Bill C-7 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures

This enactment amends the Public Service Labour Relations Act to provide for a labour relations regime for members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and reservists. It provides a process for an employee organization to acquire collective bargaining rights for members and reservists and includes provisions that regulate collective bargaining, arbitration, unfair labour practices and grievances. It also amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to bar grievances related to the interpretation and application of a collective agreement or arbitral award, which are to be filed in accordance with the Public Service Labour Relations Act.
It changes the title of the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and the name of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. It also amends that latter Act to increase the maximum number of full-time members of the Board and to require the Chairperson, when making recommendations for appointment, to take into account the need for two members with knowledge of police organizations.

Public Service Labour Relations Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise for the third time in debate in this House of Commons on Bill C-7.

I would like to start by sincerely thanking all members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The men and women of our RCMP are essential to our public safety and security.

I and many members, in our speeches to Bill C-7, have tried to thank the men and women who wear the uniform for Canada and provide peace and security across our country. As I have said in previous speeches, in many provinces and territories in our vast country, particularly in rural communities of the country, the RCMP members are the only member or front-line element of public safety and security and, in many cases, the only visible extension of the federal Government of Canada. It is appropriate that all members have thanked the RCMP for their tremendous work.

While Ontario is not a contract jurisdiction for the RCMP, because of our Ontario Provincial Police force, I am also very fortunate to have an RCMP detachment in Bowmanville in my riding, as part of the O Division detachment group. Not only are the men and women of this detachment critical to some of the federal investigations and public safety work done in Ontario by the RCMP, but as I have constantly said, they are also the backbone of our community. These men and women act as coaches of soccer and baseball teams, and they are active in charitable organizations in our community. That is appreciated, and I know members of the RCMP take great pride in not just serving in communities across the country on their postings but in becoming part of those communities. I want to start with a great thanks to them.

As I have said in previous speeches to Bill C-7, it has been a bit of a journey for this Parliament in response to a Supreme Court decision. In fairness, the government has listened to some of the opposition concerns we have raised, and our public safety committee did some important work on this bill. However, there remain concerns with Bill C-7 among parliamentarians and, most importantly, front-line members of the RCMP. The concerns are particularly with the rushed nature and the lack of consultation with the front-line members of the force. That is why we are here in debate and why the Conservative Party, which has tried to work with the government throughout this process, remains as frustrated as some of the members across the country.

To remind this House, we are here as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario court case that went from lower courts all the way to the Supreme Court and, in fairness, was a decision first considered by the previous Conservative government. That is when the former government provided an outreach program within the RCMP, including a questionnaire to elicit feedback from the front-line members of the RCMP with respect to the unionization of their force. Sadly, that has really been the only substantive consultation done with the men and women on the front line of the force, and that is what brings me here today to continue to have concerns about Bill C-7.

However, that court case was clear. The Supreme Court of Canada said that the charter right of members under section 2(d) to collective association was violated for men and women of the RCMP by their exclusion from the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The court then gave Parliament a year to come up with a regime for the association or collective bargaining rights of RCMP members.

That is important because the court gave a year. In fairness to the new government, one of the first acts of the new minister was to ask for a slight extension. However, sadly, that extension of time did not lead to substantive consultation with men and women of the RCMP. That is a bit of a miss. We have had some good debate and, in fairness, the minister, the parliamentary secretary, and the President of the Treasury Board as well have appeared at committee and been part of the debate, and that is appreciated. However, there has not been much direct consultation with the front line, despite that extension of time, and that concerns me.

It concerns a lot of our members, who have been hearing from men and women across the country with concerns about Bill C-7, particularly in provisions related to sections 40 and 42, which I applaud the government for agreeing to amend, but also with respect to the exclusions from collective bargaining. I will touch on that briefly in my remarks.

However, it is important, in this final time that I get to speak, to remind the House what the Supreme Court of Canada said. It did not say that the RCMP should just join Unifor, the United Steelworkers, or a large existing labour organization. In fact, the Supreme Court gave direction on two key areas. It said that the right of collective association under section 2(d) of the charter was violated for RCMP members. The two elements the court viewed as being required were employee choice and sufficient independence from management. Those are the two critical parts of that judgment.

Members will see why these elements led the government to a pragmatic approach, but, really, the lack of consultation has hurt it with the employees themselves who have to make the choice of bargaining agent.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court of Canada says clearly that section 2(d) of the charter does not protect all elements of association and collective bargaining. In fact, labour models in recent years, going way back to the Wagner model of collective bargaining, and the construct that led to that, and the Rand formula, have been evolving as the tribunals over time were really the guardians of labour law.

In the advent of the charter, charter protections, particularly around collective bargaining rights, have really usurped the old work done by tribunals. The Supreme Court has said that the RCMP is a very unique quasi-military organization with a chain of command, operational discipline, order constructs, the ability for postings, and the unlimited liability faced by members. It is not a regular job when we allow men and women in uniform in Canada to impinge on the rights of others, and also bear the risk themselves of potential injury or death. This is a very unique role. It is why we acknowledge and appreciate the special work done by the RCMP across this country. However, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized clearly that the unique nature of the RCMP leads to unique needs with respect to a collective organization and unionization. Therefore, the two key elements we have to consider from this decision are employee choice and sufficient independence from management.

The staff relations program had been in effect since the 1970s, since the RCMP was excluded from the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The program had been the internal human resources function, serving as the conduit between management and the front line.

Ironically, most of the RCMP members and most of the members of these associations who have been fighting for unionization are RCMP members who have been part of the staff relations program. They saw merit in that. They saw how it functioned well in some manners. However, the Supreme Court determined, and most of the witnesses we heard from determined that there was not sufficient independence from management to safeguard the charter rights of our members. This is why we are here today. It is not like the RCMP had nothing, they had the staff relations program, but the Supreme Court said that the staff relations program was not sufficiently independent from management, which is critical to remember.

I will predict to the House, and I know the parliamentary secretary probably agrees with me, that many of those staff relations personnel will likely form the leadership of whatever union we eventually see.

The good thing is, they will take with them that collective knowledge and memory of what has happened before and then they will have more ability to be independent from management as they collectively bargain, particularly related to remuneration. We have heard consistently that compared to the big 15 police forces our men and women of the RCMP need a top-up. That will be a critical part of those negotiations.

