Bill C-7 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures

This enactment amends the Public Service Labour Relations Act to provide for a labour relations regime for members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and reservists. It provides a process for an employee organization to acquire collective bargaining rights for members and reservists and includes provisions that regulate collective bargaining, arbitration, unfair labour practices and grievances. It also amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to bar grievances related to the interpretation and application of a collective agreement or arbitral award, which are to be filed in accordance with the Public Service Labour Relations Act.
It changes the title of the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and the name of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. It also amends that latter Act to increase the maximum number of full-time members of the Board and to require the Chairperson, when making recommendations for appointment, to take into account the need for two members with knowledge of police organizations.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all of our witnesses who have testified today and some who have testified in our previous meeting who are here at the back of the room observing.

I'm going to start off with a comment, and then I'm going to go into something I think is important. Certainly I respect the service of everyone who dons a uniform. I wore a Canadian Armed Forces uniform. Jim beside me, my colleague, served over 34 years in the RCMP, so we have the utmost respect. I think that with the commentary of previous witnesses and your members we're going to make some progress on clauses 40 and 42, particularly if you look at Ontario, Alberta, and Manitoba, which have an approach to PTSD as being presumptive in the workplace of law enforcement.

That standard should apply across the country not just in the provinces that have the presumption. Ironically, this committee has postponed its study on PTSD for first responders to look at Bill C-7. I think nothing highlights the challenges that clauses 40 and 42 lead to more than that difference between the provinces when it comes to operational stress injuries.

I think I'll start with Mr. McKenna.

You served over 30 years in uniform. When you were in depot, like boot camp for me, those become some of your best friends in life. Did a few of your mates from depot make it to the inspector or above rank?

[Paul Dupuis]

I would like to say something to help you understand the situation.

Our goal is to ensure that everything is on the table, and that we have the opportunity to negotiate all of these issues. It is important to remember that the government plays a double role as both legislator and employer. It must not abuse its legislative role in terms of prevention or facilitation to benefit its role as employer. The rule of the opposition is not just to promote an ideological view, but also to ensure that the government does not abuse its double role.

As described by the Supreme Court, we want all aspects of members' working conditions to be open to collective bargaining. Putting various vague restrictions into small boxes, as Bill C-7 seeks to do, does not work. We will always be told that if we take this with that, it cannot be discussed—even though the goal of collective bargaining is to strike a balance between both parties and to allow issues to be discussed.

[Paul Dupuis]

No, because Bill C-7, the way it's written, uses the wording that was in Bill C-43 in June 2010, even before the Supreme Court rendered its decision. What I believe and what the AMPMQ says is that this is not a list.... The list does not reflect what's important for members. There should be no restrictions.

[Paul Dupuis]

Actually, Bill C-7 restricts these elements. What I am suggesting is that you remove all of those restrictions and leave it to the membership to decide which ones are important or not at the negotiation table.

[Paul Dupuis]

Yes, I can do that for you.

The separation of the elements that are in Bill C-7 is not our separation, but the employer's separation. We feel that uniform and equipment, as well as control techniques and certain other elements, such as minimum standards of policing, are all part of officer safety. There are these three elements. If you look at the comparison we did of the various collective agreements, most of which are still active and some of which are expired, you'll see that they demonstrate that these elements are negotiated in.

This is to answer a question that I think was posed by Mr. Mendicino on Thursday about why we want to be compared with other police services. Do other police services have these elements that are negotiated?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much, everyone, for your testimony.

My first question relates to a chart that has been circulated with respect to a comparative analysis of existing collective agreements and Bill C-7 restrictions. Perhaps you could walk us through those, specifically with respect to health and safety. I take it these relate to law enforcement techniques, but also to uniform and equipment. Perhaps you could also walk us through the jurisdictions that don't have these exclusions.

[Paul Dupuis, President, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, committee members, ladies and gentlemen.

