Public Safety Committee on April 19th, 2016

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)), Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm going to call this meeting to order.

I wish to welcome Mr. Mehain from British Columbia who is with us via teleconference. Because the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada is partly on teleconference, I'm going to suggest we begin our first panel with you. I understand Mr. McKenna will start the discussion.

We'll take 10 minutes to hear from the two of you and then we'll hear from Mr. Dupuis and Mr. Duggan for the second 10 minutes, just in case we lose the video conference. Our process is 10 minutes from each of the two groups and then there will be questions from the committee.

Mr. McKenna.

[Brendan McKenna, British Columbia, Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, honourable members of the parliamentary committee.

My name is Brendan McKenna and I am the spokesman for the British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association and the co-spokesman for the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada. I've been involved in the association movement for 22 years. I am a founding member of both the British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association in 1994 and the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada in 2010.

The B.C. MPPA is a non-profit provincial association. It's the provincial arm of MPPAC, the national association.

I spent 30 years serving with the RCMP, all in British Columbia, primarily on detachment—including the largest detachment in the country, the Surrey detachment—in both medium-sized and small detachments in the north. I provided relief on a three-person isolated post when the nearest assistance was more than a two-hour drive, so I bring a fairly broad perspective to bear on this.

I'll begin by speaking and sharing my concerns regarding the lack of core components found in Bill C-7. I'll focus primarily on two areas: the factors to be considered in interest arbitration, and restrictions on the scope of bargaining in the areas of staffing levels and equipment.

Last year, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the right to strike is constitutionally protected. RCMP members do not seek the right to strike. They recognize that the work they do is essential. However, what they do seek is that an alternative to striking, interest arbitration, be fair and independent.

As the Public Service Labour Relations Act and Bill C-7 are currently drafted, the interest arbitration process for RCMP members is anything but fair and independent. Rather, an arbitrator must give preponderant weight to two factors, including the government's stated fiscal policy. This skews the whole process in favour of the employer. This is the opposite of fair and independent, and contrary to the charter of rights of RCMP members.

The British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association calls upon the committee to amend Bill C-7 to allow an arbitrator to give equal weight to all factors and to not be required to consider the government's stated fiscal policy.

Another concern of the British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association is in the area of restrictions on scope of bargaining in particular with respect to staffing levels and equipment. These two areas have a direct impact upon the occupational health and safety of front-line police officers. They have a direct impact on the quality of the work environment. Front-line officers who are overtasked, inadquately resourced, and underequipped cannot reasonably be expected to consistently deliver the high-quality service that the job demands and that the Canadian public expects.

We're being compared to civil servants under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The survey of RCMP employees conducted by the previous government resulted in over 9,000 RCMP members clarifying that they wanted separate legislation solely for the RCMP and thus Bill C-7.

We know that the Liberal government is committed to ensuring that the Supreme Court of Canada decision is complied with, but we are concerned that this bill misses the mark.

Bill C-7 as written does not fully meet the spirit and intent of the Supreme Court of Canada decision that provides the right of collective bargaining to the RCMP. I submit that the court's intention was to clarify that RCMP members should be accorded the same rights and privileges as all other Canadians and Canadian police colleagues in the various municipal, provincial, and federal agencies.

The restrictions contained in Bill C-7 would be akin to guaranteeing a person the right to vote and then limiting the placement of voting polls to locations that cannot be accessed. Essentially, vitiating that right.

Those restrictions within Bill C-7, as currently written and unless amended, preclude RCMP front-line membership from having effective and meaningful input into two areas critical to occupational health and safety. This is because Bill C-7 misses many of the key fundamental elements found in collective bargaining in other agencies that enshrine organized labour in Canada.

There are several police associations around the country that have collective agreement provisions regarding minimum staffing levels, including the Toronto Police Association, Sudbury, Windsor, and the Durham Regional Police Association, just to name a few.

