Public Safety Committee on April 21st, 2016

[Commr Bob Paulson]

Well, the short answer is yes. As I say, because harassment is now joined with conduct, that issue is governed by statute. Any sort of effort to negotiate on harassment would hamper our ability to deal with it in the manner in which we are dealing with it now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm giving a little bit of leeway on this, because the actual amendment is on all exclusions right now. I did want to have a bit of a general, committee-of-the-whole kind of discussion on this point, but I'd like to keep our discussion right now on this amendment, which is on all the exclusions. If that passes or fails, then we will be able to have a motion, if people want, on a specific set. I just want to make sure we're okay on our process, because I'd like to keep it on this one. I did give leeway.

No one was taking advantage, I just want to say.

Let's just now have a bit of discussion back on the whole amendment, which is to delete all those lines, from lines 7 through to 19, which would essentially take out the exceptions to the collective bargaining process.

You have a further comment, Mr. Eglinski, and then we have Mr. O'Toole.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

By excluding these areas.... I hope you can wrap yourself around what I say.

Commissioner Paulson is in charge of the RCMP, and as the command structure drops down, you have detachments spread across Canada. I was fortunate in my 35 years to have commanded five different detachments, from a corporal's to an inspector-sized detachment. I worked on every one of these that are listed, usually on a weekly basis, dealing with discipline among the members.

If I had had to go back and negotiate with the union every time I had to discipline a member or look do an appraisal, that would have been very disruptive. To be a good commander, I needed to have some tools so that I could make it safe for the community and safe for the members policing in that community. These are the fundamental basics of making an operation operate well and operate better. If you take those away and put up roadblocks so that we out in the field....

I'm a long way from Ottawa when I'm commanding a detachment—the last detachment was Fort St. John—and the commissioner is relying on me to make decisions on these. I am accountable to him. The detachment commander has to report all the way up the line; his work is being supervised. There's a strong accountability in place.

If you take these basic eight out, it will be very difficult for any commander, whether he's in charge of the RCMP at Tuktoyaktuk, in charge of Fort St. John, or in Gold River, which was my first command. I was a corporal with one other member, and we worked very closely. I had to use these fundamental principles as a commander and was expected to use them as a commander. If you take those away, such that I have to negotiate every time I have to discipline and deal with one of my members, it's going to destroy the element of command in the field.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. O'Toole is next, and then Mr. Di Ioria.

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

Mr. Chair, nobody says it better than somebody who has served in that environment, which is being in uniform and within the chain of command structure, as I outlined.

In the interests of time in addressing clauses 40 and 42, as you know, the Conservatives will vote down Mr. Blaikie's amendment. We said right away that we would work with the government to move this through quickly.

These exclusions are critical.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Go ahead, Mr. Di Ioria.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, my thanks to Mr. Blaikie for the quality of his arguments. However, I cannot agree with him. Let me go over some basic facts. The labour relations model to which Mr. Blaikie is referring—and this is not a criticism—dates back to the 19th century, the age of the industrial revolution. Since then, it has been adapted many times. Think about it: we see it being used by professional athletes, medical specialists and home child caregivers. However, in each case, the model was adapted to reflect each community’s special circumstances.

We cannot lose sight of the text of the legislation. It specifies that the collective agreement cannot include some items and then lists a series of restrictions. The Supreme Court made a point of saying that the model is not a unique one. In keeping with that, I would like to go back to a point that Mr. Blaikie has raised. He said that they are preparing to return to the Supreme Court. No certified employee association can actually go directly to the Court. If the case is before the courts and is subject to adjudication as well as to litigation, a process has to be followed.