I am Staff Sergeant Paul Dupuis. I have been a member of the RCMP for 35 years. I have been involved in labour relations in the RCMP since 1993 as a representative of members. I have been a member of the Association des membres de la police montée du Québec (the “AMPMQ”) since 1981 and I was elected president in 2015.

I have experienced first-hand and been a witness to abuse of power by RCMP management, and a counterweight is needed. Protecting people against abuse of power is best achieved by making all working conditions subject to collective bargaining. I appear before you today to provide you with AMPMQ's point of view on Bill C-7.

I will start by giving you an overview of the situation.

The members of the RCMP have been actively denied their right to freedom of association, in other words the right to unionize and engage in collective bargaining, for decades. The Supreme Court of Canada in MPAO v. Canada, decided that this violation was unconstitutional and that remedial legislation was required. Bill C-7 provides a process for an association to acquire collective bargaining rights for members. It also includes provisions to regulate collective bargaining. However, Bill C-7 falls short on several levels.

I will now discuss the right to a meaningful collective bargaining process.

The Supreme Court described a meaningful collective bargaining process as one that “provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to determine and pursue their collective interests.” It rejected the current scheme that “does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns.”

While Bill C-7 does provide a process for certifying an association and having access to a collective bargaining process, it falls short on several levels, in particular by the restrictions it places on the content of collective bargaining.

Bill C-7 excludes important workplace matters of concern to RCMP members from collective bargaining, and therefore does not permit members to advance those workplace concerns free from management influence. What's more, these exclusions from collective bargaining go to the heart of members' workplace concerns. Matters that were specifically subject to management's failures and abuses are excluded.

Workplace concerns over health and safety and law enforcement techniques, including adequate protective gear and equipment, are critically important to members. I will cite the examples of the Mayerthorpe and Moncton tragedies. Inquiries into these tragedies underscored the same deficiencies in proper equipment and communications, even though nine years had passed between these two incidents. The RCMP failed the public, members' families, and the members themselves. This was not the first time that the RCMP failed to live up to its obligations concerning health and safety.

I will now discuss the issue of harassment.

Harassment was, and still is, a serious workplace concern that management has been unable or unwilling to resolve. Despite multiple studies and reports, harassment continues to be alive and well within the RCMP. For example, I refer you to the well-known Lebrasseur, Delisle, Smith, Gosselin and Sulz cases, as well as two pending class actions, several individual suits, and numerous internal harassment cases.

I will now discuss management abuse and the need for balance.

The courts, including the Supreme Court, have recognized the well-documented use of the disciplinary process and unfair labour practices by the RCMP to prevent unionization. In fact, I have been a victim of the RCMP's use of the disciplinary process to retaliate against me for my union activities. I have been subject to reprisals. The RCMP used disciplinary procedures against me for seven years. As it was determined that the disciplinary action against me was abusive due to its length and nature, the internal tribunal granted a stay of proceedings. At the same time, I also submitted grievances. After 10 years, my grievances have yet to be resolved.

This situation has had a negative impact on my career. Consequently, Canadians have lost the benefit of my services as a specialized investigator in financial crimes. During my career, I have witnessed abuses of power by management which clearly illustrate the need to strike a balance.

The disciplinary process has been repeatedly used to sanction members for exercising fundamental rights, including freedom of association and freedom of expression. There are a number of reported decisions concerning RCMP retaliations against my colleague and predecessor Gaétan Delisle. You have also heard the testimony of my colleague Peter Merrifield, whose case is still before the courts.

Demotions, dismissals, transfers, appraisals, probation and basic requirements are all vital concerns relating to our working conditions that management can and does use abusively against members who exercise their rights. Over my years of service as a members' representative, I have been witness to the abusive use of all of these working conditions against members, with devastating effect on them and their careers. The Duxbury, Brown and Robichaud reports confirm these abuses.