Independence from management is critical, but the first element of what the RCMP feels is critical in the unionization of the RCMP, as a result of this court case, is employee choice. For Conservatives, we have viewed that choice as giving every single member, from Windsor, to Winnipeg, to Whitehorse their right to decide who will be their collective bargaining agent, or indeed if there is a collective bargaining agent at all. How is employee choice best demonstrated? That should be conducted by secret ballot, as it has been historically for all public sector unions, because most have been unionized for several decades.

I am not sure why the government has been so reluctant to acknowledge that. Canadians sent members of the government caucus here by secret ballot. They obviously think it is sufficient to get them to this place, but they do not want to give employee choice through a secret ballot to our men and women in uniform.

Some members of the RCMP have said to me that I am getting hung up on a little detail. This is not a little detail. This is fundamental to true employee choice, absent of influences from the workplace, from Parliament, and from management, that Canadians have enjoyed since 1874. It is a fundamental tenet of our democracy. Conservatives have raised this since my first speech in this place on Bill C-7. We are very disappointed the government has not responded to that, given the men and women we charge with securing the rights and safety of Canadians with that same basic democratic right when it comes to choosing their collective bargaining agent.

I will spend a moment on exclusions. I have been very open with supporting the government, or trying to support it, with respect to exclusions. I know many of the RCMP members watch my speeches on Bill C-7. The Supreme Court clearly says that not all elements of the collective bargaining arrangement are bargainable.

Why are there some exclusions? It goes back to the paramilitary structure and the unique organization of the RCMP. The very fact there are postings, discipline, operational grading, consistency of operations, safety of conduct, all of these things are unique to the RCMP. If we had every posting bargainable or grieved, there would be no operational structure to the force. By extension, we cannot ignore the fact that on the horizon is the military. Therefore, do we really think these operational forces, like the RCMP or the military, could have every decision, operationally or discipline-wise, grieved? I do not think that is reasonable. As someone who has served 12 years in uniform, that is not reasonable. In fact, a very unique chain of command structure of the RCMP, or by extension the military, demands some degree of autonomy from the traditional labour dynamic. I acknowledge that. Some of the strident members of the mounted police associations have disagreed with me on that, but most of them do not disagree with the fact the RCMP is a paramilitary organization with a very unique culture and needs.

The issue of harassment often comes up, and everyone tries to say it needs to be bargainable. The interesting thing is that then every issue would be deemed as harassment. We need to root out harassment and have a zero tolerance for it. I have heard the minister's comments. I know he keeps it as a priority, as the previous minister did.

Bill C-42 in the previous Parliament, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, tackled this specifically and provided safeguards and a process to ensure that the RCMP had a zero tolerance environment. All members of Parliament agree on that point. There is no tolerance for harassment in the workplace, especially because of the chain of command setting where a superior officer, man or woman, is in a position of a power differential. Those can be difficult and challenging areas when there is harassment. If somebody is using that power differential to harass, that is an absence of leadership on his or her part.

We can make sure that harassment is addressed, that a zero tolerance environment is promoted, without carving off certain elements so that everything related to operations, discipline, postings, and so on would be aggrieved as harassment. These things can be advanced.

I would remind members of the RCMP and those who will continue to listen to my speeches on Bill C-7 that they are still dealing with the old way of thinking. Once there is an independent union, for lack of a better term, one of these mounted police associations nationally will have a significant voice in the public discourse as well, not just at the bargaining table for collective bargaining. Much like the MPAO took its court case and made public statements, once the RCMP has a single unified bargaining agent, the men and women of that organization will have a prominent role in the discourse around policing, public policy issues, public safety and security issues, and harassment. I tell members of the force not to think about the future based on the past and the staff relations program, which clearly was not independent enough for management, but to think of this new union being independent from management.

Let us not kid ourselves and suggest that we can treat the RCMP with its chain of command, with its need for operational ability and discipline and postings, just like any other department of the federal government. It is not. We ask a lot of the men and women who wear the uniform for Canada and in return there is a unique set of employee and employer relationships. The Supreme Court not only acknowledged that but it gave us the road map to say that is possible and in conformance with the charter.

I would also say for the exclusions that there is also the Financial Administration Act, there is a complaints process through the civilian route, and there are Treasury Board guidelines on a range of workplace issues. The collective bargaining table is not the only area where the health, wellness, and occupational elements of the workplace for RCMP members are considered. We need to remember that.

I would like to offer brief praise to the government on its willingness to remove Sections 40 and 42 from Bill C-7. The Conservative caucus, and the NDP caucus joined with us, pushed to have these sections removed. It was not core to the Supreme Court of Canada decision and the need for a collective bargaining agent. In many ways it concerned the men and women of the RCMP that the government was trying to outsource health and occupational wellness to workers' compensation bodies. The point I have always made, particularly when it comes to operational stress injuries that we have seen rise, is that we do not need an uneven playing field across the country on how our men and women seek treatment and compensation with respect to injuries. There needs to be one consistent high standard for our one top level police force. I applaud the government for listening and for removing those provisions from Bill C-7.

Our public safety committee has simultaneous to Bill C-7 also been hearing from uniformed service personnel from across the country on the issue of operational stress injuries. It is heartening to see all sides working on this. This is an area where we need to take the learnings from the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada and the RCMP and share them with other municipal police forces, firefighters, paramedics, and prison guards.

The Conservatives appreciate the government's movement on some fronts with regard to Bill C-7. However, without the secret ballot and without the real consultations to ensure the men and women on the front lines of the RCMP understand the exclusions, on which I have tried to work with the government, we cannot support the bill as it currently stands. I would ask the government to give more time so the men and women of the RCMP have confidence in the union that will be created.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend from Timmins—James Bay that, under the Supreme Court B.C. hospitals case and the more recent case specifically with respect to the RCMP, its members have the right to bargain collectively with or without this legislation. The hon. parliamentary secretary makes a good point. However, I am sure that would be avoided if we did not have Bill C-7 in place.

