. If you look at the one I sent you, the bottom line is directly across from the date. Usually the date will be one line below, but if it is right across, that is the date that policy came into effect.
Senator Comeau: We will be confirming this with the RCMP, but my understanding is that there has been a policy since 2009. We can confirm that with the RCMP.
Mr. Beaulieu: They do update the policies.
Senator Comeau: The original operation date, the procedure for the bone spur in your foot, was scheduled for April 12. It was put off to May 8.
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes.
Senator Joyal: Was this at your request or was this normal?
Mr. Beaulieu: No, it is not normal because what happened is the RCMP changed our medical plan from looking after it directly to us applying provincially. It was in the mess that I had to apply through Medical Services Plan for British Columbia and the RCMP normally dealt with these things. The doctor's office was under the understanding that the RCMP was going to be arranging or paying for my surgery. When the date came for me to go for my surgery, one or two days prior, that is when they realized I had applied for my Medical Services Plan and it had to be paid through the Medical Services Plan instead of the RCMP. Just because of the billing, that is why they changed the dates.
Senator Comeau: Has the procedure been done now?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, it has. It was done a week ago. I am still recovering from that — about a month ago, actually.
Senator Comeau: My final question refers to the appearance before the Defence Committee to which all of this kind of precipitated the current problem.
At a certain point, you were asked if video conferencing might be an option for you to appear before the committee, and I think that somehow it did not happen. I think the reasoning at this point is that you were being refused to travel to Ottawa.
Did you consider trying to reinstate the video conferencing, given the importance of what you wanted to say to the committee? Did you consider requesting that?
Mr. Beaulieu: They actually said in their email that they were considering this, and when I was refused, I notified them that I was refused and that someone else was going in my place. They did not mention it again. I did not think of it, but they said since someone else is going in your place, that is —
Senator Comeau: You just did not think of maybe pressing the point.
Mr. Beaulieu: I did not think of pressing the point.
Senator Runciman: Thank you for being here, corporal. How would you describe your relationship with the leadership in the RCMP? Are you an activist with respect to independent police officer representation? Do you see yourself that way?
Mr. Beaulieu: I actually do now, yes. I was not before, but I am now.
Senator Runciman: You have been active in the association in British Columbia. You are an executive of the association.
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, I am.
Senator Runciman: I am trying to understand the environment here. I am also curious. I know senator Fraser raised the letter you sent to Commissioner Paulson. I am curious about the timing of it as well because the issue was raised in the Senate on May 7, and, of course, you knew there was a possibility of an appearance here today. It leaves an impression with respect to putting this letter, or demands, if you will, in front of the commissioner prior to your appearance here. That is something that we will have to reflect on, I guess.
Mr. Beaulieu: The reason I did that is I knew that I had his attention. I had to get an answer from him because I did not trust the people at the provincial level.
Senator Runciman: There is some comment with respect to the policy dealing with travel. You had suggested that this policy was created to deal with you, but there was some evidence provided to us that this actually was in place back in 2009.
When I look at this, and I am just a substitute on this committee, you were approved to travel to Hawaii in March.
Mr. Beaulieu: That is correct.
Senator Runciman: Did anything change in your condition that justified the ODS between March and the time you were rejected here? Was there a lessening of your challenges physically or otherwise?
Mr. Beaulieu: Just my foot was for months bothering me. I had to hobble, basically, to get around, even when I was on holiday.
Senator Runciman: Similar situation when you applied to go to Hawaii, so there was no significant change in your condition.
Mr. Beaulieu: No.
Senator Runciman: I think that, from my perspective, makes the RCMP's position much weaker with respect to having two approaches to the way this policy is applied.
Other than mentioning Superintendent Burleigh, you are not aware of any other involvement higher up in the chain of command with respect to the decision related to your appearance.
Mr. Beaulieu: Actually, I forgot to mention that there was a member who just retired. He went back to headquarters to health services to pick up some records, so I know. He belongs to our group. While he was there, he met Deanne Burleigh, and Deanne Burleigh told him that the commissioner had requested a briefing note on me. That was one of the reasons that I sent that letter as well, because I wanted him to know not just the briefing note the RCMP was giving him but also my letter with my complaints on it.
Senator Runciman: This was after the decision.
Mr. Beaulieu: That is correct.
Senator Martin: My colleagues have asked some of the questions I had. Thank you, first of all, for being here.
In terms of your foot injury, I am trying to sort out some of the details to help me and others understand the full situation.
Would you explain the nature of this injury and how it prevented you from some of the administrative duties that you had? I am curious about the physical strain that you would have been under for carrying out certain duties and what some of the administrative duties required from you. I am trying to determine that.
Mr. Beaulieu: Physically, I do not think there would have been an issue with me doing administrative duties at all. Mentally, absolutely. I would have to go back to work and deal with these people who, at any time, could come at me again. How can anyone work in that atmosphere? No one can. That would be like getting out of bed knowing that you are walking into a lion's nest. I could not do it.
Senator Martin: Your physical injury was work-related, but what prevented you from working was more the mental strain.
Mr. Beaulieu: Absolutely.
Senator Martin: In terms of the trip that you had approval to go to, may I ask what the nature of that trip was? I do not know if anyone has asked that.
Mr. Beaulieu: The trip that I went to . . .
Senator Martin: Yes, in March.
Mr. Beaulieu: That was a vacation. My wife and I went to Hawaii for nine days.
Senator Martin: Regarding the email from Dr. Fieschi, she says if your next procedure is delayed that there is an expectation for you to go back to work to do your administrative duties, but you are saying it was not so much the physical injury; it was the mental strain.
Mr. Beaulieu: I want to clarify one point, if I can, for you. My therapist, Dr. Webster, and I told the RCMP the only way I can go back to work as a result of my mental disability was to deal with my issues at hand, my complaints, and the force refuses even to acknowledge they exist. How can I go back under those circumstances?
Senator Martin: Regarding the letter to Commissioner Paulson, is there a standard negotiating procedure or process that one would follow in negotiating one's retirement?
Mr. Beaulieu: That is a good question because I do not know. All I know is what I have heard from other people within my group on how they have done the process, and that would be contacting Rick Cousins as he is the middle man. The other person in B.C. would have been Paul Darbyshire, superintendent, and the member. The middleman would pass the notes back and forth; they would come to an agreement, sit down, discuss it, and if it was agreed upon, it would be signed. The member would take it to a lawyer to ensure everything was above board, sign it off and basically say that I will not say anything; you do not say anything; bye-bye; I am gone.
Senator Martin: I find that hard to — I am not saying that I cannot believe, but I am thinking about a large organization and whether there is a policy manual or certain procedures.
Mr. Beaulieu: There is no policy on that, no.
Senator Martin: Thank you. Maybe we have other witnesses we can ask as well.
Senator Batters: Thank you very much for appearing before us today. Could you explain what type of injury or disability prevented you from working over the last couple of years?
Mr. Beaulieu: Again, I do not know why I cannot remember it, but the disability has to do with anxiety, stress, depression, sleeplessness and trust issues. It is called an "adjustment disorder"; that is what it is called, the disability that I have. They say if this is dealt with in a good time limit, that there is a good chance of success in dealing with it, but if it festers and goes on for over five years, it gets worse. It does not get better. That is what I understand in my reading on it. Again, for the PTSD part, what I understood of it is PTSD was like a catch-all, but it is obviously not. It is actually diagnosed.
Senator Batters: Your May 22 letter to Commissioner Paulson says:
In 2012, I was diagnosed with PTSD from Veterans Affairs Canada.
Now you are saying no, it is actually this adjustment disorder?
Mr. Beaulieu: It is an adjustment disorder, but I believe that it is part of PTSD. I may be wrong on that.
Senator Batters: You are saying today it is actually this adjustment disorder and not PTSD?
