Public Safety Committee on April 21st, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. O'Toole.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we're ready to vote. Mr. Blaikie's eloquent arguments here remind me of the Mackenzie King quote: affiliation if necessary, but not necessarily affiliation. He said it about conscription, but....

I think we've addressed it. We're prepared to move on a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay, then. We're looking at the second NDP amendment to the 33rd clause.

Would you like a recorded vote?

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

We might as well, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We will then have a recorded vote.

Shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)

That amendment is defeated.

We'll go now to the third amendment. It's still on clause 33, on page 20, and it's to remove a portion of clause 33.

Mr. Blaikie, would you like to speak to that?

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

Yes, thank you very much.

This amendment would effectively remove from the bill the itemized list of exclusions on collective bargaining. I think we've heard, with the exception of some of the folks at the table today, pretty much a consensus from the stakeholders that these exclusions are both unnecessary and unwanted.

These exclusions stand in the way of bringing to the table most if not all the issues that inspired the court case that brought us to this point. We've heard from witnesses that RCMP members are overwhelmingly concerned about issues having to do with their workplace safety, they're concerned about harassment in the force, they've felt that for a long time they haven't had a voice at the table, and they were looking to collective bargaining as a way to remedy that.

They fought in the court for a long time and at great expense to get to a point where they could bring those concerns to the table, and I think they have been disappointed, and rightly so, to see that the bill that would allow them the right to collective bargaining denies them the right to bring those concerns to the table, giving them a kind of Pyrrhic victory, Mr. Chair.

Therefore, I think it's important for us to do justice to the concerns of the members who were motivated to pursue that lawsuit and to the concerns of all the many members who have contacted me and I'm sure other members of this committee to express dissatisfaction with Bill C-7, and in particular these exclusions. I think we should take them out of the bill. I don't think they're necessary, Mr. Chair. I think there are a lot of protections within this bill already for management and for what we've been calling the unique role of the RCMP as a national police force.

We don't need to preclude at least bringing those issues to the table. There's a process that's going to decide whether the proposals of the employees are reasonable or not. It's a process that's governed by binding arbitration, with an arbitrator who in no small part because of this act will be required to consider the unique role of the RCMP as a national police force, the state of budgetary policies of the government, and a number of other things.

Allowing members to bring those concerns to the table doesn't create an outcome; it just allows them to bring those things to the table. Management doesn't have to agree with their proposals. Those proposals can go to binding arbitration. If they're reasonable, they may pass. I'm not personally opposed to the idea that reasonable proposals would pass, even if management happens not to like them. That's what collective bargaining is all about, Mr. Chair. It's not for us to try to prejudge the outcome of those things by deciding what is and what is not going to be on the table.

We may well hear arguments about management rights, and there are prerogatives for managers. No one's denying that. We're saying there's already a process in place that's going to protect those prerogatives. We don't need to double-down on the protection for management with these exclusions.

The other thing that ends up happening when we try to legislate these exclusions is that we are now taking off the table.... We could agree here. I would say it doesn't matter, because we're not at the table and these things should be decided at the bargaining table, but we could agree that it would be nonsense, say, to negotiate the type of shoe that RCMP officers are going to wear on the job. I haven't heard, from the people who have come as witnesses who support the idea of collective bargaining and reject these exclusions, that they want to get down to that level, and I don't think they would. I'm pretty confident that if they brought that proposal to the table and went to binding arbitration, it would be thrown out.

We heard earlier, in arguments against my other amendments, that there's a robust process and there are precedents and there's jurisprudence and there's a whole history with respect to collective bargaining, and that can decide what affiliation means. Well certainly, then, the same process that other members trusted to determine the nature and extent of affiliation could be trusted to determine whether or not certain proposals are reasonable with respect to the unique nature of the RCMP as a national police force, and the other interpretive constraints.

That's something that should happen at the bargaining table. What would be reasonable is a proposal—which may or may not get through the binding arbitration process—that we'd like a joint committee of employees and employers to collaborate on equipment purchases. Maybe the final decision rests with RCMP management, but at the very least there would be a process whereby employees could have a meaningful opportunity to have their views considered. That would be a reasonable clause in a collective agreement.

In looking at information from the MMPAC , we noticed all sorts of things that could be excluded through certain provisions in collective agreements with police forces across the country. They're different, and that's fine. They represent things that have to do with the particular institutional culture of the police force, as well as the personalities, people, and workplace cultures that went into forging whatever those agreements were.

What I'm saying is we don't need these exclusions. We don't have to try to figure out all the details—what may or may not happen at the bargaining table, or what would be a reasonable offer. What we need to do is empower members and management to sit down at the table to figure out solutions in their own workplace, and in this case, less is more.

