Public Safety Committee on April 14th, 2016

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

Fair enough, sir, fair enough.

One thing I'd like you to help us with is the fact that it's a national bargaining unit. You're all seasoned and experienced, you've had a full career, and the legislation provides for a national bargaining unit. Could you share with us your reaction and your reflections on that portion of the act?

[S/Sgt Roy Hill]

I didn't understand the question, I'm sorry.

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

Do you want it in French or in English?

[S/Sgt Roy Hill]

Oh, English. Either one, I have difficulty.

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

The act provides for a national bargaining unit, and I would like to have your views on that. You've had a full career with the RCMP, and you probably moved from one position to another, one function to another, and one area to another. What are your views on having a national bargaining unit?

[S/Sgt Roy Hill]

With regard to the health care?

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

No, a national bargaining unit as collective bargaining, what you were asking for at the Supreme Court.

[S/Sgt Roy Hill]

I didn't go to the Supreme Court, but I respect the decision that was made. I'll speak as an elected staff relations representative. With some tweaking I could see a bunch of things that could have been done under the existing one. With regard to independence and the right to do certain things, I have no problem with that.

As for a national bargaining unit, I have no problems with that either. That's exactly what's on the table now, and that's exactly what's taking place. What I'm deeply concerned over is the vacuum right now where there's nothing. For whatever period of time it takes to strike up a bargaining agent, the RCMP members, as they've expressed it to me and in my observation, are vulnerable because they have no voice.

If it takes a year, or two years, no matter what the issue is on any given day, there's nobody who can speak. I would submit, as my position, to ensure that we didn't have the wherewithal to do something on behalf of those people—16,500 people whom I represent, that voluntarily are a part of this legal fund since 1988— then we'll cut out the dues. Now you've neutered the legal fund from doing things on behalf of the 16,500. For those people, who represents them on any issue?

The advisers the commissioner can put in place are only that. “Here's a 1-800 number you can call if you want to talk to somebody about something.” With regard to collective representation, there is none. I'm deeply concerned about that, and I joined the force pre-1974. We're going back pre-1974.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

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

Mr. O'Toole.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Technical difficulty—Editor] because I grew a close affinity for Newfoundland, Labrador, and Newfoundlanders in particular, so it was good to hear your lilt, Mr. Hill.

It's good to see you as well, Mark. Thank you for your advocacy and particularly that legislative passion you have, which was helpful in the veterans' context.

From the big picture, I think we have to remember that the Supreme Court decision said two key things.

They said the old labour relations, staff relations, were insufficient. They also said there needs to be employee choice, and we're fighting for that. There needs to be independence, and I think we've heard that. What they also said is the old Wagner model does not need to apply to every context. There's not a one-size-fits-all collective bargaining construct, and the unique nature of the RCMP is a great example of that.

Mark, if I could, in the veterans' groups submission you focused on clauses 40 and 42, which is our area of focus. You didn't mention some of the areas excluded. Are you okay with the exclusions, or are clauses 40 and 42 more of your priority? What are your thoughts on the fact that not all elements of the unique nature of RCMP services will be subject to collective bargaining?

[Mark Gaillard]

In the context of the RCMP Veterans' Association, I think we've been very careful to stay in our lanes. The part of the thinking that will go towards the set-up of a collective bargaining agent that will satisfy the members and satisfy the Supreme Court of Canada is really not an issue that is of direct concern to veterans of the RCMP. Had it not been for clauses 40 and 42 we probably would not be sitting here today. We did not come forward with a brief, nor do we have someone from our membership to talk about how the collective bargaining regime should be set up, administered, and created through legislation. I would defer directly to the associations that are dealing with this issue to express the views that they see as being necessary. We'll be the veterans and we'll nod sagely and support them any way we can.

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

That's fine. You have a bright future in politics.

I will then focus on the area that has been the focus of my inquiries. I believe you were in attendance when the ministers appeared earlier this week, Minister Goodale and Minister Brison. I asked them specific questions on clauses 40 and 42. Did their answers give the clarity your members need with respect to those clauses?

[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—

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

Do you think these have been a tack-on with the timeline we're forced with?

[Mark Gaillard]

I can only speculate, but that is the effect.

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

Okay.

You touched on my next question. You gave a nice historical overview. You both did a very good job giving an overview of the superannuation act and the uncertainty with respect to a potential set-off for something in the future. In my remarks in my time as Minister of Veterans Affairs I talked about the challenge when the previous Liberal government brought in the new Veterans Charter. There wasn't sufficient discussion and understanding of what the change meant from the Pension Act to the new Veterans Charter. With the change in clause 42, do you see that as a risk here, that it's not fully understood by the people it most impacts?

[Mark Gaillard]

Very much so. I think this is what is causing the anxiety that's being expressed by our membership, both memberships of our association as well as former members of the RCMP. It's the lack of understanding and the uncertainty about what this means. With the time that we have to look at this on the fly, we cannot give them good answers, we cannot give them any comfort in being able to advise them in a considered, reasonable way how this is going to affect them directly.