No credible evidence has ever been presented that would justify excluding these working conditions from collective bargaining on the basis that police services would be compromised without those exclusions. On the contrary, addressing members' concerns regarding these working conditions through collective bargaining is more likely to improve the quality of police services. The Supreme Court stated the following regarding collective bargaining for RCMP members:

[...] it is not established that permitting meaningful collective bargaining will disrupt the stability of the police force or affect the public's perception of its neutrality. [...] The government offered no persuasive evidence to that effect. Empirical evidence tends to show the opposite [...]

More recently, before this committee, those who favour Bill C-7 have failed to provide any compelling argument for the proposed exclusions from collective bargaining. They have failed to assume their obligation to justify limiting RCMP members' fundamental rights.

My presentation will now address how to redress the imbalance in the employment relationship.

The Supreme Court recognized that laws and regulations that restrict the subjects that can be discussed in bargaining can disrupt the balance necessary to ensure the meaningful pursuit of workplace goals.

The Supreme Court also recognized a long-standing hostility on the part of RCMP management and successive Canadian governments to unionization in the force.

By excluding important workplace matters of concern to RCMP members from collective bargaining, Bill C-7 not only denies members the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining, it also enshrines the imbalance between members and management by preserving absolute power over these matters by management.

In the past, management has not hesitated to abuse its absolute power over members. Bill C-7, by limiting collective bargaining and limiting remedies against management abuse, fails to ensure that the current imbalance in the employment relationship is adequately remedied, as management retains absolute power over these matters.

We argue that grievances concerning the working conditions of RCMP members, even those not governed by the collective agreement, should be referable to an independent tribunal.

As for civilian members, they share a community of interests with regular members, yet they are excluded from Bill C-7. They should be included.

Last Thursday, you heard the debate concerning the Government Employees Compensation Act. The reform to medical services for RCMP members as proposed in sections 40 and 42 of Bill C-7 should not be part of this bill. Rather, they should be negotiated at the collective bargaining table.

I will now discuss what should be done.

We ask that you remove the exclusions from collective bargaining that concern important workplace matters, specifically sections 238.19 and 238.22 as proposed, as has already been mentioned, to strike a real balance between RCMP management and members.

We also ask that you include civilian members under Bill C-7, and that you remove sections 40 and 42 from the bill.

Thank you.

I am now ready to answer questions.

[Cpl Patrick Mehain, President, British Columbia, Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada]

Good morning, Committee Chair and honourable members of Parliament.

My name is Patrick Mehain. I'm a director of the British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association. I've been involved in the association movement my entire 18-year career. I was president of the B.C. MPPA for eight years. I sat as an executive on the CPA, and I'm one of the founding members of the MPPAC. I'm also one of the affiants in the Supreme Court challenge.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to share my concerns as they pertain to the significant shortcomings of Bill C-7. While the Liberal government is ensuring the Supreme Court decision is complied with, the bill misses the true spirit of the decision: the absence of a fundamental onus found in collective bargaining in other agencies.

The bargaining restrictions found in Bill C-7 and the existing PSLRA are more restrictive than those found in other police forces across Canada. Many collective bargaining agreements deal with promotions, equipment, transfers, workplace conflict, etc. While my colleagues in the MPPAC have already touched on these issues, I'll speak about resourcing and health care.

Resourcing has always been an issue. Our municipal brothers and sisters refer to us as the “Kmart cops”—we do more with less. Comparing the cities of Vancouver and Surrey, we see that Vancouver has approximately 1,340 officers and polices 605,000 people, while Surrey has approximately 800 officers and polices 500,000 people. Resourcing directly impacts members' vacations, minimum staffing levels, workloads, and I would suggest job satisfaction.

Members are getting burned out, and their health, both physical and mental, is being impacted. Due to long-term illnesses, spots are left vacant, the spots are held out in detachments, and units are required to run with shortages. Treasury Board wants to convert the approximately 4,000 civilian members into public servants. If this is allowed to happen, it will undermine resources even further in the RCMP, as our civilians to do jobs that public servants cannot.

