Public Safety Committee on April 14th, 2016

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm afraid I need to cut you off.

Mr. Spengemann.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, gentlemen, for attending, and more importantly for your service to the nation. Through you, our thanks also to the people you represent: the many thousands of Canadians who have served in the force. We're proud of what the force is doing. We recognize its unique character. I think it goes without saying that all of us collectively here in Parliament, in government, and Canadians across the country owe you a sacred obligation to keep you as healthy as possible, as safe as possible, and to take care of you when you return from service and go toward retirement.

I want to ask you in the brief time that I have about how you keep in touch with your membership. Is there anything you can tell the committee about surveys you're doing and how you're polling views among your members? It might also be helpful to see if there are any disparities in views on some of the issues that were before the committee in this session and potentially also in the previous session.

[Mark Gaillard]

Due to the rapidity with which this process has evolved, there has not been a systematic way of, through routine methodology, informing all of our members and surveying them about their results.

The RCMP conducted, through the SRR program last year, a survey on optional life insurance benefits for dependants. Through the good offices of the SRR program, they included veterans of the RCMP as part of the survey audience. That was a way we were able to gauge the opinions of our former members of the RCMP, whether they were members of our association, on an issue that affected them directly.

Other than that, we have our own internal methodology of reaching out to our members through email, through bulletins, through our website, or through our social media platforms. We've been using that to elicit spontaneous commentary from our memberships, but it's very much on them to respond to some of the issues that are at play today.

[Ron Lewis]

Being on both sides—I was an elected representative for the last 10 years of my service, and now I'm with the veterans association as chief advocate—we always spoke to each other. When I was a rep, we spoke to the veterans. When I was a veteran, we spoke to the reps, because a lot of the benefits our serving members have continue on right after they retire. Health care benefits, insurance benefits, and long-term disability, all these things follow right through. It doesn't stop the day you retire, it just continues.

As a result, we have a lot of back and forth with Roy and all the other people with the legal fund. We're all connected, because we're all trying to help out the greater good for the organization and their families. Their families are dependent upon the benefits that we get.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I wonder if I could invite you to speculate, as past long-term serving members of the force, and to engage with a view on the exclusions, even though it is not the issue of veterans.

I have served alongside former and serving RCMP officers in the Middle East. If I put to you the proposition that—given that the RCMP is a paramilitary organization in many of its operational aspects and that you act like a military force in many respects—deployment should not be part of an exclusion, but is a management prerogative and not something that is subject to bargaining, speculatively, how do you feel your membership would react to that proposition?

[Ron Lewis]

Well, I've never been shy, so I'll jump in on it.

The management of the RCMP has the right to say, “We have an operation, and we have to get there. You, you, and you have to go.” However, I think it's very important how you go. Do you go prepared? Do you have the proper equipment? Do you have the proper training? Do you have the proper support when you come home? As we know, Afghanistan was tough. We had people in Afghanistan. We've had people in almost every war zone in the world, in all of these far-off countries, and we are over there aiding the police at the same time.

There has been a lot of OSI, occupational injuries, that we have to deal with. It's in the news. We know. We should have a say in some of these issues: not who is going and when we are going, but how we go. That is so important. What happens to us after we get back? There are a lot of people who come back and are not the same. We all know that.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I want to assure the panel that through my colleague, Pam Damoff, this committee is very much seized with the issue of PTSD and OSI. It's something that is on a parallel track and on our radar.

[Mark Gaillard]

Do you mind if I just follow up a bit? This just struck me, as Ron was speaking.

In terms of deployment, the RCMP is deployed 24-7. I always say that we are deployed 24-7: always deployed, never in garrison. There is no preparatory stage or training, then a deployment, and then you come back and everything is fine. You'll be looked after, and everything is safe again.

RCMP members are deployed every day of their career into their area of operations. Yes, there are distinctive ideas when they deploy overseas in special duty areas, and that was why Bill C-12, in 1998, was amended to consider the workplace-related injuries sustained by members who were deployed internationally in special duty areas. That is why that section was put in, in the first place.

The idea that there is a pre-deployment stage, a deployment, and then a post-deployment drill they go through—that does not happen in the RCMP. You are always deployed. You deploy to your area of operations, and you go with your family. They are deployed, too. We are domestically deployed. That's what's happening, and that is part of that unique nature of the RCMP as an organization.

[S/Sgt Roy Hill]

May I make just one quick comment, sir?

With regard to spouses and partners who are moved as part of the package, the large impact on some of these people is that they don't have a job when they get to that destination or that posting. They spend their whole life moving and moving and moving, only at the end of their life not having any pension to draw from, or whatever.

I guess the premise that you are property of the RCMP now and therefore not much different from a police car—you go where you are pushed or driven—has become the centre of a lot of members' attention.

However, if you are a commander in charge of a unit or in charge of a detachment, there are things that have to be done, and they have to be done now. It is up to me to ensure that they are properly equipped with the best that I can give them, and not put in harm's way.

However, that's a far cry from saying, with regard to transfers, “That's non-negotiable. We are not talking to you about that, and that cannot be part of any type of agreement.” Transfers and deployment are different.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Mr. Hill.

We are running a little over time, but Mr. O'Toole has a quick question he'd like to get in.

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

Thank you again, gentlemen.

My quick question is for Mr. Lewis.

In your last 10 years, you were elected as staff rep under the old system, which of course the Supreme Court of Canada said wasn't sufficiently independent. How were you elected, and what are your thoughts on the vote members should take for certification?

[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—

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

Were you elected in a secret ballot vote by your colleagues?

[Ron Lewis]

Yes, absolutely—a regular vote.

I represented all of Canada, because I was at headquarters. When I say “all of Canada”, I mean parts of all of Canada, because we had 3,000 members at headquarters, but 400 or 500 were spread across the country and overseas.

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

Do you think members should have that same secret ballot vote for certifying what will ultimately be their bargaining agent?

[Ron Lewis]

I'm not overly concerned about the secret vote. We're not a manufacturing company with 100 employees in small-town Canada, where somebody can come in and steal the collective bargaining away from the present operation. We're spread across Canada. We're not shrinking violets. Nobody is going to intimidate us when it comes to this. I don't think anybody could come in and steal the bargaining agent process. I'm not concerned. I've talked to Brian and Peter, and they're not overly concerned about that.

But we're going to have less. I say “we” because it's hard to break the habit after 35 years. The RCMP members now, if it goes as it is, will have less representation because of all the exclusions. They're going to have only pay and benefits. As you know, from 1992 to 1998 we had a pay freeze. We've had rollbacks. It went to the Supreme Court. They rolled back our wages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm afraid I do need to cut you off.

Thank you very much.

The best part about this job is that when members come, they're never shrinking violets. We appreciate the honesty and forthrightness of the current members and the retired members. Thank you very much.

We adjourn the meeting, and we'll see you again on Tuesday.