To those who are concerned that this will mean that unreasonable proposals will go through, I would say that there are many layers of protection for management here. We can get rid of the exclusions. That would allow proposals to be brought to the table, and I'm sure the interests of the RCMP as a force will nevertheless be respected in that process.

There is another thing we can do by getting rid of these exclusions. I think that we've heard clearly that there are some, and I'm one of them, who believe that these exclusions are not consistent with the spirit of the decision in the court case, even if they are consistent with the letter. This is something that has yet to be determined. Maybe they're not consistent with the letter.

What that means is another court case. Those are expensive and they take time. Meanwhile, RCMP members are going to be denied the right they felt they had won in January of 2015 with the Supreme Court decision that granted them collective bargaining. This is going to lead to further frustration and a further sense of helplessness on the part of members. It will also lead to further costs, costs to those bringing the suit and costs to the government. The amount will depend on whether the government decides to defend decisions all the way through, if it is the case that the government is on the losing end of those legal arguments.

I think we have an opportunity here, not only to do justice to members and not only to do justice to the process, but also to avoid unnecessary costs in time as well as money with further legal challenges. This is why I think it would be wise of the committee to pass this amendment and to let members get on with the business of bargaining in their workplace.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

I have Ms. Damoff and Mr. O'Toole.

I also am going to give a chance to any of our officials who might want to weigh in on this issue. I'm not sure whether you want weigh in on it now or after you've heard another round of questioning.

We'll have someone speak from the Liberals, then one or two from the Conservatives. After that, we'll turn to the officials.

I informally received a request from the Liberals that the officials be here to discuss this topic. The Conservatives requested a discussion of another topic. I want to make sure that we have a chance to speak on both of them to help the committee.

Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I could leave it open for some of my colleagues if they wish to speak to certain exclusions. The one I have a concern about is the one on harassment. This is singled out. Because the officials are here, I would like to hear what would happen if those words were excluded and why they need to be in there.

I have a concern that we're sending a message to the women in the RCMP, as well as women considering getting into the force, that by leaving that exclusion in there, we're sending them a message that we don't care what's been going on.

When I look at your report, I see that 25% of our harassment cases are unresolved. You have a lot of women in there who want something done and want people to take a stand on it. I applaud what you're doing so far.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

May I remind to you address the chair?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I am so sorry.

Through the chair, I applaud what the RCMP has been doing so far, but looking at the growth in women in leadership, it's still not good at all. I guess, Chair, that my question is, through you to the RCMP, what would be the impact of removing those words?

I am confident that when the minister appeared here, he went through a number of steps that he was going to be taking to address that issue, but I want to send a strong message to women in the force and to those thinking of joining that it is a harassment-free workplace.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We'll hold that discussion for a moment until we hear from Mr. O'Toole, and it will give a chance for the officials to be thinking about the full list of exclusions, and particularly the one on harassment.

I want to give notice to the parliamentary secretary and anybody else. You might also be thinking about whether you have any comments you would like to add.

Mr. O'Toole.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Blaikie for his passion. If we have a secret ballot vote one day amongst members of the House of Commons and unionize, he'd be a great shop steward.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

He's very passionate.

Look, the Conservatives said at the outset, and I said in my speech, Mr. Chair, that we were going to work with the government to meet the timelines needed on Bill C-7. I think that the minister, in consultation with senior leadership, has given strong consideration to all elements of Bill C-7, including exclusions.

We heard repeatedly, even from very pro-union association members, about the unique nature and the paramilitary nature of the RCMP and how those operations are critical to our public safety and public security, and that has to be considered as a unique element for the bargaining environment.

I'll also remind members and Mr. Blaikie of what we heard from witnesses. I remember the gentleman from the Quebec association. I asked him how many of his best friends from Depot are now management—inspector and above—and three of four in his group are. I say that because the unique nature of the chain of command means that this isn't a typical management-employee relationship. They wear the same uniform. They have the same concerns.

Also, it doesn't matter if you're the commissioner or another senior leader; you have concern about the operational safety of all of your people, whether you've met them or not. That's the inherent aspect of uniformed service that is consistent among the military, police, firefighters, and paramedics, and we have to recognize that part here.

We've heard from some people who have frustrations with management. Of course, but this is a unique environment where they could be alongside a senior leader in a precarious situation, and I think everyone would agree that regardless of rank, there is a compassion for the men and women they serve alongside, for their comrades, and that has to be part of this consideration.

They will never cut corners on safety. I know that. We can have a whole range of concerns and things like that, but these exclusions were carefully considered and I think are appropriate. Also, once a framework is done, there's nothing to preclude future Parliaments from examining other issues, but I think that as we start off, this is an appropriate balance, given the unique need.