As the member will know, my biggest concern with Bill C-7, which I find baffling, is that the decision was taken to remove the issue of harassment from the ambit of a possible collective bargaining agreement. We are not requiring that it consider harassment, but why has the government decided that members of the RCMP, employers and employees, should not be able to agree to include harassment in negotiating the collective agreement? I have heard from the hon. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness that the harassment issue is high on his agenda and that something else will be done. However, just today, Karen Katz, a 27-year veteran of the RCMP, who has been on sick leave with PTSD since 2009, was fired by the RCMP. That does not give me confidence that the institution is taking harassment seriously.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here is one very important aspect. The legislation before us, Bill C-7, requires that a collective bargaining employee representation organization not also be substantially representing other public servants, so that it is a dedicated collective bargaining organization. That is very important because of the nature of the RCMP's work.

Think of a time when the RCMP might be called in to address a situation of disorder that has to do with a strike and collective bargaining. How would its members respond if it were members of their same union in a different category who were on strike, a different type of employee in one large umbrella union? That would be extremely problematic and conflicting for RCMP members, but that is exactly the situation that could arise, should the RCMP be organized by a union that has some other components to its responsibilities.

It would not be in the public interest, and it would certainly not be in the RCMP's interests to be put in that situation where it may need to take action against its own union and fellow union members. That is why having a union dedicated to the RCMP is so important. For that, we need Bill C-7 to be passed as soon as possible.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to offer my support for Bill C-7, a bill that respects the rights of the dedicated women and men serving in the RCMP by providing a new labour relations framework for RCMP members and reservists.

The bill is a significant step forward in the history of the RCMP and its labour rights. It would enable RCMP members and reservists to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. I am proud of this initiative that is so in the public interest and serves the rights and well-being of these dedicated women and men.

Our national mounted police force has not only a storied past but now a stronger future. Since its beginning in 1873 when Prime Minister John A. Macdonald introduced in the House the act establishing the Northwest mounted police, the RCMP has been an integral part of Canada's development. From the 1874 march west from Fort Dufferin, Manitoba to policing the Klondike gold rush, to the St. Roch passage through the Northwest Passage, to the last spike of the Canadian Pacific railway in Craigellachie, British Columbia, to the vital roles in World Wars I and II, the RCMP has played an instrumental role throughout our country's history.

Despite its long, storied contribution to Canada, its members did not have the full freedom of association with respect to collective bargaining. That would now change. The Supreme Court of Canada has removed the barriers RCMP members faced in exercising this right, a right guaranteed to all Canadians by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The bill provides the appropriate framework for the labour legislation that will govern the RCMP. It gives RCMP members and reservists the same access to a collective bargaining process that other police forces in Canada have.

To do that, the bill amends the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to create a new labour relations regime for RCMP members and reservists.

More specifically, it will give RCMP members and reservists the right to choose whether they wish to be represented by an employee organization during collective agreement negotiations with the Treasury Board of Canada.

As I said, before the Supreme Court decision, RCMP members could not organize or participate in collective bargaining.

Indeed, they have been excluded from the labour relations regime governing even the federal public service since the introduction of collective bargaining for this sector. Instead, members of the RCMP had access to a non-unionized labour relations program. This program had initially been imposed by section 96 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations in 1988. It was then repealed and replaced by substantially similar section 56 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations in 2014.

Its core component was the staff relations representative program, or SRRP, the primary mechanism through which RCMP members could raise labour relations issues. It was also the only forum of employee representation recognized by management, and it was governed by a national executive committee.

The program was staffed by member representatives from various RCMP divisions and regions elected for a three-year term by both regular and civilian members of the RCMP. Two of its representatives acted as the formal point of contact with the national management of the RCMP.

The aim of the SRRP was that at each level of hierarchy, members' representatives and management consulted on human resources initiatives and policies. However, the final word always rested with management.

Many changes were subsequently made to this labour relations regime, which increased the independence of the staff relations representative program.

However, none of these changes had much of an impact on its objective, place or function within the traditional RCMP chain of command.

In May 2006, two private groups of RCMP members filed a constitutional challenge on behalf of RCMP members in Ontario and British Columbia regarding labour issues.

These two groups were never recognized for the purposes of collective bargaining or consultation on labour issues by RCMP management or the federal government.

They saw the declaration that the combined effect of the exclusion of RCMP members from the application of the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the imposition of the SRRP as a labour relations regime unjustifiably infringed members' freedom of association.

The Supreme Court ruled that key parts of the RCMP labour relations regime were unconstitutional. It struck down the exclusion of RCMP members from the definition of employee in the Public Service Relations Act as unconstitutional, and it held that a section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police regulations infringed on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, the court affirmed that section 2(d) of the charter “protects a meaningful process of collective bargaining that provides employees with a degree of choice and independence sufficient to enable them to determine and pursue their collective interests”.

In the case of the RCMP, the court determined that the existing labour relations regime, built around the staff relations representative program, denied RCMP members that choice, and imposed a program that did not permit RCMP members to identify and advance their workplace concerns free from management's influence. It found that the staff relations representative program did not meet the criterial necessary for meaningful collective bargaining. Under this program, RCMP members were represented by organizations they did not choose, and they worked within a structure that lacked independence from government. The court held that this violated their charter right to freedom of association.

I am proud that our new government's bill, Bill C-7, addresses just that. It brings labour rights governing this group of federal employees into line with the federal public sector labour relations regime, which has been in place for over 40 years. It provides RCMP members and reservists with a sufficient degree of choice and independence from management while recognizing their unique operational reality.

The RCMP is a nationwide federal public sector police organization, and thus its labour regime should be aligned and consistent with the fundamental framework for labour relations and collective bargaining for the federal public service.

Bill C-7 includes several general exclusions that mirror exclusions already in place for the rest of the public service. For example, staffing, pensions, organization of work, and assignments of duties are excluded from collective bargaining. Each of these issues is instead dealt with under other legislation, for example, the Public Service Employment Act for staffing, the Public Service Superannuation Act for pensions, and the Financial Administration Act for the organization of work and the assignment of duties. This system has been in place for years, and it works.

Having recently taken the GBA+ training module that government provides, which is gender-based analysis, I was impressed to see how the RCMP has been implementing gender-based analysis, the lens that ensures that both women and men are properly served in policy decisions taken by management. I want to congratulate the RCMP for being a leader in the implementation of this very important program.

