Public Safety Committee on April 14th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you. I'm afraid I have to cut you off.

Ms. Gallant, you can have a couple of minutes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I'll be very quick.

Currently this committee, when it's not doing Bill C-7, is involved in an in-depth study on PTSD and its impact on the RCMP, looking at how to better serve your members. How will this bill impact the ability to treat members suffering from PTSD or operational stress injuries in general? Will it have a positive impact on the ability to treat them quickly or a negative impact?

[Leland Keane]

I would say a negative impact, because you're talking about provinces and territories. As my colleagues said, there are so many different bars on how PTSD and other mental illness is handled. A health care provider who's related to Veterans Affairs told me that the RCMP is 10 years behind the military in dealing with PTSD, and the military is 10 years behind the general public in dealing with it. So we're 20 years behind as it is. I don't think it will be any better.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

You are saying that this bill, as it is, is undermining our efforts to help people who are suffering from these operational stress injuries?

[Brian Sauvé]

Yes.

There is a bigger discussion there, and I've read some of the minutes. I think it's fantastic. Maybe I should have been a witness there a year ago, but who knows?

The biggest challenge that our members face today with respect to operational stress injuries—or occupational stress injuries, depending on which class you are from—is access to care. Keep in mind that we are a national police force, and the majority of our members do not serve in large centres. Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver—that's the minority of our members. The majority of them are in the Fort Chipewyans, the Pukatawagans, the Fort Smiths, the Lac La Biches, the Tsay Keh Denes, and finding a therapist, a psychologist, or a psychiatrist within a reasonable distance who can treat you for an OSI or a PTSD is extremely difficult.

[Leland Keane]

I can give you the example of a member I am dealing with right now. I spoke to him about the amount of harassment and intimidation he is facing with a mental illness by members of the RCMP, an inspector and sergeant. This is what goes on. I have tried to bring this forward and get some kind of justice or defence for him. They merely passed it off to these two supervisors, and there has been no investigation. There is a lot of bullying going on in that part of the world.

[Rae Banwarie]

Another part to be aware of is that for referrals, you have to go to health services. Before you could even get that type of assistance, you have to go to a health services doctor or a psychologist who is employed by the RCMP, and their client isn't the member; it's the employer. Maybe people on the committee are not aware of the privacy breach that happened. That's still pending before the courts. It involved psychological records that were used by management to try to destroy a psychologist's career. In that situation, the members weren't even aware that their medical records were being used. They were taken and they were used.

There are many issues. It's not just one piece.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm afraid I have to stop us on this one. There are two things I wanted to say.

In our study on operational stress injuries, or PTSD as it's called, you'll be back. Hold those thoughts; we will need to hear more from you. I am looking at Ms. Damoff on that.

I also have a reminder: If you have anything else to supplement what you have already given us in writing, please send it to the clerk as soon as possible because we have to have it translated into both languages and we are under a very tight deadline, so we encourage you to work on that this afternoon.

Thank you very much.

We'll just take one minute as we say goodbye to these witnesses and welcome out next panel.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Let us resume our meeting.

Thank you very much.

I believe you were here for the first half, so you know the routine. We are going to start with Mr. Hill from The Mounted Police Members' Legal Fund. You have 10 minutes to present to the members.

We'll continue after that with the RCMP Veterans' Association. You'll have 10 minutes as well to make your presentation. As I said to the others, if you have written documentation that you'd like to use to supplement it, we are certainly happy to receive that as well, because we know the time is short.

Mr. Hill, thank you.

[Staff Sergeant Roy Hill, Assistant Secretary/Treasurer, The Mounted Police Members' Legal Fund]

Good day, honourable members. Thank you for the opportunity to present. I'll try to do this as quickly as I can.

My name is Roy Hill, and I live in St. John's, Newfoundland. You probably gathered that from the accent already.

My service was in several provinces, including Newfoundland and Labrador. I've had over 40 years' experience as a member of the RCMP, and I'm retired.

I had the privilege of serving the RCMP members as their elected labour relations representative for over 13 years in Newfoundland and Labrador. Prior to that I had an additional 13 years as a supplementary representative. Having received several awards during my service, I am most proud of the order of merit of the police forces, MOM, honouring my leadership, exceptional service, and distinctive merit, and also recognizing my contribution to policing, community development, and my commitment to the country of Canada.