Provincial health care and workers' compensation is different from province to province. The RCMP is unique and requires a unique way to address these concerns. In B.C., we pay our basic medical premiums whereas members from other divisions do not. The Lower Mainland already has a difficult time filling vacancies, but the added costs associated with changes to our medical benefits have made it worse.

This is of course not the sole reason that it is hard to staff vacant spots in the LMD, but it definitely contributes: prescription changes, reduced benefits, health services inappropriately getting involved in members' treatments, and the alarming and concerning fact of the recent privacy breaches conducted by senior RCMP officers. Unfortunately, all too often, members do suffer long-term injuries. How will workers' compensation affect this? Will a transfer to B.C. be halted because a member is deemed ineligible by the WCB or vice versa? Simply lumping the RCMP under existing mechanisms does not work.

Since the Supreme Court of Canada decision, I have had mixed emotions. While collective bargaining is one of those things that I have fought 18 years for, Bill C-7 leaves a lot to be desired. In its current state, it does little to provide true collective bargaining, which is protected under section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights.

While I am thankful for this opportunity to share my concerns about Bill C-7, without significant changes we will continue to see labour unrest and more court challenges, and the RCMP will continue to degrade in operational effectiveness as well as morale.

Thank you.

[Brendan McKenna, British Columbia, Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, honourable members of the parliamentary committee.

My name is Brendan McKenna and I am the spokesman for the British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association and the co-spokesman for the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada. I've been involved in the association movement for 22 years. I am a founding member of both the British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association in 1994 and the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada in 2010.

The B.C. MPPA is a non-profit provincial association. It's the provincial arm of MPPAC, the national association.

I spent 30 years serving with the RCMP, all in British Columbia, primarily on detachment—including the largest detachment in the country, the Surrey detachment—in both medium-sized and small detachments in the north. I provided relief on a three-person isolated post when the nearest assistance was more than a two-hour drive, so I bring a fairly broad perspective to bear on this.

I'll begin by speaking and sharing my concerns regarding the lack of core components found in Bill C-7. I'll focus primarily on two areas: the factors to be considered in interest arbitration, and restrictions on the scope of bargaining in the areas of staffing levels and equipment.

Last year, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the right to strike is constitutionally protected. RCMP members do not seek the right to strike. They recognize that the work they do is essential. However, what they do seek is that an alternative to striking, interest arbitration, be fair and independent.

As the Public Service Labour Relations Act and Bill C-7 are currently drafted, the interest arbitration process for RCMP members is anything but fair and independent. Rather, an arbitrator must give preponderant weight to two factors, including the government's stated fiscal policy. This skews the whole process in favour of the employer. This is the opposite of fair and independent, and contrary to the charter of rights of RCMP members.

The British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association calls upon the committee to amend Bill C-7 to allow an arbitrator to give equal weight to all factors and to not be required to consider the government's stated fiscal policy.

Another concern of the British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association is in the area of restrictions on scope of bargaining in particular with respect to staffing levels and equipment. These two areas have a direct impact upon the occupational health and safety of front-line police officers. They have a direct impact on the quality of the work environment. Front-line officers who are overtasked, inadquately resourced, and underequipped cannot reasonably be expected to consistently deliver the high-quality service that the job demands and that the Canadian public expects.

We're being compared to civil servants under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The survey of RCMP employees conducted by the previous government resulted in over 9,000 RCMP members clarifying that they wanted separate legislation solely for the RCMP and thus Bill C-7.

We know that the Liberal government is committed to ensuring that the Supreme Court of Canada decision is complied with, but we are concerned that this bill misses the mark.

Bill C-7 as written does not fully meet the spirit and intent of the Supreme Court of Canada decision that provides the right of collective bargaining to the RCMP. I submit that the court's intention was to clarify that RCMP members should be accorded the same rights and privileges as all other Canadians and Canadian police colleagues in the various municipal, provincial, and federal agencies.