Mr. Beaulieu: That is right. Yes.
Senator Batters: Did you prepare this letter or did a lawyer?
Mr. Beaulieu: Which letter was that?
Senator Batters: Your letter to Commissioner Paulson.
Mr. Beaulieu: No, that is mine. I prepared that.
Senator Batters: You prepared it?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, I did.
Senator Batters: Why did you not use the adjustment disorder indication in that letter?
Mr. Beaulieu: Because the force is quite aware of it already, and that is why that letter was sent. I assumed they knew my medical issues; obviously they do not, otherwise I do not think I would be here today.
Senator Batters: Why choose the term "PTSD," then, in the letter?
Mr. Beaulieu: Oh, because I did not make that determination until just after that, actually.
Senator Batters: The adjustment disorder was determined after May 22?
Mr. Beaulieu: No, my interpretation of PTSD. The adjustment disorder was diagnosed by Dr. Webster from day one, but my understanding of PTSD included adjustment disorder, which it does not.
Senator Batters: I understand you have — maybe that is what your surgeries are related to — or did have a bone spur problem with your left foot. When did that injury occur? When did the symptoms of the condition prevent you from carrying out administrative functions for the RCMP?
Mr. Beaulieu: Actually, I had that condition about five years ago. Five years ago, I had my right foot surgery done on the bone spur, which has resulted in wearing long boots and shoes. My left foot was not bothering me as much any longer, so I just never went to get it taken care of.
It started acting up while I was off duty sick. Probably about six or seven months ago it started to act up again. That is when I notified my doctor, and through that process, I got my surgery just in May.
Senator Batters: Were the other two surgeries also related to this bone spur problem?
Mr. Beaulieu: No, the other two surgeries had nothing to do with that. In the first surgery, you go under and they have to clean out your sinuses because of snoring and sleep apnea. That was one prior to that.
The other one was for — I had a small windpipe, and I guess I could die during sleep, so they suggested they go in and clean all that out, which they did. That was another procedure, and then my gall bladder and then my foot. I have had quite a few surgeries in the last couple of years.
Senator Batters: From my quick read of the demand letter sent on May 22 to Commissioner Paulson, it seems like the amounts that yesterday Commissioner Paulson cited at the committee were accurate. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, they were, but they were not final by any means.
Senator Batters: No, but that is what you were proposing?
Mr. Beaulieu: That is correct, yes.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Braley: I am a businessman, so I will come at the discussion from probably an entirely different perspective.
You are off work and basically you are saying it is because of anxiety, crises, feeling harassed and what have you. I hear you are helping employees and are also part of some sort of association or union involving the same sort of crises from the other side. Is that not the same pressure?
Mr. Beaulieu: Well, for me, I am helping these people. It is different. I am dealing with this as a victim of the RCMP but helping other members.
Senator Braley: I understand that side, but I do not understand being on the other side because the crises will be even worse.
Mr. Beaulieu: Oh, some of them are, but I find that I can help these people a lot more.
Senator Braley: Well, then, you should be able to negotiate or discuss better with your own management, in my opinion.
Mr. Beaulieu: You would think so, sir, yes, but they do not want to discuss with me about that.
Senator Braley: My second question deals with your communication with Sergeant Reid, which I read over the weekend. You said you felt that the doctor does not like you and that she was playing games. Can you please explain what you mean by that? In the order of events in the submission, you indicate you had no communication with her; you just got a letter. Do you just feel harassed because you got the letter?
Mr. Beaulieu: No, because she has sent me emails prior to meeting with her. Every time I have gone to meet with her — not gone to meet with her, but I did not want to talk to her. There was no reason for me to talk to her.
Senator Braley: Now I understand the reason; you did not want to talk to her.
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes. There was no reason to talk to her.
Senator Braley: I understand that.
The third question has to do with the letter. Most companies have a way of solving problems. If someone has been disabled or what have you, you sit down and you go to the employee. I have never had the employee come and negotiate with me. You sit down with your insurance company — or you are self-insured or what have you — but it is never done with demands. It is usually done the other way around when they say there is no hope. Obviously, they have not yet come to the conclusion where they think there is no hope.
Mr. Beaulieu: Well, there is no hope.
Senator Braley: They have not come to the position that there is no hope; you have.
Mr. Beaulieu: That is right. I have.
Senator Braley: Thank you.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for your presentation. What is the reason for your medical certificate from Dr. Sedergreen? Is it for your foot or for other reasons?
Mr. Beaulieu: It is for my foot. He is my medical doctor; that is why I have been off. Of course, I have not been seeing a therapist, so I have not had that psychological upkeep since Dr. Webster was let go. I have an appointment June 13 to see Dr. Passe at the OSI clinic, which is the Operational Stress Injury Clinic of Veterans Affairs. I know I need to go and get this taken care of and figure out how I will deal with this issue.
During that process, I did not want to be victimized again. I would have to go tell another therapist my whole issue all over again. Was it going to be a therapist that the RCMP approved of, or could it be a therapist of my choice?
Senator Enverga: The thing is, why did you not write Dr. Fieschi back to clarify that your sick leave was for additional reasons? Did you clarify that?
Mr. Beaulieu: I understood that she knew that I was off for my mental disability. I assumed that. I assumed she had access to my file, but as far as my medical issue goes, that was for my foot and the other surgeries.
Senator Enverga: Is that the reason you did not pursue a meeting with Dr. Fieschi?
Mr. Beaulieu: The reason I did not pursue a meeting with Dr. Fieschi is because the RCMP was quite aware that Dr. Webster was my therapist and they were not recognizing his diagnosis.
Senator Enverga: With the letter to Commissioner Paulson, did you base this on some history or facts that you knew of?
Mr. Beaulieu: The letter?
Senator Enverga: That is right, yes.
Mr. Beaulieu: From my knowledge of members that had been talking with Rick Cousins on their negotiations, as far as numbers go, no. I interpreted those numbers based on working until age 62. I do not know how to do this process and I do not want to go to a lawyer because I do not have $1,000 or $2,000 to spend on a lawyer.
Senator Enverga: It is based on your own knowledge?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes.
Senator Enverga: You have not heard anything about something like this being proven?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, I know that this system works. It has worked in the past, yes. There are members who I have spoken to who are retired now who have used this process, yes. This is my attempt at using the process.
Senator Fraser: When you got the letter denying you permission to come, you told us that you found it very intimidating. Was this because of your past history where you have been granted permission to travel? In what way was it intimidating to you? "Intimidating" suggests that you perceived a threat. What was the threat that you perceived?
Mr. Beaulieu: The threat was that if I was to come to the Senate, I would have to return to work, and I could not return to work in that poisoned atmosphere because I felt I was going to be targeted again.
Senator Fraser: Let me get this straight. Your adjustment disorder — is that the name of it?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes.
Senator Fraser: Was the result of your experiences in that workplace?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, workplaces.
Senator Fraser: Workplaces, but within the RCMP.
Mr. Beaulieu: Correct.
Senator Fraser: All in B.C., I believe?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes.
Senator Fraser: Correct me if I am wrong, but what you were saying was, "I cannot go back to work for the place that made me sick"?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes.
Senator Fraser: But I can come to Ottawa?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes.
Senator Fraser: It was your perception that the RCMP was saying, "You will be fired"?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes. Why else would she have cc'd that email to Diane Burleigh, the person who has been sending these letters out?
Senator Fraser: Thank you.
Mr. Beaulieu: It makes no sense.
Senator Furey: Briefly, I want to go back to a point raised by Senator Martin. Are you saying that for active members of the force, and even for members who are on ODS, the type of negotiation set out in your May 22 letter is routine or normal?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, it is.
Senator Furey: In Commissioner Paulson's comments last night in relation to this letter, he said that "the implicit message I get from this is 'or else'."