Why am I here today? I'm here to speak on behalf of RCMP members, and to ensure they are treated fairly and equitably on any matter that affects their welfare or dignity. Specifically I'm here to represent the 16,500 RCMP members who made a voluntary decision to join and pay dues to The Mounted Police Members' Legal Fund, which since 1998 has been an important component of the RCMP's labour relations system.

I want to describe the extremely concerning and deteriorating situation RCMP members currently face in respect of their basic working conditions. I want to describe the actions that RCMP management is currently taking that are having a significant and detrimental impact on RCMP members, and particularly on their current ability to access any form of collective representation regarding workplace issues; and also the RCMP's serious concerns with the substance of Bill C-7. RCMP members are concerned with the significant restrictions that Bill C-7 will impose on negotiations between RCMP management and the bargaining agent for RCMP members, and the fact that Bill C-7 would place RCMP members under the jurisdiction of the various provincial workers' compensation authorities in respect of occupational health matters.

With the legal fund, and recognizing the need to have the ability to research and challenge issues on behalf of the RCMP members, in 1997 the corporation was struck, separate and apart from the RCMP. The legal fund is totally independent from the RCMP. It is a non-profit corporation that promotes the improvement of members' conditions of employment or work. If the legal fund were not currently in existence, and available to its members, then those members who are facing challenges and request legal assistance to meet those challenges would face financial ruin and possibly the destruction of their character and career.

First, the commissioner has unilaterally cut off the process of automatic payroll deductions for membership dues that fund the work of the legal fund on behalf of the members. This notification came approximately three hours before RCMP management sent out a bulletin to all RCMP members advising them of this significant change. This was done without any discussion or consultation.

Second, the commissioner has announced a plan to replace the current SRR system with a much diminished member workplace service adviser. Under this program, RCMP members will not have any access to a form of collective representation in respect of workplace matters or other issues that may affect their dignity or welfare. Furthermore it will do so until a bargaining agent is certified under the legislative framework.

Why is this serious? It's serious because RCMP members say this is serious business. In the short term, the end of voluntary pay deductions threatens the very existence of this legal fund, and it's been on the go since 1998. RCMP management know that the legal fund depends exclusively on this payroll deduction to fund its work on behalf of RCMP members, and that arbitrarily stopping the deductions will have a dramatic adverse effect on the legal fund and its ability to assist members on their issues. In fact the end of payroll deductions could result in the end of the legal fund. By the way, the staff relations representative you heard from here today, as of February 5, 2016, and until May 16, 2016—that's their elimination date, I call it—cannot advocate on behalf of any member on any issue, and they can not communicate with the media, the Minister of Public Safety, Parliament, the Senate, or the general public concerning any matter related to the RCMP, unless they get express permission from the commissioner.

To summarize, rather than improving RCMP members' ability to exercise their freedom of association, RCMP management's current course of action is to totally eliminating collective representation in the RCMP.

On this basis, the legal fund requests that this committee consider and ensure that the long-standing and voluntary system of automatic payroll deductions for legal fund members' dues be continued. In other words, Commissioner, get it back on track.

This goes to the heart of the matter. We would submit that RCMP's management and this government know how vulnerable the RCMP members are at this time. I've received written correspondence from our serving members of the RCMP saying, would you please pass on to this committee how vulnerable we are right now.

I just related to you some of the actions of RCMP management in stifling any form of representation of members.

Bill C-7 is intended to improve the working conditions of RCMP members as per the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. Instead, we have RCMP members across Canada enraged over the contents of this bill. Why are they angry?

One, they're angry because the legislation imposes restrictions on what would be the subject of negotiations in a new labour relations scheme and, two, it would place RCMP members under the jurisdiction of the provincial workers' compensation boards.

Some of the issues that cannot be negotiated in Bill C-7 include staffing levels and postings. Are they large and serious issues? You bet they are. Who is in complete control of these issues? Management. Was there any input from the members of the RCMP in respect of the development of Bill C-7? No.

