Public Safety Committee on April 21st, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm going to check on our time here. Mr. O'Toole would like to speak as well, and we will need to continue if we want to get through this today. I want to check how much more you think you need to say.

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

I just want to make sure I say everything that needs saying, Mr. Chair. I don't want to prejudge how long that may take.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Just make sure that we are staying on things that you have not yet said.

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

I will do my best.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

That's my only requirement. It has to be some new argument, as opposed to a repetition of the argument you've already made.

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

That's fair enough.

I respect Mr. Eglinski's experience. I think it's an asset to have that at our table. He mentioned how it is difficult for management to have to deal with issues of discipline. I think it would be a mistake to understand this process as mandating a separate negotiation with the union every time you're engaging in disciplinary conduct. With his management experience, he will know there are policies in place, and managers have to act in accordance with those policies. All this does is allow those policies to be set in collaboration with a bargaining agent at the bargaining table. That's what's different about this.

While I appreciate his experience, he would not have had experience with a collective agreement as an RCMP manager. I just want to reassure him that having a collective agreement and having some provisions around the items that are in the exclusion would not cause him to have to enter into separate negotiations every time he acted in his managerial capacity.

We've heard in part when talking about this extra infrastructure that it exists and is already in place for public service bargaining, so all these things apply, and there are other provisions that would apply to RCMP members as federally regulated workers. However, that position runs against the basic grain of argument that we've heard from members of the other parties at various times, including me, Mr. Chair, that there is a unique nature to the RCMP.

On the one hand we want to say the RCMP is unique and we need all these special provisions and we need to exclude certain things from bargaining and it's okay to exclude them because they'll just be like every other civil servant in having access to all the other things and can avail themselves of everything else that other civil servants have. There's a fundamental tension there, because we've heard from witnesses that they don't necessarily expect or want to be treated like any other public servant and clearly feel that those existing mechanisms have not served them well heretofore, so I don't feel that those arguments to the contrary are compelling at the end of the day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

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

The last argument I'll address, after a dramatic pause, Mr. Chair, is that of time constraints. We've heard this before.

I am aware, despite the length of this speech, that we are under time constraints and that those are mandated by the Supreme Court. I don't think that's a reason to make bad law. I think these exclusions will not deliver on what RCMP members were hoping to get. If we pass this amendment today, I'm sure we can pass the rest of the bill expeditiously and we will meet that timeline. I do not believe that these time constraints mitigate in favour of keeping these exclusions. In fact, if anything, they mitigate in favour of getting rid of them because we are in a hurried process.

Here I would say less is more with respect to hurried legislation. I think there is a whole history of collective bargaining and decisions and precedents that we can rely on to protect RCMP management from unreasonable proposals that could come forward from a union, if it forms, and that we should not try to task ourselves, particularly under time constraints, to try to foresee every event that may happen at the bargaining table.

The point of the process is to have a process that happens in the workplace and for those people who are in the workplace to be able to address those concerns that come up. As non-RCMP members, we don't have to try to foresee everything that's going to come up at the bargaining table. We can empower members to do that themselves.

In this case, with respect to exclusions, especially because of our time limit, less is more.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Mr. O'Toole is the only one on my list of speakers now.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend's comments. I think his father was famous for filibustering, and I think it's a genetic trait.

What I would propose is that we vote on this and then set a new meeting time to do clause by clause properly, because I do know that we're likely already over time. We're in an unprecedented situation, in that I think we're delaying this vote because the government members may not support their own legislation during what I think you said is the first clause-by-clause consideration of a bill from the new government. This is a very interesting development.

However, we can't be here forever, and the Conservatives are clear about where we stand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Could I check on our time?

My suspicion is that if we had about another 20 minutes, we may be able to finish this. If we voted on this amendment now, clumped the next clauses together and got clause 33 done, and then got to clauses 40 and 42 fairly quickly, I suspect we could get through it if we had about 20 more minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

As a courtesy to the experts before us, I think we will take the time we need instead of limiting ourselves to 20 minutes. They will be able to answer other questions. I think we can take advantage of their presence now so that we don’t make them come back for another meeting.

