Public Safety Committee on April 14th, 2016

[Brian Sauvé]

Yes and no. I can only go on the experience with the changes to the Canada Health Act from 2012-13, which were included in budget 2012. Then there were nine months or so to implement it, up to April 1, 2013.

Changes to the Canada Health Act allowed regular members of the RCMP to fall under provincial or territorial health care. For example, now I carry a British Columbia medical services plan health card. Members in Quebec carry a RAMQ card. Here in Ontario they carry an OHIP card. Previously they did not.

The changes to that.... For example, in British Columbia the medical services plan does not cover prostate screening exams. In Manitoba it does. Neither does it in Ontario. With just that one little piece of change to the provincial-territorial health care, all of a sudden you have those who want to have a prostate screening exam paying out of their pocket for it, or if it's directed by their doctor they're paying out of their pocket for it, whereas previously they did not.

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

This is where my concern stems from. If we are, given the unique nature of the role, posting a family from Nova Scotia to B.C., for example, I would want to think that there was a consistency of benefit and of performance for someone who, given the unique nature of the case, cannot grieve that posting, for example.

We recognize the unique nature; therefore we have to guarantee a high level of service. That's your concern with 40 and 42, in a nutshell.

[Brian Sauvé]

I have two concerns with 40 and 42. First, I find it ironic that a bill that is going to allow members of the RCMP the ability to collectively bargain terms and conditions of employment includes a change to those same terms and conditions of employment. That's a little ironic.

Secondly, I think 40 and 42 should be struck. The simple solution is to sit back and say, let's see which bargaining agent certifies when they certify and then put it on the table for bargaining.

If you want to go down the road of establishing a service standard right now, I can go on my experience in the health committee and sit back and say WCB doesn't even have the same insured salary maximums across the country. The RCMP can say we will top you up to 100%—

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

I don't have much time, but if there were that guarantee of consistency, would the independence and expertise of the review of the provincial agencies be sufficient, provided there was the certainty that members would receive an equal outcome across the country?

We've heard a bit here about choice and independence. The government is saying that there's some independence and expertise within, say, worker's comp and the WSIB in certain provinces.

[Brian Sauvé]

I would agree.

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

If there were a federal guarantee of consistency, would you be okay with those provincial administrations?

[Brian Sauvé]

No, the reason being.... I could say yes if you're guaranteed a federal baseline, for example, across the country, but again, the challenge that comes in is that the majority of our membership does not live within a major centre, so how do we ensure...? You've probably seen this through Veterans Affairs, because not all Canadian Forces bases are within a major centre either.

However, you are centralized in your health care. We aren't centralized in our health care, so not every detachment has a doctor and nurse.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm going to have to end it there.

I'm going to use the chair's prerogative to ask a question. If a province's care on an issue is higher than a federal bar would be—for instance, with Ontario and a new understanding of a threshold for PTSD or OSI—how do you reconcile that with not wanting...? A province may be doing better than the federal government is doing. Do you have any comments on that?

[Brian Sauvé]

That's why my suggestion is that we are premature with clauses 40 and 42, because the study hasn't been done. Let's establish the best practices. Let's take the best from Ontario, the best from B.C., the best from Manitoba, and set up that federal level and then decide how it's going to look in the future. In my view, you're premature to just say to go to the WCB.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Keane.

[Leland Keane]

Mr. Chairman, in response to the honourable member, Mr. O'Toole, the RCMP is a paramilitary organization, absolutely.

In response to the armed forces, I work with civilian members who are all former members of the armed forces or current serving members of the armed forces in a reserve capacity.

Look at the RCMP discipline system. I've sat in on three conduct hearings. In a court martial in the military, you are assigned—are you not?—an officer to represent you if you're a defendant, while another is the prosecutor. In the RCMP code of conduct hearings, there's the officer who's running them and has the investigation done and there's the defendant: you have nobody assigned to defend you. It's not a real parallel when you're talking about discipline.

That's what we're looking for: procedural discipline with respect to our process, not necessarily in a collective bargaining sense, but in a process that's fair. That's all we're looking for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

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

[Inaudible—Editor] a separate justice system, right? That's the difference.

[Leland Keane]

Sure, and almost in effect we have to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We need to turn to Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I want to start by saying thank you to all of you for being here. I think it's been really helpful for the committee to hear from people who are members and who represent members what their thoughts are on the bill. I think this might have been even more productive at the drafting stage as opposed to the committee stage, and it would have been better to have done it at that time. Perhaps we could have avoided some of these conversations here today, although given that those provisions are in the bill, it's good that we're having them now. There's still time to fix some of what's wrong with this bill.