I have read the letter, and I do not get that but, in fairness, I am not involved in a dispute with you and have not been over the years. There is one sentence here, though, which I think you could interpret in that way.
You said:
A non-response by your office will be interpreted by me, that you do not agree to my retirement terms and that you do not wish to discuss this matter further.
You could read a little further into that to say, "If that is the case, I will be taking further steps", which is a type of "or else."
When you wrote that sentence, what was in your mind? Were you thinking that if he did not comply with what you were asking you would take further steps, or were you just making an innocent statement?
Mr. Beaulieu: It was just an innocent statement. If he had not replied to me by June 5, I was going to read that as, "Okay, what am I going to do now?" I had no plans and had not thought of anything, but I was hoping that they would negotiate. However, he has responded between then and June 5, so again I am hopeful that there is possibility that we can come to an arrangement.
Senator Batters: Dr. Fieschi outlined in her email of April 30 to you that she believed travelling to Ottawa would require the physical ability to navigate airports, handle baggage and deal with jet lag, as well as the cognitive ability to follow complex arguments at committee and the judgment to formulate responses to potentially challenging questions. We will see if you consider our questions to be challenging. Would you agree with her assessment, sir?
Mr. Beaulieu: Absolutely not.
Senator Batters: You do not agree with any of what she said?
Mr. Beaulieu: Anything she had to say?
Senator Batters: Those particular words.
Mr. Beaulieu: I do not know what she based that on. She must have based it on my medical file that she has access to, so she would be very aware that I have a disorder, but in her opinion I cannot cognitively think and discuss in the Senate.
Senator Batters: No, she was saying that these were the types of things that you could encounter by coming to Ottawa to testify at this committee: physical ability to navigate airports, deal with jet lag, handle baggage, and the cognitive ability to do those things. Would you agree that those kinds of things were required?
Mr. Beaulieu: Yes, absolutely they are required.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will now go to Sergeant George Reid.
You heard the earlier discussion about the option of giving evidence under oath or under our normal procedure. Do you have a preference?
Staff Sergeant George Reid, Protective Services Section, "E" Division, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Thank you, Mr. Chair. An oath will be fine.
The Chair: We have several witnesses and the latest we can go today is 12 noon, so we will have the four remaining witnesses at the table.
Chief Superintendent, do you wish to make an opening statement?
Chief Superintendent Kevin deBruyckere, Deputy Criminal Operations, Federal Policing, "E" Division, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Yes.
The Chair: Please proceed with your opening statement and then we will go back to Staff Sergeant Reid.
Mr. deBruyckere: Good morning, honourable senators. I am a chief superintendent in the RCMP responsible for federal policing in British Columbia, which includes protective policing. Corporal Roland Beaulieu's substantive position is with "E" Division protective policing.
Sergeant George Reid and I are in Ottawa for other meetings and are both honoured to take the time to share with this committee information that may be of assistance to your work. Dr. Isabelle Fieschi is an RCMP health services officer in "E" Division, and she travelled from Vancouver to appear here today.
Prior to assuming my current duties, I was the officer in charge of "E" Division development and resourcing from October 2010 to February of this year. In that role I was responsible for the staffing of over 6,000 regular members of the RCMP in British Columbia, which included the assignment of members with limitations and restrictions to positions and duties that accommodate those limitations and restrictions. The RCMP is committed to ensuring that employees are provided with meaningful work and with opportunities to succeed.
It has been reported in the media that Corporal Beaulieu has stated he has been muzzled from speaking before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. That assertion is not correct. Staff Sergeant Reid followed RCMP policy, sought the views of the health services officer, and subsequently denied Corporal Beaulieu's travel from his duty area. I supported that decision.
The RCMP has never intended to prevent members from attending before Senate committee hearings dealing with Bill C-42, as evidenced by other members having appeared before that committee.
My colleagues and I will be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Staff Sergeant Reid, please tell us what you would like us to hear and think we should hear.
Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I am Staff Sergeant George Reid. I have been a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for over 33 years. I am currently the non-commissioned officer in charge of protective services in "E" Division in the province of British Columbia. There are 35 regular members in that section, and as the unit commander I have the responsibility to ensure a respectful workplace for everyone.
Corporal Beaulieu went off duty sick approximately two years ago. It is my responsibility to try to have him returned to work and ensure he is getting medical attention. The information I have as I attempt to do this task is quite limited, for a variety of reasons. Basically, I am provided a medical certificate. This certificate indicates whether the member is fit for duty or unfit for duty with restrictions. I was receiving medical certificates from Corporal Beaulieu stating that he was unfit for duty.
I met with Corporal Beaulieu several times for coffee. We had to cover off some administrative duties. During this time, I received some information from Corporal Beaulieu about his reasons for being off duty sick. They were to do with unresolved harassment complaints or other stress issues that led me to believe that he was off for some psychological reasons, which I have no knowledge of.
Over the past two years, Corporal Beaulieu has consistently contacted me and requested permission to leave the duty area for a variety of reasons — fishing, vacation, whatever — and I have always approved those requests. I recall that one request was to go to Victoria for some type of meeting at the provincial legislature in his capacity with the MPPAC. Another request was to travel to Ottawa, again to do some lobbying on behalf of the MPPAC.
As unit commander, I also have a responsibility to provide a respectful workplace to all the employees that are there, the remaining 34 or so. I also have a duty to be fiscally responsible to the Canadian taxpayers.
When a member is off duty sick, it creates a vacancy. Other members are required to perform those duties. We have to bring people in on overtime. It will, to a certain extent, limit when people can take annual leave because of the shortage of members, and it affects the morale of the unit. I attempt to bring members who are off duty sick back to work as soon as possible.
On April 29 I had already received the correspondence where Corporal Beaulieu was planning to attend the Senate hearing. I had every intention of approving this, as I have the other ones in the past. On April 29 I had a telephone conversation with Corporal Beaulieu. We discussed the travel and he explained that the reason he was not at work was because of his left foot and this bone spur. We had a lengthy conversation about the bone spur and the procedure and what the recovery time would be. At no time did he ever bring up any type of psychological reason for him not being at work. It was not discussed. For me, this was fairly exciting because I had assumed or hoped that the psychological issues that he may have been dealing with were resolved. Now the only thing we were left with was this physical ailment of the left foot.
This, in my mind, was almost a game changer in the fact that we had hope of getting Corporal Beaulieu back to work. From there, I contacted the health services officer, as you see in the information you have. That precipitated the chain of events that precluded me from allowing or giving permission for Corporal Beaulieu to leave the duty area.
It was never, ever my intention to have him not appear in front of any Senate committee. If his request had been to travel to Hawaii or go fishing, I would have followed the exact same procedure and denied the request.
The Chair: It would make sense for each witness give their opening statement and then have questions.
Dr. Fieschi, would you make an opening statement and tell us what you think we should hear and what you want us to hear?
Dr. Isabelle Fieschi, Chief, Health Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: It would be my pleasure, honourable senators, Mr. Chair.
My name is Isabelle Fieschi. I am a physician. I have been working for the RCMP in B.C. since the fall of 2006, which, believe it or not, makes me one of the longer standing health services officers in the force now, although it is nothing compared to the type of service that most members have. I am not a regular or a civilian member of the RCMP; I am a public servant.
In my role as health services officer, I look after 2,400 civilian and regular members in British Columbia. Most of the members I look after are posted on Vancouver Island or in our north district. Most recently, because of shortages in our personnel, I have taken on other units including protective policing.
There are many things I would like you to hear today, but I think they will come out in questions and I am happy to answer them.
The Chair: We now have Assistant Commissioner Gilles Moreau, Director General of HR Tranformation. Could you give us your opening statement?