There are other ways in which RCMP members can express their concerns about labour issues. If a uniformed member has a concern about the safety of the uniform, he or she can speak to the workplace health and safety committee. Together with the union representatives, the committee can study the issue and identify the best possible solution based on the evidence.

Moreover, workplace health and safety issues can be included in the collective agreement through bargaining. If members have concerns about employment conduct, they can share them with the union representative on the labour-management committee.

In other words, there are other ways for RCMP members and the union to raise concerns outside of the collective bargaining process. The members and the union can work with management to improve the workplace.

I would also like to point out that some have criticized the bill and said that only pay and benefits can be collectively bargained. This is simply not the case. There is a whole host of other issues that can be collectively bargained. Conditions of work, such as hours of work, scheduling, call back, and reporting conditions, can be collectively bargained. Leave provisions, such as designated paid holidays, vacation leave, sick leave, and parental leave, can be collectively bargained. Labour relations matters, such as terms and conditions for grievance procedures and procedures for classification and workforce adjustment, can be collectively bargained. For example, the decision to lay off an employee is a staffing matter, which is not subject to negotiation. However, measures such as compensation or the manner in which layoffs are conducted may be negotiated.

As I said, the Supreme Court invalidated the existing labour relations framework for the RCMP because it violated the charter right to freedom of association. The court suspended its judgment for one year to give government time to consider its options. The government sought an extension and was given an additional four months to provide a new labour relations framework for RCMP members and reservists. Unfortunately, the suspension of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision has now expired. Therefore, it is important that the government move quickly to put in place a new labour relations framework to minimize disruption for RCMP members, reservists, and management.

Indeed, delaying the passage of this legislation is problematic for a number of reasons. There currently is an overlap between the RCMP Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which could result in confusion and conflicting interpretations. In addition, members could be represented by multiple bargaining agents, making it difficult for the RCMP to maintain a cohesive national approach to labour relations. That is especially worrisome given the nature and function of our national police force, in which members are posted to positions anywhere across the country in a variety of functions and activities. The potential to be represented by a number of various bargaining units could be very confusing.

Should this not pass quickly, there is also the concern of uncertainty among RCMP members about their collective bargaining rights and the measures they can take should they need access to representation.

Let me add two further arguments for the swift passage of this legislation. The government took steps, including consultations with RCMP members in the summer of 2015 to bring this new framework into compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling. Last summer, regular members of the RCMP were consulted through an online survey and town hall meetings to seek their views on potential elements of a labour relations framework.

At the same time, Public Safety Canada consulted with the provinces, territories, and municipalities that are served by the RCMP through police service agreements. Public Safety Canada will continue the dialogue with contracting parties as the new regime is implemented. The findings from these consultations were very helpful and instructive in developing the elements of Bill C-7.

Finally, let me add that this bill is also consistent with our government's efforts to restore fair and balanced labour laws in this country. We believe in collective bargaining. That is why, for example, we introduced Bill C-5, which would repeal division 20 of Bill C-59, the 2015 budget implementation act, which was tabled last April by the previous government. Division 20 would have provided the government with the authority to unilaterally override the collective bargaining process and impose a new sick leave system on the public service. By repealing those provisions in Bill C-59, we are also demonstrating our respect for the collective bargaining process.

We believe in fair and balanced labour relations, and we recognize the important role that unions play in Canada.

That is why we have also introduced measures to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which were also passed without the usual consultation process for labour relations law reform by the previous government. Bill C-377 placed new financial reporting requirements on unions, and Bill C-525 changed how unions could be certified and decertified.

Bill C-7 restores the power of the federal Public Sector Labour Relations Board to select the certification or decertification method appropriate to each particular situation, and I would say fair method to both the representing and the represented parties, rather than being limited to the mandatory vote method, which can skew a decision against the union in certain circumstances.

The previous government had research and a report that concluded that very situation.

Recently, on May 25, the government announced its intention to repeal portions of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, division 17. The portions in question have to do with changes made to essential services, collective bargaining and processes for grievances, and dispute resolution without any consultations with public sector partners. We took these important measures to ensure that workers are free to organize and that unions and employers can bargain collectively in good faith.

Bill C-7 honours this right, a right that has long been exercised by all other police officers in Canada. It is the right to good faith collective bargaining. This bill would institute this right in law. It would lay out the rules that govern labour relations for RCMP members and reservists, and enshrine the principles and values of our society as reflected in the charter and as required by the Supreme Court of Canada. It would recognize the particular circumstances of our unique national police force, the RCMP.

I would ask my colleagues to do the right thing and support the passage of this bill, so that it becomes law without further delay.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

moved that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures, be read the third time and passed.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I want to sincerely thank the members of the Nanaimo detachment of the RCMP for the work they do every day in our community to keep us safe. There are 151 sworn members of the RCMP who form the ranks in Nanaimo. They join over 18,000 members from across the country. It is important to remember when we are talking about the bill that it does not just affect 151 people in my riding. It does not just affect 18,000 officers across the country. It affects families, spouses, grandparents, children, their classmates, and our entire community.

I am going to take a moment to say how proud I am of the work that the RCMP members do in Nanaimo. They have a fantastic bike patrol unit. They are really the eyes and ears on the ground in our community. They work municipal traffic. They have a criminal intelligence unit and a K-9 dog unit. They work hard on victim services. When we do homelessness counts in our community, they know every citizen who is living rough. They know where they are. They keep track of them. They are very good people. They are part of the fabric of our community. They host open houses to show the public what is happening behind the scenes. They fundraise for victim services. They proudly attend community events in our riding, such as the marine festival parade, and they ensure that roads remain safe during Ladysmith's Christmas light-up festival.

With that backdrop of our community, collective bargaining is about respect. It is about fostering respect for workers and their rights, creating a safe working environment, and rewarding workers for their dedication and growth. It allows employees to have a voice and enables employers to listen. The cornerstone of collective bargaining is respect. It is that simple; it is respect.

Collective bargaining is a right that is enjoyed by a vast majority of federal workers, and those rights generally allow workers to be part of the conversation about staffing levels, deployment and relocation, and sexual harassment, except for the RCMP.