The only messages that the government hears are those of the commissioner and his senior management team, and I'd describe them as having powerful and unbridled positions. It is not from the grassroots, the women and men who are boots on the ground, 24/7, across Canada, who are serving in locations that no other agency would dare set up an office in unless an RCMP member is present. That's the reality.

Understaffing of detachments and offices is the norm, including the smaller detachments. Officer safety...and burnout are ever taking place, yet RCMP members continue to put themselves in harm's way to protect citizens.

The staffing levels are very much relevant and important, but they can't be negotiated. This makes no sense. RCMP members have to agree to serve anywhere in Canada if they want to enlist in Canada's national police force. This means that throughout one's career you could serve in several provinces and in various locations, but the details of this cannot be negotiated.

In other words, some of the most important working terms and conditions that apply to RCMP members cannot be negotiated under Bill C-7. This is simply unfair and we would submit is at odds with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision.

Health care coverage has been one of the pillars over the decades that attracted people to join the RCMP. It doesn't take long after your enlistment to appreciate that no matter the posting, the health services would be made available with none of the wrangling associated with dealing with provincial compensation boards. The radio talk shows, certainly in my neck of the woods, are flooded every week with calls from irate citizens who are frustrated with provincial compensation boards, the bureaucracy, and the constant struggle to be heard and dealt with fairly, including on their financial losses.

I would be doing a disservice if I didn't bring to your attention, with regard to service in the RCMP and the postings, those who are also a part of the package, as I refer to it. It's just not RCMP members being impacted; we're talking about spouses, partners, families, who are very much an integral part of these postings and where they serve. I know this because I've been there and I know what it is today.

In Newfoundland and Labrador you go across the Trans-Canada and I could tell you the places before you even visit where you've got no cellphone coverage and no radio coverage still in 2016, yet people are putting themselves in harm's way.

The children of these members are impacted largely, big-time. Personally, my three children were in three different schools in one school year. They were. To this day my three adult daughters often negatively refer to this very traumatic experience, which to them is unforgivable. Was it all that long ago? No. Is it still going on today? Yes.

I've read some emails from spouses of members and some of them have written to their members of Parliament. I commend them for doing that. One spouse went on to say the RCMP is a national police force and is unique from all others, and I think that's right on the mark. They deserve to have the benefits under the federal medicare coverage because they are told they will serve anywhere in Canada.

They deserve to be treated fairly at the bargaining table. They deserve to be taken care of when injured in the line of duty, protecting, me, my family, and you and your family, as well as the security of the nation.

Remember, a police officer is a peacetime soldier always at war. The members of the RCMP deserve your support and have earned what benefits that have been promised to them.

Mr. Chair, I hope I'm within time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You're just ending.

Thank you very much, Mr. Hill.

We continue with Mr. Gaillard.

[Mark Gaillard, Executive Officer and Secretary, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans' Association]

Mr. Chair, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

I am Mark Gaillard. I am the executive officer and the national secretary, and the only full-time employee of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans’ Association.

It is an honour for me to appear before you on behalf of the board of directors and the many thousands of former members and employees of the force, as well as their families, as this association has been doing since 1886. Now retired, I served for a total of 40 years as a regular member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a foreign service officer in the public service, and as a commissioned officer in the Canadian Armed Forces, regular force and reserve. I am also academically trained as a legislative drafter, having graduated with a master of laws degree in legislative drafting through a joint program of the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law and the Department of Justice. So, I love to talk about legislation.

The position of the RCMP Veterans’ Association is unequivocal: the complete removal of clauses 40 and 42 of Bill C-7. The purpose of Bill C-7 is to set up the legislative framework to provide for a collective bargaining regime for members of the RCMP and reservists as directed by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Clauses 40 and 42 of Bill C-7 have nothing to do with this purpose. Although not formally defined as such in legislation, former members of the RCMP are veterans. The service and duties performed by members of the RCMP are not like those performed by other federal public sector employees. In terms of the risk to life and to health, both physical and mental, experienced in protecting Canadians 24/7 in every province and territory and abroad, members of the RCMP are in this respect more like members of the regular force of the Canadian Armed Forces than employees of the federal government. It is for this very reason that both members of the RCMP and the regular force of the Canadian Armed Forces have been excluded from the Government Employees Compensation Act, the GECA. By amending that act, clause 40 of Bill C-7 ends that exclusion of RCMP members from GECA.