Finally, I share Ms. Damoff's concern about harassment. I think all MPs do. We want to make sure that cases are resolved and there's no fear about attracting more bright young women into the force. I will say that the minister is seized with it. I will say that I think the RCMP is seized with it. We're going to continue to see progress and can push for more progress.

I do think we need to exclude it, because then any element of the operational nature of the RCMP—a posting, a promotion, a disciplinary matter—will be framed as harassment. Some may well be, but I think we can start to continually improve and strengthen the system for investigation, for discipline, and for a culture of openness about it without putting this in. I really think that will impact operations in terms of a grievance process and that sort of thing. I think we can still really push on that issue without putting it back into this bill and potentially disrupting the operational structure of this paramilitary force.

For those reasons—and my colleagues may want to weigh in after management as well—we'll be opposing the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

While I think Mr. Blaikie's amendment likely goes too far, I actually have serious concerns with the exclusions as they exist, for the simple reason that in all the evidence we heard, we heard repeatedly that these exclusions as they relate to workplace safety specifically are major issues that unions are not going to be able to put on the table when they collectively bargain.

We heard management come and give testimony, and I specifically asked what things other police associations have excluded from their collective agreements through legislation. We were told there would be a chart provided to us to allow us to make that determination. I have not received that chart to date. I still don't have an answer to my very basic question as to why we can't have these exclusions that apply to workplace safety issues so that pay and benefits and workplace safety would all be on the table.

When management is answering the concerns of Ms. Damoff, I would appreciate their answering both why we have not received that chart and why including workplace safety specifically on the table would be a problem for operational efficiency.

As a final point, keep in mind that we have factors, including the fiscal constraints on government and operational efficiency, that an arbitrator is already going to consider, and these factors already weigh in favour of government at the end of the day. Keeping that in mind, again, why is workplace safety an issue at the bargaining table?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I will comment that the chart was apparently sent out last night, just to let folks know. We know that it is quite late in our process. We're under a very tight timeline, but if the committee's going to need more time, we'll take the time we need.

Go ahead, Mr. Spengemann.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Could I maybe just put a marker down for a question with management? If the exclusions were to stand as they are, in management's view, would the issue of workplace safety, or elements thereof, be one that could be bargained?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

By the way, my vision for the officials when they speak is that it could be interactive. They won't just make a presentation and then walk out. We can continue that discussion.

Go ahead, Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I'm looking forward to our experts' response to some of these very good questions and very legitimate concerns. There are just a couple of things that I want to add to the conversation.

One is that when Mr. Blaikie was speaking about the exclusions, I got the impression that he believed that this was something unique to the RCMP framework for labour relations, but in fact the regime that's been set out in Bill C-7 is consistent with the fundamental framework for labour relations and collective bargaining for the federal public service. Bill C-7 includes exclusions with respect to the RCMP members that already apply to other public servants, and those are things like staffing, pensions, organization of work, and assignment of duties. Having consistent policy for federal public servants is one principle, I think, that this bill provides.

Other issues, such as workplace safety and harassment, have been brought up. I want to point out that those very important issues are ones for which the members have recourse under other acts. Excluding them from Bill C-7 doesn't mean members would have no other recourse for these very important concerns that they have. Having been the defence critic for two years and having colleagues working on RCMP harassment concerns, I know that they're very valid concerns.

I'll give a brief list showing that there are collaborative, solution-oriented, problem-solving processes in place for many of the concerns. One example is the RCMP pension advisory committee under the RCMP Superannuation Act, which deals with pension benefits. We also have the labour-management consultation committees under the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which deal with workplace issues such as harassment and disclosure of wrongdoing, and the occupational health and safety committees under the Canada Labour Code, which are responsible for employees and employers working together on developing and monitoring workplace safety programs and for dealing with safety concerns and safety issues, among other things.

I just wanted to put that element on the table. There are some existing processes for collaborative problem-solving that are backed by statutes and provide a space for members to bring their concerns forward.

I look forward to hearing other perspectives from the expert witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I think this may be a good time, then, to hear from either Treasury Board or RCMP or public safety officials regarding this point. I think you probably have heard the questions. There's a set of questions around the exclusions in general, and then there are some specific questions about whether the exclusions could be restricted more than they are in this list, particularly with regard to your plans around harassment, which is a concern that every single member of the committee, from any party, has been expressing.

It's over to you.

[Manon Brassard, Assistant Deputy Minister, Compensation and Labour Relations, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat]

To start I'd like to provide a context piece to this legislation by looking at the overall labour relations framework for the Government of Canada.

The RCMP, our national police, are part of the federal framework of the labour relations system. One of the big issues for a labour relations regime when it is in the public sector is the public interest. In the private sector, the bottom line is the money, and if you give too much or ask too much, in the end there's no business. In a government situation the proxy, if you want, is to consider what is in the public interest.