Anecdotally, I can provide my own experience in front-line operations. Our detachments are generally under-resourced. There's a variety of reasons for this. I believe the primary reason is that those individuals on the pointy end of the stick have no input. Contracts are negotiated between the federal government and either provinces or municipalities. Fiscal considerations appear to be the prime motivator

Policing is expensive. For many municipalities, it is the single biggest budget item, so it's understandable that they would want to control costs to the extent possible. However, this has resulted in chronic understaffing at detachments across the country, essentially leaving it up to the members on the ground to carry the burden.

In 2009, I was recruited to work at our provincial headquarters in British Columbia. The position was leading the unit, which focused on police resourcing at detachments around the province. One of the goals was to review each detachment in the province every five years to ensure that they were adequately resourced for front-line service delivery. Prior to my arrival, the unit had just completed a study which identified that one Vancouver Island detachment was so under-resourced that it required 26 additional front-line members to address the gap.

This client services unit was supposed to include two NCOs to analyze data and prepare and present the findings, and five public servants to mine and gather the data from computer-based record systems. Only one of the five public servants was hired. The other positions were blocked and the funding reallocated to another project. It was a notable irony that the unit responsible to ensure detachments were adequately resourced was itself so under-resourced that it could not meet its own mandate. Had there been a collective agreement in place, with provisions to ensure minimum staffing levels, it is unlikely that this situation would have been allowed to occur.

Thank you. That concludes my remarks. I'll turn it over to Pat Mehain in British Columbia.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Mehain.

[Cpl Patrick Mehain, President, British Columbia, Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada]

Good morning, Committee Chair and honourable members of Parliament.

My name is Patrick Mehain. I'm a director of the British Columbia Mounted Police Professional Association. I've been involved in the association movement my entire 18-year career. I was president of the B.C. MPPA for eight years. I sat as an executive on the CPA, and I'm one of the founding members of the MPPAC. I'm also one of the affiants in the Supreme Court challenge.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to share my concerns as they pertain to the significant shortcomings of Bill C-7. While the Liberal government is ensuring the Supreme Court decision is complied with, the bill misses the true spirit of the decision: the absence of a fundamental onus found in collective bargaining in other agencies.

The bargaining restrictions found in Bill C-7 and the existing PSLRA are more restrictive than those found in other police forces across Canada. Many collective bargaining agreements deal with promotions, equipment, transfers, workplace conflict, etc. While my colleagues in the MPPAC have already touched on these issues, I'll speak about resourcing and health care.

Resourcing has always been an issue. Our municipal brothers and sisters refer to us as the “Kmart cops”—we do more with less. Comparing the cities of Vancouver and Surrey, we see that Vancouver has approximately 1,340 officers and polices 605,000 people, while Surrey has approximately 800 officers and polices 500,000 people. Resourcing directly impacts members' vacations, minimum staffing levels, workloads, and I would suggest job satisfaction.

Members are getting burned out, and their health, both physical and mental, is being impacted. Due to long-term illnesses, spots are left vacant, the spots are held out in detachments, and units are required to run with shortages. Treasury Board wants to convert the approximately 4,000 civilian members into public servants. If this is allowed to happen, it will undermine resources even further in the RCMP, as our civilians to do jobs that public servants cannot.

Provincial health care and workers' compensation is different from province to province. The RCMP is unique and requires a unique way to address these concerns. In B.C., we pay our basic medical premiums whereas members from other divisions do not. The Lower Mainland already has a difficult time filling vacancies, but the added costs associated with changes to our medical benefits have made it worse.

This is of course not the sole reason that it is hard to staff vacant spots in the LMD, but it definitely contributes: prescription changes, reduced benefits, health services inappropriately getting involved in members' treatments, and the alarming and concerning fact of the recent privacy breaches conducted by senior RCMP officers. Unfortunately, all too often, members do suffer long-term injuries. How will workers' compensation affect this? Will a transfer to B.C. be halted because a member is deemed ineligible by the WCB or vice versa? Simply lumping the RCMP under existing mechanisms does not work.

Since the Supreme Court of Canada decision, I have had mixed emotions. While collective bargaining is one of those things that I have fought 18 years for, Bill C-7 leaves a lot to be desired. In its current state, it does little to provide true collective bargaining, which is protected under section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights.