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

I also mentioned in my questions how it reminded me of what led to the Manugue case, where acts of several previous Parliaments were not well understood and the implementation of a new insurance program or a new benefit leading to a set-off, led to actual action against the federal government. Do you think that with rushing this there are those risks as well?

[Mark Gaillard]

Absolutely, sir, yes.

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

Okay.

There's one thing in my remaining time, and speak to it if you wish. Veterans Affairs administered services and benefits, as you know, for the folks injured in the line of duty, to the RCMP veterans. But, increasingly they saw the benefit of the new Veterans Charter, once it was better understood in terms of accessing health care faster, particularly mental health supports before the old Pension Act adjudication and considerations were done. In discussions I was having there was a feeling that the RCMP would like to move to that model as well in the new Veterans Charter. Would you care to comment on that in terms of your members?

[Mark Gaillard]

It's uncertain. We are not, of course, the RCMP; we're simply the veterans' association. We are keenly interested in anything to do with treatment of veterans generally as, certainly, you are, sir. Also, we heard about the work this committee is doing with respect to studying PTSD and OSI in first responders. We certainly are interested in that. We've been talking with various universities through CIMVHR about how we can support their activities to expand this area of research.

I heard a researcher say, and I think it was quoted by one of the previous panellists, that in terms of PTSD and OSI, in the first responder community they are about 15 years behind the Canadian military. There's a lot of research catch-up that has to be done. That's where we want to focus the efforts of our members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Blaikie.

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

Thank you all for coming here today.

I want to follow up a little bit with Mr. Hill on one of the points that he raised. I'm an electrician, not a lawyer, but my understanding is that part of the Supreme Court decision was that the SRR system was unconstitutional because there was no way for employees to organize; there was no choice that they had. That's still the case with the new system up to the May 17 deadline. There was no need to get rid of the SRR system or to go after the legal fund in the interim, and even after that deadline there's still going to be a time before successful certification.

It doesn't seem to me that the Supreme Court ruling actually rules out having the old SRR system, once there's a choice, and then, if members chose another system because they had certified, it would supersede the SRR system. It seems to me that the RCMP management decision to deep-six those tools for members was premature.

I think it's wrong, in the context of a bill, to tell your members that you can't speak to parliamentarians. I think it's wrong for employers to intimidate their employees during certification processes.

I'm just wondering whether you can speak to the vulnerability felt by RCMP members from not having a decent representation structure and not having access. One of the differences, for RCMP members, if I understand correctly, is that they don't get the same presumption of innocence when certain kinds of charges are brought against them. This means they can be suspended without pay; it means it's very hard for them to fight legal battles in the event that they are charged with something, and that's part of the role of your fund, if I understand it correctly.

Can you just speak to that feeling of vulnerability and what it could mean in the context both of this bill and then of a certification drive?

[S/Sgt Roy Hill]

Yes, I will.

I think the situation right now is very grave, and it's getting worse because we have social media, in which not everything is accurate, but there's enough interest. For example, there's the one Facebook site with about 3,000 members on it and spouses saying, if my spouse can't speak, then I need to speak, because it impacts me, our children, whatever. What you have is a large vacuum.

I agree 100% with your comment: there was absolutely nothing in the Supreme Court of Canada decision stating that the existing system couldn't stay in place until such time as a bargaining agent is in place. It's just common sense to me that you would have to have some system in place, to have some collective representation of the members' concerns and advocate on their behalf; in other words, business as normal until such time as a bargaining agent is in place, and then you're set down. But that's not there.

I speak passionately on it both because I recognize it and as one of the architects with respect to The Mounted Police Members' Legal Fund. The nail in the coffin was for the commissioner to say and give it in a decree on February 18: you're done as of the end of March.

We wrote to him on February 18, never to get a response from him. We got a response from one of his assistant commissioners on March 31 saying no, we're not even going to talk to you.

Members are without representation, and the ability to do things on a member's behalf has just been wiped out. As we stand here today, unless there's some new revelation in the last hour since I came in here, there's nothing to assist and represent the RCMP members, and God only knows when that will take place whereby some agency is finally set up.

It's sad, and it's pre-1974—and I was around before there was anything of any type, and I know what the conditions were like then. I feel terrible that stuff like this is happening. It's shameful, really, but you're not hearing from the grassroots. You're hearing from people like me and the previous witnesses, saying to you on behalf of those grassroots people: “Committee members, please pay attention to us, because right now we're vulnerable; we're in the crosshairs of the commissioner and his senior administration”, who at this point in time, in my humble opinion, can do just about anything, and who's going to challenge it?

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

On the question of changes to the RCMP Superannuation Act, I think there are a couple of things happening. It's true of the worker's compensation changes as well, where on the eve of having an appropriate body to represent members and to negotiate those issues, we're cementing something in legislation that would pre-empt those conversations. I wonder if you could speak to the confidence you have of some future organization bargaining about those changes as opposed to having them made in legislation for veterans.

I presume the alternative would be that some future organization for RCMP members would be talking about changes to the pension plan at the bargaining table. I wonder if you can speak to how your members feel about that.