Janelle Canning-Lue and her husband recently wrote to me about Bill C-7. They are both serving members of the RCMP, and they have collectively served in 12 posts in four divisions. They say that they view Bill C-7 as a slap in the face. She says that instead of empowering them, it legislates the takeaway of fundamental rights of negotiation in the areas of officer safety and working conditions. She is not wrong to feel that way. The negotiation of officer safety is a right that every other police association in the country is granted. So much for respect.

The RCMP members and the NDP support and recognize that meaningful collective bargaining should extend well beyond the issue of pay and benefits alone. There must be a mechanism in the bill to support improved workplace safety, and to finding a resolution to the unresolved issue of sexual harassment complaints by members of the RCMP. The extent of sexual harassment problems in the force has been extensively documented, and has been widely covered in the media. Just yesterday, a senior member of RCMP management was charged with sexual harassment. This followed a class-action lawsuit of 400 RCMP members on sexual harassment in the force. How especially troubling and appalling it is that this was explicitly excluded from the bill. It is a great failure.

Rural officers in particular have concerns around the unresolved issues with respect to workplace safety. I think of the terrible tragedies in Mayerthorpe and Moncton, where there was terrible loss of life of RCMP members, and there are remaining issues as to the extent to which they were protected. These men and women stand up for us and we should stand up for them.

Another failure of the bill is around uniforms. The prevention of bargaining with management about the selection, function, maintenance, and replacement of uniform pieces does not make sense. RCMP members are using this equipment daily. The bill will restrict them from using their front-line knowledge about the safest and most efficient pieces of equipment. That kind of inside knowledge could be invaluable and could save time, money, and most importantly lives.

Second, employee transfers should not be removed from the bargaining process. Transfers should be a part of the conversation that takes into account workers' input to ensure they are being fairly administered.

A transfer can be a life-changing event for officers, their families, and our communities. In Canada, we have many remote areas with very high costs of living. We have very isolated communities as well. Some of these communities have a real lack of access to basic necessities, like affordable, safe child care. Therefore, members need to be involved in those decisions. They need to have that be a matter for collective bargaining.

Corporal Clover Johns in Nanaimo wrote to me saying that the removal of the restrictions on transfers and equipment would not hamper RCMP operations, but in fact would likely improve them, allowing more harmonious problem-solving, strong employer-employee relations, and higher member morale. Working together to solve problems creates strong employer-employee relations and higher member morale. That is respect, and that is what collective bargaining should look like.

The motto of the RCMP is Maintien Le Droit, or Maintain the Rights. Bill C-7 would provide less rights for members of the RCMP than other police.

Unfortunately, the government has failed to adopt the amendments that the NDP put forward at committee. These were reasonable amendments, such as allowing workplace safety and sexual harassment concerns to become matters for collective bargaining and arbitration between RCMP members and management. We should hear those concerns, and we should act upon them. Enabling meaningful collective bargaining will not only benefit the members and their institution, but it will benefit all Canadians.

The government's bill excludes everything from collective bargaining, except pay and benefits. I expressed great concern about this during the debate before second reading. Yet, I voted in favour at that stage with the optimism that these amendments could be made at committee.

I heard most witnesses at committee express great concern about what was left out of this collective bargaining agreement. The government failed to expand collective bargaining by agreeing to the amendments that the NDP proposed at committee. In our view, this means the bill fails to live up to the court's direction. Now the government has just voted to shut down debate on this important bill.

The government could have chosen to make a bad bill better. It could have done that at committee, but closing down debate today is the final process failure. Shutting down debate does not help meet the court deadline. Shutting down debate just reinforces the failure of process on this. The government has already failed to meet the court ruling, really, because it failed to write legislation that would give RCMP members access to true collective bargaining.

Today, I will vote in favour of the report stage amendments proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. They do not go as far as the amendments that the NDP proposed at committee, but they are our last chance to repair this flawed bill, given the government's refusal to truly extend the right to collective bargaining to RCMP members.

If the amendments are not approved today by the government and by the House, I will vote against the bill.

Finally, Corporal Clover Johns from Nanaimo reminds me that members of the House have what RCMP members do not. We hold the power to listen and to voice their concerns when they were not afforded an opportunity to so. We have the power to enact just laws that enhance the national police force, to treat its members fairly, and advance public safety in Canada.

We should do that today, and we should guarantee members of the police in Canada equitable, open, and harmonious labour practices.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-7 and our government's response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision.

I would like to thank all of the members who have contributed to this important debate. I particularly would like to thank the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for their hard work on this file, as well as the President of the Treasury Board for introducing this very timely legislation.

Two months ago, a horrific event took place when an assailant approached the armed forces recruiting detachment in my riding of Willowdale and injured two members of our armed forces. Along with local police, the leadership, professionalism, and expertise of the RCMP were instrumental in resolving the situation.

Our government is proudly committed to supporting the brave men and women of the RCMP, and I believe that the bill demonstrates our unwavering support for one of Canada's proudest institutions.

Last week, members of the House contributed to the debate surrounding Bill C-14, another important piece of legislation catalyzed by a Supreme Court decision. I am proud, once again, that our government is heeding a Supreme Court decision in an appropriate and balanced manner.

As my hon. colleague from the riding of Montarville stated on Monday:

In its decision that found the previous labour-relations regime unconstitutional, the Supreme Court determined that the staff relations representative program, which was imposed upon RCMP members, violated their charter rights because it did not allow members any option for representation, nor did it provide an effective mechanism for dispute resolution.

Fundamentally, the proposed legislation would provide RCMP members and reservists with a process to choose their representatives, as well as the process by which they may independently and collectively pursue their workplace interests and objectives. Doing so would allow the RCMP to more effectively negotiate in regard to arbitration, unfair labour practices and grievances, and many other issues.

Recognizing that the RCMP is part of the federal government, Bill C-7 would extend to members exclusions that already apply to most other public servants, such as staffing, pensions, organization of work, and assignment of duties. The RCMP had previously been excluded from collective bargaining rights available to public service employees. The labour relations regulations did not provide a forum to address wage issues, lacked independence, and generally provided RCMP members with limited collective bargaining options.

Bill C-7, therefore, would not only ensure the constitutionality of our laws, but finally bring the RCMP within a recognize bargaining framework from which they have too long been excluded. Bill C-7 would align the RCMP's labour relations regime with that of other federal public servants, the provisions of which have been in place for over 40 years. In fact, the RCMP is the only police force in Canada without a collective agreement. The government has committed to working closely with our provincial and territorial partners, and the bill would bring RCMP labour relations in line with the standards in place at other levels of government.