While I am thankful for this opportunity to share my concerns about Bill C-7, without significant changes we will continue to see labour unrest and more court challenges, and the RCMP will continue to degrade in operational effectiveness as well as morale.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dupuis and Mr. Duggan are next.

[Paul Dupuis, President, Quebec Mounted Police Members' Association]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, committee members, ladies and gentlemen.

I am Staff Sergeant Paul Dupuis. I have been a member of the RCMP for 35 years. I have been involved in labour relations in the RCMP since 1993 as a representative of members. I have been a member of the Association des membres de la police montée du Québec (the “AMPMQ”) since 1981 and I was elected president in 2015.

I have experienced first-hand and been a witness to abuse of power by RCMP management, and a counterweight is needed. Protecting people against abuse of power is best achieved by making all working conditions subject to collective bargaining. I appear before you today to provide you with AMPMQ's point of view on Bill C-7.

I will start by giving you an overview of the situation.

The members of the RCMP have been actively denied their right to freedom of association, in other words the right to unionize and engage in collective bargaining, for decades. The Supreme Court of Canada in MPAO v. Canada, decided that this violation was unconstitutional and that remedial legislation was required. Bill C-7 provides a process for an association to acquire collective bargaining rights for members. It also includes provisions to regulate collective bargaining. However, Bill C-7 falls short on several levels.

I will now discuss the right to a meaningful collective bargaining process.

The Supreme Court described a meaningful collective bargaining process as one that “provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to determine and pursue their collective interests.” It rejected the current scheme that “does not permit them to identify and advance their workplace concerns.”

While Bill C-7 does provide a process for certifying an association and having access to a collective bargaining process, it falls short on several levels, in particular by the restrictions it places on the content of collective bargaining.

Bill C-7 excludes important workplace matters of concern to RCMP members from collective bargaining, and therefore does not permit members to advance those workplace concerns free from management influence. What's more, these exclusions from collective bargaining go to the heart of members' workplace concerns. Matters that were specifically subject to management's failures and abuses are excluded.

Workplace concerns over health and safety and law enforcement techniques, including adequate protective gear and equipment, are critically important to members. I will cite the examples of the Mayerthorpe and Moncton tragedies. Inquiries into these tragedies underscored the same deficiencies in proper equipment and communications, even though nine years had passed between these two incidents. The RCMP failed the public, members' families, and the members themselves. This was not the first time that the RCMP failed to live up to its obligations concerning health and safety.

I will now discuss the issue of harassment.

Harassment was, and still is, a serious workplace concern that management has been unable or unwilling to resolve. Despite multiple studies and reports, harassment continues to be alive and well within the RCMP. For example, I refer you to the well-known Lebrasseur, Delisle, Smith, Gosselin and Sulz cases, as well as two pending class actions, several individual suits, and numerous internal harassment cases.

I will now discuss management abuse and the need for balance.

The courts, including the Supreme Court, have recognized the well-documented use of the disciplinary process and unfair labour practices by the RCMP to prevent unionization. In fact, I have been a victim of the RCMP's use of the disciplinary process to retaliate against me for my union activities. I have been subject to reprisals. The RCMP used disciplinary procedures against me for seven years. As it was determined that the disciplinary action against me was abusive due to its length and nature, the internal tribunal granted a stay of proceedings. At the same time, I also submitted grievances. After 10 years, my grievances have yet to be resolved.

This situation has had a negative impact on my career. Consequently, Canadians have lost the benefit of my services as a specialized investigator in financial crimes. During my career, I have witnessed abuses of power by management which clearly illustrate the need to strike a balance.

The disciplinary process has been repeatedly used to sanction members for exercising fundamental rights, including freedom of association and freedom of expression. There are a number of reported decisions concerning RCMP retaliations against my colleague and predecessor Gaétan Delisle. You have also heard the testimony of my colleague Peter Merrifield, whose case is still before the courts.

Demotions, dismissals, transfers, appraisals, probation and basic requirements are all vital concerns relating to our working conditions that management can and does use abusively against members who exercise their rights. Over my years of service as a members' representative, I have been witness to the abusive use of all of these working conditions against members, with devastating effect on them and their careers. The Duxbury, Brown and Robichaud reports confirm these abuses.

