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

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague worked in a union setting for many years. She saw the benefits of being unionized and negotiating a collective agreement, and thus of negotiating her working conditions. She touched on that a bit, but I would like her to sum up why it is important for the RCMP to be able to negotiate working conditions for someone like her father, for example, or for the many women who work for the RCMP.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question.

When I was president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, I had to conduct negotiations. When people think of a union or association, they often think that the negotiations are only about wages and benefits. However, it is about much more than that, because there can be different needs.

More and more women are working for the RCMP. Some types of jobs were designed for women. Take the uniform, for example. It may require modifications. We have to ensure safety and prevent harassment. Even though it is a police force, there can be harassment on both sides, and from within or outside the organization. Negotiations allow the members, the police officers, to have a say and make actual changes.

Who is in the best position to make changes? The workers.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just spoke about harassment within the RCMP. There are a number of exclusions in Bill C-7, such as harassment, staffing, deployment, and disciplinary action.

Does my colleague think that these should be included in Bill C-7, or excluded, as is currently the case?

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very good question.

I believe that the bill should cover harassment. It is important because it forms part of a whole. The committee will have the opportunity to study the bill, make amendments and include this issue.

The committee could establish all the issues and whether some provisions are in the bill or are to be negotiated. Ensuring public safety is always the top issue. Public safety must never be jeopardized. Clear directives must always be put in place. It will be important to make amendments.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel to resume debate, I should inform him that I will have to interrupt him at 11 o'clock for statements by members. As usual, I will signal that his time is almost up right before 11 o'clock.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity to address how Bill C-7 would lead to a meaningful process of collective bargaining for RCMP members and reservists. The bill, if passed, would allow RCMP members and reservists to choose whether they wish to be represented by a bargaining agent independent of RCMP management.

The key features of the bill include the requirement that the RCMP bargaining agent have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members; the exclusion of officers from representation; and the designation of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board as the administrative tribunal for matters related to the RCMP member bargaining unit, as well as grievances related to a collective agreement.

The exclusion of officers is consistent with existing provisions in the Public Service Labour Relations Act that exclude public service executives from representation.

The bill also provides for binding arbitration as the means to solve impasses, in light of the essential nature of the work performed by the RCMP. As is standard in federal labour relations, the bill would require that to be certified as a bargaining agent, an employee organization would need the support of a majority of RCMP members in a single, national bargaining unit.

The labour relations regime that the bill would create marks the beginning of a new era in the history of the RCMP. Allow me take a few moments to explain the process by which the bill was developed.

In the summer of 2015, the Treasury Board Secretariat engaged an independent consultant to survey regular members of the RCMP. The purpose of these consultations was to canvas RCMP regular members for their views on potential elements of a labour relations framework that would allow them to choose their representatives and bargain collectively. The process consisted of a survey and town hall meetings. More than 9,000 regular members completed the survey and more than 650 participated in town hall meetings.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who took part for helping us define what a labour relations system for RCMP members would look like. The consultation report was valuable in assisting the government to create a legislative framework that would be in line with the Supreme Court ruling and also take into account the views of those it affects. Bill C-7 provides for independent binding arbitration as the dispute resolution process for bargaining impasses. This means that, consistent with other police forces across the country, the members of the RCMP bargaining unit would not be permitted to strike.

The bill also would provide for a single, national bargaining unit composed solely of RCMP members appointed to a rank and reservists. Also, the RCMP bargaining agent, should one be certified, would have as its primary mandate the representation of RCMP members.

The government also consulted with those jurisdictions that have RCMP police service agreements. This was in addition to the regular meetings that take place between the government and those jurisdictions to discuss issues related to the quality and cost of those services.

We have taken a fair and reasonable approach to examining this complex matter, and now, with the amendments proposed by Bill C-7, RCMP members and reservists would have statutory collective bargaining rights, as other Canadians do.

Our government recognizes that collective bargaining and Canadians' fundamental freedoms are vital to a healthy democracy in which people can move forward together.

This week's budget reaffirmed the government's commitment to bargain in good faith with the public service. This commitment to collective bargaining is further demonstrated in Bill C-7.

It is time that RCMP members have the opportunity to decide whether to exercise these rights.