In terms of the assumptions about the positions of the two sides, I think it is a little early to determine who is leaning which way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

That seems to be an argument to have a vote on this amendment.

Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.

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

I'll be very brief.

Just to wrap up my earlier concerns, I won't be supporting the amendment. I do have confidence in the minister and what he is doing with harassment. I would like the committee to entertain at another point having the RCMP come back and update us on harassment, but we won't deal with that right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I've had a nodding from the commissioner, so I think there's an agreement that we may get to that formally.

What I'd like to do, then, is vote on amendment NDP-3, which is on clause 33.

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

May we have a recorded vote, please?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Are there any other comments on clause 33?

Shall clause 33 carry?

(Clause 33 agreed to)

(On clauses 34 to 39)

I'd like to suggest that we consider clauses 34 through 39 together. Is there agreement to that? There are no amendments to them.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Shall clauses 34 to 39 carry?

(Clauses 34 to 39 agreed to)

(On clause 40)

Now we come to clause 40. Can we link clauses 40 and 42 together? No?

We'll keep them in sequence, then.

Let's consider clauses 40 and 42. I'm going to preface this discussion by saying I would like some comments from our witnesses about clauses 40 and 42. I don't think it's a big secret that concern has been raised from all parties about the appropriateness of putting these clauses into this particular bill. There is, I think, fairly strong concern that has been expressed through our testimony about these two. We wanted to give you an opportunity to talk about the ramifications of this committee deleting clauses 40 and 42.

You might want to do them together while we're considering clause 40.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do have some prepared remarks that I'll read briefly, which should cover the issues.

First of all, thank you for the opportunity. The health and safety of our members are crucial considerations in the work we do. Every day, our members get put in harm's way, and it is our responsibility—indeed, it is my duty—to take care of them when they are injured.

Our members have been covered under provincial and territorial basic health care plans since April 1, 2013. These plans do not cover occupational injuries or illnesses. The RCMP has been administering these occupational injury claims internally.

However, as Minister Goodale noted in his opening comments to the committee on April 12, the employer should not be the final arbiter of whether the injury of one of its employees occurred on the job or not, nor of what types of benefits he or she is entitled to, to support recovery.

Provincial workers' compensation boards are leaders in providing care to injured workers. They have vast experience in working with police service organizations, provincially and municipally. RCMP members would receive uninterrupted, dedicated, and responsive treatment similar to what they currently have.

The RCMP will, through its internal disability management program, work with these provincial boards to ensure that the specific demands of RCMP members are clearly communicated and that return-to-work planning reflects the physical and psychological requirements of today's front-line policing.

If members need to be relocated before the end of their care, which is not uncommon for other federal employers covered by GECA, members would continue to receive care from the workers' compensation board in their new duty location.

The RCMP will pay the full cost of all expenses associated with a member's claim, plus an administrative fee to the workers' compensation board.

We want to get this right. That is why we, with the full support of our contract partners, meaning the provinces, territories, and municipalities we serve, have asked for these provisions to come into force at a date to be fixed by an order in council, so that we can continue our work with Employment and Social Development Canada's labour program, as well as workers' compensation boards and Veterans Affairs Canada, to ensure a smooth transition for our members.

This significant legislation will allow the RCMP to focus our efforts on our core mandate, the primacy of our police operations and what we do best, which is to protect Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Erin O'Toole]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Di Iorio, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we can reassure some members about our positions. In fact, there have been changes to the way we should proceed. I am referring specifically to the content of clauses 40 and 42. The Liberals would definitely be ready to remove those clauses from the bill.

I mention that because it might shorten the debate.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Erin O'Toole]

I appreciate that, and I got that indication yesterday in the minister's response to my question on striking 40 and 42.

Is there any other discussion or questioning for the commissioner?

Mr. Blaikie, go ahead.

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

For the record, I will say that on the eve of having a new bargaining agent for RCMP members, this is something it makes sense to hold off until it can be discussed at the table.

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

In that case, we are ready to vote.