We believe that strong internal regimes already exist to deal with the aspects of the collective bargaining process not explicitly dealt with by Bill C-7. For example, the RCMP pension advisory committee serves to administer, design, and fund member pension benefits. Labour-management relations committees are in place to deal with workplace conduct issues. Occupational health and safety committees help ensure the safety of RCMP employees. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and subsequent regulations establish internal recourse procedures, while the Public Service Labour Relations Act provides a regulatory framework for more technical matters.

We believe, therefore, that Bill C-7 would be a strong addition to the existing regimes governing the RCMP and its members, including internal policies and practices. Bill C-7 recognizes the important role of the RCMP as Canada's national force for ensuring the safety and security of Canadians.

Our government is committed to listening and engaging with Canadian on the issues that matter to them most. As with all legislation introduced by our government, Bill C-7 has benefited from in-depth consultations with those most likely to be impacted.

The consultation process was led by an independent third party, Mr. Alain Jolicoeur, who engaged extensively with not only the RCMP but with labour groups and other provincial and territorial partners to ensure that the proposed legislation is well rounded and pragmatic. I am proud to report that more than 9,000 regular members completed the survey and over 650 people participated in town hall sessions.

In a recent survey of RCMP members conducted by the independent consultant during the summer of 2015, most respondents expressed their support for the type of framework that has been put forward for the consideration of the House. We feel that the legislation responds appropriately to the Supreme Court's decision, recognizing the primacy of public safety and the crucial role the RCMP provides.

The House resumed from May 9 consideration of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm happy to present and speak to the amendment for Bill C-10, which is, of course, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and other measures.

My amendment is quite short. Everyone has had a chance to read it, but I will read it into the record. I move that Bill C-10, in clause 1, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 1 the following:

(5) Subsection (4) does not come into force before August 1, 2016.

If I could boil down to a single point the reason for my amendment, it would be the following, and my colleague has already alluded to it. It would be the rush in getting this legislation through Parliament. Too many questions and concerns remain unanswered for my colleagues on this side of the table and me.

First, why is the government so intent on getting this bill passed before the summer break? We've heard from the witnesses that there are no legal or technical reasons for rushing this legislation forward. Why was time allocation used for the very first time in Parliament to send this legislation to committee after two days of debate? Why did the government side stop putting up speakers during second reading shortly after 3 p.m. on the second day of debate, after just a few Liberal members had given speeches and taken questions from opposition members? The day after Bill C-10 was introduced in Parliament, the Minister of Transport responded to a question by saying that, and I quote, “The member...should be delighted for Canada.” It's difficult to see how Canadians could be delighted about this bill considering so few Liberal members could even get enthusiastic enough to defend their minister's legislation in Parliament, on the record, and take direct questions from members opposite.

Is Bill C-10 so important that there was only time to allow a few members to debate this legislation during second reading? Does Air Canada's competitiveness hinge on the prompt passage of this legislation in the House of Commons and the Senate?

In our opinion, the government has not made its case as to why this legislation must receive royal assent before Parliament rises for the summer. This legislation was introduced as a response to the litigation Air Canada was facing, and we heard that many times from the minister, because according to the Attorney General of Quebec and the Attorney General of Manitoba, the carrier wasn't fulfilling its obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The courts sided with the provinces on two occasions. The Minister of Transport confirmed this during the first question period after Bill C-10 was introduced, and I quote:

As a result of the decision by the Quebec government and Manitoba government not to litigate any further against Air Canada, we felt this was an appropriate time to clarify the law and modernize it so that Air Canada can compete with the rest of the world.

I think we've all heard testimony over the past three meetings and understand that there is no agreement between Air Canada or the Government of Quebec, nor between Air Canada and the Government of Manitoba. The minister is either poorly informed or just twisting the facts. The facts are clear. Case 36791 is presently on leave to appeal in front of the Supreme Court until July 15, 2016. Counsel for Air Canada is Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP; counsel for the Attorney General of Quebec is Noël and Associates; and counsel for the Attorney General of Manitoba is Woods LLP.

What is taking place right now is a negotiation between parties, and like all negotiations between parties during litigation, the intention is to settle by finding a mutually agreeable outcome. Parties do not negotiate unless they are willing to settle.

In the case of Quebec, the reasonable settlement appears to be the purchase of the C Series aircraft, and a commitment to undertake that C Series maintenance in Quebec and to create a centre of excellence in the province.

In the case of Manitoba, the reasonable settlement appears to be the transferring of approximately 150 jobs from other places in Canada to the provincial capital. We should be under no illusion that these negotiations are complete. Air Canada hasn't even converted its letter of intent for the C Series into a firm order yet.

There are no new centres of excellence in either Quebec or Manitoba. The Minister of Transport has not provided Parliament with any documentation on when these commitments will be met, or when this lawsuit will be dropped.

I would submit that it's clear from the testimony and from the briefs we have received that neither Quebec nor Manitoba have documentation supporting these settlement discussions. The minister for the economy of Quebec made it quite clear in the brief that she submitted to this committee that the lawsuit was still ongoing, and I'll read the relevant part of her brief into the record: “Pending the conclusion of final agreements, the Government of Quebec has agreed to drop its lawsuit in relation to Air Canada's obligations to have an overhaul and maintenance centre.”

The Deputy Premier of Manitoba also made that quite clear in her testimony, saying that the federal government's approach to Bill C-10, simply put, is “jumping the gun”. Bill C-10 is being rushed through the process before the necessary specific investments and binding commitments by the federal government and Air Canada have been secured.

I don't think this point has been made clear enough, so I'd like to get it on the record. The Government of Quebec, with the Government of Manitoba as an intervener, brought Air Canada to court to challenge the carrier's assertion that it was fulfilling its obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The Quebec Superior Court ruled in 2013 that Air Canada had not fulfilled its obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The Quebec Court of Appeals ruled on November 3, 2015, that Air Canada had not fulfilled its obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Two months later, on January 5, 2016, Air Canada asked the Supreme Court, Canada's top court, to overturn the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision. If the clause pertaining to aircraft maintenance of the Air Canada Public Participation Act does not exist, the case of Attorney General of Quebec v. Air Canada would become moot in the eyes of the Supreme Court. If there is no law to which Air Canada can be held in terms of undertaking overhaul maintenance in Canada, the carrier cannot be challenged in court on this matter.

