Public Safety Committee on April 19th, 2016

[Paul Dupuis]

Currently, I am the only member in my unit that is not an officer. Three of my unit members are superintendents or chief superintendents. We are the four remaining members.

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

So you have three close friends in those ranks.

The reason I say this is that this isn't a typical management environment. The management you talk about, the inspector level and above, which is generally management, are wearing the uniform as well. Unfortunately, I think some frustrations people have had with management over the years leads to management being described as big bad management. But I think all of you know that there are men and women wearing the uniform making decisions on equipment, training standards, staffing, that are in the same thin blue line as you.

As a former military person, I think it's appropriate for a paramilitary organization with a chain of command to have some exclusions, because you have faith in your comrades-in-arms. That doesn't say everything's perfect, but it sort of says that the unique paramilitary nature would lead to some exclusions.

I'll leave some time open for you to comment on whether that's warranted or not. I hear some people saying we're treated like public servants in the PSLRA. Well, that's what the legal case was about, the exclusion from the PSLRA.

[Paul Dupuis]

Maybe I can comment on that.

We have the Duxbury report, the Brown report, and the Robichaud report from C Division. All these reports mention that there is a dichotomy in the RCMP and that the officers have a different point of view of what is actually going on within the RCMP.

I would like to make a comment on the Robichaud Report.

Mr. Robichaud has a PhD in communications from the University of Montreal. He interviewed about 600 non-commissioned officers, which gave him a sense of what it is to be an officer. Allow me to quote a single sentence from his report: “(...) it's unbelievable, these are intelligent people, but they do not grasp reality, there's a gap between reality and their reality.”

That comment pertained to Division C officers at the time.

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

Before the Robichaud report, did any of you have thoughts on the paramilitary nature leading to some obvious...? Let's say this was just a typical workplace environment, and I didn't want a posting. Postings, assignments—should all these be just collectively bargained and grieved? I don't think you would then have a chain of command paramilitary structure, if everything was subject to bargaining. Do you have any comment on that?

I'm focusing on this because I think the opposition has made some progress on clauses 40 and 42, but I personally think there should be some exclusions, as a former uniform and as a lawyer, and the court case does permit that. The problem with the staff relations program was that it was not sufficiently independent from management. I think the frustrations many of you have, being the early advocates for associations, was that institutional reluctance. That's now going to be changed.

Are there any other comments on the fact that the paramilitary nature might lead to some exclusions that are required, given the structure?

[James R. K. Duggan, Legal Adviser, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association]

Yes. With respect, I've represented members of the RCMP for more than 30 years and argued dozens, if not hundreds, of cases. I argued the Delisle case and the MPAO case. The MPAO case was not about the exclusion from the Public Service Labour Relations Act. If it was about one thing, it was about preventing members of the RCMP from unionizing and having collective bargaining. The exclusion was merely a mechanism. This is one of the few cases where the Supreme Court recognized that the purpose of the legislation was to deny unionization and collective bargaining.

On the issue of the paramilitary nature of the RCMP, that's old history. It may be that it was relevant in the days of the North West Mounted Police and the whisky trade and so forth, but all of the evidence before the Supreme Court indicates that the RCMP is a police force like any other. Generally, it has the same kind of role.

What I think is problematic about the exclusions is that they deny the RCMP itself, and people who have to deal with the role of the RCMP, the voice of the members who are on what you call “the thin blue line”, which can inform both management and should inform your committee ultimately, and legislature, on those issues of health and safety. I would turn the question around and say, “What is the justification for excluding that kind of a voice?”

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Mr. Duggan. I'm sorry, I have to cut you off there.

Mr. Blaikie.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you guys for coming out today and providing testimony.

Part of what's at issue, and I guess I'll just touch on it because it's part of the conversation right now, is whether there's an opportunity created by the court to get beyond that institutional reluctance for collective bargaining, but we don't just buy the court fiat. I think there's a serious risk that Bill C-7 will actually entrench that institutional reluctance in law and make it more difficult to have bargaining in name only, or bargaining just for pay and benefits, when the concerns of members clearly go far beyond pay and benefits. It's not really living up to the spirit of that decision, and I think we need to be concerned about whether we're actually doing damage with Bill C-7 to the rights of members to raise certain issues in the workplace with the way that the bill is currently worded.

I don't have the credibility of having been in uniform, but I would say when I hear comments about sharing a uniform and therefore having faith in management to manage in a way that's fair to fellow comrades in uniform, it cuts both ways. I think there should be some faith given to members at the bargaining table by management who shared that uniform to bring forward reasonable proposals that have the interests of the organization at heart as much as their own interests as employees. I think the other side of that trust is really what's really missing in Bill C-7. It has a lot of layered protection for management and very little for the employees of the RCMP. It's perhaps not a coincidence that there was very little consultation with employees of the RCMP leading into that.

The chart that you brought here today I think is really helpful. It's been a missing component of the conversation so far. Just to try to get a better sense of what's really at stake with these exclusions, I'm wondering if you have an example, say, of law enforcement techniques. We have some examples in this chart of where law enforcement techniques have been discussed and agreements made at the bargaining table. Are you guys aware in any of those cases of the standard of law enforcement in those jurisdictions falling below an acceptable level, or serious discord or disorganization within the police force that discussed those things at the bargaining table? What was the consequence for those police forces? Did they subsequently fail as police forces because those things were discussed at the bargaining table?