As we know, the timelines associated with the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions are tight. It is critical that the government enact a new labour relations regime for RCMP members by May 16, 2016, when the court's declaration of unconstitutionality comes into effect.

Nonetheless, the Government of Canada will continue to work with Parliament and its committees to have the legislative process in an open and engaging manner. I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that all parties in the House support fair relations and fair labour relations for the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for our country every day.

Finally, this day, March 24, marks the anniversary of one of the happiest days in my life, the birth of the first of my two daughters, Arielle Di Iorio.

Happy birthday, Arielle.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as we have indicated, the NDP certainly support the bill at second reading. However, we also have some serious questions about what this new labour relations model would mean for how serious allegations of sexual harassment are addressed, a very serious issue that we know is out there. We are concerned that the right kind of processes are not in place to address the very serious allegations that women in the RCMP have come forward with. We certainly have not seen the kind of leadership that we need to see on this front.

How does the government propose to deal with these very serious allegations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. That question and issues related to alleged sexual harassment are completely separate from the subject we are talking about today.

We have to keep the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in mind. Parliament is a democracy subject to the charter, so we have to act on and in accordance with that ruling. That means we have to pass a bill, and the purpose of this bill is to provide a legislative framework for labour relations.

Issues and problems related to proven or alleged harassment, which can differ from case to case, should be debated separately.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member's constituents voted for him, they did so by secret ballot in exercising their democratic right. Moreover, when unions choose a leader, they do it by secret ballot. When unions make decisions on whether or not to go on strike, they do it by secret ballot.

I find it very unusual that the Liberal government basically said in Bill C-525 and the current bill that secret ballots do not matter, even though these ballots do matter in many provinces. How can it justify taking such a profoundly personal decision on behalf of our RCMP officers and not giving them the respect and the right of a secret ballot?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which I think is very valid.

We have to keep in mind the basic labour relations principles that govern our society. In this case, the government is acting on behalf of the men and women who serve our country and our people every day. The government is giving them the option of a system similar to that available to any other group in our society. The system is based on voluntary participation. Members will have to decide of their own volition whether they want to belong to an association or not. Of course, there will be a threshold to approve the application for certification.

A specialized tribunal will have to address the issue that my hon. colleague raised. Representations will be made on behalf of the employer and the association. The tribunal's rules will of course govern whether members can intervene as individuals.

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

Mr. Speaker, given that the last two major reviews of federal-private sector labour legislation have found that the card check system is an effective way of gauging employee support, given that holding a secret ballot representation is typically more time-consuming and costly than card checks, and given that the board has the option of adding a vote if it is not satisfied with the card check, could the member discuss why the board having a choice of what to apply in terms of a certification method is better than a one-size-fits-all situation, no matter what the current situation may be?

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

Mr. Speaker, an important element of the member's question regarding the card check system is that it is one of the options that exists. What is very important is the role of tribunal. There is a specialized tribunal that is best suited to make this determination.

Obviously there are two systems. One would be to have a vote and the other would be to have card checks. As the hon. member points out, there is the possibility of also harmonizing both. It is not either/or. It could be a situation where initially there would be a card check and at some point the tribunal would decide that there would be a vote. There are not mutually exclusive options.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must compliment my colleague on recognizing his daughter's birthday today. Our families are very important to us.

One of the things we need to highlight is the fact that RCMP officers and reservists were extensively canvassed for their opinions. There were three conclusions. One was that there was a need for a union which had overwhelming support; second was that there be a single national bargaining unit; and third was that there be binding arbitration as opposed to a strike position.

Could the member comment on how important it is that we listen to what the RCMP officers themselves are saying?

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue is so crucial. These men and women put their lives on the line every day and give great service to our country. Therefore, we have to start with the people who know best, and they are the individuals who perform the work every day.

My hon. colleague from the NDP pointed out earlier the service her father rendered to our country. Every day these people render a service. They are the ones who are the specialists to determine what they need and what would suit those needs and their vision.

What we should never lose sight of is the fact that we also have to take into consideration the interests of Canadians and the country. There is more than one constituent. Yes, the employees are one, yes, the employer is one, but Canadians are also one. Also, let us not forget the country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel will have two minutes remaining for the period for questions and comments when the House next resumes debate on the question.