No credible evidence has ever been presented that would justify excluding these working conditions from collective bargaining on the basis that police services would be compromised without those exclusions. On the contrary, addressing members' concerns regarding these working conditions through collective bargaining is more likely to improve the quality of police services. The Supreme Court stated the following regarding collective bargaining for RCMP members:

[...] it is not established that permitting meaningful collective bargaining will disrupt the stability of the police force or affect the public's perception of its neutrality. [...] The government offered no persuasive evidence to that effect. Empirical evidence tends to show the opposite [...]

More recently, before this committee, those who favour Bill C-7 have failed to provide any compelling argument for the proposed exclusions from collective bargaining. They have failed to assume their obligation to justify limiting RCMP members' fundamental rights.

My presentation will now address how to redress the imbalance in the employment relationship.

The Supreme Court recognized that laws and regulations that restrict the subjects that can be discussed in bargaining can disrupt the balance necessary to ensure the meaningful pursuit of workplace goals.

The Supreme Court also recognized a long-standing hostility on the part of RCMP management and successive Canadian governments to unionization in the force.

By excluding important workplace matters of concern to RCMP members from collective bargaining, Bill C-7 not only denies members the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining, it also enshrines the imbalance between members and management by preserving absolute power over these matters by management.

In the past, management has not hesitated to abuse its absolute power over members. Bill C-7, by limiting collective bargaining and limiting remedies against management abuse, fails to ensure that the current imbalance in the employment relationship is adequately remedied, as management retains absolute power over these matters.

We argue that grievances concerning the working conditions of RCMP members, even those not governed by the collective agreement, should be referable to an independent tribunal.

As for civilian members, they share a community of interests with regular members, yet they are excluded from Bill C-7. They should be included.

Last Thursday, you heard the debate concerning the Government Employees Compensation Act. The reform to medical services for RCMP members as proposed in sections 40 and 42 of Bill C-7 should not be part of this bill. Rather, they should be negotiated at the collective bargaining table.

I will now discuss what should be done.

We ask that you remove the exclusions from collective bargaining that concern important workplace matters, specifically sections 238.19 and 238.22 as proposed, as has already been mentioned, to strike a real balance between RCMP management and members.

We also ask that you include civilian members under Bill C-7, and that you remove sections 40 and 42 from the bill.

Thank you.

I am now ready to answer questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Mr. Dupuis.

We will start with Mr. Erskine-Smith.

You have seven minutes for questions and answers.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much, everyone, for your testimony.

My first question relates to a chart that has been circulated with respect to a comparative analysis of existing collective agreements and Bill C-7 restrictions. Perhaps you could walk us through those, specifically with respect to health and safety. I take it these relate to law enforcement techniques, but also to uniform and equipment. Perhaps you could also walk us through the jurisdictions that don't have these exclusions.

[Paul Dupuis]

Yes, I can do that for you.

The separation of the elements that are in Bill C-7 is not our separation, but the employer's separation. We feel that uniform and equipment, as well as control techniques and certain other elements, such as minimum standards of policing, are all part of officer safety. There are these three elements. If you look at the comparison we did of the various collective agreements, most of which are still active and some of which are expired, you'll see that they demonstrate that these elements are negotiated in.

This is to answer a question that I think was posed by Mr. Mendicino on Thursday about why we want to be compared with other police services. Do other police services have these elements that are negotiated?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Taking that health and safety issue specifically, could you point to a few key jurisdictions we ought to be looking to that would treat health and safety as a collective bargaining matter?

[Paul Dupuis]

First there is techniques de contrôle—I don't have the English version with me—in the second column. It's the way to do operational policing. The last column is equipment and uniform, as well as basic competencies. These are elements that are essential for a police officer to do his work properly and have the proper equipment.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

We just received the chart, but I note from the chart, if we take law enforcement techniques specifically, in fact, the law enforcement techniques are not excluded per se, or—how to put it...? Stand-by time and ride-alongs, just to take Calgary as an example, are actually specifying specific issues related to workplace safety. If we were to put forward an amendment to the law enforcement techniques exclusion, in your view, what items should we be looking to? Should we be looking to stand-by time, ride-alongs...? What specific items should we be looking to?