The restrictions contained in Bill C-7 would be akin to guaranteeing a person the right to vote and then limiting the placement of voting polls to locations that cannot be accessed. Essentially, vitiating that right.

Those restrictions within Bill C-7, as currently written and unless amended, preclude RCMP front-line membership from having effective and meaningful input into two areas critical to occupational health and safety. This is because Bill C-7 misses many of the key fundamental elements found in collective bargaining in other agencies that enshrine organized labour in Canada.

There are several police associations around the country that have collective agreement provisions regarding minimum staffing levels, including the Toronto Police Association, Sudbury, Windsor, and the Durham Regional Police Association, just to name a few.

Anecdotally, I can provide my own experience in front-line operations. Our detachments are generally under-resourced. There's a variety of reasons for this. I believe the primary reason is that those individuals on the pointy end of the stick have no input. Contracts are negotiated between the federal government and either provinces or municipalities. Fiscal considerations appear to be the prime motivator

Policing is expensive. For many municipalities, it is the single biggest budget item, so it's understandable that they would want to control costs to the extent possible. However, this has resulted in chronic understaffing at detachments across the country, essentially leaving it up to the members on the ground to carry the burden.

In 2009, I was recruited to work at our provincial headquarters in British Columbia. The position was leading the unit, which focused on police resourcing at detachments around the province. One of the goals was to review each detachment in the province every five years to ensure that they were adequately resourced for front-line service delivery. Prior to my arrival, the unit had just completed a study which identified that one Vancouver Island detachment was so under-resourced that it required 26 additional front-line members to address the gap.

This client services unit was supposed to include two NCOs to analyze data and prepare and present the findings, and five public servants to mine and gather the data from computer-based record systems. Only one of the five public servants was hired. The other positions were blocked and the funding reallocated to another project. It was a notable irony that the unit responsible to ensure detachments were adequately resourced was itself so under-resourced that it could not meet its own mandate. Had there been a collective agreement in place, with provisions to ensure minimum staffing levels, it is unlikely that this situation would have been allowed to occur.

Thank you. That concludes my remarks. I'll turn it over to Pat Mehain in British Columbia.

Presence in Gallery

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on an important point of order seeking unanimous consent of the House, and I will tell the House why. It is to confirm our collective intention that no RCMP member be prevented from communicating with his or her member of Parliament on Bill C-7, and that no discipline be enforced upon a member who has responded to the call of the public safety committee to appear before it as a witness.

I am sure it is the intention of all of us to make sure that members affected by laws in front of this place have the right to communicate in a responsible way with their elected representatives and to respond to give testimony before the committee considering that bill.

Why is unanimous consent required? It is because a letter was shared today that would suggest that some members could not appear and that some members may be disciplined for giving testimony this morning at committee.

I would ask for unanimous consent so that, as a collective, we can exercise our right to call witnesses on important matters affecting this country.

[Ron Lewis]

It's kind of ironic. I joined in 1969, so I went for five years without any representation at all. We had more power as elected representatives because we could negotiate everything, and with a good commissioner—it always depends on a good commissioner—we got a lot of good deals.

If Bill C-7 goes through, and they deal only with pay and benefits, we all know that our pay, and public service unions—

[Mark Gaillard]

The RCMP Superannuation Act is more than just the pension plan. It is also, under part two, the methodology by which the RCMP provides, through the Pension Act, compensation for the permanently disabled due to a workplace injury. It's not just about the pensioners. Some of the serving members' concerns are encoded in the RCMP Superannuation Act. There is an exclusion about anything that is in the RCMP Superannuation Act being non-negotiable in terms of collective bargaining. That's a specific section of Bill C-7, in part 2.1 of the new act, which will set the boundaries for collective bargaining. If you set something into the RCMP Superannuation Act, such as the disability penson system provided to members of the force, then you immunize that from collective bargaining.