Assistant Commissioner Gilles Moreau, Director General, HR Tranformation, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Basically, I can address any questions that deal with the policy and amendments to the policies that are in place for sick leave and allowing travel when members are on long-term ODS and clarify the issue of the policy not being amended on May 3 but the policy being printed, the copy that was sent over to Corporal Beaulieu.
The policy as far as requesting permission to leave your duty area has been in existence at least since 2007. It was reworded in 2009 to clarify it to specify the roles of every individual member, the commander and the HSO, to make it more precise, but the policy has been there for quite a while. It is not a new policy that was put out in May.
Senator McCoy: Mr. Chair, could you just ask the witness to specify his position? I did not quite hear that.
The Chair: Yes. I read his title.
Can you explain the scope of your duties?
Mr. Moreau: I am Director General of HR transformation. Resulting from Budget 2012, there is a major health modernization going on in the RCMP, including members getting access to basic health care, which was approved by a change to the Canada Health Act by this Parliament in 2013. That was implemented on April 1, 2013. Also, it looks at all the benefits members have, looking at the current sick leave regime we have in the RCMP, which is basically to have sufficient time off duty in order for a member to come back to work and produce for the organization either in an administrative function or an operational function. It also looks at the disability case management for the RCMP and enhancing the current system that we have — all that with a view to having a better system, ensuring that our members are away from work for the shortest period of time so that they can contribute back to the organization and come back either administratively or operationally. That is my role.
As far as the policies are concerned, over the past six years I have been the Director General or Acting Director General of National Compensation Services, where this policy resided. In 2009, I was the acting director general that oversaw the changes and the updating of the policy to make it clearer.
Senator McCoy: Are you located at national headquarters?
Mr. Moreau: I am here in Ottawa, yes.
Senator Furey: Staff Sergeant Reid, I have two quick questions. You indicated that when you spoke to Corporal Beaulieu about his bone spur, you felt that perhaps these psychological issues had been resolved. Did you think to ask him about that when you were discussing his bone spur with him?
Mr. Reid: I did not ask him that directly, no.
Senator Furey: Senator Runciman raised the issue of an apparent inconsistency in the permission granted to travel. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Reid: Why before and not now?
Senator Furey: Yes.
Mr. Reid: It was simply because in the previous request I believed the reason he was off duty was because of some psychological issues he was dealing with. After that conversation, that was not offered at all; it was clearly his left foot. If a member can travel anywhere on vacation or attend Ottawa, then I believe that that member should be able to go to work and perform some form of graduated return-to-work effort in administrative policy, even for a few hours a day.
Senator Furey: Chief Superintendent, pardon me if I do not take a stab at your last name. I have a difficult time with my Newfoundland tongue getting around it.
Are you familiar with the letter from Corporal Beaulieu of May 22 to Commissioner Paulson?
Mr. deBruyckere: Yes, but I have not seen it.
Senator Furey: You are familiar with it and you know it was a negotiated retirement set forth by Corporal Beaulieu; not necessarily the contents but that was the context of it?
Mr. deBruyckere: Yes.
Senator Furey: We have heard that that is a normal way for members of the force to negotiate retirement, whether they are active or ODS; is that correct?
Mr. deBruyckere: In my experience, that is not correct. If you wish, I can clarify.
Corporal Beaulieu referenced Rick Cousins. Perhaps that is the best way to describe it. Rick Cousins is a temporary civilian employee with the RCMP in "E" Division. He is a medical retirement facilitator. He works with regular and civilian members who have been off sick for a period of time. He first meets with them to discuss what they can do for the organization in terms of a graduated return to work. He also shares with them the benefits associated with a medical retirement from the RCMP. That is his role within that.
A negotiation may occur during those meetings with respect to a retirement date, for example, or a certain period of annual leave and then a retirement date when the medical retirement comes into effect.
In the case of negotiated settlements, that would occur in cases where we are responding to a claim like a statement of claim or a notice of claim that has been filed by a member or by a member's lawyer. Then a negotiation would take place with the advice of Department of Justice counsel. That is when negotiations take place. There are two aspects to that.
Senator Furey: In your opinion, then, this sort of process can happen and probably does happen, but it would not be the routine or normal?
Mr. deBruyckere: That is correct.
Senator Furey: Dr. Fieschi, could you give us an outline of your training? Are you a general practitioner or specialist?
Dr. Fieschi: I was trained at McGill University, and that is where I did my medical school. I also did my residency there in family medicine, so I am a family practitioner by training, yes.
Senator Furey: Were you aware of the diagnosis made by Corporal Beaulieu's health care provider when you wrote this letter respecting his travel to Ottawa?
Dr. Fieschi: I was aware that there was this diagnosis on file. I have to qualify that and explain a little bit how things work.
The diagnosis was on file from a previous care provider. The latest formal report from a psychologist that was on file dates back to May of 2012. There were no psychological reports on file since then.
I asked for health information from Dr. Sedergreen, who is Corporal Beaulieu's present family physician. I asked for that information in January of this year. I asked again for information in March of this year. I understand this proceeding is privileged, but I did want to have on record that Corporal Beaulieu's consent to discuss medical information, it is with a little bit of trepidation, because it is something sacrosanct to physicians, but I gather I do have this permission.
Dr. Sedergreen indicated two diagnoses when he responded to me in January. One is cholecystitis, gallstones, which is resolvable by surgery. The other one was chronic plantar fasciitis, which is also resolvable by surgery.
Physicians in the province of British Columbia are bound by the guidelines of the College of Physicians & Surgeons of British Columbia, which indicate that when making a report to a third party, such as we are, they have to be truthful, accurate and complete. When I receive this type of information, I have to make the assumption that the information is complete.
This, paired with the fact that there is no psychological report on file since May of 2012, would lead me to believe that the diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, which I remember the name, was not an active diagnosis or, at least, not to the point where it was a barrier to Corporal Beaulieu's return to work.
Senator Furey: Let us talk about that for a second. I know that as a family practitioner you are expected to know everything, but we do often put unwarranted expectations on our family practitioners in that regard. The diagnosis that was on file that you just spoke of, you are familiar with it. You are familiar with its symptoms and you are familiar with its treatments; is that correct?
Dr. Fieschi: Yes, I am.
Senator Furey: What would lead you to believe that this was a dated diagnosis on the file in May of 2012 and lead you to subsequently arrive at the conclusion that Corporal Beaulieu should travel or should go to work without even talking to him or meeting with him?
Dr. Fieschi: Two things — a diagnosis is a diagnosis. It actually gives no indication as to the level of disability that goes with the diagnosis. We have members with post-traumatic stress disorder working their full duties; we have members who are on restricted duties because of this; and we have members completely unable to work because of that specific diagnosis. The diagnosis in and of itself does not indicate anything about the symptoms at the current time and the degree of impairment and disability from that diagnosis.
I can only deal with the information I am given, and when I recently request information and it does not include psychological diagnosis, I have to assume that it has either been dealt with or it is not significant in terms of precluding the return to work.
I know there was another part to your question about meeting with Corporal Beaulieu. I requested to meet with Corporal Beaulieu a couple of times. The first time was when I introduced myself to him because there had been some turnover in our staff and I was assigned to his file. I contacted him to let him know I was assigned to his file and requested to meet. Initially, he seemed to agree. He wanted a representative present; I agreed. We agreed he would have his first surgery and that we would meet after that. I made the request again after his surgery, thinking he would have recovered enough to come and meet with me, and at that point he declined to meet with me.
You also have to understand that I am not the treating physician for any of our members. I do not have a doctor- patient relationship with them, and because of logistics of distance and of the number of members we have, most of the time I will not have the opportunity to meet with any of them. The vast majority of the time, I do not meet our members, but I never actually myself perform the assessment of their fitness for duty. I rely entirely on what their care providers are telling me.