I want to come back to the end of your remarks, Mr. Merrifield. You were talking about feeling that your job was on the line in coming here today. I know that we've heard concerns from other RCMP members who are feeling that in approaching parliamentarians they're putting themselves—or certainly their jobs—on the line. We've already heard from some members on this committee criticism of the idea that we might use a card check system in the organizing drive. One virtue of the card check system is that it helps protect from employer intimidation in the lead-up to that secret ballot vote when you do it the other way.

I was hoping that you could speak a little more to your own experience. Perhaps we can also hear from the MPPAC folks about the experience of some of their members with respect to management's approach so far on allowing members to talk to parliamentarians about this bill and what that may mean for the certification process going forward.

[Peter Merrifield]

I have only one copy, but I'll gladly pass it around to the committee while we speak. This is an order issued from Commissioner Paulson. It was signed on February 12, 2016. It's a direction for divisional staff relation representatives, who include me. I would draw your attention to the section marked “(e)”, which I have highlighted. Let me send it around.

As you know, other elements of the RCMP Act also preclude members of the RCMP from speaking publicly, which would include to the media or in other venues, when they are critical of RCMP management, administration, or operations. It's a segment of the act not used regularly, but it's there, it hangs over our head, and it drives fear into our members.

I listened Tuesday to Mr. Brison, President of the Treasury Board. He spoke of seven members who visited his constituency office. I know that what he was trying to do was answer the concerns of the members, but what was left out of his statement is that when the seven members of the RCMP came to his office, there was a teleconference call and there was an assistant commissioner of the RCMP on the other end.

These seven members wished a private meeting with their member of Parliament. This is not to impugn the character of Mr. Brison. I appreciate that what he was trying to do was provide answers, but those members weren't approaching him as the President of the Treasury Board; they were approaching him as their local member of Parliament. They were constituents seeking a constituency meeting. The members who had that meeting called me after, and they felt fearful because there was an assistant commissioner of the RCMP listening in to the concerns that they wanted to share with their member of Parliament.

[Rae Banwarie]

The same scenario is happening whether it's in B.C., Alberta, or Manitoba; it's the same situation. This ties back to the whole set of discipline clauses that we talked about, to why the regime has to be independent. The commissioner and his delegates have total authority over everything. What Mr. Merrifield said is correct: you cannot come out and publicly talk or criticize the operations of the RCMP or anything like that negatively, because you will be sanctioned; you could lose your job. Under the current act it's as simple as that.

[Leland Keane]

In one case in particular, there was an email sent to a member of Parliament. The member of Parliament referred that email back to the chief human resource officer of the RCMP, who contacted the person at their home address in writing regarding their communication with their member of Parliament. How would you take that, as a member of the RCMP? There certainly is a culture of fear. The people are working tired, and they're not at their best because they're so under-resourced. Add fear to that equation, and it's a very real concern, absolutely.

[Rae Banwarie]

That's what we're trying to bring, in terms of positive change, for everything we're doing.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Let me take a slightly different tack. All of you have been involved for a very long time in the ligation process that led ultimately to this bill. I'm curious to know, especially with respect to some of these exclusions, which pretty clearly rule out the ability of RCMP members to pursue their goals within the workplace, whether, if the bill goes through in this form, you are forecasting more drawn-out legal battles that will be expensive both to you and to taxpayers. That's part of our responsibility here too, I think: to get the bill right so that we're not—

[Peter Merrifield]

I would take that bet. I would absolutely take that bet to the bank.

[Leland Keane]

There's absolutely no result in further litigation. We've come this far. Look at how long it took to get the Supreme Court. Yes, these things must be changed in order for us to represent our people appropriately.

[Peter Merrifield]

Here's one of the key components to understand, if I may speak, Rae.

The thing with exclusions is this. By default, they're saying that concerning our working conditions or our unsafe working environment we can make a complaint under the Canada Labour Code. That's after the fact; that's after our three members in Moncton were murdered and there were Canada Labour Code charges. That's after four members were murdered in Mayerthorpe and there were reviews by the provincial level and the federal level.

The Canada Labour Code is after the fact: it's after I'm injured, it's after I'm killed. What I want is a system that permits me to be proactive. I want engagement with my management; I want guarantees in my collective agreement. I want to prevent death and injury; I don't want to respond to it as a learning lesson. That is what is unacceptable in the exclusions to working conditions in Bill C-7.

[Rae Banwarie]

This all ties back to the resourcing. We were approached by the labour tribunal in regards to the death of our member in St. Albert. Do you remember the member who got killed in the casino with the auxiliary? We were asked to be the respondents. I went there, along with another executive, and talked to the members not only at St. Albert, but in Stony Plain, in Sparwood, and all the surrounding detachments, including Viking. They're having the same issues.

It can be something as simple as radio communications. It was well known, through the investigation from the Canada health investigator, that the radios did not function in the casino. You have members going into a situation where, if they need help, nobody is going to be able help them. Things are as simple as that.

What is the RCMP doing? They're appealing the decision. They're appealing the directive issued to them by the investigator.