A neat way to make things non-negotiable is to make them in legislation. That would be my comment.

[Mark Gaillard]

I think what I drew from their appearance and from some of the answers that came from the table go to what we have been saying. We're not necessarily against reforms or improvements or enhancements to disability pension, benefits, etc. We don't have a real position on that because we have not been consulted. We hadn't even been notified or advised that this was coming. We are caught on the hotfoot in being able to on the fly try to analyze, consider, look at various models to compare to analyses, etc. We've had no occasion or opportunity to do that. This would happen ordinarily had it not been for the fact that Bill C-7 must be approved and in place in order to meet the deadline of May 17, 2016, as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada—

[Ron Lewis]

When we came here today, we were just going to speak on behalf of the veterans and on what the future looks like for them if Bill C-7 was approved. On the exclusion of appointments, I don't know if it's proper for us, it's probably a question better suited for—

[Ron Lewis, Association Chief Advocate, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans' Association]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Ron Lewis. I'm the chief advocate for the RCMP Veterans' Association. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today to speak on behalf of approximately 17,000 veterans and for future veterans of the RCMP who as a result of a medical discharge will become a veteran the next day. This is all in regard to Bill C-7.

I served over 35 years with the RCMP. During the last 10 years of my service, I was an elected, full-time staff relations representative, the same as Peter and Brian, who appeared just before us. Part of my responsibilities during that time was on a medical review committee for members on sick leave due to illness and injury as a result of their service. Prior to that time, I was a staff member of the Canadian Police College, responsible for delivering labour relations training to all police services of Canada except the RCMP, because we were exempted.

I'm also the co-chair of the RCMP Veterans Women's Council, dealing with their harassment situation that's ongoing. Operationally, I've worked in every province and territory in Canada except for Nunavut and overseas. I'm the author of This Is Not the RCMP I Joined: the RCMP Pension and Insurance Scandal.

Clauses 40 and 42 of Bill C-7 are not related to the Supreme Court's decision and direction. I can only speculate why these extraneous provisions have been included. However, I can clearly state that if these clauses are not removed, there will be a dramatic and detrimental effect upon occupational, health care, and disability benefits for RCMP members, reservists, and veterans. It is ironic that prior to the legislative process to provide a collective bargaining framework for RCMP members and reservists, as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada, the federal government, through the RCMP commissioner, disbanded the elected staff relations representative members, leaving the serving members and reservists without a voice to speak to this enabling legislation.

I have to applaud Brian and Peter. Peter may lose his job tomorrow as a result of what he did on the direction of the commissioner. Brian took a leave of absence without pay. He's taking no pay because he thinks this is very important.

Consultation was undertaken directly with the RCMP members prior to crafting Bill C-7. However, changing occupational, health care, and disability benefits were not included in that process. There was no consultation whatsoever on that process. The inclusion of clauses 40 and 42 appears to be a pre-emptive strike on the new collective bargaining process for RCMP members and reservists to limit and alter existing benefits. This has all the appearances of an unfair labour practice. What kind of message does this send to the employees for future negotiations?

Clause 40 of Bill C-7 is clear. RCMP members and reservists will fall under the provisions of the government employees care act, usually referred to as GECA. The occupational, health care, and disability benefits will be transferred to provincial workmen's compensation boards. The benefits vary greatly from province to province. I can address this matter in more detail through your questions. There is a document available, at 340 pages, that just describes the differences between each province.

Clause 42 of Bill C-7 repeals subsection 34(1) of the RCMP Superannuation Act, our pension plan. This would dilute or negate disability benefits and services under the Pension Act that had been available to members and veterans since at least 1948.

Clauses 40 and 42 should be removed from Bill C-7. It's premature, it's unstudied, and it should be allowed to go before a collective bargaining process to get the best deal for the members and reservists of the RCMP.

I'd be honoured to answer questions, particularly related to the adverse effects these health care and disability provisions will have on future RCMP veterans.

Thank you.