Senator Furey: I can see exactly what you are saying in terms of just a bare diagnosis on a piece of paper. There is not a lot that can be drawn from that. I understand your attempt to meet with Corporal Beaulieu.
Given all of that, ought you not to have qualified your April 30 letter and perhaps included some of that in the letter when you made your assessment of his ability to go back to work and travel?
Dr. Fieschi: How would you suggest that I have done that?
Senator Furey: Perhaps you could have said: I have made an effort to meet with him; I am not really sure what the diagnosis would be unless I met with him or discussed with him what I already have seen on paper and what I could personally diagnose myself, but based on just the raw information that I have, perhaps he should go back to work.
I think it ought to be qualified; do you not?
Dr. Fieschi: I had requested information very, very recently, so I did not feel like I was missing information.
I think the onus could also be put on Corporal Beaulieu to provide us with up-to-date accurate information so we can make the best determination.
I have had several instances where I have questioned a travel request when it comes to me, which is relatively frequently. There have certainly been times where I have not been in favour of the travel. I would like to qualify that I do not have the authority to deny travel as an HSO.
What has happened, without exception, when I have questioned the ability to travel of someone who has been off duty sick is that the member has provided me with very up-to-date information from their care provider, sometimes their clergyman. I have gotten phone calls from spouses explaining to me why even though they are off duty sick, they are able to engage in whatever activities they are asking to do that require travel. In the case of Corporal Beaulieu, I did not receive anything.
I think that might have been his cue to provide it.
Senator Furey: Let me quote from your letter, Dr. Fieschi. You say:
From a cognitive/psychological standpoint, giving evidence at such a committee requires the ability to follow complex arguments and the judgment to formulate responses to questions on potentially challenging issues.
My opinion is that, if you are able to engage in the physical and mental task described above, then you are able to engage in some amount of administrative work as an RCMP officer in your unit.
You are making that assessment based on what?
Dr. Fieschi: A few things — based on the two diagnoses given to me. Typically, most people would be able to work administrative duties with those diagnoses. If someone is completely unable to work, even in an administrative capacity with those diagnoses, I have to make the assumption that their mobility is severely impaired. They cannot get around; there is no way they can get to work. They are in a lot of pain and that might interfere with their cognition, or they are suffering side effects from the medication for the pain or the condition that is also interfering with their cognitive abilities. Those are the three ways someone cannot be at work with those conditions.
Senator Furey: Your assessment of the psychological comments on file and your familiarity with the symptoms and treatment of that particular diagnosis would lead you to that conclusion without talking to Corporal Beaulieu?
Dr. Fieschi: Could you repeat the question?
Senator Furey: You have said that what is on file is just a raw diagnosis, that you are familiar with that particular diagnosis and that you have an understanding of the treatment and assessment of that diagnosis. Without talking to or meeting with Corporal Beaulieu, you were led to make these particular comments and —
Dr. Fieschi: You are referring to the diagnosis of adjustment disorder?
Senator Furey: Yes, of course.
Dr. Fieschi: The diagnosis of adjustment disorder was not, I was told, an active diagnosis since it was not mentioned by his physician when I specifically requested information about barriers to work.
Senator Furey: Who told you that it was not an active diagnosis?
Dr. Fieschi: As I stated, when I ask for information about the barriers to return to work and I am given two diagnoses that are both physical, I have to assume that the physician who is writing that letter is giving me the complete picture of the barriers to return to work.
Senator Furey: Thank you for your patience.
Before you prepared this report, I understand from Staff Sergeant Reid that he involved you in this process, correct?
Dr. Fieschi: In this one, yes.
Senator Furey: As he had every right to do. I am not questioning that. Did you speak with anyone within the RCMP, particularly in the chain of command, about your report before writing it or before responding?
Dr. Fieschi: No, I did not.
The Chair: If you now have the view that he had no active diagnosis of a psychological problem, would he not have been fit to travel from a psychological perspective?
Dr. Fieschi: Most likely, yes.
Senator Fraser: Staff Sergeant Reid, do you have any medical training?
Mr. Reid: No.
Senator Fraser: In your last conversation with Corporal Beaulieu you assumed, because he did not mention his psychological difficulties, that they no longer existed. Why did you not ask him about it? He had spoken with you about them before, so it is not as if you were —
Mr. Reid: I made an assumption that these were being dealt with because in the past, whenever we met, although I am not allowed to ask point blank what people's problems are, he always volunteered them. This time it was exclusively about the foot, so I had assumed that perhaps he was making progress on the other things and that was not an issue.
Senator Fraser: You made your assumption, which is fine; that is your answer. Why, in this case, did you turn to Dr. Fieschi when, in previous cases, you had, on your own authority, given him permission to travel?
Mr. Reid: Simply because I thought there were other issues that I was not privy to the details of which were preventing him from coming to work.
Senator Fraser: What kind of other issues?
Mr. Reid: The psychological issues.
Senator Fraser: Previously, because there were the psychological issues, you thought you could say, "Okay, travel," and this time you were assuming there were no more psychological issues —
Mr. Reid: But the foot issue.
Senator Fraser: You knew, I assume, that the surgery was going to be on May 8.
Mr. Reid: I would have to check my notes, but I knew there was surgery pending and that he was able to travel, be it to Ottawa or whatever, but yet he could not go to work in a part-time administrative fashion.
Senator Fraser: How did you contact Dr. Fieschi?
Mr. Reid: By email.
Senator Fraser: Did you have any conversations with her about this?
Mr. Reid: I believe it was all through email.
Senator Fraser: Was there ever a moment when you explained to Dr. Fieschi your assumption that the psychological problems no longer existed?
Mr. Reid: I do not believe so, no. I was specifically dealing with the foot issue.
Senator Fraser: Dr. Fieschi, it seems pretty clear to me from the testimony of Corporal Beaulieu that he believes that his diagnosis of adjustment disorder is a permanent condition. In your experience, is it or is it not a permanent condition?
Dr. Fieschi: Adjustment disorder is a tricky category. It refers to symptoms that arise from stressful life situations. Typically, the stressful life situation does not meet what we usually see for post-traumatic stress disorder where people can be, in reality, or perceive to be, at immediate threat to their life or limb or other people around them.
Adjustment disorder is typically limited in time, and one of the definitions of it is that it does not meet the criteria for other mood disorders such as major depression or an anxiety disorder. Typically —
Senator Fraser: It can be limited in time?
Dr. Fieschi: The vast majority of the time it is, yes.
Senator Fraser: When you were contemplating this case and you saw the file and you say you were told that it was no longer an active diagnosis, did you think to query why there had been no further comment on this? I understand that you asked Dr. Sedergreen, but he is a surgeon.
Dr. Fieschi: No, he is actually a family physician.
Senator Fraser: He is a family physician. So he was treating Corporal Beaulieu for physical ailments.
Dr. Fieschi: Like all family physicians, he would be expected to treat Corporal Beaulieu or anyone else for physical and psychological ailments, although certainly he might refer to specialists for other treatment.
Senator Fraser: Why would you not ask him about the emotional difficulties?
Dr. Fieschi: I ask broad questions about what the barriers to return to work might be. Typically, with a diagnosis that may have previously kept someone off work, I would expect that there would be ongoing treatment for that diagnosis. I do not have proof of ongoing treatment, although it may actually be happening.
The other thing that led me to assume this is an email from Corporal Beaulieu himself, which I can quote to you. This was from March 14: "I am currently waiting for surgery to be performed on my left foot. I am in no condition to return to work until after my surgery and the required time for healing."
I did make the assumption, since he used those words, that after the surgery he would be in a condition to return to work.
Senator Fraser: But you never thought to ask him or anyone else if there were any continuing emotional or psychological difficulties? You are a health officer; you are a physician; you are entitled to ask about people's conditions.
Dr. Fieschi: You are absolutely right.