But let me reassure Mr. Blaikie and any other group or association by saying that this is the beginning of our mandate and, as a result, we will be able to see how the system in place evolves. As I said, this is not a unique model. Some aspects of the model being developed are addressed in other pieces of legislation or through other mechanisms.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not say that this is unacceptable. On the contrary, it took the time to reiterate what it had said in other decisions, that it is not a unique model. Bear in mind that the Court, in its wisdom, has set a very tight deadline for action to be taken and the bill to be passed. So we are faced with this constraint, and that is why I agree with Mr. O'Toole. We have less than a month to ensure that the legislation comes into force. That is an extremely tight deadline. We had asked for a longer time, but the associations whose case is before the Supreme Court were imposing conditions that we could not honour. Hence the tight deadline we have to work with.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm going to just check on something, because I have an inkling of something that may be right or may be wrong. Ongoing concern has been expressed—I actually think throughout our debate and not just today, but by every member of the committee from every party—about the safety and well-being of RCMP officers with regard to harassment in particular. Everyone shares that concern. I suspect they would like something to come from the RCMP on that.

I'm just going to test this. I've been checking, and we could just take a moment to suspend this debate and entertain a motion requesting that the RCMP do something like that for our committee and come back at a specific date to update us on its procedures on harassment in particular. Then we could resume this discussion on this bill clause by clause and get it done. It does take unanimous consent from the members of the committee to suspend this clause-by-clause study to entertain a motion requesting that the RCMP do that.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm not clear. Are we going to vote on this amendment first?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

No, we would actually just suspend our debate at this moment, and we could then have a vote on the amendment, which very frankly I suspect might give comfort to some people with regard to this amendment. There's a concern about the amendment and those issues.

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

Mr. Chair, the Conservative position is quite clear. It's Mr. Blaikie's amendment, so his position is quite clear. This is the government's legislation, so I'm not quite sure why we need to do that. We have our chaperones at the end of the table. I think we've heard particularly from Ms. Brassard about the force being bound by numerous pieces of legislation that address the concerns we all have. I really think we just have to vote this down and get moving.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

All right, I'm not getting unanimous consent. That's fine. I just wanted to check. We do have to continue on this.

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

On that, I don't want to be seen as a cynic. We're more than happy to have the committee study the issue of harassment in more depth and to call back and learn the various pieces on occupational health and safety. We can explore all of those as a committee, but right now we're seized with Bill C-7. That's why we're not giving unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I have Mr. Erskine-Smith and Mr. Mendicino.

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

I just want to ask a follow-up question regarding the chart, which I now have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Let me just hold you there. We're going to continue now with the consideration of this amendment, just so you know.

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

If the exclusions take working conditions and workplace safety off the table, and the chart I now have before me suggests that other police associations.... I can't see another police association within this chart that does the same thing. I recognize that the act that governs public servants does just that, but I'm at a loss as to how I as a member of Parliament would come to the determination that such an exclusion is acceptable, given this chart before me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Mendicino.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair

I actually haven't seen the chart yet, but I will take a look at it in due course.

I'll just quickly summarize, and I'd like to hear from the commissioner. I think we've been sort of nibbling around what the central concern is at this moment, which is, going forward, the plan on harassment. That's what I want to come to. Just to summarize how I'm working through this using a methodology that hopefully makes sense, we have a Supreme Court of Canada case that says that the RCMP is entitled to collectively pursue workplace goals.

Bill C-7 is the response to that Supreme Court of Canada decision. I think there should be some consensus in this room that achieving a harassment-free and discrimination-free workplace is a workplace goal. We have some examples of other police associations that do bargain regarding this issue. I don't think there's any dispute about that. This is not unprecedented. We also know that the RCMP has a suite of tools at its disposal to address harassment and that some progress has been made.

What I think we're debating right now is the net benefit to the RCMP of leaving harassment off of the bargaining table as you continue to use the existing tools.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'll just give a reminder to address the chair.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to the RCMP, I just want to make sure I have the witness's attention. It is in no way meant to be disrespectful of your administrative authority in this forum, sir, but to really focus the committee on the suite of existing tools you have and any other initiatives you may be contemplating in consultation with the minister, who I know is very grasped with this priority, as well as the President of the Treasury Board. What is the plan going forward?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Please be very quick.

[Commr Bob Paulson]

First of all, if other police forces mention harassment in their collective agreement, they have what we call aspirational clauses. They don't negotiate the legal conduct regime that deals with harassment, so they don't have in their collective agreements a statement that says they're against harassment. Who is going to be against that?