[James R. K. Duggan]

Our research, and more than research.... Members of the RCMP work with all those other police forces. It's the contrary. A careful reading and understanding of the MPAO case indicate that when members' views are taken into account, there is less likely to be frustration among the members. It also provides for optimal police services because the members know that their rights are being respected and their voices are being listened to, and they can concentrate on the delivery of the best police services possible. That is recognized, as well, in the Supreme Court decision.

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

If that is true for discussing law enforcement techniques at the bargaining table, is it also true where there have been, say, issues about probation discussed at the bargaining table? Did any police forces subsequently fail as police forces, or have terrible internal strife or mismanagement as a consequence of employees bringing those issues to the table, that you are aware of?

[Paul Dupuis]

Yes. A few years ago, it was current practice in Quebec to use temporary police officers. Certain cities wanted there to be a collective agreement or a separate salary scale for temporary officers, as compared to permanent officers, which left open the possibility of a grandfather clause. Depending on the date a person was hired, that person may have earned a different salary than another who was hired two months previously, for example. Some people were opposed to this. There was even a class action suit against the union and the city.

I simply wanted to give you a sense of the situation. We are talking about minimum standards. Cities were using temporary officers a great deal.

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

I think that's it for questions for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Really?

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

Yes. There you go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Do you want to save some for later?

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

Will you let me? I never mind speaking last.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I am always very generous.

We are going to turn to Mr. Di Iorio for his questioning.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you for your presentations and for the informal conversations we have had previously; this is all very helpful to our committee.

You have told us about certain problems, some of which we were already aware of. You were here last week when we discussed clauses 40 and 42 of Bill C-7. We were open to the discussion. Your comments were greatly appreciated.

Mr. Dupuis, I would like to address clauses 40 and 42.

There is a corollary aspect in clause 42. You had the opportunity to do this work, to be part of the organization and to become familiar with labour relations issues. We were told that some border officials and correctional officers work in border towns. At times, they may work in one province, and at other times in another, so that they move between two different systems.

Mr. Dupuis, could you tell us why this is a different problem when we're talking about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? Please feel free to provide examples.

[Paul Dupuis]

Your question is very timely, since I was a member of the national health and safety committee along with my colleague Mr. Brian Sauvé, who testified last Thursday and is present today. As it happens, we discussed health issues and other similar things. At a certain time, the RCMP wanted to divest itself of basic health services. Before this research, members received the same treatment and services across the country. There was no distinction between basic service, supplementary service and work-related service. After the budget cuts, they began to...

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

I apologize for cutting you off, Mr. Dupuis. I understand what you were saying, but we are running out of time.

Can you please tell us why your situation is different from that of correctional officers and border officials, who provide our country with very important services and who also put their lives at risk? Why is the RCMP situation leading to a different treatment for them? I would like to hear your opinion on that.

[Paul Dupuis]

The short answer is that those people are almost all hired locally and they work in the same place where they were hired.

We RCMP members are transferred from one province or one territory to another, and sometimes outside the country, and health care services are not the same in all territories or provinces. Provinces and territories do not deal with specific issues that exist in the policing world, for example post-traumatic stress disorder or OSIs, which you are now studying. These problems particularly affect police officers. However, in provinces where the RCMP is the sole police force, health services are not equipped to deal with such cases.

Just as we did on Thursday, we are asking that health care services be negotiated at the bargaining table to establish which benchmarks are being used, and we ask that those benchmarks apply to all RCMP members. We get transferred every three to five years on average. We have to change provinces on a regular basis.

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

There is another matter.

Police officers, the forces of law and order, are the only people and the only citizens of our country who are authorized to use force as part of their job. That is the distinctive nature of their work. I cannot use force, but you, when you are carrying out your duties, are authorized to do so.

[Paul Dupuis]

I would like to emphasize the fact that we are also paid to go toward the danger, contrary to other citizens, who run away from danger.

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

In that case, we could also talk about firemen. It is for this reason that I mentioned this distinctive nature of your work. Firemen are not authorized to use physical force against someone else. In that context, I understand the distinctive nature of a police officer's work.

You mentioned something very important, that is, that civilian members are excluded. Why is this exclusion a problem for you, given the distinctive nature of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? I would like you to explain this distinctive aspect. In other words, give us some details on this distinctive aspect, more specifically as it relates to the comment that you made.

[Paul Dupuis]

With regard to health in the workplace, given that we move from province to province, our situation is different from that of police officers who work for the Ontario Provincial Police, for example. And yet, the OPP does exactly the same work as the RCMP. Officers in the OPP must do police work in areas that are located further away from services, among other things. We are different because we are often transferred from one province to another, but we are not really different from our colleagues in the OPP.

As concerns civilian members, they were hired under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, they are governed by the same code of ethics and conduct as regular members. The only difference is that the vast majority of them are not peace officers and do not have to make arrests or use the required force against an offender.

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

I would like to come back to what my colleague, Mr. O'Toole, said. This goes back to a lawsuit that went right up to the Supreme Court, in which it was argued that people were excluded from the collective bargaining system. These people will now have access to such a system.