Senator Fraser: And you did not examine him; you never met him.
Dr. Fieschi: No, and one reason I wanted to meet him was so that we could have a discussion and ensure that there was nothing else in the way of his return to work. Psychological conditions, yes, you can talk about them over email; yes, you can talk about them over the phone, and I certainly have and will continue to do so, but when someone is close by, I think it makes sense to discuss them in person and I was hoping to do so, and I have not lost hope that we can.
Senator Fraser: I think he has.
Dr. Fieschi: Well, clearly.
Senator Fraser: In your view, it is acceptable to utter something as firm and flat as the letter that you sent him without checking into the state of the psychological difficulties?
Dr. Fieschi: I was attempting to check into the state of his overall health, and I had, in the recent past, and so I did not feel that I needed to once again, no.
Senator Runciman: Staff Sergeant Reid, with respect to your contact with Dr. Fieschi, you mentioned earlier that this was unusual, not the norm for you, with respect to this kind of request. What about your contact with the chief superintendent? Was that the norm, that you got a green light from the chief superintendent for every such travel request that was placed before you?
Mr. Reid: No. In this case, because there was a change in Corporal Beaulieu's reason for not being back to work, I wanted to keep Chief Superintendent deBruyckere in the loop as to what I was contemplating doing.
Senator Runciman: It becomes curious when you deviate in a situation like this in your justification when you saw fit to approval travel in March and then not in April; plus you deviated from your normal practices to approach two individuals with respect to how this should be dealt with or do you approve of the way I am dealing with it. It certainly raises think some questions.
Doctor, was this treated from your perspective in any way differently from other requests that come before you?
Dr. Fieschi: No. From my perspective, I deal with all such requests by looking at the policy and information I have on file and, of course, my professional knowledge.
Senator Runciman: I have some documentation where you have said you informed the corporal in early April that you did not believe his condition required him to be off duty, ODS, but you let it be; this is in April. Then, not too much past that time, you concluded that he could not be unfit to return to work but fit to attend Senate. Do you see any problem with that chronology, if you will? You are letting him go in one instance, and then a few weeks later, "but you cannot travel to Ottawa." I find that one difficult to get my head around.
Dr. Fieschi: It is a fair question. At the time I stated that the majority of people with those two physical conditions would be able to work, and so it was problematic for me that he was not at work. I also knew that the initial surgery for the foot was scheduled for later on in April. When someone has been off duty sick for a significant period of time, the setting up of the return to work can take a little while. I actually let it be at that point because I knew he would be off duty sick again due to the surgery. It turns out the surgery was postponed but it was not a significant length of time, so that would explain that.
Senator Runciman: I assume, Staff Sergeant Reid, that when the corporal made his request for travel you were very much aware that that involved appearing before a Senate committee to, I gather, discuss harassment issues within the RCMP and allegations of harassment within the RCMP.
Mr. Reid: Actually, no. I knew he was intending to travel here to appear before a Senate committee. I did not have any details and I did not make any inquiries as to exactly what his involvement was.
Senator Runciman: Did you know what the process was prior to making a decision at all? Did you know what the Senate appearance dealt with prior to making the decision?
Mr. Reid: No.
Senator Batters: Mr. Moreau, you were explaining earlier about the policy. There was a CBC report that aired on May 6, where the reporter stated that the RCMP policy on travel during sick leave was new and dated May 3. In that report Mr. Beaulieu stated, "It looks to me like they made that policy up just so they could stop me from going to the Senate." You are telling us today then that that policy, as it is currently written, has been in place since 2009; it was not revised after that point?
Mr. Moreau: The particular section 2.15 has not been revised since then. There are other revisions made in 2012 that were just a link to a new policy, a related policy, and the date at the bottom on the right-hand side of the page is the date that you print with our system. When you print the policy to send it or scan it to send to someone, that is the date that appears.
Senator Batters: When Mr. Beaulieu earlier today was referring to a date at the bottom, that is what he saw?
Mr. Moreau: The amendment date appears in the centre at the top of the policy when the policy was amended. For example, the policy was recently amended on April 24, 2013, to remove the reference to human resources officers because we no longer have that title. It is replaced by a commanding officer, or different links were updated in the policy.
Senator Batters: Dr. Fieschi, Corporal Beaulieu travelled to Hawaii in March and I assume he received permission for that trip. What was the situation surrounding that trip and the reason for travel authorization at that time and was his medical situation different at that point?
Dr. Fieschi: I was not consulted at that point about that travel.
Senator Batters: That was Staff Sergeant Reid, was it? Could you explain that then?
Mr. Reid: What I have heard about this morning, I knew almost nothing about Corporal Beaulieu's condition. This is all new to me and I had that limited knowledge from conversations we would have over coffee. When I made decisions in the past, I believed he was not back to work because of some kind of psychological problems that he was dealing with and hopefully making progress and would return to work. As I said, I authorized all of his travel.
Now this was different. This was a physical foot problem, and if he could travel anywhere, then why could he not come back to work?
Senator Batters: Dr. Fieschi, what injuries did or does Corporal Beaulieu have that precluded him, in your opinion, from travelling to Ottawa to testify before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence?
Dr. Fieschi: The two diagnoses given to me were the cholecystitis, which by that point had been treated and presumably resolved, so we were left with this left plantar fasciitis that had yet to be treated. I was told this was sufficiently severe that he could not work at all. Again, the only way that this would preclude work was if mobility was severely impaired, cognition was impaired by pain or pain medication. If mobility was sufficient to, as I stated, go through an airport, deal with luggage, and just be generally mobile, apart from just around one's own house, and cognition was sufficient to participate in this type of committee, then they were probably sufficient to perform administrative duties as well.
Senator Batters: Your comments in that letter dealing with his cognitive abilities and those types of things, they were particular to the pain from the foot injury, not dealing with any psychological disorders that had earlier been referenced going back to May 2012?
Dr. Fieschi: That is correct.
Senator McCoy: Assistant Commissioner Moreau, I am looking at a copy of the policy that you have provided us. I think I am on the right section when I refer to section 2.15. It says that a member on sick leave must have the commander's written approval to travel beyond the boundaries of the district of duty area or area of primary residence for more than 24 hours, excluding periods of RTO when travel is for personal reasons.
Mr. Moreau: Yes.
Senator McCoy: I have a couple of questions of clarification. What does RTO stand for?
Mr. Moreau: It stands for regular time off, your Saturday and Sunday.
Senator McCoy: I am also curious to know what "commander" means. I went to the front to look for definitions and it referred me to a definitions chapter, and you did not include that with your submission. Could you tell me what "commander" means then?
Mr. Moreau: Usually it would be the non-commissioned officer in charge of a unit. It can be a corporal, if you are reporting directly to a corporal, or a staff sergeant or an officer in charge of a detachment. There are different levels of reporting.
Senator McCoy: I saw Staff Sergeant Reid sit up when I mentioned "commander."
In this case, would you have been the commander, Sergeant Reid?
Mr. Moreau: He was the commander.
Mr. Reid: Yes.
Senator McCoy: My other question, then, to the assistant commissioner is why is there this policy in place? Why would you restrict travel?
Mr. Moreau: It is basically because we are paying full salaries for our members when they are off duty sick, and their duty is to get back to work as early as possible, to look after their health, their treatment plan, to follow treatment and to do everything that is possible for them to come back and contribute to the organization and to help this organization police Canadians across this country. That is their responsibility. We give you as much time off as necessary to come back to work, but you are responsible.
Senator McCoy: They are responsible to get better.
Mr. Moreau: You are responsible to get better. That is why we have this in place. We want to make sure that you do not just disappear for six months, a year, and that you are within your duty area, and that you are following your treatment plans and not ending up for six months somewhere else where you are not seeing your physician, your psychologist or whomever you have to see to provide health care to you.