Therefore, since the beginning of negotiations—so since about 1965 or 1967—there's been in place a framework that says that it is in the public interest that certain things not be negotiated. I insist on that, because what has been presented in Bill C-7 is a mirror image of those decisions that have been made over time.

For instance, the Public Service Employment Act, which deals with staffing, and the Public Service Superannuation Act, which deals with pension, say that those are not negotiated. It is the same across the public service; they're not negotiated.

It's the same thing for classifying positions. That's in the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the PSLRA.

The Financial Administration Act, or FAA, provides for the overall responsibility of Treasury Board, and it deals with the determination and control of the establishment, of how we do the work. When you look at this—and I will let the commissioner speak more specifically to what it means in an RCMP reality—the law enforcement technique is nothing but assigning duties and classifying positions. These are things that are not negotiated in the overall scheme in the light of the public interest.

Transferring positions, which is another exclusion, is again a staffing matter. Appraisals and probation are staffing matters, which explains why in this particular context they would mirror what is being done and not be negotiated. The same thing goes for discharge and demotion.

Requirements regarding the carrying out of duties of an RCMP member or reservist are again just typical employer rights.

I think it is important to have this in context. We've been negotiating in the public service with those restrictions for many, many years and through many, many rounds. It hasn't been a particular problem. Because of other legislation that provides for other forums, you don't want to necessarily go over them a lot, given that the parliamentary secretary has already done so, but I think it is important to go back to the labour-management relations committees. They are mandatory under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. Every department needs to have one. The RCMP has one as well, and the union is there to bring to the attention of management every single issue that they wish to.

There is an OSH committee, an occupational health and safety committee, that can bring to management's attention all of their issues related to safety. It's safety, I think, writ large there.

With regard to the pension advisory committee, there's a similar one in the public service for other kinds of issues related to pensions.

Therefore, there is no lack of forums. The forums are there, and there is a duty on management to take them into consideration, but also to keep in mind what is in the public interest overall to provide working conditions mindful of the other obligations vis-à-vis the public interest.

That sort of covers the framework under which labour relations and negotiations are set.

I'll turn it over to the commissioner regarding the RCMP.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Thank you. I'll try not to duplicate that, and I'll try to focus on the two areas that you had expressed interest in: harassment and workplace safety.

To emphasize that and to go back to the committee's observation in respect of shoes, there are ample and clear statutory requirements for management to have these committees and to attend these committees, which I do with the other unions right now, and had done with the former labour-management regime, the SRR. That's where our new policy on shoes came from. We spent a lot of time giving members freedom, and it came from representations in that committee, where they wanted the freedom to have different kinds of shoes. Those are the kinds of issues discussed there.

I digress a little bit.

Getting back to harassment, let me just put the frame around that: of all of our harassment complaints, 55% have male complainants, and the lion's share of our harassment relates to abuse of authority and interpersonal conflict in the workplace.

Male complainants file 55% of our harassment complaints, so obviously 45% have female complainants, but of that 45%, 16% are female versus female. That's not particularly instructive, but I think it's important to have some sort of context around the demographics of our harassment situation.

For us, harassment now has been linked with conduct, and I think that's the case in all police forces, and in fact many organizations across Canada. Conduct and harassment are excluded across the police universe, except in respect of how it's framed in some sort of expression of non-support for harassment in some collective agreements. The actual mechanics and the actual way in which harassment is being managed is subject to Bill C-42, which has joined our conduct regime with harassment.

What's important to understand, in the RCMP particularly, is that we had operated formerly under the Treasury Board's guidelines for harassment, and that had created two regimes. Bill C-42 was seen to be an effective and efficient means of joining the conduct regime in the RCMP with harassment.

Noting that harassment is, as all members of the committee have observed, a very important consideration, harassment in the RCMP has been given a sort of direct path to externality, an external review in the form of our external review committee. There is a path for complainants to go there, and there are specific provisions within our conduct regime to handle harassment in a way that is starting to give results and that we hope to improve upon.

Again, with harassment and even with conduct, there are committees that we will have to participate in. People from the bargaining agent will sit at that table and participate in the refinement, both in terms of specific cases and also in systemic issues that are raised to that committee and acted upon, with the authorities we already have.

There's nothing inconsistent with the profession in terms of conduct being excluded from bargaining, but it's also statutorily overseen and requires many of these opportunities for engagement with records, with accountabilities that fall directly to management and to some extent to the bargaining agent.

There is very robust backstopping to many of these issues that are being excluded.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I guess my question would be, if we were to exclude that, would it hamper your ability to deal with harassment the way you are now? You've put in place a number of programs fairly recently, within the last few years, through which you're starting to implement things within the force. Are those subject to legislation or would we hamper your ability to go forward with that approach if we were to remove the exclusion on harassment?