[Paul Dupuis]

Actually, Bill C-7 restricts these elements. What I am suggesting is that you remove all of those restrictions and leave it to the membership to decide which ones are important or not at the negotiation table.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

At the very least, if law enforcement techniques and uniform and equipment are to remain exclusions, should there perhaps be language to suggest that health and safety considerations should be taken into account?

[Paul Dupuis]

If you look at my speech, what I'm saying essentially is that our working conditions contain three elements. There is pay and benefits, but there are also officer safety elements, and then there are elements of protection against abuse from authority, which means a proper workplace. These should be negotiated.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Right. My point, though, is that you don't take issue with law enforcement techniques and uniform and equipment being excluded, but for their application to workplace safety and health.

[Paul Dupuis]

No, I do take offence to those being restricted. There should be no restrictions.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Because in your submission you limited the concern to workplace safety and health. I'm just trying to drive at why we would be concerned with these exclusions. If we say law enforcement techniques and uniform and equipment are excluded but for their application to workplace safety and health, would that not get at your concern?

[Paul Dupuis]

No, because Bill C-7, the way it's written, uses the wording that was in Bill C-43 in June 2010, even before the Supreme Court rendered its decision. What I believe and what the AMPMQ says is that this is not a list.... The list does not reflect what's important for members. There should be no restrictions.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Moving to appraisals, probation, discharges, and demotions, you note in your submission that your issue with these exclusions relates to the fact that management in your words can and does use.... You say, “These are all vital concerns relating to our working conditions that management can and does use abusively against members who exercise their rights.”

Would these exclusions be acceptable if there was an exclusion but for their application to bad faith conduct? If management were to act in bad faith, that is an issue that could be properly grieved, but otherwise it would be off the table.

[Paul Dupuis]

I would like to say something to help you understand the situation.

Our goal is to ensure that everything is on the table, and that we have the opportunity to negotiate all of these issues. It is important to remember that the government plays a double role as both legislator and employer. It must not abuse its legislative role in terms of prevention or facilitation to benefit its role as employer. The rule of the opposition is not just to promote an ideological view, but also to ensure that the government does not abuse its double role.

As described by the Supreme Court, we want all aspects of members' working conditions to be open to collective bargaining. Putting various vague restrictions into small boxes, as Bill C-7 seeks to do, does not work. We will always be told that if we take this with that, it cannot be discussed—even though the goal of collective bargaining is to strike a balance between both parties and to allow issues to be discussed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I just might comment that you can rest assured this parliamentary committee is not part of government and that we will be taking our responsibility as parliamentarians on both sides of the table very seriously.

Thank you.

Mr. O'Toole.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all of our witnesses who have testified today and some who have testified in our previous meeting who are here at the back of the room observing.

I'm going to start off with a comment, and then I'm going to go into something I think is important. Certainly I respect the service of everyone who dons a uniform. I wore a Canadian Armed Forces uniform. Jim beside me, my colleague, served over 34 years in the RCMP, so we have the utmost respect. I think that with the commentary of previous witnesses and your members we're going to make some progress on clauses 40 and 42, particularly if you look at Ontario, Alberta, and Manitoba, which have an approach to PTSD as being presumptive in the workplace of law enforcement.

That standard should apply across the country not just in the provinces that have the presumption. Ironically, this committee has postponed its study on PTSD for first responders to look at Bill C-7. I think nothing highlights the challenges that clauses 40 and 42 lead to more than that difference between the provinces when it comes to operational stress injuries.

I think I'll start with Mr. McKenna.

You served over 30 years in uniform. When you were in depot, like boot camp for me, those become some of your best friends in life. Did a few of your mates from depot make it to the inspector or above rank?

[Brendan McKenna]

A few did. I can think of three.

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

Would the other gentlemen like to comment as well? From your team at depot, did anyone make it into the senior ranks?

Mr. Mehain, you're too young, I guess, for that to have happened yet.

Mr. Dupuis?