Senator McCoy: That obligation on a member is outlined in section 2.13. It says that it is the duty of every member to follow treatment and get better as quickly as possible.
Mr. Moreau: Yes.
Senator McCoy: Fair enough. It would seem to me, then, your primary concern is that, while on sick leave, you want to make sure that whatever is necessary is being done to get better: following treatment, et cetera. I presume that is why, under 2.15.1, it states:
The Commander may request the opinion of the Health Services Officer with regard to the appropriateness of the travel request and its impact on the recovery process.
Mr. Moreau: Absolutely. If the travel request does not match, if you have a physical ailment and whatever you are planning to go and do, whether it be a vacation or travel to Ottawa to go climb buildings and you have a bad back, then we, as commanders, do not have the medical information, so it is up to the HSO to look at the medical information, the limitations and restrictions provided by the treating physicians to see if that matches. If it does not match and will impair the recovery, because we want the speedy recovery of the members, then the HSO has a responsibility to recommend that the travel not be approved.
Senator McCoy: The focus is on the recovery process. The impact on the recovery process is what you just said.
Mr. Moreau: Yes.
Senator McCoy: You have also provided us with a series of emails that you have printed out, and you have given us a summary of them, that the RCMP has. Thank you for that. It has been very helpful and is on the record.
I want to ask two general questions. Are these all of the emails that are relevant to the case of Corporal Beaulieu?
Mr. Reid: Yes, all the relevant emails have been completely disclosed that I was involved with.
Senator McCoy: How long have you been involved in it?
Mr. Reid: All the emails where I was in correspondence with other people have been disclosed, yes.
Senator McCoy: What do you mean by that?
Mr. Reid: I believe you have every email regarding Corporal Beaulieu on this issue.
Senator McCoy: "This issue" having to do with?
Mr. Reid: The appearance here at the Senate committee.
(Fire alarm ringing.)
The Chair: Can someone go out and find out?
Mr. Robert: We have to evacuate.
The Chair: I know it is hot in here, but it is not that hot, is it?
Senator Fraser: Will we still be continuing with this?
The Chair: We will be doing it tomorrow. At the worst case we will do it at noon tomorrow. Let us assume we will get a few more minutes.
(The committee suspended.)
——————
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Have we got quorum?
Senator Comeau: Sure.
The Chair: Senator Comeau, get going. I am next after you.
Senator Comeau: Thank you very much, chair.
Commissioner Moreau, on the policy of off-duty sick leave, would your policy state how often a medical report needs to be submitted to the RCMP?
Mr. Moreau: Yes. It has to be submitted every 30 days.
Senator Comeau: Every 30 days?
Mr. Moreau: Every 30 days. It is the responsibility of the member to ensure that the RCMP is provided with a medical certificate for that.
Senator Comeau: This would include both the physical and mental?
Mr. Moreau: It is a medical certificate to certify that you are unfit for duty. We expect the physician to provide the information to the health office in regards to limitations and restrictions. If the member is totally unfit to be at work, it states that, as it does on the May 1 certificate provided by Corporal Beaulieu. It states that he is totally unfit for duty.
Senator Comeau: May 1?
Mr. Moreau: Yes, 2013.
Senator Comeau: So there was a medical certificate on May 1?
Mr. Moreau: I believe that was provided to . . .
Senator Comeau: My understanding is that the last medical certificate whereby the psychological issues were raised was in May 2012. I presume that the doctor would have been looking at the physical aspect at this point because he had not received a psychological report since May 2012?
Dr. Fieschi: Family physicians from whom we typically get them would be required to comment on the member's fitness for duty, regardless of whether it is medical or psychological.
Senator Comeau: The reason we are here today is because the question of privilege was raised and the Speaker ruled that there was a prima facie case that we should look at further. This was most likely to avoid the perception that an individual was coerced into not appearing before us.
If it is any further than that, could Corporal Beaulieu have filed a grievance with the institution if he felt that he was being intimidated into not appearing before this committee? Is there a process whereby he can file a grievance for this?
Mr. deBruyckere: Yes. He could have filed a grievance of a decision, the decision being the denial of his travel. He could have grieved that within the policy.
Senator Comeau: If he disagrees with the initial decision, there are a number of appeal procedures?
Mr. deBruyckere: Through the grievance process, yes. Corporal Beaulieu described parts of that in terms of discussions with the person aggrieved, and that type of thing, to attempt resolution.
Senator Comeau: Is there at any point during the grievance a procedure whereby a person who feels that they have been intimidated in this manner could have access outside the force itself or is it all within the force?
Mr. deBruyckere: It is all within the force. I believe there is an appeal available at the Federal Court.
Mr. Moreau: As far as the grievance process, that is one issue. You feel that you are aggrieved, then you put in a grievance and there is early resolution, level 1, level 2. Some of the grievances can be referred to the External Review Committee; others are not. Then there is the decision by the commissioner, or at the level 2. That can be reviewed. You can ask for a Federal Court review.
Senator Comeau: A Federal Court review.
Mr. Moreau: That is as far as the grievance is concerned. Then you have a complaints scheme as far as the harassment or when there are workplace issues that are not the grievance process. That is a different process altogether.
Senator Comeau: We are kind of acting like an outside external review or grievance committee in a manner, except we are doing it through a question of privilege, going to almost the highest court in the land.
Good. Thank you. Those are all my questions.
The Chair: Where we are, folks, I have Senator Braley down and I am down myself for one question. There is then a second round.
Senator Fraser: Senator Runciman has not had his first round.
The Chair: Oh, yes. I have the list here.
Senator McCoy: And I did not finish.
The Chair: The first was Senator Furey, Senator Fraser, Runciman, Batters, Martin, McCoy. I have the list.
Senator Furey: I want to ask another question as well.
The Chair: I will put you down.
Senator Enverga: I have a question on the second round.
The Chair: Senator Braley.
Senator McCoy: Well, I was interrupted. I do not think any of us will get a question in within the next minute and we have to leave at noon. My question is to process, chair. Will the witnesses return at noon tomorrow, at which time I would be happy to take up my line of questions then?
The Chair: We can go a little past noon. We have agreed to 12:15.
Senator McCoy: We can go to 12:15?
Senator Comeau: Your caucus is okay with that.
Senator McCoy: My caucus is fine. I sit as an independent, so they are teasing me. I am a caucus of one. We are unanimous.
The Chair: Senator McCoy, do you have one more question?
Senator McCoy: No; I have several, and I have not finished. I am happy to put a couple more. That is my question as to process. Are the witnesses coming back tomorrow?
The Chair: We have not discussed that.
Senator McCoy: Maybe we should. I am happy to wait until tomorrow, as long as I have a chance to finish my questions.
The Chair: If you have several of them, I think we will put it down for tomorrow. Is everyone agreed that we can meet at 12 noon tomorrow?
Senator McCoy: And the witnesses are agreeing?
Mr. deBruyckere: Yes.
Senator McCoy: In that case, rather than rushing it, I would be pleased to continue my questions tomorrow.
The Chair: We will continue with you tomorrow.
Senator Braley is next and then I have myself down for one.
Senator Braley: We have two people for whom we will have to get replacements for by 12:30 tomorrow. They have to leave here because they have meetings at 12:30, but we will get the replacements for them.
The Chair: Do you have any questions for today?
Senator Braley: I do, but our time is gone.
Senator Comeau: Let's go for another 15 minutes. We are fine for 15 minutes.
Senator Braley: We do the same thing in my company when we have people who are ill. The first thing is: What was actually turned in as medical certificates from his physician? There was something around May 12 last year?
Dr. Fieschi: That was a report from the registered psychologist who was seeing him at the time. It was a more detailed report. Every six sessions, psychologists are required to provide us with a report on progress and requesting more sessions, if appropriate.