Clause 42 of Bill C-7, on the other hand, repeals a subsection of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. The RCMP Superannuation Act was first enacted in 1959. The specific subsection Bill C-7 repeals was put in the RCMP Superannuation Act in 1998, in Bill C-12. Because we are the veterans of the RCMP who contributed to the RCMP pension plan over the course of our careers and receive retirement benefits for ourselves and survivor benefits for our spouses and dependants, it is easy to understand why we are very interested in any proposed changes to the RCMP Superannuation Act. RCMP veterans and serving members of the force who contribute to the pension plan today have not been notified, consulted, or advised about the proposed change to the RCMP Superannuation Act contained in Bill C-7. We have had no opportunity whatsoever to analyze, discuss, and provide our considered views on how this proposed change to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act will impact former and retired members of the force, the veterans, today and in the future. These changes are being made and are being rushed into law without even the pretext of consultation with stakeholders.

This, I submit, is egregious. It flies in the face of the Prime Minister’s mandate letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. As part of a different style of leadership, that mandate letter directed the minister to engage in constructive dialogue with stakeholders, including the not-for-profit and charitable sectors. The RCMP Veterans’ Association is a not-for-profit corporation, first registered as such in 1924.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are deeply disappointed that we must report to you that no such constructive dialogue has taken place regarding clauses 40 and 42 of Bill C-7. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans’ Association hopes that this committee will see fit to remove these clauses from Bill C-7.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Lewis.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis.

We will continue with Mr. Di Iorio.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Many thanks to the witnesses for being here today. Your comments are welcome and very much appreciated. You have our full attention.

Since our time is very limited, I have a few questions for which I would like written answers.

First, though, I would like to point out a few things to help you understand the problem we are facing in analyzing your demands and complaints.

The government had requested a six-month extension. The associations stated before the Supreme Court that they might agree, but they stipulated conditions that the government was not willing to fulfill. May I remind you that this is a new government, so we have only four months now, and time is running out quickly. That is my first point.

Secondly, please remember that I understand the issues you are raising. I would also note that some of these issues are features of a unionized workplace. What we are trying to do here is draft the bill, and we need your help with that.

My third point is that you represent veterans. My understanding is that veterans' rights are set in stone, so this bill will not in any way remove any rights that veterans have.

Is that correct?

[Ron Lewis]

Not exactly, because a serving member of the RCMP right now, if injured on duty or through illness, will be getting certain benefits. Under the Pension Act, we already have benefits that follow us through our service; they follow us right to retirement. An injury that happened in your service may not show up until 20 years later through cumulative processes. Today's members are tomorrow's veterans. If you take away our provisions under the Pension Act and they come under provincial health care, then we're going to have different benefits in retirement.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I see.

Once again, though, you answered my question in reference to the future. What I am saying is that the rights of current RCMP retirees are set in stone.

In reviewing the bill, I did not find anything that would take away from an RCMP veteran a right that had already been clearly established. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Ron Lewis]

In my opening statement I said two things. Number one, I'm speaking on behalf of the 17,000 veterans and future veterans. Because of the restructuring—

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Excuse me, our time is limited. If you would like to add that point, you can send it to me in writing.

I would like to turn to another aspect. Section 40 applies to correctional officers of Canada, Canada Post employees, and border services officers, for example, who work in border towns, that is, towns lying at the border between provinces. Although they work in one province, they are sometimes transferred to another one.

Why is it that the issue you raise has not arisen in their case?

Since our time is limited, I would ask you to answer in writing; we do need your answer on this point.

[Ron Lewis]

Yes, we'll submit something.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I would invite you to talk about another very important point for us. In fact, it is at the root of all of your comments, those of your colleagues before you, and those of the panel of witnesses we heard from earlier today. I am referring to the unique character of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

We are not challenging this but we would like you to expand on it, and to provide facts upon which we can base our work.

If I may, I'd like to raise another point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Yes, you have three more minutes.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

That's fine.

The list of exclusions includes one called “appointment” in English and nomination in French.

I would like your opinion on the practical difficulties that would be posed by maintaining this exclusion.

[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—