In terms of going forward, because of the new legislation that we have—a couple of years old now—harassment is tied to our conduct, and it's basically what I said a little while earlier. We continue to build on a number of initiatives within the organization that were heretofore developed in conjunction with the existing representative systems and will continue to be developed and deployed in conjunction with a new bargaining agent, should there be one, in accordance with the legislated requirements to include those bargaining people in those processes, but they are, in effect, overseen by legislation and therefore would be excluded from a collective agreement in any case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

I'm going to now suggest that we actually be very much targeted on this amendment. It could be subamended if someone wants to; however, what I would like to do now is simply determine whether or not we are clear on the amendment, which is excluding all of these items, and whether or not we are prepared for a vote on the third amendment of the NDP.

Mr. Blaikie.

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

I think I have more to say on the amendment before we move to a vote, which I think is consistent with the desire you've just expressed to focus on the amendment.

Let me start by saying that I respect the work the RCMP has been doing on harassment in the workplace. I think that's great. I commend those efforts, and I hope they're ultimately successful. I don't see us needing to know all the details of the RCMP's plan for dealing with harassment outside of collective bargaining in order to make this decision.

Part of the point is that whatever process is obtained for dealing with harassment in the RCMP should include the ability to bring issues to the collective bargaining table. That's part of what we're trying to decide on today. Whether the issue is harassment or something else, we can affirm today by voting for this amendment that ground-level RCMP members have a role to play in determining those things at the bargaining table.

I would say that not only is that something the RCMP management can tolerate, but I think it's also an opportunity for the force to have an avenue whereby ordinary members' voices can be heard in that process and brought to the table.

I want to address a few other points that have been made. I'm not going to make them in any particular order or address them in any particular order.

For Mr. O'Toole, I appreciate his experience in the military and in uniform. We've heard some compelling emotional appeals from Mr. O'Toole today, but I think it's important when we talk about process to take some of those emotions out.

I've been in workplaces where I have friends in decision-making capacities. It doesn't mean the workplace doesn't need a good process. It's not to impugn the motives of any members of the RCMP to say we need good workplace processes. There are problems within the RCMP. We know there are. They're well documented. If trust in fellow members in uniform was sufficient to ensure members were always going to treat each other appropriately, then we wouldn't be having the concern that is evident here today about harassment, including concern from Conservative members.

I hear you on that, but it's demonstrably not enough simply to trust in that, or we wouldn't have any problems that needed discussing within the RCMP.

It's clear that even though that spirit of fraternity exists—and that's important, and it's an important part of the organization, and it's important to foster that—it is not a substitute for good processes in the workplace when things don't play out according to that spirit of fraternity. I think it's important that we not lose sight of that.

Part of the peripheral issues or comments around some of the issues of harassment have also said these are things Parliament can come back to. There's nothing stopping Parliament from initiating other studies. There's nothing to stop management from undertaking various initiatives within the workplace. I would return to the point that the advantage of removing the exclusion and allowing employees to bring these issues to the bargaining table is that we might be able to have these issues resolved in the workplace and not have to come to Parliament. Let's do it and resolve it with the people who are living the job, living the circumstances, and experiencing whatever problems there are in the workplace first-hand.

I'm an electrician. I'm proud to be here. I'm proud to be able to contribute to the future of my national police force. I'm not an RCMP member and I haven't been on the ground, but there are many who have been. The point of the decision, and what the point of this legislation should be, is to let them in at the bargaining table to be able to address those issues directly as they see fit and to give them a voice.

We've heard there are already a number of processes existing, whether it's for harassment or tribunals for pension or whatever else. It's clear to me from what we've heard from our witnesses, if those were sufficient—if for nothing else, if we leave out substantive outcome—to have RCMP members feel their concerns were being appropriately and sufficiently addressed, then we probably wouldn't be here, Mr. Chair.

We are here because all of those existing artifices, many and grand as they are, Mr. Chair, have clearly not led to outcomes that make RCMP members feel their interests have been fairly and adequately represented. That was part of what the Supreme Court decision was meant to address: the fact that all of this existing infrastructure for addressing this problem and that problem isn't doing the job, in the opinion of many members.

That's why they want a bargaining agent: to be able to raise those concerns at the bargaining table.

This does not mean—