Air Canada likes the C Series airplane. They made that clear during their appearance last week, but as recently as January 5, Air Canada's plan was to appeal the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court.

Something changed, and Air Canada decided that it was better off settling these lawsuits than pursuing this matter in front of the Supreme Court. Whether the federal government was somehow involved in this change of heart is unknown, beyond a statement by Air Canada's representative indicating that it is acting under the assumption that the section of the Air Canada Public Participation Act we are discussing right now would be repealed. If it wasn't repealed, Air Canada would have to consider its next steps.

The maintenance provision of the Air Canada Public Participation Act mentions three parties: the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community, and the City of Mississauga. Air Canada is named in the title of the bill. Obviously, the Montreal Urban Community doesn't exist anymore, but the provincial governments of two of these three areas are presently engaged in a legal challenge on this very act. I think it is very odd that the government is in the process of changing a law in which three-quarters of the parties mentioned in the law are in litigation challenging each other on this very law. This amendment would give these parties more time to negotiate and come to a mutually agreeable compromise.

I want to move on.

On February 17, 2016, Air Canada announced that it had signed a letter of intent to purchase the Bombardier C Series aircraft and maintain these in Quebec. On the same day, the Minister of Transport announced that he would lessen Air Canada's obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Between the time that Air Canada announced it would challenge the Quebec Court of Appeal's ruling in the Supreme Court, and the Minister of Transport's announcement that he would lessen Air Canada's maintenance obligations under the act, the carrier's representatives met with the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister's Office at least five times.

According to the Lobbying Commissioner's database, these meetings took place on January 8, January 22, January 27, February 3, and February 15, 2016. When the minister came to committee last week, I asked him about these meetings and for any briefing notes that were prepared for these meetings, but to date I have not received any. He seemed reasonably willing to provide these during committee, contingent upon receiving the dates that were in question. I have provided the dates, and followed up on this request during question period, but was then told by the minister that I was on a fishing trip.

First, we are told that recommendations from the minister's department made their way into the bill. Then we were told we could have these documents. Then I was told I was on a fishing trip when trying to get the very documents that the minister, himself, told me existed.

This bill is one clause. I cannot imagine that a mountain of paperwork would be sent to the committee on this request, so I am disappointed not to be able to see the original work product that informed Bill C-10.

I do have a number of access to information requests out to Transport Canada, but as you can imagine I haven't received any responses yet. Access to information requests take months to be responded to, and more often than not any advice to ministers is blacked out. Considering this legislation was first introduced on March 22, the government's rush to pass Bill C-10 ensures that any documents from Transport Canada that don't support the minister's decision, or any documents, for that matter, won't see the light of day before this bill receives royal assent.

These documents are important because there are just too many loose ends for anyone to believe that a clear policy development process was undertaken at Transport Canada, with options to make Air Canada more competitive presented to the minister and his team. There are dozens of policy options that the minister could have considered to make Air Canada and the entire aerospace sector more competitive, but without having seen these, we can't scrutinize the decision.

If my amendment is accepted, I'm hopeful the government will be willing to use the extra time before Bill C-10 becomes law to share with parliamentarians the recommendations of the transportation department that informed this bill. The need for this reform was not included in the Liberal campaign platform. Actually, Air Canada, or its competitiveness, was not even mentioned. The Minister of Transport cannot claim that he has a mandate from the Canadian electorate to get this bill passed so quickly. The government has not been asked by the Supreme Court to pass this legislation, as was the case with Bill C-7, an act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act or Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying). This bill has nothing to do with the budget. If Air Canada is negotiating in good faith with the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba, then this bill doesn't need to pass so quickly because Air Canada won't face further legal challenges. If Air Canada is not negotiating in good faith with the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba, then this bill shouldn't pass, because the Air Canada Public Participation Act, in its current form, remains the main tool of those provinces to get Air Canada to the table to negotiate.

If this legislation doesn't pass, there will be no legal vacuum. Employment levels in both provinces will remain the same. Effectively, the status quo will remain. If the legislation doesn't pass right now, but does so in a few months, the new government in Manitoba will be able to work with the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Employment and Social Development to ensure that this legislation meets the province's expectations.

This amendment that I am proposing today goes some way to fulfill the very reasonable request from the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Quebec to wait until they settle their lawsuits before passing this bill, by stipulating that this bill not come into effect before August 1, 2016. My preference would have been to propose an amendment that would have stipulated that this legislation would come into effect only when the Attorney General of Quebec and the Attorney General of Manitoba have communicated with the Attorney General of Canada that they have concluded their litigation against Air Canada, but I was informed that according to procedure, and I quote:

An amendment to alter the coming into force clause of a bill by making it conditional, is out of order. This type of amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill and is an attempt to introduce a new question into the bill.

Because the process of negotiating a settlement is always conditional on both parties compromising, no amendment on Air Canada meeting its settlement commitments can be admissible, and I am forced to settle on the language I am proposing. This amendment is not perfect, but it does give the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba more time to negotiate and settle their litigation against Air Canada. It gives the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba more time to see progress from Air Canada in terms of fulfilling the terms of their settlements. With Bill C-10 coming into force at a later date, Air Canada will have, at a minimum, turned its letter of intent to purchase the 45 C Series aircraft into a firm order.

Quite frankly, I really can't see why all members wouldn't support this proposed amendment. For a party that loves to repeat, at every opportunity, that it wants to work hand in hand with the provinces and municipalities, this unilateral action on the part of the federal government gives me the impression that Liberal campaign promises are not worth the paper they are written on.

As my colleague, the member from Mégantic—L'Érable, has pointed out, and it bears repeating, it's very rare that provincial ministers intervene and comment on federal legislation. Yet in this case provincial ministers from two different parties have both made their concerns known, and have asked that BillC-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and other measures, come into force only upon their concluding their litigation against Air Canada.