Senator Braley: Was that the end of the sessions?
Dr. Fieschi: I believe they went on a bit longer than that.
Senator Braley: Did he report out?
Dr. Fieschi: No; there were no further reports, but they are not obliged to do them apart from every six sessions.
Senator Braley: I understand that those sessions are now not continuing.
Dr. Fieschi: That is correct.
Senator Braley: At some point in time someone, either the doctor or the gentleman here, decided not to continue.
Dr. Fieschi: As Corporal Beaulieu mentioned the services of Dr. Webster are no longer funded by the RCMP. That being said, there are a multitude of other registered psychologists.
Senator Bellemare: What was registered by the family physician over the past year or year and a half when he was off? Was it every week or every month? Apparently, it is supposed to be every month and apparently we do not have that.
Dr. Fieschi: I do not have all of them, but I can tell you that I believe there was a medical certificate in October and then when I requested more information in January of 2013, I received a short letter. Again I received a short letter in March of 2013 and then a medical certificate of May 1 of this year.
Senator Braley: You did not get medical certificates at that time even they are supposed to provide them.
Dr. Fieschi: I requested that the family physician complete a disability questionnaire, which is more extensive than a medical certificate and he did not.
Senator Braley: Is it not the obligation of the employee, every 30 days, to be able to continue the employment contract and the sick leave and a number of things that you have to get a certificate? Who follows that up, you? Do you have a staff person or is it on a computer? How do you deal with that?
Dr. Fieschi: We have an electronic database that has files. Sometimes we accept that there is not a medical certificate if we know surgery is coming up and we expect the person to be off.
Senator Braley: He is supposed to report every 30 days. When is the last one we got?
Dr. Fieschi: May 1, 2013.
Senator Braley: He just provided one. Okay. I want that on the record because an employee is supposed to do certain things and commit to certain things. That has to be done. Particularly with the psychology one, I cannot understand why either the family physician or the psychologist has not reported since last May.
Dr. Fieschi: There was probably one medical certificate from the family physician in October, but there were no psychological reports since May.
Senator Braley: That is the point I am trying to make.
The Chair: I am sure it crossed your mind that — and I am directing this to Mr. Reid and Dr. Fieschi because you were involved directly in it — if Mr. Beaulieu came to Ottawa, he might say things that could reflect negatively on the RCMP's image and reputation. It is hard to believe that would not cross someone's mind. Did the prospect of that in any way enter your thinking when you took the position that if you are okay to travel you are okay to come back to work?
What we have to deal with is whether or not there was a privilege issue and that a committee of Parliament wants to hear from people who are somehow inhibited by that thinking. I am being honest with you. How do you respond to that?
Mr. Reid: As far as I am concerned, as far as Bill C-42 goes, I do not know if it is a good thing or a bad thing; I do not know anything about the bill.
The Chair: I am not talking about the bill; I am talking about the RCMP's image after listening to him.
Mr. Reid: Corporal Beaulieu and I have discussed his involvement with the MPPAC. He has got his opinions. Whether or not we need an association, I have not really turned my mind to. I know Rolly's position and it was not a factor. As I said before, I certainly approved his travel to Victoria, to the legislature, and back to do some lobbying here. That has nothing to do with my decision.
Mr. deBruyckere: I also had received, in response to Staff Sergeant Reid's request from Corporal Beaulieu, an email from Staff Sergeant Reid. I made inquiries with Superintendent Paul Darbyshire, who made subsequent inquires with Superintendent Michael O'Reilly at National Headquarters with respect to representatives of the MPPA appearing before the National Security and Defence Committee. I do not have a position one way or the other who attends as individuals. The position communicated back was there was no restriction from any member speaking or testifying before any subcommittee dealing with Bill C-42 or anything for that matter.
There was no consideration certainly from my perspective, or from anyone else in the organization that I am aware of, that we were going to deny Corporal Beaulieu permission to travel because of some embarrassment potentially to the force. That was not what happened. In fact, the President of the MPPAC works for me in "E" Division. He appeared as a witness on May 6, and he applied for annual leave and was granted that leave to appear before the committee. I had no misapprehension or misunderstanding as to what he was going to testify to.
To suggest that that was denied because of a potential embarrassment to the organization is not correct, at least from my perspective.
The Chair: Our thinking, as parliamentarians, is if a committee is studying something — whether it is the House of Commons or the Senate, it does not matter — you want to be able to hear the witnesses you want to hear from, period, regardless of what they will say or whose image they will effect. Dr. Fieschi, what is your response to what I am getting at? Do you know what I am getting at?
Dr. Fieschi: I think Corporal Beaulieu is not the first nor will he be the last RCMP employee to criticize it in a way that may not be flattering. That being said, I am a physician and my concern here was certainly not one of privilege or of interfering with the process but one of fitness for duty. That is what I comment on, namely our members' fitness for duty. I would have made the same comments for any activity that involved the same level of physical and cognitive tasks that this would involve.
The Chair: Colleagues, I have Senators Fraser, Runciman and Furey down for quick questions.
Senator Fraser: No, I have quite a few questions.
The Chair: Then we better put it over until tomorrow, I think.
Senator Furey: I have a quick question for Staff Sergeant Reid.
In response to Senator Runciman's last question about whether or not you knew why Corporal Beaulieu was coming to Ottawa, you said you did not. There is an email, which I do not have before me, dated April 27 from Corporal Beaulieu to you. It goes actually into chain as the chief superintendent as well. He refers to his request to go to Ottawa to appear before a Senate committee regarding Bill C-42. I take it from your response to Senator Runciman that you know nothing about the content of Bill C-42 or what it was about.
Mr. Reid: No, and it was actually irrelevant to my thought process.
The Chair: Colleagues, do you have something quick?
Senator Runciman: Again, back to Staff Sergeant Reid, you said you spoke to Corporal Beaulieu. Did he call you or did you call him? He called you requesting permission to travel. Is that how that process worked?
Mr. Reid: If I could just check my notes here. On the twenty-seventh, an email request came in stating he wanted to go to Ottawa. Then it was a telephone call on the twenty-ninth.
Senator Runciman: From him?
Mr. Reid: Yes.
Senator Runciman: He did not mention the mental health issue at all, so you made an assumption that it was not a factor, even though it was only a few weeks prior to that that you had authorized travel. You made an assumption that since he did not raise it, that it was not an issue.
Mr. Reid: Yes, it was clearly now a foot issue.
Senator Runciman: That is what he focused on now.
Mr. Reid: I was hopeful that his issues were being resolved and it was a foot issue. That was best case scenario.
Senator Runciman: I know, doctor, you responded to Senator Batters when she referenced the message you sent out about "cognitive." You suggested that when you referenced "cognitive," you were referring to his heel spur. You also go on to mention "psychological standpoint." You wrote:
. . . psychological standpoint, giving evidence at such a committee requires the ability to follow complex arguments and the judgment to formulate responses to questions on potentially challenging questions.
If the mental health issue was not a consideration here, not relevant, why would you mention that as justification for your position?
Dr. Fieschi: When I am developing an argument, I try to cover off all the bases. That does not mean that this was actually relevant to this particular case.
Senator Runciman: You do not see that as a contradiction. You are saying sitting several hours, going through an airport. You also mention these other issues that should be recognized. Then, at the same time, you are telling us and the staff sergeant is telling us that that was not an issue, that it should not have been taken into consideration. I see a contradiction there.
Thank you, chair.
The Chair: For tomorrow, Senator McCoy will lead off and then Senator Fraser. Are there any others who wish to be on the list for tomorrow? I see Senator Braley and Senator Enverga. Are there any others?
I thank you for coming, and we are hoping to deal with this before the house rises for the summer. That is why we will try to jam it in tomorrow.
Thank you and we will see you tomorrow.
(The committee adjourned.)