The deputy premier of Manitoba, who also serves as Manitoba's attorney general, couldn't have been more clear. I think I already made this point, but I'll make it again, that the federal government's approach to Bill C-10 simply put is jumping the gun. Bill C-10 is being rushed through the process before the necessary specific investments and binding commitments by the federal government and Air Canada have been secured.

Every single member here was able to follow up with Minister Stefanson, and not a single member questioned her statement asserting that litigation had not yet been concluded, or that this bill wasn't being rushed. I expect the Liberal members will tell us that we should just trust the Minister of Transport and the assurances that he has given the committee.

I'll take the opportunity to quote the minister here, because his statement was telling: “My discussions lead me to think that they are very serious, and the commitment is firm.” Without documents to support this statement, I find this statement very problematic.

Just two days after he made that statement, Air Canada came here, and they were also very clear. When asked about whether the purchase of the C Series aircraft and the creation of the centres of aircraft maintenance in Quebec were conditional on this federal legislation getting passed promptly, Air Canada's representative said, “we are operating on the assumption that the act will be amended pursuant to this process. If that doesn't happen, we will assess the decision at the time.” I think it's worth repeating the last sentence: “If that doesn't happen, we will assess the decision at the time.”

My friend from Niagara Centre asked the Attorney General of Manitoba whether she thought a centre of excellence would be beneficial to her province. This question seemed to imply that, should this legislation not get passed as quickly as the government wants, Manitoba would not benefit from Air Canada moving some of its operations to the province, and perhaps creating a smaller western Canadian centre of excellence in aircraft maintenance.

A centre of excellence is a concentration of aircraft maintenance operations, and more broadly, a concentration of aerospace companies. When a major company like Air Canada chooses to get a significant part of its maintenance work done in one specific location, a large number of firms do set up shop there in order to service the airline. That area consequently becomes a centre of excellence. Therefore, anywhere that Air Canada does significant amounts of maintenance can be considered a centre of excellence.

Manitoba has historically been a centre of excellence in aerospace in Canada with over 5,000 jobs in the sector and many companies that drive innovation. The fact is, Madame Chair, that Manitoba would have benefited because Manitoba won in the Quebec Superior Court and won again in the Quebec Court of Appeal.

While I don't want to speculate on how the Supreme Court would have ruled on this matter, precedent would indicate Manitoba had a strong case. Manitoba is not getting these jobs because of this legislation. They would be getting them because they won in court.

To bring this back to my amendment, all legislation should be carefully considered on the basis of its short-, medium-, and long-term impacts.

I think we as a committee have done a good job looking at this proposed legislation over the past three meetings and have heard from many good witnesses. The breadth of the commentary was of the opinion that they don't understand the rush to get this legislation passed, and they have asked explicitly for the passage of the bill to be delayed.

This amendment addresses those concerns.

Thank you.

Bill C-7—Time Allocation Motion

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thought, coming from the hon. member, he would be quoting Ayn Rand.

In any case, the previous government, as part of its war on organized labour, brought in Bill C-525, which further toxified and rendered sulphuric relations with organized labour, and not just within the public service but with organized labour across Canada.

We committed in opposition, in our platform, and as a government and we followed through in terms of bringing forward legislation to repeal the provisions of Bill C-525. We believe that was the right approach.

As a government, we followed through on our commitments to reverse what the Conservatives did in terms of Bill C-525. As such, we would not impose on the RCMP an approach in terms of labour relations that is distinct from what every other union in Canada operates under.

We disagree fundamentally with the way the Conservatives approached this issue, in terms of Bill C-525. It is also important to realize that Bill C-7 actually gives a choice between a card check or a secret ballot.

However, we are not going to impose that on Canada's unions, on Canada's labour movement, which was an error that the previous government made. Again, it further toxified relations with organized labour. We disagreed with it then, and we followed through on our commitment to change that. To impose on the RCMP a regime that is different from what every other union in Canada operates under would make no sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister referring to the amendments made at committee. It was a Conservative-led initiative to strike clauses 40 and 42 from Bill C-7, which would have created an uneven regime of health and occupational safety for our members of the RCMP from coast to coast. I do recognize the government removed that after being urged by the Conservatives.

What troubles me greatly is this. I know that the minister and members of his caucus, particularly in provinces served by the RCMP, are hearing from rank and file members who are still upset about Bill C-7. They do not understand certain ramifications of it. Yet we are seeing the Liberals limit debate on this important bill, which impacts the RCMP, in a way that goes against what the Liberals were suggesting when they were in opposition. We have a closure motion being brought forward on a day they announced a committee to modernize our democracy. The irony is shocking. The Minister of Democratic Institutions lectured us here today on modernizing our democracy, and now this minister is getting up and suppressing debate on a bill that will impact the lives of thousands of RCMP members across the country. He has not allowed their voices to be heard in this House. He should stand now and apologize to those members across the country for closing down the debate and not taking them into consideration in the debate in this House. Will he stand an apologize to those members?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, never accuse Liberals of not having any sense of irony. I just heard my friend say that the Liberals are proud that they never impose their will just minutes after their House leader stood in his place to shut down debate, not on one bill but on two bills that have been introduced. He suggested that because opposition House leaders could not get along he was going to punish the Conservatives with one of their opposition days and stick it on a Friday, which is a short day. No, the Liberals do not impose their will.

What is more ironic is that when the House leader for the Liberals stood up to do this, the Liberals actually cheered and laughed. They found it funny that they were shutting down debate on Bill C-15 and Bill C-7, which precludes future negotiations with the RCMP allowing RCMP members to talk about things like sexual harassment. That is what the Liberals just did.

With respect to this procedure that we just saw introduced, the member said she was proud to be part of a government that at just this moment invoked a form of closure that will come tomorrow. Is she proud of this? That is exactly what the Liberals campaigned against seven months ago when the Conservatives were doing it.

Bill C-7—Notice of Time Allocation

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading of Bill C-7, an act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other acts and to provide for certain other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness knows that many front-line members of the RCMP continue to have questions about Bill C-7 and how it will impact their workplace, yet the Liberals are limiting debate and they are not permitting members of Canada's police force to have their own say through a secret ballot vote on the formation of their own union.

Why are the Liberals denying the RCMP basic democratic rights when we charge them with protecting those rights for other Canadians?